Skip to content

Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – THE STORY OF GLORIA ALLRED part 2

November 20, 2010

We are going with Larry Feldman’s speech piece by piece, trying to see the real  story behind his sterile version of it.  Let me remind you that Larry Feldman was a defense attorney for the Chandlers who took over from Gloria Allred in September 1993.

Here is the story of Gloria Allred working for ’36 hours’ on Jordan Chandler’s case

LARRY FELDMAN:

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.

This is very clever stunt on the part of Larry Feldman. Instead of speaking about the substance of the case, discussing the difference in their strategy and clearing up to the eager audience of lawyers the reasons why he replaced Gloria Allred, Larry Feldman turns the whole matter into a joke and channels the audience’s attention into thinking that Gloria’s services were found unsatisfactory by the Client who preferred Larry Feldman instead.

Gloria Allred, 2010

To make up for the absence of the information let me restore at least some of the truth. From the first day of her taking up the case Gloria Allread spoke about something which is going unnoticed even now – she said she was determined to focus her attention on “the real issues”. Real issues?  Doesn’t it imply that there were some other issues which didn’t pertain to the case?

The LA Times said about Gloria Allred’s approach:

“Determined to focus attention on what she called “the real issues,” attorney Gloria Allred on Thursday spoke for the first time on behalf of the boy who has accused superstar Michael Jackson of molesting him, saying the 13-year-old is “courageous” and “wants to have his day in court.”

Allred refused to discuss allegations of extortion Thursday, saying that she represented only the child. “Whatever has happened between or among adults should not affect the rights of this child to be safe, to be protected and to have his day in court,” she said.

“My client wants . . . the truth to come out. He is ready, he is willing, he is able to testify”. Asked whether she planned to file a civil suit on behalf of the boy, Allred said: “I am reserving and preserving all options for the child and not ruling anything in or out.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-03/local/me-31230_1_michael-jackson

A week later the same LA Times reported:

Attorney Gloria Allred, who announced amid great fanfare last week that she was representing a 13-year-old boy allegedly molested by Michael Jackson, said Friday that she is no longer on the case.

“That is correct,” Allred said. She declined to answer any questions about why she was leaving the case, saying only: “I can’t make any further comment, unfortunately.” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/local/me-33944_1_jackson-case

Why were her services no longer needed? Larry Feldman knows the big secret of course but he wouldn’t commit himself, so we have nothing else to do but rely on what Ray Chandler tells us in his book “All the Glitters” about the situation. Our David Edwards has read the book:

“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”.

Is it my eyesight failing me or is it really both Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles and Tom Sneddon in Santa Barbara who had to be pressured according to Ray Chandler? Which is why Gloria Allred needed an all-out media campaign to force them to seek a Grand Jury indictment – as if the media was not already going crazy enough about all those allegations?

Let us put aside these strange excuses on Ray Chandler’s part and focus on the main subject: Gloria Allred wanted justice first and money second, as she didn’t rule out the possibility of a civil suit either, but the problem is that the Chandlers wanted money both first, second and third.

Ray Chandler’s idea of “avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the boy” clearly conveys the idea that the Chandlers didn’t want any court at all – civil or criminal alike – and were interested only in a hush-hush settlement, ‘quick, quiet and highly profitable’ as the text suggests it. This is further confirmed by Ray Chandler on p. 128 who verbatim says it as if rebuking Michael for the mistake made:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

The LA Times also cites Jordan’s words from one of his interviews where the social worker notes it that it was solely a money agreement which was in the minds of the boy’s family:

“In an Aug. 17 report detailing the allegations brought by the 13-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim, a county social worker wrote: “Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy’s father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

One can easily take the Chandlers’ bait and buy it that the family and Larry Feldman did care for Jordan’s feelings and didn’t want him to be traumatized by all those ‘details’ discussed in the open.

However after a moment of doubt I remembered that immediately upon signing the agreement Ray Chandler started making rounds of various publishers promoting his ‘tell-all’ book about Michael and Jordan (in violation of all agreements) and bragging that Jordan’s father gave him full authority to speak on his behalf, depicting Jordan as a gay lover of MJ and telling sordid stories about both of them (see here for details)

The next moment I remembered that a certain ‘diary’ attributed to Even Chandler, and never disputed by him, was read on the air in the TV “Hard copy” show in May, 1994 providing salacious details about the ‘relationship’ (for details see here).

As to Larry Feldman we already know of the great care he displayed for the boy when he renewed the media frenzy by releasing his ‘declaration’ ten years after Jordan was supposed to forget about the case.

So much for the true worth of their feigned concern for the boy’s interests and crocodile tears over the trauma the trial would inflict on him if the case was taken to court…

But if Jordan’s interests were a mere pretext for not going to court what could be the real reason for avoiding any kind of trial – criminal or civil?

Now we can be sure of it – it was the total lack of evidence which the Chandlers and Larry Feldman tried to conceal from the general public, making up for its absence by all the media hoopla around the case.

Let me repeat the basics of the case:

  • Even Chandler had nothing but suspicions
  • the description Jordan made did not match Jackson’s genitalia
  • the stark difference was not only in the fact that Michael was not circumcised though the boy said he was
  • it was also in the fact that the boy didn’t know the actual color of his genitalia – he spoke of one ‘light splotch which was the color of his face’ (so the rest of the skin being dark), while the photos showed one dark splotch (so the rest of the skin being light).
  • not being able to tell that difference is like not being able to tell a white cow from a dark one, which makes the boy’s description a complete joke.

The LA Times says that lack of evidence haunted the case from the very start:

“I have the evidence (against Jackson),” the father said. You’ll hear it on tape recordings.Police have said their investigation has not produced physical or medical evidence that would support a criminal filing, but they are still interviewing people and reviewing photographs confiscated from Jackson. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/news/mn-39718_1_michael-jackson

Videotapes seized from homes belonging to Michael Jackson do not incriminate the entertainer, and the lack of physical evidence of alleged sexual molestation has left investigators “scrambling” to get statements from other potential victims, a high-ranking police source said Thursday.

“There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence,” the source said. “The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

When police executed search warrants at Jackson’s Los Angeles condominium and Santa Barbara County ranch last weekend, they left with a number of videotapes. On Thursday, sources said investigators still were reviewing the tapes for clues about possible victims; a number of the tapes are said to feature Jackson in the company of young admirers.

With little, if any, physical evidence to implicate Jackson in the allegations involving the 13-year-old Los Angeles boy at the center of the inquiry, investigators are interviewing other youngsters close to the entertainer to determine if any of them were sexually abused. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case

Michael’s haters often say that the police had not been quick enough to seize the crucial ‘incriminating’ documents from his ranch. Larry Feldman will say in his speech that he “took a lot of depositions in the case of people who had knowledge about Michael at Neverland”, one of which was from Michael’s driver who does indeed claim he was ordered to pick up some documents.

Okay, let’s see what the LA Times said about it:

“A chauffeur for Michael Jackson has said in a sworn deposition that the entertainer instructed him to take a suitcase and briefcase from Jackson’s Century City apartment on the same day that investigators searched the property for evidence of sexual molestation, sources close to the case said Wednesday.

The chauffeur, Gary Hearne, was questioned by lawyers for more than five hours Tuesday, and some details of his statement were relayed to investigators Wednesday. The statement was videotaped, and a court reporter transcribed the session (this is how a proper sworn deposition is taken).

Hearne, sources said, told the attorneys that he ran the errand to Jackson’s Century City apartment late in the day, suggesting that he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence. Nevertheless, the sources said investigators were following up the chauffeur’s statements to determine whether anyone interfered with the serving of the warrants.

Larry R. Feldman, the lawyer for a 13-year-old … took the deposition from Hearne on Tuesday. Feldman refused to comment Wednesday”  http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-02/local/me-63136_1_michael-jackson

So “he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence”? No wonder that Larry Feldman refused to comment the next day – the police had already gone through all the documents at Michael’s place and there was absolutely nothing unusual in the fact that Michael’s attorneys requested some documents (probably financial) after the search.

By the way the driver is lying in his official deposition that the “entertainer instructed him to take that suitcase” – Michael had nothing to do with that the driver’s errand, he was on a tour at that time, did not know of the raid and it was someone from his team who later asked for the papers.

The LA Times of September 3, 1993 tries to squeeze a sensation out of the story, however the only thing it proves is that the police search came first, Michael’s assistants learned about it postfactum and the driver’s errand came only after that:

The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-03/news/mn-31256_1_michael-jackson

But if there was no evidence at the beginning of the case could some of it surface at the end of it – for example, after the degrading strip search had been conducted on Michael? Absolutely not, as the mismatch of Michael’s photos and Jordan’s description baffled the police so much that Larry Feldman had to react quick as a lighting to help their case.

Let me repeat here the astonishing fact that Larry Feldman demanded:

  • the photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia be shown to his accuser, Jordan Chandler
  • a new strip search be arranged after that
  • in case his first two requests were not met he demanded that the photos be barred from being used during the forthcoming civil trial

It is interesting that the LA Times made only one and uncharacteristically short publication about this truly SENSATIONAL matter. Here is the full of it:

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

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF

January 05, 1994

The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.

Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.

“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.

Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.

Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

Could anyone here explain to me please, why Larry Feldman would demand barring the photos from the future trial ?

  • Would he have demanded it if there had been a match?
  • Why did he want to see the photos?
  • To find out what the genitalia were really like?
  • And what was the purpose of the proposed second strip search?
  • To examine the photos first, make a declaration later and arrange a new search to confirm those statements?
  • So all these maneuvers on his part show that he knew that Jordan’s description did not match the ‘real thing’, didn’t he?

And the mismatch occurred even despite the fact that they had laboriously worked together with Jordan for several hours on their  version of the description? So much work and all of it in vain, threatening to bring the case to a deadend?

See how Ray Chandler describes in “All that glitters” the tiring process of making that foolproof  drawing:

“Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael’s penis and  testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client.  If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camel’s back that was Michael’s defense.  And the poor beast was already swayback”  (If it had matched there would have been an immediate arrest)

“It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand (because it is difficult to work out a description which will universally fit).

…But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later. (an accurate match? Since when has a Non-circumcised white penis with a distinctive Dark blotch become similar to a Circumcised dark one with a distinctive Light blotch?)

“On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months.”

Late in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called   Evan:

“… Tell me something, Evan. Is Jordie happy?  Is he aware of where we are right now?”

“Everybody asks me that question, Larry.  He was a lot happier a couple of weeks ago than he is now.  I’m beginning to see the effects of time draggin’ on.”

“I’m sure of that….Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that’s it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant.  It can change very quickly with this disease.”

“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

“Why?”

Because if he’s right, he’s right.  And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!

“Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

An interesting insight into how the bullet-proof evidence is sometimes made, isn’t it?

Ray Chandler goes on with his disclosures of their never-go-to-trial strategy:

“Allred meant well; no one doubted her sincerity and concern.  And had the defendant been other than Michael Jackson, her strategy might have been more appealing.  But Larry and Bob’s insights made a lot of sense.  Getting a conviction against Michael would be near impossible without a second victim”.

The above statement is very important, though its importance was initially overlooked by all of us. David was the first to notice its true meaning:

“I can’t believe I didn’t notice that last sentence the first time!  When you analyze it, you’ll see that the Chandlers are using the fact that there isn’t a second “victim” as an excuse to sue MJ and not prosecute him.  Well, how do you think that they knew there wasn’t a second victim? It’s because they knew MJ was INNOCENT, and that there WOULD NOT be any second “victims”!  Once again, this flies in the face of common sense! If MJ was truly guilty, then they wouldn’t even NEED a second victim! Nor would they even care!”

Let me emphasize here again that Larry Feldman and the Chandlers knew well in advance that there would be no other ‘victim’ to corroborate their story –  so knowing this much it is no wonder that Larry Feldman made jokes at the lawyers’ seminar about poor, poor Gloria Allred who wanted to ‘seek justice’ for the boy while being completely in the dark as to the true state of affairs in the case….

UPDATED Dec.1, 2010 by vindicatemj:

What I like about Michael’s haters is that you can get from their sources invaluable information you are unlikely to find anywhere else. Look at what Maureen Orth is writing in her January 1994 article about the reasons why Gloria Allred abandoned the Chandler case – what a precious piece of information it is:

“The flamboyant feminist attorney Gloria Allred, who briefly represented the boy, promptly called a press conference and announced that her little client was willing to come forward and tell his story. The horrified parents then hired the unimpeachable Feldman, a past president of the L.A. County Bar Association and the L.A. Trial Lawyers’ Association, whose lawyer wife works with sexually abused people. He fired Allred by letter and warned her that if she talked about the case she could be disciplined by the California bar.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1994/01/orth199401?currentPage=9

So it was Larry Feldman who fired Gloria Allred! And even restrained her by a warning that she could be disciplined by the California bar whose prominent member he was!

And for what? What misdeed had she committed? She only said that she wanted justice and that her client was willing to testify…

So he was NOT willing to testify? Neither at the beginning, nor in the middle, and nor in the end – in 2005?

And why were the parents so “horrified”? Because what they expected to be a joke was turning into a serious matter where they could be required to answer for slander if it came to a criminal trial ? Yes, I remember Ray Chandler describing his brother Evan practically shaking with fear that he might go to prison for extorting money from Michael….

(to be continuned)

8 Comments leave one →
  1. shelly permalink
    April 18, 2011 6:36 pm

    “And yes, these people and “-D” who posted that actual theory here, do believe these things. Or at least they try and act like they do.”

    She believed it because the possibility that Jack Gordon could have created the story and that Latoya could have lied when she said she saw check never crossed her stupid mind.

    Like

  2. April 18, 2011 6:06 pm

    Thanks for posting those! I get so frustrated when Google Archive News doesn’t let me read the whole story, heh.

    And yes, these people and “-D” who posted that actual theory here, do believe these things. Or at least they try and act like they do.

    Like

  3. shelly permalink
    April 18, 2011 12:50 pm

    Another article about Jack Gordon

    “Odd interest for Jackson case

    Glenn Puit

    A celebrity’s lawsuit, filed under the Violence Against Women Act, draws the attention of legal scholars.

    By Glenn Puit Review-Journal
    For months the likes of Howard Stern, David Letterman and Jay Leno have used the scheduled divorce of La Toya Jackson from her estranged husband, Jack Gordon, as fodder for their comedy routines.
    But the divorce has a serious side, too, and is drawing the attention of legal scholars nationwide. That’s because it’s the first high-profile civil suit filed under a federal law that targets crimes based on gender or sex and, at the same time, is examining allegations of severe domestic violence.

    ‘This case is very interesting in that it addresses how women are battered and how they live in these situations,’ said R. Brian Oxman, a California attorney representing the sister of pop music star Michael Jackson. ‘There is a lot more to the situation than finances when you examine why a woman will stay in an abusive relationship.’

    In June, Oxman filed a federal civil rights suit against Gordon on behalf of Jackson in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. The suit claims Gordon, who also served as Jackson’s manager, beat her and forced her to perform at topless night clubs and in sexually explicit videos during their stormy, six-year marriage.
    The Violence Against Women Act, which the Jackson suit was filed under, was passed by Congress three years ago and prevents the exploitation or abuse of an individual based on gender. The act was finally passed after years of lobbying by women’s rights advocates, who overcame legislators’ concerns that virtually every domestic dispute would end up in federal courts.
    ‘I’ve gotten a great deal of interest in this lawsuit from the academic community,’ Oxman said. ‘A professor of law at the University of Michigan called who follows all of the cases filed under this act … We received another call from a professor at the University of Texas interested in the same thing. It shows this is a very serious issue.’
    Some of the allegations in the federal suit include:
    -In April 1993, Gordon punched, kicked and hit Jackson with a chair, knocking her unconscious and forcing her hospitalization.
    -In February 1994, Gordon beat Jackson in the face, neck, back and stomach because she refused to perform nude in a Playboy video. The suit claims Jackson finally appeared in the video after ‘a series of beatings.’
    -In the winter of 1994, Gordon beat Jackson when she refused to perform in a pornographic video for producers in Los Angeles and Atlanta.
    -In January, 1996, Jackson was beaten when she initially refused to take part in a show called ‘Jackson Family Secrets,’ which revealed intimate details about the Jackson clan.
    In May, Jackson filed for divorce in Clark County.
    Gordon, a Las Vegas resident, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. In previous media accounts and court filings he has steadfastly denied the accusations. His Las Vegas attorney, James Jimmerson, was out of town Tuesday and did not return phone messages.
    In court papers filed by Oxman Tuesday, the attorney presented a document Gordon faxed to Jackson days after he was served with the civil suit.
    ‘You are mentally ill and in need of a doctor’s help,’ Gordon wrote in the fax. ‘A civil rights suit has been filed in Las Vegas. I’ll defend it. I know and you know it is not true … If I hit you, what hand did I use? What time of day was it? Where was I? Where were you?’
    New York Lawyer Mark Diamond, who has worked as a commentator for Court-TV and NBC, said Tuesday that while Jackson’s case may be the first filed under the act to receive national media attention, it is not one that will venture into new legal waters.
    ‘They (cases) are filed and enforced quite a bit now,’ Diamond said. ‘It is also turning into quite a hot area of law. But this is a high profile case, which I guess makes it a little bit unusual.'”

    Like

  4. shelly permalink
    April 18, 2011 12:48 pm

    The whole Jack Gordon article

    “Spouse says La Toya made life miserable

    Glenn Puit

    JACKSON

    Show businessman Jack Gordon rebuts allegations of routine domestic violence and says, ‘La Toya Jackson is not a human being.’
    By Glenn Puit Review-Journal
    Jack Gordon has seen it all during the last 58 years.
    The show business manager has known wealth and poverty, faced off against some of the top entertainment executives in the world and even conquered prostate, lung and stomach cancers.
    But when he looks back, the Las Vegan thinks his tumultuous seven-year marriage to La Toya Jackson is probably the most traumatic experience of his life.

    ‘La Toya Jackson is not a human being,’ Gordon said. ‘With her, you never know what to expect. When you are married to her, you never want to go home. I was better off if she was asleep when I got home.’

    Seven months have passed since Jackson filed for divorce from Gordon in Clark County courts, and until now Gordon has remained quiet on allegations that he routinely beat her. Thursday afternoon, Gordon spoke about the couple’s marriage, his experiences with the Jackson family and the domestic violence accusations that he said unfairly and inaccurately portray him as a demon.
    ‘I think she’s crazy,’ Gordon said. ‘Every phobia known to mankind, I believe she has it. She is avery unstable person.’
    Gordon said he struck Jackson once during their relationship, in self-defense. He said Jackson attacked him without provocation in a New York apartment in April 1993, and he had to grab a chair to fend off what he described as a knife-wielding, out-of-control woman.
    During the argument, Gordon said, Jackson held the couple’s beloved dog over the balcony railing of the 31st story apartment and threatened to drop the animal. Gordon said that Jackson then came after him with a butcher knife and that he protected himself with the chair. He said when he dropped the chair, Jackson lunged at him with the knife, and he punched her once in the face.
    ‘I had to stop her,’ Gordon said. ‘It was purely an act of self-defense. I never hurt her. Never.’
    That is quite different from the accounts of domestic violence Jackson has portrayed in a federal civil suit she filed against Gordon in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. In the suit filed by California attorney R. Brian Oxman, Jackson said Gordon violently beat and intimidated her into performing at topless night clubs and in sexually explicit videos.
    Gordon denies the allegations. He said that they never happened or that Jackson has exaggerated them to get sympathy.
    Oxman contended Tuesday that Jackson’s legal team will prove the domestic abuse and said that if Gordon had not attacked Jackson, she never would have appeared in the sexually explicit videos, night clubs or magazines.
    ‘If that is true, then why in every house or apartment that we’ve lived in has she put up huge nude photos of herself?’ Gordon said. ‘She watches her own Playboy video every day and she is so proud of it. She is obsessed with her appearance.’
    Gordon said the couple’s current ill feelings are a far cry from the heated romance that bloomed shortly after the couple met at the Grammy Awards in 1984.
    ‘I liked the girl,’ Gordon said. ‘I didn’t really know the girl, but I knew she was gorgeous.’
    Gordon said he gradually tired of Jackson’s instability and her continuous primping.
    ‘At first she was beautiful,’ Gordon said. ‘But after a while the looks became horrifying because they were so fake.’
    He said when La Toya first told him about how the Jackson children were abused and that Michael Jackson is attracted to children, he believed her. But now he is not so sure.
    ‘I read the paper every day and read what she is saying about me, and I know it is not true,’ Gordon said. ‘So now how can I believe the other stuff?’
    Gordon said in the beginning he knew La Toya had the potential to become just as famous as her siblings. But he said La Toya was not willing to put in the necessary work to become a superstar and was too inconsistent in meeting show business obligations.
    He cited her last-minute cancellation of a performance on a Bob Hope show during the war in the Persian Gulf and said he had to lie and tell Hope that La Toya was too sick to perform.
    ‘He (Hope) said, ‘Jack, thanks for coming and telling me,” Gordon said. ‘And he would never book her again after that.’
    So if La Toya Jackson is as selfish and fickle as Gordon claims, then why did he marry her in the first place?
    ‘Why did I marry La Toya Jackson?’ Gordon pondered. ‘For the money and no other reason. I told her and I told the world it was to protect her, but did I ever love her? Maybe. But love is giving, sharing and helping, and I gave, shared and helped and never got anything in return.’

    Like

  5. shelly permalink
    April 18, 2011 9:16 am

    “Didn’t Desiree use her as one of her bits of proof? That Toya knew something had gone on and that if she claimed to see a cheque for Jimmy it meant Gordon couldn’t have known about it?”

    How can someone be that stupid?

    Like

  6. April 18, 2011 1:23 am

    I didn’t know where to post this, but even though she was still suggesting something, she certainly had a change of pace from what her press conference would say…

    http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=e4RIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0W4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3842,1017049&dq=elizabeth+michael-jackson&hl=en

    Pittsburg Post Gazette, 3rd September

    Jackson’s sistser, LaToya, said yesterday that the singer used to spend the night in his room with young boys and “we really don’t know” if the sexual abuse allegations against him are true.

    But Miss Jackson said on NBC’s Today that the public has been unfair to her brother and that “I stand by him 1,000% percent. If you really think about it, he’s been convicted before a trial,” Miss Jackson said from NBC’s London bureau.

    Didn’t Desiree use her as one of her bits of proof? That Toya knew something had gone on and that if she claimed to see a cheque for Jimmy it meant Gordon couldn’t have known about it? Well, it seems she only suddenly remembered this crucial piece of info at some point afterwards.

    Also, in 1997 after Toya and Jack had divorced Jack even said…

    Las Vegas Review-Journal : Spouse says La Toya made life miserable
    $2.95 – Las Vegas Review-Journal – NewsBank – Dec 6, 1996
    … He said when La Toya first told him about how the Jackson children were abused and that Michael Jackson is attracted to children he believed her But now he is not so sure

    I’m not posting this to believe Jack, but just to show that neither of them could keep their story straight.

    Anyway, it’s not conclusive proof, but I stumbled over it when throwing together a blog about Elizabeth and I thought it was worth noting.

    Like

  7. Dialdancer permalink
    November 22, 2010 3:29 am

    Did Jordan get labeled Gay in the same manner that Mack, Brett and Wade were labeled the “victims” who would not testify for the same reason. They failed to go along with the program. Even today MJ’s 3 friends are still written up as his “special” friends or “proteges” when referring to them and Michael.

    And where oh where is the Linden Declaration? Is it possible it did not support the state of mind or comportment expected from a traumatized victim, did she express doubts, was it too weak or did it just not exist? Why not one from Weiss both were reported experts in this area.

    The family and Feldman was so concerned about this delicate matter, keeping Jordan away from the public’s eye that his photo with his name and father’s occupation was printed in a Tabloid on the 27th of Aug 1993….while they were in hiding from the Media which was suppose to be looking for them; asking about their identity.

    Like

  8. Olga permalink
    November 21, 2010 1:24 am

    I clearly remember the news regarding Allred. It was a great shake for the Chandlers’ story because we had Allred making the press conference being so determined to seek “justice” and a few days later she drops her client. Everyone following the case found that very suspicious and it was reported as such. It was clear that Evan freaked out when he heard her press conference. I am surprised he didn’t have a heart attack.

    Like

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: