Skip to content

Peretti’s film about Michael Jackson. What REALLY happened. 30 days in Jordan Chandler’s home

September 9, 2010

Jacques Peretti’s film “What really happened” was broadcast by British television station Channel 4 on October 24, 2007 which was well after Michael Jackson’s full acquittal in 2005 and several years after Bashir’s documentary.

One of its viewers summed up the film as follows:

  • “It makes the Bashir piece look almost impartial. Unreal. I was disgusted”.

An assessment like that is absolutely correct – the amount of lies told about Michael Jackson in this film is absolutely unreal and the feeling of disgust it evolves in any sensible human soul is complete, infinite and all-embracing.

The film is the ultimate accomplishment of Michael’s detractors. Even its timing shows that it was meant to draw a sort of a bottom line under the many years of work done to vilify Michael Jackson, assassinate his character and thus neutralize any “power” he may have exercised on the people.

The film looks like a proud report on the effectiveness of the campaign carried out against Jackson with a few glimpses at how it was done and who executed the project. The report practically squeaks with joy at the financial results of the work done as it opens and closes the film with a scene of a supposedly unsuccessful auction of Michael’s personal belongings which managed to raise only a few thousand dollars for its ‘penniless’ owner.

All throughout the film I couldn’t help feeling that the report was meant not for the general public only but for a big boss who had ordered the music and was now evaluating the quality of the job done (or is it my imagination only?).

Whatever the case the end goal of the anti-Jackson campaign is now clear enough – the idea was to strip Michael Jackson of his impressive image, money and authority and turn him into a sheer nobody instead. It is no wonder that the idea of ‘power’ is repeated again and again as a sort of a key to the film in numerous variations and in different contexts:

  • “He wanted to be knighted.  Awards were not enough.  He needed his own principality.  Now he was a king in his own kingdom [ Neverland].   What was he saying to the world? “I can do what I want to”.  The pay-off gave him a sense that he could get out of anything.  No one could stop him.  After the pay-off Jackson’s sense of power went beyond anything it was before.  It was Jackson against the world.  It was very nearly as saying – stop me if you can. You can’t stop me – I am Michael Jackson.
  • Why is he broke now?  Dancing for pennies at the age of forty four. Jackson is nothing – no power, no control and no money.  He is exactly where he wanted to be.  And he is alone.  He amassed immense power and lost it all because he realized that all the power in the world couldn’t buy him what he wanted”.

The tone of narration is triumphant and is seething with deep satisfaction and delight at the mission accomplished. An occasional note here and there is meant to feign compassion for the ‘madness’ of a man who knew he was a ‘monster’, and who willingly turned himself into a wacko jacko’, and who had Bubbles as his ‘wackiest’ development and who ended up by making a ‘genuinely weird creation’ like Neverland into which he lured innocent children and their greedy parents for satisfying his most ‘weird fantasies’.

Jacques Peretti, the author of the film, portrays himself as a lifelong Michael Jackson’s fan which is supposed to send the world a message that even Michael’s fans know how deeply fallen and corrupt their idol is.

Every half a minute the narrative comes up with innuendoes like “Is it the man who enjoys innocent fun or are we watching something darker here?” or What was this construction hiding?” or “Is it all it seems?” or “I was beginning to descend into the basement of the Jackson story” or “The story emerging was more complex and much darker than I had ever imagined” or  “It’s amazing that his fate is to become an anonymous suburban freak”.

From time to time Jacques Peretti would make long and affected pauses to set off phrases like “they would lie together on the carpet and imagine flying over Neverland (is it supposed to mean anything sinister?) or would even fall into a horrified tell-all silence for full several minutes after hearing from Bob Jones that “they were in the bedroom at night too”.

If you add to the picture the type of music usually accompanying horror or suspense movies which is meant to convey to the viewers how abominable a crime must have been taking place there , you will get the complete picture of the sick melodrama we are being presented with. This is exactly the proof we needed to make sure that Jacques Peretti is indeed a big ‘fan’ of Michael Jackson…

Diane Dimond

But no matter who Jacques Peretti is the main heroes of the film are the triumphant DIANE DIMOND and a less known guy who is actually DD’s right hand called VICTOR GUTIERREZ. The film is their truly shining hour and a tribute to their life-long meddling with Michael Jackson’s life.

Considering that even Thomas Sneddon as a long time detractor of Michael Jackson (who is clearly regarded by the film as a loser) and Thomas Mesereau as Michael’s victorious attorney are both given less than 5 minutes in this hour-long film it is the two characters mentioned above who are really enjoying the limelight here.

Fame has found its heroes at last and it is no chance occurrence that both of them make their appearance in this film together – this way the proud authors have unwittingly shown to us who the main players in Michael’s defamation/vilification campaign are and emphasized an inseparable link between the two.

Victor Gutierrez

Since everyone is familiar with Diane Dimond’s great “achievements” in this field let me say a couple of words about the less known Victor Gutierrez. This Chilean freelance writer has made a name for himself by inventing a story about a video allegedly showing “molestation” of a boy in Neverland but was never able to prove that the film ever existed (the video was searched for by  D.A. Tom Sneddon but with no avail – more about it here).

Gutierrez was sued by Jackson for slander in 1996, and the 1998 court ruled he should pay Michael $2,7mln. in damages. He never paid a penny though –  he fled the country instead and declared himself bankrupt. In the film he is presented by Peretti as an innocent victim of harassment on the part of Michael Jackson:

  • “Victor Gutierrez fled the US for ten years as a result of threats against him…”

Since it is Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez who are the main characters of Peretti’s film it is them whom I would like to mainly focus in a few posts here. The stories told by these triumphant winners are LIES IN THEIR ULTIMATE FORM and will therefore have to be discussed in minute and even ridiculous detail here.

The first story is called  “30 DAYS IN JORDAN CHANDLER’S HOME”which is presented in the film as “Michael Jackson spent with Jordan Chandler a month doing laundry for him”.

The smiling Victor Gutierrez is terribly pleased with himself as he is reciting the following:

  • “He fell in love with the boy.  Instead of concerts he was spending time with Jordan.  He moved into his house. He spent a month in the house.  Father who was a dentist went to work.  Mother Natalie went to work.  Somebody had to take care of the house and Jackson became the nanny.  He did the laundry… He would do the laundry for Jordie.  He was folding all the clothing for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie.  He was cooking for him – he was like a maid”

Jacques Peretti echoes him:

  • “So in 1992 with a 14 year old boy he spent a month doing the laundry…!????”

Ray Chandler

To vivisect this lie and see what REALLY happened in Jordan Chandler’s home back in spring 1993 we need to compare Gutierrez’s story with the various pieces of information from the Chandlers which are dubious too of course but have at least some semblance to the truth:

Ray Chandler speaks to Larry King on November 25, 2003: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/lkl.00.html

CHANDLER: And one other place, which I think, you know, is very important to understand that it also occurred in the boy’s home, where he was living with his then family. Michael slept in the boy’s bedroom behind closed doors for 30 nights in a row. Thirty nights in a row.
KING: With the mother and the stepfather home?
CHANDLER: The stepfather, I don’t believe, was home. There was some estrangement going on…

KING: Didn’t the mother think something was wrong with this?
CHANDLER: You’d have to ask the mother that question.
KING: She is your sister-in-law?
CHANDLER: She was. Well, I mean, I believe her — her belief at the time was that she didn’t see anything happening.
KING: So it was innocent to her. She believed Michael Jackson was just an innocent friend of a 13-year-old?
CHANDLER: I guess you could say that that’s what she believed.

The first conclusion we can make from this conversation is that if ever those 30 days did take place they were surely not in the home of Evan and Natalie Chandler – Ray Chandler said on many occasions that Michael never spent more than two weekends in Evan Chandler’s home.

So it wasn’t Evan’s – it was June Chandler’s home where Michael stayed for some time. June Chandler was already separated from her 70-year old husband David Schwartz and was living in Santa Monica alone with her daughter Lily, her 13-year old son Jordan and a live-in housekeeper.

Placing the story at June Chandler’s location automatically makes half of Gutierrez’s story a lie as Michael never stayed alone with Jordan “when the mother and father left for work”.

However Ray Chandler also spoke in his interview of “30 days” making it a special point that they came in a row. Where did he take this information from? It could come only from the boy’s then family which was June Chandler alone as Jordan was living with his mother and met his father Evan only occasionally.

Fortunately June Chandler did give her testimony during the 2005 trial and though she also spoke about some “30 days” she was quite definite that they were never in a row – she said Michael’s consecutive stays “could be a week or two at a time’ only”.

Isn’t it fascinating to see how the period of 30 days gradually reduces to “a week or two at a time” as we make our progress with the Chandlers’ testimonies? And isn’t it interesting to note how these ordinary folks never remember whether the world-wide celebrity stayed one or two weeks in their home? (I would remember that if I were them). However this is serious business, guys, so let us put aside any speculation and look at June Chandler’s testimony in full earnest:

Q. After you got back from Monaco, did Michael Jackson spend nights at your home?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the 30 nights you’ve described after you got back from Monaco?

A. No.

Q. How many nights after you got back from Monaco do you think Michael Jackson stayed at your home?

A. Oh, perhaps a week or two.

Q. And this was a point where you were getting upset that your son wanted to spend all of his time with Michael Jackson, right?

A. Yes.

Let me explain this Monaco thing – Jordan claimed in his declaration of December 28, 1993 that it was in Monaco that ‘things got out of hand’ – which was at the beginning of May (May 9, 1993). Even our Diane Dimond as a big expert on Michael Jackson also said that “it” started in Monaco.

However according to June those ‘30 days’ were NOT AFTER Monaco.  They were BEFORE it. Which means that even according to Jordan’s or Diane Dimond the period before Monaco was nothing special in the ‘relationship’ between Michael and Jordan…

A simple deduction of 30 days from the beginning of May takes us to the beginning of April which is approximately the moment named by June Chandler and Jordan as the time when Michael invited them to Las Vegas and where Jordan allegedly stayed in Michael’s room for the first time.

Do you remember that Exorcist story described in vivid detail by the good old uncle Ray Chandler? I see that you do remember it – so it will surely come as a big surprise to you that June Chandler was very vague about that occurrence though she was supposed to be a witness to it.

The only thing she says is that she ‘heard’ about the Exorcist and tells us a completely different Cirque du Soleil story instead about ‘why she allowed Jordan to stay with MJ’.

According to June they stayed in Las Vegas for “two or three nights”. All of them slept in one room on the first night and on the second night they had a conversation “about them being a family” after which she allowed Jordan to stay in Michael’s room for the first time.

Q. Okay. At some point did you all see an Exorcist movie?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall anyone watching an Exorcist movie?

A. I was told Jordan and Michael watched an Exorcist movie.

Q. Do you remember how long you stayed in Las Vegas on this occasion?

A. Two or three nights.

Q. Now, when you got to Las Vegas, did you have — obviously you had a room —

A. Correct.

Q. — in The Mirage. And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?

A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.

Q. All in the same room?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did those arrangements change at any point in time?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did they change?

A. The second night things changed.

Q. With regard to “things changed,” could you tell me what changed first?

A. Well, there were approximately three bedrooms in that suite at the Mirage Hotel. Lily and I were staying in one bedroom, Jordie had another bedroom, and Michael had another bedroom. The second night, they were going to see a performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.

Q. “They” meaning who?

A. Jordie and Michael —

Q. Okay.

A. — and Lily and I. It was around 11 p.m. at night, and I got a call from somebody at Cirque du Soleil saying, “Where is Michael?” And I said, “He should be there with my son.” They said, “He’s not here.” A little while later, another call, he still didn’t show up. They still did not show up. And I — there’s a knock on the door and it’s Michael and Jordan, and they came back into the suite.

[]A. Well, I think the performance started at11:00, and I would say Jordan and Michael showed up around 11:30.

[]A. He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is with you.”

A. I was saying this. And Michael was trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you trust me?”

Q. Did you at some point in time relent and allow your son to sleep with Michael Jackson in his bedroom?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And was it after that discussion on that night?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the first occasion?

A. Correct.

Never mind those “trembling” embellishments – let us look at the hard-core facts instead. Do you make head or tail of this Exorcist/du Soleil business? You needn’t be ashamed if you don’t – no one will be able to understand anything here as the stories told by the various Chandlers are so different and contradictory to each other that the absurdity of it all is simply astonishing when you have a closer look …

Okay, let’s make a mental note of this contradiction and get back to the ’30 days’ story described by Ray Chandler, June Chandler and Victor Gutierrez.

We have just heard from June Chandler that Michael spent full 30 days in June’s home after Las Vegas (late March) and before Monaco (May 9) with consecutive stays being no more than “a week or two at a time”. This pressed schedule didn’t prevent them from staying (at least overnight) at Neverland two or three times too and go to Disneyland in Florida on two occasions staying there for two or three days each time. Please note that between Florida and Monaco some two or three weeks elapsed according to June’s testimony within which period June Chandler saw Michael only “at times”.

Well, didn’t I tell you that it would be difficult to understand it?

I don’t understand it either and would be really grateful if someone could explain to me how it is possible to squeeze those 30 days in question as well as numerous other events (with all those breaks between them) into the  maximum of 40 days which passed between Las Vegas (the end of March) and Monaco (the beginning of May) – especially if you consider that besides the Chandlers Michael had other matters to attend to?

For example, Michael worked on “Whatsupwithu” video with Eddy Murphy at the time which was aired on April 11, and attended some South Central educational institutions within the Heal Los Angeles program on April 26 and went with Lisa-Maria Presley to an event organized by Jimmy Carter in Atlanta within the Heal the world project on May 5.

If you don’t believe me please check up June Chandler’s testimony for the timeline yourselves:

Q. Were there other visits to Neverland Valley Ranch after you came back from Las Vegas?

A. Yes, there were.

[]Q. Do you remember on how many such occasions?

A. I would say two or three times.

Q. Now, were there occasions after you got back from Las Vegas — let me — where Mr. Jackson actually was invited to stay at your residence where you lived at this point in time?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, what city was it that you lived in at this time?

A. Santa Monica.

Q. We’re talking about 1993, in the spring, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And during this time, did Mr. Jackson ever spend the night at your residence?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And do you recall on how many occasions Mr.Jackson spent the night at your residence?

A. I would say more than 30 times.

Q. And were some of those occasions on consecutive days or nights?

A. Yes.

Q. And how long consecutively do you think that that occurred?

A. Oh. It could be a week or two at a time.

Q. And when you went to Disney World with Mr. Jackson, who else went with you?

A. Jordan and Lily.

Q. Do you recall where you stayed?

A. I recall The Grand Floridian was one hotel. Q. And during the time that — do you remember how many days — did you go there on more than one occasion?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. How many occasions?

A. Twice.

Q. Do you — I think you answered this, but just in case, how many days did you think you were in Florida?

A. Oh, I don’t really remember, but it’s probably more than two nights. Two, three nights.

Q. And after you came back from Florida, do you recall where you went?

A. After that, I think the next trip was to Monaco.

Q. In between the time that you went to Florida and to Monaco, do you recall where you were — where you were personally staying?

A. No. I guess home.

Q. Do you remember how much time elapsed between the two trips?

A. Not really, no.

Q. Was it more than a month, more than a week? Obviously it was more than a day or so.

A. Yes. It was a couple — it could be three weeks.

Q. And during that time when you got back from Florida till the time that you left for Monaco, were you with Mr. Jackson?

A. At times.

This remarkably inconsistent piece is also remarkable for the phrase opening it:  “Mr. Jackson actually was invited to stay at your residence”.  What struck me about this question was its passive form which was confirmed by June Chandler.  But how can anyone be invited into anyone’s home on his own if the master of the house does not invite you there? Wasn’t it no other but June Chandler who invited Michael to her home immediately after Las Vegas – which was exactly after that dubious Exorcist/du Soleil episode which supposedly worried her?

Why was June Chandler so evasive about her invitation of Michael Jackson to her home?  Why didn’t she ever elaborate on the reasons for that invitation? Why wouldn’t she say it the way it really was?

June Chandler in 2005

And the way it really was could have been completely different from what all of them are hinting at –  it wasn’t Michael Jackson who was imposing himself on the Chandlers but a glamorous former model named June Chandler who was imposing herself on Michael Jackson. She was hoping for an affair with him and was trying to hook him by simulating some sort of a family union with him. THIS was the most probable reason why she invited him to her home…

Even the prosecution witness Adrian McManus testified at the 2005 trial that June was after Michael and wanted to have an affair with him (need a link here, please help).

I can imagine what a welcome guest June Chandler made Michael in her Santa Monica home  –  Evan Chandler said in that taped conversation with Dave Schwartz that she could be exceptionally charming if she wanted to…

Something tells me that in spring 1993 Michael was not too much against it – Lisa Maria Presley had given birth to a new baby and was still a married woman and June was free and attractive and he didn’t know of her steel-like grip yet, so he could have given it a try and come to her home ‘every night’ to be picked up by a driver to his studio the next morning  – of course, if we are to believe that driver’s words at all.

Why am I doubting his word? Because I have reasons to believe that the driver was not quite sincere in what he was saying. If you read June Chandler’s testimony you will understand that the story about Michael’s coming to her home ‘every night’ is just another of those grave and sinister exaggerations – in fact he did not come every day and definitely not at night, but in the daytime only, after Jordan returned home from school for the ‘family’ to have dinner and spend the evening together:

Tom Sneddon is examining June Chandler:

Q. I am assuming that Jordan was going to school during this period of time.

A. He was.

Q. So Mr. Jackson would spend the night there.What would happen when Jordan would go to school? To your knowledge, what did Mr. Jackson do?

A. Michael would leave.

Q. And approximately what time would he return?

A. After Jordan came home from school.

Q. And so was this the routine that was followed during the time that Mr. Jackson was staying at your residence?

A. Yes.

Have you ever asked yourself a question why Michael would be spending his time in the home of ordinary folks at all if he could have invited them to Neverland if he wanted to?

After all he had a spacious ranch where it would have been much more convenient to spend time together with anyone he was interested in? Isn’t it strange that he would try to adapt his lifestyle to the lifestyle of ordinary people living in a relatively small house – while he could convert them into his lifestyle instead and dazzle them with the luxury of it?

Wouldn’t he have tried to impress them with the grandeur of Neverland if it was him who wanted to win their attention? And if he didn’t it means that the reasons for his stay in June Chandler’s home were completely different?

Even if you don’t like my theory of a crush June Chandler had for Michael Jackson doesn’t this question alone make you reconsider the usual reasons given for Michael’s so-called “30 days” stay with June, Jordan and Lily Chandler?

By the way we only have the Chandlers’ word for it that Michael came there for Jordan’s sake? And if June Chandler had been sincere in her testimony we would have learned the real truth?

We can’t know what Michael Jackson could have said about it, but in an indirect way he more or less answered this question in a private conversation with Rabbi Shmuley which was never meant for anyone else’s ears but Shmuley’s and where Michael was surely as sincere as it is only humanly possible for anyone at all:

  • “ . . . I never did birthdays or Christmases – or sleepovers or none of that simple, fun stuff [in my childhood]. Or going into a shopping market and just grabbing something off the counter, you know all those simple things like going out in society and being normal. That’s why when I befriend people it’s usually not the celebrities, it’s usually the simple normal family somewhere. I want to know what their life is like. That’s why I went to that hut in China or going to some of the mud houses in South America. I want to know what it is like. I have slept in crazy places where people say. “Are you nuts?” And I say, “No. I want to know what it’s like.”

“I want to know what it’s like!” Yeeesss, guys! He wanted to know what it’s like to come home every night after a hard working day, to see what it’s like to have a family dinner with a woman he is attracted to and the children, what it’s like to do homework with a son and play games with children in the evening, and what it’s like for the ordinary folk to have a normal and quiet life of their own

You think this to be too far-fetched? Then see for yourselves – this is how June Chandler describes their spending time together in her home:

A.  When Jordan would go to school Michael would leave. He would return after Jordan came home from school.
Q. Where did he tell you he was going?
A.Working. No, not to Neverland. I think to his place he calls The Hideout in Century City.
Q. During those 30 nights that Michael Jackson stayed at your house, did you have dinner at your house?
A.Yes.
Q. And was it usually you, he, your son and daughter at dinner?
A. At times.
Q. Who else would join you for dinner?
A. That’s it.
Q. Did you ever have dinner yourself, without your children, just with Michael Jackson?
A. No.
Q. Michael said to you he wanted a family to just treat him like a regular person, right?
A. Correct.
Q. He said he didn’t want to be a stranger, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, at that point n time, Jordan’s father Evan was writing a screenplay, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And to your knowledge, he was spending a lot of time on that screenplay?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were complaining that he wasn’t spending enough time with his son, right?
A. Correct.
Q. At the time you were happy that Michael was around because Jordan’s father was not spending time with him and you were separated from David, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you mentioned in your interview that when Michael Jackson was not working, he was a lonely person, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember telling the District Attorney that Michael would help Jordie with his homework?
A. Correct.
Q. You also said he played a lot like a child, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now when Michael Jackson was staying at your home in Santa Monica during those 30 days that you mentioned, was Jordan at school?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was he going to school each day?
A. Yes, he was.

At times they were even joined by Evan Chandler:

Q. Do you recall seeing Evan and Michael in a squirt-gun-type fight?
A. That was my home, sir.
Q. So Evan had come to your home at that point?
A. Correct.
Q. And Evan, Michael and Jordie were in a squirt gun fight, right?
A. Along with his other son Nicky.
Q. And you got upset a little bit at that, right?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be around you and spend 24 hours?

A. Yes.
Q.You told him, Lily would too, except she’s not old enough?
A. Yes.

Q. When Michael Jackson used to stay at your home were you in the middle of a divorce proceeding?
A. No, we were separated.
Q. Did you used to discuss your problems with David Schwartz with Michael Jackson?
A. Yes. I just said that we were separated and these were not wonderful times for us.

Dave Schwartz was 70 at the time

Oh, she even discussed with Michael her separation from her second husband? And he was making her presents one of which was the so-called “love bracelet” which Michael and Jordan selected together when they were in Las Vegas? And he also gave her a pair of ear-rings, a necklace and a ring?

How far did this interest in June Chandler go before Michael finally realized that this love affair was not for him?

Life is not as black-and-white and primitive as Victor Gutierrez or Ray Chandler wish to portray it – there may be dozens of explanations of Michael’s stay in June Chandler’s house, one of which has been suggested here.

And even if you find my version of a possible love affair between Michael and June Chandler too exotic I hope you will at least agree that the story told by June Chandler about the events in spring 1993 has NOTHING IN COMMON with the picture presented by Victor Gutierrez in that notable film we have started with here.

Remember what VG said there and how Jacques Perretti reacted to it?

Victor Gutierrez:

“He fell in love with the boy. Instead of concerts he was spending time with Jordan. He moved into his house. He spent a month in the house. Father who was a dentist went to work. Mother Natalie went to work. Somebody had to take care of the house and Jackson became the nanny. He did the laundry… He would do the laundry for Jordie. He was folding all the clothing for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie.  He was cooking for him – he was like a maid”

Jacques Peretti:

“In 1992,  with a 14 year old boy he spent a month doing the laundry!!!”

And this is what June Chandler and Ray Chandler actually told us about the same:

Not in 1992.  Not a month. Not a 14-year boy. Not in Evan Chandler’s home. No laundry done by MJ.  Victor Gutierrez IS A LIAR.

55 Comments leave one →
  1. November 24, 2010 12:17 pm

    “I dont think its farfetched at all about a romance with June. In the tape transcripts Evan hinted about it to Dave. Evan made statements like: She wants Michael if he took her do you think she wouldnt leave you—why do you thinks hes doing this and that? Tom Messereu somewhat touched on it himself when he questioned her.”

    Amerie, yes, Evan discussed this with Dave a lot. I have now placed a photo of Dave Schwartz in this post – https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/peretti%E2%80%99s-film-about-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-story-1/

    It was difficult to find it as the press evidently doesn’t want us to know that David Schwartz was a 70 year old man then.

    Like

  2. Amerie permalink
    November 23, 2010 7:17 am

    I dont think its farfetched at all about a romance with June. In the tape transcripts Evan hinted about it to Dave. Evan made statements like: She wants Michael if he took her do you think she wouldnt leave you—why do you thinks hes doing this and that? Tom Messereu somewhat touched on it himself when he questioned her. I dont believe the sodium amytal thing- it completely contradicts what T-Mez stated after the trial about Jordan telling many it never happened.

    Like

  3. lcpledwards permalink
    November 7, 2010 2:32 pm

    @ Alison
    The sodium amytal story was first reported in May 1994, while the grand jury was still convening, trying to bring charges against MJ. They convened from April 1994 through September 1994. I used to think that Evan and Dr. Torbiner leaked the story intentionally in norder to make Jordie’s testimony inadmissible in court, but after reading Lynette’s latest post, maybe he truly did use it!

    Like

  4. Alison permalink
    November 7, 2010 8:21 am

    did the sodium amytal story come out at the time, 1993? i thought it was afterwards, so wheras it makes sense that was the reason for creating it, wasn’t it too late, the case was already settled? or do you think the police had been told in 1993 and it just didn’t get out till later?

    Like

  5. Alison permalink
    November 7, 2010 8:10 am

    I think the idea that Michael was trying out family life to see what it was like – and to see what June was like – is very plausible and likely.
    I suppose we don’t know he was actually sleeping with june, and we don’t know how many bedrooms there were in the house, so it would be pretty normal to sleep in jordie’s room rather than the couch, as they were friends anyway, and not at all strange.

    i’m very glad of this post because i;ve long wondered if the 30 days thing was true, and if it had been true i couldn’t get my head round it. its clear now its very unlikely and unfeasible given the timelines you describe.

    i am also very sceptical of the exorcist story. i know there was thriller and ghost and he liked zombies et.c . but the exorcist? its a bit different. tho actually i’ve not seen it because its too scary and disturbing for me. i may be wrong because obviously i din’t know him personally but i have a hard time believing Michael would enjoy the exorcist. as for letting jordie watch it, i can’t really believe that.

    it seems to me people picked out themes from some performances / videos and elaborated on them to create a story in the hope people would believe it because they’d seen the video so there was a remembered visual theme to build on .

    eg Thriller, crotch grabbing,

    Like

  6. November 7, 2010 1:29 am

    Here’s the info for sodium amytal:

    http://site2.mjeol.com/highlight-history/the-california-courts-sodium-amytal.html

    The court of Appeal held that the Kelly rule applied to exclude testimony of a person whose memory has been affected by a sodium amytal interview.

    They knew they were never going to court.

    Like

  7. October 21, 2010 7:49 pm

    If to be believed another contradiction to Gueiterrez claims. He obediently came ‘every night’ to her home to be picked up by a driver to his studio the next morning”

    “Father who was a dentist went to work. Mother Natalie went to work. Somebody had to take care of the house and Jackson became the nanny. He did the laundry… He would do the laundry for Jordie. He was folding all the clothing for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie. He was cooking for him – he was like a maid” So was MJ working to work daily or playing house maid?

    Another point: “Father who was a dentist went to work” David was a businessman, Evan a Dentist. Does this mean Evan was living in the house at the time and was oblivious to all this going on?

    Dial, the above is not just a contradiction – the above is a complete joke.

    To begin with Jordan stayed at his father’s place on TWO WEEKENDS only and nobody went to work anywhere on those weekends. Those were several days only and the ‘every night’ lie is about Michael staying in June Chandler’s home (which is another story).

    With Gutierrez’s overture being a blatant lie, the events that follow become simply hilarious – it is not only Evan and Natalie who “go to work” but it is Michael who takes care of the house and does the laundry and cooks for Jordan! WHERE WAS THE MAID I wonder? And what was she paid money for?

    David Schwartz has nothing to do with either Evan or June Chandler at this stage – he was separated from his wife June and Michael went to June Chandler’s home for a week or so (as she said at the trial) and at at her invitation too. It happened after their joint trip to Las Vegas in April and well before the time when “things went out of hand” as Jordan alleged.

    Now why would a man go to a woman’s home every night I don’t know, however I do know that if Michael wanted to associate with Jordan he could have invited him (or him and his mother) to Neverland and spend his time the way he liked there. But going to a woman’s home every evening for a week while he has a spacious place to live in himself is quite a question for me. Did he do it specially for the neighbors to see him coming to their place?

    And he didn’t come “at night” at all – he came at the time when they sat down to dinner together with the whole family (as June said at the trial) which was early enough for him to then help Jordan with his homework.

    No, he decidedly wanted everyone to see it, gossip about it and sell their stories to newspapers…

    Like

  8. Dialdancer permalink
    October 21, 2010 2:56 am

    If to be believed another contradiction to Gueiterrez claims.

    “he obediently came ‘every night’ to her home to be picked up by a driver to his studio the next morning”

    “Father who was a dentist went to work. Mother Natalie went to work. Somebody had to take care of the house and Jackson became the nanny. He did the laundry… He would do the laundry for Jordie. He was folding all the clothing for Jordie. He was making the bed for Jordie. He was cooking for him – he was like a maid”

    So was MJ working to work daily or playing house maid?

    Another point: “Father who was a dentist went to work” David was a businessman, Evan a Dentist.

    Does this mean Evan was living in the house at the time and was oblivious to all this going on?

    Like

  9. Elzet permalink
    October 19, 2010 7:12 am

    I’ve been wondering about Michael and June’s relationship for some time. She is a beautiful woman (on the outside) and Michael would have enjoyed her and both children’s company – a little family to take to Disneyworld, etc. She would have used her experience (she’s managed to catch (but not hold onto) two husbands already) to try and land him. In the Schmuley book, Michael states more than ones that women use sex to dominate men, and also that parents of children he has befriended, get jealous and turn nasty, because he pays more attention to the child than to them. I wonder who he was referring to…?!

    Like

  10. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 4:21 am

    @ Gigi

    According to Glenda’s son Damion his father recorded it because he was jealous of why Michael and Glenda are hanging together so much on the phone.

    BTW, people did have a habit of recording him. Ryan White’s mom admitted that she also recorded them once – out of curiousity of what Ryan and Michael were talking. But at least she later admitted it to Michael.

    Here is the White-Michael convo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVvtEbR3DCQ

    Like

  11. September 23, 2010 11:20 pm

    I heard a lot of people mention the Glenda tapes last year. I haven’t listened to them so I have no idea what’s on them. But, seriously what was the deal with people recording private conversations of Michael? geez.

    Like

  12. Chris permalink
    September 23, 2010 10:51 pm

    If u want Sneddon Indicted you should subscibe to William Wageners channel on youtube. It’s the only REALISTIC aim i have actually seen fans back as the 500 journalists group are gunna struggle influencing people over MSM and the petition always get ignored.
    What does society call us again “dedicated fans” in a sarcastic way. Well I’m dedicated for justice and seeing Sneddon and freinds rot in jail!

    Like

  13. September 23, 2010 5:43 pm

    …You have certainly heard of the Glenda tapes. I personally believe them to be real and – I just recently realized it – the son of Glenda was in a British documentary in 2005, talking about it. The documentary was called “Michael Jackson’s boys” and as you can imagine by that title, it was a trashy documentary suggesting there was something sinister in his relationship with boys. Here is the part with Damion:

    Notice, how Damion doesn’t say anything suggesting Michael did anything wrong with him, it’s just the narration that makes their relationship look bad (much like what Bashir did). In fact, what Damion is talking about more is the relationship between Michael and his mother (and it seems like the makers of this documentary don’t even want to acknowledge that, they go on making their suggestive, trashy comments).

    Damion is talking about how Michael was on the phone with his mother for long hours, calling her 3-4 times a day, to the extent that it made Damion’s father jealous. And that’s why he decided to tape the calls.….

    It was such a shocker when we learned about this earlier this week, Suzy, that Glenda’s son was in this documentary. Because of the Glenda tapes, we have an extraordinary picture of what Michael’s relationship with this family truly was. So it’s strikingly blatant to hear the narrator lay down this fake sinister tone over Damion’s perfectly innocent story. What I’m curious about now is whether Damion Stein knew he was participating in a smear project or not.

    If he didn’t know, and his words were distorted, he should speak out. Same as the others in the documentary. They haven’t had a good venue or opportunity to do that, and maybe we can help. Damion is publisher of an entertainment mag, and has his own YouTube channel, where he’s posted his interview of Orianthi — they talk about MJ. Damion obviously has no problem with MJ. I’ve asked him to speak up about this on his comment page. People can also message him directly from there. Perhaps we could even invite him to post here.

    If he did it for money, perhaps he regrets it now and would like to say so. I’m more interested in giving him an opportunity to set the record straight than in blaming him for possible betrayal, so ideally I’d see that issue sidelined. This could add to undermining the entire documentary.

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2010 3:59 pm

    Exactly the reason. He didn’t grant them immunity because after all he had them named as 2 of the 5 unindicted co conpiritors. In essence he would have been forcing them to perjure themselves unless they testified that Michael was behind a conspiracy to kidnap the Arvizos and he had molested Gavin.Why Tom Sneddon was not prosecuted for malicious prosecution I will never understand.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    September 22, 2010 6:40 am

    And this is why Sneddon named Frank as a co-conspirator. So he couldn’t be a defense witness.

    Like

  16. September 22, 2010 3:41 am

    I truly believe Tom Sneddon sent the Arvizos to William Dickerman. It cannot be a coincidence that out of all the attorneys in LA they just happened to stumble across the lawyer that had a finders fee agreement with Larry Feldmen. The man who just happen to be the lawyer who won the Chandlers their $15.3 million dollar settlement. And once they meet with him, all of a sudden allegations arise.

    According to Frank Tyson and Vinnie Amen, when they took the Arvizos back to their apartment, there was a business card from Sneddon slipped underneath their door.

    This morning, it seems, Michael Jackson has been indicted by a Santa Barbara grand jury on charges of child abuse. However: The two young men who worked for Jackson and took care of the family now accusing him of child molestation will have a lot to say should they ever testify in the case.

    The two young men are Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen. A mutual acquaintance tells me that their main fashion accessory is a briefcase full of documents on this subject. It contains receipts, correspondence and loads of other evidence that piece together their experience with the woman, her boyfriend, and the children.

    I saw some of this evidence a few months ago, and I can tell you that District Attorney Tom Sneddon is walking into a buzz saw if he thinks this pair can help his case.
    Related

    “In fact, I am told, Tyson and Amen will recount how, when they returned the family to their own apartment in East Los Angeles on Feb. 16, 2003, a business card belonging to Sneddon had already been slipped under the door of their apartment.”

    The mother — fresh from the uproar 10 days earlier caused by her two sons being featured in the Martin Bashir special “Living with Michael Jackson” — picked up the card and called Sneddon, they will say. And that could suggest that Sneddon, long before there was any accusation against Jackson of child molestation, was already looking for a case that might develop into something more.

    Sneddon’s office refused to take messages for him yesterday. They referred all questions to their public relations firm.

    What is patently absurd: charges that the two young men intimidated the family of Michael’s young accuser.

    Readers of this column know that long ago we discussed these two young men: Frank Cascio, who goes by the name Frank Tyson, and his pal, Amen. They are both 23 years old, and they come from New Jersey. Tyson has known Jackson since he was a child. He and his next oldest sibling, a brother, and Tyson’s parents are old friends of Jackson and consider him family. The feeling is mutual.

    I met Tyson with Jackson in November 2000 at the home of public relations expert Howard Rubenstein. I ran into him again in the summer of 2002 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. He is as capable of intimidating or threatening someone as my beloved 10-year-old calico cat. Both Tyson and Cascio are well brought up, intelligent young men. They are not thugs. They are well-spoken, handsome and humble, with excellent manners. It’s not even remotely possible that they threatened to kill anyone or hold them against their will.

    On the day the Bashir special aired on ABC — Feb. 6, 2003 — Tyson was in Miami with Jackson. That was when he met the boy who would later accuse Jackson of child molestation, plus the boy’s mother and siblings. He returned to New York, but Tyson’s brother and sister were among the passengers who flew back to Neverland with Jackson, as well Michael’s own children, their nannies and the accusing family.

    A few days later, Tyson was called by Jackson’s videographer Marc Schaffel to come to Neverland and help work on the rebuttal video that Jackson’s group sold to Fox TV. Tyson brought his childhood pal, Amen, with him and they began to help Schaffel.

    Concurrently, I am told, the family — which was now happily ensconced at Neverland — was being “handled” in the aftermath of the Bashir special by Jackson’s then manager, Deiter Wiesner. But Wiesner was heavy-handed with them.

    Finally, in frustration, he turned the project of entertaining and mollifying the family over to Schaffel. But Schaffel was busy with putting together the Fox special. He delegated the job to Tyson and Amen. Quite the opposite from holding them hostage, the pair was at the beck and call of the boy’s mother.

    If Sneddon thinks he’s going to indict Tyson and Amen on obstruction of justice — or any other charges — as reported yesterday, here’s a little flash for him: According to my sources, these guys kept the most detailed records of all their dealings with this woman and her children. As eyewitnesses to what went on with the family in question, the pair is ready and able to defend not only themselves but Jackson and Schaffel as well.

    In fact, Tyson and Amen give an account of a timeline in this case from Feb. 7 to mid-March, 2003, that could make them star defense witnesses — and a big headache for Sneddon and his prosecutors.

    They will testify, if it goes that far, to the mother’s constant complaints and requests, and to her anger when Jackson did nothing, as they remember her saying it, “to make my kids stars.” They will describe her as a conniving opportunist and a leech.

    According to my sources, they will also recount how the mother did not want to leave Neverland once she had allowed the pair to move her in from her impoverished flat in East Los Angeles. In fact, she told them each on numerous occasions that she thought Jackson should buy her a house in Solvang, a stone’s throw from Neverland.

    This conversation took place on March 11, 2003, the day Amen drove the mother to family court so she could fight her ex-husband for more child support. Amen told friends that when the judge ruled in the mother’s favor that day he thought she’d be happy. She wasn’t.

    “She said she’d been promised all kinds of things. She wanted to work for MJJ Productions,” my source reports. “She told Frank and Vinnie that she wanted to do Michael’s PR because of all the bad things people said about him. She thought Michael was going to make her kids into stars.”

    Rather than hold anyone hostage, as the mother has now reportedly told Santa Barbara police, Tyson and Amen shuttled the mother’s children around while she went off with her boyfriend. After the family court ruling, the mother asked Tyson and Amen to bring the children to her parents’ home in El Monte, Calif.

    “She called up, acting very sweet, and said her father was sick and wanted to see the kids,” a source told me. That would be the last time Tyson and Amen saw the children, around March 15, 2003.

    Sneddon has reportedly offered Tyson and Amen immunity if they testify against Jackson, but my sources are adamant that the pair has rejected this idea. Believe me, they are not stupid. If they thought they had done something wrong, both Tyson and Amen would have taken the DA’s deal. But they know what happened, and they feel, according to my sources, that they can prove it. Easily.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117846,00.html

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2010 1:37 am

    The man who refered her was William Dickerman had a finders fee agreement with Larry Feldman.

    Like

  18. Chris aka jpr permalink
    September 22, 2010 1:18 am

    Could i ask something else low why Did she get referred to Felman and not Sneddon or police for that matter?

    Like

  19. Chris aka jpr permalink
    September 22, 2010 1:10 am

    Thank you I don’t like spreading lies even about that poor excuse of a human.

    Like

  20. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2010 12:52 am

    @ Chris aka jpr
    No, Janet Arivzo didn’t meet Feldman in January 2000. She met another lawyer who was never named, and was never involved with her before or during the trial. She didn’t meet Feldman until May 2003 when she was referred to him by another lawyer.

    Like

  21. Chris aka jpr permalink
    September 22, 2010 12:42 am

    Suzy said above about that crazy woman meeting a lawyer in 2000. Do we know who the lawyer was? Was is Feldman? Everywhere I looked it says she first met him in 2003 but I sure some1 said it was 2000. It would be very helpful thank you

    Like

  22. September 21, 2010 3:44 am

    I consider, that you commit an error. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.

    Like

  23. September 16, 2010 9:27 am

    I am repeating my comment here too as considering my attitude towards June Chandler this is the place where it really belongs.

    JA: “I personally think the whole SA story is made-up by the Chandlers to avoid a criminal trial…
    Everything that the Chandlers alleged was a lie. The only thing that was true was that they knew Michael Jackson.”

    Guys, your lively discussion of the sodium amytal problem is very interesting and JA’s point about the difference in treating such evidence in civil and criminal trials is top important. It does bring a new perspective into the 1993 case.

    JA, is there any link to a legal source which says that evidence obtained under sodium amytal is not admissible in a criminal trial? This could be another proof that the Chandlers didn’t want to take the case to a criminal trial from the very start (and were aiming at money only).

    You remember Ray Chandler always putting the blame on the prosecution saying they were too slow and family couldn’t wait and decided to settle? His numerous excuses like “Jill Garcetti was afraid of prosecuting the celebrity“ or “They never asked the family to testify up to the end of 1993” or “They couldn’t put them under a witness protection program”, etc.? But if they never wanted to go to a criminal court what are all those lamentations worth?

    I think at this stage of our investigation it would be too early to pass final judgment on what happened and whether sodium amytal was used or not used on Jordan. What we see now is only a general outline of the situation and of each of the Chandlers’ motives. If the outline is correct it will be easy to add substance to it later.

    I fully agree with JA that everything the Chandlers said was a lie. And it is by comparing a lie told by one member of the family with a lie from another one that we can hope to reach for the truth. It should be always taken into consideration that each Chandler had his own motives which were sometimes contradictory to the others and these motives were also changing as time went by.

    The outline of the events and motives I have formed for myself at the moment is as follows:

    Evan has great hopes in connection with Michael but eventually becomes jealous of June’s association with Michael and outraged that they excluded him from their company.
    June wants millions, fame and sex (she was already separated from David Schwartz who was 70) and is unwilling to have anything to do with her first husband Evan – she has her own life to take care of.
    Jordan most probably doesn’t want anything from anyone at this stage except friendship with Michael but later grows so desperate with his relatives that decides to make the best of the situation for himself.

    Another round and another change:

    Evan works himself up into a complete frenzy by half-believing his own inventions, speaks of his suspicions to David on the telephone, hoping he will either pass over the information to June and Michael or that they will listen to the tape directly (to me that tape now sounds more like a threat meant for the other side’s ears – “you either listen to me or it will be a massacre for you”).
    June is still undecided what to do.
    Jordan -?

    Another round and another change:

    Evan begins his onslaught against Michael still unsure of what he is doing (remember Geraldine Hughes’ seeing him in Rothman’s office as a complete nervous wreck and Jordan being much more confident than him?). Evan definitely doesn’t want the criminal investigation to start as this way he will get no money and all his hopes will be crashed.
    June realizes that her romance hopes in connection with Michael are lost now and it is better to join Evan and handle the case more professionally if she doesn’t want Evan to make a complete mess of it. My opinion is that it is with her cold and clear mind joining the gang that the case has taken a turn towards Larry Feldman and a civil suit. Now that she is cooperation with them she can share probably even some intimate details with them and her son(?)
    Jordan (willingly?) accepts a certain role to play.

    One more round:

    Evan is well on the way to get money (though much less than he expected), but he needs revenge too – the role of an extortionist does not suit him at all, especially since only his name will be associated with extortion though the plan is their common one.
    He and his brother collect every bit of information about MJ and turn it into a thriller story sounding plausible. They make it public through various sources (often anonymously, through internet) to ruin Michael reputation forever and for no one to ever question the case.
    Jordan’s interests are not taken into consideration at all at this stage, because if the case is regarded as an extortion than it is Michael who was telling the truth – and they cannot afford the public (or prosecution) to think this way. Something has to be sacrificed….
    Simultaneously Ray Chandler is acting like a spokesman for the family reassuring the public that they are really concerned about Michael’s future and well-being. This is a preventive measure for Michael not to sue them for breaking the settlement agreement.
    Both Evan and Ray will rather die than take the case to a criminal court where their whole scheme can be uncovered and all may become in vain.

    Final round in 2005:

    Jordan says “he has played his part” and will sue the prosecution side if they insist on his testifying in court.

    Ray Chandler is scared to death that he will have to prove his lies in court and fights the subpoeana as if it were a death sentence to him (just imagine all the injustice of answering for the whole family there!)

    Evan is ill, nervous, estranged from Ray, June, his second wife and two children. The only connection he is still keeping with is Jordan who is giving him a humiliating monthly allowance. But even that thread will be broken soon after the 2005 trial when he hits his son with something heavy on his head.

    It is only June Chandler who still has a clear and cold head and who is ready to testify. The eleven years of a mother being separated from her son have not taken their toll on June. She is the only one who can still bring different pieces of the whole invention together – what is favorable to her she will recall, what is unfavorable or inconvenient to remember she will not recall. She also says several things there which can be proved to be a lie. Her shameless boldness to go to the trial and face cross-examination there and her cold, reserved and sometimes insolent replies convince me that she could play a much bigger role in this business than we habitually think.

    This is the outline I have for these events in my head at the moment. But with each new fact the picture changes, until hopefully we are able to see the whole thing as clearly as if we were direct witnesses to it. Then we won’t need any of Jordan’s “revelations” – we will learn of the truth ourselves.

    Like

  24. Suzy permalink
    September 13, 2010 4:20 am

    @ JA

    Thank you very much, I will check it out.

    @ Yo

    Personal diary of Michael? What if he won’t find it? (‘Cause it’s likely he won’t.) Will he make one up? Probably….

    Like

  25. September 13, 2010 3:23 am

    @ Suzy
    Here’s the link to part of the transcript of the police interview:

    http://community.mjeol.com/index.php?/topic/10158-jason-francia-interview-with-the-police/

    Like

  26. September 12, 2010 11:09 pm

    oh and another thing i think he’s got a thing for personal diaries because his obssesion now is finding the personal diary of Michael Jackson and his private photos if somebody ever sees him in the us you should ask to the police to deport him because he is a menace to your country lol.

    Like

  27. September 12, 2010 11:03 pm

    I don’t know about what he said about Ricky Martin, but i do know that Ricky spoke very well about Michael.
    well vg has said a lot things about a lot of people there aren’t true and for that he’s been sued and owing money to a lot of people. he is just a lyin’ sob. i think he is the dd of latin america he has said the same things she’s been sayin, they have to stick with the program i guess.
    he lives in Santiago and i live away from Santiago because believe me if had the of kickin’ his ass one day i would. anyway this tv shows that he appears are all about trashing people local ‘celebrities’.

    KEEP ON THE GREAT JOB THAT YOU’RE DOING THESE PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

    Like

  28. lynande51 permalink
    September 12, 2010 1:55 pm

    Thats what happened with The Chandlers only is wasn’t with Jordan it was with Evan.

    Like

  29. ares permalink
    September 12, 2010 11:56 am

    there is a part that i accidentally copy and pasted. Please ignore it

    Like

  30. ares permalink
    September 12, 2010 11:49 am

    Maybe you have already read this but i though i should post it since you are refering to National Enquirer.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

    No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson’s alleged “prior acts” of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

    Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a “Holy Grail” for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

    Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

    Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

    The tabloid offered the Newts’ father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

    Newt, a San Francisco “character” and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

    A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

    It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

    Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote “No good sucker” where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.
    Column Archive

    * ‘Guiding Light’ Finally Killed by Procter & Gamble
    * Jacko Auction Is On! Judge Denies Michael Jackson’s Bid to Stop Sale
    * Two Former ‘Friends’ Stars Now Playing Second Fiddle to ‘High School Musical’ Actors
    * Madonna’s Missing Millions
    * Rihanna Said Not to Be Cooperating

    Full-page Fox411 Archive

    Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

    “Maybe there aren’t any other kids,” a current Enquirer editor conceded.

    I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

    Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he’s a good-looking kid. He’s half black and half Chinese.

    Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland “victims.” But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

    And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

    “He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'”

    Prior to Bobby’s meeting with Mitteager, Bobby’s father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

    Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being “hooked up” to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

    “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.

    Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts’ story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

    The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.”

    Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

    He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

    “Exactly! And he didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

    Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

    “He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

    Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts’ story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

    I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

    When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

    “I said all that,” he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

    Back in the mid-’80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.

    After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.

    Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.

    “We would see Michael in passing. We didn’t see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him,” he said.

    The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit “I Want You Back” at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson’s house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

    “I don’t know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks,” he said. “And he didn’t try anything.”

    As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson “victim” Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

    Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday’s testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

    “Wade is straight as they come. He’s getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either,” Newt said.

    He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

    “You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.

    And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn’t bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

    “They probably didn’t like it. And this is their way of getting back at him,” he said.

    Like

  31. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 10:38 am

    When researching about the Francias, I came across this very interesting information from Deborah Ffrench’s website:

    [i]”On January 26, 1995, journalist George Rush reported in a New York Daily News article tactfully titled –
    ‘Boy, Oh Boy, Jackson Report Maid-To-Order For Fleet Street,’ – that the British newspaper Today had
    published a story reporting that it had been discovered that Blanca Francia had used a National Enquirer
    reporter, Lydia Encinas, as her translator when she was interviewed by police in 1993/4 as part of the
    criminal investigation of Jackson.

    Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia’s interview statements with the police in 1993.

    Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a ‘molestation’ story to sell on
    Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.

    In addition, the Enquirer, as well as paying an undisclosed sum of money to Francia for her story with
    Encinas, were also effectively ‘shadowing’ her in order to stay close to the Jackson investigation. It is not
    known whether or not police investigators knew Encinas was a tabloid reporter, but as many of police’s
    ‘leads’ in the Jackson investigation were tabloid-led, it is unlikely this revelation would have prevented
    them from using Francia to advance the case.

    On April 4, 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso, then working at the Daily News, reported in a piece about
    the upcoming ‘prior acts’ testimonies in Jackson’s 2005 trial, that the ‘Mitteager Tapes’ included sessions
    with then Enquirer editor – David Perel, telling Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: “ the reason why
    Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.”
    On the tape, Perel would go on to say that Francia’s grasp of English was “sixth grade level ” at best.
    Caruso tracked down the Los Angeles Detective, Russ Birchim, who had interviewed Francia in 1993, to
    verify the story. Caruso reported that Birchim told her, “ Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did
    meet with her in Los Angeles.” Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a
    criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim
    refused to elaborate.

    Caruso concluded. “ By opening the door to this story, District Attorney Tom Sneddon may bite off more
    than he can chew. The maid, her payment from Hard Copy and the resulting lawsuits are less about
    Jackson than about the greed and ambition that surround him. In unraveling the mysteries of Jackson’s
    ‘prior acts,’ Sneddon could leave room for Thomas Mesereau to openly investigate the connections
    among all these people. And that would make a much more interesting story than almost anything we’ve heard so far.”[/i]

    The connections of all those people really is an interesting story! From Jason Francia’s testimony it turned out that Attorney Terry Cannon, who represented the Francias back in the 1990s, now (in 2004-2005) was working in the DA’s office and was also present at Francia’s meeting with the prosecution at the end of 2004. Plus Tom Sneddon was present at least on the first time when Jason went to counseling after his police interview in 1993/94.

    Like

  32. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 10:16 am

    @ Lynette

    Thank you. I have his testimony also and I have also read snippets from his 1993 interview, I was just wondering if we have the full interview.

    BTW, I just read his and his mother’s testimony. It was borderline comedy.

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    September 12, 2010 9:46 am

    None of the 1993 police interviews or depositions are out except for a few piece of them from testimony in the 2005 case. I have his testimony and will look it up when I am home after work.

    Like

  34. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 9:02 am

    OFF: Does any of you have a copy of Jason Francia’s 1993 police interview? Where he was lied to by the police.

    Like

  35. September 12, 2010 8:55 am

    “It’s funny that you mention schizophrenia, because Janet Arvizo really was a schizophrenic! She was diagnosed with the disorder by psychiatrists who were hired by JC Penney to evaluate her before the civil trial.”

    David, your information about Janet Arvizo is so sensational that it delayed me again (missed my train and am heading for the next one). Janet with her hot-air baloons did look like a psychiatric case – and schizophrenia runs in the family, so this alone should have automatically annulled all their allegations against Michael.

    You shouldn’t be surprised by so many psychiatric cases around Michael. Firstly, there are much more mentally ill people around us than we generally expect, and secondly, Michael was like sugar for wasps – he was an easy target with a lot of money added to it (an explosive mix!). With the media always being on the lookout for something salacious about Michael it was practically an invitation to those people to come up with the stories the media (or prosecution) wanted of them.

    The worst part of madness is that madmen believe their own inventions. If they are found to be lying they will invent something else to explain the first lie and believe it again. For example, if we say to Gutierrez that it was impossible for Michael to write “Remember the time” about Jordan Chandler, his mind will immediately start fantasizing further – he will say that he had a third diary – not Jordan’s or Evan’s this time – but written by Michael himself, or better by Latoya (it is more credible), where she spoke about that song, and her husband got hold of the diary and blackmailed her by threatening to publish it unless she went to press-conference about MJ (how about an idea? I hope haters don’t use it or I’ll sue them).

    Once such a fantasy is created a madman will believe it, because he is living in the world of his inventions. His reality is different – that’s the problem with them. This is why I think that Gutierrez’s book is the work of a madman. From other people’s reviews about it I know that he wrote things like “tampons up the ass”… Just tell me please – WHO in his right mind will speak about intimate things like that with ANYONE at all? If my husband did anything of the kind I bet I will never know about it. People are shy about some things… But if you listen to Gutierrez you’ll get the impression that Michael despite all his reserve and shyness was sharing his most intimate things with everyone around.

    I’ve read that according to Gutierrez one of the maids said that Michael lied to the press that he was suffering from some ailment with the purpose to invoke sympathy for himself, and when he got bunches of flowers from fans the next day he supposedly confided in this maid that ‘these people will believe anything he says’. Now if you were that cunning would you confide your lies to everyone around you????

    P.S. I really must be off now. Hope to see you guys in a couple of days.

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    September 12, 2010 8:38 am

    @suzy

    It’s strange specially if you consider the fact that Katz is linked to the psychiatrists who worked on the Mc Martin story.

    Like

  37. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 7:49 am

    Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but interestingly the bizarre allegations in the McMartin preschool trial also involved a hot-air balloon.

    “Some of the accusations were described as “bizarre”,[6] overlapping with accusations that mirrored the just-starting satanic ritual abuse panic.[3] It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.[3] When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis, the McMartins’ lawyer, one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers.[1]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial#Bizarre_allegations

    Like

  38. lynande51 permalink
    September 12, 2010 7:31 am

    Yep David They are all very unpleasantly delusional about Michael. Personally I think it was the Escaping Neverland in aHot Air Balloon that Gave Janet away.

    Like

  39. lcpledwards permalink
    September 12, 2010 7:22 am

    @ Helena
    It’s funny that you mention schizophrenia, because Janet Arvizo really was a schizophrenic! She was diagnosed with the disorder by psychiatrists who were hired by JC Penney to evaluate her before the civil trial. Just one of the many tidbits that I found on Janet that I’ll address this in a later post……….

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 7:15 am

    Helena,

    He is ill. And I wonder if he is not a latent (or real) p.

    Like

  41. September 12, 2010 7:05 am

    “I have also read that after Ricky Martin came out as gay, Guiterrez went on TV in Chile again claiming Michael molested Martin as a child and that he has seen naked pictures of him in Neverland!”

    Suzy, OMG, I must be running, but your evidence is just another proof that Victor Gutierrez is ILL.
    It is not only the sick mind of a pervert, but it is a clinical picture of someone COMPLETELY MAD.
    He should be taken to a psychiatric hospital for a check up for schizophrenia.

    Like

  42. Suzy permalink
    September 12, 2010 6:58 am

    Hi Yo!

    I have also read that after Ricky Martin came out as gay, Guiterrez went on TV in Chile again claiming Michael molested Martin as a child and that he has seen naked pictures of him in Neverland! We all know how ridiculous ALL those claims are! There were never naked RM pics found in Neverland and I don’t think RM ever went to Neverland as a child (or as an adult for that matter). There isn’t any sign either that they were close at any time. And of course: how could have Guiterrez seen pictures of anything or anybody at Neverland? He acts as if he was there at the raid. The man is a SHAMELESS liar!

    Like

  43. September 12, 2010 6:51 am

    “the day after Michael died vg was on tv here in Chile of course and he said that the song remember the time was written for Jordie. what kind of logic does he use he is such an stupid ass.”

    Yo, I’m here for a second only, but would like to thank you for this beautiful evidence of Gutierrez’s fantasies.

    Victor Gutierrez is probably not stupid at all – it is the stupidity of his readers and their similar type of thinking he is counting on. There are too many people around who are ready to attribute dirty motives to anything others do and it is them that VG is looking for resonance with.

    However pure logic in the case of Remember the time song would say:

    – for Gutierrez to know who the song was dedicated to, he should have been able to read Michael’s mind. Gutierrez THINKS he is reading it – but instead, by fantasies like these, he lets us read his OWN mind which is perverse, dark and cynical in its utmost extreme.

    – if he can’t read Michael’s mind he should be speaking on the basis of some scraps of lyrics (found by some maids in wastepaper baskets) with words like “dedicated to” written there – which is highly dubious too as Michael never wrote ‘dedications’, never threw important things away and no such papers were ever found by police in Michael’s home.

    But putting aside logic the plain fact to prove that Gutierrez is simply fantasizing things is the DATE of releasing the album Dangerous (incl. Remember the time).

    It was the end of 1991 or half a year before Michael met Jordan for the first time after wreck of his car and a year before he started seeing Jordan again – after returning exactly from his Dangerous tour.

    Knowing what kind of fantasies Victor Gutierrez is capable of telling one should be completely MAD to believe everything else he is saying.

    I think that Victor Gutierrez is probably mad too.

    Like

  44. lynande51 permalink
    September 12, 2010 6:41 am

    Hi Yo,Th enext time that idiot says that Michael wrote a song for Jordan ask him how he wrote it before he met him? You’re right that sick stalkerazzi doesn’t know hi sbut from a hole in the ground. Here is some information about Remember The Time. You know that is just like Tatum O’Neil dising him and then saying he wrote th esong She’s Out Of My Life for her, Michael didn’t write that song what a bunch of putz’s heres the information about RTT
    Remember the Time” was a popular recording for American pop and R&B singer Michael Jackson in the late winter/early spring (March) of 1992.

    Released as the second single off Jackson’s hit 1991 album, Dangerous, the song was a classic attempt of a concepting New Jack Swing-flavored R&B jam and with the accompanient of co-producer Teddy Riley, Jackson achieved.

    The song hit #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart and #1 on Billboard’s R&B singles chart.

    As for some of his past songs, the music video for “Remember the Time” was an elaborate production. Set in ancient Egypt, it featured groundbreaking visual effects and appearances by Eddie Murphy, Iman, and Magic Johnson.

    Like

  45. September 12, 2010 3:54 am

    the day after Michael died vg was on tv here in Chile of course
    and he said that the song remember the time was written for Jordie and you remember the tv show that Michael did with his private videos
    well he said that those videos were from his personal library
    what kind of logic does he use he is such an stupid ass. and the interviewers are such dicks they know anything about Michael if they knew something relevant this idiot would be put down like the butt that he is.

    Like

  46. Dialdancer permalink
    September 12, 2010 12:11 am

    Thank you Helena,

    I have searched for just the right wording to explain the pennings of various malicious authors, commentators and bloggers.

    “The tone of narration is triumphant and is seething with deep satisfaction and delight at the mission accomplished. An occasional note here and there is meant to feign compassion.”

    The next explains their continued fight, frustration and anger over not having accomplished their mission.

    “which is supposed to send the world a message that even Michael’s fans know how deeply fallen and corrupt their idol is.”

    How very sorrowful, pitiful and graceless these people are.

    Were any to pass today they would do so without public acknowledgment. Dimond might get a day or two due to her part in setting precedence for ignoring what little ethics the journalism community had and in the destruction of someone who she was not fit to share air with.

    Like

  47. lcpledwards permalink
    September 10, 2010 12:01 pm

    @ Shelly
    Thanks for that info! I’m going to piggyback off of you and list Janet’s cross examination by Mesereau from April 15th, 2005:

    Q. All right. Now, do you remember signing a

    11 document prepared by the sheriff’s department that

    12 said the following: “From time to time, between

    13 January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted

    14 one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael

    15 Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at

    16 Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and

    17 elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning

    18 the return of some furniture stored by or in the

    19 name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North

    20 Hollywood, Los Angeles County.

    21 Do you remember signing a document that had

    22 those words?

    23 A. Do you want me to have the document, like —

    24 we’ve had this discussion over since August.

    25 MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.

    26 THE WITNESS: Since August, the same

    27 thing —

    28 THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to 6500

    1 answer the question. The question is, do you

    2 remember signing that document?

    3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

    4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that

    5 you had started investigating Michael Jackson

    6 sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you

    7 signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003,

    8 right?

    9 A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

    10 Q. Why would you start investigating Michael

    11 Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet

    12 him till August 2000?

    13 A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And

    14 this has already been discussed, and he knows the

    15 answers. This was discussed at the end of

    16 September.

    17 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to this part

    18 of the answer as nonresponsive.

    19 THE COURT: Sustained.

    20 THE WITNESS: This — when the sheriffs were

    21 doing their investigation, they wanted to know every

    22 single detail about me. George Owen Feldman is — I

    23 think he’s associated in the same law firm of

    24 Rothstein.

    25 So the — the police department did an

    26 extensive, extensive search on me as a person, and

    27 so they want — they put everything in a general

    28 form so they can have access to everything about me 6501

    1 and my past, because they wanted to verify and make

    2 sure that what they were going to do towards this

    3 goliath was going to be accurate and truthful. And

    4 that’s why this — this paper was made in such a

    5 general way.

    6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you now telling the

    7 jury that George Owen Feldman did represent you?

    8 A. No, he didn’t represent me.

    9 Q. At any time?

    10 A. No, he didn’t represent me. He is one of

    11 the people inside the civil law firm. But my

    12 understanding — my understanding was that it was

    13 only the Rothstein — Rothstein and another attorney

    14 named Adler, another attorney named Ramieri. That

    15 was my understanding, and it still is today.

    16 Q. Let me try and ask the question again –

    17 okay? – in a clearer form, because perhaps I was not

    18 clear. And I apologize if I wasn’t.

    19 You signed a document that said from time to

    20 time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you

    21 signed the document, you were investigating Michael

    22 Jackson through various lawyers, correct?

    23 A. Okay. There’s more information on that

    24 paperwork which he purposely has taken out of

    25 context. It’s — certain events are attached to

    26 specific attorneys. Certain situations are attached

    27 to certain attorneys.

    28 Like I said, the police wanted to do an 6502

    1 extensive, thorough investigation on me prior to

    2 doing it on him. So they wanted everything about

    3 me. So they made it in a general form. But he

    4 keeps taking it out of context.

    5 MR. MESEREAU: I don’t want to offend the

    6 Court, Your Honor. I don’t think I actually got an

    7 answer to that, but I will leave it to the Court’s

    8 discretion.

    9 THE COURT: Ask your next question.

    10 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

    11 Q. You did sign this document, correct?

    12 A. Yes, I did.

    13 MR. MESEREAU: I would move it into

    14 evidence, Your Honor.

    15 THE COURT: It’s admitted.

    Like

  48. Suzy permalink
    September 10, 2010 11:49 am

    Thank you, shelly.

    How could the judge deem this info “irrelevant” though (ie. sustain the objection of Sneddon)?

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    September 10, 2010 11:17 am

    “TOM MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael? ACCUSER’S MOTHER: August 2000. MESEREAU: According to this official statement/sworn declaration that you gave to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department and district attorney, you retained an attorney and investigator in January 2000 for the sole purpose of finding out information about Michael Jackson and settling with him. You discussed a settlement concerning Michael Jackson before you even knew him? ACCUSER’S MOTHER: I…I…well… PROSECUTORS: Objection! Irrelevant. JUDGE MELVILLE: Sustained.”

    http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/past-scams-nonsensical-claims-a-lying-controlling-mother-mb-235.html

    Like

  50. Suzy permalink
    September 10, 2010 7:53 am

    Thank you, David. Your efforts are much appreciated!

    Like

  51. lcpledwards permalink
    September 10, 2010 7:10 am

    @ Suzy

    That information came from Janet’s grand jury testimony. It used to be available online on The Smoking Gun, but of course it’s missing now! Arghhh!!!
    But there are so many legal documents pertaining to the trial that I can use in lieu of the grand jury transcripts, such as Mesereau’s 212 page request to have the indictment thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct. l will thoroughly scrutinize it for a future report. I’ve got so many reports on my “to do” list that I’ll be busy for the next 6 months!

    The “dirt” that I found on Janet will be revealed in the next week or two when I post my next report. You will throw up in disgust when you see the depths of her treachery in the JC Penny case! Stay tuned!

    Like

  52. Suzy permalink
    September 10, 2010 6:10 am

    Talking about Janet Arvizo. This is something that struck me from the Veritas Project:

    “In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son.1 This would have been the second child molestation lawsuit filed against Jackson, the first being the result of sexual abuse allegations that were made by a 13-year-old boy in 1993.The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met Michael Jackson;”

    Do we know more about this?

    Like

  53. lcpledwards permalink
    September 10, 2010 1:00 am

    Helena:

    1.Here are 2 other people who were suspicious of June Chandler: Joy Robson and Jeanne White-Ginder, the mothers of Wade Robson and Ryan White, respectively.

    Here is Joy’s testimony about June Chandler acting like she “owned” Neverland, and being a gold-digger:

    1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor asked you

    2 questions about seeing June Chandler at Neverland.

    3 Do you remember that?

    4 A. I do.

    5 Q. Did you see her at Neverland?

    6 A. I did.

    7 Q. Did you talk to her at Neverland?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. Was she a friend of yours?

    10 A. No.

    11 Q. You didn’t care for her, right?

    12 A. I did not.

    13 Q. Why?

    14 A. My impression of June Chandler was that she

    15 wanted to be mistress of Neverland; that she was

    16 ordering the staff around as if she owned Neverland;

    17 that she wanted everything that went with it. My

    18 impression of June Chandler was that she was a

    19 gold-digger.

    20 Q. Did you see her interact with Mr. Jackson?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Did you feel she was trying to use Mr.

    23 Jackson?

    24 A. Absolutely.

    25 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Jackson about it?

    26 A. No, I did not.

    Here is an excerpt from an article about all of the mothers of the boys who were involved with MJ at one time or another. The author states how, according to Jeanne, Jordie acted pretty normal at Neverland, which contradicts June’s testimony: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/michael-jackson-trial-mothers-why/

    Ryan White’s mother, among other, seen 1993 accuser at the time his estranged mother claimes he become “distant” and “changed”. Guess what? Those claims are false, as well as about Gavin’s rude depression. And that is why June Changler never took her family out of Jackson, and that is why she always denied molestation until 1994, when boys father threatened to her to sue and that jury will find her responsible for “molestation”, until she got her solely own $1.5 million as part of settlement with her son.

    2. On an unrelated note, here’s another idiot with too much time on his hands! Last year, he was among COUNTLESS “journalists” who wrote an op-ed on MJ implying that he may have been guilty due to the settlements, but of course he NEGLECTS TO STATE ANY FACTS THAT PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE! This is irresponsible journalism in it’s purest form!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/the-current-glorification_b_231984.html

    It’s articles like this that motivated me to write that article on MJ’s settlements that will set the record straight. And guess what? I added even MORE material to it after you reviewed it, mostly pertaining to Janet Arvizo’s JC Penny settlement.

    When you guys read it, everyone will see that she is one disgusting, low-life, degenerate piece of trash!

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Transcript of “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” by Martin Bashir « Vindicating Michael

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: