Skip to content

Transcript of “Frozen in Time: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases”, Part 2. LARRY FELDMAN

November 1, 2010

We begin Part 2 with Larry Feldman’s analysis of the 1993 case.  As you can imagine, I had some serious fact checking to do!!

Transcript of Frozen in Time: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases, Part 2

Larry Feldman:  Good evening, I had the privilege to represent two young boys, both who claimed they were molested by Michael Jackson.  They had some similarities that, even though they were ten years apart, that’s worth pointing out, and some differences about those cases that I think are worth pointing out.  Bearing in mind, they were both civil. In one, the first case, I actually litigated that case and went through the same stuff that Judge Melville talked about, and fought about the same issues, and I’ll get into that when it’s time to talk about that. And in one case, we didn’t really litigate it because the criminal case went first.  But both boys had this in common: they were thirteen years of age, they were pre-pubescent young men.  Both of these boys came from broken homes.  Both of these boys lived with their mothers at the time that the alleged molestations took place.  Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone. Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in. Both of these parents, mothers at least, received things of value from Michael Jackson during the time that they had this relationship with Michael Jackson. Another thing I just thought of that these cases sort of had in common, although ten years apart, none of the lawyers, I guess except Ron Zonen, were the original lawyers in the case.  In the first case, the first young boy’s case that got settled, in that case he was first represented by a lawyer by the name of Rothman, and then Gloria Allred had him for about 24 hours, 36 hours, held her press conference, and that was it (laughter!), and then I had him for the balance of that case.  And originally Michael Jackson in case one was defended by Bert Fields and Howard Wietzman, and then ultimately Bert was substituted out, and Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas became the lawyers primarily for Michael Jackson.  And in the criminal case, originally Michael Jackson was represented by Mark Geragos, as the judge alluded to, and Brothman from New York, and ultimately they were substituted out, and Tom Mesereau came in.  So we all were sort of dealing with matters that some of the cards had already been dealt to us. But they differed in a lot of respects, from at least my perspective as the lawyer.

In the 93 case, by the time I was retained, this case was the lead story in the LA Times. This case was in every local television news cast. It was the lead story.  In this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation.  Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And there was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential.  Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in thisThe young by in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about.  He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation.  And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail. The other boy that wasn’t true.  The other boy had, was a young boy who had at one time in his life he had Stage 4 cancer, and was a boy who had never really disclosed everything about the relationship.  And he came from a family that was all broken, came from a broken home.  But that family, by the time they came to me, had never told any Children’s Services, hadn’t been to therapy, hadn’t called the police, hadn’t called the District Attorney.  So in case one, that case was sort of out there by the time we got involved.  And in the second case, it had not been told to anyone. And so there were totally different issues that were involved in both cases.  In case one, the district attorney at that time, because the primary allegations were in Los Angeles, that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case.

In the second case, it was the reverse.  The district attorney in Santa Barbara, who ultimately got the case, insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat, and they, rightfully so, wanted to control the case, and how it would be tried, and what would be tried, and how it would be dealt with in the press and elsewhere.  And so there were totally different things going on, with that kind of decisions that I made in the first case, I wasn’t making in the second case.  The district attorney was. How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out. Now the reason I asked the judge the question about how he determined what to do, when we took on the first case, it was amazing to me, I mean I had cases before where the media was interested in it, and it typically you file a lawsuit, and the media might report it, and if you tried the case and got a verdict, the media would be interested in the verdict, and you’d talk for 20 seconds.  But nothing was like Michael Jackson one at the time.  There weren’t cases like that.  I remember Johnnie Cochran saying, when we walked out, when we ultimately settled the first case, he had never seen so many press in his entire life, around the Santa Monica courthouse, until the next year when they tried OJ, and all of the sudden the press in Michael Jackson seemed small compared to the press that the OJ case garnered.  But it was amazing to me how you had to deal with this press.  There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case.  Like 65%, 66% of those people believed Michael Jackson was factually innocent, and 12% believed that Michael Jackson did this to the boy. Now, for a trial lawyer, these are real issues that you have to deal with, I mean this isn’t some “Just forget it! We’re gonna have our day in court!”  This is something that you’re confronted with because, no matter what the jurors say, those jurors have read about it, they’re deluged about it, we had our case on a fast track to get tried, it was gonna get tried while all this was in the press.  And so, it’s a real factor that a lawyer has to consider.  And how I would watch on television with my mouth open where people, real prominent lawyers, would be on television, on the Today Show, on ABC, talking about this Michael Jackson case, and they had no idea what the facts were, what they were talking about, except that they were talking, and they were very happy to be talking. (Laughter!) And we had to confront these kinds of problems, and sort of do it in an ethical way.

Whereas in the second case, as the lawyers sort of behind the scenes, that’s really where I was, I was behind the scenes.  I wasn’t controlling the press.  I suspect I probably knew about this order, but it didn’t really impact me, or maybe it did at the time.  You know, I was really not very involved in what was happening. And if, in fact, there was a conviction, then maybe I would have been involved, and maybe I wouldn’t have been involved.  But it was a totally different set of circumstances.  And the reasons it’s all so important, because at least in Michael Jackson two, as we’ll call it for the time being, but in one you had Elizabeth Taylor on television talking about how innocent Michael Jackson was, and what a shame it was.  You had Michael Jackson cancelling a worldwide tour, this is the King of Pop, and he is cancelling a worldwide tour, I think it was the Dangerous Tour at the time, because he was so upset about what this little boy was doing.  And so fragile.  You had Anthony Pellicano, who in those days was not in jail (laughter!), but he was the spokesperson, which I’ll never quite understand, that was chosen by the defendant to talk about this case.  He was someone who in these press conferences was conceding that Michael Jackson slept with children, with little boys, so from a plaintiff’s lawyer, like I was; generally, you know that’s a lot of ammunition that you have.  And the question is “How do you use that effectively?” And on the other hand, they were claiming that there was extortion; that the father of the young boy was trying to extort money, by trying to get money from this.  So that was out there.  In fact there was a criminal investigation about whether there truly was extortion.

Geraldo, remember Geraldo?  This is how old this is. When Geraldo did a mock trial, this was all at the time that I came into this case, in which they’re trying Michal Jackson, and lo and behold he won the case. You can’t vu diar jurors on how to overcome this.  And also, from just a standpoint from all of us who represent individuals get this in spades, and that is, you have a 13 year old boy, and whether it happened or it didn’t happened, their lives are in the balance about this, and it’s not just about money. These kids go to school, these kids have friends, these kids at 13 years old, boys at 13 years old are going through a difficult time in their lives, trying to figure what they are, what their about, their sexual well-being.  What that all means to them.  And here it is, these most sensitive issues are in the press, and it didn’t take long. I don’t know so much about the second case, but in the first case, for sure, every kid on the west side of Los Angeles knew who the plaintiff was, even though the plaintiff’s name at that time remained secret.  So as a lawyer, you have a real burden, besides trying to make the case come out right for the client, to think about the ramifications of this.  Whether you really want to take on the King of Pop, as it says in the program.  Whether you really want to be branded with this, because no matter how it comes out, you are going to have people who believe it to be true no matter what the verdict, and believe it to be untrue no matter what the verdict.  And all you’re going to have at the end of the day on the civil side is perhaps money.

In the first case it was simple, because this boy was being chastised, and couldn’t survive under circumstances that existed.  In the second case, you had a boy that had terminal cancer at one point, and almost died of terminal cancer at least.  He had stage 4 cancer, and here this kid has now have to decide, and his parents have to decide whether or not they should do anything, whether they should go to the police, whether they should go to the district attorney, whether they should go to children’s services, whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement. There are all these kinds of issues out there that these people have to deal with, and you have generally parents making these decisions who, in some form or another, were complicit in, if anything happened, allowing it to happen.  So they’re helping them make decisions that impact these kids for life.  So it’s an awesome responsibility to help them.  And then if you did it just privately, which I had done many times for people that I just had a major case against the school district for a Special Ed teacher who was molesting these Special Ed kids who couldn’t even talk. And we kept it quiet.  We kept these kids out of the press. There wasn’t any of this.  But now there are terrible issues for these kids.  And then you compound it by the press, and the news media that is 24/7, then you have a serious issue if you care about kids and you care about results.

Seth Hufstedler: I think we can move to the next question and maybe you’re back at the podium again.  Because I think that now is the time for you and Carl to tell us what happened in that first case.

Larry Feldman: So ultimately that case settled, and I think everybody knows that.  But what happened?  From my perspective, I thought that it was simple.  Believe it or not, in 1993 there was no state bar rule, there is now, but there wasn’t any state bar rule on what lawyers could say or not say to the press.  And Tom and Carl and Ron will surely corroborate that once you’re in one of these things, you need a special person just to deal with all of the phone calls that are coming in from the press.  And they don’t stop.  It’s not like you could just ignore it.  You get a hundred calls from one reporter hoping that they’re going to get the discussion with you, or if you’ll give them an interview.  So I didn’t even know what the rules were, so I kinda started with “let’s think about how we’re going to do this”, given the backdrop that I gave you with all this publicity. “How are we going to get through all this?” So I looked at the State Bar rules, and California had nothing on it in 1993.  We look at the ABA rules, and they had some general rules that you can’t prejudice the case by any extrajudicial statements, and that seems pretty simple, and even if we don’t have the rule here in California, it sounded like something that would be pretty simple to follow.  And then there’s the United States Supreme Court case that tells lawyers that they really do have a right to protect their client.  It’s a criminal case that you have the right.  You can’t prejudice the case.  But you have a right, like what they did in Michael Jackson two, when the prosecutor gets up and says that I’m charging Michael Jackson with sexual molestation, and all of the charges that they brought, the defense has a right to say something in the press to defend him, so it’s not a one-sided barrage, and obviously that’s what Judge Melville was trying to protect and make sure that with both sides, at least some facts got out there.  So we knew that was the media take on this, and we also were quite aware that at that point in time, there was a big PR machine out there for Michael Jackson.  He had a lot at stake, and a lot of money at stake.  And there were lots of people invested in him coming through this unscathed.  So we had to figure out how to deal with this.  And ultimately, we figured that we would do this in a way in which we litigated the case extremely hard.  That we would not have to talk to the press, we would not have to go on the Today Show, but that we would embark on a strategy that allowed us to say everything that we needed to say in court documents which are public records generally.

One of the things we had that, before Carl and Johnnie got in the case, “If we could get Michael Jackson to answer the complaint before the boy turned 14 years of age, then we would be entitled to a trial in 90 days”.  That was the selling point to the district attorney to give me a chance to see if we could get this under or 120-day speedy trial.  We filed the complaint, they answered the complaint for whatever reasons, and then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial. The defense, with all due respect to them, had to worry about not just defending Michael Jackson in civil court, but more importantly they knew there was a criminal case behind the civil case, and they had to defend him worrying about his Fifth Amendment rights. As he tried to fight back our motions for a speedy trial, we litigated that hard in papers, and we always paid respect to his rights under the Fifth Amendment, but we also made it clear that if he had nothing to hide, and given we had a thirteen year old child, we ought to go and have this litigated, and it’ll be behind both of them.  And the press loved it, and picked it up.  Every time we did depositions, if one of the employees, and we took a lot of depositions in the case of people who had knowledge about Michael at Neverland, and his relationship with this young boy, the minute the lawyers would try to stop him from answering a question, we would be filing documents about that, and what the question was, and why it was relevant, and where it was leading to, and the press would run with it and love it and there would be declarations.  When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson because the young boy made allegations about his physical and private parts, we had to describe them in detail in order to show why we were entitled to these pictures.  So we litigated it hard, but clearly within the rules of litigation.  And it almost didn’t matter whether we won or lost, the fact is we were getting even by all these types of things.

There was a motion made by the defense, and I don’t recall if Carl was in it at the time, to try to gag the lawyers, and I took the position that gagging the lawyers doesn’t solve the problem. At least with the lawyers you do have the chance you get an accurate report about what took place.  The problem we had was, as that motion was being litigated, you had people from the Jackson family giving interviews, telling how poor it was that we were suing Michael, and how bad it was for Michael, etc., which you would expect family to do.  So we could control the lawyers, and the clients, but you couldn’t control all of the people that had a view.  So that was the course that we took.  So at some point, Johnnie and Carl came into the case.  Johnnie and I go back a long way.  I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit.  And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.  It didn’t resolve the problem with the district attorney whether they would bring the case.  But it was pretty clear to everyone that once you go through one of these things, whether you’re 13 or 30 or 50, the appetitive to go through it again when you finally get some respite or some peace,  whether it being a criminal case or a civil case, you’re not that hungry to do it again. And for this kid, who had to live his life, and was now financially taken care of, and you have a district attorney who wasn’t really aggressively doing anything, it wasn’t that hard for him to make the decision that he had enough of it, and didn’t want to go forward anymore. So that’s sort of the background of that case, and what happened in that case. Michael Jackson went on to live his life, and this boy went on to live his life.  And that’s pretty much what happened with the civil case in 1993.

Analysis of Larry Feldman’s comments:

Before I start, let me remind everyone to please read my article on MJ’s settlements because Feldman spent a lot of time discussing the settlement, and his legal strategy pertaining to the settlement, and if you already have a knowledge of the settlements, then you will understand my analysis of him more clearly.  Here is part 1, and part 2.

1. “Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone. Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in.” That statement by Feldman is only half true.  Yes, MJ did spend an inordinate amount of time with Jordie and bought his mother June expensive gifts, but that is because he considered them friends, while his relationship with the Arvizos was strictly business.  MJ initiated his relationship with the Chandlers by inviting them to Neverland upon his return from the Dangerous tour, while the Arvizos requested their meeting with MJ due to Gavin’s cancer, and if not for that cancer, they would not have met MJ. Period.  MJ invited the Chandlers all over the world with him, while the Arvizos visited Neverland a few times beginning sometime after August 2000 (when MJ first started calling Gavin at the hospital), and didn’t return until September 2002. MJ spent time alone with Jordie on numerous occasions, but was NEVER alone with Gavin, as he was always with his brother, and more importantly MJ always had his security and servants within an arm’s reach at Neverland.  The biggest error in this statement is the implication that “both” boys slept in bed with MJ.  Although he didn’t explicitly say that Gavin slept in the bed with MJ, he certainly insinuated it by not denying it, so let’s make it clear right now: Michael Jackson did not sleep in the bed with Gavin!  He and his bodyguard slept on the floor!

 

2. “In this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation.  Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And there was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential.  Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in this.”  The biggest misconception about the 1993 case is that people think that Evan Chandler called the police himself to report the molestation, when in reality he took Jordie to see psychiatrist Dr. Mathis Abrams so the he could notify authorities!  Please read part 2 of my settlements article to see Evan’s exact quotes from the day that he lost custody of Jordie and decided to make the scandal go public instead of relinquishing custody back to June. Regarding the “confidential” Children’s Services report, it was allegedly leaked to Diane Dimond and cohort Steve Doran, a producer for Hard Copy. Here is her account of how she obtained the report (and of course we should take this with a grain of salt), from page 2 of “Be Careful Who You Love”:

So, why had the LAPD gone into Jackson’s Neverland Valley ranch and an apartment he owned in Los Angeles? What were thy looking for as they lugged out numerous boxes stamped with “evidence” labels?

Naturally, reporters all over the world wanted the answer to those questions but I alone was provided the first clue.  The same day news of the raid hit a confidential source called my Hard Copy producer, Steve Doran, and suggested e meet so we could see some documents that promised to shed a bright light on the story.  We agreed to meet immediately at a tiny Italian restaurant near the beach in Santa Monica.

Those documents revealed that Michael Jackson, an idol to millions of young people worldwide, was being accused f repeatedly molesting a young boy.  It was almost too incredible to believe.  Little did I realize that by being out front on the story then, I would remain in the forefront of the Jackson story for years to come.

 

3. “The young by in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about.  He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation.  And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail.”  Well Larry, just because Jordie’s description was “unbelievably detailed”, it doesn’t meant it’s true! And just because it’s graphic, it doesn’t mean it’s true!  The media usually describes it as “graphic” (as if that has any relevance to it validity!), and I’m surprised Feldman didn’t use that term here! I’m also surprised that he didn’t call his statement a deposition, as it is merely a declaration.  Here is part 1 of a 3 part series attacks the legitimacy and admissibility of that document. (Parts 2 & 3 are coming soon!) As far as it being detailed, sure, I bet it was detailed.  After all, Jordie already had experience in script writing from his work on “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, for which he was nearly given a film credit by Mel Brooks, the executive producer!  It was his idea to write the movie after being inspired by “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (and Evan himself confirmed this in the video below).

And while we’re on the subject of Jordie’s testimony to the police, let’s remember that his description of MJ’s genitals did not match! For more info, read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this 3 part series.

4. “that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, he would have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case.”   In part 1 of my article on MJ’s settlements I talked about the fact that Garcetti and Sneddon could have watched MJ’s civil trial like spectators at a football game, making notes of all of the exculpatory evidence, and finding ways to circumvent it.  With Feldman’s admission that Garcetti was “content” so see him take the lead in the civil case so he would have access to all of their discovery, and only then would he decide if he wanted to prosecute the case criminally. (Discovery is “data or materials that a party in a legal proceeding must disclose to another party before or during the proceeding”, i.e. evidence.)  What’s amazing to me is that with his access to all of Feldman’s discovery, that he and Sneddon STILL tried to prosecute MJ after the photos showed that Jordie’s description was the antithesis of MJ’s actual description! That is an indication of their vindictive nature, and they should have immediately dropped the case upon receipt of those photos.  But instead, they stubbornly left the case “open but inactive”, even after two grand juries refused to indict MJ.

 

5. “The district attorney in Santa Barbara………….insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat,” and “How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out.”:  Sneddon was instrumental in passing a law in California that prevented a civil suit from going to court before a criminal case was resolved, either through a trial or otherwise), and this was specifically aimed at preventing another family from getting away with another “hit and run” on MJ.  Janet Arvizo and her first attorney Bill Dickerman clearly had dollar signs in their heads when she met with Feldman in May 2003, with the hopes of snagging another multi-million dollar settlement.  (Dickerman made a deal with Feldman that he would get a percentage of any settlement monies received as a “referral bonus”.) So due to the law, Janet Arvizo was forced to try to get a conviction through a criminal trial before having her shot at a big payday, and we all know how well that worked out for her!  The irony is that Janet still could have filed a civil lawsuit after the trial, but what lawyer in their right mind would represent her?

6. “There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case.  Like 65%, 66% of those people believed Michael Jackson was factually innocent, and 12% believed that Michael Jackson did this to the boy.” Pay attention guys, because the media has very subtle ways of using statistics like this to make MJ appear to be guilty.  Although in Feldman’s example the majority of respondents believed MJ was innocent, that poll was done BEFORE the settlement, and those stats immediately flip flopped after the settlement, and the media has used this “ad populum” argument on MJ ever since.  An ad populum argument is a fallacious argument which concludes that “a proposition must be true because a majority of people believe it.”

Here’s a great example of an ad populum argument:  just imagine if somebody told Christopher Columbus that because the majority of all people believe that the earth is flat, then it really is flat, so there’s no use in going on his little voyage! Obviously Columbus wanted to defy the general consensus and prove the world wrong, and he accomplished his goal!  Here’s an example from Charles Thomson’s recent article which states how the media used ad populum statistics after MJ’s trial to try to undermine his acquittal:

A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision”.

Here is an example of Sneddon using an ad populum argument: during his November 18th, 2003 press conference, @ 19:52 he is asked by a reporter if he thinks that MJ “bought his way out” of the 1993 case, and he replies with “I think there’s a sense in the public that he did that!” By using the words “in the public”, he is implying that since the majority of the public believes that MJ “bought his way out”, that he truly did buy his way out. Way to go, Sneddon! That’s a nice way of ducking an easy question!

For additional examples of some of the tricks that the media uses to bash MJ, such as asking “loaded” questions or using “ad hominem” arguments, read this page here.

7. “And how I would watch on television with my mouth open where people, real prominent lawyers, would be on television, on the Today Show, on ABC, talking about this Michael Jackson case, and they had no idea what the facts were, what they were talking about, except that they were talking, and they were very happy to be talking.” There’s not much that I need to say here, huh?  We know how the media works: they hire pundits to get on TV and talk and entertain their viewers, and that’s exactly what they did with MJ.  There is nothing we can do to stop them from airing their worthless opinions, but there is plenty that we can do to refute the!  In fact, here is an article that repudiates the “analysis” of notorious MJ hater Nancy Grace, and her lesser known protégé Sunny Hostin.  They both are alumni of Court TV, so you can’t expect anything more (or less!) from them!

8. “He was someone who in these press conferences was conceding that Michael Jackson slept with children, with little boys, so from a plaintiff’s lawyer, like I was; generally, you know that’s a lot of ammunition that you have.  And the question is “How do you use that effectively?” In this quote, Feldman is explaining how, as a plaintiff’s lawyer, he should use Pellicano’s admissions against MJ.  Pellicano chose to volunteer the fact that MJ slept in the same bed with unrelated children and use it as a pre-emptive attack to so that Feldman couldn’t take that same info and twist it into something sexual or devious.  But by doing so, Pellicano gave Feldman an opportunity to still convict MJ in the court of public opinion, because Feldman could have (and probably did) twist it anyway, and since the general public did not know at that time that MJ shared his bed, the general reaction was one of suspicion. This is one of the end results of having your lawyer reveal your defense strategy prematurely, as Geragos did in 2003 when he said that MJ had an “iron-clad” alibi, and as a result Sneddon re-arranged the dates that the alleged molestation took place to counter MJ’s alibi.

9. “Geraldo, remember Geraldo?  This is how old this is. When Geraldo did a mock trial, this was all at the time that I came into this case, in which they’re trying Michal Jackson, and lo and behold he won the case.” In the fall of 1993, Geraldo Rivera conducted a “mock trial” of MJ on his television program in which his studio audience was allowed to vote on MJ’s guilt or innocence. .  A mother and her sick daughter were on the witness stand, and were “cross-examined” by the prosecutor.  I don’t have the video of this episode, but Ian Halperin transcribed some of it in “Unmaksed”, on pages 109-112.  I’m not going to type the entire segment, but I’ll point out some key points.  The mother, Carol Nilwicki, and her sick daughter Carol, tried to buy tickets to an MJ concert in 1987, but they sold out. (What a surprise, huh?)  So they made a videotape begging for MJ to send them tickets, and they sent the tape to Neverland, and a few days later MJ called them and offered tickets, and befriended the whole family!  Carol made sure to emphasize that MJ asked for her and her husband’s permission before speaking to their daughter. Later on, the prosecutor asked the mother if she would let any other 35 year old man fraternize with her daughter, and she made a very valuable point, that I definitely need to emphasize here.  She said the following: You must realize something.  We sought Michael Jackson out.  He did not seek my daughter out.” Needless to say, the audience voted to acquit MJ that night!

On a side note, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, here is the February 1993 episode of Geraldo that aired shortly after Oprah’s interview with MJ!  It features J. Randy Taraborrelli, an editor of the National Enquirer, a dermatologist, and people who suffer from Vitiligo. Speaking of vitiligo, Geraldo show’s a clip of Latoya flatly denying that MJ really has it, which is totally consistent with the other lies she told (and would tell!) about MJ during that tumultuous time period!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

 

10. “whether it happened or it didn’t happened, their lives are in the balance about this, and it’s not just about money.” It’s not about the money, Feldman? BS!!  If it’s not about the money, then why did both Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo seek out your services? It certainly wasn’t about seeking justice, because if that’s what they wanted then they wouldn’t have contacted you or any other civil lawyer!  Let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth to see what took precedence: money or justice.  From page 167 of “All That Glitters”, here is Ray Chandler describing the agonizing decision that June, Evan, and Dave Schwartz had to make when choosing Feldman over Gloria Allred:

“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman.  The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.  Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.

Oh, one more thing Larry: since you say it’s “not about the money”, then why did you refuse to give Dave Schwartz the $4 million dollars from the settlement money that he requested? From page 167:

As the meeting came to a close, all that was left was to sign the retainer agreement with Larry.  Anticipating a huge settlement, Dave assumed that Larry would take less than the standard 25 percent rather than pass up the opportunity, so he began negotiating for a smaller fee.

Larry politely explained that his fee was not out of the ordinary and tired to impart to Dave some idea of the amount of work involved should the case go to trial.  But Dave was intractable.  He became loud and pushy, demanding that Larry negotiate.  Dave was also pissed off at all of the lawyers because they told him that if there was settlement he could not be included.

Larry remained calm.  He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie’s natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie’s complaint.  But Dave became increasing belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible.  He didn’t give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money.  Four million dollars, to be exact.  The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.

 

How could you be so greedy, Larry? It’s not like you were going to spend that extra  $4 million dollars at one time!  (For more info on Dave Scwartz and Larry Feldman, read this blog post.)

And one last thing Larry: thanks for kinda, sorta providing some exculpatory analysis by stating “whether it happened or didn’t happen”, because I have to admit, you did more to defend MJ than Carl Douglas!  We’ll get to him in the next part of this series.

11. “you are going to have people who believe it to be true no matter what the verdict, and believe it to be untrue no matter what the verdict.  And all you’re going to have at the end of the day on the civil side is perhaps money.” This is why I personally believe that settling the civil suit was the right thing to do, because even though MJ surely would have won the civil trial, the verdict would have been undermined for the very reason that Feldman just stated: people who pre-judged MJ as being guilty (who completely infest the media) would say his celebrity got him off, the prosecution bungled the case, etc.  So of course the easy decision for the Chandlers was to get money through a civil trial, especially since they knew they couldn’t prove something that never happened!

 

12. “whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement.” In this quote, Feldman is discussing Janet Arvizo’s options when contemplating how to go about dealing with Gavin’s so-called molestation, and of course we all know what choice she made!

It should also be noted that in May 25th, 2004 Feldman and Janet decided to try to sue the Department of Children’s Services after their report that totally exonerated MJ  was leaked shortly after his arrest.  Why did they wait almost 6 months after the leak of that report to threaten legal action? MJ was indicted on April 21st, 2004, and at that point they knew that the criminal case would go to trial, and I’m sure they had such little faith in the their case that they decided to sue the DCFS as a “Plan B” (since losing the criminal case would destroy their chances of winning a civil trial.) Anything for money, right Larry?

13. “if anything happened…..” Gee Larry, you don’t sound too confident in Jordie’s story, do you? But, once again, thanks for at least partially defending MJ, even if you didn’t do it intentionally.  You did more for MJ than Carl Douglas!

14. “then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial.” And “there was a criminal case behind the civil case, and they had to defend him worrying about his Fifth Amendment rights.” This is where Feldman literally won his extortion of MJ.  By doing some fancy–smancy legal maneuvering, he was able to take the unprecedented step of getting Jordie’s civil trial to proceed before the disposition of the criminal case.  And the reason that this is unprecedented is because how often do child molestation cases wind up in civil court BEFORE the criminal trial, or in civil court at all?   I’m glad that Feldman once again defended MJ’s actions here by saying “with all due to respect to them” (MJ’s defense team), and then acknowledging that the criminal case was far more important than the civil case. And he confirms what I wrote about in my settlements article: nobody should be put in a position of having to give testimony in a civil case that can be used against them in a subsequent criminal case! From pages 160-161, here is attorney Robert Shapiro advising Evan Chandler on the benefits of suing MJ first:

“If there’s a hung jury, sure, it could be retried, but time goes on.  The real risk is if there’s an acquittal.  In that case, prevailing at a civil suit afterwards becomes a real uphill battle.

Now the alternative is for you to bring a civil suit first.  And the first thing we would do is schedule a deposition of Michel Jackson, placing him in an extremely uncomfortable position because everything he says could be used against him in a criminal case.  And if he takes the Fifth Amendment to avoid that, it can be used against him in your civil case. So immediately, he’s in a real bad spot.

But there’s a third alternative.  If we went to the other side and said, ‘Listen, a trial for Michael Jackson is a disaster, he can’t win.  Because even if he’s acquitted, when the public hears what this boy has to say, you will have no endorsements, you will have no contracts, you are virtually finished.’  If we say that, it is my belief we have control of the situation, we have power.

However, if this matter is pushed too far and somebody starts screaming there should be a grand jury or the DA is not handling this correctly, then we lose all control. Garcetti will have to go to the Grand Jury, even if he doesn’t want to.  And if the Grand Jury returns and indictment on a case the DA can’t win, especially against a superstar, then you’re all screwed.”

And here is an article that includes  startling comment from Feldman that shows how much “faith” he had in Jordie’s story being credible enough to obtain an indictment for MJ:

Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields dropped a bombshell during the court hearing Tuesday, claiming a Santa Barbara County grand jury had been impaneled and was close to indicting his client.

“A grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and they are about to take evidence,” Fields said. “And that means we should have a charging decision very, very soon.”

But Fields later backpedaled outside the courthouse, saying the district attorney there had only issued subpoenas for two witnesses, and a grand jury had not been sworn in. A hostile exchange between Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s criminal attorney, and reporters ensued when Weitzman said Fields “misspoke” during the hearing.

Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.

Feldman said his client would be pleased with Tuesday’s courtroom developments. “This is the first good news he’s had,” he said.

So Larry, you mean to tell me that despite the fact that Jordie gave such a “graphic” testimony and an “accurate” description of MJ’s penis, that you don’t if there will be an indictment? You’ve got to be kidding me!!

15. “And it almost didn’t matter whether we won or lost, the fact is we were getting even by all these types of things.” You’re right Larry, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, because either way your clients Evan and Jordie Chandler don’t have to worry about going to jail.  Jordie was a minor at the time, and was being used like a puppet to help his father pull of the world’s most infamous extortion, while Evan heeded Barry Rothman’s advice and had a shrink report the molestation to keep himself from being charged with filing a false police report!

16. “Johnnie and I go back a long way.  I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit.  And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.”  This is a very scary comment, because it makes you wonder how objective could Johhnie Cochran and Carl Douglas possibly be if they “go back a long way” with Feldman?  And this quote brings to light a very crucial elemant of the settlement negotiations: the fact that those three judges (one of which was the Guardian Ad Litem for Jordie) played such a vital role in the suit.  One of our co-admins will write a post on this subject in the near future, and it will explain the significance of the role that the Guardian Ad Litem played.

17. “you have a district attorney who wasn’t really aggressively doing anything, it wasn’t that hard for him to make the decision that he had enough of it, and didn’t want to go forward anymore.” What the hell do you mean that the DA “wasn’t really aggressively doing anything?” What the hell do you call literally going in front of the California State Legislature and asking them to retroactively amend a law that would allow them to force Jordie to testify against MJ? (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Michael Jackson” article in this forum.) And security certainly wasn’t an issue, as Sneddon and Garcetti would have hired the Secret Service to protect the Chandlers if they wanted it! Feldman is playing the blame game here, just as the Chandlers did, by saying that it was their fault that Jordie wouldn’t testify, when they had no intention of testifying whatsoever!

 

Coming up next in Part 3, we will listen to Carl Douglas’ defense of MJ, or lack thereof………………


47 Comments leave one →
  1. Dialdancer permalink
    December 17, 2010 2:26 am

    Wonder if any of the jurors who handed down the indictment were in the courtroom or paid close attention to what too little too late truth did come out of the trial? For some it must have been difficult to have been told one story and find out there was another part; that many parts heard were lies. To find out that the results of many test were available, but not made known to them? To have based their decision on a lie. Wonder how many wished they could take back their vote?

    Like

  2. November 8, 2010 1:05 pm

    “…in her testimony Tom Mesereau asked her about a conversation about trust that she had with Michael and how the men in her life had let her down until then. That doesn’t sound like a casual conversation to be having with someone does it?”

    Lynande, this conversation also struck me as an intimate one though everything else June said in the courtroom was cold, calculated and very much sterile – nothing more than “yes” and “no” if she didn’t want to answer. Actually these words were not said by her but read out to her by Thomas Mesereau.

    All throughout her testimony I had an impression that Thomas Mesereau knew more of June and MJ but never disclosed it (asking innocent questions like “did you also stay in MJ’s room?”, or reading out her words here without any seeming purpose):

    MR. MESEREAU: 12 Q. When was the conversation where Michael got

    13 upset because he didn’t think you trusted him?

    14 A. In Las Vegas in the hotel room.

    15 Q. Okay. You said to Michael, “I’ve had males

    16 in my life that, you know, have disappointed me.

    17 How can I have you in my life and you’re saying that

    18 you’re going to take care of us, that you’re so

    19 wonderful, everything’s going to be okay, how am I

    20 going to do that?”

    21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

    22 object to counsel reading from the document.

    23 MR. MESEREAU: I haven’t finished the

    24 question yet, Your Honor.

    25 MR. SNEDDON: Well, he’s reading —

    26 THE COURT: Well, all right, what is the

    27 question?

    28 MR. MESEREAU: I was going to ask her if she 5690

    1 made that statement.

    2 THE COURT: All right. You may.

    3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a statement

    4 to that effect?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. And Michael said to you he wanted a family

    7 to just treat him like a regular person, right?

    8 A. Correct.

    9 Q. He said he didn’t want to be like a

    10 stranger, right?

    11 A. Correct.

    12 Q. And he asked you to trust him, right?

    13 A. Yeah.

    And since we are reading this part of June’s testimony, the continuation of the dialog is also interesting. See how June gets confused for a moment and asks to repeat the question (she employs this trick when she needs time to think it over):

    14 Q. Do you remember telling the District

    15 Attorney in Los Angeles that when you talked to your

    16 ex-husband Evan about Michael Jackson’s relationship

    17 with your family, that Evan saw this as a wonderful

    18 means for Jordie not having to worry for the rest of

    19 his life?

    20 A. Would you repeat your question?

    21 Q. Yes. Didn’t you tell the Los Angeles

    22 District Attorney that your ex-husband Evan, the

    23 father of Jordie, told you that the relationship

    24 with Michael was a wonderful means of Jordie not

    25 having to worry for the rest of his life?

    26 A. Yes.

    27 Q. And to you, that meant Michael Jackson

    28 supporting you financially for the rest of your 5691

    1 life, correct?

    2 A. No.

    3 Q. That’s what you thought your ex-husband

    4 meant by it, true?

    5 MR. SNEDDON: Calls for speculation.

    6 THE WITNESS: Speculation.

    7 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

    8 (Laughter.)

    9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Just asking you what you

    10 thought, not what your ex-husband thought.

    11 A. Well, I’m speculating also. I would be

    12 speculating if I answered.

    13 Q. Well, if someone says to you, “This is a

    14 wonderful way not to have to worry for the rest of

    15 our life,” doesn’t that suggest that maybe someone

    16 is thinking about Michael Jackson supporting you?

    Like

  3. Suzy permalink
    November 8, 2010 12:55 pm

    That’s an interesting letter. I don’t know what to think because I think Michael liked big words and sometimes those are easy to be taken the wrong way. It could have been romantic to some extent, but it could have been just friendship.

    BTW, didn’t Evan tell Dave Schwartz on that tape that he hoped June and Michael would get together because June would deserve a man in her life who would treat her with respect? Something like that?

    Like

  4. shelly permalink
    November 8, 2010 8:45 am

    “MJ’s defence seemed to hint at MJ/June having a relationship…”

    They didn’t hint he had an affair with June. During the McManus testimony, Mesereau asked her a very direct question about it. He asked her if she knew June was sleeping with MJ. He asked her that because she said June spend lots of time in MJ’s bedroom.

    Like

  5. lynande51 permalink
    November 8, 2010 5:44 am

    There could have been something to it because it wasn’t until after June and the kids started going to Neverland that June and Dave separated. I do remember that in her testimony Tom Mesereau asked her about a conversation about trust that she had with Michael and how the men in her life had let her down until then. That doesn’t sound like a casual conversation to be having with someone does it? Of course in the court room she had no recollection of that conversation.

    Like

  6. November 8, 2010 4:53 am

    Oh you mean the National Enquirer letter? Yeah, it was supposedly written by a promotional guy who used to work with MJ.

    The interesting part about that is he spoke about that in mid 2004, then December 2004 and Joe Jackson releases a book in Germany and says MJ/June had a relationship, then in 2005 MJ’s defence seemed to hint at MJ/June having a relationship…

    And he said MJ/Lisa had a sexual relationship until 1999, something Lisa just confirmed.

    Like

  7. lynande51 permalink
    November 8, 2010 3:52 am

    I don’t doubt the authenticity of that letter. Someone posted on another site (that the people there thought was Wayne Nagin) elluded to the fact that he thought Jordan was jealous of his own mother’s relationship with Michael. It does look like his handwriting but I am not an expert. They had another one at one time they claimed was a love letter from Michael to Jordan but it read to me like a a greeting card probably a Graduation from 8th grade card? He sure did have flowery speech and writing didn’t he. It sure does look like it is romantic.

    Like

  8. November 8, 2010 3:21 am

    I figured you guys might know this.

    This is supposedly a letter MJ sent June, have you ever seen it? Is it real?

    Looks like his handwriting…

    Like

  9. Suzy permalink
    November 5, 2010 5:23 am

    @ Alison

    i think all that is a lot of what he really meant but couldn’t say when he talked about his lost childhood – his lost innocence in that way – than not being able to play per se.

    I agree. This is how I see it as well.

    Like

  10. Alison permalink
    November 5, 2010 4:56 am

    I totally agree Suzy and visitor.
    the “all publicity is good publicity” mantra for celebrities goes back way before Michael was born, wasn’t it coined by one of the old Hollywood greats? its how the whole celebrity world operates, its totally unfair for Michael to be picked out and castigated for doing what Hollywood has done for decades. and by the sounds of it he was brought up with the instruction to ‘spin’ since the Jackson’s first went to Motown – eg being instructed to lie about his age to appear cuter. Even tho you can see in old footage he is uncomfortable with it at times – am thinking of the footage where they are sort of being interviewd while being taught at the same time when they are all sat round the coffee table and Michael says that famous quote that whatever he sings he means , ‘if i don’t mean it i don’t sing it’ , cos that cannot be true when he had to sing what he was told to and half of it was too adult for him to understand, he looks uncomfortable when he says it and to me, much as i love him, he does look like a little kid telling porkies (tho enforced) at that point! according to jrt he admitted he didn’t understand even the meaning of some of the words he sang but just sang them anyway.he was a little kid and he had no real choice about a lot of it. but i think thats why apart from when it was for media spin which was Business, he wanted to live his life as truthfully and as innocently as he could, along with those seedy clubs, followed by his brother’s and father’s behavior, followed by those fans, some grown women, who went totally over the top in their advances on him when he was little. i think all that is a lot of what he really meant but couldn’t say when he talked about his lost childhood – his lost innocence in that way – than not being able to play per se.

    the media just totally bullied him, and that itself got totally out of hand over 20 years ago and it became that they could say anything at all about him as if he wasn’t a human being at all and had no feelings.
    hyperbaric chambers and bones didn;t give them the right to call him a p. and a freak and criminalise him.

    Like

  11. Suzy permalink
    November 4, 2010 2:55 pm

    I agree with visitor. Even if Michael and/or his people planted some of those early (rather innocent stories), it doesn’t mean the media is entitled to accuse him of criminality and that “he had it coming”. Constantly calling someone a p. or a freak, is a whole different level than wondering if he is sleeping in hyperbaric chamber.

    Most celebrities do plant stories in the media about themselves. And they do act deliberately outrageous for publicity. Madonna, Lady Gaga, Prince etc. – they all did this. Yet, the media haven’t treated any of them like they treated Michael. They never ridiculed them, never dehumanized them and always respected them as human beings – and that’s the difference. I don’t think the elephant man and the hyperbarbic chamber gives them justification for what they did to Michael.

    Like

  12. visitor permalink
    November 4, 2010 2:07 pm

    who cares who made those stories. Every celebrity leaks stories for the media and then refuses them.Michael was the same.But I think that in the end those strories went out of hand and the media started making stories that Michael couldn’t stop.No one said Michael was perfect. But he was a lot better than those Arrogant Fools that we see every day on the Tv and in the magazines.At least he tried to use his fame in order to help those who needed help. enough said

    Like

  13. morinen permalink
    November 4, 2010 11:22 am

    Guys I don’t believe that Frank Dileo could have done those things behind Michael’s back. Firstly, he always seemed like a loyal guy, secondly Michael was a shrewd and hands-on businessman, no way he could have overlooked something as outrageous. He was better than that.

    I think they really planted those first stories from Michael’s camp, with Michael’s consent, trying to play with the media. There is an interview with London Hospital Medical College chief administrator, who confirms the Elephant Man bones story: http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/music/clips/16930/
    Other journalists have also written that they were instructed to refer to Michael as the King of Pop while promoting Dangerous (http://mj.vivomi.com/news-archives-mjs-dangerous-mind.php). So while it was Liz Taylor who came up with the title, Michael made sure to secure it after himself.

    As for Nordahl’s words – it wasn’t uncommon for Michael to change his story with time (I think we heard at least two stories of the real Billie Jean from him, and at least two different version about the Blanket’s mother). And I can believe that he may have wanted to hide those little games even from his employees.

    Like

  14. Suzy permalink
    November 4, 2010 5:24 am

    Maybe Frank Dileo and Michael had their differences, but at least he never backstabbed him, unlike others. I remember him defending him on TV during the trial, although he didn’t work for him any more at the time.

    Like

  15. November 4, 2010 1:15 am

    I am more incline to believe it came from Bob Jones.

    Like

  16. Olga permalink
    November 4, 2010 12:40 am

    @David, probably that was the reason Michael fired him without even telling him. I still remember hearing about it on tv. JRT has more details in his book about that. This guy -the editor from National Enquirer that I don’t recall his name right now- said that the information came from MJ and then he justifed his response by saying that actually came from Dileo. As I have said before many people are stupid. Stupid people overestimate their sources in an effort to sound credible. Frank Dileo and Michael Jackson are 2 different people. He assumed that it came form Michael because Dileo called him.

    Like

  17. lcpledwards permalink
    November 3, 2010 10:15 pm

    @ Helena
    Seven Bowie wrote a piece about MJ and his mom complaining about the press in 1987. Frank Dileo made the following quote in regard to planting stories in the press: “Oh, it’s good to do it. It makes people wonder about him, and his is what we want.”

    Maybe those false stories being planted in the press could have played a part in his being fired?
    http://www.mj-777.com/?p=4768

    Like

  18. lcpledwards permalink
    November 3, 2010 2:50 am

    @ Visitor
    Thanks for the link! That blog was a satirical attempt at replicating what Gavin would have written if he was a blogger in 2005-06. I will be using that blog in a future article. Unfortunately it hasn’t been updated in years, but there is some good information on there.

    Like

  19. visitor permalink
    November 3, 2010 1:57 am

    Guys i think that you should really check that blog if haven’t already and read the comments too. In one post there is a short debate between Palanker and the admin.

    http://antonjackson.blogspot.com/

    Like

  20. visitor permalink
    November 3, 2010 12:03 am

    Hello,
    i found this in this blog http://antonjackson.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html. From what i understand it was a blog dedicated to Michael and the 2005 allegations. I don’t know if it helps. Sorry if it doesn’t my english are very poor and i don’t understand lots of things

    I have great love and respect for Larry Feldman. Mr. Feldman (also happens to be the same civil lawyer who made another boy rich in 1993) was the 2nd civil attorney I ran to, once I realized (cooked up) the fact I was molested. The next words are words that came from Mr. Feldman’s mouth during the trial, while he was crossed-examined by Michael Jackson’s (no relation to me) defense attorney…

    Q: Tom Mesereau
    A: Larry Feldman

    Q. Isn’t it true that a judgment of conviction in a criminal case for anything related to child molestation could be dispositive in a parallel civil suit alleged for the same facts?

    A. As long as it’s a felony conviction, that’s right.

    Q. In other words, if Mr. Jackson were convicted of felony child molestation in this case, either Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo could use that conviction to essentially win a civil case regarding similar alleged facts against Mr. Jackson?

    A. That’s correct.

    Q. And one of the reasons for that is that the burden of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, and if you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you automatically have proof by a preponderance of the evidence, as you would need to have it in civil court, true?

    A. That’s the theory.

    Q. Well, that’s correct, right?

    A. Yeah, that’s the theory behind it.

    Q. Sir, did you tell a grand jury in Santa Barbara County that you had incurred tremendous costs of expenses during your lawsuit against Mr. Jackson in 1993?

    A. I did. And it was true.

    Q. In other words, if you could avoid the liability phase of a civil case, you wouldn’t save some time in legal fees?

    A. Of course you would save some time, and you would save some money…

    ps. Larry is on your right and on your left is my other godfather Tom Sneddon, more on him later…

    Like

  21. Olga permalink
    November 2, 2010 7:24 pm

    David thanks, I currently use Mojila which is supposed to be ok. I will try with other browsers

    Like

  22. lcpledwards permalink
    November 2, 2010 6:47 pm

    @ Lynette
    Not only did that scumbag from the National Enquirer say it, but also J. Randy Terrible-elli! And of course, Orth and Dimond have ran with that story as well! They said that MJ was influenced by P.T. Barnum’s “Greatest Show on Earth”, and MJ wanted to be known by that moniker, and was willing to do anything to be considered “weird” or “bizarre”, so that his name would always be out there in the public, and that would get him free publicity.

    @ Olga
    Reflections on the Dance has experienced a record number of visitors over the last few days, and the site has crashed multiple times. Also, you may have to try using Apple Safari, Internet Explorer, or Google Chrome as your browser, if your current browser isn’t working.

    Like

  23. Olga permalink
    November 2, 2010 4:49 pm

    David, the audio does not work for me. Only the 2 first parts show up and when I click I don’t hear anything. Do they have any trouble with the site or is it just me with the problem?

    Like

  24. November 2, 2010 3:52 pm

    “did you guys notice the editor from the National Enquirer who said that MJ intentionally gave him the photos of himself sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber? Fortunately, David Nordahl utterly refuted that nonsense in his interview.”

    Funnily, but both of them may be right to a certain extent. It is quite possible that Michael did not know what his immediate surrounding was doing behind his back. The obituary for Bob Jones in the LA Times said about him and the tricks he was using:

    October 14, 2008|Valerie J. Nelson, Times Staff Writer
    Bob Jones, the longtime publicist for Michael Jackson who said he dubbed the singer “the king of pop” and who co-wrote “The Man Behind the Mask,” an unauthorized biography critical of the star, has died. He was 72.

    “Publicity was king in those days, and Bob was able to deliver that,” said Miller London, a former Motown executive. “He was basically a staff of one, and it was a huge task.”

    The eccentricities reported about Jackson were often the result of leaks that Jones orchestrated to make the singer seem more mysterious, Jones told the Irish Times in 2005. Initial reports about Jackson sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber and the importance of his pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, admittedly came from the publicist.

    After being fired by letter in 2004, Jones was broke and angry — and decided to write a biography of Jackson, whom he had known since about 1970. The book portrayed Jackson as lip-syncing his way through a world tour and faking illness to avoid performing. Some critics, including the Jackson family, dismissed Jones as a disgruntled former employee.

    Like

  25. lynande51 permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:47 pm

    So David The National Enquirer is the one that started the nasty rumor that Michael put the photos of him in the hyperbaric chaber out to create publicity, then for 25 years the world has heard how Michael manipulated the press insinuating that he got what he deserved. The publishers of any of those rags are pretty much devoid of humanity but that is just about the best example of the muck raking asses they are. NO wonder Michael said they should all be burned, they should.For 25 years they have been doing nothing more than covering their lie for being the worst kind of people there is: GOSSIP MONGERS.

    Like

  26. lcpledwards permalink
    November 2, 2010 2:24 pm

    In the vitiligo episode by Geraldo, did you guys notice the editor from the National Enquirer who said that MJ intentionally gave him the photos of himself sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber? Fortunately, David Nordahl utterly refuted that nonsense in his interview. He said that the person who snapped the photo took the film to be developed, and the developer secretly stole a copy or a negative of the photo, and sold it to the tabloids, and that’s how the mess got started!

    If you haven’t done so already, you can listen to the entire 2 hour interview here:
    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html

    Like

  27. November 2, 2010 1:51 pm

    “Also, thanks for the Vitiligo videos. I haven’t seen the show before, it was interesting and educational.”

    Yes, David, thanks for the vitiligo show. When you look into the faces of these people you can more or less imagine what an ordeal it was for Michael to see the sight in its development every day in the mirror.

    One can’t help feeling that Michael had really TOO MUCH for one person to handle – lupus (a disease which alone can make a person’s like utterly miserable) and vitiligo in addition to all those incessant lawsuits (Thomas Mesereau said there were 1500 of them) and the media’s every day ridicule. No surprise he had a terrible insomnia – it was stress, stress, stress from beginning to end – just non-stop stress no one can really live with.

    Like

  28. morinen permalink
    November 2, 2010 1:00 pm

    Also, thanks for the Vitiligo videos. I haven’t seen the show before, it was interesting and educational.

    Like

  29. November 2, 2010 12:45 pm

    “I think they felt like Michael should have done more for them financially, specifically after the martin bashir documentary aired and this child was basically thrust into the public spotlight. They felt that they should have been compensated and that maybe what Michael’s camp was willing to do just wasn’t enough. I don’t know, but it was somewhere around that period of time, something just went wrong.”

    The motive of compensation for what Michael never did to them but in which he involuntarily involved them may be a perfect reason why both Jordan and Gavid came up with those allegations.

    The fact is, they didn’t want to be thrashed by the media just “for nothing”. Their line of reasoning probably was – “if the damage to our reputation is done anyway, let us have at least the money to enjoy for the rest of our lives”.

    And it was pure bad luck for the Arvizos that they couldn’t have a civil trial before the criminal one – otherwise Larry Feldman would have won them the case by using his well-polished technique of misinforming and manipulating people.

    Like

  30. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 2, 2010 12:18 pm

    ” Yes, David, I think it would probably be better if you posted all the information first and then we would focus on its separate issue..”

    I agree VindicateMJ, that is the best course.

    David, this really is tremendous work. Thank you.

    Lynande51 — that information about Feldman’s memo’s is extremely interesting.

    VindicateMJ – I look forward to your forthcoming analysis.

    Like

  31. November 2, 2010 11:54 am

    “you and the other co-admins can add your own additional commentary at the bottom. Or you can just take excerpts and make it into a new post after I’m done with series. I hope to post part 3 on Wednesday, part 4 on Saturday, and pat 5 on next Tuesday.”

    Yes, David, I think it would probably be better if you posted all the information first and then we would focus on its separate issues. From the way I’m handling Larry Feldman’s speech it seems I’ll have to make a long and detailed post about it – not just a comment.

    Like

  32. pauline permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:44 am

    ACCESS HOLLYWOOD: AZJA PRYOR TALKS ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON BEING FALSELY ACCUSED OF CHILD MOLESTATION

    Interview with Defense witness Azja Pryor, former girlfriend of comedian Chris Tucker…
    ———————————-

    INTERVIEWER: How did you come to know Michael Jackson?

    AZJA: Um actually, I never knew Michael. My son’s father was the one who was close to him. They hung out all the time and they were very good friends. I only met Michael once and it was at his trial. We spoke briefly during one of the courtroom breaks.

    INTERVIEWER: But you were close to the family who accused him of child molestation, right?

    AZJA: yes I was.

    INTERVIEWER: what messages do you have for the accuser and his family?

    AZJA: I don’t know how they sleep at night. Knowing that they accused someone who they called their friend and their family of the ugliest most heinous things you could say about a human being; And it’s time for Gavin to finally stand up and do the right thing. He is an adult. He’s always known that Michael never touched him, Michael never abused him.

    INTERVIEWER: You know, someone who’s watching this is going to say, how do you know he didn’t do anything? You only met him once. How do you know his character so well that you could defend him so strongly?

    AZJA: I was present when these children were at neverland. I spoke to these children several times a day when this was supposedly happening.

    INTERVIEWER: You were present at neverland?

    AZJA: yes I was and these children were very happy to be there.

    INTERVIEWER: tell me about your experiences with this family

    AZJA: well, when I first met the family, the accuser bragged about how Michael was his best friend and all the things that they would do and the friendship that they had, and it seemed like something that really brought alot of joy to his life. In the entire time while he was sick and undergoing chemotherapy, I actually never even met the mom. The mom never seemed to come around until after he was better. And you know, once he was better and we started to do other things, then the mom was around all the time and I never saw his father anymore.

    INTERVIEWER: So the mom was not there in the beginning, and the dad was not there in the end?

    AZJA: I never met the mom for a year

    INTERVIEWER: Didn’t that ever confuse you? I mean, to not meet the biggest pop star in the whole world? You wouldn’t be curious to come meet him, your son’s hanging out with him calling him his best friend?

    AZJA: yeah I thought it was weird. There were times when we would spend the night with the accuser in the hospital while he was undergoing chemotherapy and the mother was never there.

    INTERVIEWER: So whose we?

    AZJA: My son’s father, myself, and my son.

    INTERVIEWER: wow, and the mom was never there?

    AZJA: The mom was never there

    INTERVIEWER: Ok fast forward. Michael’s accused of child molestation by this family, and before you even find out who the family is, you already know?

    AZJA: I already know

    INTERVIEWER: What happens from there?

    AZJA: Everything is then a whirlwind. I’m thinking about the times that I was around them, the times that I took them to Neverland. These kids were very comfortable being at neverland. These kids knew all the security passwords to every room you could imagine, and even the rooms that were blocked off to anyone else that were personal to Michael—His dance room, which no one was to go into. They knew the codes. These kids, the last time I actually saw them, I left them at neverland. I spent the night and then I left. But the night that I spent the night, they had actually asked to sleep in michael’s room, however, michael was not there. And so one of his employees said that he could not allow them or anyone into the room while michael was not there, but they insisted and they really wanted to, and when I thought of what the accuser was saying Michael did, I thought to myself, “what child would want to go into the room where all these awful things were supposedly happening to them?”

    INTERVIEWER: But was that before or after the molestation could have happened?

    AZJA: According to the timeline, it was after these things had already been happening to him.

    INTERVIEWER: Oh ok. Interesting point.

    AZJA: Yes

    INTERVIEWER: Now you were called to the stand

    AZJA: yes I was

    INTERVIEWER: what was that experience like?

    AZJA: It was a very emotional experience for myself. I felt betrayed by this family. I felt that they had really taken someone who had really come to them in their darkest hour and who had really tried to be a friend, who had tried to show them support that they were not getting from their parents or from anybody else, and he just tried to do so much for them, he really tried to help. And they told me that michael was the one who helped cure this child of cancer, just his love and his support. I couldn’t believe that the same people that were able to say that, were also capable of turning their backs on him and making these awful allegations for the sake of money or whatever it was, was just—I just really felt betrayed.

    INTERVIEWER: What I don’t understand is why would a family who credited Michael as the person who saved their child’s life, later turn around and accuse him of molesting the boy if it weren’t true?

    AZJA: Something you have to understand is that Michael knew this child for over 2 years. These allegations didn’t come until after the airing of the Martin Bashir documentary.

    INTERVIEWER: So you’re saying the Bashir documentary was the motive?

    AZJA: Yes. I think they felt like Michael should have done more for them financially, specifically after the martin bashir documentary aired and this child was basically thrust into the public spotlight. They felt that they should have been compensated and that maybe what Michael’s camp was willing to do just wasn’t enough. I don’t know, but it was somewhere around that period of time, something just went wrong.

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:39 am

    Don’t let Larry Feldman tell you that the Arvizo’s didn’t try to sue any body because I have the memo he submitted to the Los Angeles DCFS after the DCFS memo was leaked. They wanted money and weren’t going to be happy just waiting for Michael to be found guilty they were going to sue the DCFS for the leaked memo. I have included the DCFS Memo that was leaked and the DCFS trying to investigate who leaked the memo.

    https://acrobat.com/#d=L9byellaRQPCPoNtftbHCA
    https://acrobat.com/#d=CxEtSKyB0pKVygyTSpqcKw
    https://acrobat.com/#d=z44OfF-Gt61YVDpbCSVdfw

    Like

  34. lcpledwards permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:25 am

    @ Alison
    Grand juries have been a part of the US justice system since the founding of our country. But I think that the CRIMINAL grand jury that you’re talking about was a special type of grand jury that Sneddon may have concocted in order to help prosecute MJ. I’ll do some more research into it and let you know what I find out.

    Like

  35. Alison permalink
    November 2, 2010 3:20 am

    the bit about the 3 judges being present at the settlement caught my attention – surely if there was any evidence of real molestation they would have HAD to refer it to prosecution, this must be clear evidence as well that there was nothing to prosecute.
    tho i am now more confused about the grand jury thing, as the superior court site said criminal grand juries were started in california in 2000, so how come they existed in 1993? or was it that sneddon felt they needed refining to make them what he wanted them to be?

    Like

  36. visitor permalink
    November 1, 2010 11:52 pm

    “Johnnie and I go back a long way”
    Omg. This thing is so damn complicated. Why i have the feeling that in the 93 case no one was working in Michael’s interest?

    Like

  37. lcpledwards permalink
    November 1, 2010 10:58 pm

    @ Helena
    Yes, you and the other co-admins can add your own additional commentary at the bottom. Or you can just take excerpts and make it into a new post after I’m done with series. I hope to post part 3 on Wednesday, part 4 on Saturday, and pat 5 on next Tuesday.

    Like

  38. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 1, 2010 10:14 pm

    Feldman is a lawyer, so he understands intuitively exactly where to place emphasis and where not, what to slightly omit and what to promote. .

    If it is doubtful that even if the legal minds at the seminar knew they were being subtly manipulated, it is even more unlikely that the Superbowl/ Fox News – watching masses of the US would see through it. Add to that the stoking of hysteria and misinformation by the media at the time – and since, and it’s not hard to see why the profound miscarriages of justice in Michael’s life occurred — and gained.

    Like

  39. November 1, 2010 9:40 pm

    “Thank you David and VMJ –great work as usual.”

    Deborah, it was solely David who was that heroic in transcribing the whole thing and providing the initial analysis. However the subject is truly inexhaustible and each of us has probably something to say on the subject. I regard Larry Feldman as the most difficult part of the whole story – he is slippery as a lizard and shrewd as an old fox. It is Larry who is the creator of the Chandlers’ success and it is absolutely no accident that it was he who represented Johnny Cochran in several legal suits (Aphrodite Jones is mentioning it in her book). J.Cochran was admiring his opponent and it is his admiration which was the first step to letting Michael down.

    VindicateMJ, do you intend to post more analysis? I am hoping the answer is yes.
    I’d like to, but I read part 2 only in a couple of hours ago and need time to think it over and collect some information. Probably tomorrow only, as it is past midnight here. You know I’m really envious that it is still a relatively early evening with you.

    P.S. Larry Feldman is making me furious because everything he is saying is tainted with lies – it is just the degree of falsehood which varies from sentence to sentence.

    Like

  40. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    November 1, 2010 8:40 pm

    Feldman is indeed lying and he has had years to perfect it. It is the analysis of that in complete detail and Mesereau’s speech which followed –which will reveal the true extent of the baselessness of Jackson’s prosecution. Thank you David and VMJ –great work as usual.

    VindicateMJ, do you intend to post more analysis? I am hoping the answer is yes.

    Like

  41. November 1, 2010 7:57 pm

    David, thank you for part 2. After reading Larry Feldman’s speech I realized that you had a hard time refuting him but you’ve nevertheless done a marvellous job. Larry Feldman is quite a phenomenon – he is a top professional but is a complete opposite of Thomas Mesereau. I’ll probably add a couple of things about him to your post if you don’t mind. It will be mostly on the exquisite way he is lying (as to the substance of the case you’ve already covered everything).

    Like

  42. November 1, 2010 6:57 pm

    “Did the Arviso case start as civil? Did they visit Feldman before going to the police? This a really thorough article though.”

    Yes, guys, this is a thorough article but Larry Feldman is the most difficult part of it, so let us not be in a hurry in analysing his speech. This cunning fox is lying in a very subtle way. Let us clear up point after point in what he says and the dates should probably come first. I am no real expert on the Arvizo case and had to do a little research. Here are the details the blog MJJTimeline is offering us:

    February 14, 2003 :
    The Los Angeles Family Service opens an investigation on Michael Jackson’s relationship with Gavin based on a phone call made from his school.
    February 17 :
    LA Family Service calls Janet Arvizo to set an interview between her children & social workers on February 20.
    February 18 :
    Santa Barbara Police Department opens an investigation on MIchael Jackson based on a letter from Gloria Allred & Carol Lieberman.
    February 21 :
    Following the advice of her friend Jamie Massada, Janet consults a lawyer named William Dickerman.
    February 25 :
    Franck & Vinnie take the mother to the Laugh Factory where she has a second meeting with Dickerman.
    April 16 :
    The Santa Barbara Police Department closes its investigation with no elements against Michael.
    Dickerman sends the family to consult Larry Feldman (the lawyer who negotiated the civil settlement between Michael & the Chandlers )
    May 15 and May 29 :
    Larry Feldman sends Gavin, Star & Davellin to consult Stanley Katz. (the psychologist who analysed Jordy Chandler)
    June 13 :
    After weeks of backgound plotting, Feldman & Katz finally report the allegations of the family to the Santa Barbara County Sherriff. District Attorney Tom Sneddon asks Feldman not to file a civil suit before he has completed a criminal investigation.
    November 18 :
    The Number Ones CD & DVD are released.
    Tom Sneddon chooses this specific day to raid Neverland with a search warrant accompanied by 7O members of the Santa Barbara County Sherriff.
    Other searches are done at Bradley Miller (Mark Geragos’ private investigator) & Hamid Moslehi (Michael’s videographer) ‘ houses.
    Diane Dimond is the first “journalist” to report the news for Court TV.
    Michael who is in Las Vegas issues a statement through his spokesman Stuart Backerman.
    November 19 :
    While the news of the Neverland search is covered by every media around the world, DA Tom Sneddon & Sherriff Jim Anderson give a press conference to announce that they have a stop warrant against Michael in connection to new allegations of child molestation made by a 12 year old boy. Media learn that the boy accusing Michael is Gavin.
    November 20 :
    Michael arrives at the Santa Barbara airport in a private Jet with Grace & his attorney Mark Geragos where he is handcuffed and taken to the Santa Barbara County main jail. He is allowed to walk free after posting a $3 million bail, posing for a mugshot and being advised of the charges against him.
    Geragos gives a press conference to refute those allegations while Michael returns to Las Vegas where the Jackson family (Joe, Katherine, LaToya & Tito) has arrived to support him.
    November 21 :
    Michael’s mugshot is on the front page of every newspapers in the world. A media frenzy explodes in America & Europe with tons of talk shows being dedicated to this new controversy.
    November 24, 2003 :
    Michael & Mark Geragos sue Extra Jet for illegally taping them during their flight from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara. (http://mjjtimeline.blogspot.com/2009/08/2003.html)

    November 26, 2003 :
    An internal government memo is made to the Dr. Charles Sophy, a high-ranking official at the DCFS summarizing the interviews the children and their mother gave to the social worker and the LA police back in February 2003 and concluding that the allegations were unfounded.

    Here is an article from the Smoking Gun telling us of the results of the joint police and DCFS probe into the case:

    DECEMBER 9, (2003)–A confidential investigation by Los Angeles police and child welfare officials concluded earlier this year that allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused a cancer-stricken boy were “unfounded,” according to an internal government memo obtained by The Smoking Gun.

    The probe’s findings were based, in large part, on interviews with the alleged victim, his two siblings, and the boy’s mother. According to the memo, when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.’s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he “denied any form of sexual abuse” by Jackson and said that he never “slept in the same bed as the entertainer.” While not specifically named in the DCFS memo, the 45-year-old Jackson is referred to repeatedly as “the entertainer.”

    The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother–who also denied sexual abuse–expressed “a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies.” The pair’s sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on “sleepovers at the entertainers home,” but had “never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer.”

    The children’s mother told investigators that Jackson was “like a father to the children and a part of her family.” While acknowledging that her son “has slept in the same room as the entertainer,” the woman claimed “they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor,” according to the November 26 memo.

    The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the “investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department.”

    When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked “substantiated.” A case is termed “not substantiated” when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded “unfounded” when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.

    As with many DCFS investigations, the Jackson abuse case began with a call to the agency’s child abuse hotline. According to the memo, a “Child Abuse Referral” was phoned in on February 14 by a “school official” from the Los Angeles Unified School District, which oversees the city’s sprawling public school system. Citing the prior week’s ABC broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson,” the controversial Martin Bashir documentary, the school official lodged allegations of “general neglect by mother and sexual abuse by ‘an entertainer,'” according to the summary memo. The school official identified both the cancer patient, then 13, and his younger brother as the “referred children.”

    While the school official is not further identified in the DCFS memo, published reports have indicated that the older boy was taunted by classmates after the documentary aired on ABC’s “20/20” newsmagazine. During the February 6 program, the child was seen holding hands with Jackson and resting his head against the singer’s shoulder. Jackson told Bashir that he had slept with many children unrelated to him, but insisted, “It’s not sexual, we’re going to sleep. I tuck them in…It’s very charming, it’s very sweet.”

    In a clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy’s mother told investigators that “she believed the media had taken everything out of context,” according to the memo, which summarizes the DCFS child abuse investigation. The “sensitive case” memo was prepared at the direction of Dr. Charles Sophy, a high-ranking DCFS official who joined the department in late-March, a month after the Jackson probe was completed. The memo was authored by Jennifer Hottenroth, a DCFS assistant regional administrator. In a brief telephone interview yesterday morning, Hottenroth declined to speak about her memo, saying, “I can’t talk about it…I can refer you to our public affairs person. I can’t comment on any of this.” Sophy (pictured at right) did not return a message left with his assistant. Louise Grasmehr, a DCFS spokesperson, said that while she had been given a copy of the document by Hottenroth Monday morning, “We cannot comment on anything that is stated in the memo. Because it’s all protected under confidentiality laws in California.”

    The boy’s February 2003 interview with child abuse investigators–not to mention those with his family–appears to run counter to allegations he later made to law enforcement officials in Santa Barbara, where Jackson was arrested November 20 and released on $3 million bail. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon has said that he expects to file felony child molestation charges against Jackson next week. In addition to the boy’s original denial of sexual abuse by Jackson, his younger brother’s February 2003 statements also appear to contradict recent published reports claiming that the child has told Santa Barbara investigators that he witnessed his brother being molested by the star.

    While it is unclear what, if any, effect the LAPD-DCFS investigation will have on a future Jackson prosecution, the performer’s defense team will surely seize on the February 2003 probe’s findings to question the current veracity and motives of the child and his family–and, of course, further muddy a case that already promises to be a difficult prosecution.

    The child abuse investigation was immediately placed with the Sensitive Case Unit since department guidelines dictate that if “one of the clients in the referral is a public figure” or if the case’s allegations “would be certain to generate media interest if they became known outside of DCFS,” the matter requires utmost secrecy.

    As with most DCFS abuse cases, a children’s social worker (CSW) was dispatched to interview the boys, as was a LAPD investigator (the memo does not indicate whether the cop and the social worker conducted their interviews in tandem). In either case, it is likely that the children were questioned apart from their mother, since the abuse referral included allegations of neglect on the woman’s part, according to a DCFS source familiar with agency operations.

    The allegations examined this year in the LAPD-DCFS probe mirror sex abuse claims that surfaced in 1993, when a 13-year-old California boy claimed that the pop star molested him. Jackson, who was not charged in that case, reportedly made a multimillion dollar payment to settle a civil suit brought by the child and his family.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/early-probe-cleared-michael-jackson

    The following summary report was made by DCFS on November 26, 2003 on the basis of the interviews conducted in February 2003:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/early-probe-cleared-michael-jackson

    Like

  43. Sam permalink
    November 1, 2010 5:36 pm

    I’m not sure that’s correct Morinen, did the Arviso case start as civil? Did they visit Feldman before going to the police? I didn’t know Shapiro represented Evan in 1993. This a really thorough article though.

    Like

  44. November 1, 2010 3:08 pm

    Thank you for the transcript and the analysis.
    I didn’t know that Arviso suit started as a civil suit. That explains a lot of things.

    Like

  45. Olga permalink
    November 1, 2010 12:59 pm

    David, there is also an article about Jordan and the movie from LA Times

    Toothy Tales of Hollywood . . . Script Dentist!
    June 13, 1993|JANE GALBRAITH

    You’ve all heard of script doctors. Well, here’s a new one: script dentists.
    Beverly Hills dentist Dr. Evan Chandler–the man who’s entrusted to care for Sherry Lansing’s, Christian Slater’s and Valerie Golino’s teeth, among others–found a new patient in his chair one morning interested in listening to a couple of his movie ideas. The patient was screenwriter J. David Shapiro; the idea actually came from Chandler’s then 11-year-old son, Jordi. The conversation took place post-“Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” and resulted in a writing partnership that has become “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.”
    “Evan Chandler’s son turned to his father and said, ‘You know, Dad, you know what would be a great thing, a spoof of Robin Hood,’ ” recalls the King of Parodies, Mel Brooks, who liked the duo’s screenplay send-up of the 1991 hit that starred Costner as the chivalric arrow-slinging hero who stole from the rich to give to the poor and decided to make it his next movie. “It didn’t hurt that the man’s in a lot of show-biz mouths,” he said, acknowledging his connection to Shapiro through a mutual friend who works for Brooksfilm.
    Brooks also gives a nod to the kid despite the fact he’s in a Writers Guild arbitration with his father and Shapiro over who should get what screenplay credit. Brooks says they should get story credit and he and Shapiro screenplay credit. Chandler would not comment for this story. (Consideration is being made whether to give Jordi some recognition in the end crawl credits.)
    But Brooks also pats himself on the back for having attempted an even earlier Robin Hood parody done for television in 1975, “When Things Were Rotten,” a sitcom for ABC that aired four months before being canceled.
    “Even though the kid was 12 or 14 years late, it was still a good idea,” said the spoof-meister of such genre lampoons as “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein.”
    He said timing, notably Kevin Costner’s ripe-for-satire performance (the actor was roundly made fun of for his wavering laid-back California/British accent), and some of Chandler/Shapiro’s Sherwood Forest scene-setters convinced the filmmaker to make it his next project.
    For one, the Mafia helps Prince John get rid of old Robin (played by Cary Elwes). The role of Rabbi Tuchman (as in Friar Tuck) is, in the words of the actor, “brilliantly played by someone who shall be nameless.” Gee, we wonder who that is.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-13/entertainment/ca-2553_1_robin-hood

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. “Hollywood Tonight” (2) | Nonlocal Universe

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: