Skip to content

Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – A CIVIL SUIT FOR THE ARVIZOS? part 4

November 29, 2010

We are still reading Larry Feldman’s speech and telling the story of 1993 and 2003 allegations the way it really was and not the way Feldman presented it at the Frozen in Time seminar. Since Feldman’s distortion of the truth arises from a mere omission of the necessary facts our story is much longer than his clipped version of it.

Today’s part is especially long as it is a highly documented one where the newspapers actually tell the whole story themselves.


LARRY FELDMAN: In the 93 case, by the time I was retained, this case was the lead story in the LA Times. This case was in every local television news cast. It was the lead storyIn this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation.  Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And that was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential. Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in this.

Somebody got hold of it and leaked it to the press? I am truly surprised that a lead lawyer like Larry Feldman does not know up till now how all those leaks came about in August 1993. Though the report was made by the DCFS it was available to the police as well and could be leaked by them too:

Lisa D. Campbell says:

“Actually the Los Angeles Police Department would turn out to be one of the biggest leaks of information in the whole investigation. Within just a few days, two tabloid TV shows had copies of confidential documents in the case from the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services. Each show paid over $10,000 for the copies of the documents.”(The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, 1994, p.30)

Maureen Orth was evidently closer to the source of the leak as in January 1994 she wrote:

“Pellicano suspected that Splash knew the original source of the leak of the highly confidential Department of Children’s Services report, which had actually been given first to Diane Dimond of Hard Copy, but which found its way to Splash so soon after that that because of the time difference between England and California, Splash’s buyer, The Sun in London, could trumpet a world exclusive: JACKO USED ME AS SEX TOY. Splash won’t reveal how much it paid for the document—guessers say in the $30,000 range—but it was able to sell the report… Revenues from the report made up a tidy part of the $100,000 Splash has reaped so far on the Michael Jackson story”.

The LA Times says both the Children’s services dept and the police clamped down on their employees because of the leak:

“Unauthorized news leaks have bedevilled investigators probing the case since it broke early this week, and their task at controlling information has been made even harder by the willingness of some media outlets to pay for information. (The Times does not pay for information.) Police and Children’s Services officials have clamped down on their employees.

Later the LA Times also obtained the copies of both DCFS and police interviews:

“Copies of the boy’s interview by police and social workers were obtained by The Times, and they include detailed, graphic descriptions of alleged sexual advances by Jackson. (for graphic details of what was leaked click the link below, if you want to).

The boy said he and his father met with Jackson and Jackson’s lawyers, “and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.” (as they never wanted any court hearing in the first place).

The case file was obtained by the LA Times which among other things told the story of a feud between the LAPD and the Department of Children’s Services – the police hampered the DCFS in their investigation for reasons unstated in the file:

“The two primary agencies involved–the county Department of Children’s Services and the LAPD–have feuded over control of the case, while Pellicano has aggressively waged an inquiry on the singer’s behalf.

The bickering between LAPD and Children’s Service erupted on the investigation’s first day. Children’s Services received the initial complaint from the boy’s therapist and informed the LAPD’s West Bureau, which sent officers to the interview with the boy.

For reasons unstated in the case file, an LAPD sergeant named Thomas L. Felix requested that Children’s Services end its investigation. As a result, the social worker was “unable to interview (father), (mother) or sibling.”

Despite the LAPD’s attempts to force Children’s Services off the case, however, social workers did resume a role in the investigation. Interviews of possible victims are now being conducted jointly. The relationship between the LAPD and Children’s Services remains tense, however, and some police sources blamed their counterparts for leaking information to the media.

At the Children’s Services headquarters, one source close to the case said supervisors were going desk to desk looking for purloined copies of the department’s files on the Jackson case. “Everyone is tearing up their copies and flushing them down the toilet,” the source said. “It’s like the Gestapo. Everyone is scared to death. . . . It has been made plain and clear someone is leaking the information and that they will be terminated.”

The rest of the article takes us a little aside the main story but a few points here are so interesting that I am leaving them here:

The case has also thrust the 13-year-old boy’s father into the spotlight because of his role in bringing the allegations forward. The father is a prominent dentist–his patients include Paramount Pictures Chairman Sherry Lansing and actor Christian Slater–and he reportedly had aspirations to break into the film business.

On Thursday, the Hollywood Reporter said the father had unsuccessfully sought a $20-million movie production and financing deal with Jackson, who has a lucrative arrangement with Sony Corp. The deal apparently went nowhere.

The fact that Evan Chandler knew of Michael’s lucrative $40mln. arrangement with Sony and wanted $20mln. as “his half” for making movies was confirmed by painter David Nordahl who was a chance witness to the events:

“I was working on sketches for his film production company, called “Lost Boys Productions”….Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boy’s dad (Evan Chandler), who ... considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and that’s where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted ½ of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion.….

Surprisingly Ray Chandler also confirms that his brother was expecting a job with Michael’s production company. The conversation between Evan Chandler and his wife Natalie from “All that Glitters” is exactly about this matter:

“He [Jordie] also told me Michael’s going to give me a job working for his production company.”

“Are you going to take it?”

“I don’t know.  What do you think?”

“You won’t be happy, I know you.  You’ll be living under his thumb.”

“You’re probably right, but I don’t want to hurt his feelings.”(Evan cannot refuse the job because it will hurt Michael’s feelings? Oh, my Lord!)

“And Jordie, are you going to tell him he can’t live here, too?”

“That’s the hard part.  I’d love him to live with us.  He’s the one who asked Michael to give me a job so we can all be together.  I’m not sure what to do.”…

So Jordan Chandler asked Michael to give his father a job in his production company? Let’s remember it and go on with the feud between the police and the Department for Children’s services.

The real reason why the police were hindering the DCFS was because they, as long-time experts in investigating child abuse allegations, did not want to jump to hasty conclusions in Jordan’s case. A week after Jordan’s allegations the LA Times was reporting the opinion of one of the top DCFS executives (August 25, 1993):

Deanne Tilton-Durfee, executive director of Los Angeles County’s Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, cautioned that many may be jumping the gun.

“These kinds of investigations go on thousands of times a year. . . . It is premature to attach much credibility to this yet. Celebrities are vulnerable to extortion,” said Tilton-Durfee, who said she has seen many allegations made against high-profile entertainers that were not substantiated.

Of the 2.9 million reports of child abuse made nationwide in 1992, only about 40% are substantiated, she said.

Authorities are obligated to investigate all credible reports they receive of physical or sexual child abuse, although such inquiries are supposed to be confidential until criminal charges are filed.

Such inquiries are supposed to be confidential until criminal charges are filed? So these people who looked into so many false reports of child abuse annually surely knew how to protect the privacy of those falsely accused while they were investigating the cases? Could they really be the ones who leaked the information to the press? I doubt it.

LARRY FELDMAN: The young boy in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about. He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation.  And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail.

What I notice about Larry Feldman is when it comes to essential things we need to know about the case he doesn’t talk about them, but when it’s something unnecessary which they fed to us for decades he hammers it into our heads again and again. What’s the use of repeating the above to the audience of lawyers at the Frozen in Time seminar and in “exquisite detail” too? Or is he using this opportunity to make sure that the allegations are carved in stone and no one ever dares doubt the official version of the events?

I strongly suspect he wants to start it all over again….

LARRY FELDMAN: The other boy that wasn’t true.  The other boy had, was a young boy who had at one time in his life he had Stage 4 cancer, and was a boy who had never really disclosed everything about the relationship.  And he came from a family that was all broken, came from a broken home.   But that family, by the time they came to me, had never told any Children’s Services, hadn’t been to therapy, hadn’t called the police, hadn’t called the District Attorney.  So in case one, that case was sort of out there by the time we got involved.  And in the second case, it had not been told to anyone. And so there were totally different issues that were involved in both cases.

the little shy boy playing football

Besides confirming by this account that it was actually him who was the starting point for Arvizos’ allegations (thank you, Mr. Feldman), the lawyer aims to explain here why Gavin Arvizo never suspected he had been molested until he met the good old man.

Feldman heavily implies that the poor victim was so ill and intimidated that he could never raise himself to disclose the truth about the ‘relationship’.  So shy in communication the boy was that the Dean of his school had the following to say about him to the jury:

“Jeffrey Alpert, the former dean of Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, said the boy was regularly in trouble with teachers for his disruptive behaviour”.

“Under questioning from Mesereau, the accuser conceded that he had had disciplinary problems in middle school, where many teachers wrote him up for talking back, not doing homework, getting into fights and being generally defiant”.

He had also told Jeffrey Alpert that nothing bad had ever happened to him in Neverland.  “I told him Michael didn’t do anything to me,” he testified.

Flight attendant Cynthia Bell also noticed how ‘shy’ Gavin was:

“…the accuser was rude and demanding throughout the flight, at one point triggering a food fight by throwing mashed potatoes at Jackson’s doctor. “He acted like I was his maid,” Bell said.

“He was unusually rude, discourteous,” she testified.  I remember him talking about how, ‘I got this watch from Michael and it’s real expensive.’ . . . He was obnoxious. “When I served him food, he said ‘This isn’t warm. This isn’t the way it’s supposed to be.’ It was embarrassing to have him on board, actually.”

She said the boy was consistently rude except when listening to music. Under questioning by Mesereau, she said the boy’s mother was aware of his rude behavior and didn’t stop it. The boy had a wide range of unreasonable complaints.

‘I want a side of coleslaw. I don’t want it on the same plate.’ … He was very demanding throughout the entire flight,” she said.

She said that at one point Jackson’s accuser threw mashed potatoes at a sleeping doctor who was traveling with Jackson. “The initial flinging of mashed potatoes was not playful. Throwing mashed potatoes at a sleeping man?” she said.

Brett Ratner had another couple of things to say about Gavin Arvizo when he spoke to Roger Friedman:

“[The boy] would sit in my director’s chair. When I told him to get up, he’d tell me to go to hell.” Ratner said, “He used to tell me, ‘Brett, I don’t like the last shot’ while he was watching us make the movie. He’s telling me how to make my movie! He’s more street smart than I was at that age. If someone tried to fondle him, he’d punch them in the face. He’s an adult. I think the jury will see that.”

Michael Cardoza, a former Alameda County prosecutor attending the trial, summed it up:

  • “He was feisty with teachers, then all of a sudden with Michael Jackson he was passive”

So it was this ill and intimidated boy who raised himself to ‘tell the truth’ only after meeting our great experts in human hearts – lawyer Larry Feldman and psychologist Dr. Katz? And it was due to their considerate approach and unique methods that they reached for the soul of this frightened little thing? Well, I always say it takes real professionals to do the job…

LARRY FELDMAN: In the first case it was simple, because this boy was being chastised, and couldn’t survive under circumstances that existed.  In the second case, you had a boy that had terminal cancer at one point, and almost died of terminal cancer at least.  He had stage 4 cancer, and here this kid has now have to decide, and his parents have to decide whether or not they should do anything, whether they should go to the police, whether they should go to the district attorney, whether they should go to children’s services, whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement. There are all these kinds of issues out there that these people have to deal with, and you have generally parents making these decisions who, in some form or another, were complicit in, if anything happened, allowing it to happen.  So they’re helping them make decisions that impact these kids for life.  So it’s an awesome responsibility to help them.

I don’t know why Jordan Chandler couldn’t survive ‘under circumstances that existed’, though with a father like that who knows, probably he couldn’t… But the rest of Feldman’s speech is aimed to raise compassion for the poor Arvizos again and explain incessant inconsistencies in their behaviour.  As the Arvizos’ decision-making was indeed a long and winding road, let us look at its main lampposts:

On February 14-27 when the DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department were conducting a joint probe the family didn’t remember any child abuse yet. The DCFS concluded that the allegations were unfounded and the Santa Barbara Police department closed their two-month long investigation lasting Feb.18-April 16, 2003.

The social workers of the special Sensitive Case Unit of the DFCS gave their testimony about their February 2003 interviews with the Arvizos at the trial in 2005:

Jackson Case Social Worker Says She Found No Molesting

A longtime social worker testified on Tuesday that she investigated accusations that Michael Jackson’s accuser had been sexually abused but found no basis for believing that was the case.

Irene Peters, a social worker with 30 years of experience in the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services, told the jury that she investigated after a complaint had been lodged with her office after a documentary was broadcast in February 2003.

Testifying for the defense, Ms. Peters said she and two colleagues interviewed the accuser, his two siblings and his mother in the Los Angeles apartment of the mother’s boyfriend and were told that the children had not been mistreated or sexually abused.

… She asked whether Mr. Jackson had touched him sexually.  ”He became upset,” Ms. Peters testified. ”Said: ‘Everyone thinks Michael Jackson abused me. He never touched me.’ He was very upset about it.”

She said that the teenager’s demeanor was ”playful, articulate” and that ”he appeared to enjoy the attention.”  She added that he was not withdrawn or mistrustful, behavior that is common with sexual abuse victims.

Ms. Peters and her supervisor, Karen Walker, testified that the accuser’s mother never complained that she was being held against her will at the ranch, as the prosecution contends, despite many opportunities to do so.

Instead, the two social workers said, the mother repeatedly expressed her displeasure that Mr. Bashir’s documentary showed her son’s face without her permission and asked for help in persuading Mr. Jackson to send her children to private school, because of the unwanted news media attention.

”Her main complaint was she felt the kids were being taped without her consent, and what could she do about it,” Ms. Peters said.

She and Ms. Walker met the mother and spoke to her repeatedly on the telephone in February and March, when the family says it was held captive.  On April 1, 2003, the social workers coincidentally crossed paths with the mother and her children at a restaurant in Los Angeles, and no mention was made of being abused or held captive, they said.

”I asked how the children were doing, and she said they were doing O.K., except they had missed a lot of school”.

”I would have called,” Ms. Peters said, referring to the police, ”if there was any doubt in my mind that abuse was going on. We’d have been in children’s court.”

The testimony on Tuesday underscored how difficult it may be to prove that Mr. Jackson chose to molest the boy at the very moment when the news media, the police and social workers were scrutinizing him for such crimes. (By SHARON WAXMAN  May 18, 2005)

According to the Santa Barbara News Archive (“The Jackson Trial: Accuser’s cousin rebuts prosecution claims about alcohol”) Janet Arvizo later claimed that the social workers hadn’t taken the necessary notes, but this was refuted by Tom Sneddon who said the report was available to him:

“The social workers never took notes or filed a report because they were concerned that Mr. Jackson might sue them. However, both defense co-counsel Robert Sanger and Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon had a copy of an official report completed by the social workers.” (The police naturally had a copy of the report. Leaking it this time wasn’t in their interests. Sorry for the side remark, just couldn’t resist it)

William Dickerman

At the time of the inverviews on February 21, 2003 Janet Arvizo consulted a lawyer William Dickerman, a long-time attorney for her friend Jamie Massada. She tried to get the boy’s name and photograph removed from international publication (rightfully so) and visited him on several occasions but later claimed the family had been ‘held hostages’ in Neverland all that time:

“The mother, her children and Mr. Masada met four times with Mr. Dickerman — either at the attorney’s office or at the comedy club — during a period when the family said they were being held hostage at Mr. Jackson’s ranch.”,,1043690,00.html

“Dickerman said the mother wanted him to write letters to networks who aired the program demanding that they stop using the boy’s image. The next month, after the family broke off contact with Jackson and left his Neverland Ranch for good, Dickerman said he also began sending letters to Mark Geragos, Jackson’s attorney at the time.

Dickerman conceded that in the letters he wrote to Geragos in the spring of 2003, he never mentioned anything about allegations of child molestation or alcohol consumption, or that the family claimed it had been held against its will at Neverland.

He said he never called police to report any wrongdoing by Jackson. He said he did call the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department once to check on the progress of the investigation triggered by Katz and Feldman”.

Dickerman said he immediately began a two-pronged effort on his new clients’ behalf: retrieve their personal property from Jackson after the relationship had soured, and prevent Bashir’s people from re-airing the program, because the mother claimed she had never consented to her son’s face being shown.

But he later began to realize, Dickerman said, that he needed a Jackson-savvy attorney on his side.

It was most probably the memory of a multi-million 1993 settlement which inspired the Arvizos and their lawyer Dickerman to make their next move in May 2003 and approach Larry Feldman:

“In May of that year, Dickerman said, he referred the boy’s family to attorney Larry Feldman, who a decade earlier had represented another Los Angeles boy who reportedly won millions in a legal settlement after accusing Jackson of molesting him.

“Dickerman said he referred the case to Feldman because “I knew he was the go-to guy about Michael Jackson.”

Dickerman said he and Feldman have an agreement to divide any proceeds from a lawsuit against Jackson, should the family file one. “We were retained together. I have a fee-sharing arrangement with Mr. Feldman,” Dickerman said.

“In court, the accuser, who had appeared in the documentary holding Jackson’s hand, claimed the first molestation occurred after the taping of the rebuttal video.

Seemingly incredulous, Mesereau insisted the molestation complaint arose only after the family’s visit with attorney William Dickerman, who referred them to attorney Larry Feldman, who had secured a reported multimillion-dollar settlement for a family that accused Jackson of child molestation in 1993.

“You went to two lawyers and a psychologist before you went to the police, right?” Mesereau asked.

So it was only after the family contacted Larry Feldman in May 2003 that the accusations actually started. And though both Feldman and Katz agree on this point later there is some controversy arising between them as to “who was the first to hear the victim’s story”.

Larry Feldman says all the credit for restoring Arvizo’s memory goes to Dr. Katz and at one point even claims that the family met the psychologist before consulting him, while the psychologist thinks it was the other way about – the family came to Larry Feldman with their ready-made story (or it is him who dragged it out of them) and Dr. Katz’ mission was only to determine whether their accusations were credible or not.

The LA Times tells Feldman’s version of the events:

“The family was referred to Feldman in 2003 by Los Angeles attorney William Dickerman. The issue, Feldman testified, was to determine whether to take action against the ABC television network, British TV journalist Martin Bashir and other possible defendants.

While talking with the boy, his brother, his older sister and their mother, Feldman said he realized they had discussed their Neverland experiences with psychologist Stanley Katz. Feldman had conferred with Katz on previous cases, including the 1993 lawsuit against Jackson.

When Katz concluded that Jackson had committed some sexual abuse at Neverland, the psychologist and Feldman reported it to Los Angeles social workers and Santa Barbara County prosecutors, Feldman testified. That report triggered the current case.”

And the Santa Barbara News Archive says that Dr. Katz only confirmed what Larry Feldman had already heard from the family:

“Dr. Katz’s testimony also revealed that the alleged victim’s accusations against Mr. Jackson were first made to the family’s civil attorney, Larry Feldman, who then referred the boy to Dr. Katz”. (Strategy is supreme in Jackson hearing August 25, 2004)

“… the boy’s family’s second civil attorney, Larry Feldman, may have been the first to hear the boy’s accusations. Mr. Feldman, who brokered a multimillion-dollar settlement in a 1993 child molestation case against the entertainer, called Dr. Katz, who was also involved in the 1993 case that never made it to trial, and asked him to speak with the boy.

“He asked me to interview the minor to determine the veracity of these comments they had made to him,” Dr. Katz said.

(Jackson’s accuser, gumshoe may share psychologist By DAWN HOBBS  August 18, 2004)

So most of the credit for restoring the Arvizos’ memory goes to Larry Feldman after all? Interesting that he never admits it…

I wonder if the transcripts of their testimonies are still available anywhere? Unfortunately the Smoking Gun site no longer has them so for details of the testimonies we have to rely mostly on the media.

CNN says that Feldman paid Dr. Katz $300 per hour for his interviews and asked him not to make an in-depth analysis of whether the abuse had really occurred.

For some interesting reason the prosecution didn’t ask him for details either during the 2005 trial which was a factor that didn’t enable Thomas Mesereau to cross-examine Dr. Katz properly – he had to limit himself only to the range of questions asked by the prosecution:

“Katz told jurors Wednesday that he was paid $300 an hour by Feldman to evaluate the family’s claims of molestation.

But while the doctor testified in detail at a grand jury proceeding about the interviews he conducted, prosecutors gave a halting and brief direct examination Wednesday, never asking about the substance of the interviews and doing little more than establishing his presence in the narrative.

“Katz also conceded that his evaluation of Jackson’s accuser and his family was cursory, and that he was not asked to do an in-depth psychological investigation to make a clear determination of whether abuse had occurred”.

Katz testified he conducted eight interviews in May and June 2003 with the accuser and his mother, brother and sister. He did not provide details of what they told him.

After the interviews, however, he said he informed Larry Feldman — the attorney who hired him to “help sort things out” with the family — that they needed to report abuse allegations to authorities.

The brevity of the prosecution’s questioning of Katz limited what defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. could ask on cross-examination, which has to be within the scope of the prosecution’s direct exam.

Details of Stanley Katz’ testimony are scattered here and there and from the various fragments I gather that before the family addressed Dr. Katz they had approached Larry Feldman with a civil suit.

The MJEOL site says:

“If you remember, the prosecution and their sympathizers went out of their way to convince people that the reason the family hadn’t filed a civil suit was because they did not want money from Jackson. Well, new information blows that lie right out of the water. And this information comes from the psychologist hired by Feldman to “pull out” the allegations of molestation in the first place.

NBC’s Mike Taibbi has revealed more information found within the documents obtained by them earlier. The psychologist, Stan Katz, told Santa Barbara investigators in June 2003 about the accuser and his siblings:

KATZ: Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me because they come to him in this lawsuit Feldman’s going to file… Whether the mother’s motive is to do it for money, I can’t tell you…I mean, certainly they’re kind of a poor family.”

The Santa Barbara News Archive confirms that Larry Feldman was contemplating another civil suit against Michael Jackson:

A clinical psychologist told jurors on Wednesday that a well-known civil attorney who had sued Michael Jackson over child molestation allegations in 1993 has considered filing suit against him again on behalf of the accuser in the current case.

Stan Katz, the psychologist, testified that Larry Feldman referred the boy to him for an interview in June 2003. After Mr. Katz interviewed the boy’s mother, the boy and his siblings, the psychologist reported to Los Angeles officials on June 12, 2003, that Mr. Jackson had allegedly molested the boy four months earlier at Neverland Valley Ranch.

On cross-examination, lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau asked whether the psychologist remembered his conversation with a Santa Barbara County sheriff’s detective the day after the report was made.

“It was your belief when you talked to him that Mr. Feldman was filing a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson, right?” Mr. Mesereau asked.

“It was my belief that he was thinking about filing a lawsuit,” Mr. Katz responded.

The admission bolstered the defense position that the boy and his family are after Mr. Jackson’s money. Mr. Jackson’s lawyers have maintained that the allegations of sexual molestation surfaced only after the boy’s mother’s failed to get a payoff from the entertainer”.  (THE JACKSON TRIAL: Psychologist testifies of link to lawyer in ’93 case, March 31, 2005)

In the meantime it turns out that while Dr. Katz was supposed to interview Gavin Arvizo about any ‘molestation’ business, he actually discussed financial issues with the boy and told him he would receive money in case his family went ahead with the civil suit and they won. Isn’t it interesting how suggestive some psychologists might be?

The Smoking Gun cites a taped telephone interview of Dr. Katz by a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator Det. Paul Zelis in June 2003 where Dr. Katz freely admits he raised that money issue with the boy:

“While the accuser and his mother have repeatedly denied ever contemplating a lawsuit against Jackson, Katz, 55 left a different impression during his debriefing by Zelis.

The child psychologist noted that “Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me. Because they had come to him in this lawsuit.”

After remarking that he was left with the impression that the accuser and his brother were not fabricating their claims, Katz said, “Now there’s a lawsuit that Feldman’s gonna file. And I don’t get the idea that they’re [the brothers] doing this for money. Whether mother’s motive is to do it for money, I can’t tell you. I mean, certainly they’re, they’re kind of a poor family.”

“I don’t think they see the financial motive here because when I sat down with [the accuser],” Katz continued, “I said,’…look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit your family will get money if you win.’

Katz told Zelis that he found the accuser and his siblings credible, though “it’s a very bizarre story, to be honest with you”.

*After this post was made Olga provided me with a transcript of Dr. Katz’ testimony in 2005 where the psychologist explains to court why he discussed a civil suit with the children though the only thing he was supposed to do was checking the credibility of their abuse allegations.

He says he raised the subject to see what expectations they had of a conversation with him, which is very interesting news to me – previously I thought it was he who was interviewing them…

12 Q. During the course of those interviews, did

13 you discuss with either of the children the

14 possibility of a lawsuit?

15 A. I did.

16 Q. What was the purpose of that discussion?

23 A. The purpose was, excuse me, to determine

24 what the children’s expectations were for talking to

25 me, and what they thought would happen as a result

26 of talking to me.

As to Larry Feldman he absolutely denied the fact that any money had ever been involved in the case. In his interview of March 19, 2004 to Today show Larry Feldman said:

    • “I don’t know where they got this idea that this is about money. It just simply isn’t true.”

In an interview of January 16, 2004 Larry Feldman practically hypnotized his listeners with the assurances that the case was not about money (see at 2:19 of the interview):

    • “It has never been about money. There is one thing that needs to be straightened here. This case never had to do about money. It has never been about money. It was about what happened to the little boy…”

Click the link below if you want to listen to Larry Feldman’s mantras and please note that he says the “molestation” evidence had to be practically dragged out of the children:

Larry Feldman’s interview:

Larry King

The above is what Larry Feldman said. However what Larry Feldman thought of the Arvizos became known to us due to the TV talk-show host Larry King in whom Larry Feldman confided sometime in 2004, a year after he had sent them to Dr. Katz.

Larry Feldman told him that:

1) he didn’t believe them,

2) thought their mother was “wacko”,

3) the family was in it “just for money” and

4) that he “didn’t want to represent them”.

Larry King was ready to give his testimony to the effect but due to some behind-the scene maneuvers was never allowed to do it as it would contradict the version Larry Feldman had earlier presented in court. Finding that the top lawyer was telling a flat lie (under oath) was evidently too much an embarrassment for Larry Feldman and was too detrimental for Tom Sneddon’s case, so both of them did their best not to allow Larry King to speak.

CNN tells us the detailed story of how Larry King’s testimony never came to be:

SANTA MARIA, Calif. — The judge in Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial ruled Thursday against allowing CNN host Larry King to testify for the defense, saying his statements would be irrelevant.

Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled after listening to King’s account of a conversation with an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented the accuser’s family.

Without the jury present, King said that Feldman told him the accuser’s mother was out for money and referred to her as “wacko.

Testifying earlier for the prosecution, Feldman denied making such statements about his clients, saying, “It is absolutely privileged, and if anybody tells you that, they are absolutely lying.”

After listening to an account by King and another man who heard the conversation, the judge ruled them out on grounds they would not impeach Feldman’s testimony because neither could say the attorney directly quoted the accuser’s mother.

On the stand and without jurors present, King said he spoke to Feldman at a Beverly Hills restaurant before the trial began. He said he and a producer were trying to get Feldman to appear on “Larry King Live.”

He said Feldman told him he didn’t take the mother’s case because he didn’t find her credible and thought she was only after money.

“The mother was a ’wacko’ was the term he used,” King said.

“He said he thinks she wants money. … He said ’wacko’ a couple of times and he said ’she’s in this for the money,”’ King told the judge.

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by “wacko.”

“No, I think that’s self-explanatory,” King said.

There had been speculation that King might try to avoid testifying by invoking a state shield law that protects journalists from testifying in many circumstances. But the matter was not raised before the testimony was ruled out.

The judge also ruled against testimony by a publisher, Michael Viner, who was present during King’s meeting with Feldman.

Without the jury present, Viner told the judge that Feldman said “he had met with them (the family) and felt that their statements, their case, didn’t hold up to scrutiny and he didn’t believe them.”

“Under cross-examination by Mesereau, Feldman repeatedly denied attending a meeting at which defense attorneys say he told CNN’s Larry King that the accuser’s mother was making up the molestation allegations.

While he was on the stand, tempers appeared to be running short in the courtroom. Feldman seemed testy with both Sneddon and Mesereau, and Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, while considering an objection, told Sneddon, “Don’t give me that look.”

The other reason which forced Larry Feldman to lie so vehemently even under oath was a clear contradiction between his thoughts and deeds.

If he didn’t believe a single word of what the Arvizos were saying why did he report the case to the police then? If he thought they were for money only why was he so insistent on calling the Santa Barbara DA department even after the DCFS refused to take Dr. Katz’ report? Why did he have to take the case into his hands and talk personally to Tom Sneddon?

In his testimony Dr. Katz says that Larry Feldman did call the DA office to move the case further:

9 Q. Did you ever discuss with Attorney Feldman

10 whether or not he had talked to Mr. Sneddon after

11 the DCFS interview?

12 A. I don’t think we ever talked about that.

13 Q. Never?

14 A. I don’t have any recollection of that at

15 all.

16 Q. Okay. So you’ve never heard anything about

17 that as you sit here today?

18 A. I’m sorry, about Mr. Feldman talking to Mr.

19 Sneddon?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. Yes, I think that, as I said before, prior

22 to the call to — from Detective Zelis, I believe

23 that Mr. Feldman called the D.A.’s Office. I don’t

24 know if he personally talked to Mr. Sneddon or not.

Another update from Olga and I have a full testimony from Larry Feldman where he clearly says that he called Tom Sneddon after the DCFS had refused to accept Dr. Katz’ report (the DCFS still remembered that they had earlier extensively interviewed the family and no molestations were ever, ever mentioned).

Tom Sneddon is questioning Larry Feldman:

Q. Did they take the report?

7 A. They didn’t take the report, and they didn’t

8 direct us to another agency. They —

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; move to

10 strike.

11 THE COURT: Overruled.

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, after you left the

13 agency, did you decide on a course of action?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And was this regarding and connected with

16 Dr. Katz’ responsibility as a mandated reporter?

17 A. Yes, because I felt he still hadn’t reported

18 because they didn’t take the report.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection. Move

20 to strike; nonresponsive.

21 THE COURT: After “Yes” is stricken.

22 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Who did you

23 call?

24 A. I called you.

Let me point out once again that Larry Feldman’s insistence would have been understandable if he had believed the family and thought that the boy had really been abused.

But we know from Larry King that Larry Feldman was sure the family was “in for money only” and were therefore lying – so why bother so much about reporting the case to the D.A. department and personally to Sneddon?

Did they have an arrangement or what? And does Larry Feldman have an agenda of his own when it comes to pursuing Michael Jackson?

Though Larry Feldman said he didn’t want to represent the “wacko” family he still carried out some jobs for them even after he dropped their case – the fact he admitted under the pressure from the defense team:

The pop star, 46, and his family members, including his mom and brother Randy, looked stunned when the judge hastily nixed such crucial testimony with the simple words, “I’m not going to allow it.”

Jackson’s defense lawyers wanted jurors to hear King’s story to discredit Feldman, who denied he ever told King or anyone else that the current family was after money.

During his earlier testimony, Feldman denied he currently is representing the accuser’s clan, but records presented by the defense show his firm has done legal work for them this year.

So the defense proved it that Feldman’s firm had done legal work for the Arvizos in 2005 – two years after Larry Feldman officially had dropped their case. If he had represented the Arvizos in matters other than Jackosn it would have been nothing much of course, however all the jobs were connected with thwarting the moves of Michael’s defense which makes me think that Larry Feldman does regard himself as a sort of a life-long Michael Jackson opponent who interferes in the process each time Michael’s enemies find themselves in danger.

And those four legal jobs were surely not about money either as I doubt the Arvizos had a lot to pay Feldman for his services. In fact I wonder how on earth they could pay for his services at all – Larry Feldman is one of the best-compensated US attorneys! (see the list of the top-earning lawyers ).

It must have been either sheer charity on Larry Feldman’s part or he must have had other motives  to do those four jobs for the Arvizos as pro bono work:

“A loud and confident witness … Feldman did not appear quite as confident when answering Mesereau’s questions about his firm’s involvement with Jackson’s current accuser and his family.

Feldman acknowledged that he and some fellow attorneys at the Century City law firm Kaye Scholer had done at least four legal tasks for the family since he formally dropped them as clients two years ago.

They included thwarting a move by Jackson’s attorneys to delve into the finances of the alleged victim’s grandparents. Feldman said the defense wanted to see whether the Spanish-speaking elderly couple were hiding money that belonged to the alleged victim’s mother.

Under questioning, Feldman also said his firm tried to keep the West Covina Police Department from releasing arrest records related to the family’s lawsuit against J.C. Penney — a good example, defense attorneys claim, of the mother’s shakedown tactics.

In short each time Michael’s enemies were in trouble Larry Feldman went out of his way to help them. When the defense wanted to see whether Janet Arvizo had put any money in her parents’ account Larry Feldman’s heart was moved again by the poor fate of the Arvizo gamily:

20 Q. And do you consider what you did with the

21 Arvizos after the point that you were no longer

22 officially their lawyer to be pro bono work for the

23 family?

24 A. Yeah. Absolutely. I never expected to get

25 paid, and I’ve done very limited stuff, and the

26 stuff that I’ve done is just stuff that I felt that

27 I should do. That nobody was going to do it for

28 them, and I got this thing rolling and I ought to do   4523

1 it, and I have very limitedly done things.

You know, I really begin suspecting that Larry Feldman had an agenda and was acting as Tom Sneddon’s right hand…


In the second case, it was the reverse.  The district attorney in Santa Barbara, who ultimately got the case, insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat, and they, rightfully so, wanted to control the case, and how it would be tried, and what would be tried, and how it would be dealt with in the press and elsewhere.

And so there were totally different things going on, with that kind of decisions that I made in the first case, I wasn’t making in the second case.  The district attorney was. How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out.

Well, the only thing I understood in this pile of intentionally meaningless words is that in 1993 Larry Feldman had a total control over the Jordan Chandler’s case and it was he and not prosecution (Gil Garcetti and Tom Sneddon) who was making decisions there – which is an impressive confirmation of the conclusions we’ve made earlier.

The fact that Larry Feldman didn’t have a chance to control the 2005 case same as in 1993 is something which we should be wholly thankful to our dear prosecutor Tom Sneddon. It was him who made it impossible for the civil suit to go first in 2005.

No matter whether Larry Feldman liked the Arvizos or not, his odd jobs for them within the next two years prove that he would never have missed the chance to bleed Michael Jackson to death in another civil case should he had had an opportunity to do so.

The REAL reason why the civil suit never went forward was that it simply COULDN’T due to the changes in legislation initiated by Tom Sneddon.

The situation is explained in a beautiful news bulletin by Mark Wittenberg & Willy Gijsman:

“In a press conference held by Tom Sneddon we learned that due to the (failed) 1993 court case against Michael Jackson the law had been changed. Art 288 has been extended with Art 288A, meaning that if you touch a child (if you put your hand on its shoulder for example) you are conducting a criminal activity. This new law also forces the children to testify, even if they do not want to. Tom Sneddon continually urged any victims of Michael Jackson to please come forward.

Katz reported the alleged abuse to the Santa Barbara Police Department and then Tom Sneddon personally investigated the accusations. It was then the family found out that because of the law that Sneddon had changed, their civil lawsuit would have to be put on hold until after the criminal trial was over.

In November, Sneddon informed the family of a state victim’s fund that would provide them with financial compensation if they went through with the criminal case. He met with the accuser’s mother in an empty parking giving her the necessary paperwork to apply for the fund. Less than a month later, Michael Jackson was arrested”.

Despite all his professionalism Larry Feldman is a civil lawyer and he could have learned about the changes in California law well after they had been made. Imagine their disappointment with the news – the lawyer and his clients are following their usual routine of consulting a psychologist who will report the ‘abuse case’ to the authorities and are already to start a civil case when they all find out that California law has changed! Incredibly bad luck for the Arvizos…

Well, despite all Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael there is at least something good he has done for him!

Larry Feldman is still clearly so irritated with Tom Sneddon and his desire to ‘have justice for the victim’ whose true worth Feldman realizes only too well that he even allowed himself some criticism of the prosecutor at the Frozen in Time seminar:

LARRY FELDMAN: “When you bring these cases of false imprisonment, and Jackson is kidnapping, and their going back to Neverland, and you just keep broadening the case, you are playing right into the defendant’s game! If you file one count of sexual molestation, and that’s what occurred, if it occurred, I don’t know what happened, but if it occurred then you have a much better chance to get a conviction.  There’s less to fight about.  I think those are significant things”.

I shudder at the thought that if it hadn’t been for Tom Sneddon, the Arvizos case could have been put forward too and we could have had a repetition of the Chandlers’ civil case handled by Larry Feldman again.

There would have been no Thomas Mesereau around (as he is a criminal attorney not involved in such cases) and only God knows what could have been the outcome of the case with all those attorneys working for Michael Jackson before Thomas Mesereau came…

On the other hand the 2005 trial is a mirror reflection of what the outcome of the 1993 case could have been if criminal proceedings had preceded the civil case and Bert Fields as Michael’s committed supporter had been defending him in a criminal court.

In my opinion the Chandlers’ case wouldn’t have gone to the criminal stage at all, as in contrast to the Arvizo family none of the Chandlers ever had a minimal desire to testify….

(the continuation of this post will be in the next part as it has become too long for anyone to read it)

34 Comments leave one →
  1. February 26, 2011 12:15 pm

    “I think there were letters just not love letters I also think Sneddon used Dimond. There are two letters one written by Gavin…”

    Dial, here is some information about the way those boys wrote “love” letters to Michael. This comes from Star Arvizo’s testimony:

    2 Q. Did you write them yourself.
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. You wrote a letter to Michael, Star, where
    5 you said — you thanked him, “Because even when your
    6 hearts get broken and shattered into tiny little
    7 pieces, we always still love, need and care about
    8 you with every tiny little piece of our hearts,”

    9 right.
    10 A. Are you reading that from a card.
    11 Q. I’m asking you if you remember saying
    12 anything like that.
    13 A. No.
    14 Q. Never said it.
    15 A. No.
    16 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
    17 you a card —
    18 A. Yes.
    24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said to Michael
    25 Jackson, “My super, super, best, best friend,”
    26 right.
    27 A. Yes.
    28 Q. You said, “I love you, I love you,” 1300
    1 repeatedly, right.
    2 A. Yes.
    3 Q. And you referred to Father’s Day, right.
    4 A. I didn’t read the card.
    5 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
    6 you the envelope.
    7 A. Sure.
    8 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
    9 THE COURT: Yes.
    10 THE WITNESS: “Happy Father’s Day.”
    11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Yeah, you said “Happy
    12 Father’s Day”
    on the envelope, right.
    13 A. Wait. Can I see it one more time.
    14 Q. Sure.
    15 May I.
    16 THE COURT: Yes.
    17 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Okay.
    18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You sent the card on
    19 Father’s Day, correct.
    20 A. Sure. I don’t remember, but, okay.
    21 Q. You told Mr. Jackson, “You always heal us in
    22 a very special way,”
    23 A. I wrote that off another card.
    24 Q. What other card did you write that off of.
    25 A. It was a card that already had it written on
    26 there.
    27 Q. Where did you get that card.
    28 A. Probably from a supermarket or — 1301
    1 Q. Excuse me.
    2 A. Probably from a supermarket.
    3 Q. Okay. So you took a card from a
    4 supermarket —
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. — and wrote the words.
    7 A. It was a card lying around. My grandmother
    8 got a lot of cards from her grandchildren.
    9 Q. You said, “Michael, you are special to us,”
    10 right.
    11 A. Okay.
    12 Q. “We loyally and faithfully love you more,”
    13 right.
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. “We love you unconditionally, to infinity
    16 and beyond forever,”
    17 A. Okay.
    18 Q. And you said, “Thank you, Michael, for being
    19 our family,”
    20 A. Okay.
    21 Q. “Love, your Blow Hole, Star Arvizo,” right.
    22 A. Okay.
    23 Q. 626-452-1693, right.
    24 A. I don’t even remember having that phone
    25 number, but —
    26 Q. The card is signed “Davellin, Gavin, Star
    27 and me,”
    28 A. “Me”. Okay. 1302
    1 Q. Well, there’s other people’s writings on
    2 there also, correct.
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. And you all used to write to Michael and
    5 tell him about how he had healed your family, right.
    6 A. What do you mean. We never — we probably
    7 wrote to him like —
    8 Q. Pardon me.
    9 A. I only wrote to him, like, three times.
    10 Q. Okay. But you would write to him and tell
    11 him how he had healed your family, true.
    12 A. I don’t remember that.
    13 Q. Your mother would ask you to do that, right.
    14 A. No.
    15 Q. And your family often referred to Michael as
    16 a father figure, right.
    17 A. Um, sure.

    8 Q. From the time your mother first met Michael
    9 Jackson, she used to refer to him as being part of
    10 your family, right.
    11 A. I can’t speak for my mom.
    12 Q. You never heard her say that.
    13 A. Not really.
    14 Q. From the time your sister first met Michael
    15 Jackson, she used to refer to him as being part of
    16 the family, right.
    17 A. I don’t know.
    18 Q. Did you ever hear her say that.
    19 A. No.
    25 Q. Okay. So this handwriting of yours all
    26 comes from a supermarket card; is that correct.
    27 A. No, not from a supermarket card. I rewrote
    28 the supermarket card.
    1 Q. Okay. So when you said to Michael, “Thank
    2 you, Michael, because even when our hearts are and
    3 get broken and shattered into tiny little pieces, we
    4 always still love, need and care about you with
    5 every tiny little piece of our hearts, because you
    6 always heal us in a very special way,”
    did you get
    7 that from a supermarket card.
    8 A. I plugged some words in, I plugged his name
    9 in, and that’s how I got that paragraph.

    10 Q. And you recall sending it to him.
    11 A. What.
    12 Q. Do you recall sending it to him.
    13 A. Not really.

    8 A. So. That’s what — that’s what the card had
    9 on it, so I — I rewrit it on a piece of paper
    10 and — and I plugged in his name.
    11 Q. Now, “Blow Hole” was a nickname for a fish,
    12 right.
    13 A. Yes.
    14 Q. Your nickname was based on a fish, right.
    15 A. I made it up. I was going to give it to
    16 Michael. We had a rock/paper/scissors, I lost, so I
    17 got stuck with that name.

    The Arvizo family practiced writing such scripted messages to everyone they hoped to get money from. Here is what comedian Leno also received from the boys:

    Santa Barbara News Archive
    THE JACKSON TRIAL: Star–studded testimony from Leno, Tucker
    May 25, 2005 12:00 AM

    “Jurors were riveted as Mr. Leno, the popular host of the “Tonight Show,” said he received such lengthy phone messages from the boy who would later become Mr. Jackson’s accuser that it prompted him to think the voice mails were scripted.
    Mr. Leno described the messages he received in 2000 when the boy was ill with cancer as “overly effusive for a 12-year-old. . . . This sounded very adult-like. . . . He’d say
    ‘I think you’re wonderful. You’re my hero.’ I’m a comedian in his 50s — I’m not Batman. It seemed a little unusual.”

    More about it from cross examination of Detective Zelis testifying for the prosecution which reveals that the Arvizos sent the same kind of letters to Louise Palanker:

    Defense Attorney Sanger:
    24 Q. At that time were you aware that Star and
    25 the rest of the family had sent cards to Michael
    26 Jackson in 2001 calling him “father,” talking about
    27 him being part of their family, using all those same
    28 terms that are on the video. 2356
    1 A. Can you repeat the question.
    2 MR. SANGER: Could we have that read back.
    3 THE COURT: All right.
    4 (Record read.)
    5 THE WITNESS: I know cards were sent. I do
    6 not know the dates of when those cards were sent.
    7 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Did you ask him about those
    8 cards.
    9 A. Personally, I don’t think so.

    14 Q. Were you aware that the family used that
    15 same language in dealing with other people such as
    16 Louise Palanker.
    17 MR. SNEDDON: Can I object as to vague as to
    18 the “same language”. Because there’s a number of
    19 different terms.
    20 MR. SANGER: Okay. “Mommy” instead of
    21 “daddy”.
    22 THE COURT: Sustained.
    23 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Were you aware that they
    24 were calling Louise Palanker “mommy” and saying they
    25 were part of her family —
    26 A. No.

    The only thing they found from Michael’s side was a short note about him loving the Arvizos as his own family – that’s all.

    I found this note mentioned in the Los Angeles Times:

    “In response, Zonen had the lawyer read a note that Jackson sent to the boy who became his accuser.

    “I’m your daddy,” it said. “I’m very happy to be your daddy. Blanket, Prince Michael Jr., and Paris are your brothers and sister. Love, your daddy.”


  2. Dialdancer permalink
    February 26, 2011 9:51 am

    December 5, 2010 11:51 pm

    “That love letters story is just totally insane and laughable.I can’t believe how people believed this whole story. So Michael supposedly wrotte letters to Gavin but those letters were found in Michael’s possession”

    I think there were letters just not love letters I also think Sneddon used Dimond. There are two letters one written by Gavin it reads much like the card he sent Plankner calling her his sister saying how much they missed her….blah…blah…blah. In the letter he calls Michael his Dad and Michael writes back asking how he is doing and signs it your Dad or somthing to that effect. Sneddon had Dimond report this and then had his buddy Nola claim he was surprised because the actual contents of the letters had gotten out and he did not want to be caught discussing the case with Dimond. (the Gag Order) There is recent talk of the story originating in the UK. I think it originated right here in the SB DA’s office first.

    But you are right how did Michael end up with both letters?


  3. Dialdancer permalink
    December 17, 2010 9:31 am

    Testimony of Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis: Lieutenant with the Santa Barbara 11 Sheriff’s Office in charge of the Criminal Investigations Bureau within the North County of Santa Barbara. (PAGES 2017 THROUGH 2082)

    3 Q. Were you the one who made the determination
    4 not to pursue an investigation any further.
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. All right. When was that decision made.
    7 A. After we had talked with Miss Blackburn, and
    8 also after I instructed Detective Flaa to contact
    9 the estranged father of the boy.

    16 of the conversations, what was the event that caused
    17 it to be reactivated.
    18 A. I received a phone call from…… Larry Feldman.
    22 Q. Was an investigative team assembled at that
    23 time.
    24 A. Yes.
    25 Q. And who was the lead investigator selected
    26 at that time.
    27 A. Sergeant Steve Robel.
    28 Q. When was that done, do you recall. The….P. 2126

    1 conversation with Larry Feldman.
    2 A. I believe it was late June or early July
    3 2003.
    4 Q. Did Mr. Feldman tell you why he was
    5 contacting you.
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. And what did he say.
    8 A. He indicated that the young boy and his
    9 brother had talked to a Dr. Katz in Los Angeles, and

    18 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you refer him at any time
    19 to Child Protective Services – Mr. Feldman.
    20 A. I don’t believe so.
    21 Q. Did he indicate to you that he had contacted
    22 Child Protective Services.
    23 MR. SANGER: That would call for hearsay.
    24 THE COURT: Sustained.
    25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did he tell you who referred
    26 you to him — who referred him to you.
    27 A. Mr. Sneddon.

    (Did not refer to DCFS because they did not want the Arvizo’s investigatedagain) (forced Officer Flaa the officer who investigated why not call DCFS out of his job)

    (first DCFS call came from C. Liberman, second from Allred including MJ’s children)
    It is reported that the Baldwins fight like minks and he is often drunk, but I have yet to hear of Allred rushing to protect his children from him.

    28 Q. So there were two referrals, right……..P. 2128
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. We’re going to refer to the first one. Not
    3 that they have any priority, I suppose. But the
    4 first one was a referral in which the reporting
    5 party was Carol Lieberman; is that correct.
    13 Q. Okay. And in the second report, there’s
    14 also reference to Gloria Allred; is that correct.
    15 A. That same report.
    16 Q. The second suspected child abuse report from
    17 L.A. DCFS.

    15 Q. Okay. Do you recall speaking directly with
    16 Miss Blackburn in Los Angeles and asking her not to
    17 interview the children.
    18 A. I’m not — it’s possible that I did talk to
    19 Miss Blackburn in person, yes.
    20 Q. Do you recall her telling you, “It’s too
    21 late. We already interviewed them”.


  4. shelly permalink
    December 13, 2010 10:27 pm

    This the whole list of the trial transcript


  5. lynande51 permalink
    December 6, 2010 3:07 am

    I like the part where Sneddon says they didn’t go looking for this case. Right after the airing of LWMJ he made a statement to the press that they would be watching it and encouraged anyone to come forward who had a complaint to make against Michael. Isn’t that looking for the case?


  6. visitor permalink
    December 5, 2010 11:51 pm

    That love letters story is just totally insane and laughable.I can’t believe how people believed this whole story. So Michael supposedly wrotte letters to Gavin but those letters were found in Michael’s possession. Why didn’t he gave them to Gavin?And how come no one has seen those letters? How come they were not presented as evidence during the trial. Well ,because those letters don’t exist. Man i can’t believe the amount of harm that it is done to Michael.


  7. lcpledwards permalink
    December 5, 2010 8:51 pm

    Here are some more articles about the Arvizo case. these were all written in the beginning stages of the case:

    1. It seems like Diane Dimond wasn’t the only person spinning the “love letters” garbage! The British tabloid “The Daily Telegraph” also reported on the love letters on November 24, 2003. They specifically said that police seized a dozen letters in their raid, as well as videos and computer files, according to a police “source”.

    Oh, it doesn’t stop there either! The article also says that the Arvizos were held hostage at Neverland, but when Janet found out about the abuse they escaped in the middle of the night!

    And here’s the icing on the cake! The article says that MJ and his legal team were considering pleading insanity in order to serve time in mental hospital instead of prison! What a bunch of baloney!

    The idea of MJ wanting to plead insanity is thoroughly refuted by Charles Thomson’s latest article! According to MJ’s manager Dieter Wiesner, MJ was prepared to fight to clear his name! The thought of “plea bargaining” was never even entertained!

    Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson decided to fight.

    “You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”

    “Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t mean it’s factual…….”

    2. This article, from November 21, 2003, is about Gavins’ father, who calls Janet an unfit mother for one of the following 2 reasons: A) she put Gavin in a position where he could be molested, or B) she encouraged him to make false accusations. And we all know the answer is B!!!

    3. This article, from December 3rd 2003, is about the fact that 2 weeks after MJ’s arrest, there still were not any formal charges filed. Here’s a laughable comment from Sneddon:

    “It just doesn’t make any sense that the sheriff and I would do something that is doomed in the long run to fail,” Mr. Sneddon said. “We have a responsibility. We didn’t go looking for this case. It came to us.”

    4. Here is an article on the leaking of the DCFS report.


  8. December 1, 2010 10:15 am

    For sawfnews by charles thomson:

    Jan, thank you, thank you, thank you! What a heart-breaking story from Charles Thomson! I’ve added the link to the blogroll for direct access.

    There is one thing I want to add to it. If it hadn’t been for Larry Feldman (and his psychologist Dr. Katz) Tom Sneddon would have probably never got to reopening the case against Michael.

    It was Larry Feldman’s office which leaked Jordan Chandler’s declaration, it was him who dragged the first accusations from Gavin Arvizo, it was him and his psychologist who jointly reported the case to the DCFS and it was him who called the DA department to report the case.

    So when people vent their indignation at Tom Sneddon they shouldn’t forget Larry Feldman’s really big part in the game.

    Excertps from Dr. Katz’ testimony in 2005:

    24 Q. Now, when were the dates of those

    25 interviews?

    26 A. Mom was May 15, May 16, June 11. Gavin and

    27 Star were May 29, June 11. And Davellin was May 29.

    28 Q. So the first interview was May 15th, 4291

    1 correct?

    2 A. Yes.

    3 Q. The last interview was June 11th, correct? (it took Dr. Katz almost a month! A meeting to discuss the results was attended by Larry Feldman, Larry’s wife Jo Kaplan (!) and lawyer Bickerman on June 5, 2003)

    4 A. Correct.

    5 Q. Now, you told the prosecutor for the

    6 government that at some point you went to the

    7 Department of Children & Family Services about the

    8 Arvizos, correct?

    9 A. Correct.

    10 Q. And was Mr. Feldman with you?

    11 A. Yes, he was.

    12 Q. Was it your belief at the time that Mr.

    13 Feldman was representing the Arvizos?

    14 A. Yes, it was.

    9 Q. Did you ever discuss with Attorney Feldman

    10 whether or not he had talked to Mr. Sneddon after

    11 the DCFS interview?

    12 A. I don’t think we ever talked about that.

    13 Q. Never?

    14 A. I don’t have any recollection of that at

    15 all.

    16 Q. Okay. So you’ve never heard anything about

    17 that as you sit here today?

    18 A. I’m sorry, about Mr. Feldman talking to Mr.

    19 Sneddon?

    20 Q. Yes.

    21 A. Yes, I think that, as I said before, prior

    22 to the call to — from Detective Zelis, I believe

    23 that Mr. Feldman called the D.A.’s Office. I don’t

    24 know if he personally talked to Mr. Sneddon or not.

    4 Q. After the DCFS meeting that you have

    5 described, you learned at some point that Attorney

    6 Feldman spoke to prosecutors in this case, correct?
    17 THE WITNESS: The only — I’m sorry, but I’m

    18 not sure which prosecutor or prosecutors or

    19 assistant. I don’t –– I know he called Mr.

    20 Sneddon’s office. I don’t have a recollection if he

    21 called directly to him.

    P.S. Here is a link to Dr. Katz’ testimony (it is somewhere in the middle of the transcript)


  9. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 10:23 pm

    I think this part of the Chacon testimony is really important

    13 Q. Do you recall ever asking Mr. Birchim for

    14 some money?

    15 A. No, sir.

    16 Q. Are you saying it never happened?

    17 A. I don’t recall, sir.

    18 Q. Okay. When did you last talk to Russ

    19 Birchim?

    20 A. This morning.

    21 Q. Where did you talk to him?

    22 A. Here at the courthouse.

    23 Q. Did you talk about your testimony?

    24 A. No, sir.

    25 Q. Okay. So you’re not denying that you asked

    26 him for money and you’re not denying he gave it to

    27 you; you just don’t remember, right?

    28 A. I don’t recall, sir. 5220″

    “Q. By the way, do you remember testifying that

    27 Sheriff Russ Birchim delivered money to you?

    28 A. I don’t recall, sir. 5222

    1 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

    2 you your deposition?

    3 A. Yes, sir.

    4 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

    5 THE COURT: Yes.

    6 THE WITNESS: It’s down there, but I don’t

    7 recall that, sir, at all.

    8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall

    9 saying it?

    10 A. No, sir, I don’t.

    11 Q. Don’t recall anything about it?

    12 A. No, sir.

    13 Q. Okay. It just is down there, right?

    14 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to the

    15 comment as argumentative.

    16 THE COURT: Sustained.

    17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember testifying

    18 under oath you asked Mr. Birchim for money?

    19 A. I don’t recall, sir.

    20 MR. SNEDDON: That’s been asked and

    21 answered.

    22 THE COURT: Sustained.

    23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember asking for

    24 money so your wife could relocate?

    25 A. Probably — probably so, sir. Yes, sir.

    26 Q. Okay. Do you remember wanting other bills

    27 paid?

    28 A. No, sir. 5223


  10. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 9:51 pm


    Feldman testified the 1st of April but it was not the first testimony of the day. There were 2 people before him


  11. Suzy permalink
    November 30, 2010 7:51 pm

    @ Jan

    Thanks for that link. The 4th part is heartbreaking.


  12. visitor permalink
    November 30, 2010 7:06 pm

    I agree with you. They are playing with the words and they are manipulating them in such a way in order to create a feeling that there was a match and that Michael was guilty. By the way,i had read somewhere, i don’t remember where, that Evan Chandler had seen Michael’s private parts because he had given him an injection.
    Sneddon didn’t care only to send Michael in prison but he also wanted to destroy his reputation and career and he would do anything to succeed that. That’s why he would always leave innuendos,he would make moves like bringing the photos in the 2005 ( which i believe was a bluff move and was aiming to influence the audience to think that the photos might have shown something) or bringing other “victims”. He was that desperate and he would play all his cards in order to stigmatize Michael as a … in the public opinion.Because he knew that when a person is accused of such a crime, his reputation can not fully recover in the public opinion even if he is innocent.


  13. Jan permalink
    November 30, 2010 7:06 pm

    I just saw this from charles:


  14. November 30, 2010 7:04 pm

    “When Sneddon petition the court to have the photographs admitted into the 2005 case he must have known (he was a capable lawyer) that they would never have been allowed. I think this was a prejudicial tactic. The photos were not from a description by Gavin, but by Jordan, and he wasn’t showing up to be cross examined. Until otherwise I will believe that Sneddon knew the judge would never have allowed them.”

    Teva, I absolutely agree with you. He knew they would not be admitted and it was just thundering the air on his part. All those “precise match” stories from Sneddon were meant for effect only – to convey to the jury the idea that he had something horrible to show them, only “what a shame he cannot do it because of some procedural formalities”. In reality it was nothing but murderous slander which could not be even checked up as the photos could not be admitted into court by law. AND TOM SNEDDON KNEW IT!


  15. Suzy permalink
    November 30, 2010 6:57 pm

    When Sneddon wanted the pics to be admitted it was towards the end of the trial. IMO he knew he was losing the case and asking the judge to admit the pics in court was his last desperate attempt to try and prejudice the jury against Michael.

    Maybe you are right Teva, that he knew they would never be allowed in. But maybe if they had been admitted he hoped that the fact the jury will see pictures of a penis with vitiligo and then see Jordan describe a penis with vitiligo, will be enough to cast doubt on Michael’s innocence. Even if the spots’s locations and colors didn’t match. Even if Jordan guessed it wrong if Michael was circumsized. They could have made some kind of exuses for him for those things. (Maybe the same excuse that Ray Chandler made in his book about vitilgo splotches changing all the time.)


  16. November 30, 2010 6:56 pm

    Olga, thank you so much! I’ll read the testimonies before making a new post today in case I need to make some corrections.


  17. Teva permalink
    November 30, 2010 6:01 pm


    I do not think the photos of Michael Jackson’s penis were an exact match,I think they matched a penis with vitiligo. Another thing that seems to be overlooked too is other body parts were photographed: back, buttocks, thighs etc. When Sneddon is talking about an exact match does he specifically say Michael’s penis, or is he vague and say something like privates? Buttocks are also considered private too. When Sneddon petition the court to have the photographs admitted into the 2005 case he must have known (he was a capable lawyer) that they would never have been allowed. I think this was a prejudicial tactic. The photos were not from a description by Gavin, but by Jordan, and he wasn’t showing up to be cross examined. Until otherwise I will believe that Sneddon knew the judge would never have allowed them.


  18. Olga permalink
    November 30, 2010 4:50 pm

    Helena, check your e-mail


  19. November 30, 2010 1:52 pm

    “You can do a seperate post with what I am going to send you. I am working on it right now”

    Olga, thank you so much! You needn’t be in a hurry as I have my hands full with the remaining part of Larry Feldman’s speech. When I am home today I’ll post the one about Dr. Katz.


  20. Olga permalink
    November 30, 2010 1:35 pm

    Helena, I have them and I am preparing sth for you. You can do a seperate post with what I am going to send you. I am orking on it right now


  21. visitor permalink
    November 30, 2010 12:25 pm

    Drudge Report :/

    So here he is, and then you’ve got the prosecutor, you’ve got the government, who has the authority to tear your life upside down.
    Now I don’t understand why the question hasn’t been presented to prosecutor Sneddon: Sir, will
    you prosecute the accusers if it turns out they were lying and exaggerating and
    misrepresenting? Will you prosecute them? And I would think the question [sic] would
    probably be ‘no’ because then he would have to look at the man in the mirror himself. Does
    Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this: ‘Well maybe
    the family is lying?’ Did he ever consider this as any descent prosecutor should? Did he ever
    consider the pros and cons? Did he ever do any of this? It doesn’t appear that he did. That is
    what scares me and what should scare you also is the finger pointing and the accusations and
    the whisper campaign taken to a government level with authority for 100 search warrants and
    photography of your private parts. Because somebody said something. And in the ’93 case
    apparently the description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos. That’s
    why that case was never brought.
    Don’t believe for a second it is because the boy settled.

    Don’t believe for a second that was a private affair.

    Whether that have [sic] to do with the government– he would have to have been compelled under law to testify. Sneddon could have called the ’93 boy accuser in there and said ‘Tell me what you know. You’re under oath. Tell me what you know. Tell me what he did to you.’

    He never did that because the penis didn’t match.

    I’m sorry to be so graphic, but Sneddon and that whole crowd up there has turned it into this. Do we have photos of Sneddon — and wait for this to leak on We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos because we know they’re gonna leak. That’s what happens when the government gets your business; they leak it out.


  22. November 30, 2010 11:50 am

    Shelly, I am sorry I can’t find either Dr. Katz or Larry Feldman.
    Are they indeed 3/30 and 4/01 ?


  23. November 30, 2010 11:33 am

    I don’t know if it’s helpful but it’s the whole trial transcript

    Shelly, thank you very much. If the list is really full it will indeed be helpful. We need ALL materials without exception.


  24. November 30, 2010 11:31 am

    They always said that the pictures matched but never had any smoking gun against him.

    Never mind what they SAID – look at the FACTS only.


  25. November 30, 2010 11:29 am

    “What I cannot figure out is, why didn’t Sneddon arrest Michael Jackson in December 1993? Back then Jordan was still cooperating with the investigation, and Sneddon had his precious photos. What was the problem? “



  26. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 9:39 am

    In the book trials of Michael Jackson, according to the author there were police officers who didn’t believe the 1993 accuser or at least said that they couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.


  27. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 9:24 am

    I don’t know if it’s helpful but it’s the whole trial transcript

    – 2/28 – ?
    – 3/1 – Martin Bashir, Ann Marie Kite aka. Ann Gabriel
    – 3/3 – Davellin Arvizo
    – 3/4 – Davellin Arvizo
    – 3/7 – Star David Arvizo
    – 3/8 – Star David Arvizo
    – 3/10 – Steve Daniel Rober, sergeant with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
    – 3/14 – Gavin Anton Arvizo
    – 3/15 – Terry Flaa, a police officer;
    Jeff Klapakis, lieutenant with the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
    – 3/16 – Paul Zelis;
    Victor M. Alvarez, deputy Sheriff;
    Karen Shepherd, employed by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
    – 3/17 – Fritz Coleman, weather forecaster at Channel 4 (?!);
    Kiki Fournier, former housekeeper at Neverland;
    Ruby Wolff, employed by the Sheriff’s Department;
    Shawn O’Grady, employed by the Sheriff’s Department;
    Jeffery Ellis, employed by the DA;
    Conn Abel, employed by the Sheriff’s Department
    – 3/18 – ?
    – 3/21 – Anthony Joseph Urquiza, psychologist;
    Lauren Wallace, worked at Extra Jet company;
    Louise Palanker, comedian, writer, producer, teacher;
    – 3/22 – Louise Palanker
    – 3/23 – Robert Charles Cooley, employed by Sheriff’s Department;
    Freddy Padilla, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Craig Bonner, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Antonio A. Cantu, US Secret Service – the forensic services;
    – 3/24 – Lisa Susan Roote Hemman, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department;
    Charlene Marie, California Department of Justice at the Santa Barbara regional crime laboratory;
    Heriberto Martinez, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Alicia Romero;
    Timothy Sutcliffe, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department
    3/25 – Nancy Diana Torres, forensic unit Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Michelle Shelley, Santa Barbara County Sheriff;
    James Wittenbrock, detective at the Sheriff’s Department;
    Robert Spinner, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

    – 3/28 – George Lopez, comedian, actor;
    Ann Serrano Lopez, George’s wife;
    Robert Spinner

    – 3/29 – Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory Comedy Club;
    Cynthia Ann Bell, flight attendant;

    – 3/30 – Stan J. Katz, psychologist;
    William Dickerman, attorney

    – 4/1 – Jack Green, president of Affordable Telephone Systems in Ventura, California;
    Larry Feldman, attorney;
    Jesus Salas, Neverland employee

    – 4/4 – Jason Francia

    – 4/5 – Kris Kallman, attorney;
    Blanca Francia

    – 4/7 – Ralph Chacon, former Neverland employee;
    Adrian Marie McManus, jewlery department store – diamonds

    – 4/8 – Phillip LeMarque, former Neverland employee
    4/11 – Bob Jones;
    Stacy Brown;
    June Chandler:
    Dwayne Swingler, former supervisor of Neverland

    – 4/12 – Jay D. Jackson, Janet’s husband

    – 4/13 – Janet Jackson (= Janet Arvizo)
    – 4/14 – Janet Jackson (= Janet Arvizo)
    – 4/15 – Janet Jackson (= Janet Arvizo)
    – 4/18 – Janet Jackson (= Janet Arvizo)

    – 4/19 – Victor M. Alvarez;
    Maria A. Ventura, mother of Janet Arvizo;
    William F. Caldwell, sergeant for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Rod Forney, detective for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office;
    Michael Davy, retired teacher LA City school
    Janet Williams, retired, worked for Santa Barbara County Sheriff

    – 4/20 – Brian Barron, police officer for the city of Guadalupe, former Neverland security officer

    – 4/21 – Stephen Cleaves, sergeant, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department;
    Timothy Sutcliffe;
    Timothy Rooney, senior criminal investigator;
    Steven Moeller, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department;
    Cynthia C. Montgomery

    – 4/25 – ??? (looong talk from the prosecution);
    Victor Alvarez;
    Craig Booner;
    Jeff Kalpakis

    – 4/26 – Cynthia C. Montgomery;
    Hamid Moslehi, videographer


  28. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 9:18 am


    “If he was so comfortable in Michael’s guilt he could have gotten an affidavit for MJ’s arrest.”

    It’s something I will never understand. They always said that the pictures matched but never had any smoking gun against him. One of the police officer said, in 2005, that they were looking for pictures of him fucking with kids. So for them the pictures were not a smoking gun? Why did they subpoaned Klein in 1994 and asked him about his skin disease?


  29. Teva permalink
    November 30, 2010 6:08 am

    What I cannot figure out is, why didn’t Sneddon arrest Michael Jackson in December 1993? Back then Jordan was still cooperating with the investigation, and Sneddon had his precious photos. What was the problem?

    When the prosecution takes it’s case to the grand jury they pretty much have it wrapped up. Did Sneddon really find any further hard core evidence between December 1993 and June 1994? Frankly he didn’t even need a grand jury there was no vendetta claim at this stage. If he was so comfortable in Michael’s guilt he could have gotten an affidavit for MJ’s arrest.


  30. Suzy permalink
    November 30, 2010 5:23 am

    Indeed. That’s crazy: Art 288 has been extended with Art 288A, meaning that if you touch a child (if you put your hand on its shoulder for example) you are conducting a criminal activity.

    Then California is full of criminals, it seems…..


  31. lynande51 permalink
    November 30, 2010 1:15 am

    So the law now includes not touching a child is that right? Does this mean any child or just a child that is not your child? How does that work for health care professionals, day care workers or a nursery school teacher that has to give care to you child?


  32. shelly permalink
    November 30, 2010 12:41 am

    Do you want the trial transcript?


  33. Olga permalink
    November 29, 2010 11:32 pm

    Helena I have Katz’s and Feldman’s grand jury transcripts so I will search for what you are asking


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: