Skip to content

The story of “The Telltale Splotch” missing from the Smoking Gun

August 21, 2010

Updated  20.02.13

The article called THE TELLTALE SPLOTCH has suddenly vanished from the Smoking gun pages.

The article was my main reference source for the so-called Linden report (I bet you’ve never heard about it), so its disappearance put me very much on the alert.

The Smoking Gun published it as part of a package of horrifically slanderous articles on the 2005 trial but the article in question dwelt on something different –  it referred to the 1993 case and in particular to a certain splotch which was allegedly seen by Jordan Chandler on Michael’s private parts and described by him as  “the color similar to the color of his face” (I dealt with Jordan’s description in three parts of  “All you wanted to know about it but were afraid to ask” post and won’t discuss it here).

Quote from the Smoking Gun:

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

This remarkable statement was allegedly fixed in the report made by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Deputy Deborah Linden which is usually described in the media as the Linden affidavit (not to be confused with Jordan’s declaration of Dec.28,1993!). The Linden document must be such a terrible secret that no one has ever seen it, though those who talk about it are many.

Linden’s report was the legal basis for issuing a warrant for Michael Jackson’s strip search. The idea of it was to compare the description given by Jordan with the photographs which were taken of Michael Jackson’s genitals during a humiliating and totally degrading procedure arranged on December 20, 1993 (as a Christmas present to him?).

To add to the humiliation of the intimate examination which takes place only in prisons or with those who are arrested or detained on charges of sexual abuse (which was absolutely not Michael’s case as no criminal charges were  brought against him), Michael Jackson was asked to ‘adjust’ his private parts so that the audience could see the splotch the boy allegedly described as being somewhere there “on the bottom”.

Complete silence fell after the strip search was made. A week after it the police were still completely dumbfounded by the discovery that Michael Jackson was not circumcised (while Jordan Chandler said he was) and by other inconsistencies between the description and the photographs, and were evidently not ready to make any official statement. The only thing they ventured was some talk about the pictures not taken properly because there was no flash, no film, no camera or whatever other equipment they forgot to take to that notable examination.

In the absence of any clear comments from the police the Chandlers had to fill the awkward silence with something substantial and as a retaliatory blow presented the public with a Declaration in Jordan’s name of  December 28, 1993which, instead of giving any news about the genitals issue, spoke of Jordan-Michael’s ‘relationship’ in most graphic detail and no uncertain terms.

However the pictures were still not giving the Chandlers a moment of quiet and a week later, on January 5, 1994 the Chandlers’ lawyer Larry Feldman suddenly demanded that:

1) a copy of the photographs taken during the strip search should be provided to the Chandlers,

2) another photo session should be arranged for Michael Jackson’s private parts

3) or he would motion for the court to bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence altogether.

THE METROPOLITAN DIGEST in their LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF column reported in this connection:

Los Angeles

Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF

January 05, 1994

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 Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

The reason for such an expected move from the Chandlers only two weeks after taking the pictures was undisclosed by the attorney.
But now that the news about Larry Feldman’s motion has become known to us any person who is capable of putting two and two together will realize that the urgency of the motion and the threat to bar the pictures from the civil trial can speak only to the fact that the pictures were not to the police or Chandlers’ liking and were a glaring disparity from the ‘real thing’.

Hence the Ultimatum from Larry Feldman to:
  • either show them the pictures to enable them to correct their story accordingly,
  • or bar the photos from use during the civil trial as they are a total disproval of their lies.

It is no wonder that the events that immediately followed included a sudden drop by the Chandlers of all charges of sexual abuse, reduction of the initially demanded $30mln. sum by half (to $15,3mln.) and quick finalizing the financial agreement with Jackson’s lawyer Johnny Cochran who was actually a friend of Larry Feldman.

However the matter of Linden report of 1993 was not forgotten by the media.  The words of Jordan Chandler were so well imprinted in people’s minds that when ten years later, in 2003, new allegations broke out against Jackson, the Linden report, the ensuing strip search and the resulting photos surfaced again. This was the time when the Smoking Gun article (the one which disappeared) was written.

The journalist didn’t research the matter well enough not to put himself into an embarrassing  situation and quoted in one and the same article both Jordan Chandler’s testimony recorded in Linden’s report and Tom Sneddon’s affidavit made during the 2005 trial (May 26, 2005) which on the face of it sounded damning:

  • “Chandler’s pre-search description (and a drawing) corroborated photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence”.
  • In light of Sneddon’s proclivity for hardball tactics, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise if he tries to have those old images finally admitted into evidence.”

But if those images allegedly “corroborated” the photos and everything is clean and tidy here, where did the journalist make a mistake then? And why did the article disappear then?

WHAT WAS WRONG with the article and WHY DID IT DISAPPEAR?

1) the journalist’s mistake was in quoting Jordan’s words about a “light splotch of a color similar to Michael’s face” which are completely at variance with Tom Sneddon’s declaration mentioned in the same article.

In his affidavit made under oath Tom Sneddon said that:

  • Point 5: “… 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”.

So besides revealing that it was not Dr. Richard Strick (a neutral expert, specially appointed for the job), but prosecutor Tom Sneddon who made the determination whether the description matched the photos or not, this remarkable document also tells us that the Prosecutor found “at about the same relative location” a dark blemish instead of a light one?  And it is naturally complete opposite to “the splotch of a light color similar to his face” described by Jordan in his interview with Deborah Linden?

And this in its turn shows that the difference in the description was not only in the crucial matter that Michael was not circumcised while Jordan said he was – but also in the color of the splotch as well as the overall color of Michael’s private parts  because a dark blemish can be found only on a light background (and vice versa)?

So Jordan was speaking about a black and circumcised man while Tom Sneddon was speaking about a non-circumcised man with that part of his body being white?

If this is supposed to be a “match”, then all of us can put our hats on and leave here as there is no point in discussing the matter further. However if we stay it is the Smoking staff who write these lies and the prosecutor who makes such conclusions who should go due to their total lack of integrity or complete inability to tell white from black.

This answers the question why the article about Linden report disappeared. It disappeared because of its reference to Linden report and quoting Jordan Chandler’s words recorded there.  Needless it is to say that the original Linden report is nowhere to be found either

The only information we have about the report is what this particular Smoking Gun article tells us about it. The only other piece of information about it is found in the book by Lisa Campbell The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” published in 1994 or immediately after the 1993 events. On page 209 the book mentions the affidavit which served as the reason for Michael’s strip search and taking photos of his genitalia:

http://books.google.com/books?id=n1S4bMjM8LoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+King+of+Pop%27s+Darkest+Hour#v=onepage&q&f=false

  • “On March 22, 1994, a hearing was held concerning the request of Michael’s attorneys for the return of the photos taken during the body search. They also asked for a full copy of the affidavit used to obtain the warrant on Michael Jackson’s body. His attorneys had previously been given a readapted version, with portions of the affidavit blocked out. A decision on the matter was postponed until April 11. Meanwhile the photos were being held in a safe deposit box in a Santa Barbara bank. Two signatures of high ranking officials were required to remove the photos. The request was denied.
  • A renewed request for the return of the photos was made by Michael’s lawyers on May 10 [1994]. They argued the body search was unconstitutional and that it made Michael hysterical. Thomas Sneddon argued that Michael was not naked during the search, that he wore swimming trunks and two robes and that the search was done in sections, as if it made some difference.  Super Court Judge James Slater postponed any decision until “later”.”

So in addition to some details about that horrific procedure and photos we have just learned  that the affidavit from Deborah Linden was so secret that even Michael’s lawyers didn’t see it in full not to mention us, poor laymen.

And now that the Smoking Gun article has disappeared from public view the matter of Linden affidavit is apparently meant to be done with, buried for good and never to be recalled again –  together with the real words Jordan Chandler written there.  Somebody wants us to forget that Linden’s affidavit states something completely different from what was later said by Tom Sneddon and which testified so vividly to the fact that Jordan was telling lies about Jackson…

3) But the mystery of the Smoking gun article will be incomplete if we don’t pay attention to its DATE.

The date of the article is January 6 just “January 6” with no mention of the year of it. I wouldn’t have paid attention to it if there wasn’t a need to determine the date in order to archive the article, and what I found when making some chronological calculations astonished me extremely:

  • The article refers to Tom Sneddon’s declaration which was made on May 26, 2005. This should be some three weeks before the end of the trial, which explains why Tom Sneddon raised the subject of the photos (he knew they would not be admitted but he hoped that the shock of him saying that there was a match would deliver a fatal blow to the defense). Let us remember the date of May 26, 2005.
  • So the article should be dated January 6, 2006 since it is written after Tom Sneddon’s declaration. However the year 2006 is totally impossible as it speaks of the trial being still in full swing and is debating whether Tom Sneddon will or will not be able to use the pictures as evidence there.
  • Then the article should have been written on January 6, 2005 – when Tom Sneddon was not even yet making his affidavit in court.
  • Or possibly the article was written only God knows when and simply presented to the public as a compilation of the “most damning information” about Michael Jackson all put into one bottle for the public to drink it.

This is what happens when people begin lying – the lie seems damning only on the surface of it but when you really look, you see that nothing adds up and no matter how people try the lie will always give itself away…

Now I undersand why the Smoking Gun is so shy about this article and is wishing to conceal its most embarassing pages. They are worried that one day someone will discover all their blunders and are afraid that the official version of the 1993 events will be challenged – hence the desire to drop the article altogether for everyone to forget about it…

However it turns out that manuscripts do not burn. Quite incidentally I made a screen shot of it, and here is the article back again in its full glory and disgrace – for all of us to  remember that the initial story of the ‘splotch’ told by Jordan Chandler was completely different from a later version told to us by police.

The Smoking Gun
The Case Against Michael Jackson
The Telltale Splotch

Photos of Jackson’s body confirmed ’93 claims

JANUARY 6–As search warrants go, you won’t find one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jackson’s, um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak moment from a decade ago could resurface in the performer’s upcoming molestation trial.A detailed recounting of the criminal probe of Jackson is contained in sealed documents reviewed by TSG. An affidavit from former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department deputy Deborah Linden was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts. Investigators sought the images in a bid to corroborate allegations made by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. The boy told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star’s penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.According to the Linden affidavit, Chandler told police that Jackson justified the illicit acts by saying, “it was okay and natural because other friends had done this” with him. The singer, then in his mid-30s, also allegedly told the boy that, “masturbation is a wonderful thing.” The celebrity also told Chandler that if he ever spoke about the incidents, he would be “placed in Juvenile Hall,” and they both would get in trouble.The document also describes a confrontation between Jackson and Chandler’s father Evan, who suspected that the performer may have been assaulting his son during sleepovers. The elder Chandler tracked Jackson down to his “hideaway apartment” in Los Angeles.The boy’s father asked Jackson, “Are you fucking my kid?”The entertainer “became very upset” and told Chandler that he did not use that word. Linden notes that the singer did not answer the question or deny the allegation.With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.It wasn’t long after law enforcement’s photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler’s civil claim for north of $20 million.In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler’s pre-search description (and a drawing) “corroborated” photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.In light of Sneddon’s proclivity for hardball tactics, perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise if he tries to have those old images finally admitted into evidence. We’re pretty sure Jackson would oppose that, though he did tell Chandler years ago that he was “proud of his coloration” and thought he “looked like Pan.”

ATTENTION please:

For those who are still thinking that the insanity of the above article may be in any way true I suggest some earlier blog posts made on this breathtaking issue in April this year:

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-always-afraid-to-ask-part-1/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-afraid-to-ask-part-2/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-afraid-to-ask-part-3/

The matters of cimcumcison, non-circumcison and the blotches are discussed there in minute detail.

* * *

UPDATED 22.08.10:

I really wouldn’t like the reason why I posted that article to be misinterpreted here. I find all those Smoking gun articles absolutely disgusting and the only reason why I think that the missing article valuable is because it alludes to the document which otherwise would be completely forgotten.

Linden’s report is our only source of information about what exactly the police said about that notable ‘splotch’ at the beginning of their investigation.

And at the beginning they quoted Jordan as saying that “the splotch was light similar to the color of his face”.

Then the pictures were made and all of a sudden the story made a U-turn and became “a dark colored spot” . Diane Dimond spoke about a dark spot, Tom Sneddon spoke about a dark spot, every hater’s book is speaking of it as a dark spot and NO ONE REMEMBERS that at the very beginning Jordan was saying that it was a light color which is “similar to his face”.

If this last article from the Smoking Gun disappears there will be NO OTHER EVIDENCE LEFT of another crucial mistake made by the first Michael’s accuser – Jordan Chandler.

THIS IS WHY this article is so precious to us. And this is why I am asking (in the comments section)  for a link to the original 1993 DCFS report where the same thing was probably also noted.

And one final observation. All original documents from the 1993 seem to be missing or are at least very hard to obtain. The person who was writing the Smoking Gun article evidently had access to the original report and made some quotations from it the way they were written there. Poor thing, he didn’t know that by the year 2005/2006 the story of the police had already changed and was the opposite to what he was saying.

And though the story of a “light splotch similar to the color of his face” is still remembered by the survivors of that period, if you browse the internet for the light splotch or for Linden’s report you will find no more written evidence remaining there.

Updated 20.02.13:

Good news, guys. I’m told that the Smoking Gun article can be found in the archives:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

Why is it good news for us?

Because now we have the evidence from the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff herself that Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was circumcised.

Of course they’ll say that it was a temporary problem and we will pretend that we believe them. After all the main thing is that the article may be found at least somewhere and now we have a source stating Jordan Chandler’s initial (and totally wrong) version of the story.

Actually by now Jordan’s words have also been found in several books published in the same period of time, so we could do even without the Smoking Gun article, but having it back is still an additional benefit. It is always useful to have another source and a pleasure to know that people are not hopeless and may be also interested in restoring history the way it really was.

214 Comments leave one →
  1. March 12, 2014 2:40 pm

    “The whole conversation is crazy, but I see Schwrtz to care more about Jordy. Another thing, who is supposed to be jealous on Michael and June relationship,? Schwartz or Chandler?” – Mariam

    Considering that Evan had long been divorced from June and both she and he had new families and children in those families, Evan was behaving in a totally inadequate manner.

    But this inadequate behavior was in fully in line with the terrible ENVY he had for June Chandler and the fact that she was enjoying all the limelight while he still had to work as a dentist who was unable to even pay the money he owed Jordan in alimony.

    This feeling of injustice was supported by him seeing himself as a talented scriptwriter who deserved more, while she was a complete nobody who was simply enjoying all the luck by an unfair twist of fate.

    His constant leitmotiff was “Why isn’t Michael calling me any longer?” This “why not me?” was the only thing that really worried him – all the rest was secondary considerations. He felt that they had cut him off their team (their “family” in his terminology) and it was the envy that all the others embarked on a wonderful journey while he was abandoned that made him so furious and revengeful.

    “Oh, you are not taking me on board? You will regret it for the rest of your lives then. Michael will be massacred and June will not get anything either” – this is the impression you get from his conversation once all the rest of the dust is cleared away.

    Evan was a complete paranoic. Stubborn, nasty, having a terrible temper and consumed by all sorts of suspicions. These people stop at nothing to ruin other people’s lives.

    Like

  2. Mariam permalink
    March 11, 2014 9:23 pm

    It is nice to see your post again Helena.

    “But at the same time Evan did not object to David Schwartz, Jordan’s step father to be a father figure for Jordan and even talked to him, as far as I remember, about the need to spend more time with the boy.” Helena

    David Schwartz is more a father kind for Jordy than his own father. His conversation shows he cares about Jordy, he was concerned if he got hurt in the middle, as result of his father (CHANDLER) action.

    Here is what Schwartz said to Chandler:

    MR. CHANDLER: And that’s where it’ll go –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think everyone loses?
    MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) totally humiliate him in every way –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: That — everyone doesn’t lose in that?
    MR. CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave. That’s what –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help –
    MR. CHANDLER: — Michael the career will be over.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?
    MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to
    MR. CHANDLER: — and I spent it, and I’m willing to spend more, and I’m willing –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: — to go down financially to –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s going to help Jordy?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think Jordy hates you?
    MR. CHANDLER: If he doesn’t, he’s gonna hate me tomorrow.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But why do you –
    MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) to –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you want that?
    MR. CHANDLER: It doesn’t matter what I want.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But why would you want him to hate you, and why would you want to put him through that –
    MR. CHANDLER: Because all I care about is what happens to him in the long run.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: So what happens if you force him not to see him?
    MR. CHANDLER: Not to see Michael?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s saying for sure what will happen. Most people’s feeling is that he’s gonna go on and hate me for a long time and then some day when he gets older he’ll thank me.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that it helps Jordy?
    MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, it’ll help Jordy because he won’t — he’ll never see Michael again. That’s –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that –
    MR. CHANDLER: And he’s probably never gonna see June again if I have to go through with this.
    MR. CHANDLER: What’s the disadvantage to you if Michael Jackson’s destroyed and out of the family? What good is he doing you?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: What harms it — well, it has nothing to — I’m only thinking of Jordy.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean, is that the way to get Jordy?

    The whole conversation is crazy, but I see Schwrtz to care more about Jordy.

    Another thing, who is supposed to be jealous on Michael and June relationship,? Schwartz or Chandler?

    Like

  3. March 11, 2014 6:57 am

    “I also hope that there are mostly reasonable ones in the media that are not fueling the fire by brain washing the public.” – Tatum

    Tatum, the media in my country now? Absolutely not. The worst type of brainwashing I’ve ever seen in my life. Comparable only to “blood baths” told about Michael Jackson. I’ve grown so sick and tired of their lies that have even stopped being afraid for my life, though the people standing behind all this are capable of anything. Anything.

    P.S. On second thought I must say that there is a rather big number of journalists here who are telling the truth. Probably even more than before. Don’t know why it happened. Probably because people feel that we are standing at the last edge and if they don’t speak up now there will be no other chance.

    Like

  4. TatumMarie permalink
    March 10, 2014 7:01 pm

    I hope that is the case Helena. I also hope that there are mostly reasonable ones in the media that are not fueling the fire by brain washing the public.

    Like

  5. March 10, 2014 2:35 pm

    “I’m happy that you have found some mental peace despite the current events.” – Tatum

    Tatum, the events are awful as in theory they may lead to nothing less than WW3. I’m abhorred by this madness between fraternal nations, and by our people falling into a kind of a frenzy and behaving like they are stoned, so that it is impossible to talk to anyone. However if all the rest keep calm I think the situation will turn into its opposite.

    It seems to me that calm is the most important thing now. I hope the world leaders will be reasonable enough not to involve themselves in anything serious. Time and patience should help and can probably even bring about surprising results. At least I hope so.

    P.S. If some Russians want my opinion on how to get the Crimea back (which was indeed an unjust gift made by Khrushev’s whim) I would say, “Don’t go to war. Give financial help instead”.

    In a way it is the same principle Michael adhered to when he decided to settle with the Chandlers. Truth was on his side but he still paid.

    Like

  6. TatumMarie permalink
    March 9, 2014 5:04 pm

    Hello!
    Its so nice to read your post again Helena. I’m happy that you have found some mental peace despite the current events.

    As far as Evan welcoming Dave Schwartz, it seems like he was just a violent mean man. The only reason we have the taped conversation is because Schwartz was afraid of Evan and taped him because he threatened to kill the whole family.

    Like

  7. March 9, 2014 3:46 pm

    “Evan’s main problem seems to be that Jackson allegedly ”broke up the family” and it seems to be about Evan’s hurt ego and jealousy of Jackson:“I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.” He blames ”all three of them” – Jackson, June and Jordan.” http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/

    Ego, jealousy and envy too were Evan Chandler’s main driving forces. He himself says in a conversation with Dave Schwartz that he raised these points the very first time he met Michael. What kind of a person was Evan if he warned Michael that he should not “break up his family” though he had had a new family for a long time by then?

    Imagine a former husband coming let’s say to a friend of his former wife and demanding that he should not break up his “family”? This is strange to say the very least.

    MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, Dave. Nobody in this world was allowed to come between this family of June, me and Jordy. That was the hard [tape irregularity] be the opposite. That’s evil. That’s one reason why he’s evil.
    MR. CHANDLER :I spoke to him about it, Dave. I even told him that [tape irregularity] the family.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: When did you talk to him?
    MR. CHANDLER: About that?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: Months ago. When I first met him I told him that.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: That’s the law. That’s the first thing he knew.

    Well, probably Evan meant that Michael should not replace him as a father in Jordan’s life. But at the same time Evan did not object to David Schwartz, Jordan’s step father to be a father figure for Jordan and even talked to him, as far as I remember, about the need to spend more time with the boy.

    I think it is obvious that all this “breaking the family” talk is just a cover up for Evan’s huge envy that June had access to Michael while he, Evan did not.

    Frank Cascio also mentioned something of the kind:

    I had spent plenty of time with Jordy and Michael, and when I was at Neverland, Jordy never even stayed in Michael’s room with us. Not once. I had never seen anything out of line happen, and I didn’t believe anything had happened, not for a single second. Furthermore, Michael had never acted in any way even approximating “inappropriate” toward Eddie or me. This story was utterly unbelievable; I simply couldn’t imagine Michael as a molester. Nor could I imagine Jordy making such an accusation.

    As this disturbing news sank in, I couldn’t help remembering some of what Jordy had said about his father during the trip we had taken to Disneyland together and later at the ranch. Jordy was an open, honest kid, and I didn’t have the sense that he was hiding anything. The night we’d gone to Toys “R” Us, he told me that his father, a dentist and aspiring screenwriter named Evan, was extremely jealous of Michael. He volunteered the information that his father thought it was weird that Michael was so close to Jordy and the rest of the family, and that the relationship had become a problem for the Chandler family. 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.”

    Like

  8. Mariam permalink
    March 8, 2014 11:47 pm

    You probably listened or read it but, doesn’t give you Chandler conversation a sense that “Jordy allegation” is not really sexual molestation case? I mean when you check chandler real motive?.

    MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, Dave. Nobody in this world was allowed to come between this family of June, me and Jordy. That was the hard [tape irregularity] be the opposite. That’s evil. That’s one reason why he’s evil.
    MR. CHANDLER :I spoke to him about it, Dave. I even told him that [tape irregularity] the family.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: When did you talk to him?
    MR. CHANDLER: About that?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: Months ago. When I first met him I told him that.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: That’s the law. That’s the first thing he knew. Nobody’s allowed to do that. Now there’s no family anymore.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: So why do you think he’s not nice?
    MR. CHANDLER: Why? Because he broke up the family, that’s why.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: That’s silly. No. Michael has to be there. Michael has to be there. He’s the main one. He’s the one I want.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think he’s a bad guy?
    MR. CHANDLER: Michael?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: He’s an evil guy. He’s worse than bad.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you believe that?
    MR. CHANDLER: Huh?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Why do you believe that?
    MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence to prove it.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: You’ll believe it, too, when you hear –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Let me ask you something. I mean, you trust me, right?
    MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think he did it?
    MR. CHANDLER: Well, Dave, if he wasn’t in the picture, everything would be as it was. I’m not –
    MR. CHANDLER :There was nothing I had. I mean, you came in this family and made it better. It was great. Someone else comes along and breaks it up. You know how [tape irregularity]. Okay.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean –
    MR. CHANDLER: Michael divided and conquered, Dave.
    MR. CHANDLER: He did, Dave. He did.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh –
    MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line is — the bottom line is he took Jordy out of the family with June’s help.
    MR. CHANDLER: — problem with that, then that problem has ultimately ended up bringing the family to this point. But you’re not solely to blame for it. It doesn’t mean that June was still — I didn’t do anything that — they didn’t have the right to take my kid away from me, to break up the family.

    *He said he even told to Michael

    MR. CHANDLER: And he was put on notice from the first sentence out of my mouth was, “Michael, I think you’re really a great guy. You’re welcome into the family, as long as you are who you seem to be, but don’t take anything [tape irregularity].” I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think he did it?
    MR. CHANDLER: Well, Dave, if he wasn’t in the picture, everything would be as it was. I’m not –
    MR. CHANDLER :There was nothing I had. I mean, you came in this family and made it better. It was great. Someone else comes along and breaks it up. You know how [tape irregularity]. Okay.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean –
    MR. CHANDLER: Michael divided and conquered, Dave.
    MR. CHANDLER: He did, Dave. He did.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh –
    MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line is — the bottom line is he took Jordy out of the family with June’s help.
    MR. CHANDLER: — problem with that, then that problem has ultimately ended up bringing the family to this point. But you’re not solely to blame for it. It doesn’t mean that June was still — I didn’t do anything that — they didn’t have the right to take my kid away from me, to break up the family.

    *Here is Chandler plan to revenge Michael and June.

    To MJ- destroy him forever, to destroy his career, “kill and destroy” and “torture them”,
    To June- June is gonna lose Jordy and she will ever see him again, She will have no rights whatsoever

    MR. CHANDLER: It’s true. I mean, it could be a massacre if I don’t get what I want
    MR. CHANDLER :……………If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: But when you say “winning,” what are you talking about, “winning”?
    MR. CHANDLER: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave. That’s what –
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help –
    MR. CHANDLER: — Michael the career will be over.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?
    MR. CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be over
    MR. SCHWARTZ: And does that help Jordy?
    MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but I mean the bottom line is –
    MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line to me is, yes, June is harming him, and Michael is harming him. I can prove that, and I will prove that
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: — and if they force me to go to court about it, I will [tape irregularity], and I will be granted custody. She will have no rights whatsoever.

    “Evan’s main problem seems to be that Jackson allegedly ”broke up the family” and it seems to be about Evan’s hurt ego and jealousy of Jackson:“I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.” He blames ”all three of them” – Jackson, June and Jordan.”

    http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    January 24, 2012 10:15 pm

    Shelly just click on the links and save them to word.

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2012 10:11 pm

    Can you post those documents?

    Like

  11. lynande51 permalink
    January 24, 2012 9:32 pm

    That is exactly what I mean Shelly. There was no new information given to Dr. Gardner that was not disclosed when Jordan spoke to the police. No new information just more of him reguritating the same information that he had been scripted to say in the first place. That is why I don’t for one second believe that it was the real interview.
    As for when did Jordan start to go along with the story is a different question.I think the minute he found out that Michael went on tour without him is when he became angry and felt betrayed by Michael. He knew just like the Arvizo family after him that he was no longer going to be welcome in Michael’s world and after that he didn’t care.
    We don’t know what the context was that he told people that it was a lie. For all we know he could have been bragging about how he got money out of Michael for this big lie that he told.
    I have links to the original pages that had to be purchased separately for the “documents” that came along with the book All That Glitters. I also have the page after page rebuttals that Evan/Ray Chandler wrote to ABC interview, Redemption and the GQ article by Mary Fischer. In his rebuttal to Redmption he adds “portions” of the tape between Evan and Dave Schwartz. The first one of these is not in the original legal transcript that I have that was attached to a document when Dave sued Michael in August of 1994. I have the actual legal transcript of that tape.When you read these it will tell you why it was easy to think that the person that was responsible for the Wackofacts website was Ray Chandler because they used all of these documents. From what I can tell online these were only purchased 5 times. This was the only place to get them so it was reasonable to think it was him. If it wasn’t it was the one person that purchased them because from the looks of it the pther purchases were by media outlets.
    I would also like to add that in that “interview” is where all the names of the other boys come out. I think it is safe to say that we can figure out that Wade, Mac, Brett and Jimmy Safechuck are the ones that are named. First because Michael did not or would not have said any such thing to Jordan we can assume that Evan got all those names from Victor Gutierrez. Why? Because it is a virtual litany of who he “interviewed for his book” and it was confirmed by Jermaine that he did talk to Joy Robson the summer of 1992 saying he was sure that Michael was P*******. I think that puts him in cahoots with them to extort Michael and in the picture much earlier than people think. I personally believe that he was the one that leaked the story to the press. I have no doubts about it.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20041014203717/http://atgbook.net/media.php

    http://web.archive.org/web/20041015013802/http://atgbook.net/abcfinal.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20041015021732/http://atgbook.net/GQFinal.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20041208121740/http://atgbook.net/hughes.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20041208121740/http://atgbook.net/hughes.html

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2012 9:07 pm

    The Gardner interview took place in October or November, not in August.

    Like

  13. lynande51 permalink
    January 24, 2012 8:52 pm

    The first thing that everyone should know is in the book MJWML there are 6 pages of what Gutierrez claims are Evan’s Chronology. Of course in the actual book it is impossible to read them because they are scanned in and very small. Thank’s to technology and the willingness on my part to cut the pages from the spine I was able to scan them in and blow them up. That is how I got my PDF version of the book. It is not available online. It is my book and I “loan” it to people to read it. I am not breaking any copyright laws because it was copyrighted in Chile and there is no copyright treaty between the US and Chile. Also because I purchased the book i can loan it to whoever I like as long as they are over 21. The over 21 is from me because of the adult content.
    Second I have a link to an archived forum from an interview in which Diane Dimond took part on August 26th 1993. In it it says that Jordans statement to the police was basically what was said in the psychiatrists interview, That is why I believe that the interview is in fact not the real interview with Dr. Gardner. It may be Jordan on the tape but it is not Dr. Gardner.
    Then you have to look at exactly what was being said. In 1993 there were mandatory reporters too. That included Evan Chandler as a dentist. A mandatory reporter must go and attend classes to identify possible molestation victims. Evan would have known all the right things to add in there like the keeping it a secret and threatening the child that they too would get in trouble. Jordan said that from the beginning, from the very beginning. There is also the bit about them meeting was “cosmic” and the others this about people being conditioned. They all came from an interview that Michael gave to Ebony magazine in 1992 when he was going to or coming from Africa. He spoke about how much children ‘especially babies” inspired him because of their innocence. I think it would have been a given that Jordan would have asked his mom for that magazine if he was a fan of Michael’s.
    Nothing in that interview is or was something that could not be concocted by Evan Chandler nothing and to help him out with the lewd details he had VG would be my guess.
    Here is a link to that one interview with Diane Dimond back in 1993.
    http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm

    Like

  14. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 24, 2012 6:14 pm

    The psychiatrist interview has not been authenticated either. This documentation could have come from Evan as well. It bothers me that Raymond Chander was not willing to stand behind the documentation in his book in a court of law.

    Like

  15. ares permalink
    January 24, 2012 5:29 pm

    When i first read that interview of Jordan with doctor Gardner, my mind kept screaming that if this interview isn’t script, then i don’t know what to say. And at that time i wasn’t even sure if MJ was guilty or not because i didn’t know anything about the cases. It’s so obvious that that interview is not genuine. That kid is like repeating lines of a scenario or something.

    Like

  16. January 24, 2012 4:27 pm

    Now here is what I think happened. In July Jordan says that his father pulled his tooth. That is in all the reports at the time. He says he asked to be put to sleep. He is then told when he comes out of it that he said these things while he was under the influence of the SA and Evan told him it was “truth serum”. He did that in early July and then had over a month of 24 hours a day to tell Jordan this is what you said. This is what you said and that is how he used it. Then comes the precedence setting Ramona case after the settlement and it was detemined that SA would create false memories and the use of it rendered testimony useless.

    Remember too that during this time Evan was telling Jordan that he had proof, that he had supposedly taped what was going on and yet after it was reported to police he had no tapes. The only thing he had was what he had been telling Jordan that he said for over a month. I don’t think it would take a month to convince a 13 year old boy that what he was saying was true. That is when the details came in. He would repeat his story to Jordan and telling him “this is what you said”. What else is also interesting is that sometime that year is when Evan and his wife separated and Jordan chose to stay with her rather than his father. That I suspect is when he realised that his father had lied to him about what he had said.

    Lynette, I think your reconstruction of the events looks very true to life as it brings all the facts together. Evan Chandler was an extremely suspicious man. He suspected his wife of cheating on him and said every girl in his life had deceived him. He would never have lost a chance to use sodium amytal on anyone if the opportunity presented itself. So he definitely used sodium amytal for Jordan, because not doing it would have been totally out of character for Evan. (Extracting information by secretive methods was a passion with many around MJ – Uri Geller also asked Michael questions about children under hypnosis to which Michael said NO).

    The fact that Jordan repeats Evan’s words but his own memory is unaffected, as to some friends Jordan admitted it was a lie, may only be the result of Evan telling him what he had allegedly heard from him under the “truth serum”. It was a good guess on your part and it does explain a couple of things. But it seems that at some point Jordan began voluntarily repeating those lies. When the situation became irreversible the clever boy decided he might as well derive some benefit from the situation as it had gone that far.

    I looked up again Jordan’s interview with Dr. Richard Gardner and several episodes attracted my attention.

    In this episode Jordan looks like fantasizing and developing a suggestion – “I think he may have said that”, “something like that”, “I don’t specifically remember”, “I’m almost positive he said that, but I do indeed remember” [“but” shows he is absolutely not positive about it]:

    “By the way, going back, did he say, ‘It’s a secret.'”
    “Michael?”
    “Yeah. In terms of did he make any threats?”
    “I think he may have said, like, if you tell – – if people say ‘Don’t worry, just tell us, Michael will go to jail and nothing will happen to me you.’ He said that wasn’t true, and I could, like, go to juvenile hall or something.”
    “That he could go to jail but you’d go to juvenile hall?”
    “Something like that.”
    “That he himself could go to jail?”
    “I don’t specifically remember. I’m almost positive though, that he said about juvenile hall. I’m almost positive he said that, but I do indeed remember that he said that he would go to jail, and that, like, I wouldn’t get off Scott free.”

    And over here the explanation of “why it is wrong” is clearly an artificial insert of Evan’s (or some other interviewers’) thoughts into Jordan’s narration:

    “We were planning on going on the tour. And I said, like, ‘I probably would go anyway because I don’t know of any valid reason you have,’ I said to my dad.”
    “You still wanted to go on the tour?”
    “Yes, at the time.”
    “Why is that?”
    “Because I was having fun. At the time, the things Michael was doing to me, they didn’t affect me. Like, I didn’t think anything was totally wrong with what he was doing since he was my friend, and he kept on telling me that he would never hurt me. But presently I see that he was obviously lying.”
    “You’re saying you didn’t realize it could hurt you? Is that what you’re – – ”
    “I didn’t see anything wrong with it.”
    “Do you see the wrong in it now?”
    “Of course.”
    “What is wrong as you see it?”
    “Because he’s a grown-up and he’s using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don’t have as much experience as him, and don’t have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He’s using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness – to get what he wants.”

    In this episode Jordan’s words directly contradict Evan’s words – if Michael was so overwhelming and so powerful, the boy must have been awestruck by him, however he both doesn’t know the word “awe” and the feeling that goes with it. If he didn’t think much of being friends with MJ, how could his “power” affect him so much?

    “It was hard to do.”
    “Because?”
    “Because he’s an adult, he’s overwhelming, he’s famous, he’s powerful.”
    “Were you in awe of him? Do you know what I mean by awe?”
    “No.”
    “In awe of somebody means that you look up to them like they’re almost a god, or something like that.”
    “No. Actually when our relationship got closer and closer I thought less of that. Like most people think that, wow, he’s great, because he can dance and sing. But you know, he’s just like, a regular person.”
    “Do you feel guilty about having participated in those acts?”
    “Yeah. I regret doing it.”
    “What about fears? Any fears of any kind?”
    “No.”
    “Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”
    “Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

    So Jordan has no fear (except of cross-examination) and doesn’t feel hurt, he theoretically knows he should be feeling something like depression, but he actually doesn’t and he repeats all those rehearsed words again and again:

    “Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt, otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime.”
    “Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?”
    “Because – that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.”
    “How?”
    “I don’t know.”
    “Just your own guess.”
    “It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.”
    “Well, this is important. You say it’s a crime. Why is it a crime?”
    “Because, like I said before, he’s using his experience, power, age – – “

    And though he has just told us that “the relationship” did not affect him in any way, he was never depressed, always had only fun and was never in awe of MJ, he suddenly says that it was “horrible” and the best thing in his life was that it was over:

    “What would you say is the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole life?”
    “When I told my dad what Michael was doing to me.”
    “Why do you say that?”
    “Because once I told him, I knew that Michael would never be able to do that to me again. And when something horrible ends, it’s most likely the best thing in your life.”

    I think what’s horrible about it is that this boy is a horrible liar, and at some point he became a willing participant in the scheme.

    Like

  17. Suzy permalink
    January 24, 2012 3:13 pm

    @ Lynette

    “I think Evan used it on Jordan when he pulled his tooth. I don’t think it necessarily worked to implant memories but he used it on Jordan and then told him that the had said these thing when he was under the influence of the drug. He then told Jordan that Sodium Amytal is a truth serum and after that just continued to build on what he says Jordan told him.”

    I don’t think Evan had to build on anything Jordan might or might not have said under the influence. He had a plan ready long, long time before that.

    Also your theory would mean that Evan could make Jordan believe that he was saying such things under the influence and he could scare him into “confessing” with this claim. But if something did not happen then it did not happen, period. If Jordan knew it did not happen, then there’s no way his father could have scared him into “confessing” by telling him you said this and this under the influence. He would just say, I don’t know why I said this because it’s not true. That if really nothing happened, as I’m sure nothing happened.

    I agree with Tatum, the SA story is suspect at the very least. There is definitely a reason why the Chandlers incorporated it into their story (maybe they didn’t want Jordan’s testimony to be admissable, maybe they initially believed the “truth serum” myths gives their claims credibility, or something else), but that doesn’t mean it’s true. I personally have big doubts about it, like Tatum. We only have the Chandlers’s word for this story and it wouldn’t be the first time they were lying.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    January 24, 2012 10:10 am

    @ Tatum I think you missed an earlier discussion where I explained it a little better. I am not saying that the Sodium Amytal worked to implant the memories but it was in the news at the time that this was used in another famous case in California called the Holly Ramona case. What I am saying is that prior to the conclusion of the Holly Ramona case lay people called SA a “truth serum”. I think Evan used it on Jordan when he pulled his tooth. I don’t think it necessarily worked to implant memories but he used it on Jordan and then told him that the had said these thing when he was under the influence of the drug. He then told Jordan that Sodium Amytal is a truth serum and after that just continued to build on what he says Jordan told him. One of the critical parts of this is that it was found to be used in a previous case namely the Holly Ramona case in which the father of Holly Ramona sued the therapist that used it on her and it was found to create false memories. He won the case in April of 1994.
    Now here is what I think happened. In July Jordan says that his father pulled his tooth. That is in all the reports at the time. He says he asked to be put to sleep. He is then told when he comes out of it that he said these things while he was under the influence of the SA and Evan told him it was “truth serum”. He did that in early July and then had over a month of 24 hours a day to tell Jordan this is what you said. This is what you said and that is how he used it. Then comes the precedence setting Ramona case after the settlement and it was detemined that SA would create false memories and the use of it rendered testimony useless.
    Remember too that during this time Evan was telling Jordan that he had proof, that he had supposedly taped what was going on and yet after it was reported to police he had no tapes.The only thing he had was what he had been telling Jordan that he said for over a month. I don’t think it would take a month to convince a 13 year old boy that what he was saying was true. That is when the details came in. He would repeat his story to Jordan and telling him “this is what you said”. He did not need to be under the influence of the SA during that time all he would have had to be told is that he said it when he was under the influence of it. What else is also interesting is that sometime that year is when Evan and his wife separated and Jordan chose to stay with her rather than his father. That I suspect is when he realised that his father had lied to him about what he had said.

    Like

  19. January 24, 2012 9:58 am

    @ares
    Exactly, you’ve just proved my point in your own way. That theory was created to invent a story and make it seem as if Jordan’s claims were credible. No one here has been able to explain it or prove it happened because Evan’s claim alone is not strong enough to make it a fact. Acts of Jordan in later years tells me to that the SA drug was not what prompted him to make those claims. His screen writer brain worked overtime and he just flat out lied because his father was in control of him.

    Like

  20. ares permalink
    January 24, 2012 5:29 am

    If he used a drug to implant memories in this kid’s mind why mention it?-TatumMarie

    The drug was mentioned because, as he said, during the time the kid was under it, he came up with details of the alleged crime. I’m sure someone here will explain it to you better than me.

    Like

  21. January 24, 2012 2:55 am

    @ lynande51
    Yes, but if you want to go by what Jordan said in his declaration whether Evan told him he said these things or if something was implanted in his head; Jordan wouldn’t be able to say what took place in Monaco and what didn’t take place at Never land or other visits. False memory syndrome does not allow the person to fill in the blanks where they want. The SA theory is just that. It was put out to the media by Evan Chandler. If he used a drug to implant memories in this kid’s mind why mention it?

    Mainly, the only person who is pro-Michael that popularized the SA theory was Mary Fischer. Reading her article now, knowing what I know from the Jones and Hughes books, there are many things that she got wrong in that article.

    Realistically, the fact remains ( corroborated by T-mez and Geraldine Hughes) that Jordan told others in later years and possibly then that it didn’t happen and that his parents made him lie. I think that we sound ridiculous when we blame the alleged administration of this drug for Jordan’s claims. It is so obvious that he was coached by his father and Rothman.

    Like

  22. January 23, 2012 1:24 pm

    @ TatumMarie If someone were being given information while under SA it would not wipe out the details of the original memory. It adds the act to the already existing memory so nothing else about it would change. Creating false memories is not like that. One memory is not wiped out to create another just more information is fed into existing memories. Then there would be the repetition necessary to continue the false memory . He could easily have just said but this is what you said when you were under.

    Like

  23. January 23, 2012 3:22 am

    Torbiner never fully confirmed that he gave the SA. He had given out so many drugs illegally; he probably didn’t even know what he administered to the kid. His exact words were “If I used it, it was for dental purposes” which is not really a stable confession. If the headache story is only in a tabloid book, I wouldn’t put faith in this story either. Geraldine Hughes also mentioned that a lot of the documents were questionable in Raymond Chandler’s book.

    Here’s the problem. When under the influence of SA one can remember an act but they don’t remember the details or location. It does not make sense that Evan implanted all that information in Jordan’s mind.

    Like

  24. January 23, 2012 3:14 am

    Torbiner never fully confirmed that he gave the SA. He had given out so many drugs illegally his words were “If I gave it to him it was for dental purposes” If the headache story wasn’t in his declaration of facts, I wouldn’t put faith in this story either. Geraldine Hughes also mentioned that a lot of the documents were questionable in Raymond Chandler’s book.

    Here’s the problem. When under the influence of SA one can remmeber an act but they dont remember the details or location. It does not make sense that he impolanted all that information in Jordan’s mind.

    Like

  25. January 22, 2012 4:18 pm

    He could also have given an innocuous NaCl injection iv.To acheve a placebo effect.

    Like

  26. January 22, 2012 4:14 pm

    Did Evan,( or rather Dr.Torbinger ,as he claims) really give Jordan SA?
    Don´t forget the placebo effect.Evan could easily have told Jordan he will give him a “Truth serum” that will make him remember things he may have forgotten.Then told Jordan repeatedly what it is he has forgotten.Given his gum a little needle prick and maybe injected a little saltsolution,then told Jordan to tell what he had forgotten.The placebo effect can be substatial and a 13 yo is quite suggestible. And what tooth did a 13 yo need extracted?
    Any dentist there?
    Then when Michael had a head ache they called this Dr. Torbinger to give him something. That could well have been SA.From the description Michael became quite groggy and finally fell asleep.

    Like

  27. January 22, 2012 2:58 pm

    @Suzy
    I think when Jordan talked with Anthony Pellicano it was before his father received control of him. It absolutely makes sense that Evan manipulated Jordan to make these claims because in court after the settlement June also stated this in her declaration. Her words exactly were “manipulating the child’s affections.”

    Like

  28. January 22, 2012 2:48 pm

    Well of course all the media leaks came from VG and Diane Dimond popularized the information which proves my point. The SA along with the alleged confrontation all came from this tabloid source, it started with Evan Chandler who used Ray Chandler and VG as a media outlet. No one is arguing that the story didn’t come from Evan which is what makes it more questionable. There was never any foundation that the drug was responsible for Jordan’s claims, I’m not going to base a theory on a proven liar. In reality, Mary Fischer got it wrong in that department.

    Like

  29. Suzy permalink
    January 22, 2012 11:00 am

    @ TatumMarie

    Also let’s not forget Pellicano also said that Jordan told him nothing happened and that his father only wanted money when he talked to him in Michael’s apartman at that meeting in August.

    That isn’t compatible with the SA story either.

    Like

  30. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2012 6:04 am

    Actually it was not from any of the court documents it was in both versions of their book. I say both versions because it is only too apparent that VG collaberated with Evan on a book.They did actually try to sell it in February of 94 so they did have it written long before than case was settled. They got turned down on it so the next thing you know VG was hawking it on Hard Copy with Diane Dimond. Well his version was a little too salacious for the American publishers so he self published it in Chile in 1995. What is interesting is that he was in the middle of being sued at the time for his video story. When people say that Michael sued him for the video story not the book they are wrong. He sued Hard Copy and him for slander and libel. It doesn’t matter what medium you slander someone in if it is in print or broadcast slander is slander. When I bought his book I bought it to compare it to Chandlers version and to see if the documents that he said were in there were in there. Some of them are along with pictures that could only have come from the Chandler house. It was the Chandlers that said that he knew their maid and that was how he got those things but what is their explanation for him having Jordan’s bank statement, a letter from his lawyer telling him that emancipation would open his court papers and other such things. I think when you take everything that Evan said in that tape recording into consideration like having “people” in certain places it implies more than one person. I think all of the leaks to the media came from VG. The reason I think that is because he had tabloid connections because he wrote for a Spanish language one. Then there is also the fact that he was in the room with the Neverland 5 with a rep for Splash news.That looks like Evan’s intentions were to destroy Michael long before he started negotiations. Do I think he asked Michael that question? No because if he had Michael would never have gone over to his house and he never would have had anything to do with them again. Do I think Jordan slept on the same bed as Michael? No I don’t. Frank Cascio was there with them at Neverland and he says it did not happen. Do it think it was extortion. Absolutely without a doubt it was extortion and both books are proof of that. There are even statements in the books that say things like “if he had given Evan the 20 million he demanded in August” and others that are just a confession of extortion. As for Jordan all I can say is he isn’t a little boy anymore but at this point in time it looks like he wants to go through his entire life as “the boy that got millions from Michael Jackson”. What a claim to fame. Just like the Arvizo’s they know better, they seem to have distanced themselves from their mother but I guess it is more fun to be them but they never got any money for it did they or didn’t they?

    Like

  31. January 22, 2012 4:25 am

    Well since we are discussing this topic. Where in court documents- did Chandler ask Michael that question? I honestly don’t think he did and truthfully there were no suspicions that we can prove on his part until he met Rothman.

    Like

  32. January 22, 2012 4:21 am

    @Suzy,
    I totally agree. This is one of the reasons why I questioned the SA theory – it originated with the Chandlers. The only thing that would make sense is that Evan made this up in his Hollywood mind to make his story more sensational and Jordan’s allegations more believable- to the ignorant. In movies SA was used as a truth serum and it wasnt like Evan didn’t have a book to write.

    I also doubt the drug is responsible because we don’t just have a Yes or No molestation question (that would make the testimony inadmissible) we have an entire detail of abuse in areas that Evan himself was not present. It took a certain amount of collaboration on Jordan’s part, plus Tom Mesereau said he had witnesses that would testify that he told them it never happened and he will never forgive his parents for what they made him say.
    Geraldine Hughes also collaborated this in a web interview that sources told her that Jordan was telling people it never happened.

    @Lisa
    Take a chill pill, as long as I’ve been on this blog …..You should know better than that. Place everything into perspective. Blaming the drug on everything Jordan said between the police and the psychiatrist makes absolutely no sense, I never questioned Michael’s innocence- I know he was.

    Like

  33. January 22, 2012 3:16 am

    @lynande,

    So he asked MJ before he invited him to stay at his house. I didn’t remember that.

    Like

  34. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2012 2:38 am

    Shelly that was the weekend before he stayed at his house as a matter of fact according to them that was the first time they spoke if you believe any part of that story. The thing is Michael did stay at his house over the long memorial weekend in 1993. That was the weekend that Michael was drugged by them saying that he had the kind of reaction to Toradol when it was obvious that it was something else from the way they describe it. I think they may have even given Michael Sodium Amytal myself from the way they describe the conversation in the book where Michael was talking about Arnie Klein and other Hollywood people that he knew. Then he more or less sleeps it off. That is not Toradol that is something much different.

    Like

  35. January 22, 2012 12:57 am

    “The elder Chandler tracked Jackson down to his “hideaway apartment” in Los Angeles.The boy’s father asked Jackson, “Are you fucking my kid?”

    Where and when did it happened. I always thought it was at Evan’s house.

    Like

  36. October 30, 2011 5:16 pm

    Sodium amythal or not,maybe a bit of laughing gas..it really does not matter.What matters is that Jordan was now separated for good from MJ and in the hands of his father.Evan was in the hypomanic-manic stage of bipolar illness(I know some disagree w, this dg.)and so can be very persuasive,even charming if need be, or frightening.He was not yet in ful blown manic psychosis and was so able to construct his sinister sceme quite skillfully.Jordan being his young son could not go agaist him,and his mother was scared, knowing what Evan is capable of in his state of mind.Had the case gone to court a psychiatric evaluation of Evan could have been asked for.Most likely Evan knew of his illness.though he had not reached it´s fullest form,.

    Like

  37. ares permalink
    October 30, 2011 4:31 pm

    Some of us may not believe tha Sodium amital story but i believe that people can impose their views to other people and especially younger ones. Think about it. Jordan loved MJ but it was when he went with his father, that all of a sudden he began remembering all those wrong things that MJ did to him. It’s not difficult to make a kid believe that innocent things are inappropriate and that someone is an evil one, especially when the person that says those things to the kid is their father. To me Evan Chandler was a person, from what i have read on the transcript of that recording that David Schwartz did, that could easy manipulate the others or play with their emotions. Jordan stayed with how much, two weeks? In those two weeks is pretty easy to brainwash someone into thinking that someone is the worst person to have walked the earth. You don’t need Sodium amital to do that, words are just enough. -See MJ trial – Media behavior- people view on the trial and MJ. The media didn’t use Sodium amital, their lies were enough to brainwash the public. As for the SA storie i believe that it was said for other reasons, that had to do with Jordan not testifying to the trial. This is my view on the matter although i can’t totally reject the SA theorie.

    Like

  38. October 30, 2011 2:05 pm

    ” I just hear people saying he was just an addict, and brought about his own death”

    Linda, I can’t believe that people can be so blunt and so cruel.

    They don’t see the difference between drug-addicts who take Demerol on their own and do it for pleasure, and Michael who was administered it by a doctor – who chose this drug himself for doing painful procedures on Michael. Following these people’s logic if they are given similar medication due to their own health problems they may call themselves drug-addicts too.

    Propofol is not a narcotic and does not develop an addiction, so this word does not apply here by definition. It was administered by a doctor and though its use (at the moment) is unconventional for sleep, the Defense’s main expert did not rule out that it was possible to use it for insomnia – it is called off-label use – only it should have been done in a proper setting. Again it isn’t Michael’s guilt that his doctor did it in the wrong way and was extremely negligent in administering this drug.

    I am surprised that people are so insensitive to another person’s sufferings. They speak only of what Michael shouldn’t have done and don’t think of what Michael could have done in a situation when he could not sleep before or during his 50 shows.

    Michael’s detractors are evidently unfamiliar with this problem and don’t know that total lack of sleep like Michael’s can cause DEATH.

    Here is an article on Sleep Deprivation which touches upon shortened hours of sleep but also says that total deprivation may be FATAL. The only reason why no exact data is given is because no such cruel experiments were ever made:

    While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false. Sleep is needed to regenerate certain parts of the body, especially the brain, so that it may continue to function optimally. After periods of extended wakefulness or reduced sleep neurons may begin to malfunction, visibly effecting a person’s behavior.

    The effects of sleep deprivation on behavior have been tested with relation to the presence of activity in different sections of the cerebral cortex.

    The temporal lobe of the cerebral cortex is associated with the processing of language. In sleep deprived subjects there is no activity within this region. The effects of this inactivity can be observed by the slurred speech in subjects who have gone for prolonged periods with no sleep.

    The frontal lobe is the most fascinating section of the brain with relation to sleep deprivation. Its functions are associated with speech as well as novel and creative thinking. Sleep deprived test subjects have difficulties thinking of imaginative words or ideas. Instead, they tend to choose repetitious words or clichéd phrases.

    Also, a sleep-deprived individual is less able to deliver a statement well. The subject may show signs of slurred speech, stuttering, speaking in a monotone voice, or speaking at a slower pace than usual.

    Subjects in research studies also have a more difficult time reacting well to unpredicted rapid changes. Sleep deprived people do not have the speed or creative abilities to cope with making quick but logical decisions, nor do they have the ability to implement them well.

    Studies have demonstrated that a lack of sleep impairs one’s ability to simultaneously focus on several different related tasks, reducing the speed as well as the efficiency of one’s actions.

    Part of the frontal lobe regenerates during the first stage of sleep (called REM stage), giving a person the ability to feel somewhat refreshed after only a short nap.

    One of the symptoms of prolonged sleep deprivation is hallucinations. Metabolic activity in the prefrontal cortex can drop as much as eleven percent after a person has missed sleep for only twenty four hours.

    As a person loses more sleep or continues to receive less-than-adequate amounts of sleep the neurons become even more taxed and the I-function may begin to generate even less coherent images possibly resulting in temporary insanity.

    One of the possible side effects of a continued lack of sleep is death. …. One study stated that people who sleep less than four hours per night are three times more likely to die within the next six years.

    Although the longest a human has remained awake was eleven days rats that are continually deprived of sleep die within two to five weeks, generally due to their severely weakened immune system.

    Without sleep our brains deteriorate, and if the argument that brain=behavior is true, then our behavior will also suffer accordingly”.

    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1690

    Lawyer Michael Barnes said about people’s judgement in Michael’s case – “Public awareness has not yet caught up with science”.

    I’ll put it in simpler terms – it is people’s ignorance, bluntness and laziness to learn more which allow them to make conclusions over things they have no idea of.

    Like

  39. Suzy permalink
    October 30, 2011 11:30 am

    @ Linda

    I have doubts about the Sodium Amytal story too and no, it isn’t the only thing that makes sense and by saying she does not believe the SA story Tatum didn’t suggest Michael was guilty. She suggests the Chandlers were lying about the SA stuff. Don’t forget the whole story comes from them! So that in itself makes it suspect. Why would they admit to use SA on Jordan? Did they at the time think people will believe SA was a “truth serum”? Or did they want to achieve that Jordan’s testimony would not be admissible in a criminal court so that he would not have to testify? I don’t know.

    Geraldine Hughes, who worked for Barry Rothman (Chandlers’ lawyer) at the time said she doesn’t believe in the SA story either and she said she believed the boy was coached by Rothman. She witnessed the boy spend several hours alone with Rothman in Rothman’s office before the allegations came out. She believes that’s when he was coached what to say.

    @ Tatum

    Did you talk to people who talked to Jordan about it? And did Jordan tell people the SA never happened? What else did he say?

    Like

  40. Linda permalink
    October 30, 2011 11:06 am

    @tatum

    I do believe the amytol stuff. It’s the only thing that makes sense. 1993 and 2003 were both cases of extortion. Plain and simple and proven. I don’t know what Jordie has told others, but obviously he either lied in his original statement intentionally, or was coerced by his father, or confused by a drug his father gave him.

    I don’t know what was in his mind at that time, but I somehow think by now he does know what happened, or didn’t happen, but is not willing to come forward with the truth. Gavin, I think always knew the truth about his non-experience, and is also not willing to come forward with the truth. I don’t expect either one of them to ever come clean. I would love it if they would, but I don’t believe it will happen.

    There’s been enough evidence brought out to prove Michaels innocence in both cases. There’s no reason for anybody to believe he was guilty in either case if they’ve bothered to take the time to do some research. It took me only 3 or 4 weeks of research to find the truth. Thanks to websites like this one and a few others that brought out the facts. I continued my research for 2 years, so far.

    I’ve been long convinced of his beauty and innocence, but now with his doctor on trial, it seems like Michael is on trial again. For some crazy reason, this is the Michael Jackson death trial, not the Conrad Murray trial. Where’s the sanity in that?

    Sorry, didn’t mean to rant, I just hear people saying he was just an addict, and brought about his own death, thanks to the media, again for always finding a way to vilify Michael. As usual, I find myself having to defend him, when all people have to do is a little research, which obviously they aren’t willing to do. Anyway, any chance I get to give them the facts, I do.

    Some listen, Sorry to say, most don’t. They just believe the tabloids, and miss a great blessing.. Michael was one of the greatest men who ever walked this earth. All anybody has to do is listen to his music to understand him. If you want to know a man, all you have to do is listen to his music. His music is his heart, and Michaels songs were all about L.O.V.E. for all humanity, all nations under God. It didn’t matter what color or what nationality you were, he just loved everybody and supported charities all over the world. That’s what true L.O.V.E is all about.

    Again, sorry for the rant, just felt a need to vent tonight!

    Like

  41. Tatum permalink
    October 30, 2011 8:14 am

    I dont believe the sodium amytal stuff. Jordan told many others that it never happened.

    Like

  42. November 26, 2010 5:05 pm

    “Is this what you’re looking for?”

    Linda, thanks for the link – this is the catched version of the original Smoking Gun article which I could no longer find “in the open” when making this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    It seems to be the only trace left of Deborah Linden’s report whose picture you see in the article. I’ve tried hard (really hard) to find the report itself or at least another story about it and couldn’t! Where did you find this article – has it been reprinted by the Smoking Gun? Is it available for the public now?

    “I believe in what you are doing. I would like to see his name cleared too”.
    Thank you dear. Join us – vindicating Michael can only be done in a team as it requires many people, much work and will take a long time.

    Like

  43. Linda permalink
    November 26, 2010 4:25 pm

    Is this what you’re looking for? I believe in what you are doing. I would like to see his name cleared too.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080213071703/www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    Like

  44. November 25, 2010 6:28 pm

    “reading Gavin’s cross examination by Meserau for me is like seeing two boys who are pissed with Michael. Not afraid, not hurt, not embarassed but only pissed and vindictive.”

    Visitor, here is a small newspaper report on what you are saying:

    – Although the accuser frequently mumbled on the stand, his style changed when he described the molestations.
    “It’s not faltering, it’s not mumbling — he’s immediately confident, articulate,” Ms. Levenson noted [Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Loyola School of Law].

    “It was like presto, magic, a new witness is on the stand, and he clearly tells the story of the molestation. But what struck me is that there was practically no emotion as he told it.”

    The boy did get emotional under cross-examination when he told Mr. Mesereau that it broke his heart when he was told Mr. Jackson was not at the ranch one day but later saw him driving away.

    He became combative with Mr. Mesereau’s cross-examination several times, especially when the defense attorney focused on the boy’s remark that Mr. Jackson hadn’t done enough for him when he was battling cancer.

    “The kid is so angry at Michael for ditching him that it’s kind of pathetic,” Ms. Levenson said.

    “And he kept saying ‘Michael didn’t do anything for me,’ when Mesereau went through a list of 13 things he did for him. He really set up the defense with the ‘you broke my heart’ statement. He appears mad at Michael for ditching him — not for molesting him.”
    —————
    For the past two days I’ve also been trying to find the funny article I once read about Janet Arvizo (now it is lost I am afraid). The article said she had very high hopes of Michael and wanted him to buy them a house near Neverland, turn her children into stars and let her do a PR job for him (!). She complained that he had done “nothing for them” and sounded angry and disappointed. I wish I could find that article again.

    P.S. And your point about adolescents not knowing anything about sex is great: “How is possible an adolescent know so many things regarding sex? It’s not possible.”

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2010 9:04 pm
    Here is the part of the testimony of Simone Jackson and the testimony of Rio Jackson the interesting part about Simone’s testimony is that she was invited by Michael and slept in bed with Michael and her brother until she was 14 so much for the no girls theory: 10846 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 SANTA MARIA BRANCH; COOK STREET DIVISION 4 DEPARTMENT SM-2 HON. RODNEY S. MELVILLE, JUDGE 5 6 7 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) 8 CALIFORNIA, ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 -vs- ) No. 1133603 11 MICHAEL JOE JACKSON, ) 12 Defendant. ) 13 14 15 16 17 REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 18 19 WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005 20 21 8:30 A.M. 22 23 (PAGES 10846 THROUGH 10928) 24 25 26 27 REPORTED MICHELE MATTSON McNEIL, RPR, CRR, CSR #3304 28 BY: Official Court Reporter 10846 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 For Plaintiff: THOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR., 4 District Attorney -and- 5 RONALD J. ZONEN, Sr. Deputy District Attorney 6 -and- GORDON AUCHINCLOSS, 7 Sr. Deputy District Attorney 1112 Santa Barbara Street 8 Santa Barbara, California 93101 9 10 11 For Defendant: COLLINS, MESEREAU, REDDOCK & YU BY: THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR., ESQ. 12 -and- SUSAN C. YU, ESQ. 13 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90067 14 -and- 15 SANGER & SWYSEN 16 BY: ROBERT M. SANGER, ESQ. 233 East Carrillo Street, Suite C 17 Santa Barbara, California 93101 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10847 1 I N D E X 2 3 Note: Mr. Sneddon is listed as “SN” on index. 4 Mr. Zonen is listed as “Z” on index. Mr. Auchincloss is listed as “A” on index. 5 Mr. Mesereau is listed as “M” on index. Ms. Yu is listed as “Y” on index. 6 Mr. Sanger is listed as “SA” on index. 7 8 9 DEFENDANT’S 10 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 11 JACKSON, Simone 12 Pech 10849-M (Contd.) 10850-Z 10862-M 10863-Z 13 JACKSON, 14 Rijo 10865-M 10877-Z 10906-M 15 JACKSON, Michelle 16 Henriette 10907-M 10911-Z 17 ROBINSON, Christian 10916-SA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10848 1 Santa Maria, California 2 Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3 8:30 a.m. 4 5 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. 6 COUNSEL AT COUNSEL TABLE: (In unison) 7 Good morning, Your Honor. 8 THE JURY: (In unison) Good morning. 9 THE COURT: Counsel? 10 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 12 SIMONE PECH JACKSON 13 Having been previously sworn, resumed the 14 stand and testified further as follows: 15 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 17 BY MR. MESEREAU: 18 Q. Good morning. 19 A. Good morning. 20 Q. Simone, you talked about the incident where 21 you saw Gavin and Star steel some wine, okay? And 22 you said that was in March of 2003? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. Do you know approximately when in March that 25 was? 26 A. No, I don’t. 27 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions. 28 THE COURT: Cross-examine? 10849 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. ZONEN: 3 Q. Miss Jackson, good morning. 4 A. Good morning. 5 Q. During the month of February of 2003, how 6 often did you go to Neverland? 7 A. It was once. 8 Q. You went once during February? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And for what period of time? 11 A. For one day. 12 Q. And then you left at the end of that day? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. All right. And did you see Gavin and Star 15 on that day? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Had you ever met them prior to that day? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever see them on any of your other 20 trips to Neverland, prior to February of 2003? 21 A. Excuse me, what does “prior” mean? 22 Q. Before. Before 2003. 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you know who they were on the day that 25 you arrived there in February? 26 A. No. 27 Q. You had not met them, and you didn’t know 28 who they were? 10850 1 A. No. 2 Q. They were just a couple kids who were 3 staying there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you have an opportunity to talk to them 6 when you were there in February? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. Did you learn where they were 9 from? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you learn how long they had been staying 12 at Neverland? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you learn where they had been prior to 15 going to Neverland? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you know why they were at Neverland? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you know that they were personal friends 20 of your cousin Michael Jackson? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, Michael Jackson is your cousin, is that 23 right, not your uncle? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Did you know how they met Michael 26 Jackson, your cousin? 27 A. No. 28 Q. Did you know the extent of their friendship 10851 1 with Michael Jackson? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Now, on that occasion, on the occasion of 4 that birthday party, you were there just for one 5 day; is that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then you went home at the end of that 8 day? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did you tell your mother or anybody else 11 anything about Gavin or Star? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. All right. And who was that who you talked 14 to? 15 A. My mother. 16 Q. All right. Was that something that you told 17 her that you were concerned about Gavin or Star? 18 A. No. 19 Q. What did you tell your mother about Gavin or 20 Star. 21 A. I just told my mother that I met them. 22 Q. That you met the two of them. Did you meet 23 their sister as well? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you meet their mother as well? 26 A. No. 27 Q. You didn’t know their mother; is that right? 28 A. Yes. 10852 1 Q. You didn’t known their parents; is that 2 right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you wonder why they were at Neverland 5 without their parents? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you ask either one of them whether they 8 were in school? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did either one of them tell you whether or 11 not they were in school? 12 A. No. 13 Q. When was the next time that you saw them? 14 A. In March. 15 Q. That was in March sometime? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you remember when in March? 18 A. No, I don’t. 19 Q. Did you have more than one visit to 20 Neverland in March? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. How many visits did you have to Neverland in 23 March? 24 A. Two. 25 Q. Two? And on each of those occasions did you 26 stay overnight? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. For how long did you stay overnight in 10853 1 March? 2 A. A total of five days. 3 Q. You stayed five days in March? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In total? For both visits or — 6 A. Both visits. 7 Q. Both visits total? Does that mean five 8 nights or four nights; do you recall? 9 A. Five nights. 10 Q. Five nights in total. Was that during the 11 week? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. All right. Were you in school at that time? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did you miss any school while you were 16 staying at Neverland? 17 A. Yes, I did. 18 Q. Did you see Gavin and Star the entire time 19 you were there? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you see their mother during that time as 22 well? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you see Davellin during that time as 25 well? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Did it occur to you that they were there the 28 entire time; in other words, from the time that you 10854 1 had been there in February, to the time that you 2 came back to Neverland in March? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right. And you understood that they 5 were simply staying there for that entire time; is 6 that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. Did you wonder whether or not 9 they were going to school? 10 A. Yes, I did. 11 Q. Okay. Did you ask any of them whether or 12 not they were going to school? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Why not? 15 A. I just didn’t. 16 Q. Well, did it seem strange to you that they 17 were staying at Neverland for such an extended 18 period of time without going to school? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you talk to your cousin Michael Jackson 21 about why they weren’t in school? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you talk to your cousin Michael Jackson 24 at any time about Gavin or Star? 25 A. No. 26 Q. All right. Now, at some point in time, you 27 saw these kids take wine from the kitchen; is that 28 right? 10855 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. All right. And Mr. Mesereau called it 3 stealing wine. Did you think they were stealing 4 wine? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Now, did you think they were stealing wine 7 because they’re kids? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. If your mom went to the kitchen, 10 she could take a bottle of wine; is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It was there for the guests? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. But you felt it was improper for them 15 to do it because they were 12 years old and 13 years 16 old; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. So you felt that that was stealing; 21 is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, did you tell somebody immediately when 24 that happened? 25 A. No, I didn’t. 26 Q. Now, this was one o’clock in the morning; is 27 that right? 28 A. Yes. 10856 1 Q. And you were in the kitchen at one o’clock 2 in the morning? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was there a video game there? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is that what you were doing? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was it one of those games that rings and 9 dings as you press the different buttons? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And was it doing that at the time that you 12 were there? 13 A. No, it wasn’t. 14 Q. Why wasn’t it? 15 A. Because I wasn’t playing it. I was watching 16 them. 17 Q. You were sitting there watching them? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. Did you at any time tell them 20 that you were there? 21 A. They saw me after. After they left they 22 saw — 23 Q. And why didn’t you greet them as soon as 24 they walked in the door? 25 A. I don’t know. 26 Q. Were you already angry at them? 27 A. No. 28 Q. Okay. Did you tell anybody afterward? 10857 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Who did you tell? 3 A. My mother. 4 Q. All right. Did you tell Michael Jackson, 5 your cousin? 6 A. No. 7 Q. All right. At any time while you were there 8 at Neverland, did you go talk to Michael Jackson, 9 your cousin? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you ever spend the night in Michael 12 Jackson’s room? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. By yourself? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you ever spend a night in his room in 17 his bed with him? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. By yourself? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. How old were you when you did 22 that? 23 A. I was about eight or nine. 24 Q. Eight or nine. Have you done it since age 25 eight or nine? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Why not? 28 A. I don’t know. 10858 1 Q. Were you invited to come back into his room? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Were you invited to come back into his bed? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. By Michael Jackson? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So he offered you his bed to share with him? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When was the most recent time he did that? 10 A. When I was 14. 11 Q. When you were 14 years old. So he invited 12 you to come sleep with him in his bed by yourself? 13 A. With my brother. 14 Q. Okay. The question that I had asked you is 15 whether or not you had been invited to sleep in his 16 bed by yourself. 17 A. Oh, no. 18 Q. Had you been? 19 A. No. 20 Q. At any time since age eight? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Was your brother sleeping in his bed 23 with you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And when he invited you and your 26 brother to come back when you were 14 years old to 27 sleep in his bed, did your brother go sleep in his 28 bed? 10859 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Where did you sleep? 3 A. I slept with them. 4 Q. You slept in the bed? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So you were 14 years old? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you and your brother and Michael 9 Jackson — 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. — in his bed? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Now, why did you do that? Why didn’t 14 you sleep in the guest cottage? 15 A. I don’t know. 16 Q. You mentioned that when you went into the 17 house or would go into the house that you would have 18 to knock on the door to get in; is that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was that just at night or was it during the 21 day as well? 22 A. During the day. 23 Q. So that door was kept locked all the time; 24 is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. So all the time that Janet Arvizo was there, 27 the doors to the main house were locked; is that 28 right? 10860 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. All right. And they were not opened at 3 night and kept locked just during the day. They 4 were locked all the time? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. All right. Now, when you would go to knock 7 on the door, who was it who would come to the door 8 to let you in? 9 A. One of the chefs. 10 Q. Were the chefs there 24 hours a day? 11 A. No. 12 Q. So the chefs would not be there at the 13 nighttime; is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Would there be somebody standing by the door 16 to let you in if you wanted to knock and come in 17 late at night? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So you would simply not be able to gain 20 access to the main house at night if you were not 21 already in there; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Unless you got a security guard to let you 24 in? 25 A. Yes. 26 MR. ZONEN: Thank you. I have no further 27 questions. 28 10861 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MESEREAU: 3 Q. Simone, did the Arvizo children ever tell 4 you that they had gotten homework from school — 5 A. No. 6 Q. — that they could do? Did Janet ever tell 7 you? 8 MR. ZONEN: Objection; exceeds the scope of 9 the — withdrawn. Withdrawn. 10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet Arvizo ever tell 11 you she had gone to the school and gotten homework 12 sent to the kids? 13 MR. ZONEN: Objection; leading. 14 MR. MESEREAU: I think they opened it. 15 MR. ZONEN: Well, it’s still leading. 16 THE COURT: Sustained. “I think they opened 17 it” is a good response. “They opened it, Your Honor.” 18 MR. MESEREAU: I’m at the door. 19 (Laughter.) 20 THE COURT: Oh, the door. Go ahead. 21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: All right. Was it your 22 impression that Janet Arvizo could enter the main 23 house when she wanted to? 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Speculative and 26 leading. 27 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is, “Yes.” 28 Next question. 10862 1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see Janet 2 Arvizo enter the main house? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You did see Gavin and Star in the main house 5 from time to time, right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And did you know whether or not they seemed 8 to have pass codes to get into the house? 9 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as leading. 10 THE COURT: Overruled. 11 You may answer. 12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know either way? 13 A. No. 14 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions. 15 16 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. ZONEN: 18 Q. Miss Jackson, did you have a pass code to 19 get into the house? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Nobody ever told you what the pass code was? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you have a pass code to get into your 24 cousin’s bed? 25 A. No. 26 Q. Nobody ever told you that code? 27 A. No. 28 MR. ZONEN: No further questions. 10863 1 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. 4 MR. MESEREAU: Defense will call Rijo 5 Jackson. 6 THE COURT: I just wanted to — I’ve just 7 been informed that the Police Department Honor Guard 8 is going to be shooting some rounds today, so I 9 don’t want anybody to panic. They didn’t want me to 10 panic, so I’m going to share with you what they just 11 told me. 12 MR. SANGER: Do we know where they’re going 13 to be shooting? That might be — 14 THE COURT: I’ve given them some — no. 15 (Laughter.) 16 THE COURT: Come forward to the witness stand 17 here, please. Remain standing. Face the clerk 18 here, and raise your right hand. 19 20 RIJO VALDES JACKSON 21 Having been sworn, testified as follows: 22 23 THE WITNESS: I do. 24 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and 25 spell your name for the record. 26 THE WITNESS: Rijo Valdes Jackson. R-i-j-o; 27 V-a-l-d-e-s; J-a-c-k-s-o-n. 28 THE CLERK: Thank you. 10864 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MESEREAU: 3 Q. Good morning. 4 A. Good morning. 5 Q. Mr. Jackson, do you know the fellow seated 6 at counsel table to my right? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. Who is that? 9 A. Michael Jackson. 10 Q. And are you related to him? 11 A. (Nods head up and down.) 12 Q. How are you related to Michael Jackson? 13 A. Cous — cousin. 14 Q. Okay. And where is your home? 15 A. At Lompoc. 16 Q. Okay. And is Simone your sister? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Have you ever been to Neverland? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You’ve been there a lot? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And what do you like to do at 23 Neverland? 24 A. Play games and have fun. 25 Q. And what — how do you have fun at 26 Neverland? 27 A. Like, watch movies. Go to the rides, and go 28 ride his motorcycles and — 10865 1 Q. Have a good time? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. Okay. How do you get to Neverland when you 4 go? 5 A. You go through Santa Ynez, I think. 6 Q. Does somebody pick you up? 7 A. Yes. My mom. 8 Q. Okay. And does she go there with you a lot? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Does your mom take you home? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And sometimes does your cousin Michael have 13 somebody pick you up? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And, Rijo, have your met anyone named 16 Gavin Arvizo? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And have you ever met someone named Star 19 Arvizo? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. Where did you meet Gavin and Star? 22 A. At Neverland. 23 Q. Okay. And was that in the year 2003; do you 24 know? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Okay. Now, where did you meet them? 27 A. Like right — when we first walked in, we 28 seen them in the kitchen. 10866 1 Q. Okay. And what did you see them doing in 2 the kitchen? 3 A. They were just playing games and having fun. 4 Q. Okay. And there were games in the kitchen 5 area, right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What kind of games? 8 A. Like, the one — it’s like on a television 9 that you touch, and, like, a touch-screen game. 10 Q. And you play that game, too? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. Okay. Did you spend time at Neverland with 13 Gavin and Star? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And what did you used to do there with Gavin 16 and Star? 17 A. We used to go on the rides, watch movies, go 18 to the zoo, and play games, and that’s all. 19 Q. Okay. Now, do you remember staying at 20 Neverland with Gavin and Star? 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. And where did you stay? 23 A. In the unit. 24 Q. Okay. Is that a guest unit? 25 A. Yeah. 26 Q. Okay. And were you staying in the same room 27 with Gavin and Star? 28 A. Yes. For one night I was. 10867 1 Q. Pardon me? 2 A. For one night. 3 Q. Okay. Did you spend that night with Gavin 4 and Star? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Was that — did they sleep in the 7 guest unit? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Is that where you slept? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Now, what did you see Gavin and Star 12 do in the guest unit, Rijo? 13 A. I saw them go to the T.V. and turn to a 14 channel that had, like, naked girls on there, and 15 doing other stuff, like nasty stuff. 16 Q. What nasty stuff? 17 A. They were, like, jacking off and everything. 18 Q. Okay. Did they do that in front of you? 19 A. (Nods head up and down.) 20 Q. Was Michael Jackson anywhere near that room? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. What did you do when you saw Gavin 23 and Star jacking off? 24 A. I told my sister and she told me to go to 25 Michael’s room. 26 Q. And did you run to Michael’s room when you 27 saw that? 28 A. (Nods head up and down.) 10868 1 Q. Did Gavin and Star stay in the guest unit? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. Did Gavin and Star say anything to you when 4 they did the nasty stuff? 5 A. The other day they did. They said, “Why 6 don’t you do that with me?” 7 Q. And what did you say to them? 8 A. I said I didn’t want to because it was 9 nasty, and it’s wrong. 10 Q. Now, when you ran to Michael’s room, did you 11 leave them in the guest unit? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Okay. Did you ever spend another night with 14 Gavin and Star? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. Did you ever see Gavin and Star with 17 any wine at Neverland? 18 A. No, I seen them take it, but — 19 Q. Where did you see them take it? 20 A. In Michael’s room. 21 Q. And what did you see them do? 22 A. I seen them take it upstairs and then that’s 23 all. And then, like, a few moments later I seen 24 them run out the door. 25 Q. With wine? 26 A. No. They were just running out the door. 27 Q. Okay. 28 A. Real quickly. 10869 1 Q. So you saw them in Michael’s room, right? 2 A. Uh-huh. 3 Q. And you saw them grab some of Michael’s 4 wine? 5 A. Yeah, because he ordered some, and then 6 they — then the chef brought it in, and Star and 7 Gavin said, “We’ll take it upstairs for him.” 8 And so I seen them do that for — like, ten 9 minutes later they came downstairs and ran out the 10 door. 11 Q. Did Michael ever see them with the wine? 12 A. Huh-uh. 13 Q. Where was Michael at that time; do you know? 14 A. He was in his studio or the bathroom. 15 Q. Okay. So Michael never saw them steal the 16 wine? 17 A. Huh-uh. 18 Q. Did you see them actually drink the wine? 19 A. No. 20 Q. You have to say “yes” or “no,” Rijo. 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. But you saw them run out with it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Which way did they run with the wine? 25 A. I don’t know. I seen them go out the door. 26 That’s all. 27 Q. And Michael wasn’t there? 28 A. He wasn’t there. 10870 1 Q. So he didn’t see them take the wine? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you ever observe Gavin and Star in the 4 house? 5 A. Can you repeat it? 6 Q. Yeah. Sure. I’m sorry. I’m probably not 7 using the right word. 8 Did you ever watch what Gavin and Star were 9 doing in the main house? 10 A. They were just running around the house 11 doing, like, what they do, like, playing. 12 Q. When you say like they do, what do you mean, 13 Rijo? 14 A. Like, play with each other, like, tag and — 15 Q. Did you ever see them looking through 16 drawers? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what do you mean? 19 A. Like, in the kitchen, they had like — 20 like — they took some money, and, like, that was 21 the chef’s money and stuff. 22 Q. Now, what money are you referring to? 23 A. Like, in the kitchen there’s all kinds of 24 drawers. And then we seen them go in the — Jesus’ 25 office after they went into the kitchen and seen 26 them take some stuff. 27 Q. What stuff did you see them take? 28 A. They had, like, little crystals. We seen 10871 1 them take crystals and money, and that was all they 2 took. We seen them. 3 Q. Now, where did you see Gavin and Star take 4 money? 5 A. In Jesus’ office. 6 Q. Okay. And what did you see them do? Did 7 they go into a drawer? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. Were you watching them? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. I was in the kitchen. 13 Q. How do you know they took money? 14 A. Because we seen them run out with it. 15 Q. Run out with money? 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. Okay. Did they have money in their hands? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And were they running out of Jesus’ office? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You have to say “yes,” Rijo. 22 A. And they ran out the door. 23 Q. Okay. I don’t think you answered that other 24 question. You have to say “yes” or “no,” okay? 25 Because this court reporter is writing down what you 26 say. 27 Now, you saw them run out with the money? 28 A. Yes. 10872 1 Q. Okay. And what direction did they go? 2 A. They went to the outside. 3 Q. Okay. And was the money in their hands? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Did you see them take anything 6 besides money? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned crystals. Now, 9 what were you talking about when you said crystals? 10 A. They’re like little plastic crystals. They 11 look like little crystals. They took them. 12 Q. Gavin and Star took them? 13 A. Yeah. 14 Q. And where did they get the crystals? 15 A. From Jesus’ office. 16 Q. Okay. Now, you said they were looking 17 through drawers in the kitchen; is that right? 18 A. Yeah. 19 Q. You have to say “yes” or “no.” 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. Now, when did you see them 22 looking through drawers in the kitchen? 23 A. Like earlier before they went through Jesus’ 24 office drawers. 25 Q. And did you see Gavin and Star take anything 26 from the drawers in the kitchen? 27 A. Not really. I see them take, like, a deck 28 of cards and that’s all. 10873 1 Q. You said “cards”? 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. What do you mean by “cards,” Rijo? 4 A. Like playing cards. 5 Q. You saw them take them out of the kitchen? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. Now, you said something about chef’s money. 8 What did you mean? 9 A. Like, his money that he — that he worked 10 for and everything. 11 Q. This was the chef? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Do you know what the chef’s name was? 14 A. I think it was Angel or Rudy. 15 Q. And where did you see them take Angel’s 16 money? 17 A. Outside. 18 Q. Okay. They took it outside the house? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Did you see them actually take it from the 21 kitchen? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Explain what you saw when they took the 24 money. 25 A. I seen them have some green paper in their 26 hand, so — you know, I seen them run outside, so — 27 Q. And, Rijo, how did you know it was Angel’s 28 money? 10874 1 A. Because the — the cook, he doesn’t really, 2 like, keep his stuff — he keeps his stuff in there, 3 but that’s all where he puts it. 4 Q. That’s in a drawer? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. Was Angel there at the time? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Nobody was there at the time. 10 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear Gavin or Star talk 11 about the money they’d taken? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. Now, you say you saw Gavin and Star 14 steal wine, right? 15 A. Uh-huh. 16 Q. Did you ever actually watch them drink it? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. Have you ever gone to the store 19 Toys-R-Us? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And who did you go to the store Toys-R-Us 22 with? 23 A. With Michael and Star and Gavin and his 24 friend — Michael’s friends that he picked up. 25 Q. Okay. And are these people he met — 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. — on the road? 28 Michael just picked them up and took them 10875 1 with him? 2 A. No, he had met them before. 3 Q. Okay. Were they fans? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And what did you do at the store 6 Toys-R-Us? 7 A. He took us to buy stuff, like just go around 8 and play. 9 Q. And were Gavin and Star there the whole time 10 with you? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you play? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What did you do when you played? 15 A. Like, we got the balls and played with them, 16 toss back and forth. Rode the bikes. And that was 17 it. 18 Q. And then did Michael take you back to 19 Neverland? 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Okay. And were these fans that Michael 22 picked up and took with you to the store, were they 23 girls? 24 A. Boys and girls. 25 Q. Boys and girls. Okay. How many were there, 26 do you think? 27 A. I’m not sure. 28 Q. Okay. And if you remember, Rijo, what time 10876 1 of day was that when you went to Toys-R-Us? 2 A. It was at night. 3 Q. At night? Okay. 4 Have you ever spoken to Janet Arvizo, the 5 mother of Gavin and Star? 6 A. Not really. I only seen — I seen her once 7 and that was it. 8 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. No further questions. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. ZONEN: 12 Q. Rijo, good morning. 13 A. Good morning. 14 Q. In February of 2003, how often did you go to 15 Neverland? 16 A. A lot. 17 Q. A lot? Does that mean like every week? 18 A. No, not every week. Like once every two 19 weeks, I think. 20 Q. And when you went to Neverland every two 21 weeks, did you go with your sister? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And your sister was there the entire time? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. How long did you stay each time you went to 26 Neverland in February? 27 A. A day or we spent the night sometimes. 28 Q. A day or you spent the night? 10877 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Could you have spent the night on both times 3 you went? 4 A. No. Because we had school probably. 5 Q. So you weren’t missing school while you were 6 going to Neverland? 7 A. Can you re — what? 8 Q. In February of 2003. Do you remember that 9 clearly, in February of 2003? It’s over two years 10 ago. Do you remember it fairly clearly now? 11 A. A little bit. A little bit. 12 Q. A little bit? Do you remember going to 13 Neverland on more than one occasion? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And when you went to Neverland, did you go 16 simply with your sister? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you do that more than one time in 19 February? 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Okay. Did your mother ever go with you to 22 Neverland? 23 A. Yes, she did. 24 Q. Did your father ever go with you to 25 Neverland? 26 A. No. 27 Q. In March, did you go back to Neverland? 28 A. Yes. 10878 1 Q. Do you know how many times you went to 2 Neverland in March? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Could you have gone to Neverland as much as 5 five days in March? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. On all of the occasions that you went to 8 Neverland in February and in March, were Gavin and 9 Star there? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Was it always on the weekends when you went 12 to Neverland? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Well, if you didn’t go to Neverland on the 15 weekends, would that have meant that you missed 16 school on some days? 17 A. Like once. 18 Q. Just one time? 19 A. I — 20 Q. Do you remember when that was that you 21 missed school to go to Neverland? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you spend some time talking to Gavin and 24 Star while you were at Neverland? 25 A. Yeah. 26 Q. Did you learn that Gavin and Star had been 27 staying at Neverland the entire time that you were 28 visiting? 10879 1 A. No. 2 Q. That they were at Neverland for the 3 entirety, just about, of February and for quite a 4 bit of March as well? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you think that they were simply coming 7 at the same time that you were coming and then going 8 back? 9 A. What? 10 Q. Did you ask them how long they had been 11 staying there? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you ask them if they were going to 14 school? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you ever talk to your cousin Michael 17 about Gavin and Star? 18 A. We didn’t bring — we didn’t bring their 19 name up in our conversations. 20 Q. Rijo, I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. You’re 21 going to have to say that — 22 A. We didn’t bring their names up in 23 conversations. 24 Q. You never brought their names up in 25 conversations with your cousin Michael? 26 A. Not really. 27 Q. Did you have conversations with Michael 28 during the time that Gavin and Star were there? 10880 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Did you tell Michael that they were 3 stealing? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Why didn’t you tell him? 6 A. Because he wasn’t around. 7 Q. All right. But you just said you had 8 conversations with Michael. 9 A. Yeah, that was after. 10 Q. All right. You didn’t have any 11 conversations with Michael at any time during 12 February or March? 13 A. No. 14 Q. No conversations with him at all? 15 A. Because we didn’t see him. 16 Q. You did not see your cousin Michael at any 17 time during all of February or March, not once? 18 A. Can you — what? Can you repeat that? 19 Q. Did you see your cousin Michael at any time 20 during the month of February of 2003? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. During the time that you saw your cousin 23 Michael, did you ever talk with him about Gavin and 24 Star? 25 A. What? You’re talking too fast. 26 Q. I’m sorry. I’ll slow down. 27 (Laughter.) 28 MR. ZONEN: There’s a court reporter here 10881 1 who would agree with you. 2 Q. At some time during February, did you see 3 your cousin Michael? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Did you talk with your cousin Michael 6 during the month of February? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you talk with your cousin Michael about 9 Gavin and Star during the month of February? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Why not? 12 A. Because we didn’t — because we didn’t have 13 nothing to say about them. 14 Q. Does that mean that nothing happened in the 15 month of February with Gavin and Star? 16 A. No, it did, but, like, we didn’t talk about 17 them. 18 Q. Well, weren’t you concerned about their 19 behavior? 20 A. Not really. 21 Q. You weren’t concerned about it? 22 A. I was, but I tried to tell — I forgot about 23 it. 24 Q. You forgot about it? 25 A. (Nods head up and down.) 26 Q. He was stealing, and you forgot about that? 27 A. Yeah. 28 Q. So you didn’t tell Michael anything about 10882 1 Gavin or Star? 2 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 3 Q. At any time of the month of February? 4 A. Because he had to go — like someone — 5 during the day he had to go to, like, the studios, 6 and then he had to go, like, L.A. and everything. 7 Q. So you never had a chance to talk with him 8 at all? 9 A. We did, but, like, after our chance to talk 10 to him, he went to L.A., and so he came back and 11 then that was it. 12 Q. Did you tell your cousin Michael about what 13 Gavin and Star were doing in the bedroom? 14 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 15 Q. No? 16 A. I was scared, no, so — 17 Q. Did you tell your cousin Michael about the 18 television and the fact that they were watching 19 something bad on television? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Now, that television is in a guest room; is 22 that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know if they were using a video or a 25 DVD? 26 A. No, they weren’t. 27 Q. Do you think they were using regular 28 television? 10883 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And then you said they were jerking off; is 3 that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you know what that means? 6 A. Yeah, like putting your hand, like, on your 7 private and then just moving it. 8 Q. And were they both standing at the time? 9 A. They were in bed. 10 Q. They were in bed. And they were covered 11 with blankets? 12 A. (Nods head up and down.) 13 Q. You could tell what they were doing? 14 A. (Nods head up and down.) 15 Q. Were they in separate beds? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How many beds were in the room? 18 A. Three. 19 Q. Three beds in the room. So usually there’s 20 two beds in that room; is that right? 21 A. Uh-huh. 22 Q. Did they bring another bed into the room for 23 you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And then after that happened, you 26 left the room; is that right? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. And you went to your sister? 10884 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And your sister said, “Go to Michael’s 3 room”? 4 A. (Nods head up and down.) 5 Q. Did you go to Michael rooms? 6 A. (Nods head up and down.) 7 Q. Was Michael there? 8 A. (Nods head up and down.) 9 Q. And did you tell him what happened? 10 A. No. 11 Q. You didn’t tell him what happened. 12 All right. Do you remember being 13 interviewed by an investigator for your cousin 14 Michael? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you remember telling him that you went to 17 your sister, and your sister said, “Go back to your 18 room”? 19 A. (Nods head up and down.) 20 Q. And is that true, that you went back to your 21 room? 22 A. Yes, and then I went to Michael’s room to 23 get my stuff. 24 Q. All right. So you went to your sister’s 25 room and then you went to Michael’s room? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Afterward. Okay. But you told the 28 investigator that you went back to your room and you 10885 1 never went to Michael’s room; is that true? 2 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 3 Q. No? 4 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 5 Q. So did you go to Michael’s room? 6 A. Yes — no, first I went to my sister’s room 7 and then I went back to my room, and then I went to 8 Michael’s room. 9 Q. Now, when you went to Michael’s room, I 10 think you said Michael was there at that time? 11 A. (Nods head up and down.) 12 Q. Is that “yes”? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And you told Michael what had 15 happened in the bedroom; is that right? 16 A. I told him a little bit. And then he left 17 to the bathroom. 18 Q. And he left for the bathroom? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. When you told him a little bit, did you tell 21 him — among the little bit that you told him, did 22 you tell him that they watched something bad on 23 television? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you told him that they watched something 26 that had naked women — 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. — on television? 10886 1 A. And then — yes. 2 Q. And did it also have naked men? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Just naked women? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. What did Michael say to you when you 7 told him that they were watching something with 8 naked women on television? 9 A. He didn’t believe it. 10 Q. He didn’t believe it? 11 A. Because, like, he thought — he thought they 12 were cool, and he didn’t think they would do that. 13 Q. I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. Say it again. 14 A. He thought they were good, and they wouldn’t 15 do that. 16 Q. Did you tell him about what they were doing 17 inside the bed? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You didn’t tell him that? How come you 20 didn’t tell him that? 21 A. Because I didn’t want to, like, tell him, 22 because I was scared. 23 Q. Did you spend that night in bed with your 24 cousin Michael? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Okay. Did you do that often, share a bed 27 with your cousin Michael? 28 A. Yes. 10887 1 Q. Did you tell your cousin Michael about the 2 fact that they were stealing money? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Why not? 5 A. Because he was gone. 6 Q. I’m sorry? 7 A. He was gone. We tried to tell a maid or 8 something like that. 9 Q. Did you tell — 10 A. But they were gone. It was at night. 11 Q. Did — did you see your cousin Michael again 12 after the boys were stealing money? 13 A. No, I only seen him, like, once, like, a 14 day. Because he was gone most of the time. 15 Q. You said he was stealing money from Jesus’ 16 office; is that right? 17 A. No, the kitchen. 18 Q. In the kitchen? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you also say that he was stealing 21 something from Jesus? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you said he was stealing money from 24 Jesus? 25 A. Jesus’ office. 26 Q. Jesus’ office? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. And were you there at the time? 10888 1 A. I was in the kitchen. 2 Q. Is Jesus’ office in the kitchen? 3 A. It’s near the kitchen. 4 Q. Okay. Were you in the office at the time 5 you saw them steal? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. Was Jesus there that day? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Was he there the next day? 10 A. No. 11 Q. All right. Did you tell anybody the next 12 day? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Why not? 15 A. Because I don’t — I forgot. 16 Q. You forgot to tell somebody? 17 A. (Nods head up and down.) 18 Q. When did you remember it? 19 A. Like — I don’t know. 20 Q. You said that he stold some plastic 21 crystals, little plastic crystals? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Explain what those are for me. 24 A. Like little — you know how crystals look, 25 they’re little plastic things. They’re, like, 26 shiny, and that’s all they are. They’re, like, 27 shiny balls, like crystals. 28 Q. And where were they from? 10889 1 A. From Jesus’ office in his drawer. 2 Q. And that was inside his office? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you were inside his office at the time? 5 A. I was at the kitchen. 6 Q. Were you able to see inside his office at 7 the time from where you were in the kitchen? 8 A. When they got out, I seen them with some 9 stuff, like I can see them juggling, like, crystals 10 and stuff. 11 Q. Did you know what they were, the crystals? 12 A. (Nods head up and down.) 13 Q. And you were able to get them; is that 14 right? You were able to see them? 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. And when did you seen them before? 17 A. Just then. And then Michael showed me what 18 they were, and so — 19 Q. Michael showed you? 20 A. So I knew what they were. 21 Q. Because — 22 A. Because he had some in his room. 23 Q. Because your cousin Michael had showed them 24 to you once before? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. And then you saw the boys take them? 27 A. (Nods head up and down.) 28 Q. Do you know if they returned them? 10890 1 A. No. 2 Q. How do you know? You don’t know if they did 3 or didn’t? 4 A. I don’t — 5 Q. So they might have returned them? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. Might have been just been playing with them? 8 A. (Nods head up and down.) 9 Q. Did you tell anybody about them taking the 10 crystals? 11 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 12 Q. Was that the same time they took the deck of 13 cards? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Were the deck — was the deck of cards there 16 for people to play with? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So they took it, and were they then playing 19 with the deck of cards? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you play with them with the deck of 22 cards, too? 23 A. No. 24 Q. The time that you went to Toys-R-Us, was 25 Gavin and Star with you? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. And you say that Michael stopped and picked 28 up some other kids? 10891 1 A. Some other people. 2 Q. Some other people. How old were they? 3 A. Like around his age, like twenties, 4 thirties. 5 Q. Like whose age? 6 A. Like twenties or thirties. 7 Q. Oh, they were older? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. So they weren’t kids? 10 A. No. 11 Q. They were adults? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And where were they? 14 A. They were like around his gate in the front 15 entrance. 16 Q. And you said, “like his age.” Do you mean 17 your cousin Michael? 18 A. (Nods head up and down.) 19 Q. Do you know how old your cousin Michael is? 20 A. 40. 21 Q. 40? 22 A. I think. 23 Q. Do you remember when it happened that they 24 were looking at the television show? Do you 25 remember if that was in March or in February? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Do you remember if it was right before they 28 left? 10892 1 A. No, I don’t remember. 2 Q. Did you ever talk with Michael about any of 3 these incidences, other than conversation you told 4 us about, them looking at the show? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you ever tell your mother about it? 7 A. Yes. And then she called Chris Carter. 8 Q. You said that you saw them walk out with 9 green paper? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. This was from the chef’s money? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you actually see that it was green paper 14 or money? 15 A. It was green, it was like — it looked like 16 green money — it looked like money, so — 17 Q. You didn’t see them take it; is that right? 18 A. Yeah, I seen them take it in their hand. 19 Q. Did you ever report any of this to anybody 20 at Neverland? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you know Jesus Salas? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you know Chris Carter? 25 A. Oh, I knew Jesus, yeah. I knew Jesus and 26 Chris Carter. 27 Q. You thought it was Jesus’ money that was 28 stolen; is that right? 10893 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Did you ever tell him? 3 A. And the chef’s money. 4 Q. You thought it was the chef’s money? 5 A. Yeah. Or — I don’t know whose money it 6 was. 7 Q. But didn’t you think there was something 8 stolen from Jesus Salas as well? 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. Did you tell Jesus Salas about that? 11 A. No, because I didn’t see him. 12 Q. Did you ever tell the chef about that? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Now, you said that he took some wine that 15 had been ordered by Michael? 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. Is that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. Were you up in his room when it 20 was ordered by Michael? 21 A. I was downstairs in his room. 22 Q. You were downstairs in his room. And where 23 was Michael at the time it was ordered? 24 A. He was upstairs, and then he ordered it, 25 because I could hear him upstairs, and then he went 26 to the bathroom, and he told the cook that — to 27 bring it upstairs, but Gavin and Star answered the 28 door. 10894 1 Q. Okay. So he brought it into the room while 2 Gavin was there, and while Star was there, and while 3 you were there; is that right? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. Okay. And he ordered it while you were 6 there, and while Gavin was there, and while Star was 7 there? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And you expected that he would 10 bring — that they would bring wine to the room 11 while you were there; is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And your cousin Michael knew that you were 14 there, and Gavin was there, and Star was there; is 15 that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So you’re telling us that as soon as they 18 delivered it, Gavin and Star grabbed the wine and 19 left? 20 A. They grabbed the wine from the door, and 21 then they took it upstairs, and then like a few 22 minutes later, I don’t know how many, but they came 23 downstairs and ran out the door. 24 Q. So they took the wine? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. And they went upstairs? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. And upstairs is where your cousin Michael’s 10895 1 bed is; is that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. So they were upstairs with your 4 cousin Michael and with the wine? 5 A. No, Michael was downstairs. 6 Q. All right. Michael was downstairs when the 7 wine was delivered? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So Michael saw that the wine was delivered? 10 A. No. He was in the bathroom. 11 Q. He was in the bathroom when the wine was 12 delivered? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. All right. So they took the wine upstairs 15 to the bedroom; is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And your cousin Michael stayed in the 18 bathroom? 19 A. No, because he ordered it, and then he said, 20 “I’ll be right back, because I’m going to go to the 21 bathroom.” 22 And so the cook brang — he took it to the 23 door, and then Gavin and Star took it upstairs while 24 Michael was in the bathroom. 25 Q. Okay. 26 A. And then like a couple minutes later, they 27 took it outside. Or they — they — they ran 28 outside with no — with no wine. 10896 1 Q. They ran outside what? 2 A. With no wine. 3 Q. I didn’t hear that last word. 4 A. No wine. 5 Q. Oh. They did take the wine outside? 6 A. No, they didn’t. 7 Q. So the kids left the wine in the room? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. So they didn’t take the wine? 10 A. Michael’s — they took it upstairs. 11 Q. We’re going to start from the beginning a 12 little bit, because this is my doing, not yours. 13 This is not your problem, this is my problem, all 14 right? I’m having a little hard time understanding 15 this. So let’s see if we can just start at the 16 beginning and make it clear. 17 Michael ordered wine to be delivered to the 18 room? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. At the time he ordered the wine, you were 21 there, Gavin was there, and Star was there? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Michael then said, “I’m going into the 24 bathroom”? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. He went into the bathroom knowing that wine 27 was going to be delivered to the room? 28 A. Yes. 10897 1 Q. He knew the three of you were in the room; 2 is that right? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. The wine was delivered while the three of 5 you were in the room? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What time was it? 8 A. It was nighttime. 9 Q. How late at night? 10 A. I don’t remember. 11 Q. It’s — I’m sorry, go ahead. 12 A. What? 13 Q. I asked you if you knew how late it was at 14 night. Do you know? 15 A. No. 16 Q. It’s true, isn’t it, that when you stay with 17 your cousin Michael, sometimes you stay up all 18 night, don’t you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Because he likes to stay up all night? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. It’s fun to be with him all night long, 23 isn’t it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Because you do things all night long. 26 A. Uh-huh. 27 Q. So when that wine was delivered, it could 28 have been very, very late at night, couldn’t it? 10898 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Well past the time you normally go to bed; 3 no? 4 A. I think, yeah. 5 Q. Do you remember if it was well past the time 6 you normally go to bed when this wine was delivered? 7 A. It was, yes, I think. 8 Q. Do you remember who it was who delivered the 9 wine? Was it somebody you knew? 10 A. It was Angel. 11 Q. It was Angel who brought it. Angel Vivanco? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Did he bring it with glasses? 14 A. Yeah, he brang it with one glass and a 15 bottle. 16 Q. Just one glass? And when it came in, the 17 wine and the glass, did Angel put it down in the 18 room? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. And when he put it down, was Star and Gavin 21 in the room? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you were in the room? 24 A. I was downstairs, so — 25 Q. So Star and Gavin were upstairs? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. But when Angel brought it in, he brought it 28 in downstairs, didn’t he? 10899 1 A. (Nods head up and down.) 2 Q. “Yes”? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You have to answer out loud, if you would. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did Angel then take the bottle of wine 7 upstairs? 8 A. No, he set it downstairs and then Star and 9 Gavin took it upstairs. 10 Q. Okay. And was Michael in the bathroom 11 downstairs or the bathroom upstairs? 12 A. Downstairs. 13 Q. He was downstairs in the bathroom? 14 A. (Nods head up and down.) 15 Q. Did you tell Michael when he was in the 16 bathroom that the wine had been delivered? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You told him it had been delivered, okay, 19 and what did he say? 20 A. He said, “Okay. I’ll be right there.” 21 Q. Okay. And meanwhile, Gavin and Star were 22 upstairs; is that right? 23 A. Yes, and then they left. 24 Q. With the bottle, with a bottle of wine? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Was the wine open or closed? 27 A. It was closed. 28 Q. Do you remember if it was a bottle of red 10900 1 wine or a bottle of white wine? 2 A. White wine. 3 Q. Do you know if there was a bottle opener 4 with it? 5 A. I don’t — I think so, but I don’t know. 6 Q. You’re not certain? 7 A. I’m not sure. 8 Q. But you remember it was definitely closed at 9 the time? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So nobody had uncorked the bottle; is that 12 right? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Okay. Now, while you were there on the 15 first floor, did Gavin and Star then come back 16 downstairs? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And is it true that if you are 19 upstairs in the bedroom in your cousin Michael’s 20 suite, that you can’t leave from there without going 21 downstairs; is that right? 22 A. Ri — what do you mean? 23 Q. If you were upstairs in the bedroom, you 24 have to come downstairs before you can leave the 25 suite? 26 A. Yeah. 27 Q. So they would have had to have come back 28 downstairs to have left the suite? 10901 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And did they come downstairs? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And did they come downstairs with the bottle 5 of wine? 6 A. No. 7 Q. All right. Where was the bottle of wine? 8 A. It was upstairs for Michael. 9 Q. They left it upstairs? 10 A. Yes, because he was going back up to his 11 room. 12 Q. So Gavin and Star came downstairs? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. The bottle of wine stayed upstairs, and 15 Gavin and Star then left? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Okay. Then Michael Jackson came out of the 18 bathroom? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And Gavin and Star were gone? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Did you then go upstairs with your 23 cousin Michael? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you spend the rest of the night with 26 your cousin Michael — 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. — upstairs? 10902 1 Was the wine still there? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Was it still corked, still closed? 4 A. I don’t know. 5 Q. Well, was it already open when you got 6 upstairs? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I’m sorry? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So it was already opened. And was it 11 finished? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So was there some missing? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So they were the only two who were upstairs; 16 is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So they took the bottle of wine, they opened 19 it and they had a drink; is that right? 20 A. I — I’m not sure if they drank it or not. 21 Q. Well, some was missing, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So they either drank it or they poured it 24 out; is that right? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Now, did you talk with Michael about that? 27 A. No, because I wasn’t sure that they drank it 28 or not. Because — 10903 1 Q. You weren’t sure that they drank it? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Well, was anybody else up there? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did Michael seem upset that there was some 6 wine missing from the bottle? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did he ask you about why wine was missing 9 from the bottle? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did he know that the only other two people 12 who were there were Gavin and Star? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And did he say something to you 15 about, “Boy, those rascals, they just get into the 16 wine whenever they can”? 17 A. No. 18 Q. He didn’t say anything like that? 19 A. Huh-uh. 20 Q. Did you tell him that the boys had taken the 21 bottle of wine upstairs? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you tell Michael that? 24 And did you tell him that when they took it 25 upstairs the bottle was sealed? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Okay. Did your cousin Michael seem upset 28 about that, that it was opened? 10904 1 A. (Shakes head from side to side.) 2 Q. He thought it was okay? 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. And — 5 A. Because he might have thought that the cook 6 opened it for him. 7 Q. He might have thought that? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. But you told him that it was closed when it 10 was delivered; no? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And even if the cook had opened it, would 13 the cook drink some of that bottle of wine? 14 A. No. 15 Q. So it was probably the boys who drank the 16 wine, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That’s probably what your cousin Michael 19 thought, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. But you didn’t have a discussion with him 22 about that? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You didn’t — now, when you were up there 25 with that bottle of wine, was that before or after 26 that incident that took place in the guest room with 27 the television and the naked lady on the television? 28 A. It was after — I don’t remember. 10905 1 Q. You’re not sure? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was it before or after you had seen the boys 4 stealing money? 5 A. It was — it was after, I think. 6 Q. You think it was after that? 7 Okay. So you were with Michael Jackson that 8 entire night; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And during that time, did you tell your 11 cousin Michael that the boys had stolen money? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Was there a reason you didn’t? 14 A. No. 15 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions. 16 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MESEREAU: 19 Q. Rijo, at the time that you saw the Arvizos 20 run out of Michael’s room before he came out of the 21 bathroom, you were nine years old; is that right? 22 Were you ten? 23 A. I think I was ten. 24 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions. 25 MR. ZONEN: I have no questions. 26 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may 27 step down. 28 Call your next witness. 10906 1 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor, the defense 2 will call Michelle Jackson. 3 THE COURT: Please remain standing, face the 4 clerk here and raise your right hand. 5 6 MICHELLE HENRIETTE JACKSON 7 Having been sworn, testified as follows: 8 9 THE WITNESS: I do. 10 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and 11 spell your name for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: Michelle Jackson. 13 M-i-c-h-e-l-l-e. Henriette is my middle name, 14 H-e-n-r-i-e-t-t-e. Jackson, J-a-c-k-s-o-n. 15 THE CLERK: Thank you. 16 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MESEREAU: 19 Q. Good morning, Miss Jackson. 20 A. Hi. 21 Q. Miss Jackson, do you know the fellow seated 22 at counsel table to my right? 23 A. Yes, I do. 24 Q. Who is he? 25 A. He’s my nephew, Michael. 26 Q. Okay. And — excuse me. Pardon me. 27 Do you know Simone Jackson? 28 A. Yes, she’s my granddaughter. 10907 1 Q. Do you know Rijo Jackson? 2 A. Yeah, he’s my grandson. 3 Q. Okay. And have you ever been to Neverland 4 Ranch? 5 A. Yes, I have. 6 Q. Been there many times? 7 A. Yes, I have. 8 Q. Okay. And where is your home? 9 A. My home is in Lompoc. 10 Q. Okay. Do you recall ever meeting Janet 11 Arvizo? 12 A. Pardon? 13 Q. Do you recall ever meeting Janet Arvizo? 14 A. I have never met. 15 Q. Do you recall meeting the Arvizo family at 16 Neverland? 17 A. I have met the children. 18 Q. Okay. Who did you meet? Did you meet 19 Gavin? 20 A. I have met Davellin, and I have met Gavin, 21 and I have met Star. 22 Q. Okay. And do you know approximately when 23 you met them? 24 A. During the time that the children was there. 25 It was around the time that Prince was supposed to 26 have a birthday party sometime. 27 Q. Would this be 2003, do you think? 28 A. Yeah. 10908 1 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately what month? 2 A. February. 3 Q. February or March? Okay. Okay. And did 4 you attend the party for Prince? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to Gavin about a 7 trip to Brazil? 8 A. Yes, I have. 9 Q. And did Gavin say anything to you about a 10 trip to Brazil? 11 A. I was introduced to the children by my 12 granddaughter. She introduced me to Davellin first. 13 Then Gavin came in the kitchen, and she introduced 14 me to Gavin. And she told me they were waiting 15 there for going on a trip. And I asked — 16 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to a 17 commentary from her as hearsay. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. 19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who told you about a trip? 20 A. Simone. 21 Q. Did you ever talk to Gavin about this trip? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What did Gavin say? 24 MR. ZONEN: Objection; hearsay. 25 THE COURT: Overruled. 26 You may answer. 27 THE WITNESS: Gavin told me, “We don’t want 28 to go to Brazil. This is my mother who wants to go. 10909 1 We want to stay here.” 2 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as to 3 multiple hearsay. 4 THE COURT: Sustained. 5 MR. ZONEN: Motion to strike. 6 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last sentence. 7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Gavin tell you why 8 they were planning to go to Brazil? 9 A. He told me his mother wanted to go. 10 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Move to strike; 11 hearsay. 12 THE COURT: Stricken. 13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever talk to 14 Davellin about Brazil? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. Now, your granddaughter is Simone; is 17 that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And was Simone there when you spoke to Gavin 20 about the Brazil trip? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And did you ask Gavin whether or not 23 his mother wanted to go to Brazil? 24 MR. ZONEN: I’m — objection. 25 THE COURT: Sustained. 26 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions. 27 // 28 // 10910 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. ZONEN: 3 Q. Miss Jackson, good morning. 4 A. Hi. 5 Q. When was that that you were at Neverland and 6 had that conversation with Gavin? 7 A. Around February, March. I’m not exactly 8 the — I don’t know — I don’t remember exactly the 9 dates. 10 Q. Did you go to Neverland on a number of 11 occasions during February and March? 12 A. Yes, I have. 13 Q. On all the occasions that you went to 14 Neverland during February and March, did you see 15 either Gavin or Star? 16 A. This is the only time that I was talking 17 about just before now that I saw the children when I 18 was introduced to them. 19 Q. You have no recollection of ever seeing 20 those children on any other occasion at Neverland? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. And you went to Neverland on how many 23 occasions during February and March? 24 A. Maybe three, four times. Maybe more. 25 Q. Maybe more? 26 A. Yeah. 27 Q. When you went on those occasions, did you 28 spend the night there? 10911 1 A. No. 2 Q. You would only go during the day and then 3 leave? 4 A. Yes, I would go and check on my 5 grandchildren. 6 Q. You would accompany your grandchildren when 7 they went? 8 A. No. I would go from work to the ranch, to 9 check on my grandchildren to see if they had 10 baseball practice. 11 Q. You would check on — you would go to the 12 ranch to see if your grandchildren were there? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Because sometimes they had baseball 15 practice? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. And you would have to pick them up at the 18 ranch to take them to — 19 A. And take them to Lompoc to practice. 20 Q. Did you know before going to ranch whether 21 or not your grandchildren had baseball practice or 22 not? 23 A. No. No, I can’t keep up with everything 24 with my grandchildren, you know. 25 Q. So you would have to go to the ranch — 26 A. Right, from work. 27 Q. One of the problems is that my question has 28 to finish before you start your answer, or we make 10912 1 the court reporter crazy. 2 A. Sorry. 3 Q. Okay? So if you can just wait till the 4 question’s done and then you can answer. 5 Did you know in advance of going to the 6 ranch whether or not the kids had practice? 7 A. Sometimes. 8 Q. Sometimes. Okay. And how did you know when 9 they were at the ranch? 10 A. I knew everything that my grandchildren do. 11 Q. So somebody told you in advance; is that 12 right? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do they live with you, your grandchildren? 15 A. Sometime. 16 Q. Did you know that they were at the ranch 17 because they were living with you at the time they 18 went to the ranch? 19 A. No, it’s because I do a lot of driving. My 20 daughter can’t do a lot of driving. I do all the 21 driving for her and I drive the children a lot of 22 place. 23 Q. Okay. She can’t drive because she works? 24 A. No, because she had injury in the neck. 25 Q. All right. So you do all the driving to get 26 the kids around? 27 A. Yes, sir. 28 Q. All right. Now, on only one occasion did 10913 1 you meet Gavin? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you never met his brother Star? 4 A. Yes, I did. The same day. 5 Q. The same day. Did you meet their sister 6 Davellin? 7 A. Yes, I did. 8 Q. Did you meet their mother Janet? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you know if she was there? 11 A. I didn’t know. I didn’t ask. 12 Q. Did you talk to any of them about why they 13 were there? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Was it during the week? 16 A. Yeah. LikeLike
  46. November 24, 2010 7:15 pm

    “Feldman said he wanted a doctor “to examine Jackson,” presumably to corroborate the boy’s descriptions of Jackson’s genitalia. In court Tuesday, Jackson’s lawyers were denied a six-year delay of the lawsuit, a period after which criminal charges could not be brought.”

    Shelly, I think this article belongs as a comment on part 3 of Larry’s speech because it confirms everything said there (could you shift it there please? – https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-part-3/).

    Firsly, this article proves that a month before the strip search Larry Feldman wanted a doctor to examine Michael’s genitalia – so the strip search WAS Larry Feldman’s idea.

    And secondly, it shows again the wrong interpretation the media gives to that SIX YEAR PERIOD. It says “Jackson’s lawyers were denied a six-year delay of the lawsuit”.

    SO WHAT if they asked for it? Michael’s lawyers asked for the CIVIL SUIT to be delayed and it doesn’t matter whether it was by 6, 10 or a hundred years! Civil suits are about money only and people don’t go into prison under the civil law!

    Michael’s lawyers insisted on a delay in a civil suit because they wanted criminal proceedings to go first – which means that Michael was willingly taking the risk of going into prison. And if a person is found guilty in a criminal court it doesn’t matter by how many years the civil suit is delayed – the person is in jail ANYWAY!

    It is different if the defense attorney asks for the civil case to be brought first – then he can hope that the civil suit may take as long as 6 years and THEN no criminal charges can be brought against the defendant and he cannot be tried in court.

    But if the defense attorney asks for his defendant to be tried in a criminal court first, all this talk about 6 years after which “criminal charges cannot be brought” is completely absurd.

    The 6-year idea was dropped by Larry Feldman to the media and the press – according to Feldman – “loved it and picked it up” without even looking into what they were saying!

    Like

  47. November 24, 2010 6:41 pm

    Lynette: “A more perfect example would be the testimony of Michael’s young cousin Rio Jackson when he testified on the stand that the Arvizo boys were masturbating together to porn in the guest house and asked him to join them”.

    Newspapers reported then:

    “Rijo Jackson told jurors that he walked in on the boy and his brother in a guest unit at Neverland in early 2003 and caught them masturbating. Dressed in a grey suit, with his long black hair tied back, the boy, who could barely reach the microphone, testified: “I saw them go to the TV and turn to the channel that had naked girls and then they were doing nasty stuff.”

    “What nasty stuff?” Mr. Mesereau prodded the boy.

    “Jacking off and stuff,” Rijo responded. “They said, why don’t you do that with me? I said I didn’t want to because it was nasty.”

    The boy’s testimony contradicted that of the 15-year-old accuser, who said he didn’t know how to masturbate until the entertainer allegedly did it to him in early March 2003.

    Rijo said he told Mr. Jackson about the movie the boys were watching, “but he didn’t believe it. He said they were good and wouldn’t do that.” http://www.jacksonaction.com/index.php?page=search.php&id=4675&search=
    =========================
    Another article says:

    Thursday, May 19, 2005
    Rijo Jackson, a cousin of Michael Jackson, testified today in Jackson’s trial. He stated that he saw Gavin and Star Arvizo fondle themselves in a guest cottage at Neverland.

    Rijo Jackson said that he stayed with the brothers one night in 2003 when they turned a television to a station showing naked women, began masturbating and suggested that he do the same.

    Rijo didn’t join in, and said that he went to Michael Jackson’s bedroom to sleep after the incident.

    Rijo also testified that he once saw the Arvizo boys take wine that had been delivered to Jackson’s master bedroom. He said the wine was delivered to the downstairs area of the room and they offered to take it upstairs.

    Rijo said that Michael Jackson was in a bathroom when chef’s assistant Angel Vivanco brought in the wine, with the cork still in the bottle. He said the brothers took the wine upstairs and that when he next saw the bottle the cork was removed and some of the wine was gone.

    Rijo also testified that he saw the brothers steal items from drawers, including money belonging to a chef. He also said he saw them run out of ranch manager Jesus Salas’ office with money he believed they had taken.
    http://michaeljacksonstrial.blogspot.com/2005_05_15_archive.html

    Like

  48. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2010 6:21 pm

    I just found that article from USA Today Date: Nov 24, 1993

    “Michael Jackson moved closer to a courtroom Tuesday, as a judge set a March 21 trial in a civil suit brought by a 13-year-old boy who alleges the star molested him.

    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman also ordered the singer to provide his version of events in a sworn deposition by Jan. 31.

    Meanwhile, a Santa Barbara County grand jury has been called to hear witnesses and consider “serious evidence” in a separate criminal investigation involving the reclusive star, said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.

    Santa Barbara officials were unavailable.

    No word on whether Los Angeles County – where police are investigating and no criminal charges have been made – will call its own grand jury investigation. Jackson’s Neverland Ranch is in Santa Barbara County; the boy lives in L.A.

    Feldman said Jackson attorney Bert Fields “told me I could see Mr. Jackson if I apologized to the world.”

    Instead, Feldman said he wanted a doctor “to examine Jackson,” presumably to corroborate the boy’s descriptions of Jackson’s genitalia.

    In court Tuesday, Jackson’s lawyers were denied a six-year delay of the lawsuit, a period after which criminal charges could not be brought.

    Fields would not confirm reports Jackson is in a London clinic after canceling his world tour Nov. 12, and would not say if Jackson would return to the USA for his deposition.

    Feldman applauded the trial date, saying the boy’s therapist “says any delay will cause emotional harm.”

    Like

  49. November 24, 2010 5:32 pm

    “I think you’re right about Evan not claiming any abuse happened at the Ranch because MJ could have had security tapes to disprove the allegations.’

    JA, I remember that Evan was terribly concerned about Michael’s house being wired. If you read the tapescript of his conversation with Dave Schwartz you’ll see how many times he returns to that idea. And if he thought that it could be wired for recording some conversations he could equally be sure that video equipment could be installed there for security purposes. Victor Gutierrez (and Diane Dimond) also thought that way as they came up with that fictional story of a video tape no one has ever seen.

    Here is the an excerpt from the tapescript:

    3 MR. CHANDLER: What if I told you their
    4 house was wired?
    5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    6 MR. CHANDLER: Does that make a
    7 difference?
    8 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
    9 MR. CHANDLER: I’m not saying it is.
    10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    11 MR. CHANDLER: I’m just saying, “What
    12 if it was?”
    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, well –
    14 MR. CHANDLER: Would that — would
    15 you — could you see the [tape irregularity].
    16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Then you want to
    17 record it.
    18 MR. CHANDLER: Let’s just say that it
    19 is.
    20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    21 MR. CHANDLER: Let’s just say that.
    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/evan-chandler-and-david-schwarz-full-transcript/

    Like

  50. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2010 5:20 pm

    Thirteen year old boys are a lot more sex savvy than you think. These were not 6-10 year old boys relaying a story. I know it may be difficult forpeople from other countries to believe this but 13-14 year old boys get 13-14 year girls pregnant here and often. It is a fact that our society mostly through our entertainment industry breeds this kind of behavior in our youth.Just an example of when the schools here teach their kids good touch bad touch regarding adults. My daughter was in first grade when I got the note telling me that the school was promoting a program to educate the kids about how an adult should touch them. I thought it was a wonderful idea and even offered to reinforce their teaching at home or to teach the class myself because I could as the school nurse was the one that would do it. Again the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong touch cannot be mutually exclusive to the concept of sex. The child has to be taught a basic idea of sex before they can protect themselves from unwanted sex. My daughter is now 36 years old so the education has been out there for at least 30 years. In this country very few parents speak openly about sex to their children. It is embarrassing to both parties and is often not addressed until after the fact. For this reason I still believe that it should be done by a trained medical professional like a school nurse who is ready to answer the questions factually.
    What is wrong with Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond is that they either did not know or chose not to know that their son or daughter were learning this somewhere from someone.A more perfect example would be the testimony of Michael’s young cousin Rio Jackson when he testified on the stand that the Arvizo boys were masturbating together to porn in the guest house and asked him to join them. You should read his testimony sometime and remember this: If not for a few months Gavin would have been 14 when this occured and he would have been the one charged with a sex crime because Rio was 10.

    Like

  51. November 24, 2010 4:53 pm

    Helena,
    I think you’re right about Evan not claiming any abuse happened at the Ranch because MJ could have had security tapes to disprove the allegations.

    The media and the Prosecutors have claimed for years that MJ only had sinister reasons for building the ranch. Implying that the security alarms and “secret” rooms proved that he was up to no good. But until Gavin Arvizo, no child ever alleged any abuse happened at the Ranch. This further proves that the media had their own agenda when covering the allegations. And the truth wasn’t part of it.

    Like

  52. visitor permalink
    November 24, 2010 12:25 pm

    Is it just me that thinks that there are o lot of similarities between the Arvizo and Chandler story?

    Lets see:

    1)Both boys at the beging said that Michael had done nothing to them
    2)Both boys said that they weren’t afraid of Michael, infact they kept wanting to be around him even though Michael suposedly was molesting them
    3)Both boys had something to do with movies or wanted to work in that field. Jordan had helped his father write that screenplay and if i am not wrong he wanted to become an actor or something like that. Gavin wanted to to become an actor also.
    4)Non of the boys said that there was sex going on. The physical act i mean. I wonder why?
    5)Same attorney, same psychologist, same DA
    6)Βoth boys gave graphic details of the alleged abuse and the police believed them. Because how is possible a adolescent know so many things regarding sex? It’s not possible.(I am telling you Maureen and Diane you are absolutely right, it’s not possible)
    7)Parents who had a special love for money,they were greedy and ambitious
    8)Reading Jordie’s conversation with the psycologist in that site ,which some people think that it belong to Ray Chandler , and reading Gavind cross examination by Meserau for me is like seeing two boys who are pissed with Michael. Not afraid, not hurt, not embarassed but only pissed and vindictive.

    Oh and i would like to say this: Michael Jackson, the man who, according to his detractors, paid everyone to shut up about his perverted relationship with boys, who could do anything in his life without anybody stop him (according to M. Orth and DD), couldn’t have his lawyers find a way to stop the body search if he though that it would incriminate him in some way?

    Like

  53. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2010 11:47 am

    There were probably other kids at Neverland during the same time. June said she saw Culkin, Robson and Barnes. Jordan was probably not alone with MJ when he was at Neverland. I think even Ryan White’s mother said she saw the Chandler. They needed a place where nobody could testify against them.

    Like

  54. November 24, 2010 10:29 am

    “I always thought it was weird that Jordan never claimed the actual alleged abuse occurred at the ranch. I wondered why they never made that claim. It had to be a reason for that.”

    JA, the possible reason may be Evan’s fear to ‘overdo’ it too much. Evan was sure that Michael was wiring everything around him (remember his conversation with Dave Schwartz). He could be afraid that Neverland had a secret video system installed which could be recording everything. So if he had said that some molestation took place there the other side could have provided a video disproval of that – so to be on the safe side they shifted all their ‘molestation scenes’ to places where they knew there could be no such equipment – June’s home, Evan Chandler’s house, some hotels, etc.

    We should always remember that we have nothing but THEIR WORD that something ‘terrible’ happened. And though Evan was a kind of a man who could wire tape his own home to obtain something incriminating he didn’t get any physical evidence that way either. Just think of it- even in case of Evan seeing MJ and Jordan sleeping in one bed we have only Evan’s WORD for it – no video, no photo, no nothing – only what he says.

    Like

  55. November 24, 2010 10:18 am

    “I used to think that Geraldine Hughes and Mary Fischer’s stories were mutually exclusive; only one of them could be correct about whether sodium amytal was used. But after reading your comment, you may be correct. It probably was used, and Hughes saw Rothman reinforcing it to Jordan!!”

    David, I agree – that was a good point from Lynette. We only need to specify the exact dates for the conversation with Rothman and the supposed delivery of sodium amytal and see which came first.

    Like

  56. November 24, 2010 10:15 am

    “He really said that they had no evidence?”

    Moreover, even Victor Gutierrez in his MJWML nonsense book says that the police interviewed Evan Chandler (and evidently examined all his evidence) and couldn’t find anything proving his allegations. Evan Chandler was terribly upset about it because he felt they suspected him of an extortion.

    Like

  57. November 24, 2010 10:09 am

    “He was working for Jordan ( though personally I think it was more for himself because he was the one that came out with most of the money).”

    Yes, Lynette, Larry Feldman was determined to win the case as his fee was high (20-25%? as Ray Chandler’s book tells us – I remember Dave Schwartz having a quarrel with Larry Feldman over that amount). Michael had hundreds of millions, so the more money they could prove he had the more they could demand of him – that is why he requested all Michael’s financial papers to review his financial situation. The way I understand it at the time nobody yet knew to what sum they would eventually come.

    Those two newspapers of January 11, 1994 recently posted said that, ” Feldman was said he needed time to study Jackson’s net worth, which includes real estate, the Beatles song catalog and other difficult-to-value assets”. He wanted to do that because he and the “defense” attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas were discussing nothing but the sum.

    And all the documents he attached to his request for the financial papers were a kind of heavy-gun artillery for blackmailing the other side – Jordan’s declaration, Francia’s deposition, the driver’s deposition (about “30 days”), etc. In short Larry Feldman was pressurizing Michael with everything he got against him not “to seek justice” for the boy, but in order to increase the sum of the settlement. And the second team of Michael’s lawyers was not defending Michael’s innocence either – the most they were doing for him at that stage was bargaining about the sum.

    This is probably why Larry Feldman says that both sides had a lot of “convincing” to do – Michael’s lawyers were pursuading him to settle and not go to criminal trial and seek justice there, and Larry Feldman was pursuading the Chandlers to agree to the sums suggested by the other side.

    Like

  58. November 24, 2010 9:51 am

    “I think Feldman said it himself “When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson”

    Hello, guys. The fact that Larry Feldman said it himself is all the more valuable to us – it was most probably Larry Feldman who suggested it, though it was only the police who could do that.

    Like

  59. Suzy permalink
    November 24, 2010 7:15 am

    @ Lynette

    Ray/Evan Chandler says that Evan never spoke to his son about it again once he said yes. No, that’s right, but Barry Rothman did, didn’t he?

    Didn’t what Geraldine Hughes said about Jordan in Rothman’s office precede the tooth pulling?

    Like

  60. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2010 4:17 am

    No you can’t refuse a search warrant it is considered obstruction of justice.

    Like

  61. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2010 4:09 am

    In this situation probably not. He was given informatoin in a certain descending order. Certain parts of it were put into certain existing memories. That proves Evan’s intent when he gave the drug was to implant the memories. Don’t forget that Evan was a dentist. They are considered a health care professional and all health care professionals are mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. That means we don’t have to be right. It means we can report it if we just suspect it and not worry about the legal ramifications or in other words we can’t be sued if we are wrong. If Evan had really suspected that Jordan had been molested he could have reported it himself and the investigation would have started without a lawyer for him or Jordan. The police would have gone straight to Jordan and June to question them. He would not have needed to take him to see Dr. Abrams. If he just thought it he could have done it himself without worry. So why all the subterfuge, the lawyer and Dr. Abrams? Why does Jordans Declaration read just like the list of the possible laws that could be broken if this were occuring. That list is in ATG and is probaly the second page from Dr. Abrams reply to the phone call about a hypothetical situation. Also Evan had a little over a month to think up the scenarios from the time he asked Michael to build him a house or bring him in as a partner in his business deal til the time he got Jordan. I don’t know for certain if he was bipolar or if he was just the worlds biggest and most evil asshole.

    Like

  62. November 24, 2010 3:47 am

    If Michael had refused the search warrant could he have been arrested? I remember watching an episode of Law & Order SVU, and the case was a he said she said. In the end the audience was left to decide because the allege victim and the defendant both were equally strong and weak. In that case a girl was alleging that she was rape, and the man said it was consensual, but both had to submit to strip searches. The man did not want to take off his shorts, but det. Stabler said he had to. The detectives were searching for signs of a struggle on his body. Can someone really refuse a search warrant and not be arrested? Just asking.

    Like

  63. November 24, 2010 3:22 am

    What if Evan Chandler did believe in his mind that Jordan was molested, despite Jordan saying otherwise. It could be a situation whereby he & Mark Torbiner gave Jordan the Sodium Amytal in hopes of extracting the truth, but it backfired. EC could have been asking Jordan incessantly: Did Michael ever touch you, did Michael masterbate you, did Michael kiss you, etc etc? That too could have implanted false memories. After all Evan was bipolar.

    Like

  64. November 24, 2010 3:02 am

    The search warrant of MJ’s person was legal because technically he could choose to undergo it or not. If he would have refused the search, then the prosecutors and police would have argued that an innocent man would have subjected himself to that humiliation if he was truly innocent. That is what MJ was talking about when he said “if I refused, they said they can use it against me” in his video tape statement from the ranch after the search. They could not have arrested him for refusing to undergo the strip search. The reason MJ went through it is because that argument by the Prosecutors and police would have made its way to the media and the public. MJ didn’t want any reporters or journalists or his fans to fall for that argument, so he subjected himself to the strip search. Since he was a public figure, he needed his public to believe in him. He really didn’t have a choice, although technically he did.

    @ lynande51

    I always thought it was weird that Jordan never claimed the actual alleged abuse occurred at the ranch. I wondered why they never made that claim. It had to be a reason for that.

    I believe Larry Feldman suggested the strip search, but he did not have the power to order it. The police and the prosecutors are the only one’s who could do that.

    Like

  65. lcpledwards permalink
    November 24, 2010 2:15 am

    @ Lynette
    I used to think that Geraldine Hughes and Mary Fischer’s stories were mutually exclusive; only one of them could be correct about whether sodium amytal was used. But after reading your comment, you may be correct. It probably was used, and Hughes saw Rothman reinforcing it to Jordan!! Fischer seemed pretty adamant about it in her Nov. 2003 interview with Greta Van Susteren from Fox News, which debunks the myth that our adversary said about Fischer retracting her GQ article after MJ was arrested again. The audio of her interview is in the link below.

    I think that they planted the molestation memories in Jordie’s mind, which were then embedded with the REAL memories of being in all of those hotels with MJ, and remembering all of those details (such as the design of the rooms, paintings on the walls, etc.) In Ray Chandler’s so-called “rebuttal” to the GQ article, he asked how Evan could have possibly implanted the memories of those hotels when he wasn’t there, and the answer to that question is that HE DIDN’T HAVE TO IMPLANT THOSE MEMORIES!

    Just to remind everyone again, in case some of you didn’t see this video the first time, open this link and scroll to the bottom to see the 1994 60 Minutes episode on false memory implantations involving hypnosis and sodium amytal. Also, check out the video of Meredith Maran, who falsely accused her father of abuse after having the memories implanted in her as well. You can google her for more info on her story!

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/sodium-amytal-for-jordan-chandler/

    Like

  66. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2010 12:33 am

    Exactly! There was nothing. Now go read the part where Evan supposedly asks Dr. Mathis Abrams if he believes Jordan.Why would he ask that?

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2010 12:02 am

    He really said that they had no evidence?

    Like

  68. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:41 pm

    Shelly yes he did say that in ATG. The most interesting part is that is also where he says that they realized that if the description didn’t match it didn’t matter because of the vitiligo changing all the time. When Feldman petitioned the court for a copy of the photos or the mulitple choice of doing them again or having them barred from the civil case was his litigation. He already knew by that time that there was no match to the description. We have to remember that Larry was Jordans lawyer not Evan’s. He was working for Jordan ( though personally I think it was more for himself because he was the one that came out with most of the money). Once Michael Jackson was searched, examined and photographed but not arrested he knew he had a problem.

    Like

  69. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:25 pm

    From Ray Chandler

    ““It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand “

    Like

  70. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:20 pm

    I am not sure but I think Ray Chandler said in his book that Jordan spend several hours in Feldman’s office detailing MJ’s private part.

    Like

  71. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:11 pm

    By the way, I just found that statement from Ray chandler

    ”It’s like going up against Goliath. Who will believe you? If you’re a parent and your kid was molested and you have no proof other than the kid’s word — what do you do?”

    http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297591_2,00.html

    Like

  72. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:09 pm

    @vindicate

    I think Feldman said it himself

    “When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson because the young boy made allegations about his physical and private parts, we had to describe them in detail in order to show why we were entitled to these pictures. So we litigated it hard, but clearly within the rules of litigation”

    Like

  73. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2010 11:03 pm

    Jordan gave his original description on September 1st 1993 to Lauren Weis Deputy Disctrict Attorney of LA County and Detective Deborah Linden. He supposedly gave another description by mail to Tom Sneddon or the Santa Barbara Sheriffs investigators.the search was perfectly legal. That is where that ridicuous drawing came to be. It was submitted on October 24th. The Judge that signed the search warrant was from Santa Barbara. Sneddon made no announcement and the judge issues the search based on a police affadavit not a DA request. A DA can request an extension to a search warrant. No Larry Feldman could not have requested a strip search or have a warrant issued based on a civil case, it had to come from the criminal case.The search was perfectly legal. the police were told that a crime had been committed and the went to gather the evidence that may or may not affirm that that crime occured. The circumstances that the strip was conducted under were unusual but they were accomodating Michael’s request.The police could have gone to Neverland with a warrant and had Michael taken to the police station but Sneddon and Garcetti arranged it through Cochran and Weitzman. Another thing that is important to note is that Jordan never said anything past kissing happened at Neverland in anything that was official. It all happened somewhere else, Monaco, Disneyland,New York, Las Vegas, his fathers house or his mothers house. The information that any kind of abuse occured at Neverland came from third party witnesses,like Ralph Chacon, Kasim Abdool, Bianca Francia, the Quindoys and Lemarques.These people all said they saw things happen but they also included other children in it. This is why Sneddon was so hot to go after Brett. Brett was there when Neverland was raided. Sneddon like any other shark went for the blood in the water both times. He was angry when Brett, Wade and Mac all denied abuse. Thequestion is why did he seem to take this so personally? .

    Like

  74. November 23, 2010 11:00 pm

    “My understanding was Sneddon requested and was granted the search warrant off of Linden’s affidavit. Now I am hearing that Feldman caused this to happen. Maybe I misunderstood?

    Dial, Larry Feldman could be working in cooperation with the prosecution here – after all their cases were parallel. And his own admission “when we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson and take pictures of him…” shows he played an active part in the process.

    And it doesn’t contradict his unwillingness to have a possible indictment of MJ at all. You remember Larry Feldman saying in Ray Chandler’s book that he was balancing between not telling too much to the police (not to provoke an indictment and thus let the criminal case go forward) and feeding them enough information so that they do what he expects of them.

    And your questions surely need to be looked into (if we find the information).

    Like

  75. Olga permalink
    November 23, 2010 10:45 pm

    @Helena you said it correctly. The “description” idea came form pressure in Chandler- Feldman camp. They had to move fast to get a settlement under public humiliation. It’s funny it took them soooooo long to ask the “witness” about a full description. Timing was everything in 1993 as well & timing narrates an interesting story about Chandler-Feldman fictions as well as the order of them. By the way I know it’s illegal for the police not to show you the search warrant-I mean ALL of it without blanks. I don’t know about US though.

    Like

  76. November 23, 2010 10:39 pm

    “The search warrant said that if he refused to submit to the search it would be viewed by the Detectives and the court as an assumption of guilt and he would have been arrested right away”

    Lynette, I am still doubtful that the strip search was legal – it was practically an intimate examination which is not done on suspects especially if there is no physical evidence (the police themselves admitted there was none – see those newspapers I quoted in part 1 of Larry Feldman’s speech) and on the basis of what onlyone boy said. In order to arrange an intimate examination they need something much more substantial than that.

    However it could probably have to do with Larry Feldman’s civil suit (?) where law requires that the accused should be top cooperative with the other side. It was surely illegal under the civil suit too (all the more so!) but knowing Larry Feldman’s talents I wouldn’t be surprised if he reached an ‘understanding’ with the prosecution over this issue.

    Like

  77. Dialdancer permalink
    November 23, 2010 10:29 pm

    Which judge granted and signed the search warrant? The civil trial judge or another?

    My understanding was Sneddon requested and was granted the search warrant off of Linden’s affidavit. Now I am hearing that Feldman caused this to happen. Maybe I misunderstood?

    A couple of questions:
    1) When did DS announce he was requesting the search warrant?
    2) When did the Police interview Jordan where he made his statement & drawing?
    3) How many times has Jordan made statements and drawings which were reported
    by either the Media or Ray for family, doctors and law enforcement officials?

    Like

  78. November 23, 2010 10:18 pm

    “This is what Feldman said “When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson because the young boy made allegations about his physical and private parts, we had to describe them in detail in order to show why we were entitled to these pictures. So we litigated it hard, but clearly within the rules of litigation”

    Shelly, I’ve just made a supposition that Larry Feldman could be the one who ordered Michael’s strip search – and here you are with Larry Feldman’s words proving this point: “We wanted to have an exam of MJ and take pictures of MJ”

    P.S. By the way it was the new team of lawyers which allowed the strip search to take place and they didn’t even see the full search warrant! I doubt it very much that Bert Fields as the first Michael’s lawyer would have agreed to a procedure so humiliating for his client.
    The strip search was on December 20, 1993 after Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas took over. I’m not sure that they were fighting it (we need to check it up) but I remember clearly from Taraborrelli’s account that they were persuading Michael to undergo it.

    Like

  79. November 23, 2010 10:09 pm

    “Teva Sneddon did not order a strip search on his own. Nobody has such authority. The false description came from Chandler-Feldman camp. Without this intervention there would be no search warrant from Sneddon. If MJ had something to fear, he would have paid them in the extortion.”

    Olga, it has also suddenly dawned on me today that it could be at Feldman’s request that the strip search was organized. You remember that on November 23, 1993 the judge ruled that the civil suit would come forward and naturally gave Larry Feldman time to collect all the evidence he needed. The criminal case was somewhat slow at the time – firstly because Larry Feldamn intentionally pushed it back and secondly, because there was some rivalry between Garcetti and Sneddon (none of them wanted to fail the case but both wanted to share the success if there was any). So prosecution was probably not doing more than their usual routine under such cases.

    However Larry Feldman had a lot at stake. He had to hurry up – the trial (civil one?) was set for March 21, 1994 – and he didn’t want Jordan to testify there, so he had to make a money settlement before that and was to obtain the evidence which would pressurize Michael into a money settlement even more than anything else. It was a psychological warfare aimed at forcing Michael to surrender. Jordan was also turning 14 soon which could probably affect the trial and prolong it. And Michael was in England undergoing treatment at the time and was to stay there for at least for four weeks more – until the beginning of January!

    Larry Feldman was running out of time and made numerous statements in the media (he calls it ‘litigating it hard in the press’) that Michael was not undergoing treatment and was “hiding from justice”. Those newspapers you’ve sent me say he wanted to send his own doctors to Michael to make sure he was ill. In other words Feldman desperately wanted Michael back and needed an effective instrument to make his life unbearable to force him to settle.

    Most probably he knew which ropes to pull to organize a strip search through Tom Sneddon – the pretext was perfect – he was gathering evidence under a civil suit. If that strip search was made on his initiative it also becomes clear why he demanded the photos after the strip – he ordered the show and wanted to see the results.

    Like

  80. Dialdancer permalink
    November 23, 2010 10:04 pm

    Suzy said:

    “I’m wondering if there is also a pressure on these “kids” (Gavin and Jordan) from the part of Sneddon, Dimond & Co. to keep silent. Certainly they (and a lot of people – also in the media) have a lot to lose if those kids go out and say nothing ever happened.”

    I have wondered about this. Not a physical threat so much as an understanding of what could happen if they were to ever refute their claims. Many people have made excellent career and financial advancements out of their part in this situation. (Dan Abrams, Grace & Bashir) Gavin got Zonen and Plankner as his cheerleaders and guides into areas where he may otherwise never been accepted. (law/law enforcement), (military academy).

    On allforlove.com there is a poster who says Jordan to this day visits the MJ sites and speaks well of Michael. If this person is indeed Jordan Chandler then he can attempt to ingratiate himself with the Fans while he continues to get rich from deals which MJ’s money made possible. Jordan is sort of the flip side of Terry George (neither would take the stand and have their allegations challenged in court, but both became very rich off Michael because of the allegations)

    Only an idiot believes that after having known this boy(s) for over two years MJ waited until after the release of Bashir’s trash to start the “grooming/molestation”. This makes no sense and is something any of the Legal Pundits and TV Celebrity Psychologists should have repeatedly discussed in depth. Had any possessed an ounce of professional ethics.

    Like

  81. November 23, 2010 9:38 pm

    “I’ve also heard by someone I consider reliable that a PI for Michael was at NYU talking to people who know Jordan. And he took statements from all of them Jordan had told them he was never molested. They know stories of Jordan throwing parties playing Michael’s music and dancing like him.”

    INTERESTING!!!

    Like

  82. November 23, 2010 9:30 pm

    “I’m wondering if there is also a pressure on these “kids” (Gavin and Jordan) from the part of Sneddon, Dimond & Co. to keep silent. Certainly they (and a lot of people – also in the media) have a lot to lose if those kids go out and say nothing ever happened.”

    Suzy, I’ve just started reading the comments and see you also feel that there is some pressure on those “kids”? In the worst case it could be just a little blackmailing from Tom Sneddon and Co.: “We’ve done so much for you, we’ve fought so hard, we’ve spent so much money – and now you are saying that all your stories were made up? Do you know what you’ve done? Slander, lies under oath, etc. etc. You will have to answer for it!”

    And in the best case it could be just a mutual ‘understanding’ that it is not in their common interests to revise the past.

    Like

  83. November 23, 2010 9:19 pm

    “I’m absolutely convinced the media and journalists have heard these stories but that they don’t want to print them.”

    Rockforeveron, I also think most of them know that Michael was innocent – they are just pretending. It seems that there is some kind of a tacit understanding between all those involved to leave everything the way it is and let the sleeping dogs lie.

    It the truth is uncovered too many people will feel unconfortable – the prosecutor who spent millions on his vendetta though he could have spent them on fighting real criminals, the lawyer (Larry Feldman) who’ll find he assisted an extortionist, Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler who will have to admit they lied and can be probably sued for libel now, the media who will have to say that they’ve been fooling people for so many years – the truth is just too inconvenient for all of them and it is better to ‘forget’ it.

    Jordan and Gavin may be even fearful of disclosing the truth as this way they will be letting down too many ‘important’ people.

    Like

  84. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2010 8:21 pm

    Jordan may no longer feel like he has a choice to correct what he said to the public at large. Like I said in my post about the sodium amytal, a person that is given a type of suggestion like that, under the influence of that drug, would question if it was true, because he would see it but not feel it. Let me give you another example. If you are in a car accident (substitute any traumatic event) it plays over and over again in your head eliciting the same emotional response that you had when you had the accident. If you are hypnotized, which is what the use of sodium amytal does, and told you are in an accident when you weren’t you will be able to see the event in your mind like a series of photographs and accurate to the detail you were given. However when you relate the information to others, you will not feel the fear of having been in that car accident because you did not have the feeling in the first place.
    I know that is confusing but it would be similar to being in a constant state of just waking up from a dream that was very real and had very real information in it but there would be something added to the dream that was not reality based. It would cause the person great confusion because of the conflicting information and feelings. Jordan knows that there is something wrong and he probably figured it out on his own some time ago, but what can he do about it now? Maybe he just feels so overwhelmingly helpless and doesn’t know what to do that he continues to do nothing. I have a great deal of compassion for Jordan, not quite as much as I do for Michael, but I think I can understand his lack of willingness to come out and say anything. How would you like to admit to what went on if even if you were an unwilling party to it? Jordan is not stupid. I am sure he knows that there are people out there that would hate him just as much for saying anything now, and he would only be trading one group of people for another.
    I know that to most people this information contradicts the statement from Geraldine Hughes where she says she doesn’t believe that Sodium Amytal was given. In an interview she refutes this by saying she saw Jordan alone with Barry Rothman in his office and believed from what she was witness to that he was being rehearsed. However, she was not aware at the time that this drug may have been given. Now if you take what she saw and the use of Sodium Amytal together it actually gives a much more plausible account of a frame up and is almost exactly like Mary Fisher’s article in GQ. I think what she saw were Evan and Rothman reinforcing their information. When you know what I know about this drug the use of it only enhances the other information it does not remove the validity of anything else that was seen by Geraldine Hughes. They were checking to see if Jordan had been fed enough information to be an accurate and reliable witness or accuser. They were just making sure their plan worked. She was a witness to a frame up and Jordan was as much a victim of Evan Chandler’s unlimited greed as Michael was, maybe even more so because it was perpetuated by his father.
    Everyone knows the story by now of Jordan going to have his tooth pulled, and if the Consent to Administer Anesthesia is authentic is says that it started at 8 am on Sunday July 16th. What it doesn’t say is how long this process took. How long did Evan have Jordan under for a 20 second procedure? What time did he leave that office and what time they go to the Cheesecake Factory? What time did you get home? How many times did you have to repeat this information before you went to Dr. Mathis Abrams that day? Jordan is the only one that knows the answers to those questions.
    There are even hints to the fact that this was an extortion attempt in the book All That Glitters. Ray/Evan Chandler says that Evan never spoke to his son about it again once he said yes. No, that’s right, but Barry Rothman did, didn’t he?
    What I have difficulty with is the kind of greed that Evan Chandler had. From beginning to end he had no one’s best interest in mind other than his own. He did not care if he hurt Michael, his current wife and new children to his former wife and child. No one was going to get in his way. He was certain that his plan, if carried out, would get him what he wanted. It was not a step up to help him start out in the movie industry he wanted to be a partner in a 4 movie project not just an employee, he wanted to be Michael Jackson’s partner and nobody or nothing was going to stop him or get in his way. What unfathomable arrogance that man had. It is Evan that makes me angry, not Jordan because Evan was the reason everything happened.
    When Evan Chandler killed himself he did the same thing he did in 1993.He left Jordan to clean up the mess he created or to have to live with it.

    Like

  85. Olga permalink
    November 23, 2010 1:35 pm

    @Teva there is not something common or uncommon in police investigation. Search warrants are issued based on whatever a witness says and you never know what this will be.

    Like

  86. November 23, 2010 12:48 pm

    Unfortunately this person only knows Jordy back when he was in university, which was obviously an easier time for more people to see and hear things around him. I haven’t heard anything about his reaction to MJ’s death, though again I’m sure there are people who know and the media could easily find these people if they so wished. You know that if Jordy had been throwing “My molestor is dead” parties the media would’ve reported about it.

    Gavin I know more about because this girl is in school with him right now, and the impression I have is he would never freely tell people that MJ was innocent and that he sounds like a brat. But this person I know is determined to try and catch him out so I’m hoping she’ll get somewhere with that, at least a Gavin confession would be movement in the right direction…

    Sorry, I wish I knew more about Jordy’s current situation.

    Like

  87. lcpledwards permalink
    November 23, 2010 6:46 am

    @Rockforeveron
    Based on your sources, do you or they think that there is ANY possiblity that Jordie will ever confess while he’s alive? If not, do you think he may confess in a letter that isn’t released to the public until after his death? Did he ever feel guilty or remorse for what he did?

    Also, do your sources know how Jordie reacted to MJ’s death?

    Like

  88. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2010 5:23 am

    The search warrant said that if he refused to submit to the search it would be viewed by the Detectives and the court as an assumption of guilt and he would have been arrested right away.Detective Linden asked for the search warrant from the judge based on her affadavit that said the desscription could only be given by somone who had seen his genitals so the judge gave them the search warrant based on that affadavit. It was generally assumed by the police that he must have seen him just because he gave them a description. The detectives from LA and Santa Barbara along with Tom Sneddon went there that day to photograph Michael as a part of gathering evidence. Tom Sneddon was there to call and get an arrest warrant when the description matched because that is what they would have had to do.That is the next step in the legal process so Sneddon would have had to call to get that. The whole world should have known that the description didn’t match when he was not arrested.The only evidence they ever had was Jordans word and so they thought this description. When that didn’t match Sneddon had to walk away without his prize arrest of Michael.

    Like

  89. ares permalink
    November 23, 2010 3:02 am

    @ Teva
    I am confused. If the body search was not a standard procedure could Michael refused to do it or was he obliged to do it ?

    Like

  90. November 23, 2010 1:45 am

    sorry
    Yes if the description was 100% conclusive why was MJ arrested? = Yes if the description was 100% conclusive why was MJ not arrested?

    Like

  91. November 23, 2010 1:42 am

    @Olga & Shelly
    I understand what you are saying, but a strip search is not common procedure in investigating CM. One would have to assume something as unthinkable as strip search. For argument sake lets assume Michael had settle before august, and Jordie refuse to cooperate further with the investigation, then yes there would have been no drawing. However, that did not happen. Who could have predicted Feldman/Sneddon would have asked for a strip search it was most unsual.

    @Ares,
    Yes if the description was 100% conclusive why was MJ arrested? At that stage Jordan was still cooperating with the police. They had their allege witness & their allege evidence.

    Like

  92. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 1:08 am

    This is what Feldman said

    “When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson because the young boy made allegations about his physical and private parts, we had to describe them in detail in order to show why we were entitled to these pictures. So we litigated it hard, but clearly within the rules of litigation”

    Like

  93. ares permalink
    November 23, 2010 1:07 am

    @Teva
    Ηm,that makes it even more interesting. I wonder if Michael’s lawyers told him what happens in cases of child abuse.What is the normal procedure. You know, if they told him that he would have to go through a body search. Because if they did and Michael was concern of something ,then it is strange why he didn’t settle from the start. Because from what i understand there would have not been a body search if Jordan C. hadn’t make the description. Also the fact that the body search was part of the criminal investigation which, as you pointed, someone can not stop or settle, and after it Michael was not arrested for me proves that there was not correspondence between the photos and JC description. Ιn additional, what i find very interesting is the fact that Jackson asked the civil trial to be postponed and the criminal one to come first.

    Like

  94. shelly permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:58 am

    He had the possibility to settle the case in August before the state was involved. If he had settled just after the state was involved, Jordan would have never done the description of MJ’s genitals he did in December.

    Like

  95. Olga permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:57 am

    @Teva Sneddon did not order a strip search on his own. Nobody has such authority. The false description came from Chandler-Feldman camp. Without this intervention there would be no search warrant from Sneddon. If MJ had something to fear, he would have paid them in the extortion.

    Like

  96. November 23, 2010 12:20 am

    Someone asked why Michael would submit to a strip search if he knew the photos would match, and not settle with the Chandlers before the humiliation. I am no legal expert, but maybe it wouldn’t have made a difference. It was Sneddon that ordered the strip search not Feldman; you can’t settle in a criminal investigation. If Michael had settled prior to the search Feldman would have dropped the civil case, but that does not mean the criminal could not proceed. It was the State of Los Angeles vs Michael Jackson, Sneddon could still subpeona a strip search and move ahead. That’s just my logic.

    To avoid the whole thing a settlement would have had to be made before the state got involved. However, after an official police report the state has a right to investigate a crime.

    Like

  97. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2010 11:33 pm

    I know nobody will ever pay but it’s a very sad thing.

    Like

  98. November 22, 2010 11:08 pm

    He is 100% innocent, no doubt.

    But nobody will ever pay. The media will never apologize. If Jordy came out and said it was a lie Ray Chandler wouldn’t take everything back, Victor wouldn’t, Diane wouldn’t, Nancy Grace wouldn’t. Oprah would likely still be going “hmmmmm” in that Marge Simpson sideeye way everytime someone on her shows says he was innocent.

    The kids can come out and tell the truth and it would help his image but it wouldn’t completely eradicate the doubt that exists for lots of people. It’s too deeply ingrained now.

    He’s been vindicated in every single way already. If people still wan to persist in believing and keeping doubt open then like someone said, that’s based on their own emotions primarily because it doesn’t hold any water in reality.

    Like

  99. Suzy permalink
    November 22, 2010 10:27 pm

    I’m wondering if there is also a pressure on these “kids” (Gavin and Jordan) from the part of Sneddon, Dimond & Co. to keep silent. Certainly they (and a lot of people – also in the media) have a lot to lose if those kids go out and say nothing ever happened. I don’t think it’s for nothing that Zonen and Co. are still keeping in touch with (keep an eye on) the Arvizos….

    Like

  100. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2010 10:15 pm

    I just wonder who is going to pay for what happened to him during his last 15 years if someone is able to prove that he was 100% innocent.

    Like

  101. November 22, 2010 9:55 pm

    I’ve been told he does use an alias, but he did copyright his music lyrics under his own name.

    If he was close enough to certain people to tell them MJ was innocent, and invite them to parties to dance to MJ’s music, how come none of them tipped off the tabloids? Or posted photos of him on the internet? Was it due to their loyalty to him?

    I’m assuming that these were the witnesses who Meserea was going to call to testify against Jordie if he said MJ was guilty?

    The same reason that Gavin Arviso does the exact same thing – people don’t care about this.

    I’m absolutely convinced the media and journalists have heard these stories but that they don’t want to print them. It’ll put an end to any further salacious stories and suggestions about MJ being a molestor that they have and that is a HUGE part of the sales related to MJ in newspapers/magazines. Just like how they still can’t let go of the vitiligo, they don’t want to let go of this built up idea they’ve presented of him being a molestor. There’s just no way they’d print these stories of their own free will – I believe this applies to his love life too. The media knows more than they’ll share, just like how they knew he and Lisa were dating in 1994 and even married but took months to print it because it would change perception about him.

    The person who told me this said they wouldn’t name names, but they’ve always posted very reliable information and don’t strike me at all as being attention seeking.

    Like I said, I also know someone who is currently in classes with Gavin Arviso and she too has heard about him saying these things – but she’s determined to catch him on tape because she knows that’s the only way anyone will take her seriously.

    100% convinced this information is known and not a secret. I just hope someone catches it on tape someday soon.

    Like

  102. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 9:40 pm

    @Rockforeveron

    “I’ve also heard by someone I consider reliable that a PI for Michael was at NYU talking to people who know Jordan. And he took statements from all of them Jordan had told them he was never molested. They know stories of Jordan throwing parties playing Michael’s music and dancing like him.”

    Is this the PI that Mesereau hired in 2004? Someone else said that this PI confirmed that sodium amytal was indeed used.

    Also, how on Earth was Jordie able to maintain his anonymity at NYU? Did he use an alias? If he was close enough to certain people to tell them MJ was innocent, and invite them to parties to dance to MJ’s music, how come none of them tipped off the tabloids? Or posted photos of him on the internet? Was it due to their loyalty to him?

    I’m assuming that these were the witnesses who Meserea was going to call to testify against Jordie if he said MJ was guilty?

    Like

  103. Suzy permalink
    November 22, 2010 9:22 pm

    I personally don’t need Jordan Chandler to say MJ was innocent to 100% believe in his innocence. I KNOW he was.

    And BTW, even if Jordan comes out and says MJ was innocent (unfortunately that will probably never happen, unless on Jordan’s death bed), some people will STILL raise doubts. I’m sure of that. Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson said MJ never molested them, yet there are people who think and say he molested them!

    To me Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner is exposing Jordan as a liar. Those are not the reactions of an abuse victim. He says he didn’t realize it was wrong until his father told him? WTH? Ask Todd Bridges if he didn’t realize what happened to him was wrong…..! And Jordan wants us to believe that at the age of 13, a smart kid like him, didn’t know what was happening? C’mon now!

    Also when in court asked about how Jordan’s behaviour changed while this alleged abuse happened, June Chandler said Jordan wanted to spend all his time with Michael! Again: WTH?! Ask Todd Bridges if he wanted to spend time all his time with his abuser!

    Victor Gutierrez would be so proud of the Chandler family! Apparently they were picking up his p. propaganda BS about the victim liking the abuse very quickly.

    Like

  104. November 22, 2010 8:56 pm

    Just ask yourself this: what kind of “victim” threatens legal action to avoid testifying against his alleged perpetrator?

    And it wasn’t about not wanting to go through any trauma – he was willing to spend however long and however hard it was in court in order to not testify. Try and get your head around that.

    His uncle Ray lied and said that he was out of the country so that he couldn’t be subpoened because he didn’t want to admit that Jordie had no interest in participating. He was photographed skiing happily in Nevada.

    Also, Ray fought having to testify, as did Evan Chandler. Why wouldn’t either of these two men have an interest in seeing their son/nephew’s molestor be put in prison?

    So the idea that Jordy didn’t want to participate because he didn’t want to lie is backed up by Jordy has privately said numerous times that he wasn’t molested, TMez had witnesses lined up for him. A journalist at the time also suggested this is what they’d heard him say.

    As well as the fact that Jordy had emancipated himself as soon as he could, that his father tried to kill him a month after the trial ended in 2005, that nobody attended his funeral in 2009. He clearly did not feel protected by what Evan had done in 1993-1994. Why not? Evan supposedly saved him from abuse and yet Jordy seemed entirely less than grateful.

    I’ve also heard by someone I consider reliable that a PI for Michael was at NYU talking to people who know Jordan. And he took statements from all of them Jordan had told them he was never molested. They know stories of Jordan throwing parties playing Michael’s music and dancing like him.

    This is not the behaviour of someone who’s been molested by MJ – the language breakdown here of Jordy’s statement is tantamount to that also.

    Like

  105. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 8:43 pm

    @ Shelly
    Well, if you’re waiting for Jordie to publicly admit he lied, you can forget it because it probably won’t happen anytime soon, if ever! But the closest that we can get to an admission of his lies is the fact that in Sept. 2004 the told the FBI that he wouldn’t testify because he had “done his part“, and he would threaten legal action to avoid being subpoenaed (just like good ol’ Uncle Ray).

    Just ask yourself this: what kind of “victim” threatens legal action to avoid testifying against his alleged perpetrator? Do you think actor Todd Bridges or director Tyler Perry or any of those 200 victims who were recently on Oprah would do that? I don’t think so! So Jordie’s statement to the FBI should give you that final 5% of proof that you need to assure yourself that MJ is 100% innocent.

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2010 8:27 pm

    @lcpledwards

    I read those 2 books. I think I read everything which is available about the 1993 case. I do believe he was innocent in that case. I am sure at 95% that he was innocent but to be 100% sure of it I need a declaration from Chandler we will never have it.

    Like

  107. lynande51 permalink
    November 22, 2010 4:46 pm

    David some people will always have doubts about Michael’s innocence in these matters. It is a choice that they make based primarily on emotions and not the facts that are presented. How many more facts do they need and which ones would that be so we can deliver them?

    Like

  108. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 3:33 pm

    @ Shelly
    Why do you STILL have “doubts”? What is keeping you from believing in MJ complete innocence? Have you read Geraldine Hughes’ “Redemption” or Lisa Campbell’s “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”?

    Like

  109. November 22, 2010 3:32 pm

    Both boys have privately said on numerous occasions that Michael didn’t molest them and that it was all made up.

    There’s not a doubt in my mind that he’s 100% innocent.

    Like

  110. Olga permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:51 pm

    “I have heard people say that children can’t lie about this kind of things. ”

    Whoever says this is totally ignorant about children, real life and child psychology. It’s a laughable thing to say. It’s proven & established by science decades ago and the most common thing that anyone could know. Such poor generalizations are funny by definition.

    Like

  111. visitor permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:04 pm

    @ Shelly
    Well to tell you the truth i don’t have a single doubts that MJ is innocent. Even when i didn’t know anything about those two cases i believed that he was innocent.Was i there? NO! Why i don’t have any doubts? Because i know that people would do anything for money. And not only money but for other minor things.They would steal, kill, lie,betray. I know that because i have experienced that.

    I have heard people say that children can’t lie about this kind of things. BULLSHIT. Children are some of the most cruel individuals in the world. Then can lie and make up stories and destroy peoples lifes and carriers and families. When they feel betrayed or when they want to draw attention or whatever they can make up stories and be so believable that you can not imagine.Again i know that because i have experienced that to. Gavin Arvizo did the same. Gavin said same pretty beliaveble things about MJ. But i think non of as has any doubt that the Arvizo guy was lieing.So why not Jordie? Especially when, in the begiening, he also said that Michael didn’t do anything to him.

    The media has done a wonderful job poisoning peoples mind. JUST MARVELOUS. They have told so many lies about the man that in the end you would believe anything about him. Bathing in blood(?!), voodoo and so on and so on. I have read about MJ that he was gay , ped-le even satanist. Anything in this world it was possible for MJ. I still expect people to say that he was the reason for the second world war or the the distruction of the Amazon rain forest.

    But where are the proofs that he was a p-le. Because he said that he permitted to children to sleep in his bed? Yes, of course. P-les do that all the time. And of course they don’t forget to mention that on the national TV so everybody can hear it. And of course we all know that p-les need a bed in order to abuse a child.

    I trully believe that Jordan Chandler is a liar like his father. I believe that they made this story up and mixed it with some facts to make it more believable. I don’t believe that Jordie made any descriptions of Michael’s genitelia and even if he did he had a lot of help from the people around him so his description would be as accurate as possible. If that description and those pictures were so accurate and so importan why haven’t we seen them anywhere. How come Orth or Dimond or the other “journalists” haven’t found the actual documents and presented them to the public but they continue to leave innuendos or present different versions of the story? How come people from the that department have leaked them? How come no one has seen them but they “have been told that they were accurate”. Well that’s a very smart way misleading the public. I have been told too that the Loch ness monster exists. Who told me that. Oh some people in Tv. And we all know that they don’t lie. They always tell the truth.

    Sorry about the rant. I would really want to know thought what are the causes that makes you still have doubts. If you ever have the time and you want to tell me please do so. I would really like to know.

    Like

  112. lynande51 permalink
    November 22, 2010 1:14 pm

    Actually Dr. Klein testified in front of the Grand Jury that Michael had accidently gotten Benoqin on his genitals one time and he did not see that, Debbie Rowe treated him for that. If anyone would like to know a little about Benoquin if you put it on a certain area you have to wait at least 2 hours before you touch anyone or anything else. I would guess that meant that Michael had applied it to an area on his face, forgot, touched himself while going to the bathroom and got it on there. It has to be continuously applied for 1-4 months to completely remove the pigment to an area.And yes it burns when first applied.

    Like

  113. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:41 pm

    @visitor

    Klein said in his deposition that MJ tried to bleach his penis, or accidentaly out benoquin on his penis but it was around March or April, before the alleged molestation happened.

    For the rest, I agree with you but I still have doubts and I think I always will have doubts.

    Like

  114. visitor permalink
    November 22, 2010 3:59 am

    @Shelly
    I am asking you this questions because i was reading the comments for this post and you made some very interesting questions. Questions that a person who wants to be sure about the facts in order to believe would make. I have read so many things about MJ, from court documents, to that Maureen Orths articles (which for me are totally biased. The woman obviously has an issue with MJ i can not explain it otherwise). Anything that i can find. And still this are the things that make me believe that MJ was totaly innocent in the 1993 ( i consider the 2005 case a joke so am not going to talk about that)

    1) If he was guilty why not give the money to Evan when he was first asked.

    2) If he had something to be afraid of why go throught the strip search and not settle with the family before the search.

    3)Some say he bleached his penis, the thing is though that MJ and his team weren’t provited with the affidavid of Jordies description. So MJ didn’t know what kind of description Jordie had made.

    4) He sertenly didn’t re-grow a foreskin. Jordie said Michael was circumcised. MJ wasn’t.

    5) Evan was cought in tape thratening that he would destroy Michael if didn’t get what he want.

    6) If Michael was guitly why ask from the court the criminal trial to come before the civil one. A person can not settle a criminal trial. And if he was found gulty in the criminal trial, he would have gone to gail (if i am not mistaken)

    7)In that settlement agreement MJ repeatedly states his innocence while the family does not once maintain that the boy’s allegations are true.

    8) Fieldman’s famous line “nobody bought anyones silence”. He said it. He may have forgotten it but we don’t. And the fact is that Jordie and his father could stil testify in a criminal court. They chose not to do it.

    9)What kind of father who thinks that his son or daughter is molested would negotiate with their son/daughter abuser for money? A sick one?

    There are a lot of other reasons why i believe in Michael’s innocence. Those are few of them.
    I just think that the media with all those descriptions and sploches and all those things (by the no one know with sertenty what the description was, who did it, who saw the pictures) have done a remarkably well job in misleading the audience and not presenting the real evidence which vindicate Michael. Like they did with that bijama incident in 2005.

    Like

  115. November 22, 2010 3:06 am

    LaToya knew about his vitiligo and his lupus, she was the first to publically speak about it back in 1991, which is where that quote posted came from. Everyone in the family knew, but Mike told each of them to keep quiet about it. Janet said that later, Toy even said that back in the interview in 1991, that MJ didn’t want people to know (so basically MJ had not told her to go out and share that bit of info with people).

    It was only after 1993 when LaToya no longer had contact with Mike that she denied he had vitiligo and started coming up with insane crazy rubbish. She’d already said he had it beforehand.

    The spot didn’t match. If it did nobody would be posting here, it would be irrefutable evidence and MJ would have indicted back in 1994.

    Like

  116. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 3:00 am

    @ Visitor
    That’s exactly the point! MJ was never arrested, so that in and of itself proves the description did not match. Period. And if MJ was guilty of anything, not only would he had settled before the strip search, he certainly would have gave Evan Chandler the $20 million dollar film deal that he DEMANDED in August 1993!

    Like

  117. shelly permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:59 am

    Why are you asking me that. I don’t understand why he wasn’t arrested if it was such a match. I don’t understand why they said they had no smoking gun if it was a match. There are to many things that I don’t understand in that whole story and I really would like to know what Mesereau knows.

    Like

  118. visitor permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:37 am

    @shelly
    Ι see that you are making some good question. But here are mine. If the pictures matched the description ,which according to many people (who by the way haven’t seen them but have been told) they were a perfect match, then why wasn’t Michael arrested ? And if Michael was afraid that by doing the strip search there would have been a match, why didn’t he try to settle the case with the family before the stip search?

    Like

  119. Olga permalink
    November 14, 2010 7:31 pm

    We know since 1994 that the description didn’t match. But here is the thing. When someone wants to describe anything for the police, a professional police sketcher is drawing the picture NOT the witness. The procedure is to compare the photo to the sketch. The laughable non specific drawing also has a “my theory” note on the right only to make things worse for Sneddon and Chandlers. The whole cartoon description was based on Evan’s theory about vitiligo (50.000.000 watched Michael on Oprah, February 1993). Sneddon tried to create the scam story in 1993 not only in 2003.

    Like

  120. October 31, 2010 3:00 am

    You have the story about how the media printed there was no match on the day after the settlement so the news got swallowed, Lisa Marie even addressed this issue on their prime time interview:

    Lisa: You’re not going to ask me about them are you? (laughs) About the markings. (laughs)
    Diane: If you volunteered…
    Lisa: No, I’m just…The point is, is that when that finally got concluded there was no match-up. It was printed this big, as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.

    Something else about the markings – Evan Chandler sued Mike and Lisa and the entire show, stating they were libelous and had given false information, right? On the show Michael and Lisa both very clearly state there was no match, if there had been a match would that have given Evan any case against Michael? I’m not a lawyer or anything, so I don’t know, but it seems to me that if he could prove that then he would be able to at least sue MJ on that basis, right?

    Like

  121. Dialdancer permalink
    October 26, 2010 7:40 am

    There are photos of young Michael wearing a cowboy shirt. There are photos which are now on the internet showing very definite signs of Michael’s condition. Neck, underside chin, forearm and side. This was during the J5 days. There is no way Michael could have kept this to himself. Initially he would have not known what it was. In a large family gossip spreads faster than a TMZ story. They knew. They might have known the name, but the family knew Michael had blotches showing up on his body, patches of much lighter skin and that each year there were more which required concealing makeup.

    LaToya is that child who when did not get the attention they wanted broke things and then lied on others about it. Will tell the long draw out story about how it was broken as long as the focus is on them.

    Like

  122. visitor permalink
    September 15, 2010 12:56 pm

    Guys, I didn’t know where to put this because I don’t remember where I left this comment with the transcript of that interview sometime ago. Now here is the audio of Mary Fischer’s interview to Greta VanSustren November 2003

    [audio src="http://www.mjeol.com/audiocase/GretaVanSustren_MaryFischer_11-25-03.mp3" /]

    Like

  123. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2010 1:01 am

    @suzy

    I know, I just wanted to say that she did say he had a disease before she started trashing him. As for what she did during her marriage, I don’t think we should judge her. On wikipedia there is an article about her marriage and it was a very violent one where she ended up several times in a hospital throwing blood.

    Like

  124. Suzy permalink
    September 9, 2010 8:14 pm

    @ Shelly

    LaToya is not the only source who tells Michael had lupus, although Michael himself never talked about it in public, but apparently he did talk about it to his friends and family. Here is it mentioned by Deepak and Gotham Chopra two days after Michael’s death: http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20288162,00.html

    Arnold Klein also mentioned it on Larry King Live (he was the one who diagnosed it).

    Like

  125. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2010 7:54 pm

    Latoya said that in 1991

    “La Toya offered an explanation for Michael’s appearance last week and it’s a new one that the family hasn’t mentioned, confirmed or denied before: Michael LaToya has said, has grown lighter over the years because he has lupus, a chronic disorder that causes skin lesions and can be aggravated by the sun. He doesn’t want anybody to know he has this disease, she said. Indeed he has never mentioned it publicly. She said that Michael was first diagnosed 12 years ago. He avoids the sun she said and his skin color has faded as a result. “

    Like

  126. September 4, 2010 11:03 am

    “Maybe Latoya truly didn’t know if he did vitiligo because he didn’t tell her. But there is a difference between saying that you don’t know if he truly has it, and saying that he definitely DOES NOT have it! It just depends on how she said it”.

    David, I absolutely agree with you. Latoya is a liar and the succession of lies she told about Michael proves it. Only I think her husband is not the primary reason for it – she was simply jealous of Michael’s fame and always wanted to be in the limelight, though as far as I know she never tried to do anything to reach her goal of becoming a ‘star’.

    The easiest way to satisfy her vanity was to snatch some of Michael’s fame away from him and try it on herself – which she did by calling press-conferences and saying this and that. She is soooo in love with herself… And being Michael’s sister is not making her any better.

    Of course Michael forgave her. He was clever, merciful and forgiving while she is not.

    Like

  127. lcpledwards permalink
    September 4, 2010 12:43 am

    @ Helena,

    1. Maybe Latoya truly didn’t know if he did vitiligo because he didn’t tell her. But there is a difference between saying that you don’t know if he truly has it, and saying that he definitely DOES NOT have it! It just depends on how she said it. In that interview (and others), she always made it sound as if MJ was just lying about it.

    But one thing for a fact is that she was LYING at that press conference. She claimed that she did the press conference because she was threatened into doing it, the same way she was “threatened” into posing for Playboy and “threatened” into writing her tell all book.

    In this interview from 1991, she gave a very interesting answer to the question about her “marriage” to Jack Gordon. She said that they were married “in name only”, and that she doesn’t “love” him, but that they’re only friends.

    The reason this caught my eye is because she claimed that she was “brainwashed” into doing that press conference in 1993 saying that MJ was guilty, thus implying that she was too much in love to say no. Many times, women will stay in abusive relationships IF THEY LOVE THEIR HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND, because they want him to change. But for her to stay in that marriage when she did NOT love him, and yet still do that press conference, write that “tell-all” book, and pose for Playboy, just shows that her real motivation was money and notoriety. I always believed that she could have said no to doing that press conference, but wanted to do it in order to cash in with the tabloids.

    But regardless of what her motives were, she recanted her statements & MJ and the family forgave her, so that’s all that matters.

    2. Also, I have read your email about the article, and I will post it in two parts next week or the week after, and I will keep some of the new formatting you gave me. I’m glad you enjoyed it, and I hope everyone else will too!

    Like

  128. September 3, 2010 8:44 pm

    “They show a clip of Latoya denying that MJ really has it”

    David, I’ve read in Lisa Campbell’s book that the only member of the Jackson family who knew about Michael’s vitiligo was Janet Jackson – all the rest simply did not know! So Latoya was probably not even lying when she denied he had it. Karen Faye said that Michael tried to hide the disease even from her – he was evidently that embarassed with it.

    Like

  129. Susan permalink
    September 3, 2010 1:18 pm

    Hi everyone;

    David, the Geraldo clips were very interesting. So Mike Walker insists that they only print stories based on sources huh? Don’t know if you’ve seen this piece, but it makes Walker look like a liar.

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/latest-gossip/111535-roger-friedman-national-enquirer-tried-fasley-frame-michael-jackson.html

    Like

  130. lcpledwards permalink
    September 3, 2010 11:33 am

    Hey guys, look at what I found! It’s the 1993 episode of Geraldo Rivera about MJ! It’s the one that aired right after the Oprah interview! I can’t believe it took me this long to find it!

    In part 1, the guests include J. Randy Terrible-elli (LOL!), some guy from the National Enquirer, and some other guy from the New York Times. They call MJ a liar for saying he’s only had 2 plastic surgeries, and that he did not plant the photo of himself in the hyperbaric chamber. They kinda mock him for being a virgin and hanging out with kids (including the young girls in his hotel room in Japan, which dispels the myth that it’s only boys), but they all acknowledge his immense charitable contributions!

    In part 2, they claim that it was MJ who forced MTV to call him the “King of Pop”, and they question his claims of vitiligo. They show a clip of Latoya denying that MJ really has it (I guess her ex-husband brainwashed her into saying that, the same way he brainwashed her into doing that press conference, LOL!) The highlight of this part is the diehard MJ fan who calls Terrible-elli and the other two guests slimeballs!

    In part 3, they have a dermatologist who thoroughly explains vitiligo, and how to treat it, including “bleaching” creams that are only available through a dermatologist. There is also a member of the Vitiligo Foundation who made a plea for MJ to be their spokesman so that he could bring awareness and understanding to the disease. After hearing her plea, I’m surprised he rejected it!!

    In part 4, they continue discussing the vitiligo, and they also bring up a rumor that MJ addressed in the interview about a “white boy playing him as a kid in a commercial”. It was a misunderstanding because the media painted it as MJ wanting to be white, but in reality (based on the kid’s background) it was probably Wade Robson, and he was chosen because he was a great dancer, and MJ wanted him to be in the commercial.

    In part 5, the last part, the National Enquirer guy peddled another lie that MJ actually tried to buy the hyperbaric chamber for himself, but the company wouldn’t sell it to him.

    When you watch this episode, it’s amazing how much he was mocked and ridiculed…………………and this was BEFORE the allegations!

    Like

  131. Suzy permalink
    September 1, 2010 8:23 pm

    So now we know that Jim Thomas never saw the pictures, he was told that they were a match.

    The doctor who was present at the strip search on the side of the prosecution, never saw Jordan’s drawing, he was only told that they were a match.

    Slowly it will turn out that the only guy who ever saw them both was Sneddon and he told everybody else what to think about it….

    Like

  132. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 9:16 pm

    Because Gavin never said anything about MJ’s penis. I also believe and hoped that is not the normal proceeding.

    Like

  133. ares permalink
    August 31, 2010 9:14 pm

    I have a question. It might be stupid but i have to ask . In the 2005 case why wasnt’ my MJ put under a strip search?

    Like

  134. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 9:03 pm

    “THOMAS: Well, what I hear from my investigators from back then is that it was almost identical. ”

    I wonder how many people have seen them.

    Like

  135. Sonic permalink
    August 31, 2010 8:59 pm

    Oh please now. *facepalm*
    Jin Thomas lead the investigation in 1993, had the possibility to look at the photos and turned it down? Because is not the thing you would like to rememer? Someone can go and kick this investigator on the ass please? Maybe he should find a job in a flower shop, where he can’t see anything that could disturb his poor, innocent mind, not lead investigations in child molestation cases. Once again, people who was supposed to look at the photos just DIDN’T and speak just of things they’ve been told. Incredible.

    Anyway, thank you so much Shelly. I always wandered why Sneddon was talking of stuff like MJ being “shy”, I mean, who cares? You’re not trying to demonstrate that MJ is not shy.
    Now is pretty clear that he was just trying to bring the photo topic on the trial “the media vs MJ” once again. He perfectly knew that MJ team was going to go against this idea, so he purposely gave MJ team the possibility to block them. He tried to pass the message once again that “the photos matched, that’s why they didn’t want them in court”.
    I honestly believe that the reason why MJ team tried to block them is that neither MJ himself know how accurate the description by Jordan was, since still in 1993 he was never able to obtain the strip search affidavit without the blocked parts on the description of his body.
    How much secrecy around these photos that apparently are an almost perfect match with the drawing but nobody ever saw them…

    Like

  136. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 8:28 pm

    “The judge ruled, “I‘m going to deny the request to bring in evidence of the blemished penis.” The prejudicial effect would far outweigh the probative value. All right.”

    “ABRAMS: Michael Jackson talking about the 1993 case. And today in court, prosecutors tried to get that 1993 accuser‘s description of Michael Jackson‘s genitals into evidence.

    Susan Filan, were you surprised that the judge said no?

    FILAN: Not at all. That was the correct legal ruling. And I think part of the problem with the prosecution‘s argument was what they advanced on their papers was actually different than what they had argued in court.

    And perhaps, had they argued what they argued in court, it might have come in. But even then, I really don‘t agree with this…

    (CROSSTALK)

    ABRAMS: All right. Why don‘t you tell us what it is, all right?

    FILAN: Sure. They argued in their papers that they wanted to put that information in to rebut the notion that Jackson is very shy and very private. In court, they argued that they wanted to put it in to rebut the notion that it‘s impossible for a child to be able to see him in an excited state because it‘s completely innocent what goes on in the bedroom. You heard it yourself, milk and cookies.
    Now, had they advanced that argument, it‘s to rebut the fact that nothing could have happened, it may have come in. But it‘s still so inflammatory and so prejudicial, and it has a huge “ick” factor. And I‘m just not sure, quite frankly, anyone could have dealt with it.

    But the shy argument fell because the defense said that they did a transcript search, and the only time “shy” and “private” ever came up was once. And it was in one question, and the question was the same. So there was never even an answer to it.

    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.

    (LAUGHTER)

    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.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8044583

    Like

  137. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 8:15 pm

    I wanted to say “you are not suppose to make on a court document.”
    I mean it’s a very big mistake.

    Like

  138. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 8:13 pm

    The judge said that

    “I’m going to deny the request to bring in evidence of the blemished penis. The prejudicial effect would far outweigh the probative value.”

    According to that website

    http://www.teenfi.com/celebrity/Michael+Jackson-4250.html

    I tried to find it on the transcript of that day but I can’t.

    Like

  139. August 31, 2010 7:57 pm

    “So how many descriptions Jordan gave?”

    The interviews could be many and the descriptions could be many and different and this is the point of it.

    Psychologists warn law enforcement bodies against numerous interviews because their number affects their quality (or what is said there). The more a child talks the more likely he is to invent things – out of boredom or desire to please the interviewer or because he is sick and tired of this incessant questioning and will say anything for them to let him go at last (remember Jason Francia wanting to hit them on the head with something heavy?). We don’t know what the Chandlers told them but it is clear that the police were very much hesitant about what they heard – otherwise they would have brought criminal charges against MJ then and there.

    Considering that it was the same Tom Sneddon in both cases he evidently had even LESS in the Chandlers’ case than in the Arvizos nonsense one – as in the second case he WAS able to charge and in the first one he WASN’T though the criminal investigation lasted for 8 or so months. And this in spite of all those ‘diaries’ (Victor Gutierrez spoke about), ‘documents’, ‘declarations’, etc.!

    As to Tom Sneddon’s declaration I am sure he made it so vague and confusing on purpose – if you are not a specialist in these issues you can easily confuse Jordan’s December 28 declaration with the one made on December 1 (a report made by policewoman Linden? not the boy). This substitution is probably the reason why many people think that it was on the basis of that Dec.28 declaration that Tom Sneddon was forced to arrange a strip search (I’ve heard this version myself from a serious Michael’s fan and researcher).

    This way Linden’s report is being replaced by something completely different and is vanishing altogether (there must be something really embarassing about it as they want it to be forgotten so badly). But if Linden report is not there how can they explain the strip search at all? Hence this replacement.

    Also please note that the Dec.28 declaration was made NOT in the police department but in the lawyer’s office within the framework of a civil suit (and not a criminal investigation). It is strange that nothing, virtually nothing came from the police, isn’t it? They kept questioning Jordan and nevertheless didn’t make any progress? What was wrong with those interviews? Discrepancies, inconsistencies, suspicions of the boy being coatched?

    Isn’t it strange that the only thing we really have is a declaration coming from Larry Feldman’s office only and some four months after the whole thing started?

    Like

  140. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 5:42 pm

    I don’t know, you are not suppose to make on a court document.

    Like

  141. Sonic permalink
    August 31, 2010 4:43 pm

    @ shelly

    i find it strange too. That´s why I´m thinking also at the possibility that it was a mistake in the document of Sneddon (interesting mistake). But this does not change the fact that, in whatever interview he did, Jordan is quoted with some words and Sneddon with some other.

    I´d like to know if it is public the reason why judge Melville said no to the admission of the photos…

    Like

  142. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 4:19 pm

    What I find strange is nobody talked about that 2nd interview, not Orth, not, not Tarraborelli.

    Like

  143. Sonic permalink
    August 31, 2010 2:03 pm

    The second interview (1 December), if it existed, was given again to the LAPD (and to the same people too, as written in Sneddon request).
    Could Sneddon ask for a search warrant for the SBSD with the affidavit of the LAPD? I´m asking, maybe yes, I´m not an expert in american law, but sounds weird to me that they ask for strip search warrant with the affidavits of another institution, given to other detectives, especially since they had the Linden affidavit in their hands as MO confirmed.

    Anyway, the Smoking Gun says it was used for the search warrant, sounds weird they invent this kind of detail.

    Like

  144. shelly permalink
    August 31, 2010 1:33 pm

    Are we sure they used the Linden affidavit to get the search warrant. I remember reading somewhere that Sneddon asked several times the judge to give the warrant. Maybe he used the 2nd interview.

    Like

  145. Sonic permalink
    August 31, 2010 10:10 am

    @ shelly

    In that document Sneddon is not really clear. He mention an interview and a drawing for the first of September with LAPD, and this is the one he “wants” admitted in the trial. Then he says that he rewiewed statements and drawing made to the LAPD, but somehow not the ones of the 1st september, now it’s december, and there’s no mention at all of the Linden report (Sheriff department), that was the document used for the search warrant.
    So how many descriptions Jordan gave?

    Like

  146. lcpledwards permalink
    August 31, 2010 9:43 am

    This video is very interesting! It explores the historical treatment of blacks who had vitiligo and albinism. They were often put into the local circus and displayed as “freaks” for the pleasure and entertainment of whites, and the video compares how the media literally did the same to MJ (i.e., they mocked him for entertainment purposes. A perfect example is that Feb. 2003 episode of Dateline NBC that I told you about. I wish it was available for sale!!!)

    That video was based on a book called “The White African American Body”, that further discusses historical treatment of vitiligo & albino victims compared to blacks in general. I’m gonna try and read it and if I do I’ll let you know what I think!
    http://www.amazon.com/White-African-American-Body-Exploration/dp/0813530326

    Also, here is clip from ABC’s “20/20” that aired last week about the plight of people with albinism. You see how they are ridiculed and called “freaks” by their classmates, and the emotional pain that they must endure! If you replace “albino” with “vitiligo”, and it’s the same reaction!

    Like

  147. shelly permalink
    August 30, 2010 2:01 am

    There is that document but it never really spoke about the pictures

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/121004pltmotadmprior.pdf

    Like

  148. shelly permalink
    August 30, 2010 1:24 am

    @Sonic

    Jordan had a 2nd interview the 1rst of December. It’s on page 5 of that document

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

    Like

  149. shelly permalink
    August 30, 2010 12:58 am

    Look at that page

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/ctevents.php

    There is nothing written about the Prior the Bad act Evidence and the Chandler Drawing, before the 6th of january.

    Like

  150. August 28, 2010 8:34 pm

    “A light blotch similar to the color of his face” may not be quoted from the Linden affidavit, Sheriff department. It comes exactly from the LAPD affidavit, the one of the first September!
    “With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” Los Angeles Police Department! Not Santa Barbara Sheriff Department!”

    Sonic, again a great observation which makes the logic of the events much clearer:

    The Los Angeles Police department handles that interview, registers that ‘light splotch’ in the police statement and then they stall as they know it is illegal to subject a person to a humiliating intimate search on the basis of just “what someone said” – there should be much more solid evidence for getting a judge’s order to make a strip search. But that was Gil Garcetti’s department which tried to keep to the rules.

    However Tom Sneddon (tenderly called a mad dog by his colleagues) was much more set on breaking them. Hence a new interview by Deborah Linden, most probably an agressive one, as a result of which they obtained such arguments for the judge that he signed the strip search warrant.

    Please make it a note that while the LA policewoman was a specialist in child abuse allegations, Deborah Linden was evidently not – she was a Deputy Sheriff and evidently applied to the boy the interrogation technique usual for adult witnesses.

    Like

  151. shelly permalink
    August 28, 2010 3:52 pm

    @sonic

    I don’t understand your logic, why does it prove there was no match.

    Like

  152. Sonic permalink
    August 28, 2010 1:36 pm

    I have a revelation.
    “a light blotch similar to the color of his face” may not be quoted from the Linden affidavit, Sheriff department.

    It comes esactly from the LAPD affidavit, the one of the first September! Note as the Smoking gun talks of the Linden one and then change the subject to
    “With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.”

    Los Angeles Police Department! Not Santa Barbara Sheriff Department! So if the quote is correct, it’s proven that there was no match between the description and the photos!

    So, next question: why a graphic description has been made to the LAPD, but to take the photos has been used another affidavit, with graphic description of the acts but with the phisical description blocked out (apparently it was blocked out since the beginning, because this is the same thing MJ lawyers said in 1993, that they got the affidavit not complete)?

    We have photos and drawing in two different places, and note that nobody can ever manage to get both photos and drawing at the same time, not Rothman and neither MJ lawyers (both asked for them and were denied), so nobody, exept Sneddon who reviewed them both can say if they match or not.

    Like

  153. shelly permalink
    August 28, 2010 11:28 am

    @sonic

    The problem is Sneddon never made a reference to the pictures before the may 2005 declaration. It’s what the defense said when Sneddon wanted to introduce the pictures.

    Like

  154. Suzy permalink
    August 28, 2010 8:02 am

    I find it strange that – at least according to her – in the version that Orth found the details of Jordan’s description were blocked out. Why? It is the most important thing in that document. And (conveniently?) exactly that detail is blocked out? And if it was blocked out in Orth’s version, how come it wasn’t in Smoking Gun’s? Are there more versions circulating? Why haven’t we seen just one of them?

    Orth wrote her article in 2003, so by the time she could have information about what was really in the photos. Maybe she realized it wasn’t a match with Jordan’s description so it was more convenient to claim those details were blocked out, rather than report the truth about them not matching?

    I’m just thinking out loud. Why there have to be so much mystery made about that Linden document? Something is fishy there, no doubt.

    Like

  155. Dialdancer permalink
    August 28, 2010 2:56 am

    Here is something. Take another look at Sneddon’s May 26, 2004 Declaration.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

    P. 1, Para (1), Ln 24-27:
    “The testimony of LAPD Detective Rosibel Ferrufino or Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis that on September 1, 1993, in Ms. Weis’s office and at the direction of Dective Ferrufino.” Jordan Chandler described …… (No Linden)

    P. 3, Para (3), Ln 15-17:
    “ Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attornye Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present” (no mention of Det. Linden)

    P. 3 Para (3) Ln 23-24:
    “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.” (no mention of Linden)

    P.3. Para (2), Ln 11-14
    “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.” (Tacked on because of reports on a statement by Linden not seen by the public???) Ferrufino’s case file may give an accurate account of what went on in room and who played what part. If anything it should have been Ferrufino’s statement we were looking for.

    Det. Linden went to Manlia to interviewed the Quindoy’s Sept 23, 93.

    Like

  156. Dialdancer permalink
    August 28, 2010 2:10 am

    @ Sonic,

    Thank for this information. These days I record even the foulest for record. I am still wading through this, stopping to take cleansing breathes of fresh air. Even at her worst (the underwear scam) Dimond was never this fetid. There is a malevolence here that goes far beyond seeking fortune and fame. This woman is no greedy and irresponsible sensationalist she is the absolute worst of mankind. Orth is a sham portraying rationality, morality and enlightenment. She is not what is cause for concern, it is the number of people who follow her of the same society subverting malevolence. Let me get off this.

    I have not yet seen a copy of Linden’s statement nor have I seen so much as a copy & paste except directly from it. It is or was widely reported without physical evidence of its’ existence. Claims of its’ sensitivity are worthless in the face of Smoking Gun site and what was published there. I think whatever was on there was greatly exaggerated and was made to disappear after the photos were taken. There is another possibility her statement did not coincide with what was being passed out. Neither she nor Weis uses the 2005 investigation in their career bios.

    I have asked for help to see if this document or a copy can be found.

    Like

  157. August 27, 2010 9:09 pm

    Sonic, you are a marvellously tough girl. You are able to make some sensible conclusions even after reading this sheer madness. There is so much venom in this article that it made me completely sick. Fortunately God saved me from reading it earlier.. I can’t imagine what Michael should have felt after reading things like that – I am surprised he didn’t go mad then and there. It is this Maureen and not the subject of her ridicule who is revolting – vodoo, blood baths, millions from the Federal reserve… these poisonous lies are drawing people into some mental abyss… what is she doing? what kind of people are they? coming straight from HELL?

    Like

  158. Sonic permalink
    August 27, 2010 8:02 pm

    Ok, sorry for so many posts one after the other….

    But I found the missing article by Maureen Orth.

    http://sinhablar.com/news/orth4-2003.html She actually read the Linden report, but her version had the description of MJ parts blocked.

    Now I’m starting having some trouble understanding this mess. Now I will make a timeline of these affidavits basing on Maureen Orth article and Sneddon declaration dated 26 may 2005.

    Question marks are missing dates

    ???? Linden affidavit is redacted
    “Graphic details of what allegedly went on sexually between Jackson and Jordie Chandler are also described in an affidavit I found in the records of the Santa Maria courthouse complex, given by Sergeant Deborah Linden,”[…]”The affidavit also provides many details about Michael Jackson’s skin condition”[…] “(Rowe) could identify any markings on his buttocks (the descriptions of which have been deleted in the copy of the affidavit I found)”MO
    So we have an affidavit that has been quoted with the phrase “the color similar to the color of his face”, but when Maureen Orth finds it in 2003, the descriptions have been deleted. Apparently in this affidavit appears also other infos like the use of body oil that then appears in the drawing which someone say was made by Jordan.

    ???? Linden search Klein office for medical records. The medial records are nowhere to be found…

    ???? …so Klein and Rowe are subpoened to testify in front of a grand Jury, and they do.
    “Rowe told authorities that she and Klein flew around the world to minister to Jackson. She gave him massages and rubdowns and was familiar with his body, so she could identify any markings on his buttocks” from MO (Source? Always the Linden affidavit?)

    Now, from Sneddon declaration:

    2 investigations at the same time: LAPD with agent Rosibel Ferrufino, Santa Barbara Sheriff Departement with agent Deborah Linden.

    1 September 1993 Jordan gives a description and a drawing to LAPD, agent Ferrufino and attoney Laura Weis present.

    13 december 1993 Search warrant for the photos of MJ made by the Sheriff Department (Linden)

    Sneddon say HE rewiewed the statement made by Jordan on December 1, 1993 (this date pops out of nowhere. Did he mean 1 September? Such a stupid mistake on a court document is pretty werd I think, or maybe there’s really an interview Jordan made the 1st december), HE look at the drawing and HE arrives at the cnclusion that they match.

    Why drawing and photos are not under the same department but one is with the police and one is with the sheriff? Is normal to have both working on the same case?

    I’d like so much to find the first reference ever to the quote from the Linden report…

    Like

  159. Sonic permalink
    August 27, 2010 6:14 pm

    I don’t want to sound paranoid, but the Linden affidavit is seriously disappearing from the web.

    Listen to what I just found out.
    I was looking for references to this affidavit, and I found this article on The Sunday Times.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article508841.ece

    Turns out that this Linden affidavit was discovered by Vanity Fair a copule of months later February 2003.

    “After the broadcast, the feminist lawyer Gloria Allred wrote to authorities in Santa Barbara County calling for a child-welfare investigation. Sneddon’s office felt pushed to issue a statement saying that it had no grounds to proceed, based on “the act of an adult sleeping with a child without touching”.
    But it was clear that something had to be done, particularly after Jordan Chandler’s deposition was leaked to the public.”
    [……..]
    “A couple of months later Vanity Fair magazine trawled through the records of the Santa Maria courthouse and dug out an affidavit given by Sergeant Deborah Linden, then a deputy sheriff for Santa Barbara County (she is now the police chief of San Luis Obispo). ”

    So I said… well, Vanity Fair, who could be the author if not that nice Maureen Orth? So I went on the page of Vanity Fair where her articles are… And the article of April 2003 is missing.
    I don’t know, maybe it’s a server problem, but just out of curosity, it would be great if someone could find the actual paper copy.

    Like

  160. August 27, 2010 5:38 pm

    “I don’t understand how Bob Jones could have used tje smoking gin article which was probably written in 2006. The book was published in 2005.”

    Shelly, I’ve looked up Amazon.com and they give the following date for the book: Publisher: Select Books (NY) June 15, 2005

    The Smoking Gun gives January 6, … for their article. However our Dialdancer has sent us a link to a site where all those articles were copied immediately after the Smoking Gun published them and the site places the article as January 6, 2005 with a copy made to the site two days later, on January 8, 2005:

    http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?showtopic=7&mode=threaded&pid=753

    So it seems that the article WAS published half a year before the book. But how they could publish the article in January 2005 if the declaration was made only in May 2005 is completely beyond my understanding – unless they made a mistake in the year when typing the declaration?

    Like

  161. Sonic permalink
    August 27, 2010 5:32 pm

    @ shelly

    in the post is mentioned that there is a problem with the dates.

    This article consider the trial as still going.
    If it was actually published the 6/1/2005 it means that:
    – Sneddon make a reference to the photos in a sealed affidavit before the 2005
    – The book copied from Smoking Gun (maybe same author? unless both copied from another source, maybe an article from 1993)

    If it was published in 2006, the question is: why? The trial was over, they basically made a fake article just for the sake of fueling rumors and assumptions not caring of the fact that MJ was already found not guilty? Journalism is dead -__-
    In this case, they probably copied from the book.

    And I totally agree… Bob Jones = HYPOCRITE. Have you read his examination&cross-examination during the process?
    I can’t do anything exept agreeing with MJ: “I am bewildered at the length to which people will go to portray me so negatively”

    Like

  162. shelly permalink
    August 27, 2010 4:30 pm

    I don’t understand how Bob Jones could have used tje smoking gin article which was probably written in 2006. The book was published in 2005.

    Like

  163. August 27, 2010 1:53 pm

    “Bob Jones is a hypocrite! Did you know that he wrote the forward to Lisa D. Campbell’s “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”? That book was written to prove that MJ was innocent, yet he turns around 10 years later and tries to write a “tell-all” book saying that MJ was guilty?”

    David, Sonic and dear everybody,
    The more we look into various documents the more I understand that with every new person they disclose more and more of its secrets – I for one have never noticed that the foreword was from Bob Jones.

    Of course he is a double-dealer but I regard it as much luck that we now have a testimony from him about what he really thought about the 1993 events at that time. The fact that later he wrote something different in his book shows only that he was bitter and frustrated by his unfair dismissal and wanted to have his revenge on Michael. By the way, the dismissal could have been ‘prepared’ by some well-wishers in Michael’s surrounding who could have got rid of him for reasons of their own. Or that he just wanted money.

    So Bob Jones believed in Michael’s innocence so much that he agreed to write a preface to the book? I’ve typed the whole of it here:

    Michael Jackson first became aware of Lisa Campbell’s work with the publication of Michael Jackson: The King of Pop, in 1993, when he received a copy of the book at my office. He is impressed with her work and greatly appreciates the painstaking measures taken for accuracy. We are equally pleased to now have the opportunity to contribute this Foreword for this new volume.

    Lisa has presented here a fair overview of the events that took place when Michael became the victim of false and cruel allegations, and the irresponsible persecution he suffered at the hands of the media. We have long been the victims of rumors and lies through the media but nothing could have prepared us for that to which he was recently subjected.

    Michael experienced pain and humiliation to a depth he never realized existed. The tremendous distress he suffered during this period had profound effects on him both emotionally and physically. He has now overcome those difficulties with knowledge of his complete innocence and his deep faith in God.
    Michael has come through the experience a stronger person due largely to his faith and the incredible amount of support received from his friends and fans throughout the world. The underlying love and support he received from the fans and their refusal to believe the worst truly touched his heart.

    His goal is to spread pure and simple love around the world. Children are his greatest source of joy. That is a part of him which will never change.

    Michael knows that his fans suffered with him and shared his pain. He is deeply grateful for all of the love he has received.

    He loves you all.

    Bob Jones,
    Vice President
    Michael J. Jackson Productions

    Please show this testimony to Michael’s haters when they start saying that Bob Jones’ “believed” all those allegations which he actually took from the Smoking gun as our text analysis has shown it.

    Like

  164. lcpledwards permalink
    August 27, 2010 1:21 am

    @ Sonic
    Bob Jones is a hypocrite! Did you know that he wrote the forward to Lisa D. Campbell’s “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”? That book was written to prove that MJ was innocent, yet he turns around 10 years later and tries to write a “tell-all” book saying that MJ was guilty?

    And you’re right, it surely was a copy and paste straight from the Smoking Gun!! Stacey Brown didn’t just stop there, either! He copied and pasted entire paragraphs from Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair articles, and he was going to use them in the book that he tried to write with the two jurors who flipped on MJ after the trial when they were offered blood money. But once the publisher realized that he stole that material, they lost their book deals! 🙂

    Like

  165. Sonic permalink
    August 26, 2010 9:15 pm

    Hey! I found another reference to the Linden report, I don’t know if you already know about it, so just for info:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=8j4ILUllObsC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%E2%80%9Csimilar+to+the+color+of+his+face%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=zLexiTqJS5&sig=ZHMAvgJTVdDFhPG8O_7PPcuO57c&hl=en&ei=3cd2TOmcHsHAswayorSbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Csimilar%20to%20the%20color%20of%20his%20face%E2%80%9D&f=false

    It’s from “Michael Jackson: the man behind the mask”, by Bob Jones and Stacy Brown. It’s basically the same exact words of the Smoking Gun article, so it’s a clear case of copy&paste.

    would it be too much to hope that this book has a list of sources in the end?

    Like

  166. August 26, 2010 5:45 pm

    “Just for considering all the options, the only possibility to make the drawing and the photos match is that Jordan was misquoted”

    Sonic, I think even misquoting is IMPOSSIBLE here because Jordan spoke of a distinctive splotch “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”. Frankly, if “the color of his face” hadn’t been added the phrase could have been twisted any way, but this small comparison is making all the difference in the world. Actually it was due to this comparison that I remembered it at all.

    And you are right, the timeline IS important – a white splotch cannot turn dark, especially since the whole background is to change into its opposite too.

    No matter how we look at it, this mess-up with the description means only one thing – Jordan was making wild guesses and despite the fact that it was a relatively easy job (due to Michael’s vitiligo) he missed on both points – circumcision and the general color!

    Like

  167. Sonic permalink
    August 26, 2010 5:22 pm

    Yes, also for me there is not so much controversy looking at the facts.

    As vindicatemj already said, a dark spot is on white background, clearly. If you bleach a dark sopt, even if you bleach it completely, it does not become a white spot: it just stops being a spot!!

    Then: Jordan gives the first description (white spot), Sneddon the second (dark spot).
    If it was the contrary, the doubt that he bleached it could exist, but with this time line we have a white spot that becomes black, and I highly doubt he had an episode of repigmentation (which is very rare) exactly there and exactly in that period.

    Just for considering all the options, the only possibility to make the drawing and the photos match is that Jordan was misquoted; which basically means that DD and many other journalists were running lies without a proper source (not saying that they match… if they did, why the hell Mike wasn’t neither accused).

    Like

  168. August 26, 2010 10:28 am

    Wait a minute guys. Why are you so confused with this bleaching-the-skin issue? Everything is simple here – the number of spots or application of a bleach cream does NOT change anything.

    Firstly, if you look at Michael’s hands it is natural to assume that Michael had a great many small spots all over his body which means that the pattern should be the same in his genitalia too – that is why ANY OF US will be able to describe his genitals pretty accurately (I would say they were white with many darks spots).

    The police knew it and evidently asked for some particular mark. Jordan made a guess that there one distinct splotch which was bigger than the rest (a very safe guess I would say).

    BUT the crucial mistake he made was the color of that ‘distinctive’ splotch – he said it was light (the color of his face) meaning that the general background was dark. Okay?

    Now comes the second point. Even if you use all the bleaching creams that money can buy you cannot change BLACK skin into milky-white – the only thing you can do is lighten the color into a lighter shade. Thus black will turn into brown, or brown will turn into light-brown – but it won’t change the overall pattern of the picture. Yes, the PATTERN will remain the same – it will only become less vivid and more subdued, but essentially the same.

    Imagine you have a black curtain with white splotches on it (of a cow-skin type) and the sun bleaches it into a lighter color – will the pattern of splotches change because of that? Absolutely not – it is only the background which will become slightly lighter and THAT IS ALL.

    Is it possible to bleach black skin into a milky white so that the background is changed? Absolutely not! Moreover, it is impossible to bleach white skin into the color of vitiligo blotches either because vitiligo skin is unnaturally white – it loses ALL its pigment and turns into the color of milk or porcelain. Even white people cannot reach the desired effect, not to mention black ones! I’ve seen white people with vitiligo and must assure you that the impression is rather painful because it looks like pieces of white paper put all over their hands, face and body.

    But with black people the effect should be really dramatic – I can’t even imagine what an awful contrast it should make with them. Even after all possible and impossible bleaching the most result they can achieve is getting to a condition where a white person with vitiligo only starts – which is also so noticeable that everyone stares.

    What I mean to say is that it does NOT matter whether Michael did bleach or not – the only result he could reach was getting from a dramatic zebra into a subdued one, with all its stripes remaining it its proper place.

    If there was a dark spot as Tom Sneddon said, it will remain dark and will stay where it is and will NEVER change into a milky-white one as Jordan supposedly said.

    Even if its whereabouts are found “at about the same relative location”, probably “on the left” or probably “on the right” and described in a way to confuse everyone in a matter which is actually CLEAR AS BLACK AND WHITE.

    Like

  169. lynande51 permalink
    August 26, 2010 1:45 am

    This is all I can do for now I am dashing of to work. Here is the drug information for Benoquin. Benoquin is the only available treatment of extensive vitiligo avalable in the US. In th UK they have stem cell treament available that is porducing wonderful results for those that can afford it. It is not a cosmetic bleach and does not cause a chemical peel.
    Benoquin
    Generic Name: Monobenzone
    Dosage Form: cream, USP

    Benoquin Description
    Monobenzone is the monobenzyl ether of hydroquinone. Monobenzone occurs as a white, almost tasteless crystalline powder, soluble in alcohol and practically insoluble in water.
    Chemically, monobenzone is designated as p-(benzyloxy) phenol; the empirical formula is C13H12O2; molecular weight 200.24. The structural formula is:

    C13H12O2   200.24
    Each gram of Benoquin Cream contains 200 mg of monobenzone USP, in a water-washable base consisting of purified water USP, cetyl alcohol NF, propylene glycol USP, sodium lauryl sulfate NF and white wax NF.
    Benoquin – Clinical Pharmacology
    Benoquin Cream 20% is a depigmenting agent whose mechanism of action is not fully understood.
    The topical application of monobenzone in animals, increases the excretion of melanin from the melanocytes. The same action is thought to be responsible for the depigmenting effect of the drug in humans. Monobenzone may cause destruction of melanocytes and permanent depigmentation. This effect is erratic and may take one to four months to occur while existing melanin is lost with normal sloughing of the stratum corneum. Hyperpigmented skin appears to fade more rapidly than does normal skin, and exposure to sunlight reduces the depigmenting effect of the drug. The histology of the skin after depigmentation with topical monobenzone is the same as that seen in vitiligo; the epidermis is normal except for the absence of identifiable melanocytes.
    Indications and Usage for Benoquin
    Benoquin Cream 20% is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive Vitiligo.
    Benoquin Cream 20% is applied topically to permanently depigment normal skin surrounding vitiliginous lesions in patients with disseminated (greater than 50 percent of body surface area) idiopathic vitiligo.
    Benoquin Cream 20% is not recommended in freckling; hyperpigmentation caused by photosensitization following the use of certain perfumes (berlock dermatitis); melasma (chloasma) of pregnancy; or hyperpigmentation resulting from inflammation of the skin. Benoquin Cream 20% is not effective for the treatment of cafe-au-lait spots, pigmented nevi, malignant melanoma or pigmentation resulting from pigments other than melanin (e.g.: bile, silver, or artificial pigments).
    Contraindications
    Benoquin Cream 20% contains a potent depigmenting agent and is not a cosmetic skin bleach. Use of Benoquin Cream 20% is contraindicated in any conditions other than disseminated vitiligo. Benoquin Cream 20% frequently produces irreversible depigmentation, and it must not be used as a substitute for hydroquinone.
    Benoquin Cream 20% is also contraindicated in individuals with a history of sensitivity or allergic reactions to this product, or any of its ingredients.
    Warnings
    Benoquin Cream 20% is a potent depigmenting agent, not a mild cosmetic bleach. Do not use except for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo.
    Keep this, and all medications out of the reach of children. In case of accidental ingestion, call a physician or a Poison Control Center immediately.
    Precautions
    (See Warnings):
    General
    Benoquin Cream 20% is for External Use Only. Following therapy with Benoquin Cream 20%, the skin will be sensitive for the rest of the patient’s life. He/she must use sunscreens during exposure to the sun.
    Information for the Patient
    Benoquin Cream 20% contains a potent depigmenting agent and is not a cosmetic skin bleach. Use of Benoquin Cream 20% is contraindicated in any conditions other than disseminated vitiligo. Use only for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo. Areas of normal skin distant to the site of Benoquin Cream 20% application may become depigmented, and irregular, excessive, unsightly, and frequently permanent depigmentation may occur.
    Carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, impairment of fertility
    No long term studies have been performed to evaluate carcinogenic potential.
    Pregnancy: Category C
    Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Benoquin Cream 20%. It is also not known whether Benoquin Cream 20% can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman, or can affect reproduction capacity. Benoquin Cream 20% should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
    Nursing Mothers
    It is not known whether this drug is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Benoquin Cream 20% is administered to a nursing woman.
    Pediatric Use
    The safety and effectiveness of Benoquin Cream 20% in pediatric patients below the age of 12 years have not been established.
    Adverse Reactions
    Mild, transient skin irritation and sensitization, including erythematous and eczematous reactions have occurred following topical application of Benoquin Cream 20%. Although those reactions are usually transient, treatment with Benoquin Cream 20% should be discontinued if irritation, a burning sensation, or dermatitis occur. Areas of normal skin distant to the site of Benoquin Cream 20% application frequently have become depigmented, and irregular, excessive, unsightly, and frequently permanent depigmentation has occurred.
    Benoquin Dosage and Administration
    A thin layer of Benoquin Cream 20% should be applied and rubbed into the pigmented area two or three times daily, or as directed by physician. Prolonged exposure to sunlight should be avoided during treatment with Benoquin Cream 20%, or a sunscreen should be used.
    Depigmentation is usually accomplished after one to four months of Benoquin Cream 20% treatment. If satisfactory results are not obtained after four months of Benoquin Cream 20% treatment, the drug should be discontinued. When the desired degree of depigmentation is obtained, Benoquin Cream 20% should be applied only as often as needed to maintain depigmentation (usually only two times weekly).
    How is Benoquin Supplied
    Benoquin Cream 20% in 1 1/4 oz. tubes (35.4 g)
    (NDC 0187-0380-34).
    Benoquin Cream 20% should be stored at 25°C (77°F);
    excursion permitted to 15°C – 30°C (59°F – 86°F).

    ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    3300 Hyland Ave.
    Costa Mesa, CA 92626
    (714)545-0100
    2393-05 EL
    Rev. 8-00

    Benoquin
    monobenzone cream
    Product Information
    Product Type HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG NDC Product Code (Source) 0187-0380
    Route of Administration TOPICAL DEA Schedule

    INGREDIENTS
    Name (Active Moiety) Type Strength
    Monobenzone (Monobenzone) Active 200 MILLIGRAM In 1 GRAM
    water Inactive
    cetyl alcohol Inactive
    propylene glycol Inactive
    sodium lauryl sulfate Inactive
    white wax Inactive

    Product Characteristics
    Color Score
    Shape Size
    Flavor Imprint Code
    Contains

    Packaging
    # NDC Package Description Multilevel Packaging
    1 0187-0380-34 35.4 g (GRAM) In 1 TUBE None

    Like

  170. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2010 12:02 am

    @teva

    I think the bleaching on his genital is important because it take between 1 and 4 months to lose the black pigment. If he started in May 1993, he had no result before June at the very least, meaning that Jordan didn’t know what he was talking about.

    Like

  171. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 11:55 pm

    I also find something in a Maureen Orth article from 1995, called The Jackson Jive, she spoke about an affidavit from the photographer and according to her the affidavit spoke about a blotch on the lower left side and not on the right as Sneddon saif.

    Like

  172. August 25, 2010 11:38 pm

    CORRECTION

    With all the benoquin Michael was using = With all the benoquin Michael was allegedly using.

    I am very doubtful Michael applied this cream to his skin consistently since 1986.

    Like

  173. August 25, 2010 11:24 pm

    I don’t know if it is possible or not for a black person to be bleached milk white, but I do know it was not possible for Michael Jackon. The autopsy report clearly states that his face was discoloured. With all the benoquin Michael was using for years to even out his complexion in 2009 his face still did not acheive that uniformity. When we see Michael with his shirt off in videos he is wearing heavy makeup and so was his face in public.

    Honestly I don’t know why the bleach cream to the crotch is important because it was done before Evan made any allegations not after.

    I agree with Shelly the matchup is important because Jordan gave the police some very specific coordinates to find some very unique markings. This is one of two reasons the Chandler case captivated the public, the other being the settlement.

    Like

  174. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 11:14 pm

    There is something very strange, she said Jordan spoke about multiple blotches on his penis and one on his left buttock. She doesn’t say if she had seen the Linden affidavit.

    Like

  175. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 10:00 pm

    Actually what Klein said is that Jackson told him, in April or May 1993, he used benoquin on his genitals and it burned him. Tarraborelli said Rowe testified she helped Jackson with that problem.

    Like

  176. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 8:39 pm

    I can’t give you the link because I am using a mobile but you can read it in the article called Losing his grip by Maureen Orth, she speaks of the Klein affidavit.

    Like

  177. August 25, 2010 6:54 pm

    Sorry, Shelly, WHAT did Klein say? He bleached his genitals? In April?

    Can you give a link to this information, please? Preferably to Klein speaking?

    Even if bleaching the genitals in April is too late anyway?

    P.S. I wonder if it is possible to bleach a black skin into a milk-color skin (the color of his face) AT ALL?

    Like

  178. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 6:48 pm

    I know his mom and Klein were interwieved about bleaching but according to Orth and Tarraborelli, Klein aid he bleached his genitals around April

    Like

  179. August 25, 2010 5:09 pm

    The book by Lisa Campbell is an invaluable source of information for us because it was published immediately after the event (in 1994) and registers some information which was later forgotten or not paid attention to.

    For example, she recorded the chronology of the events – FIRST came the strip search (and the photographs) and THEN Tom Sneddon asked for the medical records, which is very tale-telling:

    p. 164: “All along the investigators seemed to be going to extremes to find something, anything, to incriminate Michael. For the body search of Michael, the Santa Barbara District Attorney wanted several police officers present and even wanted to use a ruler to measure the size of any spots on his skin! Michael’s attorneys were successful in getting these excessive and desperate demands denied.

    Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, later filed a motion in court to obtain Michael Jackson’s medical records from his dermatologist. He wanted to compare earlier photos of Michael with the more recent ones taken during the body search”.

    So this is the first proof that the pictures were different from Jordan’s description – especially in the color (because turning a circumcised man into a non-circumcised is practically impossible or will take awfully long as Lynette explained to us).

    The second proof that the police were terribly concerned about a mismatch between the pictures and the description is their interrogation of Katherine. Three months after the strip search they were still looking into the possibility of Michael changing his genitals in some way:

    p. 203-205: Katherine Jackson… testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17. She was reportedly questioned about Michael’s appearance in an attempt to determine whether Michael had altered his appearance so that it wouldn’t match the description his accuser had given to police. …her testimony took over just an hour… It infuriated Michael…

    Source: The King of Pop’s darkest hour (1994):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=n1S4bMjM8LoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+King+of+Pop%27s+Darkest+Hour#v=onepage&q&f=false

    And of course the main source which tells us of the mismatch of Jordan’s description and the pictures is the difference between LINDEN’S REPORT stating ” a light splotch the color of his face” and TOM SNEDDON’S DECLARATION saying it was a “dark blemish” and “at about the same relative location” too!

    Like

  180. August 25, 2010 4:29 pm

    I am sorry but to me both factors are important – the color of the blotch and his non-circumcision. It would be incorrect to say that the locations of blotches change – they stay where they are (what has lost its pigment will not regain it), it is only that new blotches are added to the old ones and thus change their previous configuration.

    But you are forgetting that by that time Michael was already “more white than black”. Remember his interview with Oprah a year earlier, in February 1993 when he spoke about his vitiligo? Remember the color of his face then? And his video “They don’t care about us” which dates back to the same period? Remember his hands and chest which were also white?

    Vitiligo starts with hands and genitals. And if he was white in most parts of his body it means that his genitals were surely white as this is where the process begins.

    And the photos confirmed it – Tom Sneddon spoke of one dark blemish (with the overall color being light).

    In contrast to him Jordan spoke of one light splotch (naturally on a dark background).

    And this means that within half a year only Michael should have changed from black to white in his genitalia – which is IMPOSSIBLE, as the process is not going that quickly!

    And since vitiligo STARTS with the genitals, they should have turned white even when the rest of the body was still predominantly black!

    Like

  181. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2010 3:48 pm

    @ Shelly

    Where the blotches were is actually not more important than if MJ was circumsized. Like Ray Chandler himself wrote in his book the blotches of a vitiligo patient change their locations constantly. And Michael’s strip search took place half a year after the alleged molestation happened! So how are the blotches more important than the circumcision? Even Ray Chandler wrote in his book the location of the blotches is not important – exactly because of the above mentioned fact about vitiligo!

    Like

  182. August 25, 2010 2:20 pm

    @ Shelly,
    Jordan wasn’t too stressed to incorrectly say that MJ was circumcised. So, why would it be too stressful for him to say MJ was uncircumcised?

    Like

  183. August 25, 2010 1:52 pm

    Shelly, the prosecution made a lot of movements to make sure Michael didn’t bleach the genitals.
    Firstly, they captured his medical records and didn’t want to return them. Secondly, they asked Klein. And thirdly, they interrogated Michael’s mother Katherine about the same subject – if I remember it correctly it was done before the grand jury and Michael was furious that they had summoned her and humiliated her with questions about his genitals and whether they were changed.

    These details are described by Lisa Campbell in her book The King of Pop’s darkest hour: http://books.google.com/books?id=n1S4bMjM8LoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+King+of+Pop%27s+Darkest+Hour#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You will find this episode closer to the end of the book – the events come in a chronological order there, so look for March 1994 and you’ll find it there.

    Like

  184. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2010 1:14 pm

    I don’t agree, I think the match up of the pictures is very important. I don’t think the circumcision thing is important. I mean it proved they were lying when they said it was a perfect match, but I think the most important is if was or wasn’t able to say where the blotches were. I think we shouldn’t forget that he was only a 13 years old kid who was probably under lots ofi stress when he made the allegations. I think the most important is the prosecution asked Klein, during a deposition he made in 1994, if he bleached his genitals. Why would they asked that if it was a match.

    Like

  185. Dialdancer permalink
    August 24, 2010 9:39 pm

    Michael may have had a copy of the photos and video film, but the DA’s Office has the original. The original which was and could still be copied and distributed to other parties. Geraldo Rivera reported on his show he was given a copy.

    Like

  186. Dialdancer permalink
    August 24, 2010 9:34 pm

    @ Teva,

    The matchup is no longer crucial. The drawing, Sneddon’s Declaration and Media reports which stated this was an absolute has debunked that lie. What is crucial is to get the information out to the public, to ensure the information is correct, relying on the documents to draw comparison and to tell the truth.

    This my analysis into the reasons behind why some things were adds or not to what is a very non-entertaining piece of fiction.

    It wasn’t just about the method of the so called molestation which would be looked at, but the two males involved. For the so called victim there would have been a greater taint to have engaged in intercourse of this kind. It’s harder to explain why no outcry and obviously no physical evidence.

    (Have you ever noticed only men are reported as pedophiles? Women are called sexual predators or molesters.)

    Whether it is male or female only men are called pedophiles, but when you add a two male situation the interest in the acts for both males become more invasive and perverse. There is an unspoken rule that it is bad to sexually assault, molest females, but it is horrendous for a male to do so to a male; as if one is more acceptable than the other. (Roman Polanski) Just as there is an unspoken rule about women who molest adolescent boys. To some it is considered morally wrong, but not damaging, not really all that bad, especially if she is considered attractive.

    Evan and company wanted money. Evan wanted to destroy Michael’s image not Jordan’s

    Like

  187. Jacqueline permalink
    August 24, 2010 3:03 pm

    @ Teva,

    Thank you for your explanation. Sometimes I confuse myself with some of the facts of this story. That’s why I love this blog and I love to read all the comments, although I always get confuse. I believe 100% in Michael’s innocence, of course. I have no doubt about this. I just confuse myself trying to understand the real facts of this story. You know, Jordan seemed to like Michael, he even dressed like him and I can’t understand how he could turn against Michael the way he did. I agree with you that the pictures are crucial and they did not match. Even if they did, because of the “splotchs”, I wouldn’t give a damn to it, because Michael had vitiligo. Of course Jordan would say he had “splotchs” in his body.
    Thank you again for your answer.

    @Helena,

    I didn’t know the drawing wasn’t Jordan’s. I’ll wait to see what you will say about this. This story is very strange, isn’t it? The more you dig, the more you find clues about Michael’s innocence. Poor Michael, he shouldn’t have given so much attention to that family.

    Like

  188. Suzy permalink
    August 24, 2010 6:39 am

    @ Teva

    Thank you. I forgot about Michael’s personal photograph. But you are right why would Michael hand them THOSE pictures?

    Like

  189. August 23, 2010 10:09 pm

    @ Jacqueline
    “He said that Michael masturbated him and etc, and several other horrible things, but he never said anything about, you know, penetration. Why? Because that could be proven. Why didn’t the sodium amital implant this memory on his mind too?”

    You know Jacqueline I said something along similar lines on another thread. The Sodium Amytal could never have implanted penetration in his memory because it was never mentioned to him. When he was coming out of sedation Evan asked Jordan only about masturbation, kissing and blowjobs, COINCIDENTALLY these are the exact same allegations made against MJ. So what do we have going on here?
    1. Evan made up this line of questioning to match his son’s claims, or
    2. The power of suggestion.
    To me it really doesn’t matter if sodium amytal was used or not I find it too much of a coincidence. That is why the matchup of the pictures is crucial.

    Like

  190. August 23, 2010 9:53 pm

    About the pics. Michael would not have been in a position to hand over photographs to Larry Feldman merely because they were the property of the state, and only the prosecution would have been in authority to do so. In addition Michael did have his own personal photographer and videographer in the room taking pictures along with the state’s. Much like what he did with the Bashir documentary. However he would never have given his personal copies to Feldman. Why would he?

    I have a different take on Feldman’s request. I think he didn’t know if they were a match or not because he could not verify them for himself that is why he did not want to risk them in court. In addition Feldman and Sneddon were working against each other. Feldman wanted to avoid the court room and force an out of court settlement, but Sneddon wanted the civil trial to go forward because he would have access to the defense’s exculpatory evidence.

    Like

  191. Suzy permalink
    August 23, 2010 9:19 pm

    Helena,

    The thing I was wondering about was if Michael and his lawyers were even in the position to give the pictures to the Chandlers? I have never read anywhere they had those pics – I only read the DA had them and locked them up in a safe.

    I may be wrong but the part you quoted from Lisa Campbell’s book suggests to me that they didn’t have them – that’s why they requested the DA in March, 1994 and then in May to give those pics to them.

    In either case, it seems the Chandlers asked the DA for the pics too and he denied the request, which is interesting…..

    Like

  192. August 23, 2010 8:12 pm

    “If it was a match why would they want them to be barred from court anyway? Of course they couldn’t say: “we want the pictures barred from court” – that would have been too obvious why. So they had to make this trickery with the so called “options” given to Michael. Amazing”

    Suzy, yes, Larry Feldman’s motion to bar the pictures from court is a clear sign that there was NO match. But I am afraid that under certain circumstances there was a chance for the attorney to obtain those pictures – if not from Michael, then from the prosecution. I am no legal expert but while studying that deposition issue I came upon a paragraph which says:

    “In recent years the problems of procuring evidence have been eased somewhat by the introduction of broader discovery (i.e. disclosure) rules. In civil cases, these rules compel each party to a suit to allow the other to have access to its witnesses and to certain types of evidence before the trial. In criminal cases the judge has the discretionary power to order discovery; in any event, the prosecutor must release all exculpatory evidence on request”

    It seems that it was exactly because of the civil suit that Michael was in such a disadvantageous position – the other side could have access and demand practically everything from his attorneys – even if it contradicted common sense (as in the case of pictures). Since the same concerned Michael’s side this is probably the reason why they were so secretive about themselves – no depositions, no declarations (except the last and public one), no testimonies, no nothing from the Chandlers’ side…

    Did Michael’s haters ever ask themselves a question why the Chandlers needed the pictures at all if Jordan was supposed to know everything without them?

    Like

  193. August 23, 2010 7:50 pm

    Jacqueline, thank you for the words of encouragement. This blog is not only mine now – several people are contribtuting to it now, not to mention the readers’ comments which are often very enlightening.

    In my opinion Jordan WAS a liar (as his interview with the psychiatrist shows it), but it seems that the drawing and probably the declaration were NOT his doing. It seems that they were fake and I will try to prove my point in the later posts.

    Like

  194. August 23, 2010 6:56 pm

    “This is Sneddon’s Declaration on the interview with Jordan and who was there.
    Linden’s name looks to be added as an afterthought. He states LA’s Asst DA Lauren Weis is the interviewer not Linden. Weis’ Bio does not mention the investigation at all.”

    Dialdancer, in my opinion the declaration of Tom Sneddon is a masterpiece of slyness – everything is mixed up there in such a way so that no one is supposed to understand anything at all. A few words about it:

    1) there were two district attorneys working on the case – Gill Garcetti in Los Angeles and Tom Sneddon in Santa Barbara (with two respective grand juries who didn’t indict)

    2) on Sept.1, 1993 it was in Los Angeles that Jordan was supposedly talking to Weis and Ferrufino. Please note that the document above speaks of their testimonies, not Jordan’s.

    3) As far as I know a court reporter should be present if an affidavit is taken too – the difference is that an affidavit is made without any cross examination and with no other side present, but it should be made under oath too. They called it an interview though (?)

    4) Tom Sneddon says their office also started an investigation and Deborah Linden was from the Santa Barbara side.

    5) It is still questionable whether the strip search was constitutional (Michael’s lawyers said it was not), so it was only Tom Sneddon’s office which initiated this procedure. He doesn’t mention Linden’s interview with Jordan at all (we know about it only from the Smoking gun article), but he says that on Dec. 13 the search warrant “was obtained”.

    6) In an indirect way he does refer to that interview with Linden by saying that “he reviewed the statements made by Jordan on Dec.1, 1993”, so evidently the interview with Linden was on December 1 and was followed by a strip-search warrant two weeks later. We don’t know whether anybody else was present during the interview.

    7) He doesn’t refer to the so-called Jordan’s declaration of December 28, 1993 at all. It was made in Larry Feldman’s office and not in the police department. But since no information is provided about Linden’s interview the first impression is that he is talking about the Dec.28, 1993 declaration everyone heard about. The way he talks about it it seems that it was that particular December declaration which was the reason for the search warrant (at least I initially thought that way).

    In other words the impression is that first that Larry Feldman Declaration was made and then a search warrant was obtained, while in reality it was Linden’s report (probably on Dec.1) which was the reason for it.

    The ONLY, I repeat, the only information we have about Linden report is contained in that article from the Smoking Gun which is missing now. And the article says that Jordan told Linden about a ‘light splotch’…

    Like

  195. Suzy permalink
    August 23, 2010 2:47 pm

    I was wondering regarding that Larry Feldman comment in January 1994, where he gave MJ three options:

    – to hand him the photos of his private parts or
    – to undergo another strip search or
    – to bar the pics from court

    I asked this before and now it seems to me there is an asnwer to my question in that Lisa Campbell book: was Michael in the position at all to hand the pictures to the Chandlers? I thought not, because I don’t think he had them. I think only Sneddon had them. And those parts from Campbell’s book where MJ’s lawyers are trying to get the pictures from the DA in the spring of 1994, seems to conirm this.

    I’m pretty sure Feldman knew Michael didn’t have the pictures and even if he wanted he couldn’t have given them to the Chandlers, so option Nr 1 was an impossible request. Option Nr 2 was close to impossible as well, since Michael couldn’t have taken another strip search after the humiliation of the first one. So the thing they really wanted was option Nr 3, to bar the pictures from court. Which is interesting considering in the media they bragged about how it matched. If it was a match why would they want them to be barred from court anyway? If it was a match it can only strengthen their case. Of course they couldn’t say: “we want the pictures barred from court” – that would have been too obvious why. So they had to make this trickery with the so called “options” given to Michael. Amazing….. just like the fact that documents of the case keep disappearing from the Internet….

    Like

  196. Jacqueline permalink
    August 23, 2010 2:45 pm

    Hi, everyone,

    I was reading this post and it showed me clearly that Jordan was a real lier, and not an innocent little kid who only said those horrible things he said because he was given sodium amital. His draw and his declaration indicate to me that he was lying since the begining. If the sodium amital makes people suggestive and a simple question can implant false memories, so why did Jordan only said things that couldn’t be proven? He said that Michael masturbated him and etc, and several other horrible things, but he never said anything about, you know, penetration. Why? Because that could be proven. Why didn’t the sodium amital implant this memory on his mind too? To me, he was a lier and he knew he was lying since the begining.

    I love to read your blog, Helena. You do a great job.

    Like

  197. Dialdancer permalink
    August 23, 2010 1:34 am

    Here is what happens when you get arrogant and too cute.

    1. There are two different stories about when this picture was drawn. One is for his father prior to his interview with the police and the other is by Sneddon who states that during the interview “Jordan was asked to draw Jackson’s erect penis and he did”.

    2. The phrase “body oil stink” is meant to insult Michael. Add a slap as if to say Jordan found the whole of him unacceptable. There is no mention of this in the Declaration and it should be since it is predominate enough to be on the drawing and is out of context. If the notations on the drawing aren’t Jordan’s then who do they belong to and why are they there? The drawing is about to become Jordan’s official document.

    3. If the drawing comments are Jordan’s why can he remember the name of Michael’s bleaching cream, but not that Michael looks different from him?

    4. Did someone forget MJ is suppose to be the experienced seducer of the young, that means he would make himself as appealing as possible, not wear a fragrance which is off putting or be slathered in enough cream the alleged victim would notice, remember and make comment on it later. (That was a sign of ignorance & racial prejudice….stupid)

    4. Where’s the date the drawing was done? It must be affixed to the drawing as well as the document.

    5. The phrase “left glut” sound very much like what is said in Halperin’s book. Maybe he “borrowed” it from the picture.

    Like

  198. Dialdancer permalink
    August 23, 2010 12:01 am

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

    This is Sneddon’s Declaration on the interview with Jordan and who was there.
    Linden’s name looks to be added as an afterthought. He states LA’s Asst DA Lauren Weis is the interviewer not Linden. Weis’ Bio does not mention the investigation at all.

    He states a court reporter was used for Jordan’s statement . I can tell you categorically they type exactly what you say just like the verbiage found in the trial transcripts. Every utterance and sound is recorded. A stenographer may have to come back later and request a spelling, but the conversation is as spoken.

    Like

  199. August 22, 2010 7:36 pm

    Dialdancer, the January 6, 2005 date is a complete enigma to me as I cannot comprehend how the author of the article can speak of Tom Sneddon’s declaration – about Jordan and the issue of the splotch – which is only to come on May 26, 2005.

    And as you will see practically none of the Smoking Gun ‘documents’ refer to the 1993 case. There is only one sentence about it: [Click here for new revelations about the Chandler case, including Jackson’s telltale body “splotches” and how Sneddon & Co.’s candid camera reportedly corroborated the teenager’s tale.] – WITH NO ARTICLE TO IT. Okay, probably they didn’t post everything.

    But this scarcity of information is proving practical non-availability of factual material about the Chandlers’ case – there is a lot of talk and invention in the form of books, interviews and newspaper stories but practically no documents.

    As to the Arvizo case it was such a terrible nonsense that one day this Smoking Gun archive will be used against them as a complete anectode. Let them archive this information for the future generations to laugh – it would really be hilarious if it were not that tragic.

    Like

  200. Dialdancer permalink
    August 22, 2010 7:13 pm

    Helena,

    I just love Michael Jackson Fan sites. There is always a copy of a missing article posted it is just a matter of finding it. According to MJJ2005 it was posted on Jan 6, 2005

    http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?showtopic=7&mode=threaded&pid=753

    See Poster #3
    Another missing article:
    Boston Herald – Jackson accusations sordid but no open-and-shut case

    “Smoking Gun editor William Bastone said he viewed dozens of heavily redacted court filings, while sources gave him access to other papers and grand jury proceedings.

    Sources???? What he means is Sneddon to Dimond to him. No one else had access to the Grand Jury info but Sneddon. The Judge wasn’t there and neither was the Defense.

    Like

  201. Dialdancer permalink
    August 22, 2010 6:38 pm

    Helena,

    Oh…that’s just Dimond getting assistance on removing the evidence of her crimes. Lately she is trying to rewrite history about she did and did not say in reference to Michael and the false charges. Actually there are a few who are trying this tactic.

    @Eloise,

    You are correct. Recently I went to send the YouTube link where Bashir admits to lying about the Neverland video. It is no longer available on YouTube, ABC.com or any site which used copy & paste to make it available for viewing. Fortunately I recorded it. As for the articles I have taken to photocopying the entire page(s) and attaching them to a document for safe keeping.

    Like

  202. August 22, 2010 3:01 pm

    David, I really wouldn’t like my motives being misinterpreted here. I find all those Smoking gun articles absolutely disgusting and the ONLY reason why I think that missing article valuable is because it alludes to the document which otherwise everyone would completely forget about.

    The fact is that Linden’s report is our only source of information about what exactly the police said about that notable ‘splotch’ AT THE BEGINNING.

    And at the beginning they quoted Jordan as saying that “the splotch was light similar to the color of his face”. Then the pictures were made and all of a sudden the story turned 180 degrees and became “a dark colored spot” – DD spoke about a dark spot, Tom Sneddon spoke about a dark spot, now it is being repeated in every hater’s book as a dark spot and NO ONE REMEMBERS that at the very beginning Jordan was supposed to be saying that it was “light colored similar to his face”.

    If this last article from the Smoking Gun disappears THERE WILL BE NO OTHER EVIDENCE of the crucial blunder once made by the police and the Chandlers left.

    THIS IS WHY this article is so precious to us. And this is why I am asking for a link to the original 1993 DCFS report where the same thing was probably also noted.

    P.S. All original documents from the 1993 seem to be missing or are at least very hard to obtain. A funny thing about this article “missing” from the Smoking Gun is that a person who was writing it evidently had access to the original report and made some quotations from it the way they were written there. Poor thing, he didn’t know that by the year 2005/2006 the story of the police had already changed and was the opposite to what he was saying.

    And though the story of a “light splotch similar to the color of his face” is still remembered by the survivors of that period, if you browse the internet for the light splotch or for Linden’s report you will find no more written evidence there remaining.

    Like

  203. lcpledwards permalink
    August 22, 2010 11:18 am

    Helena:

    Here is a link to a page that has ALL of the Smoking Gun documents on MJ in one place! It’s 318 pages long! It’s in PDF form, and you can press the green button on the bottom of the page to download and save it!

    Unfortunately I haven’t found the 1993 DCFS report yet, and I don’t think it was ever available online. I’m surprised that Dimond hasn’t leaked it by now!

    Like

  204. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2010 2:31 am

    I have them and more saved on jump drives and my external drive. I was looking for it when I found a treasure trove of LA times article that I have stored. I’m an electronic pack rat that saves everything I have ever used for a reference in my life on some kind of a drive. My only trouble is finding the right drive. I have about 25 and they aren’t labled. I hope to get them all organized someday and on adobe so we can use them for a “library” when we need them.

    Like

  205. Eloise permalink
    August 22, 2010 1:19 am

    Guys, I advise you to have these items are well stored in cd’s, would not surprise me that some day this site was blocked. It is not appropriate to know the truth about Michael and this swarm of swindlers. They have much to hide, this case was very serious, they had to all be in jail for what they have done a completely innocent person. The lynching of the twenty-first century, no doubt.

    Do not know how to thank you for the work you are doing, Michael is very proud of you.

    This is the Smoking Gun was a low blow, is that nobody thought was going to keep this article? Well done! follow me laughing for years for this😄.

    sorry for my English, is not my language, I’m from Spain🙂

    Like

  206. paulie permalink
    August 22, 2010 12:31 am

    And yet the description and photos were never presented in court. Because no match existed.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police? | Michael Jackson Allegations
  2. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  3. Rewriting history or Michael Jackson’s UNPREDICTABLE PAST « Vindicating Michael
  4. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance
  5. Lupus, Vitiligo, Plastic surgery and the concept of “Self-hatred”. Did Michael Jackson want to go white? « Vindicating Michael
  6. When It Comes To Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are Poles Apart! « Vindicating Michael
  7. Transcript of “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” by Martin Bashir « Vindicating Michael
  8. Fact Checking The Documentary “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” By Jacques Peretti-Part Two | AllForLoveBlog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: