Skip to content

Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – THE STORY OF LEAKS part 1

November 20, 2010

All of us are so shocked by the disgraceful behavior of the so-called MJ’s “defense” attorney Carl Douglas at the Frozen in Time seminar that on a background like that Larry Feldman produces the impression of almost a benefactor to Michael Jackson.

This impression is completely wrong. The reason for it is that Larry Feldman is a top professional who is able to manipulate people’s minds in so masterful a way that you simply don’t notice it.

Carl Douglas is just an abject figure of a helpless and dishonest lawyer who effectively showed to us that with legal assistants like that Michael had absolutely no chance to win the fight in the Jordan Chandler 1993 case against a legal shark like Larry Feldman even despite Michael’s complete innocence.

However it was LARRY FELDMAN who was the real creator of the Chandlers’ success and it is therefore important to uncover the maneuvers he made in order to win a case which the prosecution (Gil Garcetti and Tom Sneddon) could not bring even to the point of filing charges against MJ.

It is also important to understand the real story behind Larry Feldman’s polished speech in which he manages to present a totally false picture of the events while almost never telling a flat lie.

Larry Feldman is the man who expertly tells lies by speaking half-truths only. When all those bits and pieces are brought together it is their fusion which makes the story false though its separate fragments may be true.

His lies are of a very subtle nature and are far from the outrageously false ‘love letters’ by Diane Dimond which no one has ever seen, or crazy ‘blood baths’ from Maureen Orth which are completely out of MJ’s character – no, lies in Larry Feldman’s case arise just from a simple omission of facts, which is the manner no one can really find fault with  – what if the man is just forgetful?

That is why the only right way to listen to Larry Feldman is to read between the lines of what he is saying and tell the rest of the story ourselves.

With so much of what could have been said but was omitted by Larry Feldman restoring the truth to its original version and size is quite a laborious task. I’ve tried to do it by introducing into the picture the facts we have already learned by now, however the end result is a kind of a review which is so long that it had to be separated into several parts. I couldn’t help it – the truth is much more detailed and colorful than Larry Feldman wants it to be.

Larry Feldman’s full speech at the Frozen in Time seminar has been broken into short statements each of which is supplemented by big pieces of information from various sources including the Santa Barbara News Archive and the LA Times which meticulously and not too objectively (for Michael) reported the 1993 and 2005 cases. Their full collection was generously presented to this blog by our reader Olga (thank you, dear!).

These quotations are absolutely indispensable for restoration of the real truth as otherwise the full story could look like a mere speculation on my part. At times however I couldn’t resist making my own comment on the very specific method of ‘telling the truth’ employed by Larry Feldman.

The first one is the story of LEAKS


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 placeBoth of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone.

I hope you are getting Larry’s main goal. The point about ‘common features’ is not a simple illustration of the fact that the cases were similar (and as such should have been handled in the same way). The actual idea is to subtly suggest that there was a ‘pattern of behavior’ on Michael’s part which is typical of those despicable people whom we won’t even name here.

Larry’s message about fatherless boys living with their mothers is a sample of the truth told in halves only. Jordan Chandler’s father Evan claimed in full earnest that he was a good father to the boy and they had been a closely-knit family until Michael Jackson split them up (this was Evan Chandler’s major complaint in the taped conversation with David Schwartz, the stepfather, if you remember).

And in Gavin Arvizo’s case the mother’s absence at the ill boy’s side is even more clear and dramatic according to an eye-witness of the events, Azja Pryor who was very close to the family at the time:

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 a lot 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.

Now if this is what ‘similarities’ were like Larry Feldman should have probably mentioned the differences too – for example, that Jordan Chandler had a no-nonsense, strict but loving mother who wouldn’t let her son make a single move without her control or approval – while Gavin Arvizo’s mother is a messy, emotional and uncontrollable mental case.

Gavin’s association with Michael sprang from the ‘dying wish’ of the boy who was universally considered to be terminally ill. The boy had undergone an operation,  was bald and so weak from chemotherapy that Michael had to move him around Neverland in a wheelchair. The reason why Michael lavished him with attention was an attempt (a highly successful one) to bring a ray of hope into his life – which easily explains the fact emphasized by Larry Feldman that the family allowed  their son ‘to spend an inordinate time with Michael Jackson’.

The LA TIMES quoted Michael who was later very much sorry that he had allowed Gavin into his home:

“Years ago, I allowed a family to visit and spend time Neverland. Neverland is my home. I allowed this family into my home because they told me their son was ill with cancer and needed my help.”


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.

It is tiresome to have to repeat that Gavin Arvizo never slept with Michael in one bed, but it is a necessary thing to say again and again. The truth was stated by Gavin and his mother in no uncertain terms in their several interviews conducted on February 14-27, 2003 by the police and the L.A. Department of Children & Family Services who repeated in their November Memo the same year that no such thing ever happened between Michael and Gavin:

The DCFS Memorandum of November 26, 2003 says:

“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. The children’s mother stated that she believed the media had taken everything out of context. Mother stated that child was in stage 4 cancer and had received a year of chemotherapy in addition to having his spleen and one kidney removed. Mother stated that the entertainer was like a father to the children and a part of her family. ..

As per the sexual abuse allegations, the mother stated that her children are never left alone with the entertainer. She further stated that he son has slept in the same room as the entertainer but they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor.

The child (…) was interviewed by the CSW as to the allegations and he denied any form of sexual abuse. He denied that he ever slept in the same bed as the entertainer. The child (…) also denied sexual abuse. Both children expressed a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home…

The oldest sibling (…) age 16, was also interviewed by the CSW. She stated that she had accompanied her brothers on sleepovers at the entertainer’s home and had never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer”.

(see the Smoking Gun story:

and our Lynette’s post complete with the document

The same was repeated by Michael Jackson to the the CBS “60 minutes”:

“I didn’t sleep in bed with the child. Even if I did it’s OK. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child.”

So if the boy, his mother and Michael insisted it never happened does it mean that Larry Feldman was lying when he said, “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”?

I’ve reread Larry’s statement and had to admit that technically speaking he is right – Gavin did sleep in the bed Michael Jackson slept in at that period of time, and it is only a small omission that they were never in the same bed together which distorted the whole picture.

To me it sounds more like “he slept in the bed where King Henry VIII (once) slept in” and looks an absolutely perfect way to tell a lie in a way that no one can find fault with – the separate words are correct while the overall impression is wrong, which is exactly what Larry Feldman is aiming at. 

The truth of the story with those slumber parties was that Michael learned his lesson in 1993 and took special care to safeguard himself from any possible future accusations – he always had another adult present in his room if any child stayed there. However refusing the boy who was ‘terminally ill’ and damping his spirits by not letting him take the star’s bed was not customary for Michael, so he did allow Gavin to do it. Unfortunately he did …

Michael’s former guard Mike LaPerruque revealed their sleeping security arrangements to Roger Friedman who reported on March 12, 2004 the following,2933,114041,00.html:

“Yesterday I talked to Mike LaPerruque, a retired sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who remains on reserve after a 22-year active career.

LaPerruque says he worked for Jackson from August 2001 until June 2003.

– I was with him 24/7,” LaPerruque was able to tell me. “I had a key to his room at all times, and I was never told not to use it.”

– Did you ever walk into Michael Jackson’s bedroom and see him in bed with a child other than one of his own?

“No! Of course not,” said LaPerruque.

He called the mother of Jackson’s 13-year-old accuser “the type of woman who knew how to manipulate people.”

When LaPerruque heard the newsbreak last November 17 about the Neverland raid and Jackson’s latest problems, he says his first thought was, “Poor guy. He can’t catch a break. He had a new album coming out and a lot of stuff happening.”

Under oath he will testify that he’s had experience with child molesters in his 22 years as a cop, and that Jackson does not fit the profile.

He said he has two kids, and he would feel comfortable with either one of them — a boy and a girl — spending time with Jackson.

Also see:

However the sleep-in-one-bed story made up by Larry Feldman does not end there. When the DCFS Memorandum stating the Arvizos’ earlier statements about never sleeping in one bed surfaced in the press, Larry Feldman did his utmost to eradicate this information altogether and on completely legal grounds too.

Two weeks after the leak he wrote a letter of complaint that it had broken the law and ‘violated privacy rights’ and made an official claim on the DCFS claiming damages on behalf of the Arvizos who by then had already changed their story.

Just imagine that the attempt could have been successful, the information hushed up and none of us could have ever learned the truth!  The text of the claim says (Larry Feldman speaks of himself in the 3d person):

“These investigations are confidential and the law prohibits them from disclosing information regarding these investigations to the public.

By a letter dated December 11, 2003, Larry R. Feldman, Claimant’s counsel, protested this improper release of the November 26, 2003 memorandum and requested that the Department conduct an immediate investigation into this illegal and improper disclosure.

Although the Department claimed that it was conducting such an investigation, it has not provided any information to Claimants regarding such a purported investigation, nor has the Department had the human decency to apologize to the Claimants for the Department’s total failure to maintain their privacy as required by law.

The improper release of information regarding Claimants by the Department has violated the privacy rights of Claimants thereby injuring and damaging Claimants in an amount to be established.”

(For the full text see the documents posted by our Lynette:

I fully agree that law should be respected and would totally share Larry Feldman’s righteous anger with those who break it if it weren’t for one minor thing only – some eleven months prior to that, in February the same year (2003),   his highly esteemed law corporation ALSO leaked a top confidential document which very much ‘violated the privacy rights’ of  EVERYONE mentioned there and none of his own lawyers ever had ‘the human decency to apologize’ for this leak EITHER.


And that case was a much graver infringement – besides heavily injuring the feelings of those indicated in the document it also broke the confidentiality agreement of 1994 one of the guarantors of which was no other but lawyer LARRY FELDMAN…

Is it the signature of a 13-year old boy?

Yesss, I am talking about a certain ‘declaration’, made by a certain “J.” Chandler ten years earlier, in December 1993, typed on the paper of a certain law corporation called “Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler” of California, which is signed by someone who is supposed to be Jordan (though the signature looks suspiciously adult to me and doesn’t contain the verification by any of the lawyers).

The absence of any verification should be reason enough for any sensible person to suspect the document to be a fake, however I learned from lawyer Lisa G., that the lenient law of California does allow declarations (not depositions!)  to be signed by a declarant with no verification from the lawyer in whose presence it is made.

The lawyer just takes his company’s paper, types the summary of the declarant’s story, has it signed by him (or somebody else) in the absence of the defendant’s lawyers and here you are  – the declaration is ready.

This of course offers ample opportunity for fraud, and there is no way for us to know whether the document is true except Larry Feldman’s word for it.

However Larry Feldman kept complete silence when his office leaked that document in February 2003  and this leaves us with a nice alternative of EITHER the document being a fake and Larry keeping silent as he is unwilling to have anything to do with it, OR the paper being real and Larry keeping silent as he is breaking law and all human decency rules (by making it known to the public AFTER the confidentiality agreement he is a guarantor to).

Whatever is the case with the authenticity of that paper the declaration was leaked from Larry Feldman’s office and he never shed a tear about it breaking law, ‘violating privacy rights’ and infringing the confidentiality agreement which effectively stated that it was lifting all the charges (except neglect) prior to it.  The agreement specifically stipulates that point:

The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of each of their agents…hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge the Jackson Releasees, including Jackson,from any and all charges, complaints… including, without limitation, all claims which were alleged or could have been alleged in the Action and the Claims;

(an identical clause is stipulated for Jackson)

Special mention is made there of the fact that the agreement is no admission of any guilt:

This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler or June chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disdains any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons.

Giving Larry Feldman the benefit of the doubt I am ready to suppose that the ‘declaration’ was in possession of the police too and it could have been them who leaked the document  – however they had plenty of their own interviews with Jordan and could have leaked theirs if they wanted to…

But even if it was their doing it was Larry Feldman’s direct responsibility and even duty to make a thunderous statement in the press that such a document was a gross infringement of the agreement ‘violating the privacy rights’ and injuring all those to whom the declaration referred to, including Jordan Chandler in the first place.

Didn’t Larry Feldman express grave concern for Jordan’s well-being in his speech at the seminar? Didn’t he justify the desire to avoid a court trial by the need to take care of the boy’s feelings fiirst and foremost? Then why did he leak the declaration ten years after the events – when the boy’s ‘wounds’ (if there were any) were supposed to have already long ‘healed’?

Wasn’t it LARRY FELDMAN’s duty to safeguard Jordan Chandler’s rights under the confidentiality agreement and why did it have to be MICHAEL JACKSON who had to remind him of his duties?

The Smoking Gun says about Michael’s statement following the release of the declaration:

“After TSG first published the below document on February 6, 2003, Jackson issued a statement noting that he “has respected the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all the parties to the prior proceedings, yet someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality” and use the boy’s statements to “further sully” the star’s character.

He added that, “it should be remembered that, at the time, the confidentiality obligation was a mutual one, designed as much to protect the teenage boy as the singer himself”.

Jackson concluded, “Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disregard for the boy as their determination to attack Michael.”

Isn’t it truly surprising to see Larry Feldman complaining about the leak of what the Arvizos really said to the Department of Children’s and Family services and never saying a word about the leak of a suspicious document from his office though it violated the agreement he himself signed and was a warrantor to?

Shouldn’t he have immediately disclaimed that declaration as soon as it was published? And shouldn’t he have been asked this question at the Frozen in Time lawyers seminar? 

Generally lawyers are supposed to act for their clients only while they are retained by them. And when the legal process is over they are not supposed to go on working against their former opponents. If they do so –  and ten years after the settlement too –  it means they have an agenda.

But what is even more surprising and even astonishing is that the leak was made on exactly the same day when Bashir’s film was aired!

Living with Michael Jackson is a Granada Television documentary, in which British journalist Martin Bashir interviewed Michael Jackson over a span of eight months, from May 2002 to January 2003. It was shown first in the United Kingdom on ITV (as a Tonight special) on 3 February 2003 and in the United States three days later on ABC, introduced by Barbara Walters

Did you notice the DATE given by the Smoking Gun?
You know, the Smoking Gun will soon turn into my favorite source of information – besides once making a blunder over the color of the blotch supposedly seen by Jordan Chandler on Michael’s genitalia (which fully contradicted the later photos and Tom Sneddon’s vague description  – see the story here ) now the Smoking gun tells us that Jordan’s declaration was first published by TSG on February 6, 2003 which is the official day of releasing Bashir’s film in the US!

What the hell does this coincidence mean in the Michael Jackson mystery smear campaign? Does it mean that:

  • it wasn’t only Bashir who was standing behind  the new wave of allegations against Michael Jackson and that there were other big people involved in this really big plan?
  • by releasing J.Chandler’s “declaration” made 10 years earlier on the same day as the film someone wanted to enhance the effect of it?
  • someone was prompting the right words to the possible new accuser though he was not yet there?
  • Larry Feldman not only represented the plaintiff Chandler’s interests when he was retained by him but also took part in the defamation campaign against the former defendant even after the case had been settled?
  • he was ready to risk the reputation of a guarantor of the confidentiality agreement in order to get rid of his former opponent?
  • In short does it mean that Larry Feldman also had an agenda same as prosecutor Tom Sneddon?

All of the above deserves much more attention on our part but we have to go with Larry Feldman’s speech which is still polished, clean and tidy as if none of all this dirt has ever taken place. Larry Feldman goes on with sinister hints at a certain pattern of MJ’s behavior which is masquerading as an innocent talk about ‘similarities’ in Jordan and Gavin cases:


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.

Well, June Chandler did receive some jewelry and ‘a love bracelet’ which Michael gave to her for some reason known to only the two of them, however Janet Arvizo had from him only money for her immediate needs for shopping in town like waxing her legs and the like.

If this way of spending money on Michael’s part is something meaningful to Larry Feldman let me remind him that Michael Jackson gave ‘things of value’ not only to these two women but to the whole world besides them – he presented a Mustang car to Ryan White, the boy ill with AIDS, and paid $100,000 for the operation of a Hungarian child whose liver was replaced,  he gave away to others all the proceeds from his Victory tour and his much bigger proceeds reaching $150 mln. from his Dangerous tour to the Heal the World Foundation which was to spend the money on numerous charity, educational and relief projects. This is not to mention small things like giving away the $1.5 million compensation from Pepsi to the Burn Center for Children, 43 tons of medication, blankets, and winter clothes sent to Sarajevo and donating to charity the 1 million pounds for the exclusive photos of his son Prince, made by the British magazine “OK!”

Actually the list of those who received gifts and money support from Michael Jackson is so long that I will never be able to finish this post about Larry Feldman’s speech, and we do need to get back to the old man again….

(to be continued)

21 Comments leave one →
  1. Olga permalink
    November 21, 2010 1:06 am

    Helena you did a great detailed job as always and I am glad I was able to help with things from my archive. When I will be able to categorize everything I have, probably I will find more. I also have in mind t buy some articles from 1993 and I will let you know. And I also have to take a look at archived newspapers here because I remember very interesting things form 1993.

    “Does it mean that by releasing the ‘declaration’ together with the film someone was prompting the right words to the new accuser?”

    In my opinion it means exactly this and it was agreat catch


  2. Olga permalink
    November 21, 2010 1:08 am

    I want to add that Gavin had stated even earlier that Michael had slept in the floor and not in the bed and he did it in “Living with MJ”


  3. November 21, 2010 8:10 am

    “I just wanted to say that this was not the first time that this declaration was leaked to the press.”

    Shelly, for the purpose of our research it is interesting what they said in January 1994. It is clear that the declaration was partially leaked only because the document itself is missing – they are just quoting it. The document was leaked only ten years later (please correct me if you find more precise information).

    What is interesting about the newspapers is that both of them are dated January 11, 1994. The almost identical text in different newspapers says that the boy turns 14 “Tuesday”. Do you know the date?

    It is January 11.

    This leak seems to be a present to Jordan Chandler.


  4. shelly permalink
    November 21, 2010 9:08 am

    In those article they said the AP obtained a copy of the document before it was sealed. It was part of a Feldman request to obtain documents about MJ financial situation. I think the AP got the whole document but published only a part of it.


  5. November 21, 2010 9:28 am

    ‘I think the AP got the whole document but published only a part of it.’

    I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me that making real texts of declarations public is illegal both before signing the agreement and after it. Declarations are of course no depositions (official testimonies taken in the presence of lawyers from both parties) – so their value is much lower than that of a deposition. It is just what someone ‘declared’ in a lawyer’s office.

    But being still an official document it cannot be used in the media! It is infringing the so-called client/lawyer confidentiality in the first place, if it is done before the agreement. And if it is done after the settlement it is breaching the agreement itself. The fact that it was most probably done by Larry Feldman himself is what makes it all the more outrageous.

    And since it was done on the same day as Bashir’s film it seems that Larry Feldman was much more involved in the defamation process than we think he is. It looks like a kind of a vendetta on his part.

    Generally lawyers are supposed to act for their clients only while they are retained by them. And when the legal process is over they are not supposed to go on working against their former opponents. If they do so – and 10 years after the settlement too – it means they have an agenda.

    P.S. I have rewritten the post again to emphasize these points.


  6. ares permalink
    November 21, 2010 3:51 pm

    Helena i applaud you. You and David and all the others are doing the work that the so called journalist should have done years ago. Instead they were/are spreading lies and rumors. I so wish this posts would get read by the millions of people that still believe in Michael’s guilt. THANK YOU.


  7. lynande51 permalink
    November 21, 2010 9:48 pm

    I have several article that I have bought from 1993 and 1994. The Declaration was added to a Petition for Michaels Finances. As well as attaching the Declaration ( which only reiterates the information in the August DCFS report) Feldman attached selected portions of the depositions of Blanca Francia, members of the Havenhurst Five and Jolie Levine that portrayed Michael in a negative light. I have all of the articles from 1993 and 1994 from the LA TIMES, The Washington Post and the New Yorkd Times and several others. I am just finishing an articel about the DNA evidence found at Neverland and was goint to work one using those articles.


  8. Dialdancer permalink
    November 22, 2010 12:48 am

    Helena said:

    “And since it was done on the same day as Bashir’s film it seems that Larry Feldman was much more involved in the defamation process than we think he is. It looks like a kind of a vendetta on his part.”

    I don’t think it was a vendetta. I think it was more like advertisement. Fishing for clients, letting them know what he could do to get what they wanted from a law suit against MJ. What he could do to put Michael at a disadvantage and give his client the advantage. Feldman was like so many others, they saw MJ as a cash cow who due to negative publicity was easy pickings.

    One thing which has repeatedly struck me is this: How did V. Guiterrez know there was an FBI investigation going on when even Michael’s attorneys did not. I do not remember seeing reports of FBI involvement from the 1993 articles I’ve read.


  9. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:16 am

    @ Dialdancer
    Victor Gutierrez didn’t speak directly to the FBI. He spoke to the LAPD, and that person sent a letter to the FBI and indicated that “an individual who stated he was writing a book about Jackson and young boys had contacted an LAPD agent working in the department of sexual abuse against children”.

    VG claimed that he had info that the FBI had investigated MJ in the 80’s but covered it up due to an award that he was scheduled to receive, but that’s baloney because the FBI was NOT investigating him during that time, and if they had been they damn sure wouldn’t have “swept it under the rug” just to let MJ get an award! VG came up with that lie after the Chandler scandal broke. He didn’t have knowledge of an FBI “investigation” because there never was an investigation in the 80’s, and he didn’t know the FBI was involved in 1993 when he spoke with the LAPD.

    I will destroy VG’s lie about the FBI in an upcoming post, so stay tuned!


  10. Dialdancer permalink
    November 22, 2010 2:34 am

    Thanks David,

    I did misread it. The fact that Sneddon did not try to use either VG’s or that “Canadian” couple report during the 2005 trial under the prior bad acts was telling.


  11. Jan permalink
    December 5, 2010 9:22 pm

    have you seen this what william wagener has just posted:


  12. Olga permalink
    December 5, 2010 9:28 pm

    Victor Gutierrez was only “fishing” to get his name involved. Probably he is behind the 1993 allegations considering what we know about him. And we have to expose him


  13. lcpledwards permalink
    December 5, 2010 10:45 pm

    @ Jan
    Of course I’ve seen it! I ordered the DVD from the LACBA. How do you think that we were able to post the complete transcript of everyone who spoke there? LOL!


  14. ares permalink
    December 6, 2010 12:09 am

    WOW. I think Wagner should remove that video or present the whole Mesereau part. It’s not a fair representation of Michael .Zonen tells things that no one debuks. Someone should contact Wagner and tell him that.We the fans know the facts but if someone sees this video, will get the opposite impression.That Michael took advantage of the poor, sick Arvizo.


  15. December 6, 2010 8:58 am

    “Victor Gutierrez was only “fishing” to get his name involved. Probably he is behind the 1993 allegations considering what we know about him. And we have to expose him”

    Yes, Olga, we need to get back to him. Guys, if ever you find any information about Victor Gutierrez, please send it by e-mail to me. In case you have access to his book of horrors about Michael (MJWML) I would want to look at several more chapters as we will probably be able to fish out something more there (not that I look forward to reading it).


  16. aldebaran permalink
    June 6, 2012 6:06 am

    About the coincidences–you are right that Feb. 6 is the same date both LWMJ was released by ABC in USA and the same date the declaration was leaked. Ed Bradley was at NL when MJ got the call from Marlon Brando in London that the declaration was on the internet–so when was that? Does anyone know the date Ed Bradley was in NL to do the interview, which never happened b/c MJ was so upset after Brando’s call? How did Brando know? He was in London, so was the declaration leak orchestrated by Bashir through his pals in the tabloids to coincide with his LWMJ and thus stimulate interest? I am leaning to this idea. Was Bashir friends with V. Gutierrez? Just wondering. Orth in her 03 hitpiece says she ‘tracked down V. G.”–who helped her?

    Other coincidences in 2003–the raid on NL happened while MJ was filming One More Chance–how did they know he was away? I am sure they timed it when he was away. Number Ones was released in USA Nov. 18 (Nov. 17 worldwide), Sneddon announced MJ’s warrant for arrest on Nov. 19th. All this is orchestrated and someone did this–someone coordinated media and law enforcement. DD was there for the raid–too many players around at the ‘right’ times to hurt MJ the most and kill the chances of any good PR from the Bashir interview to the album release to the CBS special, which was supposed to feature One More Chance. Does anyone know when that was supposed to happen, but didn’t due to the raid, arrest?

    The declaration was obviously written by Evan Chandler. How can Jordan say he met MJ when he was 5 but nothing happened until he was 13. MJ masturbated me ‘many times’–wow–so imprecise–no dates, places. Easy to be vague when you’re lying. If you put in a date or a place, MJ might not have even been there. It’s so sickening.

    Thanks for your fantastic work.

    About the declaration–


  17. June 7, 2012 12:16 am

    Aldebaran, it cannot have been a coincidence.I don´t think V.G. was anybody´s friend in particular. He was just very committed to his agenda and was more than willing to offer his
    expertice and advice. He was good at sniffing out where that would be useful.. He hovered
    over LA since the 80´ties .,knew at least Blanca of Michael´s staff and was giving so much advice to Evan and Ray Chandler that Michael sued him and won.He then escaped to Chile for some time.A scorned pedofile.


  18. aldebaran permalink
    June 7, 2012 3:25 am

    Thanks, Kaarin22–I didn’t know that V.G. was in contact with Blanca. He also spoke to Sneddon, right? What about the other ‘coincidences’–any ideas on that?


  19. sanemjfan permalink
    June 7, 2012 8:07 pm


    Ed Bradley and Jack Sussman (the President of CBS Entertainment) were at Neverland on February 8th, 2003. The 1993 declaration of Jordan Chandler leaked sometime in early February 2003, I think on the 8th (as this is the day that MJ cancelled his interview upon hearing of the news of the leak).

    I don’t think that they knew MJ was away from Neverland, but I do think they planned the raid to coincide with the release of his new album. Sneddon had an arrest warrant, and MJ would have been arrested had he been there. He also brought an ambulance with him to treat MJ if he fainted or hyperventilated at the stress and shock of being arrested.

    The CBS special was supposed to air within a few weeks of the release of the CD, and I think the new video would have premiered on it, but the video was cancelled and the CBS special was delayed until January, after CBS said MJ had to first publicly address the allegations on 60 Minutes.

    For more info on the declaration, read the post “Did Jordan Chandler Make a Deposition?” from August 22nd, 2010. (I would leave the link here, but the comment would likely have to be moderated and approved by Helena. WordPress automatically puts comments with lots of links in the “pending” folder for admin approval in order to reduce spam.)


  20. nannorris permalink
    June 7, 2012 9:09 pm

    Supposedly they waited until after some halloween festival to raid MJ house because they wouldnt have had enough man power..
    Im not buying it..They meant to do as much damage as they possibly could to the man, and wrecking his CD release fits right in with going for the jugular.
    I also think it is interesting that Sneddon says they had no idea about the cd release because none of the sheriffs or his office listen to his music anyway but he starts his opening statement with ” Michael Jackson world was rocked , but not in a musical sense”
    What a transparent sound bite ..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: