Skip to content

Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – The story of MANY LAWYERS and the FIFTH AMENDMENT. part 3

November 22, 2010

SPREAD THIS INFORMATION PLEASE

We are discussing Larry Feldman’s speech at the Frozen in Time Seminar (Sept.15, 2010) trying to restore the history the way it really was. Today’s post will look into the crucial moment of the 1993 case. It starts with a short and innocent statement from Larry Feldman that the first defense attorney for Michael Jackson was replaced by two new ones.

The story of MANY LAWYERS and the FIFTH AMENDMENT

LARRY FELDMAN:

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.

Judging by the article in the LA Times Johnnie Cochran’s substitution for Bert Fields and private investigator Anthony Pellicano (not mentioned here), must have taken place at the beginning of December, 1993, when Michael was still undergoing treatment in a rehab clinic in Europe.

The LA Times dated Dec.10, 1993 says:

Johnnie Cochran Jr., a Los Angeles lawyer and former deputy district attorney, has recently joined Jackson’s legal team.  http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-10/local/me-302_1_jackson-lawyer

Another article mentions some reasons for the reshuffle which confuse us more than clear things up:

“Private investigator Anthony Pellicano and lawyer Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s team of legal advisers, resigned privately in recent weeks.

“I swear on my children this decision was not Michael Jackson’s,” Pellicano said in an interview Tuesday. “It was my sole decision. If I wanted to, I could be working on this case today.”

In a statement released by his office, Fields said he had resigned Nov. 23 and had put the resignation in writing Dec. 3. “He has made no public announcement of this,” the statement said. “He felt that . . . it was not appropriate to publicly announce this.”

The departures of Pellicano and Fields rid Jackson of two men whose work had drawn mixed reviews, and their absence leaves the singer in the hands of two of Los Angeles’ best-known lawyers, Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran Jr.

Weitzman has represented Jackson since the child molestation accusations surfaced in August. Cochran was brought into the case after Fields announced in court one day that his client’s indictment appeared imminent.

Those comments were later corrected by Weitzman, but they antagonized some members of the Jackson camp, and Fields never again appeared in court on Jackson’s behalf.

Fields made the remarks Nov. 23, the same day that his office said he told Jackson of his intention to resign”.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-22/local/me-4447_1_michael-jackson

Replacement of one lawyer by another one because he said something about possible charges against his client does not look like a mere technicality to me – it seems much too serious business to be shrugged off.  Unless we understand what reasons were forcing the defense lawyer Bert Fields to make such an unusual statement about Michael Jackson we won’t be able to understand what the 1993 case was all about at all – so let us look into this step by step.

 

Bert Fields was so sure of Michael's innocence that he fought for the criminal proceedings to come first. "They had a very weak case. “We wanted to fight", said Fields. "Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win".”

The first time we really hear of Michael’s defense attorney Bert Fields is the end of November 1993 when the case he was defending with his partner Howard Weitzman was seriously shattered by a major setback – they failed to put the criminal proceedings before the civil suit. It was the right of his client Michael Jackson that attorney Bert Fields was desperately fighting for since October 1993.

I fully understand your confusion – just imagine any defendant to be willing to be tried in a criminal court! Could it be some misunderstanding on our part?

No, the papers confirm it that this was indeed the case – the defense did insist on criminal proceedings coming first and regarded the refusal they received from a judge as their major failure:

“With two investigations proceeding simultaneously, sources in the Los Angeles legal community say Jackson is rumored to be spending about $100,000 a week for his defense. So far, however, he has lost several key rounds in court–failing to win a delay of the civil case (by the first team of defense attorneys) and losing an attempt to prevent Feldman from turning over information to prosecutors who are pursuing possible criminal charges (by the second team of defense attorneys).

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-22/local/me-4447_1_michael-jackson

Lisa Campbell confirms that the defense wanted to face the criminal proceedings more than a civil suit but does not give a proper explanation as to why Michael Jackson would want to be tried first and pay money later (if that was the ruling of the civil court). The explanation she ventures –  that the defense didn’t want to contend with two cases simultaneously – is okay, only it doesn’t explain why the defendant would take the risk of first going into prison and handling the money issue after that.

Why anyone would take the risk and insist on a criminal investigation? Or is freedom less valuable than money?

Lisa Campbell says about the request from the defense team:

“The request for the delay [in a civil suit] had been filed on October 29 by Bert Fields so they wouldn’t have the criminal investigation and the civil suit to contend with simultaneously. At the time of the request, the judge ordered that no interviews be conducted in connection with the civil case until after his decision on November 23.

The press went off half cocked reporting that Michael’s attorneys wanted to delay the civil case for six years, at which time the statute of limitations on the criminal case would have run out. Actually they asked for it to be held until the criminal investigation was completed. (Which by the way it was going, appeared that it would take longer than six years!).

Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman, on November 23, 1993 denied a request filed by Michael’s attorneys to postpone the civil suit until the criminal proceedings were completed.

…. Bert Fields stated that Michael wanted to testify and clear his name in the criminal proceedings before the civil trial. Rothman ordered Michael to give a deposition in the case by January 31, 1994.” (“The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, p.68, 1994)

The last point requires rereading. Michael wanted to testify in a criminal court to clear his name there, however since criminal proceedings were put off, the judge – as if turning the whole thing into a cruel joke – did grant him the right (or rather ordered him) to testify, but in a civil suit which he so desperately wanted to postpone.

When a trial doesn’t concern you personally putting criminal proceedings before the civil suit seems to be a very logical thing to do, however in Michael Jackson’s 1993 case it is the fact that it was the DEFENSE which insisted on such a chronological order which makes it so terribly unusual.

If you look at the newspapers of the period you will have a strange impression that Bert Fields was almost looking forward to his client’s indictment. Again and again he would mention the criminal charges in different variations (“if criminal charges are filed against the entertainer”, “if Jackson is indicted on criminal charges”, “if there are significant changes in the status of the criminal investigation before the end of January”, etc.) repeating it so often so that you begin thinking he really wanted those charges to be filed …

The LA Times of December 4, 1993 says:

Michael Jackson has agreed to be deposed January 18 about allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, lawyers on both sides of the case said Friday.

Jackson’s attorneys have said he is eager to tell his side of the story under oath, but they also have warned that they may oppose efforts to take Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] if criminal charges are filed against the entertainer or are still under consideration when the date for his deposition arrives.

In a hearing last month, Superior Court Judge David Rothman ordered Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] scheduled before the end of January. But Rothman also noted that he might reconsider that order if Jackson is indicted on criminal charges.

Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said Friday that the entertainer might request a change in the deposition date if there are significant changes in the status of the criminal investigation before the end of January [indictment].  “If things change in the criminal case, we would reconsider the whole question of the civil case. We want the criminal case to go first.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-04/local/me-63891_1_criminal-investigation

The above piece is terribly confusing with all its depositions, indictments, etc.. And Larry Feldman’s words at the Frozen in Time seminar are not making things easier for us to understand:

LARRY FELDMAN (at a question & answer session):

Yes, [it was] a total voluntary agreement. To put it into context, at the point this case settled, a lot of witnesses had been deposed, but Michael Jackson had not been deposed, and at some point in time Michael Jackson was going to have to decide whether he was going to take the Fifth Amendment, which he didn’t, or whether he was going to let us depose him. And there was a lot of procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off. And as that decision and their moves were not able to accomplish what they wanted, which was never to have Michael Jackson take the Fifth Amendment.

LARRY FELDMAN (in his speech):

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.

Since everything here revolves around a deposition and the Fifth Amendment there is no other way out for us but have to look into this legal vocabulary.

The deposition Larry Feldman refers to here was to be taken by him under a civil suit. From what he says it seems that Michael’s lawyers did not want Michael to be deposed in a civil suit though it was quite okay in a criminal one. But a deposition is required in both cases, so I wondered what difference it makes whether it is civil or criminal?

On the other hand both criminal and civil cases give the right to the defendant to plead the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution which enables him not to answer questions if he doesn’t want to testify. The same question arises again – is there any difference if someone pleads the fifth in a civil or criminal case?

I would perfectly understand if Michael was unwilling to testify in either of the courts – no one wants to be grilled day after day with all sort of nonsense for something you didn’t do. And the kind of ‘love’ the media had for Michael guaranteed him the nightmare of seeing his true words said in court today turn into gross media lies tomorrow. And if he wanted to plead the Fifth Amendment not to testify (the way he did it in 2005) it was his full legal right to do so and no one can really find fault with it –  as all of us would have done the same if we were in his place, no matter which trial it is – civil or criminal.

Yes, that’s true, but only formally so. When you listen to what lawyers have to say about it, you see that though the Fifth Amendment can be pleaded in both cases civil and criminal law interpret the fact of the refusal to testify in a completely opposite way.

Before you read the legal text let me explain it the way I understood it. Civil law handles disputes between corporations and individuals over offences which are not punished by putting a person in jail  – their disputes require money settlements only. In the process of settling such non-criminal cases cooperation on the part of the defendant is very much encouraged and any refusal to testify is awfully frowned upon.

Civil law is simply not meant for handling serious cases like suspicion in child molestation – that’s the point. You wouldn’t take a murder case to a civil court, would you? Because you won’t require a money settlement with him and won’t like the murderer to walk away free even if he pays money to you, right?

Even from the point of view of the accused a civil court is something you wouldn’t want to. If you were facing an imprisonment for something you didn’t you and were tried in a criminal court you would be considered innocent until proven guilty there and would not be required to do the defense job all by yourself – it is the prosecution who should prove their point. Therefore you can keep silence there pleading the fifth and criminal law acknowledges your full right to do so.

However civil law doesn’t handle serious cases like that and in settling their disputes (like custodial rights, etc.) it counts on the defendant’s full cooperation and if he refuses to help regards his silence as a clear sign of guilt. Moreover – as you will see it from the legal text below – the defendent is expected to help the other side to collect evidence against himself!

Let us imagine you are accused of a horrendous crime you’ve never committed, and you want JUSTICE and a chance to expose the liar in a criminal court, but you are DENIED this chance because the liar ‘doesn’t want it’ which doesn’t prevent him from demanding money from you in a civil suit – how would you feel about it?

But if the liar takes special pleasure in dragging you through all the humiliating procedures same as in a criminal trial AND you cannot even refuse because you’ll be found guilty just because of this refusal – how will you feel then?

This was what Larry Feldman meant when he said that Michael’s lawyers were to worry about his Fifth amendment rights. This is why there was some ‘procedural maneuvering by the defense to try to keep putting that decision off’, as he said. Taking the Fifth Amendment (which Michael didn’t) was a terrible disadvantage for him in a civil case Larry Feldman imposed on him by force and Larry Feldman knew that once the civil suit went forward the situation became exceptionally favorable for him and his case and exceptionally unfavorable for Michael Jackson.

Lawyer Robert D. Standler explains the rules of the game http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

1. In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution. (Before Larry Feldman filed a civil suit  two criminal investigations had been opened by the LA D.istrict Attorney Gil Garcetti and the Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon. However the civil suit was pushed forward).

2. In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either incarceration in a jail or prison, fine paid to the government, or, execution of the defendant (in exceptional cases).   In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. A losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant’s behavior (so there could be no other outcome in the civil case in 1993 except the money settlement).

3. In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing (and can plead the fifth amendment). In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff’s evidence (and he cannot plead the fifth without detriment to himself).

4. In a civil case, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and testimony as a witness in the trial. In fact, the defendant in a civil case in Federal court must voluntarily provide his opponent with a copy of documents “in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts”. Further, the defendant in a civil case must voluntarily provide names of people who are “likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts”.  In other words the defendant in a civil case must help his opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant.

Isn’t the last point about collecting evidence to defeat himself is absolutely great? It is one thing to willingly submit financial documents to clarify some civil disputes and it is a totally different thing to willingly provide the ‘evidence’ that you are a ‘child molester, isn’t it?

5. The lawyer says, “It may come as a surprise to know that protections (which are given to the accused by criminal law) are not available in civil law”.

These protections include prohibition against compelled self-incrimination (Amendment 5), the right to a speedy trial (Amendment 6) and the right to the assistance of counsel, which gives the right to an attorney who is paid by the state, even during custodial questioning by police (Amendment 6). There are often several years between the filing of a complaint in a civil case and the trial. So much for “speedy trial”. (None of these rights are given to the defendant in a civil case. And does the above mean that Michael Jackson was devoid even of the right to have an attorney by his side during questioning by police?)

6. Invoking these amendments is regarded in civil law as a detriment to the defendant’s case. For example, “if a party invokes their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify…”

Our David Edwards applies these rules to Michael’s situation in this post:

  • In a criminal case, a defendant can refuse to testify entirely, or refuse to answer certain questions, and it CANNOT be used against him in determining his guilt. (For example, MJ did not testify in his 2005 criminal trial, and we all know the outcome of that case!)
  • However, in civil trials the defendant MUST testify, or else it will be used against him.  Now let’s say that MJ had a civil trial in 1994.  If he would have plead the fifth (either on the witness stand, or in a deposition), which is what his lawyers wanted him to do, the jury could have legally perceived it as a sign of guilt.  Combine that with the lower burden of proof and the chances of MJ being found liable would have increased exponentially.

Now what about this point of the lower burden of proof needed? Well, in addition to all the above it turns out that for the jury to pass a guilty verdict in a civil suit it is enough to have an over 50% probability of negligence on the part of the defendant! Robert Standler says:

7. In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant’s participation, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is difficult to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say “at least 98% or 99%” certainty of guilt.

In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law – too low a standard, especially considering that the defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff.

There are a couple of good things about civil law though:

1) firstly, you can buy an insurance to cover all the damages possibly arising in a civil case (no insurance is ever allowed in criminal cases!)

2) secondly, if you don’t have the insurance and don’t want to pay and have cleverly hidden your assets you are not obliged to pay at all (this is what Victor Gutierrez did when the civil trial ruled he should pay $2,7 mln. in compensation for slander to Michael). See what the lawyer Robert Standler says about it:

8. One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and attorney’s fees for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of homeowner’s insurance policies, automobile insurance, and insurance for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a defendant to purchase insurance to pay for his criminal acts.

(Lisa D. Campbell named Transamerica Insurance as suppliers of Michael Jackson’s personal liability insurance in 1994 and said about it, “A spokesperson for the insurance company said the claim would be reviewed, and if found to be valid, it would pay”. Now we know that they did cover the expenses).

9. While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the plaintiff may receive nothing if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or if the defendant is skillful in concealing assets. In this way, large awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often an illusion. (full text here http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm)

You see that with the exception of the last two points  – the second of which surely didn’t apply to Michael –  the civil suit was the worst option ever for Michael whichever way you look at it.

If a person is innocent allowing the criminal investigation go first is a very logical thing to do and the fact that Michael’s  lawyer Bert Fields so desperately tried to place criminal proceedings before the civil suit is the best proof that Michael was indeed INNOCENT as a baby.

Will a guilty person insist on a criminal trial if he knows that there is a risk he can be put behind bars? The answer to this question is obvious.  Michael knew he was innocent, and his defense attorney Bert Fields knew it too and private investigator Anthony Pellicano who had examined every speck of evidence was also convinced of Michael’s complete innocence until the very last minute when he was ousted from the case (and ever afterwards too).

They had nothing to fear and that is why the defense craved for justice. Or it would probably be more correct to say it in another way –  it was the defense which craved for justice, while the accuser was afraid of it, wanted money and fought tooth and nail for a chance to replace the criminal case with a civil one.

The crazy version of ‘silencing’ someone doesn’t hold water here.

  • IF THE CRIME IS REAL it is the victim who wants to take it to court while the other side takes desperate steps to silence him by offering money (which the victim may or may not take).
  • BUT IF THE CRIME IS FICTIONAL and it is a money extortion, the events come in the reverse order – the ‘victim’ demands money and it is the accused who wants justice and insists on going to court to clear his good name there – which is exactly what Michael Jackson and his lawyer wanted to do.

Bertram Fields clearly stated it, “We want the criminal case to go first” (LA Times, Dec.4, 1993). However the more Michael and his first team of lawyers fought for it, the stronger was the opposition from the other side.

It reminds me of a no less ridiculous situation in 2004 when the defense attorney Thomas Mesereau suboenaed Ray Chandler (see here) to prove that he had some ‘incriminating’ documents against Michael. It was the defense which fought for the right of Ray Chandler – who accused Michael of all sort of things in his book All that Glitters – to come and prove his lies in court, and it was the accuser who was scared to death to go and give his testimony there.

A similar situation arose in 1993 – same as Thomas Mesereau the defense attorney Bert Fields wanted to summon the accuser Jordan Chandler and his parents to a criminal court and was even ready for Michael’s indictment and same as in 2004/05 none of them was willing to go.  Both lawyers wanted to cross-examine the accusers. And in both cases the accusers freaked out of these arrangements….

Howard Weitzman fired Bert Fields and survived the 1993 case until the settlement agreement

So big was Bert Fields’ desire to put off the civil suit and push criminal first that in a court hearing on November 23, 1993 he mentioned that the jury had already convened and would bring charges “very, very soon”. In the atmosphere of mass hysteria they were working in, this statement from Bert Fields was regarded by his partner, Howard Weitzman, as really too much especially since the information received by Bert Fields from the Santa Barbara County turned out to be false. As a result of that announcement Bert Fields was fired.

“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”.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR116092?refCatId=18

The same Variety article sheds slight on how the defense’s request to postpone a civil suit until after the criminal proceedings translated into a haters’ version of “postponing it by 6 years until after the statute of limitations expired. Naturally it was Larry Feldman who made the necessary interpretation.

To counter Bert Fields’ motion to put off the civil case until after the criminal proceedings were over Larry Feldman announced that that he did not even know whether an indictment would even take place (so strong was their case!) and that it would delay the civil suit by 6 years which they they couldn’t afford:

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.”

http://www.variety.com/article/VR116092?refCatId=18 Tue., Nov. 23, 1993

The newspapers picked it up and presented their own version of the story without specifying that the defense team was talking about postponing a civil suit until a later time and bringing criminal proceedings forward which – in case the defendant was found guilty – would mean that he could go to prison long ‘before that statute of limitations expired’. And it won’t really matter whether that period expired or not since the person will have been convicted anyway…  This is how the media interpreted the fact that the criminal case could last for 6 years:

“Attorneys for Jackson have said the case should be put on hold until the criminal investigation is concluded or postponed for six years, when the statute of limitations for the crime of child molestation would expire.”

LARRY FELDMAN confirms the fact that they made a big fuss over that issue in the media (he calls it “litigation it hard in papers”) and that the press loved it:

As he [MJ] 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.

Though no one understood what that 6 years story was all about, everyone “loved it and picked it up”.  I am not surprised the media fell for Larry Feldman’s story – look at the heart-wrenching arguments he used to support his motion for pushing the civil case first:

“Feldman has also argued that the boy has a right to proceed with the suit so he can put the case behind him. As part of the document he submitted Tuesday, Feldman included a statement from the boy’s therapist, who states that a long delay could hurt the boy’s chances for recovery.

“I believe that it would be extremely harmful to the emotional health and well-being of my patient if there is a delay in the legal proceedings in this case,” psychotherapist Nancy Cotterman-Garcia said in a declaration dated Nov. 11. It “will cause severe emotional distress to this child and interfere with his chances for recovery.”

In his brief, Feldman added that a long delay in the civil case would make it much more difficult to gather evidence. “Many of the witnesses are not residents of the United States,” he wrote. “It will be difficult, if not impossible, to locate them six years hence. Some may die, some may forget, or at the very least, their memories will have faded.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-17/local/me-57719_1_michael-jackson

Now that you’ve wiped off the tears of admiration for Larry Feldman and compassion for the ‘poor boy’ let me ask a few questions.

  • Why the need to bother about collecting evidence after the criminal trial? All the evidence should be collected by the prosecution by the time civil litigation starts and at absolutely no expense to the Plaintiff or his lawyer Larry Feldman!
  • And why will the witnesses forget? The witnesses will never forget as they will testify in the criminal trial before the civilsuit  – such impressions are unforgettable!
  • What happens if someone passes away? Written depositions and recorded testimonies are usually helpful in this case…
  • Why so many sentiments about the ‘poor boy’? Isn’t it him and his family who started the whole thing? After all if you want a $20 mln. sum please go and prove that you have the right to it!

No, guys, all this talk about Jordan’s feelings was just part of the vaudeville –  if Larry Feldman was really concerned about the boy he would never have  disclosed all those graphic details about his ‘molestation’ in the first place.

The main reasons why Larry Feldman was in such a hurry in pushing the civil suit first were different:  firstly, they never wanted a criminal trial, secondly, the civil suit was their only chance to win the case and in the third place, it was Jordan Chandler’s birthday which was looming ahead….

What does Jordan Chandler’s birthday have to do with it?

LARRY FELDMAN says at the Frozen in Time seminar:

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.

So Jordan’s birthday was the selling point to the district attorney?  It is really awful to see that such crucial issues as justice and the truth depend on someone’s birthday being two months earlier or later…

If Jordan was only two months older the outcome of the 1993 case could have been totally different – the criminal case could have come first, Jordan Chandler would have naturally refused to testify there as he had no proof for his lies and the case would have simply fallen apart….

The problem is, while Jordan was still thirteen the law of California allowed him to have a speedy trial in 90 days (max.120 days). However the fight over pushing the criminal case back and forth took several valuable months away and on January 11, 1994 Jordan Chandler was to turn 14 which automatically made him no different from those adults for whom a trial could be prepared for as long as it needed and could last as long as several years or more.

Never mind how long the civil or criminal trial could last  – the Chandlers didn’t want them anyway – Larry Feldman used Jordan’s age as a perfect PRETEXT for pushing the civil suit forward and since only a month and a half were left before the X day he had to be really quick to make use of this unbeatable card. And the card did work – when the judge was making his ruling it was Jordan’s age which was the decisive factor for letting the civil suit go first.

See how Lisa Campbell explains it:

The judge ruled that the boy’s right to a speedy trial prevailed over Michael Jackson’s request to delay the proceedings and set a court date for March 21,1994.

In setting the court date, Rothman followed California’s 120 day speedy trial rule that requires a trial date within 120 days when the alleged victim is under fourteen. In the judge’s view, this rule superseded Michael Jackson’s request to delay the civil suit until his name was cleared in the criminal investigation.

Let us draw some conclusions now:

1) As the Defence attorney Bret Fields wanted the Criminal case first he was therefore interested in the jury bringing charges against Michael. As the attorney for Jordan Chandler Larry Feldman wanted the Civil suit to go first and the criminal case to follow it he was thus interested in the criminal proceedings being delayed.

I hope it effectively answers all the lamentations from Ray Chandler that D.A. Gil Garcetti was ‘afraid’ of Michael’s celebrity and that it was because the prosecution was so slow that the poor Chandlers had to settle.

The LA Times says: “The entertainer‘s lawyers have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry”

2) Bert Fields tried to convince the court, public and the press that criminal proceedings wouldn’t take much time and charges would be brought “very, very soon”. That is why he was cooperative with the prosecution:

The LA Times: “Los Angeles Police Cmdr. DavidGascon said LAPD detectives “have met with cooperation throughout the course of the investigation,” and Pellicano said the singer “is going to cooperate with police in every way.” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-24/local/me-27332_1_michael-jackson)

Larry Feldman tried to convince the court, public and the press that criminal proceedings would be very long and could even not take place at all and could take up to 6 years.  He was most probably playing a cat and mouse game with the authorities choosing what evidence he would disclose to them and what could just wait until a more convenient time.

How would you feel if the DA let you try their case?”

“Oh, I’d love it! That’d be the best.”

Don’t you have Jordie’s testimony to trade on?”

“Yeah, but I want to use it so they’ll stay behind me. Then they won’t have to deal with this either.

“It’s to their advantage to stay behind you, right?”

“Right, to their political advantage.”

3) Michael Jackson and the first team of his lawyers were fighting for a criminal investigation though theoretically it could put him into prison. The Chandlers and Larry Feldman never wanted to go to a criminal court, wanted a money settlement from the very start and preferably without a civil trial either as it would involve Jordan Chandler’s testimony too (same as in a criminal court).

These conclusions may seem illogical at first sight (especially the defense helping the prosecution to speed up criminal proceedings) however if Michael was innocent, everything  immediately fits in.

Only an INNOCENT guy will choose a criminal trial as he will want justice for himself and only MONEY SEEKERS will avoid it at all costs and look for a money settlement from the very start – which is what civil suits are meant for.

However the criminal case never came forward in 1993 case as Larry Feldman won a major victory over his opponents – on November 23, 1993 the judge decided in his favor and put the civil suit first.

This was the turning point of the 1993 case which determined the outcome of the future events.

The rest of the story  will be much shorter.

The boy and Jackson spent one five-day period as guests in the father's home, Pellicano said. Later, Jackson and the boy both told Pellicano that the father had complained of the home being too crowded. The father suggested that Jackson build him an addition--or, better yet, buy him a larger residence, the investigator said. Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: "If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn't this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest."

After this major setback Bert Fields informed Michael of his decision to resign (he was forced to by his partner Howard Weitzner). I wonder if Michael knew of all this mess taking place in his case while he was in a rehab in Europe at that time?  But how much could he do about it from across the ocean and being in a condition he was in?

 

Anthony Pellicano had to resign too. Same as Bert Fields he had an unshakeable belief in Michael’s innocence and wanted to fight for Michael to the very end. It was probably his die-hard determination to fight till the end which made him leave as this approach was surely no longer in tune with the intentions of the new team of lawyers. The LA Times dated December 22, 1993 says about it:

“Pellicano, a private investigator with a reputation for aggressive tactics, challenged the allegations with ferocity, accusing the boy’s father of attempting to extort $20 million out of Jackson and of resorting to the child molestation accusations only after Jackson’s representatives rebuffed his extortion attempts.

In the interview Tuesday, Pellicano continued to stand behind Jackson. “In no way, shape or form does (my resignation) indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”

Authorities have notified Jackson’s lawyers that they expect their investigation to continue at least through February, while the boy’s attorney, Larry R. Feldman, is pushing ahead with his client’s civil suit.

With two investigations proceeding simultaneously, sources in the Los Angeles legal community say Jackson is rumored to be spending about $100,000 a week for his defense.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-22/local/me-4447_1_michael-jackson

Being at a loss with all this criminal/civil riddle which is hard to unravel even now and being upset by the evident failures of Michael’s defense his supporters regarded the reshuffle of defense attorneys as a positive change. Lisa Campbell wrote about it in 1994:

“Katherine Jackson, who had publicly criticized Michael’s defence team said with the changes, she could sleep better at night (if only she knew!). Some in the media speculated that the family had had some influence on Michael’s decision to make the changes. …

Field’s replacement Cochran, was actually suggested by Bob Jones. Jones had known Cochran since they went to high school together.”

So Johnnie Cochran and his assistant Carl Douglas were suggested by Bob Jones? The vindictive Bob Jones who wrote the book of grave exaggeration and falsity once he lost his job with Michael in order to get even with his former boss?

 

Johnnie Cochran

I don’t know much about Johnnie Cochran as a lawyer except the fact that his assistant Carl Douglas spoke of a “twenty year prior friendship” between him and the great Larry Feldman which enabled Larry Feldman to  represent Johnnie’s interests in several civil cases.

But as to Carl Douglas we’ve all read his speech and comments at the Frozen in Time seminar (click here for the transcript) and here for his answers to questions and were saddened to see a man of dubious ethics and dubious professionalism who was selected to represent Michael instead of his genuine supporters Fields and Pellicano.

After reading about his thorough enjoyment of all the publicity Michael Jackson’s case gave him and the double charges they usually asked for their invaluable services I regard his nomination in Michael’s case as a complete tragedy which is only deepened by the fact that he is a black man who was probably selected by Michael in expectation of more loyalty on his part. Human conscience (or lack of it) doesn’t have a color and this case is just another proof of it…

Now we know that Thomas Mesereau explained the outcome of the 1993 case as a result of bad advice from his lawyers. Carl Douglas wouldn’t elaborate on that at all, however Michael Jackson disclosed what their advice was in his interview with Diane Sawyer in 1994:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4bCaj-Ou_Q&feature=related :

Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the case? And, it looks to everyone as if you paid a huge amount of money….

Michael: That’s…that’s, most of that’s folklore. I talked to my lawyers, and I said, “can you guarantee me, that justice will prevail?” And they said: “Michael, we cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything.” And with that I was like catatonic, I was outraged!

Diane Sawyer: How much money…..

Michael: Totally outraged. So, I said…I have got to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies, lies. So what I did, we got together again with my advisors and they advised me. It was a hands down, unanimous decision – resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years!….

Diane Sawyer: How much money was….

Michael: We said, let’s get it behind us.

“We cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything.”? Sure, people like Carl Douglas wouldn’t guarantee anything at all! It seems that they did not intend to do any defense for Michael from the very moment when they were retained. That is why they were so unanimous in their advice to Michael to agree to a money settlement … the decision which only Michael was to take as the other side was ready for it anyway… his agreement to never get justice and subdue his anger towards the offenders asking the insurers to pay to these beasts instead….

In her book The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour of 1994 Lisa Campbell confirms that resolving the case through a money settlement was the strategy the new team of Michael’s lawyers employed immediately upon being retained. Since at the time it was considered a wise move on the part of the defense Lisa Campbell speaks  about this decision in favorable terms (p.110):

“Following the settlement, many law experts questioned why it took so long. Insiders said it was due to the advice Michael received from Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano”. The advice was actually correct! And it took so long because those guys together with Michael wanted to take the case to a criminal court and clear his  name there, as the next sentence immediately proves it:

“Colleagues said Fields was against negotiating a settlement because it would be seen as in indication of guilt. He also wanted the opportunity to cross-examine the boy. Johnnie, seen as being shrewder about limiting the amount of damage done, did not oppose a settlementAs soon as Cochran took over for Fields, he began negotiating the settlement (plain and simple as that!). Legal experts speculated that had Cochran been representing Michael Jackson at the beginning, it wouldn’t have gotten so out of control”.

Oh, my God –  it wouldn’t have gotten so out of control? Poor Lisa Campbell, let us forgive her mistake. Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano deserve our respect at least for their attempt to take the case to a criminal court and seeking justice for Michael, while the second team of lawyers surrendered the case without any resistance whatsoever.

If only she knew with what delight and triumph Larry Feldman accepted that news of his old friend Johnnie Cochran substituting for Michael’s real advocate Bert Field!

In his book “All that Glitters” Ray Chandler describes this scene as a completely victorious moment in the accusers’ camp. In a telephone conversation with Evan Chandler Larry Feldman says that Bert Field’s replacement is something ‘they should be thankful for’ and speaks of it as a big, big mistake on the part of the defense. This is expressed in so exquisite a language that I leave it here unedited though it truly surprised me to hear it from a gentleman like Larry Feldman:

Late in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for.

Larry: “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one.  Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again.  They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition.  They don’t want to preserve anything. (not necessarily true) If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.”

Evan: “No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.”

Larry: “Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward.  We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain until now.

Evan: “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”

Larry: “Yeah.”

Evan: “Jesus Christ!”

Larry: “Right! So we don’t want that.”

This is the direct proof of the conclusions made earlier. An indictment, though generally viewed by the accuser as a positive event in his fight against the defendant, in this particular case was something neither Larry Feldman, nor Evan Chandler ever wanted, as it was opening the road to a criminal trial (which they never, never wanted either).

Have you noticed Evan Chandler’s horror at a mere mentioning of a possibility that a criminal trial can come before a civil settlement? So is there anyone here who is still doubting the true intentions of Evan Chandler, his total unwillingness to take the case to court, his absolute uncertainly in what he was saying and the terrible fear that there would probably be a need to prove his allegations legally?

Ray Chandler is apparently forgetful that in another chapter he lied that they had to ‘pressurize’ prosecution. And now he is proving to us himself that they never wanted a criminal trial in the first place.

Yes, this competition between the civil and criminal suits in Michael’s 1993 case is something truly unprecedented, I must say…  A couple of words about the 2005 trial now:

LARRY FELMAN said at the Frozen in Time seminar,

And in the criminal case [in 2005], originally Michael Jackson was represented by Mark Geragos, as the judge alluded to, and Brafman 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.

The newspapers tell us the story of lawyers being replaced in the 2005 case too:

“The change in lawyers was the biggest decision. Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman were viewed throughout the legal establishment as outstanding lawyers. But Geragos was dividing his time between Jackson and the Scott Peterson murder case. Brafman was based in New York [ ] and his involvement in the case has meant frequent cross-country trips.

Huddling with Randy and two other advisors, Jackson settled on Mesereau, who projected a workhorse image, just what Jackson wanted. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/07/local/me-image7

Legal experts had speculated that his decision to replace his lawyers with Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Thomas A. Mesereau Jr. was prompted at least in part because of Geragos’ conflicting schedule.

“I think Jackson wanted a full-time lawyer,” said attorney Connie Rice. “I would be very nervous if my lawyer had another big case that was taking up his time.”

Only last week, Jackson was indicted by a Santa Barbara County grand jury, and is scheduled to be arraigned on those charges Friday.

Sources close to the Jackson family said one factor that contributed to the showdown was the grand jury indictment. While most legal experts saw an indictment as a foregone conclusion, the decision came as a surprise to some Jackson intimates.http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/27/local/me-jackson27

In a statement released Monday, Mr. Jackson explained why he “terminated” his lawyers. “It is imperative that I have the full attention of those who are representing me. My life is at stake. Therefore, I must feel confident that my interests are of the highest priority.

“I am innocent of these false charges and will aggressively seek to clear my name. I feel very confident that when I am able to defend myself, I will be exonerated by a jury of my peers. I would like to thank Messrs. Geragos and Brafman for the work they have done and I wish them well.” April 27, 2004 Santa Barbara New Press Archives

Thomas Mesereau

In his statement, which was approved by the judge, Mr. Mesereau subtly distinguished himself from former lead lawyers Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman:

“I want to make clear what this case is about. This case is not about lawyers and anyone else becoming celebrities. This defense is going to be conducted with dignity at all times.

This case is about one thing only.

It’s about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honor, the charity, the innocence and the complete vindication of a wonderful human being named Michael Jackson.”  April 27, 2004 LA Times

GREAT WORDS SAID BY A GREAT MAN which are worthy to be engraved in golden letters in the world history. And what a stark contrast with those who were supposed to defend Michael Jackson in 1993!

Oh Lord, thank you for Thomas Mesereau….

120 Comments leave one →
  1. May 24, 2012 9:28 pm

    Thank you VMJ for bringing attention to this matter again. It should be required and obligatory reading for everyone who claims Michael bought his freedom or however they express it.This is what all the ones who are under the simplistic and false explanation need
    to know.

    Like

  2. mjjyo permalink
    May 22, 2012 10:05 pm

    vindicatemj – L.O.V.E., thanks for your great work and love You.

    Like

  3. May 4, 2012 12:19 am

    I know T.Mesereau is a defence attn..Still I think the Estate or whoever sues AEG can ask his advice for a competent lawyer.

    Like

  4. nakanoyoshimi permalink
    May 3, 2012 10:14 pm

    Atty Thomas MESEREAU – Thank You So Much with all our heart for our Michael.
    You Are The King of Justice!
    Yoshimi

    Like

  5. Teva permalink
    September 11, 2011 8:04 am

    “I think he meant how much it worthed to MJ regarding his reputation.” – Ares

    That too.

    Like

  6. ares permalink
    September 11, 2011 7:55 am

    -Also Carl Douglas said in the FIT seminar one of the things he learnt from one of judges was, not how much the case is worth, but how much it is worth to Michael Jackson.

    I took that to mean how much it was worth to him to settle and not drag out in court.-

    I think he meant how much it worthed to MJ regarding his reputation.

    Like

  7. Teva permalink
    September 11, 2011 4:00 am

    http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm was a very interesting read.

    “In civil law, an attorney may demand information from the opposing party about any matter that is relevant to the case, provided that information is not privileged. ” – http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

    I think they were many reasons for the settlement, some more prevailing than others. However, could one of them have been to protect Michael’s financial status and prevent Feldman settlement amount from increasing? I remember one of Michael’s lawyers had said something to the effect that: You can take pictures of Michael’s dick and he is not going to like, but demanding to know his net worth he draws the line. From the above RBS2 qoutation it seems likely that Feldman would have demanded Michael’s “bank book”, and if not privileged information the defense would have had to provide it leading Feldman to set an even higher figure if going to court.

    Also Carl Douglas said in the FIT seminar one of the things he learnt from one of judges was, not how much the case is worth, but how much it is worth to Michael Jackson. I took that to mean how much it was worth to him to settle and not drag out in court.

    Like

  8. nichea permalink
    September 9, 2011 5:10 pm

    Just out of curiosity..Why was Tom Sneddon so obsessed with Michael Jackson? I mean, getting laws changed, traveling around the country to find victims, getting sources from tabloids, meeting with witnesses, etc…

    Like

  9. September 9, 2011 5:00 pm

    “In a civil case the attorneys for the plaintiff have greater latitude in their questioning, and the defendant MUST be deposed, they cannot get away from it, and any question can be asked. I believe Sneddon was clever and kept this at the back of his mind forcing the civil to occur before the criminal in order that he could obtain the depositions to use in the criminal. He wanted those depositions. It was a legal tactic on his part.”

    Teva, I think your guess is right – Sneddon wanted the civil lawyers to get as much from Michael as it was possible, including deposition, etc. and that is why he didn’t press them and allowed the civil suit to go forward. His case was far from complete and despite all that psychological and other interviewing of the Chandlers Sneddon was lacking the necessary evidence. You are right – he hoped to fish out something during the civil proceedings as they allowed more freedom for lawyers.

    This is probably why he was so terribly disappointed with the settlement. It didn’t bring him any deposition and the “facts” he had on his hands were absolutely no good. If Sneddon indeed had all that evidence he later claimed he had – for example, photos “matching” the description – he didn’t need any “victim” for his charges. I can’t be sure of law specifics here but think that a victim is not always needed to bring charges against a criminal – or otherwise how would they investigate murder cases where the victim is dead?

    The fact that he brought charges in the laughable Arvizo case and couldn’t do the same in the Chandler case shows that in 1993 he had even less than in 2003-2005.

    Like

  10. September 8, 2011 10:08 pm

    TatumMarie, a great tutorial!Evan,though mentally ill,yet not totally disorganized ,was shrewdly navigating the case between lawyers and psychologists.And he achieved his goal, ie money.Their housecleaner
    stated that once Michael entered that household Evan no longer went to work at his dental office.

    Like

  11. lynande51 permalink
    September 8, 2011 8:06 am

    It is possible that was the reason that Sneddon wanted the civil case to go before the criminal case. Of course he wasn’t counting on being betrayed by the Chandlers.

    Like

  12. lcpledwards permalink
    September 8, 2011 7:21 am

    @ Teva
    Great thinking! You made some valid points! Your theory is very plausible! Thanks!

    Like

  13. TatumMarie permalink
    September 8, 2011 6:50 am

    @shelly
    If the police had one piece of evidence or someone who would corroborate Jordan’s story they could have definitely prosecuted without the “victim”. Trust me, they do this all the time-prosecute someone when the person who initially offset the charges doesn’t want to corporate. The only thing that saved Jordan was the fact that he was a kid, if he had been an adult – most likely they could have made him testify.Once the DA and police are involved you can’t just say, I’m backing out. At least in California you can’t.

    Bad news too: Evan never alleged anything in court documents and Jordan to my knowledge was under 14 – so he can’t be charged with perjury. Can we say – best tutorial on how to extort a celebrity?

    Like

  14. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 6:35 am

    Maybe, but Jordan said his father wanted money so why would he testified once he got the money?
    I see your point, but I don’t know and I believe it has to do with Garcetti. In the book the Trials of Michael Jackson, the author claimed that in one of the Magic & madness edition there are law enforcement people who weren’t too sure about the case. They allegedly said there were too many reasonable doubts.

    Like

  15. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 6:28 am

    Sneddon thought he had a cooperating victim in 1993.

    Like

  16. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 6:00 am

    @teva,

    I understand but how do you prosecute someone without a victim?

    Like

  17. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:47 am

    “In all honesty your theory is the same as Larry Feldman’s theory.” – Shelly

    Really! I wasn’t aware of Feldman’s theory. I was just watching an HLN program where they were discussing a civil suit by a family, and a criminal investigation and how civil could help the criminal. I posted it here because I thought it would be a good place.

    Like

  18. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:42 am

    I just think it was one of the reasons he didn’t charge MJ in 1993. I also think the second reason he didn’t charge MJ in 1994 was double jeopardy. For all his grand standing I don’t believe he thought his case was iron clad, and had MJ walked he could not be retried.

    Like

  19. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:40 am

    In all honesty your theory is the same as Larry Feldman’s theory.

    Like

  20. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:39 am

    “I know you are theorizing, but I have problems with the idea of Sneddon taking the risk of not being able to prosecute someone he believes is a child molestor, ” -Shelly

    You mis-understood the whole idea was to prosecute Michael Jackson. He wanted to use any evidence from the Civil to bolster the criminal, and if he had charged Michael it would have prevented the civil from preceding the criminal. I just think it was all a chess game.

    Like

  21. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:34 am

    I never understood why Sneddon didn’t file charges in 1993:

    He had witness testimonies
    A cooperating “victim”
    “accurate” photos of Michael’s privates as described by JC

    He had less to work with in 2005 yet he filed charges. I think the theory I gave was one of the reasons, he wanted the civil to precede the criminal to get his hands on the testimony and deposition of Michael. Michael never would have taken the stand in a criminal.

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:30 am

    I know you are theorizing, but I have problems with the idea of Sneddon taking the risk of not being able to prosecute someone he believes is a child molestor, but on the other hand I don’t know why he never charged him. Maybe the answer is Gil Garcetti.

    Like

  23. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:27 am

    I am theorizing Sneddon’s motivation. We know the Chandlers never had any intention of going to court, and we have the benefit of hindsight. Sneddon wanted Michael’s deposition and witness testimony.

    Like

  24. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:16 am

    Yes but without Jordan you can’t have a trial. Jordan was never deposed so you can’t have a trial unless you have an adult witness.

    Like

  25. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 5:01 am

    The point was not Jordan, but Michael. He would have obtained the broad deposition of Michael that Feldman would have given. It is my contention he wanted the civil trial to move before the criminal. You cannot plea the 5th in a civil case, the defendant must take the stand.

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    September 8, 2011 4:49 am

    I don’t know if I really believe that. Sneddon knew that you can’t force a sex abuse victim to testify and he knew the Chandlers wanted money, Jordan said it when he was interviewed.

    Like

  27. Teva permalink
    September 8, 2011 4:44 am

    While watching a non Michael Jackson related case being discussed today on TV, something revealed itself to me i.e ONE of the reasons Sneddon didn’t charge Michael with a crime 1993. As we all know MJ lost the motion to stay the civil case until after the criminal, which was a good ruling on the part of the civil judge because as it turned out there was never a criminal hearing, and at the time of the ruling Michael had not even been charged with a crime, so really he had no choice. However, had Sneddon charged him Michael could have used that as a SOLID reason to delay the civil because his lawyers could argue how could he fight both cases at the same time pending from the same charges. Also if he had charged Michael he could not force him to give a deposition (self-incrimination), but in a civil case this does not exist. Sneddon definitely knew this.

    In a civil case the attorneys for the plaintiff have greater latitude in their questioning, and the defendant MUST be deposed, they cannot get away from it, and any question can be asked. I believe Sneddon was clever and kept this at the back of his mind forcing the civil to occur before the criminal in order that he could obtain the depositions to use in the criminal. Of course MJ’s lawyers were aware of this and as mentioned here before this is why they settled the case, but on a grander scale I also believe this is why Sneddon never filed charges. He wanted those depositions. It was a legal tactic on his part.

    This strategy backfired, and he decided to change the law that a criminal trial must precede a civil. He later dubbed it the Michael Jackson law, which too was also cleverly mis-leading as it should have been called the Evan/Jordan Chandler law because they were the ones who filed the civil suit.

    Like

  28. November 30, 2010 10:13 am

    “We will be litigating whether or not the photographs will be admissible at a later time in court,” attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. said today”

    Cochran should have added something about the natural feelings of a person the photos of whose penis (or vagina) are to be shown to the public.

    What Cochran said he wanted to do is incomparable to what Larry Feldman actually did. Feldman said it point blank that he wanted the photos barred from the civil trial, while Cochran just didn’t want them to be used. Why he didn’t want to is clear enough – it was a top humiliating thing for Michael – just imagine YOUR private parts photographed and then scrutinized by 12 men and women and then the photos possibly leaked to the press – and you’ll understand why the defense didn’t want them in public.

    But this is incomparable to what Larry Feldman said and did when he demanded those photos barred. Feldman couldn’t care less about Michael’s feelings when he was making his demand – HE WANTED THEM BARRED BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS “WRONG” WITH THEM.

    Though the actions on the part of the defense and the plaintiff seem the same THE MOTIVES ARE THE OPPOSITE. To be able to evaluate someone’s demands correctly we need to look WHO is demanding this and that.

    The defense COULD have used the photos but DIDN’T WANT IT for obvious reasons.
    – And the plaintiff WANTED very much to use them but COULDN’T because they showed a picture totally different from Jordan’s description.

    Like

  29. November 30, 2010 9:55 am

    “…there was a photograph posted that is presented as one of the evidentiary photographs from the police investigation of Michael Jackson, entitled “Michael Jackson’s private parts.” If genuine, this means that not even confidential police files can be kept confidential, if just one person has access to a $300 scanner and an anonymous $10-per-month BBS service.The up side to the Information Highway is open access to public information.”

    Guys, there are two possibilities here:
    – if GENUINE photos were leaked into the Internet this (in my opinion) could in no way affect the investigation if it was done honestly. The photos showed one thing, the description said another thing. However if they intended to change the description once they got the photos that would have been a totally different (and possible) matter. To be able to do that they should have erased from the Internet and people’s memory the “circumcision” and “light blotch” points.

    This is what they are doing NOW. Very few people remember now what Jordan said about that “light splotch”, though they still remember he said he was circumcised. However if the last traces of real Jordan’s words are erased one day even the ‘circumcision’ factor will be forgotten – THAT IS WHY IT IS TOP IMPORTANT TO REPEAT IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AT EVERY VENUE POSSIBLE!

    – the second possibility is that FAKE photos were posted.

    Please don’t let yourself be confused by all this talk around the photos. The photos did not match the description. If they had been they would have arrested Michael immediately. We even know how different the decription and the photos were. DON’T LET THEM REWRITE HISTORY!

    Like

  30. Teva permalink
    November 30, 2010 5:42 am

    @lynande51

    Thank you for the response, but I am still lost. Cochran doesn’t say specifically that he wants the photos barred because they have been leaked leading to a authenticy issue. Like I said before if they were leaked and the internet version photoshopped in any way Sneddon had the negatives to vouch for his prints. I still do not understand how you could not tell the real from the fake making them inadmissible. Surely forensics would the able to analyze them.

    Another thing, if these photos were leaked then where are they? Surely one of us would have seen them by now. Michael Jackson’s full frontal package would have been one of the most downloaded images on the internet. Guitterez would have gotten his hand on it first, seeing he was a police informant and all (sarcasm).

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    November 30, 2010 3:52 am

    Here is another article that says that Michaels lawyers wanted them barred. This was just 4 days after the body search. Interesting isn’t it that the police were comparing them and yet they never went to arrest him isn’t it. This after all was supposed to be The Smoking Gun. They didn’t need anyones permission to arrest him if these were a match it was like fingerprints according to the Chandlers this was what could prove that Jordan had seen Michael Jackson and yet he wasn’t. STILL NO BODY ANYWHERE GOT THAT!!!

    Jackson Seeks to Bar Photos
    Date: December 24, 1993 Publication: The Washington Post
    Michael Jackson’s defense team will fight to exclude nude photographs of the entertainer from evidence in any child molestation trial.
    “We will be litigating whether or not the photographs will be admissible at a later time in court,” attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. said today.
    In a live message Wednesday carried by satellite worldwide, Jackson described a body search by criminal investigators, adding, “It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life.”
    The 13-year-old boy suing Jackson gave police a detailed description of discoloration of the entertainer’s private parts, which could be crucial to verifying the boy’s claims.
    A highly placed law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Associated Press today that investigators had compared the boy’s description with the pictures of Jackson.
    The source would not say if the boy’s description was accurate and said no immediate decision on whether to file criminal charges against Jackson was expected because authorities want to be “extraordinarily thorough” and fair.
    Earlier this year, Jackson said he has vitiligo, a skin condition that causes blotches.
    Attorney Larry Feldman, who sued Jackson on behalf of the teen- ager, claimed the entertainer waited until the lawyer went on vacation to speak out.
    “This is no accident,” he said from Aspen, Colo. “Nothing they do is an accident. They’ve known I’d be out of town for weeks.”

    Copyright 2009 The Washington Post

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    November 30, 2010 3:43 am

    Here is a confirmation that the photos were supposedly on the internet and I am going to add the one from another article around February of 1994 that says that they were for sale for 3 million dollars. This as you can see was from the sam week that they were taken so it was within days that they may have been leaked. If that was the case and they were leaked it would have made them inadmissable because Tom Sneddon assured them that they were locked up but with information like this out there how would we know for sure? If they were leaked, yet didn’t match it would no longer matter as evidence because they were leaked and out there for anyone to see or so either side could argue. It is in an obscure article but it does confirm that as far as the internet went they were leaked and later an entrepeneur/broker was trying to sell them for 3 million dollars.

    An Internet challenge: sending documents with formats intact
    Article from:The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) Article date:December 31, 1993More results for:Michael jackson

    Dear Voxbox,

    I’d like to use your column to ask for any help readers might be able to provide on a real need I’ve found in use of the Internet — the ability to send formatted documents as attachments and have them arrive with the formatting information intact.

    This came up recently when I was finishing up an agreement with a company in California and we wanted to exchange the current draft, with all the formatting intact. We both thought how much easier it would have been if we could have sent the agreement by e-mail. It took an immense amount of effort and numerous long-distance phone calls to learn how to route computer-to-computer phone calls through the company’s telephone system and to learn the intricacies of each other’s communications packages to exchange the files that way.

    The problem is that if you paste a word-processed document into an e-mail message, it gets converted into ASCII text and you lose all the formatting. If it’s a long and complex document, like a legal agreement, the effort involved in reformatting it makes it not worth doing.

    Now, within internal e-mail systems, it’s usually possible to include with an e-mail message an enclosure that retains all the characteristics of the program that created it.

    So, my question is: “How easy is it to send enclosures over the Internet?”

    I have two experiences that have some bearing.

    First, a colleague at another academic institution and I recently tried exchanging an e-mail message with an MS Word formatted enclosure over the Internet. We both use Macs. I could read her enclosure perfectly, while my enclosure to her was totally garbled. So it looks as if you can do it sometimes.

    Second, it is possible to do this with MCI Mail, though it may be hard for Mac users these days. There used to be two programs available for MCI Mail — Lotus Express and Desktop Express. Lotus Express allowed IBM users to send formatted documents to each other via MCI Mail, while Desktop Express allowed Mac users to do the same thing. (I never tried going from IBM to Mac.) My understanding is that Lotus sold Lotus Express to MCI Mail, who now offer it as MCI Express, while Desktop Express died. I can still use my version of Desktop Express, though I have to reboot the computer to get it started — I think it’s just not System 7 savvy. The regional manager for MCI Mail sent me a message after you published my last letter, so if he reads this, perhaps he could write you with an update on these programs. For instance, could you use one of them to send an enclosure over the Internet via MCI Mail?

    Do any of your readers have any information on how we can exchange formatted documents? Do the document exchange programs like Aldus Acrobat that recently appeared hold any promise? ASHLEY STEVENS ashleystevens(at sign symbol)farber. harvard.edu Dear Voxbox,

    Many of the points discussed about the Information Highway relate to the question of “openness”: Will the technology be available to all? Will commercial interests control what information is available? Will small information providers be squeezed out of the market? Will e-mail be private, or subject to eavesdropping? Will BBS-type discussions be censored, and by whom?

    These points all relate to keeping access open, but there is another side to this “openness” question: Will technologies like the Information Highway allow individuals (not large corporations) to destroy your privacy by using this open access to pass around details from your private life?

    Recently on the Internet there have been a number of scanned images posted from what appear to be personal, private snapshots of people mentioned in the news, photographs clearly never intended to be made public. How someone’s private photos were obtained is not clear: Many of the postings are anonymous. Technologies like the Information Highway make it possible for one posting on an obscure, local BBS to be copied by hundreds of individuals to thousands of other BBSs overnight — no control is possible.

    This week there was a photograph posted that is presented as one of the evidentiary photographs from the police investigation of Michael Jackson, entitled “Michael Jackson’s private parts.” If genuine, this means that not even confidential police files can be kept confidential, if just one person has access to a $300 scanner and an anonymous $10-per-month BBS service.The up side to the Information Highway is open access to public information.

    But the downside is also the open distribution of private information. Anyone who has ever had to deal with an anonymous phone caller (as all of us have) will be concerned about this potential for abuse. It won’t be the sensation-seeking press invading your privacy, it will be hundreds of thousands of sensation-seeking amateurs. JEAN RENARD WARD jrward(at sign symbol)world.std.com Dear Voxbox,

    I have just received a computer for Christmas and am learning the ropes about its communications possibilities. A friend said that there was a two-part series done by you on the e-mail networks. I am sorry to say that I was not home to read/save those. Can you tell me how I might get reprints of those? Can you use e-mail to purchase reprints from the Globe? I think it is very clever of you to try this medium for the paper. The idea about the obituary was a good one — an on-line index would be used, purchased, because as we all know, the obits are among the most-read parts of the paper. I would say that there would be several departments that could do that — home handyman, book reviews, the food recipes, etc. Also, there is no end to the possibility, this being an example, of persons wanting reprints. JAMES C. WOODS VDJY70A(at sign symbol)prodigy.com

    Editor’s note: An electronic version of the Internet series was sent to the above letter writer by e-mail. Dear Voxbox,

    On Christmas Day you printed a letter in The Boston Globe from a Matt Drinkwine about violence in the new video game “Night Trap,” stating how many people for censoring it hadn’t even played it and how many of the rumored superviolent scenes were nothing more than exploitation of the truth. I have no quarrel with his point about the rumors, but I do with something else he said: “I am sick and tired of hearing about the violence in video games.” He may have been correct that “Night Trap” had been over-publicized and censored for no reason, but that does not by any means mean that there is not repulsive violence in some video games. Speaking as a person who has played “Mortal Kombat” more than once, I can safely say that some of the moves, in fact most of them, in that game are not only violent but in a sickly way. Whenever a blow is sustained, the victim releases unrealistically large amounts of blood. In that game it is possible to burn to death, eat the heart of, rip off the head of, eat the head of and bite off the torso of your opponent. People will argue that that game is not going to make little kids try to eat each other, but I have seen 4-year-olds trying to mimmick the kicking and punching moves of that game and I worry that the children could be seriously hurt if this influence continues. JEREMY ENGLAND Durham, N.H. England(at sign symbol)unhesp.unh.edu Dear Voxbox,

    The Boston Computer Society is developing an Internet Resource Project. The purpose of this project is to provide one-stop online access (both on and off the Internet) to important resource information regarding the Internet. The information will be continually updated and will deal with resources available both off (books, publications, organizations, help facilities) and on (directories, guides, important archive sites, listings, news groups, etc.) the Internet. It will include the more important resources that deal with the Internet itself, government and computers. This is not meant to be a comprehensive cataloging of every or even most of the Internet resources available — only those that most users of the Internet should be aware of before getting on the Internet in order to make more effective and efficient use of it.

    This project is the result of conversations with many Internet users, many of whom were not aware of important resource information available on or about the Internet, or were spending too much time, money or other resources finding it. Too often, they would get their information by plowing through many books and other publications, reading columns, going to meetings, talking to people or happening to find it on the Internet. Too often, they would get important resource information by happening to read or hear about it somewhere. This makes no sense given the ability everyone has to access online information, and the ease with which it can be updated and accessed.

    The Internet Resource Project will make access to basic, updated Internet resource information easier, faster and cheaper than is available now by compiling, categorizing and updating this information in one place. It will be available both on and off the Internet to avoid the Catch-22 many users face by having to use the Internet in order to get basic information about using the Internet, and to avoid having to spend unnecessary funds on the many books, newsletters and other publications available. Hopefully, it will allow users to take full advantage of the Internet while making much more effective and efficient use of it — something important for those who have much to gain from the Internet but not a lot of time and money to spare.

    If you would like to participate in this project or have any questions, please contact me. I look forward to hearing from you and receiving any assistance you can provide. DAVE GOLDSTEIN pulse(at sign symbol)world.std.com

    Like

  33. Teva permalink
    November 30, 2010 12:27 am

    I did read Lisa’s book, but said about the photos being fake jumped out at me.

    Like

  34. David permalink
    November 29, 2010 9:19 pm

    @ Teva
    since it was Lynette who made that quote, I’ll let her answer that question. But I think that a good resource to use for looking into the 1993 case is Lisa D. Campbell’s book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”. It was written in late 1994, and is often overshadowed by Geraldine Hughes’ and May Fischer’s works on the case. She goes into great detail about the case, and discussed many topics that Hughes and Fischer did not cover. The subject of the photos is discussed extensively in the book.

    It is available in its entirety for free on Google Books, and you can download it as a PDF document from there as well.

    Like

  35. Teva permalink
    November 29, 2010 9:04 pm

    Can someone please explain to me why the authenticity of the photos could be questioned?

    Like

  36. Teva permalink
    November 28, 2010 9:38 pm

    “Actually the reason that Michael”s lawyers were fighting the use of the photos is that within days of them being taken. I believe that it was around the end Of December it was leaked that they were for sale on the black market for $3 million. They could no longer be persented to the jury because they didn’t know if they were the originals or fake.”

    I don’t understand the above statement. Whether they were for sale or not the prosecution would still have the negatives, and the for sale would have been copies of the originals not the originals themselves. They could proved their authenticity. I don’t get why you say they could not be presented to the jury when they were part of the 1994 grand jury exhibit. In addition Sneddon had petition the court to have them included in the 2005 trial, but Mez successfully fought that motion. How could they originality be in question?

    Like

  37. shelly permalink
    November 27, 2010 4:11 pm

    Could you post the articles lynande?

    Like

  38. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2010 1:39 pm

    Actually the reason that Michael”s lawyers were fighting the use of the photos is that within days of them being taken. I believe that it was around the end Of December it was leaked that they were for sale on the black market for $3 million. They could no longer be persented to the jury because they didn’t know if they were the originals or fake. The photos turned out to be a big mess. I read it in The King Of Pop’s Darkest Hour and yes I have the articles that prove that they were trying to sell them. As for the Settlement agreement what happens is that the parties involved or one of them can petition the court for a Release of the Confidentiality agreement after the judgement has been dismissed. In the Chandler agreement it was dismissed without prejudice which means that they could not sue Michael again for the same thing and he could not sue them for releasing the information to the public. A confidentiality agreement is simply to keep the stipulations in the agreement out of the hand of other possible litigants( other people that may sue for the same reason) They probably did this when Jordan was emancipated.

    Like

  39. zeromarcy permalink
    November 27, 2010 1:24 pm

    Guys i want to say that I LOVE UUUUUUUUUU and i appreciate so much what u do

    Like

  40. November 27, 2010 10:27 am

    Guys, I promised to make a post about Dr. Katz (and Larry Feldman) today but am afraid it will have to be postponed until early next week. However the settlement and the civil suit are so big a theme that it seems it requires more time than we’ve allotted to it.

    See you on Monday and have a good weekend, everybody!

    Like

  41. November 27, 2010 9:49 am

    Teva, you’ve made an excellent analysis too.

    “I was not making the point that Michael’s defense team was going to introduce the photos, but more the point that Feldman could not.”

    This is the peculiarity of the case which was balancing between two points – the defense was unwilling to introduce the pictures as for Michael it meant the jury would be scrutinizing them and they could be leaked to the press (imagine the horror and humiliation of both variants!) and Larry Feldman could not use the photos as they were contradicting Jordan’s description. An impasse for both sides!

    “each side knew that settlement was imminent once the civil suit date was set; it essentially became a matter of how much to settle for.”

    Absolutely. And the photos were just the argument used in this heavy bargaining: “Larry, you can’t use the photos” – “No, we can’t, but look here, Johnnie, you wouldn’t want to use them either, would you?

    “The retired judge was right when he said, it was not how much the case was worth, but how much it was worth to Michael Jackson.”

    Yes, and this is why Larry Feldman wanted to review Michael’s finances to see how much they could get out of this case. He was fighting not only for the Chandlers, his was fighting for his own pocket – the more the sum, the bigger his share was.

    “the DA had dropped the criminal charges of extortion by January 1994 which further weakened Michael’s defense’.

    No, it seems the extortion case was the defense’s biggest argument for bargaining the amount. So the extortion charges were obviously dropped only when the other side agreed to reduce the sum.

    “The way I see it Michael had one more move, and that was to call Feldman’s bluff and pretend to go to trial.”

    I think that the lawyers didn’t need to pretend to be going to trial – if the second team of lawyers had really wanted it and pressed with it, the Chandlers would have probably cracked under the pressure, because the trial was the last thing on earth they wanted. Even Maureen Orth says that the Chandlers were “horrified” by the prospect.

    However in this case Larry Feldman would have introduced so many lies to the media and would have fanned them to such a degree that this alone would have killed Michael. This is probably the ultimate reason why they settled. For Michael it meant that he had to accept the fact that his offender would get away with it and he would never get justice for himself – so the decision was really difficult to take.

    That is why Larry Feldman said that “much convincing” had to be done.

    Like

  42. November 27, 2010 9:16 am

    Lynette, you’ve made excellent points:

    “on his 14th birthday Jordan would no longer be given anonymity in the US press and he could be charged as an adult in an extortion.”

    This is another explanation why Larry Feldman was in such a hurry to start (and close) the civil case and why he didn’t want it to go as far as the criminal trial. Jordan’s birthday was an imminent danger to their case.

    “The interesting thing is that Michael’s insurance company paid this settlement in full in June of 1999. Once it is paid in full it is considered dismissed. Once it is dismissed the parties involved are no longer held accountable to the confidentiality agreement.”

    Are you sure of it? If yes, we should amend our understanding of the case a little. However we need to check it up not to make mistakes with our further conclusions. Can you refer us to any legal links, please? Are there any lawyers here who can comment?

    You may be right because Johnnie Cochran says in his statement:
    “At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months.”

    When does this appropriate time start? Probably when the full payment is made? Does it mean that the parties can freely disclose the text of the agreement now? And we can see all those points which were blacked out when the redacted version was disclosed in 1996?

    Like

  43. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2010 3:38 am

    1994 my typo

    Like

  44. visitor permalink
    November 27, 2010 3:19 am

    “on January 26th,1993.” !?!?

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2010 2:15 am

    I am going to post here the verbatim transcript of the settlement announcement that was agreed upon by both sides and delivered on January 26th,1994. I would like everyone to note that there are a couple of things that are stated in the announcement that people have a great tendency to overlook.I got the announcement from the 1996 lawsuit that Evan Chandler filed against Michael, Lisa Marie, ABC, SOny and Diane Sawyer.

    VERBATUM Transcript from the Michael Jackson/Chandler settlement press conference as taped from satellite on 1-26-94, unedited.

    Larry Feldman’s statement-Attorney for Plaintiff:
    We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin.

    Johnnie Cochran’s statement-Attorney for Defendant [Michael Jackson]:
    In the past ten days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much.

    Now I would like everyone to notice that Larry Feldman says 2 things that are completely overlooked.
    1. Michael Jackson has publicly dropped the charges of extortion.
    2. The Plaintiff has agreed to Settle.
    This is important but has consistantly been overlooked in every layperson, some legal pundits, and most certainly all of the media. Under California Civil Code Jordan could not sign a legal document because he was under the age of 18 and could not be held responsible. He had to petition the court for a Guardian Ad Litem and his parent could not agree to settle a structured settlement for him which is what this was. Any settlement has to be accepted by the Plaintiff. WHen they went in the room to confer and conclude what damages would be paid for what they based it on Michael’s commodity value,and his earning potential nothing else except possibly his willingness to clean up this mess.This type of settlement is reached everyday and many times a day based on the same thing, what is it worth to settle.When a settlement is reached that is for a large amount it is always confidential, always. The interesting thing is that Michael’s insurance company paid this settlement in full in June of 1999. Once it is paid in full it is considered dismissed. Once it is dismissed the parties involved are no longer held accountable to th econfidentiality agreement. That is why the Chandlers could release all of the documents they wanted to and publish a book. Another important thing to know is that on his 14th birthday Jordan would no longer be given anonymity in the US press and he could be charged as an adult in an extortion. When I am done here with all of this stuff I think I will go to California and take the Bar Exam.

    Like

  46. November 26, 2010 11:49 pm

    About the description of the buttocks being accurate, I don’t doubt that. Evan had previously given Michael an injection in the backside for a headache he had first hand knowledge of what MJ’s bottom looked like. Let’s not forget that.

    Like

  47. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 11:37 pm

    @ Helena
    Yes, i am sorry you are right. They had Dimond as a sourse about the amount of the settlement, if i am not mistaken again.

    Like

  48. November 26, 2010 11:27 pm

    I was not making the point that Michael’s defense team was going to introduce the photos, but more the point that Feldman could not. I doubt MJ’s counsel was going to introduce them either because each side knew that settlement was eminent once the civil suit date was set; it essentially became a matter of how much to settle for. The retired judge was right when he said, it was not how much the case was worth, but how much it was worth to Michael Jackson. If my memory serves me correctly the DA had dropped the criminal charges of extortion by January 1994 which further weakened Michael’s defense. So if we put the pieces together:
    1. The civil trial date was set.
    2. Evan was not going to be prosecuted for extortion. (the corner stone of Michael’s defense)
    3. Sneddon was moving ahead with the criminal investigation leading to a trial.
    4. Michael’s defense had run out of all their legal options.
    The way I see it Michael had one more move, and that was to call Feldman’s bluff and pretend to go to trial. IMO all this would server is to beat down the negotiation figure. In the end that is probably what MJ’s team tried because the papers were signed a few days before the court case was set to be heard. However, I believe Feldman would have seen through the stategy.

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 10:33 pm

    I know who she is, I know she is lying on the 25 millions dollars, on the no girls allowed, but when she spoke about the 5th amendment she had no choice but to say that a deposition can be used against you in a criminal trial. She also said that they agree to settle the night before the deposition meaning that MJ refused to settle even after the photos. In my opinion, it confirms what one of the lawyer said during the seminar: the lawyers had lots of talking to do to convince him to settle the case.

    Of course, when you read her article you have the feeling that he was guilty but I think you have to read between the lines.

    Like

  50. November 26, 2010 10:23 pm

    “Smoking gun’s source is Diane Dimond. I would prefer a more unbiased source. So is pointless arguing about markings that we don’t know what colour they were or if they existed at all because we don’t have the actual,official document of Jordan description”

    Visitor, if you read that Smoking Gun article you will see that they are quoting the Linden affidavit. Previously all newspapers quoted it – that is why Jordan’s description is so common knowledge now, however the Smoking gun is the only place where it remained.

    Search the internet for Linden affidavit and you will see that there is no mention of it left in the press (I’ve done it, this is why I know).

    And if you want to get an official document of Jordan’s description you can forget about it – they are no lunatics to release something which so terribly contradicts the real thing. People will be just laughing at it.

    Like

  51. lcpledwards permalink
    November 26, 2010 10:12 pm

    @ Shelly
    Maureen Orth is a liar and her “articles” are filled with lies, half-truths, insinuations, information from un-reputable second-hand sources (such as Ray Chandler and the Neverland 5), and they were plagiarized from the National Enquirer! I will fact check her work in a future post!

    But think about this: in that paragraph you just quoted, she repeats the media myth that the Chandlers were “paid off”. That in and of itself destroys her credibility! She said the same thing about the Francias, despite the fact that both Blanca and Jason testified against MJ in 2005, so how could they have been “paid off”?

    If you haven’t done so already, please read the article “Analyzing the media’s hypocrisy…..” from September. I know it’s long (63 pages) but it’s incredibly detailed, and it had to be that detailed in order to destroy the myth that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt!

    Like

  52. November 26, 2010 10:09 pm

    Shelly, what’s funny about it? They always say it – it is their usual routine:

    “the boy got in excess of #25 mln and his parents were paid off in the millions” – when the actual sum was 15,3 mln

    “the lump sum of so many million was handed over” – when it was paid in instalments and for sure not handed over in a suitcase

    – Michael was “never put under oath for a civil deposition which could be used in a criminal trial” – and was there a criminal trial to take place at all considering the fierce fight given to it by Larry Feldman?

    “Michael’s lawyers kept putting off the deposition” – and the Chandlers kept putting off the criminal trial.

    “they agreed to settle the night before jackson was to have been put under oath” – the deadline was January 31 and the agreement was made a week before that. The lawyers were bargaining hard – they needed to divide the initial 30 mln. at least by half.

    “he might have to take the Fifth Amendment…” – well, Michael did take the Fifth Amendment in 2005 and humankind fortunately survived this terrible catastrophe.

    Will there be anything else, dear?
    It is past 1 a.m. here and I need to have some sleep if you don’t mind?

    Like

  53. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 9:42 pm

    It’s funny because Orth also explained that

    “The boy got “in excess of $25 million,” according to sources close to the family, and his parents were also paid off in the millions. The money, paid in one lump sum, was handed over without Michael Jackson’s ever being put under oath for a civil deposition, which could be used in a criminal trial. People close to the investigation say that Jackson’s lawyers kept putting off any depositions, and agreed to settle the night before Jackson was to have been put under oath. At one point Jackson’s lawyers even argued in court that Jackson might have to take the Fifth Amendment in the civil case to ensure that nothing he said there could be used against him if the criminal case went forward.”

    Like

  54. November 26, 2010 9:41 pm

    “I think it’s possible that Jordan got one spot right, never spoke about a second one, made a mystake on the circumcision and got his buttocks right.”

    All this is turning into a positive joke – which actually it is.

    1) Jordan spoke of only one distinct light spot (though now we think there were two or more), and to corroborate Jordan’s story Sneddon mentioned one dark spot
    2) so out of the many spots on MJ’s genitalia Jordan got right one of them
    3) Jordan said Michael was circumcised but Tom Sneddon knew that he wasn’t, so not to embarass the judge he simply didn’t mention it.

    So much for the perfect match and precise description.

    P.S. And please don’t tell us the Smoking Gun “made a mistake” in their description. This generation of people still remembers the media marvelling at Jordan’s words which described it as a “light splotch which was the color of his face”.

    And I don’t remember the buttocks being right.

    Like

  55. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 9:38 pm

    I am sorry for this but as we don’t know for certen what did Jordan say or didn’t say, because we don’t have an official document of his descripition, making this kind of assumptions is both wrong and pointless. Did we know for a fact that Jordan talked about sploches and if he did are we sure it was Jordan because, from what i remember, he had said to Pellicano that he had never seen Michael naked.
    Smoking gun’s source is Diane Dimond. I would prefer a more unbiased source. So is pointless arguing about markings that we don’t know what colour they were or if they existed at all because we don’t have the actual,official document of Jordan description (if he had made any that is)

    Like

  56. lynande51 permalink
    November 26, 2010 9:32 pm

    Actually it is not the photographer that the information comes from. It is actually a dark spot on Detective Russ Birchims account in his official report of the findings of the search. In it he says that when he was going from the right side of Michaels body to the left with the photographer, Michael was asked to lift his penis, which he asked why but did it anyway. He then let go before the photographer could get a picture of the dark spot on the left side side near the base. Birchim then reported that Michael “threw a fit” and left the room and did not return. This is in every account of the search, VG’s DD’s, MO, and JRT all say the same thing as Sneddon. The only one that is different is TSG with Lindens account.It is Russ Birchim’s account that everyone has read not the official affadavit which is filed under seal. Birchim however was the one that read the description aloud in that room from the affadavit. He was also a SB Sheriffs Detective. It is only his word that there is a mark there at all! There is nothing out there in the way of a photo to back him up. That is why they called Debbie Rowe, Dr. Klein, Dr. Steven Hoefflin and Katherine Jackson in front of the Grand Jury.They were attempting to establish that Michael had himself altered in some way so the description did not match. That is why you get so many different people relying on something that doesn’t exist. There may not have been a dark or a light splotch at all! For years they have been trying to fit the crime to the penis instead of the penis fitting the crime.Sneddon even goes as far as saying the erect penis in an attempt to somehow circumcise Michael!That is why you get all kind of lovely reports from people claiming that there was a match. NO ONE could prove them wrong either. That is until Michael died and the coroner did. It was their way to continue to perpetuate their lie!That is exactly why all of these things are disappearing from places like TSG and other websites. They know that we know it was a lie and they are removing all of our evidence against them.

    Like

  57. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 9:17 pm

    What I mean is that

    “2) Jordan didn’t notice the other side despite “many months of their relationhsip”?
    3) and that there were two definite spots, not ONE as Jordan said?”

    My point is we don’t know if there is a mystake in the Smoking gun article.

    What I meant is there was probably 2 spots and Jordan only spoke of one that’s why Sneddon only mentionned one. He wasn’t going to say to the judge that there were 2 spots but Jordan only got one right. In his motion he never spoke about the circumcision and we all know that Jordan said he was circumcised.

    I think it’s possible that Jordan got one spot right, never spoke about a second one, made a mystake on the circumcision and got his buttocks right.

    Like

  58. November 26, 2010 9:03 pm

    “I don’t think the color really matters here. Sneddon spoke about a dark spot on the right side and the photographer spoke about a dark spot on the lower left side. Apparently, Jordan only spoke about the right side.”

    Shelly, you are definitely making a fool of me.

    Is a man’s penis so vast a field that two people cannot really tell its main color? How can it be so definitely divited into “a dark side with one light splotch’ and into a “white side with one dark spot”?

    Do you mean to say that:

    1) Jordan saw only one side of the penis and the photographer saw only the other side?
    2) Jordan didn’t notice the other side despite “many months of their relationhsip”?
    3) and there were two definite spots, not one as Jordan said?

    Why didn’t Tom Sneddon’s report say that there were two distinct splotches then?

    Thank God we still have that Smoking Gun article which said:

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

    Yes, and that he was “circumcised” too…

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

    Like

  59. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:44 pm

    I don’t think the color really matters here. Sneddon spoke about a dark spot on the right side and the photographer spoke about a dark spot on the lower left side. Apparently, Jordan only spoke about the right side.

    Like

  60. November 26, 2010 8:35 pm

    I know who she is but she claimed that in 1995: “According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson’s penis. ” http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509

    Shelly, you have just provided a new proof of the grave discrepancy between Jordan’s and photographer’s descriptions – “there was a dark spot on the lower left side of...” (Tom Sneddon would repeat the same in 2005).

    A dark spot! A DARK spot can be found and seen only on a LIGHT skin.

    And Jordan said that he saw “a LIGHT splotch, which was the color of his face”. In other words he saw a light spot on a DARK skin!

    So the photographer saw LIGHT genitalia, and Jordan “saw” DARK genitalia.

    Guys, are you joking with me or don’t you really see the significance of the “color matter”?

    If you see a White cow with a dark spot and a Black cow with a light spot – will you be able to tell one from the other, even if each of them has one distinct spot???

    Like

  61. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:25 pm

    Sneddon said that

    “Point 5: “… I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis”.

    Like

  62. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:14 pm

    I know who she is but she claimed that in 1995

    ” According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson’s penis. ”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509

    Like

  63. November 26, 2010 8:12 pm

    Guys, these haters are sometimes invaluable as a source of information – where else could we get a precious piece like the one below?

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

    “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.”

    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 where he was a prominent figure!

    And for what? What misdeed had the poor, poor former prosecutor 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? I remember Evan shaking at the idea that he could go into prison for dragging out money from Michael….

    Like

  64. November 26, 2010 7:40 pm

    Shelly, you’ve practically sent me to read those articles by Maureen Orth (disgusting read!) and this is what this lovely lady filled with hate is telling us about Bert Fields – the beginning is true, but the conclusion is so controversial that it turns into a FLAT LIE http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1994/01/orth199401?currentPage=7:

    “In the course of the hearing, Bert Fields, Jackson’s own lawyer, misinterpreting information hastily given to him by Jackson’s criminal attorney, Howard Weitzman, told the judge that a grand jury in Santa Barbara had issued two subpoenas for witnesses, adding, “You can’t get closer to an indictment than that.” Weitzman appeared amazed at this disclosure; he later contradicted Fields, and within 48 hours Fields was no longer solely in charge of the civil case. Fields has always maintained that a criminal trial for Jackson could be fatal: “The stakes are going to jail and ruining his life, and his life is essentially over if he’s charged and convicted.”

    But if Fields – a staunch supporter of Michael – knew all the fatal risks of having a criminal trial then it means he was 200% sure of Michael’s innocence and was ready to fight for him! He is just stressing the same point I’ve made in the post – his belief in Michael was so unshaken that he was ready to subject his defendant to all the dangers of a criminal court (and Michael didn’t object to it either).

    However what Orth is trying to convey is that Michael’s lawyer didn’t believe in him and was probably even afraid of the news of the indictment – thinking that it could be fatal for Michael. She is trying to say that Michael’s situation was so desperate that his own lawyer (see the text) was lost, confused and dismayed to a point of saying that if he went to a criminal court it would be the end of it.

    THE CASE WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE – Bert Fields was FIGHTING for the criminal proceedings to go first. And he did not ‘misinterpret’ the information given to him by Weitzman – he said it on PURPOSE to convince the judge that the ‘charges would be very, very soon’, so that the judge postpones the civil suit and waits for the charges!

    What a liar and true hater this Maureen Orth is!!!!!!

    Like

  65. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 7:16 pm

    I just meant that the prosecution had a problem with the pictures because MJ wasn’t arrested.

    Like

  66. November 26, 2010 6:57 pm

    “I don’t know when it was leaked but Orth spoke about the splotch in a 1995 article. I think it’s what Douglas meant when he spoke about the pictures. They knew there was problem but what Jordan said could have been very damaging anyway.”

    “They knew there was a problem”? Which problem was it?
    Shelly, I would like to check up Orth’s article of 1995 – could you provide the link please? Not that I am looking forward to reading it, but it seems I’ll have to. If she provides the same description as the one given in the Linden affidavit it will be another source for us besides the Smoking gun.

    “what Jordan said could have been very damaging anyway”.

    Excuse my English, but I think it not only could have been a problem, but WAS a problem as the media made all of us learn by heart what he said.

    P.S. No, you needn’t. I’ve found all of them!

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 5:51 pm

    I don’t know when it was leaked but Orth spoke about the splotch in a 1995 article. I think it’s what Douglas meant when he spoke about the pictures. They knew there was problem but what Jordan said could have been very damaging anyway.

    Like

  68. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 4:18 pm

    Larry Feldman is a civil attorney.That means that if the criminal trial preceded the civil one he could no longer represent the Candlers?

    Like

  69. November 26, 2010 4:09 pm

    “Those details were leaked to the press after the settlement.”

    Shelly, you are probably right – I didn’t find any mention of the description in the 1993 papers. Do you happen to know when exactly they were leaked? In 2004 or earlier?

    And Michael’s lawyers were not shown the full affidavit (which was the reason for the strip search) either – so even after the search they most probably didn’t know what Jordan said. Such things are disclosed only in court, aren’t they?

    Well, since Michael was not arrested we know there was no match. We also know there was no match because Larry Feldman knew what he was talking about when he demanded those photos to be barred from a civil trial.

    However the second team of Michael lawyers was evidently not sure of Michael’s innocence and were fearful of the trial. That is why Carl Douglas said “he couldn’t guarantee what decision the jury would take”. They were probably thinking of their career and success more than of Michael and took the line of least resistance.

    Like

  70. November 26, 2010 3:40 pm

    Guys, this part from Mary Fischer’s article “Was Michael framed?” adds some details to the situation with lawyers described in the post:

    “In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.

    Once news of the suit spread, the wolves began lining up at the door. According to a member of Jackson’s legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they’’d been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.”

    With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients—including John DeLorean, whose trail he won, and Kim Basinger, whose Boxing Helena contract dispute he lost. (Also, for a short time this June, Weitzman was O.J. Simpson’s attorney.)

    Some predicted a problem between the two lawyers early on. There wasn’t room for two strong attorneys used to running their own show.

    From the day Weitzman joined Jackson’s defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense. With Fields and Pellicano still in control of Jackson’s defense, they adopted an aggressive strategy.


    They believed staunchly in Jackson’s innocence and vowed to fight the charges in court. Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says Fields. “WE WANTED TO FIGHT. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. WE FELT WE COULD WIN.”

    Dissension within the Jackson camp accelerated on November 12, after Jackson’s publicist announced at a press conference that the singer was canceling the remainder of his world tour to go into a drug-rehabilitation program to treat his addiction to painkillers.

    Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson’s camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. It was important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn’t.”

    On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy’s civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first.

    Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields, “because it wasn’t true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.” Fields sent a letter of resignation to Jackson the following week.

    “There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.” Pellicano, who had received his share of flak for his aggressive manner, resigned at the same time.

    With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson’s general counsel in 1990, was back on board.” http://site2.mjeol.com/was-michael-jackson-framed/was-mj-framed-part-3.html

    P.S. By the way Weitzman is still representing John Branca – I’ve seen a statement on Branca’s behalf made by Weitzman recently in connection with MJ’s estate. Nothing special about it – just thought I should mention it.

    Like

  71. lynande51 permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:20 pm

    No one can get it because closely following the signing of the settlement agreement it came out that the photos were for sale for with an asking price of 3 million dollars. After that information sufaced it pretty much made them a moot point because the police would have to prove that they were authentic and had never been leaked if they used them as evidence. Johnny Cochran asked the court to File Under Seal the affadavit that lead to the search and the press asked for it to be released to the public. They momentarily won that but Johnny Cocran had a number of days to appeal it and he won the appeal so the affadavit has never officially been leaked. What we have is an account in several different books like Diane Dimond, Victor Gutierrez, and J.Randy Tarraborelli about Detective Russ Birchims account of the search where he says that there is a dark spot on the left. This is where they get tricky because they have different accounts of the markings when all that mattered in reality was the foreskin. When Dr. Richard Strick saw that Micahelwas not circumcised he wanted out of there as fast as they could get him out. He was there for the police to verify that Michael had vitiligo and when he saw that he knew the description and the case was a horrible lie.

    Like

  72. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 3:11 pm

    @vindicate

    Those details were leaked to the press after the settlement. I wonder if the defense even knew before the police obtained the search warrant that Jordan gave such details.

    Like

  73. November 26, 2010 3:04 pm

    “They have leaked Jordies description about the alleged molestation but the document with the description of Michael’s genetilia and the photos have never been leaked. I wonder why.”

    I hope the photos are safely sealed, will be returned to the family and never surface – leaking them to the public will be a crime. But as to Jordan’s description – yes, I also wondered about that. Moreover every trace of a mere mention of it is not found any more. Now you and I still remember that Jordan said the splotch was light, “the color of his face”, but if no documents are left this information will be soon forgotten.

    Like

  74. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 2:52 pm

    No, it just amazes me that no one has leaked that document and those photos. They have leaked Jordies description about the alleged molestation but the document with the description of Michael’s genetilia and the photos have never been leaked. I wonder why.

    Like

  75. November 26, 2010 2:37 pm

    “Where is the document where Jordan made the description of Michael’s genetilia. I mean the actual, official document. Didn’t anyone leaked it”

    Visitor, I haven’t been able to find it. If someone does I will be very thankful. The only document where I was able to find any description at all was that Smoking Gun article about “the tale-tell splotch” which referred to the so-called Linden affidavit (by Deborah Linden) containing the description. So if someone finds it please send us the link!

    Like

  76. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 12:51 pm

    Let me ask you this. Where is the document where Jordan made the description of Michael’s genetilia. I mean the actual, official document. Didn’t anyone leaked it?

    Like

  77. November 26, 2010 9:18 am

    ” The only other team that could have introduced them was the defense, since MJ had his own photographer with originals.” Yes, but the defense never knew exactly what Jordan said.

    Shelly, it doesn’t really matter what Jordan said because the defense knew the true state of affairs while Feldman was only making guesses about it. And someone from the police must have told him that there was no match. If they didn’t say it to him he realized it himself as there was no arrest.

    As to the defense not knowing Jordan’s description – I think they did know as some details were leaked to the press about Jordan saying Michael was circumcised and that the penis had one distinctive splotch which “was light, similar to the color of his face” (meaning the genitalia were dark), while the photos showed the opposite for both. That description was mentioned in the Linden affidavit which was the basis for the strip search and the traces of which are being erased now from the internet.

    Such leaks were providing the defense with information about what Jordan said and were giving Michael’s lawyers additional proof that he was innocent.

    Like

  78. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 8:51 am

    ” The only other team that could have introduced them was the defense, since MJ had his own photographer with originals.”

    Yes, but the defense never knew exactly what Jordan said.

    Like

  79. November 26, 2010 8:49 am

    “Let’s pretend the genitalia photos did match. Larry Feldman couldn’t use them in the civil trial if the case had come to that because they were evidence gathered for the criminal investigation, and Sneddon never turned them over to him. The only other team that could have introduced them was the defense, since MJ had his own photographer with originals.”

    Teva, this is an interesting point! If this is the case Michael’s defense could have proved that Jordan was lying if there had been a civil court trial. This is why Feldman wanted them barred from the civil trial! So Feldman was all the more interested in NOT taking the matter to any court and in settling it before the civil trial started (it was scheduled for March 21).

    Like

  80. November 26, 2010 8:38 am

    “I disagree that Johnny Cochran was working against Michael Jackson. IMO as long as the civil trial preceded the criminal MJ had little choice but to settle. Where Cochran failed was in allowing that to happen in the first place.”

    Teva, it wasn’t Cochran who allowed it to happen. It was the failure of the previous team and we can’t find fault with them either as Bert Fields did his utmost – it was Jordan’s age which decided in favor of the civil suit going first. It seems that while he was 13 the [civil] trial could not last long and it was logical to push it before the criminal proceedings which could take much longer. It was the main argument of Larry Feldman and it worked. And Bert Fields couldn’t do anything about it.

    And Johnnie Cochran probably couldn’t do anything either as he took the case when it was already at a civil suit stage. He could probably have tried to fight for Michael within the civil suit framework – as Jordan would have had to testify there too (which he didn’t want to), but Cochran evidently realized that Feldman would not have allowed it to go as far as the trial. He would have created such a terrible media storm prior to it that Michael wouldn’t have survived it.

    Another thing which is important to remember is that under a civil suit Larry Feldman had the right to revise Michael’s financial papers to determine how much money they could count upon to settle the case – 10 mln, 20 mln, 50mln. or more. And Michael couldn’t refuse that!

    Like

  81. lcpledwards permalink
    November 26, 2010 2:06 am

    Helena, I found that comment! It was a list compiled by the Institute for Psychological Therapies, and you made the comment under the “Ray Chandler Subpoena: Happy End for the Dear Old Uncle?” post back in August! I just filtered the comments by your user name and searched through each page until I found it! I’m going to use that list in a future post! Thanks!

    Like

  82. November 26, 2010 12:48 am

    I disagree that Johnny Cochran was working against Michael Jackson. IMO as long as the civil trial preceded the criminal MJ had little choice but to settle. Where Cochran failed was in allowing that to happen in the first place. As erroneously reported the settlement did not occur because of the strip search photographs, but because a date was set for the civil trial; once that happened it was a done deal. It was more the brilliance of Feldman than the bumbling of Cochran. Feldman went for it because he really had nothing to lose no would think harshly of him as a lawyer if he lost against Michael Jackson’s legal team. Unfortunately the way the human mind works when a person settles in a civil trial it is as good as a judgment for the plaintiff.

    Let’s pretend the genitalia photos did match. Larry Feldman couldn’t use them in the civil trial if the case had come to that because they were evidence gathered for the criminal investigation, and Sneddon never turned them over to him. The only other team that could have introduced them was the defense, since MJ had his own photographer with originals.

    Like

  83. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 12:27 am

    “The coup de grace, Barresi says, happened later, when he listened to Mitteager’s tapes. On one of them, it’s noted that the LeMarques had tried to sell their story of child molestation at Neverland long before the first case broke in 1991.

    “They couldn’t get any takers,” recalls Barresi. “But why didn’t they just go to the police?”

    Often the Globe printed stories, written by Mitteager, that were based on the flimsiest of evidence.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151465,00.html

    “In truth, LeMarque’s relationship with the scurrilous rag dated back two years earlier to 1991, when the couple first tried to sell a Jackson story to the Enquirer. LeMarque didn’t tell the jury that little tidbit on Friday.

    LeMarque also failed to mention that in October 1991, he had taken money from the Enquirer to sneak its reporters on to the Neverland property for Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding to her last husband, Larry Fortensky.

    He also left out an important element of his failed bid to sell the Enquirer his Jackson-Culkin story in 1993.

    On the stand, LeMarque testified that he dropped the idea altogether when it didn’t look as if he would get his asking price of $500,000.

    In fact, LeMarque and his lawyer, Arnold Kessler — whom LeMarque described on the stand as his “friend” and not his actual rep — were demanding the Enquirer indemnify them against future lawsuits from Jackson, because the LeMarques were breaking the confidentiality agreement they had signed upon taking employment at Neverland.

    The paper refused, and thus the deal ended.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153053,00.html

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    November 26, 2010 12:22 am

    I don’t think the comment that man made is important. In my opinion what is important in the article is that they interviewed people from the 1993 grand jury who said they never saw enough evidence to indict Jackson.

    For the Lemarques, it was in an article from Roger Friedman.

    Like

  85. visitor permalink
    November 26, 2010 12:11 am

    I really don’t understand why the comment that that man made is so important. Anyway. Shelly where did you hear about the Lemarques trying to sell stories at National Enquirer in 1991.

    Like

  86. shelly permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:46 pm

    Yes, but at the time they started to talk to the media he was in the middle of the child molestation stuff. He had bigger problems than suing them for talking and they knew it. The Lemarques tryed to sell child molestation story to the National Enquire around 1991 but the story was never published because of the legal cost the National Enquirer would have had to face. The Quindoys sold story before the allegations but they only said they liked him. He had no resaon to sue them for that.

    Like

  87. visitor permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:37 pm

    @David
    All the people that Michael sued, he sued them for other reasons but not because they spoke to the media about him. Like he didn’t sued the Lemarque or the Quindoys.The terms of the confidential agreement was that the employees couldn’t talk to the media.So again the comment that that person made in the newspaper is not true.Because there were people who spoke to the media about Michael after they were fired of had resign and Michael never sued them.

    Like

  88. November 25, 2010 11:20 pm

    “A few weeks ago you made a comment that included an article about the “Top Reasons that Police Believe False Child Abuse Accusations”, or something to that effect. One of the reasons was having a “prejudice against the person being accused”, among many others.”

    David, I must be suffering from sclerosis as I don’t remember that article at all. You could try this one though I know it is not the one you are looking for (I’ll try to find something else tomorrow):
    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume14/j14_1_1.htm

    Like

  89. lynande51 permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:04 pm

    Helena you are right about the Media twisting everything back in 1993. The first person to get this news was none other than our friend Diane Dimond who was working for Hard Copy at the time. She was the one that supposedly broke the news for the case and the fact of the matter is everyone was faxed a copy of the DCFS report and when the authorities got mad about it everyone got rid of it fearing that there would be a leak,, Well I’m convinced that it was VG that took the DCFS report from the Chandlers and sent it out. She always said he was a reliable source and defended him in the lawsuit against him by Michael. She said that she had found him to be reliable and used him as a source for years. What does that tell you about the case and about her? Her coverage was so bad that Johnny Cochran even mentions the shows invilvement in the settlement announcement saying “any connection between the truth and Hard Copy would be purely coincidental”.

    Like

  90. lcpledwards permalink
    November 25, 2010 11:01 pm

    @ Visitor
    MJ did counter-sue the Neverland 5, and he won, and they had to file for bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay the millions that they owed him in legal fees. He didn’t sue Blanca Francia, but she blackmailed him into settling out of court before suing him in 1995, right before the release of HIStory.

    The Hayvenhurst 5 lost their wrongful termination lawsuit because it was completely bogus, but were never sued by MJ. For more info, read part 3 of the Frozen in Time analysis (the one with Carl Douglas).

    Like

  91. visitor permalink
    November 25, 2010 10:53 pm

    I don’t think that Michael ever sued Blanca Francia,the bogyguards or all the other people who used to work for him, who said all kind of things at tv programms like Hard Copy or tabloid newspapers. So the statement that this man made is obviously not true. Yes, they might have signed confidential agreement but there were a lot of people who worked for Michael that violate the terms of that agreement and Michael never sued them. Sorry if i have not understand right what you were talking.

    Like

  92. lcpledwards permalink
    November 25, 2010 10:21 pm

    @ Helena
    A few weeks ago you made a comment that included an article about the “Top Reasons that Police Believe False Child Abuse Accusations”, or something to that effect. One of the reasons was having a “prejudice against the person being accused”, among many others. Do you know what article I’m talking about? I’d like to read it in its entirety, but I don’t know when or where you posted that comment. If you could find it I would greatly appreciate it!

    Like

  93. November 25, 2010 10:09 pm

    “It comes from the NEWS-PRESS, they were very neutral and professional during the trial. I think that they really talk to someone who said that but their source was lying, it was probably one of the Neverland Five.”

    It could be the source lying, and the paper repeating it without thinking twice – the end result is still half true. The confidentiality agreement does not have anything to do with his inability to give his name. If the person testified in 1994 Michael knew it anyway. Implying that Michael could sue him for giving his name to a newspaper is really too much (in my opinion).

    Like

  94. shelly permalink
    November 25, 2010 9:35 pm

    @vindicate

    I don’t agree with you. It comes from the NEWS-PRESS, they were very neutral and professional during the trial. I think that they really talk to someone who said that but their source was lying, it was probably one of the Neverland Five.

    Like

  95. November 25, 2010 9:09 pm

    “I don’t think they meant testifying. In my opinion, they just meant that the people who worked for him had no rights to talk to the media and it’s why their source asked to stay anonymous.”

    Shelly, I’ve reread the article again and they indeed say he can testify: “If I’m called to testify I’ll testify, but I’d rather not go through all that again,” said the man, who is still bound by a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Jackson and did not want his name used for fear of being sued. As a condition of employment…”

    But the bait is still there and I for one have swallowed it – the impression is that of a man who is intimidated by MJ, fearful of a possibility to be sued and holding his tongue though he “knows something”. Probably my first reaction was due to Diane Dimond and others referring to the confidentiality agreement a thousand times as an obstacle for the people ‘telling the truth” – while such agreements are for sure signed with all celebrities.

    But on second thought I think I am right – it IS a lie, because 1) this man already gave his testimony in 1994, 2) his name was in the newspapers at the time as those hearings were no secret 3) giving his name again as a possible witness is no reason for Michael to sue him – he is not saying anything about his future testimony anyway. He is afraid to just give his name!

    This is what I earlier said about the media distortions – they distort the picture without you noticing it.

    P.S. They probably didn’t give his name because they didn’t talk to anyone at all.

    Like

  96. shelly permalink
    November 25, 2010 8:33 pm

    “As a condition of employment, everyone who works for Mr. Jackson must sign a confidentiality agreement that forbids disclosing any information about the entertainer or their work with him even after their employment ends.”

    I don’t think they meant testifying. In my opinion, they just meant that the people who worked for him had no rights to talk to the media and it’s why their source asked to stay anonymous.

    Like

  97. Olga permalink
    November 25, 2010 7:53 pm

    “This seems to me one of the media’s biggest LIES. No employment agreement can prevent witnesses from testifying in a criminal case and let them obstruct prosecution.”

    That’s true. Confidentiality agreements are for press and tabloids not for criminal investigation! All celebrities do that. But we can’t expect something better from media morons-they have their own little interprations in their fantasy land. Media’s psychotic behavior towards MJ is undisputable. I am so tired of ignorants’ delusions.

    Like

  98. Olga permalink
    November 25, 2010 7:49 pm

    @Helena if Jordan had testified in Grand Jury they could have used his deposition and Sneddon wouldn’t cry all over the place about it. I think I remember Michael’s lawyers were present in Grand Jury for cross examination because it was not a secret Grand Jury like in 2004. In the articles and tv news of that period the press was reporting about who testified and Chandlers were never mentioned. I have to look at it again.

    Like

  99. November 25, 2010 7:19 pm

    “it was Dr. Katz who in both cases reported to law enforcement that the child molestation allegations surfaced during therapy sessions.”

    I think the reporter has made a mistake here. It was Dr. Abrams who reported the first case and Dr. Katz’s involvement was different in character (I hope to make a post about it tomorrow).

    “As a condition of employment, everyone who works for Mr. Jackson must sign a confidentiality agreement that forbids disclosing any information about the entertainer or their work with him even after their employment ends.”

    This seems to me one of the media’s biggest LIES. No employment agreement can prevent witnesses from testifying in a criminal case and let them obstruct prosecution. If they don’t testify it means they are hiding some information, and if they are hiding it they turn into accomplices.

    Like

  100. November 25, 2010 7:07 pm

    “Why is it that no one asks why Jordan never testified in front of the Grand Jury because he didn’t you know. He never testified and he never gave a deposition in the civil case either. None of the Chandlers gave a deposition in the civil case nor did they testify to the Grand Jury. Here is just a partial list of the people that went in front of the Grand Jury …”

    Lynette, do you have any documents about that Grand jury (besides what Lisa Campbell writes in her book)?
    Guys, if somebody finds something about it could you send the links, please?

    I’ve come to realize one thing about the 1993 case. It seems much of the necessary information is all there in the open for us to see and analyze – it is only that the media cut it into pieces, mixed these pieces up and presented them in a totally distorted way. This is why it looks so terribly confusing to us.

    For example, the fact that Michael’s first lawyers and Larry Feldman were insisting on two opposite things in 1993 – Michael on criminal proceedings first (which theoretically could result in his imprisonment) and Larry Feldman on the civil suit first (which in the very worst case could involve nothing but a money settlement) is in itself enough argument to prove that Michael was innocent and wanted justice for himself while the Chandlers wanted nothing else but money.

    Only an innocent person will insist on a criminal trial where HE is going to be tried and I am very grateful to Michael’s first attorney Bert Fields for his attempts to push the criminal inverstigation first – because now it has turned into an effective proof of Michael’s innocence!

    I can’t believe it that I understood it so late. They confused our minds so much that the simplest things require a lot of time to realize.

    Guys, we need to spread this information and explain it to everyone again and again.

    Like

  101. November 25, 2010 4:59 pm

    “Actually it was Dr. Mathis Abrams that reported the 1993 allegations to the police. After that there was at least a month where he saw no one until Larry Feldman sent him to Katz.

    Lynette, hello. I am planning to make a post about Dr. Katz one of these days.

    Like

  102. lynande51 permalink
    November 25, 2010 2:58 pm

    Actually it was Dr. Mathis Abrams that reported the 1993 allegations to the police. Evan took Jordan there when June filed an Ex Parte Motion for Evan to return Jordan immediately or come to court and show cause. Evan actually had 2 different ways available to him to report this himself but instead he took Jordan To Dr. Abrams to have him report the abuse to him. He could have gone to court that day and done it or he could have done it himself as a health care provider, when he had suspicions, without worrying if he was sued because we can’t be even if our report turns out to be untrue. That was the one and only time that Dr. Abrams saw Jordan. After that there was at least a month where he saw no one until Larry Feldman sent him to Katz. Katz is a pschologist and Dr. Abrams is a psychiatrist. Katz is the one that recommended that Jordan not testify later in a criminal trial because it would be to difficult for him and he needed to heal.

    Like

  103. Olga permalink
    November 25, 2010 1:54 pm

    @Visitor they tried to make it sound more credible and have somebody else reported for them

    Like

  104. visitor permalink
    November 25, 2010 1:08 pm

    “And it was Dr. Katz who in both cases reported to law enforcement that the child molestation allegations surfaced during therapy sessions. ”

    Can somebody explain that to me. We all know that the allegations were mentioned before any therapy session. Why did Evan and the Janet Arvizo had to go to a phicologist to report the alleged molestation? Why they didn’t they reported it themselves?

    Like

  105. Olga permalink
    November 25, 2010 12:12 pm

    This is the exact phrase from News-Press from which Linda Deutch took the information for the article . I have posted that in another comment sometime ago but I don’t remember where:

    “The 1993 case crumbled when the accuser’s family accepted a multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlement from Mr. Jackson in a simultaneous civil suitIn recent interviews with the News-Press, members of that grand jury in Santa Barbara said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. Coupled with an accuser who would no longer testify, Mr. Sneddon never filed charges. ”

    The article is: THE JACKSON CASE: 1993 witnesses to testify again at grand jury, March 20 2004, Santa Barbara News Press

    and here is the whole article:

    THE JACKSON CASE: 1993 witnesses to testify again at grand jury

    By calling witnesses who testified in the earlier case

    March 20, 2004 12:00 AM
    NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITERS

    Witnesses who testified against Michael Jackson in grand jury proceedings a decade ago — including former employees of the Neverland Valley Ranch — will do it once more in the current child molestation case against the entertainer, the News-Press has learned.

    The focus of the criminal grand jury hearing, for which jurors will be selected next week, will be the alleged molestation of a boy last spring. However, some witnesses from a 1993 child molestation investigation will be questioned by prosecutors in an attempt to corroborate the current accuser’s allegations, say sources close to the case.
    The 14-year-old boy, who is at the center of this case, is also expected to testify, the sources said.

    One of Mr. Jackson’s former employees who testified before the previous grand jury told the News-Press that he expected to be called again because he had said he had firsthand knowledge about the abuse alleged in the earlier case. He also said he was aware of at least one other former employee who has been contacted by authorities.

    “If I’m called to testify I’ll testify, but I’d rather not go through all that again,” said the man, who is still bound by a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Jackson and did not want his name used for fear of being sued. As a condition of employment, everyone who works for Mr. Jackson must sign a confidentiality agreement that forbids disclosing any information about the entertainer or their work with him even after their employment ends.

    The secret grand jury proceeding allows Mr. Sneddon to present the high-profile case without the scrutiny of the media or the cross-examination of defense attorneys. However, the defense can provide the prosecution with a list of witnesses who would give testimony that could exonerate Mr. Jackson. If the prosecution fails to present the exculpatory evidence, the defense could then attempt to get the case thrown out.

    Both the prosecution and defense teams declined comment, citing a gag order intended to control prejudicial pretrial publicity in the Jackson case.

    The grand jurors themselves will be randomly selected next week by Presiding Superior Court Judge Clifford Anderson. Unlike a regular criminal trial, a grand jury proceeding allows jurors to question witnesses after each has testified.

    If 12 of the 19 grand jurors find there is probable cause that a crime was committed and issue an indictment, the case will proceed to trial. If not, the district attorney must then decide whether to pursue the case. If he does proceed, Mr. Sneddon must present his evidence again in a preliminary hearing, this time in front of a judge who would decide if there is probable cause to warrant a trial before a jury. In a criminal trial, all 12 jurors must decide unanimously that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt for there to be a conviction.

    It’s unclear exactly how many witnesses the prosecution will call to testify before the grand jury. A handful testified in the previous case in Santa Barbara and more than a dozen in a grand jury hearing in the same case in Los Angeles.

    The 1993 case crumbled when the accuser’s family accepted a multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlement from Mr. Jackson in a simultaneous civil suit. In recent interviews with the News-Press, members of that grand jury in Santa Barbara said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. Coupled with an accuser who would no longer testify, Mr. Sneddon never filed charges.

    There are numerous parallels between the current case and the one from 1993. Both of the preteenage boys come from troubled families, both were fans of the pop star and both spent a lot of time at Neverland.

    Additionally, the attorney who brokered the 1993 settlement for that boy’s family, Larry Feldman, now represents the current accuser’s family. Mr. Feldman sent both boys to the same psychologist, Stan Katz. And it was Dr. Katz who in both cases reported to law enforcement that the child molestation allegations surfaced during therapy sessions.

    The key witnesses in the 1993 case included some security guards, a chauffeur and maids who cleaned Mr. Jackson’s private quarters.

    However, the credibility of some of the witnesses was undermined when it was revealed later they had sold stories to tabloid press. After the criminal case fizzled, five former employees sued Mr. Jackson and seven of his employees for wrongful termination, claiming harassment from the entertainer’s professional bodyguards and potential retaliation for cooperating with the criminal investigation. But their allegations didn’t hold up.

    The three security guards, housekeeper and secretary lost their suit and were ordered to pay $1.5 million in damages to Mr. Jackson. The singer was represented in the civil case by attorneys Robert Sanger of Santa Barbara and Steve Cochrane of Los Angeles, who are on the current criminal defense team. The former employees ultimately declared bankruptcy.

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    November 25, 2010 9:47 am

    Where is it in the Fbi files Amerie?

    Like

  107. Amerie permalink
    November 25, 2010 6:33 am

    I did wonder about Cochran and Feldmans friendship when I read the court transcripts. But FBI files it says Cochran fired off a letter to the FBI that this was extortion.

    Like

  108. November 25, 2010 2:12 am

    “Why is it that no one asks why Jordan never testified in front of the Grand Jury?”

    I was about to ask, but you beat me to it, and then you answer my question. Thx.

    Like

  109. lynande51 permalink
    November 25, 2010 1:49 am

    Why is it that no one asks why Jordan never testified in front of the Grand Jury because he didn’t you know. He never testified and he never gave a deposition in the civil case either. None of the Chandlers gave a deposition in the civil case nor did they testify to the Grand Jury. Here is just a partial list of the people that went in front of the Grand Jury: Blanca Francia, Kasim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Adrian MacManus, Melani Bagnal, Charlie Michaels, Gary Hearnes, Marlon Brando, Brooke Shields, Miko Brando, Katherine Jackson, Debbie Rowe, Dr. Arnold Klein, Dr. Steven Hoefflin,Norma Stakos, Jolie Levine, Joy Robson, and Anthony Pellicano . Any questions that were directed to June in the 2005 trial were from her interview with the police not the Grand Jury.What they were trying to establish was if he had changed his appearance and if there were other boys. Funny thing is a Grand Jury is secret and therfore would have been safe for Jordan, Evan, Dave, June, Nathalie oe any of the Chandler’s to testify and yet they were either never called or they all refused and fought it legally.

    Like

  110. shelly permalink
    November 25, 2010 1:21 am

    The article is from March 2004. I think it confirms what Mesereau said during the Harvard seminar about the 1993 grand jurors.

    Like

  111. Olga permalink
    November 25, 2010 12:50 am

    @Shelly it would help if you put dates and titles in the articles

    Like

  112. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2010 11:38 pm

    I also find that article, I don’t know where I sshould put it

    AP Special Correspondent LOS ANGELES

    The district attorney who charged Michael Jackson with child molestation is convening a grand jury to hear evidence in the case, a move apparently designed to sidestep what could be a lengthy preliminary hearing, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

    The Santa Barbara News-Press said potential grand jurors have been receiving summonses to appear later this month for possible selection to a 19-member panel to hear the Jackson case.

    A spokesman for Tellem Worldwide, which handles media inquiries for Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, said a grand jury is being convened. But he could not say whether it is for the Jackson case or another matter.

    “The business of the grand jury is confidential,” said Jason Karpf of Tellem. “There is also a gag order in the Jackson case.”

    Sneddon told Tellem a grand jury is being convened but would not say why.

    “Tom pointed out that the office convenes a grand jury every quarter,” Karpf said. “So this could be considered part of their standard activity. We can’t say.”

    Jackson’s lawyers, Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman, said Wednesday they could not comment due to a gag order issued by the judge in the Jackson case.

    “It doesn’t surprise me if he has decided to go to the grand jury,” said Loyola University Law School Professor Laurie Levenson. “It’s the smart thing to do. It avoids the media spectacle and it gives them a chance for a dress rehearsal” before a possible trial.

    She said prosecutors almost certainly would have to present testimony to the grand jury behind closed doors from the boy who claims Jackson molested him.

    “They get to see how well he holds up as a witness,” she said. “It also shifts the political pressure away from Sneddon if the grand jury decides there is not enough evidence to indict.”

    Jackson has pleaded innocent to seven counts of performing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, reportedly wine. He is free on $3 million bail pending trial.

    The defense is not allowed to present evidence in a secret grand jury proceeding. But prosecutors are obligated to tell the panelists about any evidence that might tend to point toward innocence.

    The News-Press noted that the use of a grand jury parallels the 1993 investigation into child molestation allegations against Jackson. At that time, detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties interviewed more than 400 witnesses over 13 months then called 30 witnesses to testify before the grand jury in Santa Barbara in 1994.

    The News-Press said it conducted recent interviews with some members of that grand jury who said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment.

    The case was dropped when Jackson reached a multimillion dollar settlement with the accuser, who then refused to testify.

    If a grand jury is not convened, prosecutors would present a bare-bones version of their case in open court during a preliminary hearing to establish whether there is enough evidence to hold Jackson for trial. Such a hearing could take weeks.

    Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has said he wants the Jackson case to go to trial before the end of the year.

    (c) 2004 Chico Enterprise-Record. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.

    Like

  113. November 24, 2010 9:33 pm

    Shelly, thanks for repeating the article in this post – I will also repeat my comment here as this is where it belongs.

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

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

    And secondly, it shows how wrong the media is in interpreting those SIX YEARS. It says “Jackson’s lawyers were denied a six-year delay of the lawsuit (correct), a period after which criminal charges could not be brought (wrong in this context)”.

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

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

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

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

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

    Like

  114. shelly permalink
    November 24, 2010 9:08 pm

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

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

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

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

    Santa Barbara officials were unavailable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Like

  115. November 24, 2010 10:46 am

    “I trully believe that Cohran wasn’t working in Michael’s best interest. I would really like to hear Pellicano and Fields talk about the 1993 case and share their views about the case. But as always only the incompetent and the immoral get to talk about Michael. I wonder if the public will ever get to hear the truth. I am not optimistic about that at all”

    Visitor, let us try and not forecast the end result. Let us do what is needed to be done and let the future take care of itself.

    Like

  116. visitor permalink
    November 24, 2010 3:53 am

    This post is just amazing. Excellent research. I trully believe that Cohran wasn’t working in Michael’s best interest. I would really like to hear Pellicano and Fields talk about the 1993 case and share their views about the case. But as always only the incompetent and the immoral get to talk about Michael. And their views are totaly skewed, biased and worthless. I wonder if the public will ever get to hear the truth. I am not optimistic about that at all

    Like

  117. skeptikos permalink
    November 23, 2010 6:46 am

    I wondered… so many times, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    Whatever happened to Americans being proud of its icons?

    Indeed ONE Great Mr Mesereau. God bless him!

    One of my favorites MJ’s ballads is “Stranger in Moscow” (written in 1993, at the height of this monstrosity made against him, while on tour in Moscow). Can’t get enough of it.
    I love this song for the message in the lyrics, particularly what he says about fame, wealth, culture, race and the different forms of isolation; the amazing organization of his words and the beauty behind it all as well as the magnitude of the situations that surrounded him when this song came out.
    Whenever I see now his live performances I almost feel the pain in his heart. Michael’s voice here is extraordinarily passionate because of all the emotion that stirs within him… the feeling of a fall from grace that has left him lonely, isolated, paranoid and on the verge of insanity. Yeah, so heartbreaking and yet he was loved. By uncountable millions as idol, and by some too-few friends as a person. Wherever he is I hope he is finally in peace.

    Like

  118. nan permalink
    November 23, 2010 12:39 am

    thank u for putting this up….i used to have a lot respect for cochrane until i read the transcripts of the frozen in time seminar, in particular carls words.
    i guess this case catapulted everyone but michaels career, including feldmans……all on mj back as usual

    i really hope the young lawyers listening to douglas speak realize what a terrible job he and cochrane did for their client.

    Like

  119. Olga permalink
    November 22, 2010 10:55 pm

    In 1993 I was 14 following the case, I had understood everything from day 1 and regarding the legal issues about the criminal proceedings, 5th Amendment etc I just asked my parents who explained everything to me. I also asked one of my aunts who is a lawyer. It was a very simple thing to do and even more simple to understand. I still have the great ability to understand when someone is lying in my face and to this day I wonder: Why was it so hard for people to get it?? To me 1993 case was an easy one to understand but some people experience a death of their brain cells while watching the news and they need a tv host to announce them the truth. Helena, doing research as part of my job & been trained in forensic issues I have to say that you are doing a great job.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. World Spinner

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: