Skip to content

Reading between the lines of Larry Feldman’s speech – WHO IS DR. KATZ? part 5

November 30, 2010

THE CASE OF ONE PSYCHOLOGIST

Dr. Stanley Katz

When I thought that nothing could surprise me any longer in this Feldman-Katz-Arvizo case their story suddenly made a new twist and revealed a stunning fact that Dr. Katz had access to BOTH sides of the case as he had two patients who were directly involved in it but represented the opposite parties!

The first one was Gavin Arvizo and his family with whom Dr. Katz had at least eight interviews, and the second one was the doctor’s long-time patient who was an investigator working for Michael’s first lead defense attorney Mark Geragos (the one who was later replaced by Thomas Mesereau). The name of the investigator is Bradley Miller and he is the one who was making a rebuttal video with the boy.

When Thomas Mesereau cross-examined Dr. Katz he mostly focused on his contacts with investigator Bradley Miller in the context of Tom Sneddon’s raid of the investigator’s office. It was through Dr. Katz that Tom Sneddon could have learned that Bradley Miller was part of the defense team and therefore had no right to raid his office.

The search of a private investigator’s office would have been illegal had Mr. Sneddon known, or had reason to know, that the investigator worked for Mr. Jackson’s attorney.

Mr. Sneddon’s concession capped his four hours of testimony, given under the watchful eye of Mr. Jackson. In an odd twist in this case, the veteran prosecutor was grilled while the accused sat back and watched.

“I’m asking whether your office knew, or had reason to know that Brad Miller worked for Geragos when you broke into his office,” Mr. Mesereau prodded.

“I wouldn’t characterize it as a break-in,” Mr. Sneddon snapped.  (Jackson team goes on offense August 17, 2004)

The importance of this factor is explained by Mark Wittenberg & Willy Gijsman in their Neverland news bulletin who say that:

  • “by raiding the Private Investigator’s office from the Michael Jackson attorneys, Sneddon was able to view Michael Jackson’s defence evidence. After doing so, Sneddon took his case to a secret grand jury where he added and got rid of several charges against Michael Jackson”.

So this was another of those numerous breaches of law by Tom Sneddon. However what interested me most in this Katz-Miller connection is that Dr. Katz turned out to be a sort of a guy who got information from both parties and while having therapy sessions with Bradley Miller never disclosed to him that he was the psychologist working with Gavin Arvizo – even when the investigator asked him about it point-blank. As to what information he extracted from Bradley, and what he discussed with the Arvizos, or to whom he could pass it over we can only guess…

The Santa Barbara News Archive tells us the big news:

One of the details [of Dr. Katz’ testimony] was the surprising news that the young accuser and private investigator Bradley Miller are both therapy patients of Dr. Stan Katz. He testified that when Mr. Miller asked him, he could not acknowledge that the young accuser was also his patient because of doctor-patient privilege.

(Strategy is supreme in Jackson hearing, August 25, 2004 )

CNN says the surprising news was disclosed at pretrial hearings:

Katz testified Tuesday on the second day of a pretrial hearing in the case that the first time he had heard of the investigator, Bradley Miller, was in a meeting with Feldman in June 2003.

“He just mentioned that an investigator named Brad Miller had made a videotape of the minor children,” Katz said in response to a question from Oxman.

He said the next time he had heard Miller’s name was in news stories about a break-in at the investigator’s office.

Oxman then dropped a bombshell.

“Bradley Miller is a very special patient of yours, isn’t he, Dr. Katz?” Oxman asked.

Katz claimed doctor-patient privilege and said he could not discuss his patients. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville backed up Katz’s assertion.

Katz then admitted that he knew Miller because he had worked on family law cases with the investigator. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/17/jackson.case/index.html

The Santa Barbara News Archive says that Brian Oxman had to pay $1000 for the audacity to ask questions breaking the doctor-patient privilege:

During the often testy exchange between Dr. Katz and defense co-counsel Brian Oxman, the psychologist testified that the boy told him about a videotaped interview that involved Mr. Miller.

When asked by Mr. Oxman, the psychologist repeatedly denied ever hearing Mr. Miller’s name.

But Mr. Oxman said, “Bradley Miller is a very special client of yours, isn’t he, Dr. Katz?”

When Dr. Katz indicated he couldn’t talk about his clients, Mr. Oxman continued: “Bradley Miller is a patient of his and has been for several years.”

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville repeatedly warned the defense lawyer not to step into areas protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. But Mr. Oxman persisted, and Judge Melville fined him $1,000.

Dr. Katz repeatedly refused to answer Mr. Oxman’s questions about whether he had seen Mr. Miller after he initially saw the boy and before the raid. Mr. Oxman asked him about when he ran into Mr. Miller on the street after the November raid. When Mr. Miller asked his psychologist if he was seeing the boy in the case, Dr. Katz testified that he said he couldn’t tell him.

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

What is disturbing about Dr. Katz is that Bradley Miller most probably confided in his doctor during the therapy sessions and we cannot be sure at all that he didn’t break their doctor-patient confidentiality when talking to the prosecution or Larry Feldman (for example).

Roger Friedman is summing up the story of Dr. Stanley Katz who turned out to be virtually everyone’s friend in the 2003/05 case and was in direct contact with all its key players – Larry Feldman, the prosecutors, Gavin Arvizo and his siblings on the one side and Bradley Miller, investigator for Michael Jackson on the other side.

Mind you that all those guys knew of Bradley Miller while Bradley Miller didn’t know of them – and all this due to the mysterious Dr. Katz. And if we recall that this expert was involved in the 1993 case too the mystery of Dr. Katz will become even more mysterious than ever….

Jacko’s Private Eye, Accuser Shared Shrink

Friday, August 20, 2004   By Roger Friedman

Sneddon has already been grilled over whether or not he understood before last November’s Neverland raid that private eye Bradley Miller worked not for Jackson, but for his then-attorney Mark Geragos.

My sources say he did know — and seized materials from Miller’s Los Angeles office anyway. Judge Rodney Melville may conclude that those materials are privileged and cannot be part of Sneddon’s case.

But now I am told that Miller has another twist for the prosecution.

For some eight or nine years, ending in 2003, Miller – like practically everyone else in L.A. – saw a psychologist on a regular basis to discuss his personal and business problems.

It turns out that the shrink in question is Stan J. Katz, the same psychologist who filed the report on Jackson’s 12-year-old accuser in May 2003 — and the same one who in 1993 also filed the report on Jacko’s first accuser (I think that Dr. Katz involvement was a different one).

Miller has told friends that Katz knew he worked for Geragos, and even asked if he could be introduced to Winona Ryder, another Geragos client. Miller declined. But Miller almost certainly discussed the Jackson case with Katz under the tenets of doctor-patient privilege.

When Katz was revealed as the current accuser’s therapist, Miller was said to have been shocked.

“He told Katz, ‘I can’t believe you’re the therapist involved,'” says a source.

This revelation could be construed as a conflict of interest for Katz and may open the door to questions about his involvement in the Jackson case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129417,00.html

So Roger Friedman is also amazed how terribly interwoven the main players in this never-ending 1993-2005 molestation story are – the same lawyer, the same expert doctor (working for both sides), the same prosecutor, the same everything

The only mistake Roger Friedman made here is that it wasn’t Dr. Katz who reported the first case to the authorities – it was Dr. Abrams, who after initially contacting the DCFS in 1993 never had a chance to return to the case and find out whether Jordan Chandler had or hadn’t been coached.  On December 12 2003, CBS News reports Dr. Abrams said:

“I think that this [children changing their stories] is a possibility in both cases, that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out”

http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/dimond-misleading-the-public-katz-not-first-to-hear-allgations-–bullet-113.html

He wasn’t given a chance to even try to find out? Wasn’t it the most natural thing to do for the investigation team to have the psychiatrist compare what Jordan Chandler said in his initial interview with what he said in the end – to analyze and check whether it was consistent with what he had said before? But no, someone thought it necessary to keep Dr. Abrams out of the case and replace him with the mysterious Dr. Katz who seemed to pop up every time some accusations against Michael Jackson emerged.

There is so much secrecy about the man that even the nosy Diane Dimond didn’t know about Dr. Katz’ involvement in the 1993 case (or pretended she didn’t know):

Diane Dimond said on Court TV’s Crier Live (March 22 2004):

  • “This Dr. Katz who is the one who had several sessions with the boy [Gavin] and then went to the district attorney…I keep hearing reporters over and over say ‘oh well, you know, that’s the same psychologist or psychiatrist that did the first accuser [Jordan Chandler], and you know they got the same lawyer’. Not true. Not true”.

Well, during an interview with Santa Barbara County police Dr. Katz admitted it himself that he was involved in both cases (and Larry Feldman confirmed it in his 2005 testimony too). According to the Santa Barbara investigation documents, Katz said about the 1993 case:

  • “I actually do know about that case… I worked on that one too”.

Noticing strange coincidences in the 1993 and 2003 cases and the fact that Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz seem to be inseparable when it comes to accusing Michael Jackson of horrendous crimes, the MJEOL site says:

“…the first accuser saw Dr. Katz once the first accusing family switched lawyers: going from Rothman to Feldman. In comes civil attorney Feldman and he brings in Dr. Katz. Similar to the first case, in comes Feldman, who brings in Dr. Katz, and magically we have molestation allegations. Remember, there were never any allegations of molestation until Feldman and Katz enter the picture. Feldman has also since admitted to paying the doctor bills for the sessions of therapy given by Katz for this current [Arvizo] accuser. Like in the 93 case, as Katz admits, this second case also involved him and was a result of a civil suit Feldman was going to file.”

The MJEOL site also makes an excellent point about the root for the ‘similarities’ in the accusers’ allegations in 1993 and 2003 – it could be the result of Larry Feldman’s convenient leak of Jordan Chandler’s declaration just in time for Gavin Arvizo to pick up a few ideas from it:

“Dimond also says, at the very end of the Jackson segment on Crier Live, that the two accusers’ stories are “very, very similar. If the “stories” were similar, it would not be a shock considering that thesmokinggun.com posted the first accusers entire unproven declaration online for the entire world to read, download, and draw from. All of the 93 accusations are in black and white, for anyone to see.

So it wouldn’t be shocking at all if the accuser or his mother pulled ideas from that declaration. Dimond, to no surprise, does not even mention the availability of the first accuser’s declaration as a possible reason why there would be similarities between this case and the previous one”.  Source: http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/dimond-misleading-the-public-katz-not-first-to-hear-allgations-–bullet-113.html

We cannot be one hundred per cent sure that Gavin Arvizo studied Jordan Chandler’s declaration in order to make similar allegations (though I think he did), but what we can be sure of is that in May 2003 he was already well aware of Jordan Chandler’s case. Considering that he was a baby at the time of the 1993 events he couldn’t remember the information himself, so someone must have enlightened him about it.

The Smoking Gun says:

“It was during these sessions that the older boy surprisingly revealed that he was aware that Jackson had faced prior child abuse allegations.

Katz told Det. Paul Zelis [Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator], that it took a lot of time to get the older boy to trust him, noting that he was aided by the child’s mother, who “had to really spell out” that the psychologist was “helping us, working for us.”

Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch. “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis, “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?'”

Katz recalled that the boy responded, “Well, Jordy Chandler did not stop him.”

A Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department report of Zelis’s June 2003 interview with Katz, which The Smoking Gun has reviewed, does not address how the boy knew of the Chandler case or whether he had discussed the 1993 matter with his mother, whom Mesereau has branded the grifting mastermind of her children’s abuse tales.

The woman has claimed that she first learned that her son was molested by Jackson on September 30, 2003, when several investigators, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, broke the news to her during a meeting at an L.A. hotel. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist

It doesn’t surprise me to hear that Janet Arvizo said she learnt of ‘molestation’ in September 2003 only though she had already said it to Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz in May the same year – Janet is surely a serious mental case. But all this Arvizo business is so confusing even without her that we need to sum up a few things before they turn into a complete mess:

  • On February 6, 2003 (which was the same day Bashir’s film aired in the US!) Jordan Chandler’s declaration containing all the graphic details of ‘abuse’ was leaked to the media.
  • Please note at that time there were no accusers yet, no case, no nothing – so Jordan’s declaration published in the press was just ‘hanging in the air’ as a kind of a suggestion to any volunteers who would be willing to come up with their ‘abuse’ stories.
  • In April the Santa Barbara police closed their probe into the Arvizo situation after finding nothing. In February-April Gavin Arvizo never mentioned any abuse.
  • However in May 2003 the Arvizos approached Larry Feldman. The boy made his allegations and the mother raised the matter of a civil suit. Naturally the boy was supposed to tell his own story only and be unaware of Jordan Chandler’s case (and its details) as in 1993 he was still a baby.
  • But now we learn from Dr. Katz that during his May-June interviews Gavin Arvizo revealed that he knew of Jordan Chandler’s case. By that time he must have already studied Jordan’s declaration and could easily incorporate Jordan’s story into his, creating an impression that there was a “pattern”.
  • This is how the seeds sown by someone in February produced a ripe harvest for the Arvizos, Larry Feldman and their expert Dr. Katz in May-June 2003.

Okay, now that we more or less know what happened in 2003, another question arises – in what capacity did Dr. Katz act in 1993?

Up till now we’ve heard only of Dr. Abrams who reported Jordan Chandler’s case to the authorities (to never hear about it later) and Dr. Richard Gardner to whom Jordan was sent by Larry Feldman for an interview on October 6, 1993. And though the transcript of that conversation is readily available to us thanks to Ray Chandler, it is actually the conclusion of the psychiatrist which is noticeably missing there.

One would expect that after hearing all those horrendous details no doctor would doubt the word of the boy, however we shouldn’t underestimate Dr. Gardner – he was one of the leading experts on FALSE abuse accusations and could have seen through the calculated and totally unemotional manner in which Jordan Chandler was telling his story.

Jordan’s confidence, calm, lack of emotion and surprise at the question whether he felt any fear (he said the only thing he was fearful was a cross-examination) should have immediately raised a red flag for Dr. Gardner same as it did for us ordinary people. And the fact that the doctor’s determination is missing – while the transcript of this highly confidential interview is freely available to all, is enough reason for us to believe that Dr. Gardner saw the boy’s story as false.

Why do I think that Dr. Richard Gardner’s verdict was negative? Because Dr. Gardner’s report evidently didn’t suit Larry Feldman and he approached another expert – Dr. Stanley Katz for his opinion of the boy’s interview.

Would you go from one doctor to another one if the best expert on false allegations confirmed your suspicions and made a positive statement to the effect? You certainly wouldn’t?

We know that Dr. Katz was approached by Larry Feldman in the 1993 with a task to review the tapes from the Santa Barbara News Archive:

On Thursday, jurors learned that Mr. Katz was also involved in the 1993 civil suit with Mr. Feldman. Mr. Katz said he reviewed tapes of an interview between the 1993 accuser and a doctor and reported back to Mr. Feldman.

(THE JACKSON TRIAL: Psychologist testifies of link to lawyer in ’93 case. March 31, 2005)

We also know it from the transcript of Dr. Katz’ testimony where he said the following about the evaluation job he did in 1993 (it turns out that the interview was video recorded):

13 My work was to review the videotapes that

14 were made between the victim —

15 Q. No, I’m — go ahead.

16 A. — and Dr. Richard Gardner.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. And to review those tapes, those videotapes,

19 and to view them and analyze them to give my

20 feedback to Mr. Feldman.

I’m sure that if Dr. Gardner’s conclusion had suited Larry Feldman we would have seen Dr. Gardner’s written determination and it would have been made public in the same shameless way they did it with Jordan’s declaration, transcript of his conversation with a doctor and the graphic text of the original lawsuit.

And you know what? After looking into the background of both experts I think I know why Dr. Gardner’s conclusion didn’t suit Feldman and why he had to bring Dr. Katz into the picture.

Dr. Richard Gardner

Though the name of Dr. Richard Gardner was heavily slandered in the press he was a highly qualified psychiatrist working for the Institute of Psychological Therapies and professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.

In a preface to Jordan’s interview Ray Chandler even calls him “the nation’s leading authority on false claims of child abuse”. This doctor was wary of jumping to conclusions in child abuse cases and cautioned against “a great wave of hysteria” which gripped the country in the 90s.

In his comments on the Wall Street Journal editorial dated February 22, 1993, Dr. Gardner, speaking of a great number of victims falsely accused of child molestation, called this hysteria “by far the worst” in history, the most devastating “with regard to the number of lives that have been destroyed and families that have been disintegrated.”

So this doctor was surely unbiased and free from a prosecutorial approach to such cases and his objectivity coupled with our own grave skepticism over Jordan’s behavior during that interview gives us enough ground to think that Dr. Richard Gardner’s opinion of Jordan Chandler was unfavorable.

Dr. Stanley Katz

And what about Dr. Stanley Katz? Why did Larry Feldman take the videotape to this particular psychologist? Who is he and what is his professional experience?

Well,  Dr. Katz is the former Director of Training and Professional Education at Children’s Institute International in Los Angeles.

I see that the name of the Institute does not ring a bell with you.

And what if I remind you of the McMartin case? And a certain CII Institute whose experts interviewed four hundred children in McMartin preschool and came to the conclusion that 369 of them had been sexually abused? And later none of those scientific findings were supported at the trial and all of them turned out to be completely false?

Are you getting my point now?

Yes, guys, Dr. Katz held a key position in this notorious Institute as he was responsible for professional training of experts whose job was to conduct interviews with the alleged abuse victims!

You can argue that the McMartin case took place in the 80s and Dr. Katz worked there most probably in the 90s, and by then their methods must have changed… Well, they might have, but not very much, as the interview technique employed by this Institute was found inappropriate only at the beginning of the 21st century – or at least ten years after the 1993 Michael Jackson case – when  James M. Wood, a research psychologist at the University of Texas at El Paso, studied the McMartin interviews done by Children’s Institute International and found them absolutely horrible:

“A few years ago, Wood did an experiment in which children were questioned using McMartin interviewing techniques. After two or three minutes, most of the kids started to make up bizarre stories.

When an interviewer refuses to take “no” for an answer, this implies that another response is required—even if it’s not true. Saying that a defendant such as Ray Buckey is being followed by undercover police implies that the accused is dangerous and that the children should help lock him up. And, says Wood, telling children that “everyone’s talking” about the crime “creates conformity pressures that are highly improper.”

According to Maggie Bruck, a psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins University and a researcher of children’s memory and suggestibility, Wood’s experiment and others have led to a consensus among psychologists. They agree now that CII’s methods in the McMartin case were inappropriate” [2005].

For details on the McMartin case click here : http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm110.html

If you haven’t clicked on it here is blogger Chantal telling the short of the story:

“Dr Katz’s organization, Children’s Institute International, believed at the time it had uncovered sex crimes and satanic rituals at the McMartin pre-school in Manhattan Beach. After interviewing 400 current and former students, it concluded that 369 of them had been sexually abused – lured into underground tunnels, forced to perform bizarre forms of devil-worship including the disinterment of coffins, raped at a car wash and filmed with their adult abusers for pornographic purposes.

The problem with CII’s ‘discoveries’ was not only that they failed to meet the basic test of plausibility. They were also based on highly coercive interviews, in which the children systematically denied anything was amiss until the interviewers started putting ideas into their heads. Over and over, the children were asked if they had participated in a certain ‘game’ or if a teacher had touched them. If they said no, they were called ‘dumb’. If they said yes, they were called ’smart’.

When the case reached trial, jurors were able to see the coercive techniques for themselves because the interviews had all been videotaped. Not a shred of corroborating evidence ever surfaced and the defendants, all members of the same family, were exonerated. Among family psychology professionals, the case is now a byword for how not to conduct a sex abuse investigation.”

This is the “secret tunnel” described in the McMartin case as a place where “crimes were committed”. Doesn’t it remind you of a “secret room” found in another place in 2005?

Even from the scarce fragments of Dr. Katz testimony reported in the press we do feel that specific McMartin touch in Dr. Katz’s interview with Gavin Arvizo, don’t we?

For example:

  • “It took a lot of time to get the older boy to trust him, noting that he was aided by the child’s mother, who “had to really spell out” that the psychologist was “helping us, working for us.”
  • Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch.
  • “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis,
  • “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?'”

Reread this question again and you will see that instead of getting information from Gavin Arvizo Dr. Katz is actually passing over to him the idea that “Jackson did something to kids” and suggests that Gavin joins him in this understanding!

Very few people know that Thomas Mesereau was aware of Dr. Katz’ previous experience and though he was limited in his cross-examination only to the subjects raised by the prosecution (who made their questioning uncharacteristically short), he still asked him a couple of questions about the McMartin case:

It is over here that we learn that the expert who interviewed the children then worked directly under Dr. Katz:

3 Q. Were you involved in that case in any

4 professional way?

5 A. Yes, I was.

6 Q. How were you involved?

7 A. I was the director of training and

8 professional education at the Children’s Institute

9 International, and that’s the agency that initially

10 interviewed all the McMartin children.

11 Q. And were you involved in that case for a

12 number of years?

13 A. Well, my involvement was that I was director

14 of the program. And Kee McFarland, who was the

15 woman who interviewed the children, actually worked

16 under me. But I was not — I did not directly

17 interview the children’s parents.

18 I did interview — my involvement with the

19 McMartin case was, I did do assessments. I was

20 asked by the Department of Children & Family

21 Services to assess the children of the alleged

22 perpetrators to see if they had been molested.

23 Other than that, I had very little involvement

24 directly with the case.

25 Q. Is it your understanding that that was

26 perhaps the longest and largest criminal case in the

27 history of Los Angeles County?

28 A. I think it was.

Oh my God, so it was actually Dr. Katz who assessed the testimonies of those children and diagnosed them as abused?! And then the court hearings showed that all their stories were sheer fantasies! The trial lasted for more than two years and ended without a single conviction!

If Thomas Mesereau weren’t such a gentleman he should have probably called Dr. Katz the names he deserved for turning the lives of the poor teachers of McMartin school into a living hell.

Now that we know Dr. Katz’s background it is clear why Larry Feldman sent Jordan Chandler’s videotape to this particular psychologist and what kind of a determination he expected from Dr. Katz.

And it is also clear why the prosecution reduced their examination of Dr. Katz in 2005 to an absolute minimum – a lot of inconvenient questions would have arisen if the scope of their direct examination had allowed Thomas Mesereau to cross-examine him over the McMartin disaster.

Now if you think that our surprises over Dr. Katz end at this point, here comes one more impressive piece of news about this doctor.

The fact is that in a secretely taped telephone conversation with the Santa Barbara police investigator Paul Zelis, this doctor – an expert witness for the prosecution side – shared his private opinion about Michael Jackson and it turned out that he didn’t think him to be a pedophile – he said that MJ didn’t fit the necessary profile! And the police investigator also agreed with the doctor!

So Dr. Katz, who judging by his severe treatment of the McMartin teachers could be considered the most terrifying expert for child abuse cases, actually said that he didn’t believe Michael to be one!

The Smoking Gun says what Dr. Katz said it ‘off the record’ to the police officer:

In a taped June 2003 telephone interview, Katz, 55, gave a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator his “off the record” opinion of the 46-year-old entertainer.

Jackson, Katz told Det. Paul Zelis, “is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know.

And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”

“Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist

Even if Dr. Katz did believe all those liars’ stories about “jacking off” and “drinking wine” his overall conclusion was that MJ still didn’t qualify for what he was accused of.

Dr. Katz had thousands of cases to analyze and with the interview techniques he employed he could have extracted not only “wine” or “jacking off” from those boys but “tunnels for raping children” too – the way they did it in the McMartin case. And it doesn’t really matter whether he believed in that part of allegations or not – none of them were proven at the trial anyway.

But let us not underestimate his overall conclusion that Michael did NOT qualify for an abuser.

Such conclusions made by the pro-prosecution side are twice as valuable as those made by the other side.

And mind you, Dr. Katz was speaking not only of the Arvizo case – ten years prior to that he had also assessed Jordan Chandler’s interview. And if in 2005 he made this overall conclusion about Michael, it means that 10 years prior to that he also had the same impression of him and the Arvizo case only confirmed his earlier point of view.

So both cases brought Dr. Katz to the same opinion about Michael – he didn’t qualify for a p. – and let us remember that this opinion is coming from a highly conservative expert and not someone as ‘liberal’ as Dr. Richard Gardner was.

The only thing I cannot agree with Dr. Katz is that Michael Jackson was “a regressed 10-year old”. Michael was always a big kid who took his childlike qualities well into his forties and who lost them only when his last hopes in humankind finally crashed.  

37 Comments leave one →
  1. March 7, 2012 6:35 am

    Excellent read and as always very informative! Thank you for all your hard work. I have recently put a “vindicate” tab on Justice4MJ that links back to your site. God bless you all!

    Like

  2. ares permalink
    January 6, 2011 3:10 am

    @Alison

    “i’m wondering if it was just Michael that feldman / katz did this to or if there were others we’ve not heard of, could have been a very nice earner for them.”

    I think that your suggestion is very interesting. So you think that they might have developed a pattern? If they have done the same thing in other cases as well, it’s going to be a totally amazing find. (I hope we are refering to the same thing and i didn’t understand wrong what are you trying to say.)

    Like

  3. Alison permalink
    January 6, 2011 2:18 am

    Googling Katz brings up some other interesting information about him.
    It appears he was Technical Advisor to the film “Indictment: the McMartin Case” which starred James Woods. This was a docudrama about how unjust and badly handled the case was – a bit of a hypocritical about turn for katz! But i’m sure this couldn;t have been about money!!

    also according to Wiki and another site – realitytv.com – which has a biography of him (he has done several TV shows) since 1980’s he has been a member of LA Superior Court Panel of Expert witnesses and has been employed by the court over 800 times as an expert witness for the court. ( I expect the pay is very good for doing that).
    So as well as the dodgy methods that supported what feldman wanted to achieve Feldman took both boys to someone who was well known to the court and prosecutors and who had probably assisted prosecutors in successful prosecutions – maybe he was on very friendly terms with them? and this same individual seems to be an expert for either side of the argument depending on who is paying him.

    i am just reminded that judge melville refused the prosecution’s request to bring in an expert witness about the profile of a p.le. when i read that in aphrodite’s book i read it as the judge being aware that so called experts are paid for giving their opinion and i thought he was trying to be fair to Michael having already listened to so much of what he must have recognised as b.s. but who knows the reason, can’t second guess. interesting that he must have known katz was on the list.

    i’m wondering if it was just Michael that feldman / katz did this to or if there were others we’ve not heard of, could have been a very nice earner for them.

    Like

  4. January 2, 2011 9:13 pm

    Questions about Dr. Gardner:
    “How feasible is it to stab yourself 7 times, and the last one to be so strong it goes 5″ deep?
    Why did he not have cuts to his own hand?
    Why did he choose to do it at this time (May 2003)?
    Why does the autopsy report not give any reasoned evidence or argument to justify the statement of suicide?
    It all sounds mighty strange to me, i really can’t believe it was suicide.
    Was Gardner going to speak out about his conclusions about Jordy?”

    Alison, I’ve also read about it and think that only complete idiots can believe that Dr. Gardner could stab himself 7 times in his chest and neck.

    Firstly it should be terribly painful. Secondly, physically a man who stabbed himself once is unable to do it again because he will be weak from bleeding, and thirdly, if someone want to commit a suicide with a help of a knife (what an incredible weapon for a suicide!) he will slit his wrist and just wait until he faints.

    It is a murder all right, only for some reasons it is covered up. Initially I thought it was done by some of those people who accused him of being too soft-hearted towards ped-les (which he wasn’t – he was only trying to distinguish between real ped-les and people wrongly accused of the crime), but NOW THAT YOU’VE MENTIONED THE DATE – May 2003 – the situation becomes even more interesting.

    May 2003 is the time when the Arvizos were taken to Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz was interviewing them. The family was regarded as a hopeful start for another crashing case against Michael Jackson. Janet Arvizo was shuttling between Larry Feldman and Dr. Katz (she met the doctor again after Dr. Katz had reported his findings to Feldman which surprised me a lot – why going there again once the interview was over?).

    It seems that the plan was in the midst of its making and if some other psychiatrist, a top consultant in false molestation accusations (Dr. Gardner) who ten years earlier, in 1993 had had a different opinion from that of Dr. Katz, could have spoken up and given his assessment of Arvizos the case could have been ruined from the very start.

    The DATE of Dr. Gardner’s “suicide” gives a meaning to his death.

    OMG, where will it take us?

    And the defense could have summoned Dr. Gardner to testify in court about his conclusions in Jordan Chandler’s case!

    This is becoming frightening…..

    Like

  5. Alison permalink
    January 2, 2011 5:22 am

    I just looked up more detail on Gardner’s death – suicide??
    apparently at the age of 72 he committed suicide in May 2003 by stabbing himself 7 times in the chest and neck with a butchers or steak knife with a 7″ blade. one of the stab wounds was 5″ deep and pierced his heart.
    He is said to have done this because he had a painful neurological condition called reflex sympathetic dystrophy and he was distressed by the symptoms of it. He also took several prescription painkillers.
    it is not clear to me from what i’ve read whether he regularly took several painkillers, which included morphine, or whether he took them on that day to dull the pain of stabbing himself so much. one of the medications was amytriptiline which is an antidpressant but is also used for other reasons so it can’t be asumed he took it for depression.
    The autopsy report lists and describes all the stab wounds, describes the rest of his body which was nothing remarkable for his age, and then concludes the death was suicide – it doesn’t give any reasoning for this conclusion.
    the report also says there were no injuries on his hands – if CSI is correct in its science – anyone who stabs someone also cuts their own hand in the process, they always check suspects’ and witnesses hands’. maybe CSI is not always right, but….. just to repeat, the knife had a 7″ blade and on of the 7 stab wounds was 5″ deep – so you would expect surely it would have injured his hand. the 5″ deep wound was also the last one, as the knife was found in it. the guy was 72.

    my questions on this:
    why would he, a doctor, choose to stab himself 7 times rather than just take a lot more tablets – he’d already taken some anyway, why not just take more? or slit his wrists, which would have been easier and less painful. and especially when he had a pain condition anyway, is it logical to choose such a painful way to die when you are taking what is described as “excessive” painkillers?
    it seems odd to choose a very painful way to kill yourself in order to escape a painful medical condition.
    How feasible is it to stab yourself 7 times, and the last one to be so strong it goes 5″ deep?
    Why did he not have cuts to his own hand?
    Why did he choose to do it at this time (May 2003)?
    Why does the autopsy report not give any reasoned evidence or argument to justify the statement of suicide?

    It all sounds mighty strange to me, i really can’t believe it was suicide. apparently his son told the press it was but also there is no mention of a note in what i’ve read.

    Richard Gardner – suicide?
    Peter Lopez – suicide?
    Evan chandler – suicide?
    and wasn’t there someone else too?

    Was Gardner going to speak out about his conclusions about Jordy?

    Like

  6. Alison permalink
    January 2, 2011 4:06 am

    I didn’t think there was anything left about these cases that would bring that physical sick feeling of shock reeling over me yet again, until I read this about katz. its really beyond words to describe how bad it is. and your conclusions are so logical and right – of COURSE Gardner didn’t believe jordy! I never even thought about it that way till you say it so well and then its so obvious, so feldman went elsewhere for an opinion – and he went to the guy that was involved in such outrageously unjust and sick case as that.

    it was all such a **** set up! and all this information shows this so clearly. Why, why, why can’t everyone see this??!

    but another thing – I’m not from US, is Katz a common name there? because isn’t the judge in murray’s case called Katz too? they couldn’t be related could they?

    Like

  7. nan permalink
    December 21, 2010 4:23 am

    somewhere along the line i remember reading in testimony.when mes cross examined katz…… katz had told gavin if he said something happened , he would be getting some money in the civil suit ..as if the civil suit was a done deal and would definitely be going forward after the criminal trial……. this whole trial was supposed to be about justice , not money,, remember they had no intention of going civil after…yeah right….
    feldman was doing all kinds of pro bono stuff for this family because he knew he would be reimbursed after.
    even preventing mesereau from getting into janets parents bank accounts where she was funneling the welfare checks she was grabbing…in dec 2004 and jan 2005 i believe….
    this thing was just so sinister because everybody knew they were bringing michael down for their own agenda..and they were bolstered by the fact that they were partners in this crime.didnt seem to be any honest people left to raise concerns. they had free reign..
    the investigators with the most experience who disagreed with sneddon and company were transferred and new people with barely any experience were put in place…
    thats no accident..feldman knew sneddon was willing to do anything to get michael…what a nightmare for michael.

    Like

  8. Suzy permalink
    December 12, 2010 2:03 pm

    I think the Arvizos not only read Jordan Chandler’s testimony, but also read the documents of the McMartin trial. Probably that’s where Janet Arvizo’s claim of Michael trying to kidnap them on a hot air balloon came from:

    “It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.[4]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

    I can’t help thinking Katz had something to do with it. I am only surprised that they didn’t claim to have seen witches flying over Neverland….

    Like

  9. Olga permalink
    December 10, 2010 5:57 pm

    David I already have the grand jury transcripts. All of them:) I found the site from a greek blogger who had it in his blogroll and he has vindicateMJ as well

    Like

  10. December 10, 2010 5:46 pm

    “We should IMMEDIATELY add this site to the blogroll”

    David, done! I haven’t had a chance to get familiar with it yet but fully rely on your judgement here.

    Like

  11. lcpledwards permalink
    December 10, 2010 5:38 pm

    @Olga
    Wow! How did you find this site? It is amazing! They have a summary of the Grand Jury testimony, which is EXACTLY what we need!

    @ Helena
    We should IMMEDIATELY add this site to the blogroll, and perhaps we can get in touch with the person who runs the site to see if he/she can send us the Grand Jury transcripts? This is an AMAZING blog, and we need to keep up with it. It seems like this person is going to summarize the allegations in chronological order, starting with the grand jury proceedings and ending with the verdicts. As with many of us bloggers, her motivation to research him was his death, and a desire to learn the truth, and she has done a marvelous job so far!

    Like

  12. Olga permalink
    December 10, 2010 12:43 pm

    another good site

    http://smokeandmirrorsmj.blogspot.com/

    Like

  13. visitor permalink
    December 5, 2010 11:11 am

    @shelly
    So you agree to that they should by punished.
    I don’t quite understand what that statute of limitation is but when you have obvious abuse of power and corruption by members the of authority,then there should be punishmet no matter how much time has passed.

    Like

  14. LearningAsWeGo permalink
    December 5, 2010 8:36 am

    The statute of limitations has tolled for every act of malfeasance evident in People v. Jackson:

    malicious prosecution
    fraud
    defamation

    We all need to concentrate on the entity that created the environment for each of these acts to prospectively bring rewards to the perpetrators: the malicious media!

    Like

  15. shelly permalink
    December 4, 2010 9:37 pm

    My point is Sneddon, Zonen and the last one (I don’t remember his name) they all should be in jail. They created false charges (the imprisonment thing, I don’t know if they created the molestation stuff or Arvizo just lied in front of them).
    They put Janet on the stand while they knew she was lying, even Feldman admitted that part of the story was bullshit,they should be in jail for that.

    Like

  16. shelly permalink
    December 4, 2010 9:30 pm

    Who would prosecute them? The DA?

    Like

  17. visitor permalink
    December 4, 2010 12:36 pm

    I was always wondering.Shouldn’t the Arvizos face prison for lying and trying to put a man in jail? I can not comprehend this. So pretty much anyone can accuse anybody for the most appalling crime, destroy their life and repoutation and when it is proved that they were lying and were aiming in money, their only “punishment” is not getting those money? But what about the other person’s life, his repoutation, his career?The Arvizos lied in that court. Shouldn’t they be punished for that? Why are they free? Why they can continue to live their life in their country,without anyone accusing them for what they are, a family of crooks, while Michael, who didn’t do anything, was forced in an exile?
    Michael had nothing to be embarassed of. He was innocent. How come the guilty could/can walk free with everybody supporting them, but the innocent had to walk away with everyone throwing stones at him?
    Where is the justice?Arvizos should pay for what they did .Sneddon should pay for what he did. Bashir should pay for what he did. Whay had to pay Michael for all those people’s greed, hate and corruption?

    Like

  18. December 4, 2010 4:20 am

    I noticed my mom watching 20/20. I only caught the tell end of it. The segment was about a 6 yr old boy who accused his mother of murder. Well, the part I walked in on was the female reporter (forget her name) Anyway, she was interviewing this specialist who was reviewing the 6 yr old boy’s police interview & talking about how the police handle the interview completely wrong. They also showed all these other clips from different police interviews with children and saying how the children were manipulated by adults and how with each interview the kids stories would become more and more dramatic and graphic. I heard one lady saying a child she had interviewed was giving so much detail that it could only have come from an adult. You can see a snippet of the story here:

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/mama-adrianna-dead-pool-mother-father-testimony-court-family-underwater-2020-12300170?tab=9482930&section=1206863&playlist=6627259&page=1

    Here’s another clip called, ‘Understanding Children’s Testimony’
    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/understanding-childrens-testimony-child-children-drowning-parents-legal-lawyer-court-2020-12300116&tab=9482930&section=1206863&playlist=6627259

    Ok the whole time I was standing there watching the rest of this segment and viewing the videos clips above. I’m saying out loud ABC is a total hypocrite! The reporters are acting all concerned by how these kids were manipulated by adults and the police. When the same tactics where used by Sneddon, Katz and the rest of the interwoven players who were doing everything they could to accuse MJ, who was completely innocent. And none of these reporters did/or will do a segment about the manipulation and questionable tactics that Sneddon, Katz & Co. used on JC, Gavin and during all their other interviews…smh

    Like

  19. Olga permalink
    December 2, 2010 10:36 am

    I am subscribed there but I never saw the Grand Jury transcripts 😦 I would really like to find the rest of them but I have asked everyone I know and nobody has them

    Like

  20. lcpledwards permalink
    December 2, 2010 6:39 am

    @ Olga
    So you have some of the Grand Jury transcripts? I don’t have any of them! Maybe the MJEOL website has them? I know that subscribers to that site get access to all kind of goodies, like transcripts, videos, and articles. Maybe we should contact them and see if they have them?

    Like

  21. Olga permalink
    December 2, 2010 12:29 am

    David there was another site where you could download all the trial transcripts which is where I go them but I can’t remember it. Sometime ago I was asking about the Grand Jury transcripts and I think I have asked you on FB too. I don’t know if you remember it. I have the Grand Jury transcripts but I miss a few people because saving them was tiring and I thought I had time.

    Helena the article on the comment is right

    Like

  22. December 1, 2010 10:09 pm

    “the comments under the Ray Chandler post from August 14th mentioned the Institute for Psychological Therapies, and the 9 factors that justify a pretrail taint hearing in a child molestation case”.

    Yes, thank you David for the reminder – those materials were very helpful, and they have a lot more than is mentioned in the list.

    “I got the DVD from Dialdancer today, and it has a TON of valuable info that she collected from the internet. Also, if you send me your mailing address I can send you the Frozen In Time DVD as well!”

    Dialdancer has told me about that DVD – she has indeed done gigantic work (thank you Dial!). I remember that it is indexed and comes in an alphabetical order, right? David, could you make a library out of it in the blog? We really need to make all these materials public and I can tell you how to make subposts the way I did it with the Frozen in Time seminar. As to my address, check your email, I’ve sent it to you.

    Like

  23. Julie permalink
    December 1, 2010 9:15 pm

    Larry Feldman is an absolute disgusting excuse for a human. He was lying totally when he said he had no interest in filing a civil suit! He absolutely was in it to file another civil suit in hopes that he would score a big payout as he did in 1993. That was his only interest in these people whatsoever and he was shameless about it when he said that he wanted to see what Michael Jackson was worth during the 1993 extortion, which he was a part of. Sadly, he just did it legally by filing a civil suit.

    The whole lot of them should be in jail. The nerve it took for these scum to speak in the manner in which they did at that seminar just astounds me.

    Like

  24. lcpledwards permalink
    December 1, 2010 8:55 pm

    @ Helena
    1. Your comment about forensic psychologists reminds me of an article you posted in the comments under the Ray Chandler post from August 14th. It mentioned the Institute for Psychological Therapies, and the 9 factors that justify a pretrail taint hearing in a child molestation case. Here are the 9 factors, and as you can see almost all of them apply to Sneddon and his goons’ interrogations of all of those kids who had contact with MJ, primarily Jason Francia!

    (a) Absence of spontaneous recall; (when children cannot recall anything on their own without lead questions)
    (b) Interviewer bias against defendant – a preconceived idea of what the child should be
    disclosing;
    (c) Repeated leading questions;
    (d) Multiple interviews;
    (e) Incessant questioning;
    (f) Vilification of defendant;
    (g) Ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements;
    (h) Use of threats, bribes and cajoling; and
    (i) Failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.

    nearly all of them apply except for I, as Gavin was obviously videotaped, and I assume the other kids were taped as well, although those tapes haven’t leaked.

    2. I got the DVD from Dialdancer today, and it has a TON of valuable info that she collected from the internet, including all of the testimonies from the trial (including people who are not on the http://www.deargavinarvizo.com website). It has all of the info from the SBC Public Access site as well. I don’t know if you asked her to send you a copy, but if there is anything you need let me know and I can send it to you. I only wish that we had thought of this earlier, so that we could have included the Grand Jury transcripts before they were pulled from the Smoking Gun website. Also, if you send me your mailing address I can send you the Frozen In Time DVD as well!

    Like

  25. December 1, 2010 8:43 pm

    “Also, I read somewhere that Gavin specifically mentioned Jordan Chandler by name when he spoke to Larry Feldman and Stan Katz, which means that Jordan’s declaration was read and studied by the Arvizos after it leaked!”

    David, I’ll be grateful if you find some more details – but this very post says it was Dr. Katz to whom Gavin mentioned Jordan Chandler:

    “Katz told Zelis that he assured the child he was doing the right thing by relating his experiences at Neverland Ranch. “We talked all about how courageous this was,” Katz told Zelis, “and I said to him, ‘You know, you don’t want Jackson to do these things to kids again, do you?’”

    Katz recalled that the boy responded, “Well, Jordy Chandler did not stop him.”

    Please also note the way Dr. Katz is dragging information from Gavin Arvizo – he says it as if he himself is confident that Michael “is doing things to kids” and is inviting Gavin to say the same. Even if he doesn’t believe it and is using it solely as an interview technique it is totally wrong and inacceptable! It is a leading question and what astonishes me most is that Dr. Katz doesn’t even notice how wrong it is!

    Like

  26. lcpledwards permalink
    December 1, 2010 8:23 pm

    @ Lynette
    Don’t forget that in addition to the $15.3 million dollar settlement info that was leaked before the trial, Janet Arvizo was offered a $100k book deal before the trial, which gave her another incentive to continue with her lies! And of course that offer went into the shredder when MJ was acquitted, further indicating that there was no truth whatsoever to her allegations. If there was any truth, all of those books would have still been released, just like with OJ Simpson.

    It was her ex-husband David Arvizo who confirmed that book deal offer in his interview with Mesereau’s private investigator. Look at part 2 of my settlements article for more info!

    Also, I read somewhere that Gavin specifically mentioned Jordan Chandler by name when he spoke to Larry Feldman and Stan Katz, which means that Jordan’s declaration was read and studied by the Arvizos after it leaked! He was too young to even know about the first allegations when they occurred, and he damn sure didn’t study it before the documentary aired! When I find the source document for that info, I’ll post it!

    Like

  27. December 1, 2010 7:18 pm

    “Forensic psychologists have written instructions for police interrogation manuals decades ago”

    Since I’ve read a couple of article about forensic interviews and the McMartin case let me share some with you:

    This is what Dr. Slowik says about the McMartin case for example and why children tell lies easier and easier with each interview:

    “Perhaps the most notorious of all of these cases was the McMartin Pre-School case in which Child Protection Services and the police engaged a group of pre-schoolers in intensive and repetitive interviews resulting in 321 criminal charges being filed, a seven year criminal investigation and a trial costing the state of California 16 million dollars (Walker, 2002). Eventually, all charges were dismissed but the lives of the accused – as well as the preschoolers – suffered substantial and possibly irreparable harm.

    Children and others that have been repeatedly interviewed about the same issue not only become more adept at discovering answers they believe the interviewer wants to hear but tend to display the relaxed, comfortable demeanor more typical of a truthful person – not necessarily because they are being truthful but merely because they’ve adjusted to the interview process again and again.

    What is often assumed to be the original answer to a question appearing in the interview may, in fact, be a changed answer from similar questions that were asked in prior interviews.

    For all of these reasons, examiners should make sure the interviewer’s report indicates a formal attempt to discover any and all interviews regarding the issue under investigation conducted prior to the forensic interview. At the very least, the report should state that the child was specifically asked if they had been questioned by their friends, parents, teachers, relatives, medical staff and other likely adults with a summary of the child’s statements included so that previous omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions among interviews become apparent.

    When it becomes obvious that the forensic interviewer completely failed to ask about prior interviewers, examiners should be extremely cautious about creating the examination based primarily upon the forensic interview and take the time and effort to identify and evaluate the effects of previous interviews and repetitive questioning on the results of the forensic interview”.

    Like

  28. Olga permalink
    December 1, 2010 6:12 pm

    @Helena it was a big issue on the news in 1993. At least outside US it was! Forensic psychologists have written instructions for police interrogation manuals decades ago and in police departments that can afford it they are the ones to conduct the interview when the person who is being interviewed is characterizes as “sensitive” for whatever reason. There are very simple do’s and dont’s and they f….ed up everything. Such behavior should have consequences and I know it does when the person being interviewed reports that as police misbehavior and abuse of power. When Sagner touched the issue in the trial the police officer had to admit in front of everyone that this is not what they have been taught in their training. No kidding! Their additional problem is that since the world was watching they were internationally humiliated.

    Like

  29. December 1, 2010 3:58 pm

    “Police used all the wrong techniques both in 1993 and in 2003. They didn’t follow the manual and they did everything they shouldn’t do.”

    Olga, the newspapers you’ve sent me say how the 1993 case was handled by the police:

    “…lawyers for Michael Jackson have accused police officers of telling outrageous lies and of using “any device to generate potential evidence” against the entertainer, who is accused of sexually molesting a 13-year-old boy.

    “I am advised that your officers have told frightened youngsters outrageous lies, such as, ‘We have nude photos of you’ in order to push them into making accusations against Mr. Jackson,” lawyer Bertram Fields wrote in an Oct. 28 letter to Police Chief Willie L. Williams.

    “There are, of course, no such photos of these youngsters, and they have no truthful accusations to make. But your officers appear ready to employ any device to generate potential evidence against Mr. Jackson.”
    Fields added that “these tactics are not merely inappropriate, they are disgraceful.”

    Fields’ accusations–the latest leveled by the Jackson camp against the entertainer’s adversaries–are attached to a motion in the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson and were obtained Tuesday by The Times. They were dismissed by the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission and derided by the lawyer for the boy whom Jackson allegedly molested.

    The lawyer, Larry R. Feldman, said that even if the accusations were true, they would have no bearing on the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson because the suit does not involve the LAPD or its officers”.

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

    Like

  30. December 1, 2010 3:37 pm

    “Once the Arivzo’s saw a possible $15 million windfall from all of this that could only solidify their resolve in pursuing the criminal trial. All they had to do was get a conviction and they knew that.”

    That’s right, Lynette. This is probably why Larry Feldman was still keeping an eye on that case even despite his complete disbelief in what they were saying. If Tom Sneddon had obtained at least one guilty verdict from the jury Larry Feldman would have immediately stepped in.

    Larry Feldman repeatedly denied he wanted to file a civil suit after the criminal trial and constantly produced his “protect-the-ill-child” card when Thomas Mesereau questioned him about it – but why did he represent the Arvizos at all and what was he doing in that case then?

    The LA Times said:
    “On Friday, Feldman told jurors in Jackson’s child-molestation trial that he had no plans to file another suit, but defense attorneys were skeptical.

    Sounding a familiar theme, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr. pointed out that under the law, Jackson’s current accuser, now 15, can file suit any time before he turns 20. Mesereau also suggested that a felony conviction in the current trial would make it easy for the boy and his family to win millions from Jackson.

    But Feldman, a well-known trial attorney who has represented clients as varied as large oil companies and the late Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., insisted that an attorney “would have to be nuts” to target Jackson with a lawsuit in the current case. “It’s almost inhumane,” Feldman said. “I want to protect the child.”

    Even if Jackson is convicted, he said, another trial could be extremely damaging to the boy, who is in remission after a near-terminal bout with cancer.

    Underscoring Feldman’s credentials, Santa Barbara County Dist. Atty. Tom Sneddon asked whether he was known in Los Angeles as “one of the most successful plaintiff’s lawyers around.” Feldman grinned. “Say it again — for the press,” he urged the D.A.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/02/local/me-jackson2

    Thomas Mesereau asked Dr. Katz the same questions:

    10 Q. And it’s your understanding that if

    11 you have a conviction in a criminal case, you’ll

    12 automatically win the civil case?

    13 MR. ZONEN: I will object. Exceeding the

    14 scope of his expertise….

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    December 1, 2010 2:44 pm

    I agree Helena what was said was said and we should not approach it any differently. I must say you did a superb job withour friend Dr. Katz. I also would like to remind everyone that the Settlement agreement was leaked on September 4th-5th ,2004 by none other that our friend Diane Dimond via Ray Chandler and his book. Once the Arivzo’s saw a possible $15 million windfall from all of this that could only solidify their resolve in pursuing the criminal trial. I am sure that they knew like the rest of the world that when OJ was aquitted the Goldman’s and Browns filed a wrongful death suit against him and won. All they had to do was get a conviction and they knew that.
    I knew from the beginning when the conclusion by Dr.Richard Gardener was not leaked and we had only the Chandler’s word for it, that he confirmed that he believed Jordan, it was not true. He would never have told them a thing and his findings would have been given to Larry Feldman and the police not the Chandlers.
    There is another pattern here as well and that is the pattern of the leaks and the information contained in them being skewed with a pro prosecution twist. They leak the settlement agreement,without paragraph 3, which is refered throughout the document and tell us it is for our ease of reading and spin the amount of the settlement out of control. They leak his declaration without telling anyone that it was also leaked in 1993 through the DCFS investigation report and again in January of 1994 when Feldman filined a petition for Michael’s finanacial records. They leak the Grand Jury transcripts without telling people that the defense was not there to cross examine the witnesses. They don’t tell you that the prosecution wanted to introduce not only the photos as a last minute desperate attempt to shock the jury but they also wanted to recall Blanca Francia and put Charlie Michaels on the stand as rebuttal witnesses against Brett, Wade and Maculey Culkin.Like somehow the jury was to believe these paid witnesses over the “alleged” victims themselves.Why is it that someone who is getting paid or hoped to win a large settlement for a story is more believable than the actual victim? The idea is preposterous.A better question would be why would Brett, Wade , Mac, Eddie and Frank Cascio be less interested in a pile of money than a bunch of toys when they were kids, and a car or bracelet for their mother?If they had truly been molested wouldn’t they want their fair share too instead of working for it themselves? Or better yet of all of the alleged victims wouldn’t one of them or all of them want Michael behind bars? After all putting Michael in jail would have been far more lucrative than standing up in court and defending him.

    Like

  32. December 1, 2010 12:01 pm

    I have not read this entire blog yet, as i have to go out shortly. Just when I thought Snedden could not get any sleazier…. I read this! What a dog!

    Like

  33. December 1, 2010 6:49 am

    “I don’t think you should use the Katz’s quote. He spoke about jacking off.”

    Shelly, thanks for the comment. I’m not sure I know the word. But what is said is said and will have to stay there – instead I will rewrite my own evaluation of his words. Even if Dr. Katz did believe those stories about jacking off and wine his overall conclusion shows that even his highly exaggerated version of the events did not fit into the picture of p. behavior and was something completely different. Doctor the Terrible had thousands of cases and with the interview techniques he employed he could have extracted not only “wine” or “jacking off” from those boys but “tunnels for raping children” underneath the house the way they did it in the McMartin case.

    Like

  34. Olga permalink
    December 1, 2010 12:55 am

    Police used all the wrong techniques both in 1993 and in 2003. They didn’t follow the manual and they did everything they shouldn’t do. The Arvizo tape was laughable and pathetic. Either these police officers were never trained or they did it on purpose. The whole thing looked like a performance. The trial was ended by the defense when Mesereau decided to leave them with the tape. After watching it I knew why. It was the most ridiculus piece of “evidence” and I am still laughing at the idea that prosecutors thought it was their best! Lucky Luke and his company along with their cheerleaders should leave these kinds of things for professionals. Maybe they should all find a job to the Laugh Factory because they can’t do any better than that. And Sneddon should be collecting his pension behind bars.

    Like

  35. shelly permalink
    December 1, 2010 12:16 am

    I don’t think you should use the Katz’s quote. He spoke about jacking off.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Trasncript Analysis- Chandler’s Behaviors and Words- Part 2 | mjjjusticeproject
  2. Psych Interview With Jordan Chandler | mjjjusticeproject

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: