Skip to content

The DCFS: There was NO evidence against Michael Jackson. GIVE THE TRUTH A CHANCE

May 8, 2011

All of us were waiting for this moment – and when it came we took the news for granted, because we knew only too well that the allegations against Michael were false.

Now the DCFS authorities confirm that they scrutinized everything there was to scrutinize about Michael on and off for 10 years and didn’t find any evidence in both Jordan Chandler 1993 and Gavin Arvizo 2005 cases.

Here is the long-awaited news:

 Authorities: There’s Never Been Evidence Michael Jackson Was A Ped-le!

Posted on May 05, 2011 @ 07:30PM

By Jen Heger

Radar Legal Editor

With Katherine Jackson ratcheting up the debate about her son Michael Jackson‘s relationship with children by saying he was no child molester, a well-placed government source tells RadarOnline she’s right.

“The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated,” a source told RadarOnline.

Michael Jackson was investigated by DCFS on and off for at least 10 years. The department undertook a first extensive investigation of allegations made by an underage accuser in 1993.

“Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS,” the source said. “Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back. He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in ALL investigations.

“Did Michael put himself in precarious situations that most normal people wouldn’t? Absolutely . . . The questioning was very, very hard on Michael, he just couldn’t fathom that anyone could accuse him of being a child molester.”

Another accuser, in 2005, “had absolutely no credibility,” the source said. “There were differing accounts of what happened from the accuser and his family members.”

Los Angeles’ DCFS also investigated claims of abuse last year involving Michael Jackson’s three children. Michael’s nephew, Jaafar, allegedly used a stun gun on Michael’s son, Blanket. After an extensive investigation, DCFS again took no action in the 2010 stun gun incident.

“Katherine was questioned by officials from the department, and as always, she was cooperative but saddened,” the source said. “Katherine feels that her family has been targeted by opportunists over the years, and she just hopes that was the last time she ever has to go through that.”

The DCFS says Michael was interviewed for hours and hours (can you imagine the pain of it?), that he never tried to hold anything back and was very cooperative with the authorities.  Their questioning was very, very hard on Michael but there was still no evidence confirm the allegations.

Some would probably wonder whether the DCFS investigation was thorough enough.

The little research I’ve done gives no reason for doubting the seriousness of their scrutiny. Actually despite the surprising fact that the LA Police Department’s tried to oust the DCFS from the Chandler case they stubbornly continued the investigation and interviewed everyone involved in the case even after they were accused of a leak from their office:

“In Los Angeles, child abuse reports normally are called in to police or the Department of Children’s Services, which cross-references their cases. While Children’s Services investigates to determine if a child is in danger and should be removed from a home, police typically undertake a parallel investigation only if there is reason to suspect criminal activity.

An employee with the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services, which is investigating the case with the Los Angeles Police Department, said Thursday that the 13-year-old boy has identified four or five other children whom he believes were molested by Jackson.

At least three other young people have been interviewed, say sources familiar with the investigation.

All three youngsters are well-known, those sources said, and the reports detailing their interviews are being closely guarded by investigators. A fourth young boy also was interviewed because he was at Jackson’s ranch when search warrants were served last weekend; that boy has acknowledged that he slept in the same bed as Jackson on occasion but has fiercely defended the singer and said he never sexually molested him.

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.

The case has sparked an intensely sensitive and competitive slew of investigations. 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.

The mother’s lawyer, Michael Freeman, echoed that complaint and said he had scheduled an afternoon meeting at the Department of Children’s Services to discuss how the case files had been leaked.

“Do you understand how confidential a document like that is?” he asked. “I am really pissed.” He refused to comment further.

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 DCFS looked into every detail of the graphic story Jordan Chandler told them. To analyse the case the top DCFS authority was summoned from his vacation:

In case files obtained by The Times, the 13-year-old boy recounted for a social worker the origins and evolution of his relationship with Jackson, one that allegedly went from affectionate cuddling to sexual intimacy. The boy, according to the case files, had difficulty remembering the times and dates.However, the minor was consistent in his story,” one document states.

Officers from the LAPD’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit are overseeing the police inquiry, while a source said that a respected investigator from Children’s Services was brought back from vacation to lead the department’s part of the investigation.

Michael Jackson was fully cooperating not only with the DCFS but with the Los Angeles Police Department as well:

Gascon Los Angeles Police Cmdr. David Gascon said LAPD detectives “have met with cooperation throughout the course of the investigation,” and Pellicano said the singer “is going to cooperate with police in every way.”

LATimes Aug.24, 1993 Full cooperation from MJ's side

Despite examining the case from every angle possible, the horrifying “evidence” Evan Chandler claimed to have on some “tape recordings” was nothing substantial:

“I have the evidence (against Jackson),” the father said. “You’ll hear it on tape recordings.”

Police have said their investigation has not produced physical or medical evidence that would support a criminal filing, but they are still interviewing people and reviewing photographs confiscated from Jackson.

Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: “If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn’t this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest.”

LA Times Aug.31, 1993 Police found nothing to support the allegations1

And now comes the most amazing news.  

It turns out that it weren’t only Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti who investigated Jackson on a continuous basis, but the DCFS was also making its probe into the allegations against Michael for at least several months! 

The article below says that four months after the 1993 case was reported to the Department of Children and Family Services they were still conducting their investigation and were questioning every new witness emerging in the case.

Thus, in December 1993 the DCFS experts were interviewing Jason Francia and by that moment had been talking to him for already two months.  His name is not provided directly but the context of the article suggests it is him. If they interviewed Jason Francia for at least two months how much longer did they interview Jordan Chandler then?

December 22, 1993


Meanwhile new details emerged Tuesday about a potential second child molestation victim who has been interviewed by police and social service workers during the last two months.

Although the allegations made by the boy and his parent are less serious than those brought by a 13-year-old at the center of the criminal investigation, sources said they believe the other boy’s allegations could help the authorities’ case. “It’s good backup for the first case, but it can’t stand on its own,” one source said.

The new allegations come amid news of the shake-up in the Jackson camp. Private investigator Anthony Pellicano and lawyer Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s team of legal advisers, resigned privately in recent weeks–Pellicano quit last Wednesday and Fields quit Dec. 3–sources close to the entertainer said.

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

The above article is dated December 22 – two days after the photos of Michael’s genitalia had been made – which gives us reasons to believe that besides interviews with various witnesses the DCFS research could go as far as comparing Michael’s photos with the description provided by Jordan Chandler.

We can’t say for certain that they did compare them.  But given the rivalry between the LAPD and DCFS and Tom Sneddon’s complaints about the “poor work” of the children services experts,  there isn’t any doubt that if the photos had matched the description Tom Sneddon would have never missed a chance to triumphantly throw these photos into the face of the DCFS to prove ‘how slack these guys are’.

Apparently Tom Sneddon did nothing of the kind. Otherwise the DCFS wouldn’t be saying now that there was no evidence against Michael Jackson.

So whether the children service experts did or didn’t see the photos it doesn’t really matter as the result is the same –Tom Sneddon had nothing incriminating to boast to the DCFS about, the DCFS never changed their opinion about Michael and this proves for an umpteenth time that the photos didn’t match the description.

Michael was absolutely right when he said to Diane Sawyer in that notable interview with Lisa Marie that if there had been a similarity he wouldn’t be sitting in front of her:

Diane Sawyer: How about the police photographs, though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?

Michael: The police photographs?

Diane Sawyer: The police photographs.

Michael: That they took of me? ….

Diane Sawyer: Yeah.

Michael: There was nothing that matched me to those charges, there was nothing.

Lisa Marie: There was nothing they could connect to him.

Michael: That’s why I’m sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that was found, that could connect me …..

Diane Sawyer: So when we’ve heard the charges….

Michael: There was nothing……

Diane Sawyer: …markings of some kind?

Michael: No markings.

Diane Sawyer: No markings?

Michael: No.

Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the…..

Michael: Why am I still here then?

Lisa Marie was right in her amazement that the lies about the “match” were hammered into people’s heads for hours, days and weeks on end while the news about no match-up was published in a tiny paragraph, only once, and in two media outlets only.

  • Lisa Marie: No, I’m just….the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing how tiny it was], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.

Scarce information about the mismatch was provided only by the USA Today and Reuters:

Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser

USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: J an 28, 1994

Copyright USA Today Information Network Jan 28, 1994

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.  If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday. desc=Photos+may+contradict+Michael%27s+accuser

Both Michael and Lisa Marie tried to explain that it wasn’t Michael’s fault that children kept following him wherever he went and that he was too soft in his heart to never say NO to them:

  • Michael: Right. OK, when you say boys, it’s not just boys, and I’ve never invited just boys to come in my room. Come on, that’s just ridiculous. And that’s a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it…you know, the answer , I’ll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But… anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.
  • Lisa Marie: I can say ….I can, I can say…sorry. I’ve seen this, I’ve seen it a lot. I’ve seen kids. I’ve seen him with children in the last year. I’ve seen it enough to where I can see how that can happen. It’s…y’know…I understand ….
  • Lisa Marie: I, I just wanted to say I’ve seen these children. They don’t let him go to the bathroom…without…running in there with him.

So what Michael said to us all along and what he screamed about in his songs turned out to be completely true – there were never any signs of pedophilia in his behavior and the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services confirmed it.

In fact they said what the accusers and those around them knew very well themselves.

The forensic psychologist Dr. Katz who was approached by the former Jordan Chandler’s lawyer Larry Feldman to interview the Arvizos (yes, him too) and who eventually reported their case to the authorities said in the “off-the-record” taped telephone conversation with a police investigator (after he made his report) that he did not think that Michael fit the profile of a pedophile.

This is a well-known fact but very few people know that this psychologist – same as the DCFS, Tom Sneddon, Gil Garcetti and the FBI – also studied Michael’s behavior on and off for ten years as he was the one who reviewed the Jordan Chandler case as well.

Dr. Katz is speaking to Detective Paul Zelis of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dpt. Even he believed those crazy stories about alcohol and jack off he still didn’t qualify Michael Jackson as a p-le. Nothing but a ten-year old… And the detective agreed with him!

So among all those numerous investigators the psychologist comes as number five party investigating Michael Jackson, doesn’t he?

Let me remind you that besides his involvement in the 2003 case ten years before that Dr. Katz was asked by Larry Feldman to look into Jordan Chandler’s interview with another psychiatrist and give his own opinion of Jordan’s words.

And if ten years later Dr. Katz still considered Michael unsuitable for the role of a p-le it means he found him not guilty in the first case as well – otherwise he wouldn’t have been so definite in his positive assessment of the man in a private conversation with a police officer in 2003.

No, despite their studying Michael Jackson for full ten years none of those pundits ever believed the accusations.

By the way isn’t it surprising that we have never heard of the report made as a result of the interview with the first psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner?

Why has it never surfaced?

Dr. Gardner was the best authority on false sexual accusations and must have made a negative report about Jordan’s lies. This is most probably why Larry Feldman had to seek Dr. Katz’s second opinion at all. Otherwise he would have trumpeted all over the world that the “best expert on false sexual accusations proved credibility of his witness” – but he did not, and this is indirect proof that Dr. Gardner’s report must have been negative.

They didn’t care about him…

In fact Larry Feldman did not believe the allegations of both accusers (Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo) either and had to keep up the official façade of loyalty to his clients for business purposes only – as he was in a position of their attorney.

How do we know he didn’t believe the cases he handled?

From Ray Chandler’s book we know that in Jordan Chandler’s case Feldman spent two or three hours trying to make his client come up with a more or less accurate description of Michael’s genitalia – but when the terribly humiliating police photos were finally made they were evidently at so much variance with Jordan’s description that Larry Feldman didn’t find anything better than demand that the photos be barred from the civil trial!

Would he have done so if the photos and the description had really matched? Who said he would? Are you kidding?

Of course Larry Feldman tried to make his announcement about barring the photos in such a twisted way that no one guessed the true meaning of his demand.

The embarrassment of the mismatch discovery was apparently so big that the media raised themselves to report it only once, only in brief and in a very controversial way – which does not change the essence of Larry Feldman’s demand though:

They call this sensational news ‘News in brief’

So in Jordan Chandler’s case Larry Feldman knew that the boy’s description did not match.

And in the ridiculous Arvizo case Larry Feldman flatly said in a private conversation with the highly reputable CNN journalist Larry King that the family was lying and was only after money. This was something Larry King was ready to testify to in the courtroom, only the judge cancelled his testimony at the last minute due to a technicality.

For the record, Larry King had another witness to back up his testimony – one of CNN producers was also present during that conversation with Feldman and could confirm Larry King’s words.

The information that the family was after money and that Feldman was preparing a civil suit for the Arvizos was also confirmed by Dr. Katz in his telephone conversation with Detective Paul Zelis where he said it point blank (evidently not knowing he was disclosing a well kept secret) that “there was a lawsuit that Feldman’s gonna file”.

Larry Feldman was very much on his guard that no evidence exonerating Michael Jackson should be ever made known to the public. Therefore, despite his own total disbelief in the Arvizo case Feldman was outraged by the DCFS’s leak which confirmed that the family’s allegations against Michael Jackson were unfounded.

In fact Larry Feldman sued the DCFS for the truth they fearlessly told on a ridiculous pretext that the Memo “violated the family’s privacy”:

When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked “substantiated.” A case is termed “not substantiated” when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded “unfounded” when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations. THE ARVIZO CASE WAS UNFOUNDED

So the DCFS people are the ones who did try to fight the injustice in 2005 and are doing it now – for which all of us should be deeply grateful to them.

While reading this latest long-awaited news from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services I asked myself a question if I was happy to hear this news. Yes, of course – I’m very happy to hear it.  Moreover, being accustomed to the media lies I am even incredulous that the authorities decided to disclose information about Michael’s innocence at last.

But does this news bring the final feeling of satisfaction? Is it enough to meet the need for full Michael’s exoneration in the eyes of the general public?

No, far from it.

The fact is that the coverage of this news is too scarce – very few media outlets are reporting it.

The truth about Jackson’s innocence should be repeated again and again, and in the same thunderous way the media  hammered their lies into our poor unsuspecting heads (and for so many years too). However the way they treat this news now is absolutely incomparable to the amount of harm they did to Michael Jackson and to the simply unheard of scope of his vilification done earlier.

Everything points at the media’s unwillingness to spread the truth about Michael Jackson while they still jump at every chance to tell another lie about him.

Pro-Jackson information is still unwelcome.

We remember that Aphrodite Jones had to self publish her book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” because each of the numerous publishers she approached openly told her that pro-Jackson material was simply not accepted.

  • “I was told flat-out by numerous publishers and agents in New York that nobody wants a pro-Jackson book,” said Jones. “Can you believe that? It’s just weird that even what you read in a book is getting designated by someone making executive decisions about people’s lives and reputations. It’s not only weird, it’s actually scary.”

Thomas Mesereau faced the same problem when he received numerous offers for a book about Jackson after the trial – however when he made it clear to publishers that he intended to speak of Michael’s innocence all of them suddenly disappeared the moment he said it to them.

Aphrodite Jones also disclosed a carefully guarded secret of the mediawhen Michael was still alive the official position of the news channels was to report only negative news about him – and this is one of the reasons why she vilified him too during the trial:

  • ‘ … while the trial was going on, Jones herself was a popular talking head on television, especially for the Fox News network. “I was one of the leaders of the pack,” she admitted. “We did as much as we could to make [Jackson] look bad. That’s what people wanted. To be quite honest, that’s what Fox wanted. They didn’t want any exculpatory information.”
Aphrodite Jones’ quote about Fox News’ suppression of exculpatory evidence that would make MJ look good perfectly describes to a “T” the power of the media, and how they can destroy anyone they set their targets on.  This reminds me of a quote by one of the greatest and most misunderstood civil rights leaders of the 20th century: Malcolm X. He said the following about the media’s influence on society:
  • “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

Yes, the media is power and this power simply doesn’t WANT any exculpatory information about Michael Jackson!

They call it freedom of speech. 

And we call it their freedom to tell lies about Michael Jackson.

However if they don’t want to tell the truth it will have to be taken care of by us.

This is why I beg all those who are reading these words to do their utmost to spread the DCFS news of Michael’ s innocence so that it reaches the ears of the general public.

Here are the links to the articles telling the news of the DCFS disclosure for you to leave your comments there:


*  *  *  *  *

If anyone still doubts that the DCFS people don’t do their work properly below are the facts showing that they never lost sight of Michael Jackson and his family. Only now they are thoroughly scrutinizing Michael Jackson’s children.

First they checked whether their living conditions were suitable for minors:

Welfare Of Michael Jackson’s Children

Saturday, Jul 4, 2009 | Updated 8:00 PM PDT
Access Hollywood has learned that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is conducting an investigation into the welfare of Michael Jackson’s three children, in light of the unanswered questions about his death.

The investigators will also look into conditions at the Encino house, such as who would care for the children should Katherine not be available. The investigation is expected to take a month but could be extended, depending on the results of toxicology tests done as part of Michael Jackson’s autopsy. Those results are expected in approximately two weeks.

Then they probed whether they had ever been exposed to prescription drugs:

Michael Jackson kids quizzed after death

Michael Jackson’s children have been quizzed by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services to see if they were ever exposed to prescription drugs.

Michael Jackson’s children have been quizzed by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services to see if they were ever exposed to prescription drugs.

Michael Jackson’s children were quizzed by social workers hours after the star’s death.

Less than a day after the ‘Thriller’ singer passed away from a suspected cardiac arrest, the kids – Prince Michael, 12, Paris, 11, and seven-year-old Prince Michael II, known as ‘Blanket’ – were subjected to a series of meetings with the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) following allegations the 50-year-old star was addicted to painkillers to see if they had been exposed to narcotics, including the heroin substitute methadone.

A source said: ‘The investigation was initially launched because drugs are so heavily involved. But in this particular case there are red flags from all the family history and from Michael’s prior involvement in molestation cases.’

The DCFS investigation could also affect any custody disputes between the late star’s mother Katherine – who was named legal guardian of the children – and Debbie Rowe, mother to the two eldest children.

The source added to Britain’s The Sun newspaper: ‘The DCFS has 27 days to investigate the case and close it.

‘They will check everyone involved in the children’s lives for a criminal background.

‘If they are satisfied the kids have been raised in a decent environment, then no further action will be taken.

‘But if they’re not satisfied, that’s when they take it to court.’

Legal experts believe Katherine will be granted custody, but she is also likely to be assessed.

Attorney and family law expert Michael Dave said: ‘The DCFS investigate areas such as neglect and abuse.

‘They are likely to give Katherine an evaluation, carried out by a neutral expert, to determine how suitable the potential guardian is to take custody of the children full-time.’

And later they returned to see whether the children were in danger because of the stun gun incident in their home. In short with so much attention to Michael’s children we cannot doubt that they are in really good hands:

Reports claim that the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services payed several visits to the Jackson family home in Encino, and were forced to confiscate a stun gun that was ordered by Jermaine Jackson’s son.

But Randy Jackson tells X17online exclusively:

“The story is false. I spoke to my children who were present at the time. The stun gun arrived 2-3 weeks ago and was retrieved immediately by security at our family home. The children never played with it and Blanket was nowhere near the vicinity. Since our security handled the situation appropriately and the children were safe, there was nothing for The Department of Child Protective Services to confiscate.

The lies are outrageous and horrific. Enough is enough.”

Katherine Jackson’s attorney, Adam Streisand gave this statement to X17online:

Two weeks ago, Jermaine Jackson’s 13-year old son, Jafar, who lives with his mother Alejandra at the home of Mrs. Katherine Jackson, received a package with a taser he ordered online. Jafar opened the package alone in his bathroom and tested it on a piece of paper.  Mrs. Jackson and security heard the sound coming from the second floor of the house. Immediately, security went upstairs and confiscated the taser. Mrs. Jackson took control over it and then had it removed from the house. There was no other incident. Blanket Jackson never saw or heard the taser. Neither did Paris Jackson. Prince saw the taser in the possession of security. There is no second taser.

Streisand adds, “All of the kids are happy, healthy and wonderful and that is Mrs. Jackson’s only objective and concern.”

This is what the media is really discussing.

And there is still no word of the DCFS’s news that they fully exonerate Michael Jackson of false molestation allegations…

124 Comments leave one →
  1. December 6, 2011 4:05 pm

    “DCFS, Los Angeles, is a corrupt and criminal organization”.

    Travis, do you think that the DCFS did not look well enough into the Arvizo case?


  2. Travis permalink
    December 6, 2011 1:51 pm

    DCFS, Los Angeles, is a corrupt and criminal organization. Their specialty is getting their hands on children, by any means necessary, and then milking the case for as long as possible in order to bilk the State and Federal governments out of as much $ as they possibly can. DCFS will use false and unsubstantiated allegations, fictitious reports to the courts, and outright lies and perjuries against one, or both, parents in order to ply their trade. Terminating parental rights and adopting out a child is DCFS’s most profitable goal. DCFS couldn’t care less about the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a single child. In fact, DCFS Los Angeles is responsible for the deaths of over 200 children every single year. DCFS Los Angeles (particularly the Santa Clarita office) employs the some of the most vicious, vindictive, petty, black-hearted, hateful, evil, mentally ill trolls one could possibly imagine. Their treahcery is well known throughout Los Angeles and much of the country. The Santa Clarita office in particular is often referred to as: The Department of Causing Fashism to Spread, The Department of Causing Fathers to Suffer, The Department of Causing Families to Seperate, etc., etc. CSW’s there like Karen La, Cynthia Hathaway, Michele Nokamura, and Patrisha Knechtli are some of the most disgusting human beings ever to walk this earth and have no business (or the mental stablity) to be in social work or anywhere near children. The problem is, that any idiot can get a Social Services Degree, and many do. That doesn’t mean that they are anything close to decent or respectable people. As for getting any justice from the Monterey Park kiddie court, don’t even think it. The Edelman’s Ccourt is nothing more than an extension of the DCFS legal department. A Kangaroo court through and through. The incestuous relationship between DCFS, the judges, the wanna be judges, and even the bottom of their class defense attorneys, is mind boggleing. The goal of every single person in that building is to rubber-stamp the every whim of DCFS as quietly and as quickly a they can in order to feed the machine and maintain their jobs and the multi-billion dollar budgets. If you find yourself caught in the Los Angeles nightmare, the best thing that you can do for yourself and your children (assuming it’s too late to run) is to hire a private attorney with as few ties to these agencies or courts as possible. I don’t care if you have to sell everything that you own to do it, JUST DO IT!! Then, document and record every interaction you have with any of these people. Then, appeal every single F’d up decision they make (make it as costly for the county as you possibly can). Then, (win, lose or draw) when the dependency case is over, sue the dogshit out of all involved (believe me, you’ll have plenty of grounds by the time it’s all over). Then, take all of that money, and hopefully your children, as far away from Los Angeles County as you can and don’t ever look back! Good Luck!


  3. August 5, 2011 4:56 pm

    I saw the face of Sneddon and inside the guy is a slab of marble: he came to my town in 2002, to see my face in the place where Michael came to write a story for the world: my life, my word, my world view, from his own vision and love.
    Sneddon is part of the demolition and murder of Michael: Sneddon works to Lucifer
    18 abr 2010
    I AM MOONWALKER witness and victim :


  4. August 5, 2011 2:47 pm

    Thank you dialdancer for the Cicinnati link.Knowing this they should just have cancelled the whole trial!And saved taxpayers money.


  5. August 5, 2011 10:16 am

    Original source transcript for MJEOL Bulletin: A Wealth of Evidence Clearing Jackson-MJEOL #127

    If you are wondering why the DA’s Office was able to get away with this conduct, you need look no further than the higher courts & judicial oversight agencies for your answers.


  6. August 5, 2011 9:51 am

    @ Deborah,

    Thank you. It is frustrating, but when I think we’ve exhausted reference rescources, something new or once, twice read and overlooked come to our attention.

    “”April 18 2004 As you know, on April 2 there was a hearing in the Michael Jackson case in California. At that hearing, the defense came to court with binders full of evidence they say exonerates Jackson of these molestation allegations. The binders, labeled “Exculpatory Evidence for Grand Jury”, were given over to the prosecutors to present to the grand jurors. Sources inside the courtroom during that hearing say that co-lead counsel for Jackson, Ben Brafman, said he received a “Johnson letter” on March 12, 2004 asking for a submission of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. These sources say that the 100 items and 61 exhibits were only what the defense prepared in the first 5 days after they received that “Johnson letter”. So all of the evidence they handed over to the prosecution is not even everything that they want presented to the grand jury. And even this doesn’t include evidence what the defense are saving for a possible trial”

    Original source transcript:

    I have no doubt all or much of the exculpatory evidence was not presented and I wasn’t the only one. Former District Attorney. Paul Pfingst did as well.


  7. August 5, 2011 12:04 am

    It was Dickerman.

    It’s frustrating that exculpatory paper trails re 1993 and in 2005 were not followed or given media spotlight.

    That link to the Cincinnati paper was very interesting Dialdancer.

    I agree with Teva that it’s highly unlikely the police did not check Gavin’s hardrive. They would have been looking for erotica. Because they found none the story was deliberately radio silenced.

    The item about the Arvisos poss downloading the documents related to 1993 is a link it would be good to pursue, especially as the alleged date of their download was before the official date that the police investigation began. But it would go to circumstantial rather than proof of guilt.


  8. August 5, 2011 12:00 am

    It was Dickerman.

    It’s frustrating that exculpatory paper trails re 1993 and in 2005 were not followed or given media spotlight.

    That link to the Cincinnati paper was very interesting Dialdancer.

    I agree with Teva that it’s highly unlikely the police did not check Gavin’s hardrive. They would have been looking for erotica. Because they found none the story was deliberately radio silenced.

    The item about the Arvisos poss downloading the documents related to 1993 is a link it would be good to pursue, especially as the alleged date of their download was before the official date that the police investigation began. But it would go to circumstantial rather than proof of guilt.



  9. shelly permalink
    August 4, 2011 12:56 pm

    I think it was Bill Dickerman and by the way the Devil’s backbone is a very good movie.


  10. August 4, 2011 1:24 am


    I cannot remember the attorney’s name now, but there is an article in which he gave an interview where he cited he & Feldman were to join together on the Arvizo’s civil case. He spoke of how the two of them were to divide settlement legal fee profits.


  11. lynande51 permalink
    August 3, 2011 5:04 am

    They met with Feldman one time in April and another in early May . May 15th and 29th they met with Katz.Then he met with The mom and then the family and then on June 13th they called the cops.


  12. Teva permalink
    August 3, 2011 4:57 am

    Why is May 2003 significant? Is that before the Arvizo’s met with Feldman? I know the mockumentary aired in February.


  13. lynande51 permalink
    August 3, 2011 4:50 am

    It probably is true. I found a document back in December that I have lost of my computer. It had a more extensive timeline attached to a pleading and on there Star told them that MJ had them watch a movie named The Devil’s Backbone”. Now if you search that you find out that it is a Spanish language horror film. Sound a little like “we watched the Exorcist”. I also have the transcript of the phone call between Stan Katz and Paul Zellis that prompted the second investigation. In it Katz says that ” Jordy couldn’t stop him”. I am adding that to an article that I am writing. Not only that katz also says that Feldman has a lawsuit ready to go. So much for the “they weren’t after money” BS. The it even says that Sneddon had to tell then where they stood legally so that means that they had togo to criminal court first. The funny thing when you look back on all of that is I really believe that Sneddon and everyone else thought they had every one believing them. Too bad the 12 important ones didn’t.I doubt if Sneddon went so far as to show them the photos. There was not way that he could guarantee that the areas of discoloration woud be the same after 10 years.


  14. Teva permalink
    August 3, 2011 4:39 am

    Well, if the smoking gun website was visited it would definitely be in the computer’s cache. If inappropiate emails were exchanged the prosecuter would have warrants for the ISPs and mail hosting servers. Don’t believe for a minute that the prosecutors did not do a forensic of Gavin’s hard drive. They would want to know date, time etc when Gavin open those emails, and on what pc he used because they would try to argue Michael gave him a computer with illicit/grooming intentions.


  15. August 3, 2011 3:13 am

    Has anyone see or heard of this article or comment before?

    Accuser downloaded 1993 affidavit in May 2003?

    There is a possibility this was a real report, someone else claims it was heard on Court TV as well.

    I wonder if Sneddon or Feldman showed Gavin Michael’s photos as well?


  16. June 12, 2011 7:56 am

    “It is quite possible that all these people feel justified in their actions that is why everything comes back to the 1993 accuser.”

    And that is why blowing that allegation to hell and back, and exposing the machinations of its players is the most important thing to be done. Regardless what any “Hater” or “Dimond” type Tabbie says we all know the 2003 allegations was lie. The trial was a desperate attempt to justify the actions of a vindictive and ambitious fanatic, founded on contrived evidence and tainted witnesses.. But it is a lie that is has weight only because information of the 1993 allegation/investigation remains shrouded.

    It will never happen, but I’d like to know what was presented to both 2004 Grand Jury’s.


  17. stacy2 permalink
    June 11, 2011 1:11 pm


    yes that’s exactly how the arvizos feel. This is a comment that was left by Star on someone’s facebook:


  18. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:39 am

    @ Teva

    I don’t know what the Arvizos believed about past allegations. I think they simply wanted money. And of course, they KNEW MJ never molested Gavin.

    However I wonder the same about the Chandlers. Sometimes Ray Chandler’s behaviour (collecting tabloid articles about alleged molestations by MJ etc.) seems to me as if he is trying to convince himself: “OK, maybe he didn’t molest Jordan, but he’s still a CM and we were doing the right thing.”


  19. Teva permalink
    June 11, 2011 11:02 am

    I think Zonen keeps in touch with Gavin because his fiance/wife (Louise Palankar) was friends with the Arvizos before the molestation accusations, so he is friends with them too.

    I don’t believe Gavin, Star, Sneddon, Zonen, none of them feel any shame or guilt. The prosecution needed Star’s testimony because he was their eyewitness to the crimes against his brother, without his testimony it would have been MJ’s word against Gavin’s; he was needed to bolster their case.

    Here is another theory, what if the Arvizos do believe MJ was a m*lester. Not neccessarily that he m*lested Gavin, but more that he m*lested someone(s) and he would do it again, and it was their civil responsibility to help in a conviction. I do remember the police used that line before on Francia and it worked. It is legal for the police to lie to you to get information, but it is not legal for you to lie to the police that would be obstruction of justice. It is quite possible that all these people feel justified in their actions that is why everything comes back to the 1993 accuser.


  20. June 11, 2011 10:56 am

    Do you really want to do something for Michael Jackson?
    Read this document and send it to any contact that you have in any room. The truth is free, nobody has to pay for it, just a matter of love, truth and love flow through the same path. BEFORE GOD AND WORLD


  21. Alison permalink
    June 11, 2011 10:25 am

    Nan, those are very interesting thoughts, i’d not considered the possibility that gavin might have needed pushing into this. i’m not sure about it buts its an interesting angle. it would explain why they needed starr so much and also why there was so much discrepancy between each of their 2 stories – somebody here suggested they could have been trying to throw the case – perhaps it was gavin trying to do that without getting in too much trouble with his family, whilst starr was the more determined one.
    when you watch Larry Nimmer’s film i do feel there’s some shame in him at times, because of how he mumbles and gets his drink et.c, its clear he’s lying but there is more there than cold faced lying. i know he is acting a part but its very bad acting, it is totally unbelievable and all the detractors that comment on it have to keep repeating how believable he was which is totally absurd. – like Helena’s brainwashing info, they keep saying it to make people, maybe even themselves, believe it.

    it would as you say explain also why its so important to zonen and sneddon to keep a close eye on them.

    i don’t know, and we cannot know until they tell the truth.
    but they still went on with it, they still lied and put MJ through hell. the only difference i could see it could make is how gavin might feel about publicly coming clean – which of course would be a good result.


  22. June 11, 2011 8:28 am

    @Suzy & Alison, without the conspiracy there is no molestation. Sneddon added that to be able to keep the molestation charges because of the exculpatory evidence against it. The molestation charges were within the conspiracy. He changed the dates when he found out about Michael’s alibi and added the conspiracy charge.


  23. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2011 3:47 am

    @ Alison

    “The charges included a count of conspiracy to kidnap, a charge so ridiculous that even Jackson ‘s detractors doubted its validity.”

    Yes, even anti-MJ people in the media admitted the conspiracy charge was weak. But I don’t know if someone doesn’t believe that, how can they believe the rest? Without the conspiracy the whole totally falls apart. That’s why the conspiracy charge was needed.


  24. nan permalink
    June 11, 2011 12:26 am

    I love reading these comments,so interesting,..I just thought I would give my opinion on what katz said about Janet saying they couldnt come in one time , it was too much for first thought,is how could it be too much for all of THEM if supposedly Gavin had never told his mother,about any incidents, before he finally broke down and told the sheriff dept….She supposedly knew nothing about the molestation….She didnt tell Katz she was confused as to why this is too much for them……….I think the mother and Starr had now problem throwing mj under the bus,Starr was always secondary,the ignored child,even when it came to Mj .he wasnt getting as much attn because he wasnt sick….no phone calls for that kid…..I think that is why he can be so cavalier about the b.s. he is saying still regarding mj…..It still can get him attn.the reflected celebrity of being around MJ..good or bad..
    when Zonen talked at the frozen in time thing,he didnt even mention Starr,he was a supposed victim of a crime also..but he wasnt the primary one ,it was Gavin…Gavin is the one that gave the prosecution what they needed to hear to accuse MJ,that,imo,is why Zonen throws so much support his way…
    I think it bothered Gavin to do this ,because he loved MJ but was told by his mother, he deserted their family,and got angry,thats why he started to go along with this,,,because he couldnt hang with MJ after all this anyway…, if there was a day they couldnt show up for katz,it was because gavin was having 2nd thoughts..
    i notice zonen, keeps tabs on gavin,yet doesnt mention Starr.No glowing remarks regarding how Starr is doing in school….Maybe he knows Gavin had real hesitation with this thing and might say something to someone…….Mesereau said while he was testifying,he didnt get upset about molestation,instead he got emotional when he talked about mj deserting his family……..i also notice,when Gavin was to be conning comedians ,he wanted to be a comedian,then when he was with sherriffs, he wanted to be in law enforcement ,now zonen and zonen says he wants to be a lawyer…..Maybe he will end up working with the Santa Barbara d.a. to keep him close,


  25. Alison permalink
    June 10, 2011 10:48 pm

    @ Thetis7
    “and why was it not used as evidence at the time of the 2005 trial, when Jackson was accused of molesting that very same boy? …………………………………….The charges included a count of conspiracy to kidnap, a charge so ridiculous that even Jackson ‘s detractors doubted its validity. An insurance policy by the prosecution, perhaps, to ensure Jackson did actually make it to trial, despite the findings of the report.”
    2 very excellent points!


  26. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 10, 2011 8:38 pm

    can anyone here post me a link where that interview on reflection on the dance floor about the chandler kid?


  27. Suzy permalink
    June 10, 2011 7:29 pm

    @ Truth Prevail

    That Jordan came forward was just an Internet hoax. I don’t know why Michael’s family keep repeating it. Unfortunately it’s not true.


  28. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 10, 2011 7:18 pm

    @Hana when did star say michael is disgusting and a boy manupilator?

    and i find it really strange that zonen still keeps in touch with the arvizos i mean if the family had nothing 2 do with MJ would he still give that family that treatment hes obvously keepin in touch with them for a reason so he knows exactly knows wt there movements are him and his team obviously are hiding something no doubt about that!


  29. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 10, 2011 5:51 pm

    According 2 the clip below Jermain says the boy came forward and said michael never touched him.


  30. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 10, 2011 5:46 pm

    Evan chandler blew his brains out in the september of 09 right i bet that man never found solcace even with that money which he got with his lies i bet it jus led him 2 his own demise he had himself 2 blame.


  31. June 10, 2011 5:42 pm

    I am now listening to William Wagener’s video call and find it extremely important.

    Can any of you guys explain to me in plain language how a donation can be made from abroad?
    Could any of you go through all the stages of making a donation – even if you donate $1 only – and explain it step by step to all of us how we should do it?

    I believe that William Wagener really wants to make a good documentary and even if it is not half good as he thinks it will be it is still worth trying. ALL directions are worth trying so that we don’t feel sorry later that we haven’t even tried.

    It would be a total shame to stay away from this project and that is why I am seriously asking you to explain to the uninitiated this payment thing step by step.

    The site for the documentary is here:


  32. shelly permalink
    June 10, 2011 5:00 pm

    Did Wagner asked if there is 1 million fans who would 20 dollars for the documentary?


  33. June 10, 2011 2:44 pm

    the site for Wagner’s documentary


  34. June 10, 2011 2:37 pm


  35. June 10, 2011 1:53 pm

    Michael Jackson: A Victim

    May 25, 2011

    With the recent coverage of the proceedings for the trial of Dr Conrad Murray for the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson, one can’t help but be reminded of the time Jackson himself stood trial on several counts relating to child molestation. It’s interesting, however, that a document emerged last week from the Department of Children and Family Services, showing that they had undertaken their own investigations in 1993 and 2003, and on both occasions had found no evidence of wrong doing.

    In 2003, the mother of the boy in question denied that that there had ever been any sexual misconduct by Jackson, the boy and his siblings agreeing that he had been like a father to them. This, coupled with the fact that Jackson had been under surveillance by the FBI, who also found nothing to report, confirms that there never was any case to answer.

    One wonders why it has taken the best part of 9 years for the information in the report to be released and why was it not used as evidence at the time of the 2005 trial, when Jackson was accused of molesting that very same boy? Was the report suppressed by the over-zealous prosecution, led by D.A. Thomas Sneddon, who, it seems, was hell-bent on seeing Jackson put away? The charges included a count of conspiracy to kidnap, a charge so ridiculous that even Jackson ‘s detractors doubted its validity. An insurance policy by the prosecution, perhaps, to ensure Jackson did actually make it to trial, despite the findings of the report.

    Of course, the media played their part too, reporting only the most lurid details in a frenzy of gossip and innuendo, condemning Jackson even before the Jury had been selected. Certain journalists were out looking for evidence of their own, convinced there were more victims just waiting for the call. No-one seems to have been looking for confirmation that Jackson was a victim of an extortion attempt which had got out of hand. Any investigative journalist worth his salt could have found out about this report which would have cast severe doubt on the credibility of the accuser and his family, and clearing Jackson ‘s name.

    Strangely, although Jackson is the victim and not the accused in Dr. Murray’s trial, the judgemental gossip goes on. In an attempt to turn the tables and make him look like the guilty party, the suggestion by
    Murray ‘s camp is that, at best, Jackson deserved his fate. The press are avidly reporting stories of Jackson being addicted to anaesthesia, drinking the fatal dose from a juice carton, as well as revelling in the possibility that he was so financially broken that he was suicidal.

    Michael Jackson was a man whose quality of life was all but destroyed by the power of the press; his reputation blemished, despite being cleared by a jury of any misconduct. Perhaps it’s time we finally gave him a break and let justice be served on this occasion without the malign interference of the media.


  36. June 9, 2011 9:22 am

    Can you believe that God, truth, love, exist or not, but you were born with a purpose, and hell only saves us love.
    Michael Jackson, the angel Michael, fought against the heads of a dragon. So, was killed. But the angels of Michael to continue the struggle for the triumph of truth, love, as he reopened his songs the way forgotten that Jesus taught. It’s time for truth. Overcome fear, love child keeps the spirit always lives to overcome the darkness and pain, is the value that builds the evolution towards perfection and eternal life. With love overcomes evil that wants to annihilate us. This is (not) it: not least because Michael is the light that now unites us to the truth wins out over darkness in we want to sink all that we love. Angels Michael and Jesus, read and spread:


  37. June 8, 2011 10:47 pm

    My homepage has a list of current “Top News” among some was this:

    “Ja Rule sentenced to prison in NYC gun case” I Googled this story and watched in anger and amazement the number of Mainstream and well known local news agencies which either reprinted the story or added to the initial report. This story is getting coverage and being sent to networks affiliates, but still to date not a sound about the DCFS report.. Several of the local and all of the major networks found in the search results if you look are places emails were sent asking if they were aware of the DCFS and if they intended to report on it. Below is my list. Why do I keep expecting a modicum of change, honesty and clarity from these people I do not know?

    This is my Google search results list Page One.

    USA Today
    New York Daily News
    http://www.taiwannews (Twinan????)
    http://www.Forbes (business & finance)


  38. June 7, 2011 3:11 pm

    Another interesting tidbit…

    MONDAY 6th June 2005

    As I predicted, the Jury did not come back with a verdict. Look to see it on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday. Meanwhile another 150 fans and lookee loos have pulled into town and 300 are expected to be at the Courthouse of Santa Maria, on Tuesday. >b?And for those fans paying close attention. there will be a pleasant surprise.No, Not Joe Jackson, who showed up today, looking for his son Michael, but something else I can not reveal until after Midnight PST. Watch Diane Diamond’s face turn shades of rage when the NOT GUILTY verdict come in, as I who live here and know of two of the Jurors. But in my view she is a nut case, and not a reporter or truth. In fact, I can count on my left hand the number of Truth reporters I have seen in this Courtroom. I have told many of them of the sleezy uneven enforcement of the law, and told them were to double check what I say at the local library. Not one has done so. There ain’t no money in telling the Truth, if it leads to the conclusion MJJ is getting a Kangaroo Trial. A modern day financial lynching.

    I stand alone in my opinion, among those who hold a S.B. Sheriffs Press credential. But heck so did Jesus. I am not saying MJJ is as good as Jesus, but Jesus said, HIS followers would be persecuted. I have seen that MJJ does much good for inner city kids of all races. He has been persecuted.

    NOT GUILTY or any bunch of dysfunctional liars can accuse any rich do gooder and ruin their life. Today Michael Joe Jackson, tomorrow YOU.

    We will have several of my TV shows ready for viewing off this web site including at least one of my 10 shows on Michael Joe JACKSON inquisition. Tell me which one YOU would prefer. Number 1, which deals with the custody battle, M.J. may have to fight or IS fighting, number 2, with the footage of the Santa Maria City Council & City manager admitting they are making money off MJJ inquisition, number 3, where I sport fun at one of the Asst. Dist. Atty., number 4, where you get to see the best of the April 3 FANs RALLY for Michael. Which one, would you most like to see. Email me at

    The original site no longer works, but it’s on archive:

    Some interesting articles there…


  39. Alison permalink
    June 2, 2011 11:39 pm

    Hana, how could it result in perjury charges, I didn’t think he ever told his story in a courtroom? and if he did he was a minor anyway at 13, I don’t think perjury would apply would it?
    But I would still like to hear Soare Cecilia’s take on it as she seems to have close knowledge of Jordie’s situation and things he is reported to have said.


  40. Hana permalink
    June 1, 2011 10:45 am


    Did he ever talk about how he felt about MJ?


  41. Hana permalink
    June 1, 2011 10:44 am


    Jordie wouldn’t tell the truth to the public because it would result in perjury charges.


  42. Alison permalink
    June 1, 2011 12:09 am

    Soare Cecilia, Why then, if he has been telling this to people for years, will he not come forward properly and vindicate Michael? Do you know? Because if he has already been verbalising it so much its not such a great step as if he had never uttered a word. He must have known that once he broke his own silence it would get out. Did he say if he would or not one day? what did he say about WHY it all happened, as I am sure people will have asked him? and why he allowed a person he loved – as a friend and a fan – to be so horrifically treated?


  43. Soare Cecilia permalink
    May 31, 2011 8:00 am

    Jordan was not implanted with false memories – well maybe they tried, but I am sure it did not succeed.

    I know for sure, that at high school and faculty, Jordan befriended some MJ fans. He still gave MJ parties and invited them to parties. He said Mike did nothing on him. Not once he said that, many times.

    One of the fans, was on KOP Board, during trial days, in secrecy she confessed to few, ( I was one of those few ) that she is on the defense list, because of that. She went to some of those parties and heard Jordan saying nothing happened. She made us swear on secrecy, because it was the trial. I mostly kept silence, even after trial, but now…


  44. Suzy permalink
    May 20, 2011 8:07 am

    @ Dialdancer

    Roseann Barr’s “memories” are very suspect to me. She claims she remembers that she was molested at six months old. Who would remember that?

    Yes, there is such a thing as false memory. There is a second part of this video and there’s another interesting story of it from another woman (from 0:42):


  45. Dialdancer permalink
    May 20, 2011 7:30 am

    Back again. The below video is on Roseann Barr’s allegations of parental sexual abuse. This is not about Ms. Barr nor am I making any statement about whether she was or wasn’t abused. What caught my attention was a comment about her parents being “tushy touchers”. Ms. Barr is a repressed memory patient. I am back to wondering whether the type of counseling kids like Jordan received reinforced a false repressed or implanted memory? Does the belief in such memories become stronger as the child ages?

    Is it possible Daniel Capon had this technique used on him? Given what we know now he could be a victim, but his assailant wasn’t Michael, but perhaps the person(s) who used this technique on what looks to have been an already damaged person. I would not attempt to expose anyone who may be suffering from being medically mishandled to more trauma, but I’d like to know if Capon was seen by the DCFS and what their assessment of him was? This may explain why the ages of his alleged abuse kept changing and the accusations so all over the place.


  46. Dialdancer permalink
    May 19, 2011 9:51 pm

    The irony that Dr. Lorandos’ video was filmed by NBC is not lost on me.


  47. Dialdancer permalink
    May 19, 2011 9:48 pm

    @ Lynette,

    I still have doubts about Jordan had false memories implanted, it is my belief he was fully aware of what he was doing. I came across the below video while looking for information for a post on another site.

    Is it possible that Jordon was given false memories and due to the type of therapy (if any) after the settlement it could have reinforced the false memories rather than freed him of them?


  48. May 18, 2011 10:24 pm

    Yes, I agree with Carm I was thinking the same thing earlier. I’m apart of that ‘we’ I have no idea what Rosario7 is talking about…sorry.


  49. Carm permalink
    May 18, 2011 8:55 pm

    “I am Annie of Smooth Criminal, witness and victim of a plot to assassinate Michael Jackson,…” etc.
    No offense intended but I (we?) don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Your writing is very hard to understand.


  50. Dialdancer permalink
    May 18, 2011 4:59 am

    “but I know how people are able to act evil, lie without the slightest remorse.”

    And there are thousands of well worn excuses for doing what is done.


  51. May 15, 2011 10:07 pm

    “By the time the jury returned with the unanimous verdict that Michael Jackson was not guilty on all charges brought against him, it didn’t even matter anymore: we had already made up our mind. We killed Michael Jackson. “

    Thetis, it’s true and it’s very sad. I still cannot get over the fact that I was indifferent to Michael’s fate when he was alive. And though I didn’t say any bad things about him and was only suspicious of them it is still like having blood on my hands. Even if Michael has forgiven me already this feeling of guilt and sadness will probably always be there.


  52. May 14, 2011 9:27 am

    GREAT NEW ARTICLE (she linked my 1993 post plus on more from our blog)

    Michael Jackson the Victim: The Untold Truth

    May 14 2011 By Elena Gorgan

    On June 25, 2009, the final chapter in one of the most controversial histories of present times ended: Michael Jackson died from an overdose of the anesthetic Propofol, as his autopsy would later reveal. Two years after the shocking but, for many fans who’ve always believed in his innocence, perhaps not that unexpected, event, we have begun to clear the name of the King of Pop, as the untold truth comes out to light.

    Late last week, Katherine Jackson, Michael’s mother, spoke to Matt Lauer about what it was like to stand so close in court to the man she believes is responsible for her son’s death, Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael’s personal physician who was with him on the tragic day.

    She also said that the biggest misconception about Michael was that he was a molester.

    This, in turn, led to more stories (but not nearly enough, given how much weight they bring to a case Michael himself had been making since 1993, when he was first accused of improper behavior with a minor) popping up online, uncovering documents dating back to the molestation trials which, in fact, confirmed what the general public and the media would never acknowledge: Michael Jackson was innocent.

    Michael Jackson. Best selling artist of all times. The King of Pop. The Gloved One. Jacko. Wacko Jacko. Freak. Pedophile. Monster.

    We are often told true talent always shines through and genius never goes by unnoticed, which is why we should learn to make the difference between the artist and the person s/he is in real life.

    Clearly, that never applied to Michael Jackson, arguably the most talented pop artist ever to come out, and undeniably the most popular and successful: for nearly two decades, his last years of life, the media and the public deliberately chose to ignore the truth because scandal was a much more profitable business than actual fact.

    We killed Michael Jackson.

    Maybe it wasn’t you or me or the guy who lives next door, with who we cross paths occasionally when we come out to get the paper. Maybe it wasn’t X tabloid or Y celebrity magazine, or even Z journalist. But we did it together and we did it slowly and painfully, deliberately, by ignoring facts and focusing on the sensationalism of Michael’s life.


    In 1993, when his personal life had already become tabloid fodder and not a day went by without at least one Jackson story, Michael Jackson was accused of molesting a child. 13-year-old Jordan Chandler and his father, Dr. Evan Chandler, went public with the story, prompting authorities to launch an investigation into the claims.

    In December that same year, Neverland Ranch is raided by police: documents and other items are removed from the premises, and Michael is submitted to a 23-minute strip search that leaves him feeling so humiliated he will never recover from it.

    Because of inconclusive evidence, the jury is disbanded and Michael is never prosecuted.

    At his lawyers’ recommendations, Michael settles with the Chandlers outside of court even though, as Katherine said just recently, he didn’t want to because he knew that would make him feel guilty.


    In May 2002, Michael decides to do something he’d never done before: very shy and fiercely protective of his personal life (not that anyone can blame him, though), he agrees to allow BBC journalist Martin Bashir and his cameras into his life for the chance to tell the world his story, unbiased, unedited and brutally honest.

    Bashir had previously achieved international acclaim after a very revealing and groundbreaking interview with Princess Diana – it was Di who convinced Michael to do this because she trusted Bashir, which would explain why the singer never saw what happened next coming.

    “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in the UK in March 2003, 10 years after the first molestation allegation was made. One particular scene shows Michael holding hands with Gavin Arvizo (13), as Gavin leans his head on the singer’s shoulder, and they talk about their sleeping arrangements for when the boy spends the night in Michael’s bedroom.

    In the footage that the public saw at the time, there was no doubting Bashir’s intentions, as he repeatedly tells Michael it’s not normal for a 44-year-old to sleep in the same bed with other people’s children, asking him if he at least understood why people may see something wrong with it.

    Innuendoes are, at times, more efficient than the strongest poison.

    Michael smiles throughout the whole “interrogatory,” saying there’s nothing wrong with it, that children need “touching” and “hugging,” and that love can heal the world.

    The public was shocked by what it saw: the apparent admission of a guilty man who, most importantly, laughed in their worried faces while admitting he did, indeed, sleep with children in the same bed.

    Authorities acted accordingly, with Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon out to get the public their guilty man: Michael was indicted for four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor, one count of abduction, and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive at Neverland.

    On July 13, 2005, a jury finds Michael not guilty on all charges.

    Also fact: Throughout the entire trial, the media deliberately reports only on the sensational claims made in court, ignoring testimonies and evidence that proves said claims are bogus, in what Charles Thomson of The Huffington Post aptly names “the most shameful episode in journalistic history.”

    What We Were Told

    It’s easy to dismiss the media plot to present the Michael Jackson trial in a skewed light as just another conspiracy theory because, you know it, that’s one of the appeals of a good conspiracy theory: to have it dismissed.

    Nevertheless, there’s no denying that there was an intentional attempt at covering only the salacious and revolting aspects of it, especially since most of the media had already settled for a guilty verdict even before the jury was presented with the case.

    The fact that Michael denied all charges counted very little. The fact that most testimonies proved false and that countless witnesses for the prosecution either ended up testifying for the defense or were found guilty of perjury counted even less.

    While witnesses took the stand in court to speak in Michael’s defense, the media chose to have the public looking at something else: his court outfit, did he wear a wig or was that his real hair, didn’t he appear whiter than before – that must confirm he’s bleaching his skin, would he ever make music again, how does he look at himself in the mirror!?

    In their crazed dash for ratings, the media forgot that its duty was to report objectively. Of course, we’re not talking about tabloids here, but about representatives of the media that boast of their unbiased coverage of all events: CNN, BBC, ABC, THR, and so on and so forth.

    With it, the public forgot that once, this was a man who had brought so much joy and hope into their lives with his music, his dancing, his charity work, his honesty – and gladly took part in his lynching.

    What We Did

    By the time the jury returned with the unanimous verdict that Michael Jackson was not guilty on all charges brought against him, it didn’t even matter anymore: we had already made up our mind.

    For the remainder of his life, Michael Jackson was branded a child molester even though he’d been through hell and back to prove that he was the exact opposite of that. For the media and the public opinion, the mere fact that he’d been found not guilty was proof of just how good he was – at hiding his true nature, that of a monster.

    “A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty.’ The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts,” Charles Thomson writes in the aforementioned piece.

    “34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged.’ In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice.’ A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision,” he further informs.

    That Michael Jackson had been found not guilty was, most ironically of all, proof that he was. Even more, it was proof that he could get away with it.

    With this, we ended Michael Jackson’s career, broke his spirit and tainted his image for eternity. And, yes, we killed him.

    Today, so many years after all of the above, documents about what really happened are starting to make the rounds online. Fans – the only ones who have never doubted Michael’s innocence – are lamenting that it’s a little too late to make any difference, but that’s not entirely true: Michael’s children can still grow up knowing that the entire world does not think their father a monster.

    And there’s still hope that the truth will eventually prevail.

    *We thank Thetis7, Maria M., VindicateMJ, Elizabeth, the CA Anti-Def Group and Charles Thomson for all their assistance and support in the writing of this editorial, as well as the entire Michael Jackson fanbase on Twitter.

    For more details on the media conspiracy against Michael Jackson, please refer here, here and here.

    Michael Jackson speaks of police brutality after 2003 arrest

    Michael Jackson’s message of love


  53. Dialdancer permalink
    May 14, 2011 5:34 am

    @ Anna,

    “In boxing matches there is a phrase called “throwing the fight” when one opponent will let the other guy win (for various reasons but usually involves monetary betting), sometime I wonder if Gavin and Star were trying to “throw the case” with the conflicting testimony.”

    I have wondered about this “throwing the fight”, but in my case I go with Janet. She and her family were grifters, con-artists, but I don’t think they foresaw Michael going to jail. They did not realize what Sneddon was. They wanted the quick and big bucks. Janet was so over the top I have wondered about her often. In 2 years she went from a lovely and seductive looking woman who may have been able to catch MJ’s eye into a crazed frump.


  54. Suzy permalink
    May 13, 2011 6:21 am

    @ Helena

    “He said that Gavin was much more vague in his story than Star and that he “may feel that on some level he was betraying a friend”.”

    Maybe. But maybe he’s just a better actor. It was revealed during the trial that their mother trusted his acting skills more than Star’s.

    I think they were encouraged and enabled by Sneddon, that’s true. But I doubt they had to be asked twice once they saw a chance to cash-in. Gavin also might have seen it as “payback” for Michael “abandoning him”.

    @ Teva

    “Of course he was upset, they had big plans for a settlement. Well, after the case he just couldn’t say to Sneddon, well I made it all up, so let bygones be bygones!”

    Or alternatively, Sneddon couldn’t go and admit in public it was all made up by the Arvizos even IF he knows it was…

    Of course we are just speculating about who knows what, but I have a feeling Sneddon might know it was made up. There is a reason why Zonen still keeps an eye on the Arvizos.

    @ Anna

    “I guess I have a tendency like Michael to sometimes try and look for the good in people, it is disappointing to think there isn’t any.”

    I’m more of a cynic regarding human nature. No, I don’t see bad in everyone, but I know how people are able to act evil, lie without the slightest remorse.


  55. Anna permalink
    May 13, 2011 12:55 am

    “I may be fancying things of course but now it looks to me like they were forced or at least heavily encouraged to go against Jackson. They were coached and brainwashed, and probably given false information about “other victims”, and with a psychiatric case like Janet Arvizo it was easy to convince her that they had all been in “danger” while in Neverland. They convinced her themselves and she paid back to them by working herself into such a state that she started believing her own crazy stories about escaping in balloons.”

    I have similar thoughts as well. I think in the beginning Janet Arvizo thought it was going to be a quick settlement like in the chandler case with Star and Gavin as willing participants. I always kind of got the impression that they dug a hole so deep they didn’t feel they could get out of it. By the time the investigation was underway and then the trial I think they (Gavin and Star) felt in some ways forced to follow through with the lies. Even if no one was specifically forcing them. At that point they had told so many lies that it probably seemed beyond the point of no return in term of finally telling the truth. Then when I read court transcripts and saw how many contradictions there are in the stories of Gavin and Star I can’t help but wonder if they were trying to be unbelievable. I know it sounds crazy but at the same time you read their testimony and you wonder how anyone in their right mind could take them seriously at all.

    In boxing matches there is a phrase called “throwing the fight” when one opponent will let the other guy win (for various reasons but usually involves monetary betting), sometime I wonder if Gavin and Star were trying to “throw the case” with the conflicting testimony.

    I know it’s just a theory of mine but it is one that I do sometimes wonder about. Or it could be that they just don’t have a conscience either.

    I guess I have a tendency like Michael to sometimes try and look for the good in people, it is disappointing to think there isn’t any.


  56. Teva permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:45 pm

    “Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who led the prosecution case against Jackson, said that Gavin Arvizo was “very down” after the jury’s verdict.

    Of course he was upset, they had big plans for a settlement. Well, after the case he just couldn’t say to Sneddon, well I made it all up, so let bygones be bygones! He still had to play a part, he still had to be convincing; otherwise, how would it look.


  57. May 12, 2011 8:44 pm

    “I don’t think they have sleepless nights over Michael. They should, but there are people who just don’t have conscience.”

    Suzy, I also thought the way you do, but my opinion was somewhat shattered by the words of Dr. Katz in that telephone conversation with Detective Paul Zelis. He said that Gavin was much more vague in his story than Star and that he “may feel that on some level he was betraying a friend”.

    On some level even Janet Arvizo probably felt it too, otherwise she wouldn’t have cancelled one of the interviews and wouldn’t have said that THEY couldn’t do this (she was speaking for all of them!) – they felt it was “too much” and “they just can’t do this”:

    Stanley Katz:
    27 And ya know, she’d call me back one day and canceled interview and said
    28 we can’t do it. Like just feel it’s too much, ya know. We just can’t do this.

    This short phrase is nagging me ever since I read it – to me it sounds like them being forced to do things against Michael and the process of it being somewhat painful to them too. Betraying a friend must be painful…

    And the fact that Gavin started crying when Dr. Katz said they would receive money if he spoke against Jackson?

    Stanley Katz:
    7 I don’t think they see the financial motive here, because when
    8 I sat down with Gavin, I said Gavin look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit,
    9 your family will get money if you win.
    10 PZ: Mmhm
    11 SK: I want you to understand that, but you also will be, your identity may be
    12 known.
    13 PZ: Right
    14 SK: And he sat there and started crying. So…I….I don’t feel like ya know, from
    15 Gavin’s point of view at all this is something he wants to do.”

    I don’t know what kind of a psychologist Dr. Katz is but even to me it is clear that people don’t cry when they think of the prospect of having millions – they can cry only at thinking what they will have to sacrifice in order to get them.

    His identity might be known? But the whole world was already talking about him as a possible “victim” after Bashir’s film! So why cry bitterly over his identity being disclosed?

    I may be fancying things of course but now it looks to me like they were forced or at least heavily encouraged to go against Jackson. They were coached and brainwashed, and probably given false information about “other victims”, and with a psychiatric case like Janet Arvizo it was easy to convince her that they had all been in “danger” while in Neverland. They convinced her themselves and she paid back to them by working herself into such a state that she started believing her own crazy stories about escaping in balloons.

    By the way in that Spanish forum I found an article saying that Tom Sneddon and the Arvizos were so close that they were seen shopping together!

    CNN: We saw the Arvizo Sneddon buying recently in Beverly Hills

    31/01/2005, 15:12
    Incredible but true.

    As echoed in a CNN article, the Arvizo have been seen recently in Beverly Hills shopping with Sneddon.

    It also explains that the defense explained that the fingerprint match in a pornographic magazine and children Michael because Michael took them off.
    You can see the original article in English here:


  58. Suzy permalink
    May 12, 2011 12:57 pm

    @ Hana

    Perhaps you are right. And I think it’s the same for the Chandlers. I remember someone here noted, while reading and analyzing Ray Chandler’s writings that they are as if he is trying to convince himself that MJ really was a child m-er. As if he is not sure. If his nephew was truly molested he would be sure, he would not have to try to convince himself.

    I think they were told by Gutierrez and Sneddon that MJ was a m-er, but in reality they cannot be sure because they know that Jordan was never molested by him. So they are looking for justification for their actions in all those tabloid articles Ray collected and so on.


  59. Hana permalink
    May 12, 2011 12:47 pm


    I also read star’s comment and the thing I noticed is that he never mentioned his brother or spoke directly about the molestation which is a dead giveaway that the allegations were false. Sneddon and his team obviously brainwashed these kids so much that they don’t have any remorse and believe they did the right thing by putting a ped-le on trial. That’s why he called Michael “disgusting” and a “boy manipulator”. This is all from the coaching of Sneddon and Zonen because before that, this was a kid who called him a great person and a father figure. If you watch Gavin’s police tape, you will see the bias from the police officers. They were telling him things like, “Michael Jackson is evil. He’s done this before. You guys are very brave by doing this. You are doing the right thing”. This is the kind of stuff sneddon and company were telling these kids on a regular basis. So now they see themselves as martyrs. And I also noticed that Star accused Michael of snorting coke. That of course also came from Sneddon who wrote in a document that cocaine was found in Michaels underwear. So you see just how close these people were.


  60. Suzy permalink
    May 12, 2011 10:39 am

    Based on that Facebook comment from Star they don’t regret anything and they are still spreading lies, at least publicly. Of course, this may be just a facade and Star is not Gavin. Maybe they have a bad conscience deep down, but generally I don’t think they are the type of persons who have a problem with lying, cheating, betraying people and will feel very bad about it. Remember they grew up in this lifestyle, always betraying someone, always lying to someone, cheating, stealing etc. For them that’s all “normal”. I don’t think they have sleepless nights over Michael. They should, but there are people who just don’t have conscience.


  61. May 12, 2011 10:27 am

    “Why would you be upset that a jury didnt believe your lies that could have sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life?”

    I don’t know why they wanted to do it to him, but I know why they were so upset. Gavin got out of this trial covered with dirt all over (he had to memorise and describe disgusting details of alleged ‘molestation’ of himself) and hoped that after so much sacrifice on his part he would at least have millions which would comfort him for the rest of his life. However it all ended in nothing but shame and “useless” betrayal for him.

    He must be feeling really sorry for himself now – those grown ups (mother, prosecutors, media) used him for their purposes and left him alone to deal with the consequences. Despite the primary feeling of being sorry for himself the bitterness of betrayal must also be there – it is no accident that he even cried when Dr. Katz said he would receive money for this. And also the knowledge that it is impossible to stop lying now – or he might be prosecuted by his former ‘friends’ who had bought or forced his cooperation. No, it is so complex a feeling that I don’t envy him…

    “People like that do not deserve anything good in life”.

    They won’t as they are the makers of their own destruction. Their only salvation is in telling the truth – no matter what complications they face – otherwise the grindstones of time will turn them into dust.


  62. Hana permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:35 am

    @ vindicatemj

    If that’s the case then that is truly sickening. Why would you be upset that a jury didnt believe your lies that could have sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life? Do these people think it’s funny to falsely accuse someone of child molestation? Wow, that is truly unthinkable. I hate to say this but I wish Michael never helped that kid. He should have just let him succum to his cancer. People like that do not deserve anything good in life.


  63. May 12, 2011 8:02 am

    “Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who led the prosecution case against Jackson, said that Gavin Arvizo was “very down” after the jury’s verdict.

    Hana, Gavin was most probably upset that he had tried so hard and told so many lies, and it gave them nothing but shame. They relied on the Prosecution who must have guaranteed them success, but all was in vain. Instead of simply interviewing Gavin Dr. Katz squeezed lies out of Gavin by encouraging to tell stories. He presented it as some noble cause – “you don’t want him to do it to others, do you?”

    It must have indeed hurt him to find out that he lied to his own detriment only.
    Now he must be teased more than ever.


  64. Dialdancer permalink
    May 12, 2011 4:36 am

    ““He was having a difficult time understanding why people wouldn’t believe him,” Mr Sneddon told NBC television’s Today show.”

    The people he was referring to was us. Sneddon seem to have holes in his memory or maybe he believed his PR Firm & Dimond when they told him if you say it long enough people will believe it. Or maybe he did not understand we were intelligent enough to comprehend the purpose of Dimond and a PR Firm. I am sure it was then and continues to be a source of irritation to him especially now that you cannot search for Michael Jackson without running into vindication links, links directing to articles about the allegations and an ever increasing number of sites dedicated to Michael Jackson. Sites that announce we believe in MJ’s innocence more than ever.


  65. hana permalink
    May 11, 2011 11:31 pm

    June 13, 2005–From BBC news:

    Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who led the prosecution case against Jackson, said that Gavin Arvizo was “very down” after the jury’s verdict.

    “He was having a difficult time understanding why people wouldn’t believe him,” Mr Sneddon told NBC television’s Today show.

    “It’s difficult… to have put his heart and his soul on the line in front of the world and to not be believed,” Mr Sneddon said.

    In an interview with US entertainment show Inside Edition, Mr Sneddon said the alleged victim “felt victimised again” by Jackson’s acquittal.



  66. May 11, 2011 8:16 pm

    “Why in the name of god the Media refuse to report this kind of things?”

    Ares, it is infinitely sad that the media are not reporting this truly sensational disclosure from the DCFS.

    I am sorry to say it but their silence shows that they have an agenda and are just following someone’s instructions as regards Michael Jackson. If they were solely after money and wanted a sensation, HERE IT IS – the authorities admit that Michael was innocent! – but strangely enough everyone refuses to report it though they could have turned it into really hot news if they wanted to.

    They just don’t want it, that’s the thing.

    What they don’t understand is that they show their true face and give away their intentions this way. They practically admit to us now that they are terribly biased against Jackson, prefer telling lies about him and are set solely on his destruction. The only thing they don’t understand is that they are undermining themselves this way and that this is a road to losing credibility as such.

    If previously they at least had a pretext for trashing him and silencing all the good he did to others – now that they have full proof from the authorities that he was innocent, they no longer have any pretexts and should speak up, but they don’t!

    In fact they are proving to us THEMSELVES that the smear campaign against Jackson was orchestrated by someone in the media business and that the whole thing was a SET UP.

    Persisting in their lies now is simply FOOLISH because this way they are showing everyone who is who here. We don’t need even to prove their bias and lack of integrity any more – they prove it THEMSELVES as each of us sees it with a naked eye.

    Sorry, but some of us have had to part with some illusions.


  67. hana permalink
    May 11, 2011 6:42 pm

    “I can’t help but wonder how many real criminals have gotten off because Tom Sneddon spent so much time going after Michael Jackson”–Geraldo Rivera


  68. May 11, 2011 6:24 pm

    “It is a felony to lie under oath also known as perjury, which is what the Arviso’s would have to admit to doing in order to come forward and recant the accusations”.

    Anna and Hana, and it is quite probable that the Arvizos received money from the authorities from the victims’ compensation fund. If they did receive the money but later admit that they lied they will have to return it.

    I’ve learned about this fund and common practice to pay and return the money in case the accusers are engaged in a fraud from this article (again from the Spanish forum)

    By JON SARCHE, Associated Press Writer
    DENVER – Kobe Bryant’s defense team says the woman accusing him of rape has received more than $17,000 from a victims’ compensation fund in what it calls a rich incentive to pursue a false claim against the NBA star, according to a court transcript released Thursday.
    The 20-year-old woman would be ineligible for at least $17,000 she has already received if she lied about the alleged rape, defense attorney Pamela Mackey argued in a June 21 hearing. She said the woman would have to reimburse the fund if lies were discovered – which is even more incentive to go forward with the case.
    “The accuser has profited to an enormous amount, $20,000, I would suspect to most people in this county is a lot of money, most of our jurors, and she has done that on the basis of a false allegation and has persisted in that false allegation,” she said.

    Since the trial was long the Arvizos could have received much money from the authorities, so admitting a lie will be financially damaging to them. They probably have to adhere to their lies now.


  69. May 11, 2011 6:17 pm

    “I just finished an AMAZING interview that I can’t wait to share with you all. I was going to hold off on telling you, but I want to share I spoke with someone who went to school with and befriended, initially Gavin Arvizo, in the 7th grade, right before and after the Bashir docu and allegations broke…You NEED to hear this ♥ (Debbie)”

    Looking forward to that too! When Dr. Stanley Katz was speaking to Detective Paul Zelis over the telephone he pointed out that while Star was fully cooperative and had no problem in telling any story Gavin was much more reserved and silent. Dr. Katz explained it by “him being fragile” from his cancer condition though he did mention that Gavin felt as if he was betraying a friend.

    It was clear to Katz that Gavin was unwilling to talk. Gavin gave numerous pretexts for not being too cooperative – he was “frightened” because of “crazed Michael’s fans”, he “didn’t want to be teased at school”, etc. And by the way at one point even Janet Arvizo called Dr. Katz and cancelled their interview because she said they could not do that because “it was too much”!

    Excerpt from Dr. Katz telephone conversation with Detective Paul Zelis:

    1 SK: Urn, but I…I really felt the kids were credible, and ya know, my, I’m kinda
    2 known as someone who has been a doubter about sexual abuse. I mean I really
    3 want proof about it before I, ya know.
    4 PZ: Right right
    5 SK: But, ya know, I’ve interviewed lots of lots of kids and I really feel these kids,
    6 the way they told the story, what they told, they really didn’t embellish and
    7 exaggerate. Urn….I don’t think they see the financial motive here, because when
    8 I sat down with Gavin, I said Gavin look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit,
    9 your family will get money if you win.

    10 PZ: Mmhm
    11 SK: I want you to understand that, but you also will be, your identity may be
    12 known.
    13 PZ: Right
    14 SK: And he sat there and started crying. So…I….I don’t feel like ya know, from
    15 Gavin’s point of view at all this is something he wants to do.

    16 PZ: Right
    17 SK: I think he feels really caught.
    18 PZ: Right right….well, my concern is….it’s not so much the kids wanting
    19 because like you said, they….they….they may not even know, ya know, the ins
    20 and outs of ya know, suing and getting’ money and all that, but urn, ya know, my
    21 thoughts would be,.well, is…is mom, ya know,
    22 SK:. Is she doing something
    23 PZ: Leading them
    24 SK: Ya know….I….I get…I don’t think so. I….I….because mother’s been very
    25 ambivalent about it from the beginning

    26 PZ: Mmhm
    27 SK: And ya know, she’d call me back one day and canceled interview and said
    28 we can’t do it. Like just feel it’s too much, ya know. We just can’t do this.

    29 PZ: Right

    To me Gavin’s reaction looks like the pangs of conscience. He didn’t cry when he spoke of the alleged molestation but he started crying when Dr. Katz said they would receive money!

    And Dr. Katz did confirm in that conversation that Feldman was planning a civil suit…


  70. May 11, 2011 5:42 pm

    “then I will be free to write so please be patient. And I belive that David is planning another post on Martin Bashir and that one will show that mans true intent.”

    Lynette, we’ll be looking forward to your and David’s posts. I also hope to write a couple of things soon.

    In the meantime here is an article I would like to ask everyone to look into. It was published in the Spanish site I’ve mentioned earlier. The source they refer to ( cannot be found any longer. However if the story were still there it would still need verification on its own. Here it is provided in back translation from Spanish (sorry if it is partially incomprehensible!) and with some comments that followed it:

    Rumor? Sneddon secret deal-Dimond-Francia-Arvizo to share the money from MJ
    04/19/2005, 20:27

    The web has published a research paper whose veracity we have to weigh those who read. As you can see, the webmaster says he had a conversation with a lawyer who is knowledgeable about the case …

    Dimond would benefit from a possible payment of Michael

    While prosecutors are experiencing many setbacks in recent weeks, I discovered information about the type of misleading news that pollute the atmosphere of the media.

    Diane Dimond, a tabloid reporter who is glued to the neck of Jackson since 1993, has ties to a possible civil settlement after the finish of the current criminal process.

    I’ve been absent the past week investigating disturbing information on Diane Dimond’s ties with Sneddon and a possible civil settlement after the criminal process.

    To many observers, Dimond has a turbulent history, and questionable closeness to this case. When she finished her tabloid-themed program, Hard Copy in 1994, Dimond was associated with Jackson’s legal troubles over the past decade.

    Dimond was suppressed and eventually sued by Jackson in the late 90’s because of her biased allegations. Has received much criticism from fans of Jackson. Anyway, this does not mean a lucky break on 18 November 2003, when the arrest warrant against Jackson was launched and another case of child abuse activated.

    Meet the Joe …

    In the past 2 weeks, I have contacted a well known lawyer who resides in Chicago, Illinois. We talked and discussed his vision of the persistence of Dimond to be associated with the case. When I informed the lawyer what I was looking for in our conversation, he politely asked me not to mention his name or pesonal information, allowed it reported that he has worked closely with the government of Santa Maria and in the past had links with Diane Dimond in the late 90’s. As respect for him, call him Joe.

    At the end of last week, when Janet Arvizo, under questioning by the defense and prosecution said she had no intention to sue civilly Michael, Joe had serious doubts about this assertion. I cannot discuss all possible situations in which Arvizo has entered into contradictions with this sentence.

    Joe has obtained and sent me copies of secret documents from 1999, where he and Dimond had a personal conflict that led to their split months later. I have agreed to sign agreements saying they do not filtraré confidential documents and publish direct quotations from the text.

    In those documents which I have no permission to develop at least … still, Joe explained the meetings he had with Sneddon and Dimond. The meetings were to discuss a five-year deal he signed. Dimond was represented by Larry Feldman, who, on November 20, 1999, signed an agreement with Sneddon about their civil settlement benefits.

    12 others also signed the agreement between the District Attorney Sneddon and a civil lawyer. One of them, surprisingly … yes, you guessed it: Jason Francia.

    Dimond did not return home empty handed …

    In all likelihood, Janet Jackson Arviso will file civil actions with the assistance of Larry Feldman and cooperation of Sneddon.

    Now, to rebut the Arvizo not think that putting the suit because “is not in his nature, we must ask why Feldman came first? Forget for a minute the fact that it was him before the police … anyway … she went to a civilian lawyer!

    According to these documents, Sneddon Dimond agree to get 3% of the money earned by the agreement. However, he stressed that if Michael was absolved, Dimond would receive only 2% of possible agreements.

    A civil suit may be brought clearly whatever the verdict. The first example would be OJ Simpson was acquitted (in the criminal trial) and their accusers civilly sued and won a settlement of $ 30,000,000.

    If, for whatever reason, he was found guilty, Dimond $ 420,000 could be an agreement like that, its 3%.

    If Jackson is found not guilty, Dimond would earn $ 280,000, 2%.

    Joe, he removed himself from the presence of Sneddon in December 2004, also informed me that although the negotiations on the amount of the agreement and exit or not guilty, the Arvizo win $ 14 million.

    So unfair way of delivering news of Dimond could be the result of their desperation to leave Jackson guilty.

    Financial rumors.

    Meanwhile, Rita Cosby of Fox, said on Saturday April 16 that Jackson and his financial advisors could conduct a secret meeting on rumors that Jackson is in financial trouble.

    The core conclusion of the meeting would, according to Roger Friedman that Jackson would have to sell the Beatles catalog ATV.

    MJSD speak more of the conversation with Joe.

    [Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved MJSD Jordan]

    * Translated by Xtarlight and Mpenziwe to

    04/19/2005, 22:47
    Confused: there is something I do not quite understand .. if not guilty, if absolved from where does the money or agreement for the Diamond and Arvizo? 14 kilos for Arvizo cleared out or not? .. I do not understand that part, can anyone explain me better?

    20/04/2005, 16:50

    The possibility of a civil trial there and done all this circus that is for sure, what surprised me was specific figures, 14 million, etc.

    20/04/2005, 17:25

    For those who have asked I will try to explain in a very schematic form and simple words as I understand it:

    A trial in the U.S. can be of two types: civil or criminal

    In civil suits we are not talking about guilty people but legally responsible. Civil Judgement = Money.

    If a person has committed a crime, it is the state that processes the defendant to put him in jail. Criminal trial = Prison.

    In 1993, Chandler brought a civil suit against Michael. They just did not care whether or not he goes in jail, because they only wanted their money. Were satisfied that Michael paid what they asked for as “compensation” for what he had done, according to them, with Jordan. Civil lawsuits are usually settled out of court. Both parties agree and the money changes hands and closes the case. This avoids a long process that usually ends with the payment of compensation, so both parties can save time by creating agreements between lawyers that they also benefit. That was the case of MJ in 1993.

    Since he allegedly committed a crime, the State initiated an investigation to prosecute the criminal via (prison), but the case was brought before a grand jury in Santa Barbara and it found no evidence for criminal prosecution. To prevent escape, the case was brought before another grand jury in Los Angeles, but could not find evidence because the only thing they could grab was the testimony of Jordan, which, with millions in his pocket, disappeared from the map.

    This dual system of trial is grossly unfair, because it may encourage unscrupulous people to take risks to sue celebrities.

    OJ Simpson was acquitted of his alleged crime in the criminal trial (with a jury made up largely of African Americans), and then lived in freedom, but the family of his ex-wife sued civilly (with a white jury ) and he had to pay a multimillion-dollar compensation. Simpson filed for bankruptcy and moved to Florida where the law does not allow you to remove the house in such cases. Of all the money earned legally, a portion will go to the family of his ex.

    A civil trial in a case like MJ could be an ‘easy’ win for Arvizo as it is enough to create reasonable doubt. They have to prove that MJ molested Gavin, just remember that found magazines, alcohol, etc …

    At this moment I am convinced that Sneddon and Arvizo are lost, but they start to give out as if MJ innocent or guilty because the plan had two parts. 1: The humiliation (criminal trial) and 2: Money (civil trial).

    Where would I ask of the 14 million for the Arvizo if MJ does not pay. Sure, it has become ‘a collection’ among people interested in sinking Michael. That would take, for example, the vultures flying over the Beatles catalog, Mottola, etc … For these people played a million dollars worth because it is ‘easier’ to win. Get that if MJ lost the civil trial he will be forced to part with many millions, pay ‘wages’ to those who have passed through the trial (93 people, Jason Francia, ex-employees corrupt lawyers and Feldman, Dickerman, etc …) and Michael, suffocated by it sells his 50% of the catalog, so that the brains behind the event / plot line their pockets.

    The story of the secret of these 15 people is nothing crazy, especially considering that so far this trial we heard testimony like this:

    [1 April] 31 th Day of Judgement: When Dickerman was asked by Mesereau, he admitted that Feldman had an agreement under which both would share any legal payment generated after a possible civil sentence against Jackson.

    [7 April] 34 th Day Trial: Mesereau asked Chacon if he presumed he would be a star witness and would get $ 3 million in this case.

    To me, this gives me much to think about …

    (translated from Spanish by Google, slightly corrected by me for better comprehension)


  71. ares permalink
    May 11, 2011 12:01 pm

    -Michael Jackson was/is, in EVERY sense of the word…INNOCENT…PERIOD!” ~ April Smith, Los Angeles County worker-

    Why in the name of god the Media refuse to report this kind of things??? Why when people like Katherine say that MJ was innocent they keep saying that that is just their opinion implying that is not the truth??? Why they keep pretending that they know better regarding the cases when in fact they are more ingorant and blind than the average person out there?


  72. May 11, 2011 7:19 am

    “Okay…I just finished an AMAZING interview that I can’t wait to share with you all. I was going to hold off on telling you, but I want to share I spoke with someone who went to school with and befriended, initially Gavin Arvizo, in the 7th grade, right before and after the Bashir docu and allegations broke…You NEED to hear this”

    This would be fun but we all have to remember this. The Arvizo case was a joke before it went to trial. The evidence against them were so many that it was over from day 1.


  73. May 11, 2011 7:14 am

    Los Angeles County worker vouches for Michael’s innocence…A MUST READ by Deborah L. Kunesh

    The following is shared by April Smith, who works for the County of Los Angeles:

    “To make it clear once and for all….since I work for the County of Los Angeles I have privy to certain information….Michael Jackson was and IS INNOCENT OF CHILD MOLESTATION.

    There was a case opened and closed (the) same day…

    * NO evidence to further investigate
    * NO proof
    * NO prior history
    * NO basis for an investigation to even be started for DCFS, child endangerment or inappropriate behavior with any child including his own.

    Michael Jackson was/is, in EVERY sense of the word…INNOCENT…PERIOD!” ~ April Smith, Los Angeles County worker

    The allegations were made by Tom Sneddon, who, according to Smith and many other article sources, would stop at nothing to destroy Michael Jackson and much of it was thought to be racially provoked.

    “Michael was SET UP!” added Smith


  74. shelly permalink
    May 11, 2011 5:26 am


    It will be great, but I hope she’ll have physical evidence that this person knew Gavin, like pictures, just to be 100% sure.


  75. lynande51 permalink
    May 11, 2011 1:29 am

    The statue of limitations has run out on a perjury charge for anyone that testified at the trial. I plan on writing a series of articles about the case using the pleadings filed in the case. In those article I will be able to show our readers that Janet was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, that used her children and taught them to scam and steal from each and every celebrity that they came in contact with. That Gavin and Star Arvizo were sexually active before the alleged abuse. That Janet Arvizo sexually molested her cousin when she was 10 years old (the cousin) . I will show you an angry and hell bent Prosecutor that wanted to destroy a man not just prosecute him. That Larrry Feldman had a lawsuit ready to be filed in May of 2003 against Michael Jackson for the Arvizo’s for showing the boys pornography, a plan derived a year in advance of them going to Larry Feldman. That Gavin would have been guilty of molesting Michael’s young cousin if Rijo had been 2 months younger. That Janet Arvizo was not a battered woman but rather the batterer and there were objective witnesses to her abuse of her husband. And the list goes on. I will need to wait for just another week because I have to work for the rest of the week and then I will be free to write so please be patient. And I belive that David is planning another post on Martin Bashir and that one will show that mans true intent.


  76. May 11, 2011 1:08 am

    Hey guys, brilliant piece of info coming!

    The creator of the Reflections on the Dance website about the truth on who Michael really is said this today :
    Okay…I just finished an AMAZING interview that I can’t wait to share with you all. I was going to hold off on telling you, but I want to share I spoke with someone who went to school with and befriended, initially Gavin Arvizo, in the 7th grade, right before and after the Bashir docu and allegations broke…You NEED to hear this ♥ (Debbie)

    This interview covers statements Gavin made, his state of mind and other things that point fully at Michael’s innocence and why Gavin did what he did. I will try to get this up soon for all of you



  77. Anna permalink
    May 10, 2011 10:40 pm


    I think I see what you are asking. It is a felony to lie under oath also known as perjury, which is what the Arviso’s would have to admit to doing in order to come forward and recant the accusations.


  78. May 10, 2011 8:17 pm

    “They asked if Feldman showed the settlement during his 2004 Grand Jury testimony and if so did he notify MJ. I told him criminal proceeding will outweigh confidentiality agreements, but I was unsure whether it was presented to the 04 G.J. as the entire transcript was never published and I had not seen any articles or statements from anyone else saying Michael had been notified.”

    Dial, as regards Larry Feldman’s Grand Jury testimony all I have is a summary of it in the Defense’s “995 Motion to set aside the Indictment”. It is a remarkable document in itself as Feldman flatly lies here that the family is not doing it for money and even calls this idea a “bald face lie” (while to Larry King he clearly says the mother is out for money).

    As regards the settlement Feldman stressed it was for “multi-multi-multi millions of dollars” but didn’t mention that Michael stated his innocence there. Feldman didn’t have to show the document to the Jury as it was leaked to the media and they could read it there – which conveniently saved Feldman from the need to “give notice” to Michael of its possible disclosure.

    He also says that he referred the Arvizos to Dr. Katz whom he had hired for the Jordan Chandler case too but “he never used him” (because his opinion of Jordan’s words was not the one he expected to get?).

    He says he didn’t intend to file a civil suit while on the very next page (page 75) of the same Motion Dr. Katz’s testimony says that there was such a possibility.

    And of course he makes a good show of the “indifference” of the DCFS to the fate of the poor Arvizo children after which he had to call Tom Sneddon and say “Guess who is here with another Michael Jackson’s case?”

    Here is the scanned summary of what Feldman said to the Grand Jury according to the 995 Motion:

    (Penal Code § 995)
    page 72
    Larry Feldman, a Los Angeles based attorney, testified that he represented Jordi Chandler in a 1993 lawsuit against Michael Jackson. (RT 63:23-27.) He said that case settled for “multi-multi-multimillions of dollars.” (RT 64:19.) This is extremely prejudicial and highly inadmissible under California Evidence Code Section 1152 which prohibits evidence of settlement to prove liability.
    He then testified based on hearsay. Janet Arvizo was referred to his office by William Dickcrman. He spoke with her and her children several times, in April 2003 through June 2003. (RT 64:24-65:15.) Part of the subject of the conversations was the Bashir tape. (RT 66:2-5.) They also discussed that allegedly Michael Jackson or his staff had her belongings stored someplace. There were also ” very, very vague” discussions about how “maybe something happened.” (RT 66:18-20.)
    Mr. Feldman testified that he was told there was a concern that Mr. Bashir had gotten the consent to do the taping by reason of talking to Mrs. Arvizo’s parents, and that Mrs. Arvizo’s parents didn’t speak English. (RT 67:1-7.) He was told that Mr. Jackson called for the boys to come up there without telling them that a videotape was going to be done that day. (RT 67:8-15.) Mrs. Arvizo was upset about her son being on television without her consent.. (RT 67:13-15.) Gavin was upset about teasing he was receiving as a result of the videotape. (RT 67:18-20.) Mrs. Arvizo was concerned that Mr. Jackson had allegedly hired lawyers for her without her consent to pursue a claim against the BBC in England. (RT 67:19-28.) She did not want, or consent, to the lawyers handling it for her. (RT 67:19-18.) He said that the focus of their discussions was not Michael Jackson at that point and that their focus was “clearly about this unauthorized taping of Gavin in this special.” (RT 6S:6-9.)
    Mr. Feldman testified that he decided to send the whole family to see Dr. Katz. (RT

    page 73
    6S:14-15.) He had hired Dr. Katz for the Jordi Chandler case but said he never used him. (RT 69:10-70:1.) He sent them to Dr. Katz because ‘for my own selfish reasons I didn’t want to get involved in a Michael Jackson case II, knowing what was in store, without gelling an honest view of what was really going on with the kid.” (RT 70:2-11.) He had a “sixth sense” that he wasn’t really hearing what happened and he wanted a doctor that could give him an objective viewpoint of whether what was really happening with the family. (RT 70:12-17.)
    Mr. Feldman testified to hearsay from Dr. Katz. According to Mr. Feldman, Dr. Katz believed that he had sufficient information to trigger the requirement that he report the abuse to some agency. (RT 71:1-6.) He wanted to prevent the press from finding about the story so he went to the head of the Department of Children’s Services in Los Angeles. (RT 71:7-26.) He and Dr. Katz met with the head of the organization and two investigators. (RT 72:6-S.) The only question they asked was whether the child was in imminent danger and Dr. Katz said the child was not (RT 72:9-17.)
    Mr. Feldman offered his opinions about the reaction of the Department of Children’s Services’ refusal to act on his attempt to cause them to investigate Michael Jackson. Mr. Feldman volunteered his opinions about the adequacy of inquiry by the investigators. He couldn’t believe what was happening. (RT 73:4-5.) It was clear to him that the investigators were playing games. (RT 73:6-8.) He testified that he didn’t know what their motivations were. (RT 73:10-11.)
    Mr. Feldman testified that he figured that they better make a report to Santa Barbara. (RT 73:26-27.) He called District Attorney Tom Sncddon and said, “Guess who’s here with another Michael Jackson case?” (RT 73:28-74:1.) He testified that from that moment on, he handed it to Mr. Sneddon. (RT 74:11-14.) He testified that Mr. Sneddon asked him if he envisioned filing a civil suit at some point and he told him that they were not going to file a civil suit. (RT 74:15-20.)
    Mr. Feldman testified that he had another contact with the Department of Child Family Services in Los Angeles. (RT 75:3-7.) He again offered his opinion as to the Department’s

    page 74
    reaction. He said he was astounded that they had leaked a report after he went to the trouble of keeping it a secret. (RT 75:11-13.) He testified that the report was created after Michael Jackson was arrested and that it left out the fact that Dr. Katz was there, making a report that he had a reasonable suspicion of child abuse. (RT 75:15-19.) It was “the most outrageous thing that he had ever heard of from an agency that was supposed to be protecting children and asking people to report.” (RT 75:9-22.) He testified that “nobody’s done a darn thing” about the leak. (RT 75:23-25.)
    Mr. Feldman testified to his opinion regarding the contention that his client, Janet Arvizo, is greedy and is after Mr. Jackson’s money is a “bald face lie.” (RT 77:2-5.) He said it is “the most ridiculous statement in this matter.” (RT 77:2-5.) He testified that if he “wanted to settle this lawsuit for money”, or if Mrs. Arvizo or “the kid” wanted to do that, all he had to do was pick up the phone and tell “them” what he had. (RT 78:1-4.) There is no question in his view that he could have “settled this lawsuit” any time lie wanted to “settle the lawsuit.” (RT 7S:4-7.)
    Mr. Fcldman testified that the one thing he wouldn’t do if he wanted to “give Janet a chance for money was to do what happened here, that is to turn it over to a District Attorney.” (RT 7S:10-12.) He testified that he wants to be in control and call the shots. (RT 78:13-16.) He doesn’t want to rely on the District attorney to call the shots. (RT 7S:13-16.) He testified that he would have “gone my own way” if it was about money. (RT 78:17-18.) There was “no time in this case that either this young boy or his mother ever suggested to me that they wanted money.” (RT 78:17-20.) If they did want money, “this would be the worst way in the world to go.” (RT 78:20-21.) He testified that it is “understandable that the defense makes this charge”, but it is just “absolutely ridiculous to make that allegation in this case.” (RT 78:17-24.)
    Dr. Katz testified that he is a forensic psychologist, who focuses on issues regarding law and psychology. He is “probably most known” for his “specialty in child sexual abuse.” He has been appointed by courts to do evaluations and has served as an expert witness in criminal and civil proceedings. (RT S5-S6.)

    Please compare the above with what Larry King was ready to testify about but was never allowed to:

    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.”


  79. May 10, 2011 7:55 pm

    @Hana MJ was never accused of rape


  80. hana permalink
    May 10, 2011 7:26 pm

    OK lets say if the Arvizos were to come out tomorrow and say that they lied about everything, that Michael never molested Gavin or kidnapped them, or served anybody alcohol. What kind of punishment could they face? Isn’t it a felony to falsely accuse some one of rape? I think they would definietly face some major prison time given the fact that their claims went to trial and cost the city millions of dollars. They would have to admit to giving false statements to police and causing them to investigate which is defined as criminal public mischief. They would also have to admit to committing extortion, lying to a grand jury, as well as lying under oath at trial. I would say they would get up to 10-20 years each. That would be very nice to see and would be great justice for Michael Jackson.


  81. Dialdancer permalink
    May 10, 2011 6:45 pm

    Someone has a question about the 93 settlement found on the internet.

    They are asking for a more detailed analysis on the below paragraph. They asked if Feldman showed the settlement during his 2004 Grand Jury testimony and if so did he notify MJ. I told him criminal proceeding will outweigh confidentiality agreements, but I was unsure whether it was presented to the 04 G.J. as the entire transcript was never published and I had not seen any articles or statements from anyone else saying Michael had been notified. The gentleman would like more answers or the links where this has been addressed already.

    “In the event the minor, the Minor’s Legal-Guardians,
    the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually or on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, receive an subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releases or the Action or the Claims, they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law.

    This notice shall be given before responding to the request in any manner other than objections or a refusal to respond and shall be given no Later than five days following the receipt of the request.”


  82. May 10, 2011 3:30 pm

    Dialdancer, the text you’ve provided a link to ( is unfortunately typical of those who attempt to study the problem of pedophilia.

    Despite all their good intentions many ‘researchers’ mix together real cases of horrendous child abuse with some hysterical gossip (like the one about McMartin preschool teachers or MJ) making a terrible disservice to the truth of the matter as they simply see no difference between real crime and innocent people.

    This approach doesn’t help either of the causes – uncovering real pedophile rings and exonerating people not guilty of the crime. If all research is done that way it won’t take us anywhere and will compromise the whole idea of clearing the society of these perverts.

    It might be a paradox but real pedophiles may be even interested in innocent people being accused because it distracts attention from them and their crimes which are committed in the atmosphere of total secrecy.

    It is a very telling sign of real pedophilia – everything is done in the atmosphere of total, complete and unheard of secrecy. None of these people ever risk being seen with children. In order to recognize each other in public they use symbols only which look like usual logos or decorations (I’ve found them recently). When they assemble the address of their assembly is not known until the final day and these are usually masqueraded as professional “conventions”. To get an invitation to such a convention one has to pass at least a two year long test as the case of a FBI agent who infiltrated them showed it.

    But the main distinguishing feature of their behavior is that associating with children in public for these people is out of the question. This is why those who dare put MJ on a par with these people show that they do not know the first thing about real ped-les.

    Another benefit for these perverts of witch-hunts for innocent people is the shame the society feels when it discovers its mistake. This usually results in an extensive public discussion of the matter and in the atmosphere of general confusion some legislation restrictions may be dropped and more lax laws may be accepted.

    You can imagine that discussing real pedophilia was the last thing each of us expected or wanted to do here, but it seems that the more we look into who meddled with MJ the more traces of real criminals we find. They most probably wanted to use him as a poster boy for promoting their criminal ideas. And despite my total unwillingness to look into all that it seems we will have to.


  83. May 10, 2011 11:03 am

    “The actual investigation by DCFS was as long as it took to interview all of the children that were connected to Michael..there were other young children as well. According to Evan Chandler his son Niki was a witness to Michael and Jordan sleeping in the same bed. If that had been true Niki would have been a victim because it makes a child a victim if they witness abuse of a sibling. There has never been and never was a mention of Niki, or his little sister Gabrielle by anyone except Victor and Ray C in their books.”

    Lynette, this is an excellent point. Why didn’t I realize it earlier? Of course the DCFS interviewed every child who might have been ‘injured’ this or that way! And it means that they must have spoken to Niki as well – which is another proof that all this BS told by Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler is a complete invention on their part!

    By the way I’ve found out that I didn’t calculate the months of the DCFS investigation properly. The article was written on December 22, 1993 which is FOUR months since the investigation started and it says that they were interviewing Jason Francia for the past two months. If they interviewed Francia for at least two months, so how much longer should they have interviewed Jordan Chandler then?

    They DCFS probably never stopped those interviews and were working for months on that case! And still found no evidence of any molestation. Neither them, nor police, nor anybody else.


  84. shelly permalink
    May 10, 2011 8:59 am

    I know thetis, but 3000, it’s a lot of people.


  85. May 10, 2011 8:08 am

    Garcetti & Sneddon said over 400 in their statement / 21 September 1994


  86. shelly permalink
    May 10, 2011 7:16 am

    ” three thousand names of people”

    Are you sure, it’s not a typo. 3000 it’s a lot of people. If it’s true it’s really good.


  87. Suzy permalink
    May 10, 2011 6:00 am

    @ Linda

    This article was spreading on the Internet after Michael’s death. It’s just a hoax unfortunately.


  88. Linda permalink
    May 10, 2011 5:17 am

    This first one really bothers me because of the fans remarks. After all the begging for Jordie to fess up, and if he really did there reaction is so vicious. If he didn’t fess up, he probably never will if he saw this.

    You know, utube, of all the places on the net bothers me the most because of the fans reactions. They’re vicious and act so against what Michael would want. They argue with stupid people like stonegroove or grove. They shouldn’t even give people like that the time of day, much less argue and call them names, and to tell Jordie they hope he and his father burns in hell is never something Michael would say or think.
    Don’t they realize they are going against everything Michael stood for and believed, and they are giving his entire fan world a bad name with their reactions? Michael was all about love and forgiveness. He was back stabbed from every direction, but rarely spoke an unkind word to or about anyone (Matola, sony) probably didn’t spell that right, lol, but that was the angriest speech I ever heard.
    We all need to realize that when we talk about Michael we are representing him and what he stood for. We shouldn’t rant about hate and revenge. He never understood the concept of revenge. I don’t either, and I wouldn’t want my worst enemy to go to hell.
    Well, I’m getting ready to hit talk mode, and I try to keep my post as short as I can so I don’t ramble, because I can do that. People just piss me off arguing with stupidity. Hope these links work for you and will check for your opinion tomorrow night when I get home from work. Personally, I kind of think they’re bogus, because some of the other videos mix up the names between Jordan and Evan. Some call Evan the son and Jordan the father. Sorry about the length here. I know I did do some rambling anyway, lol.
    L.O.V.E. to all.


  89. Alison permalink
    May 10, 2011 5:11 am

    Ha ha ha! , I’m sorry. we are now discussing what size pants he wore! thanks for responding but now forget i asked, (its just i thought they could have been not his, forgot the dna.).


  90. May 10, 2011 3:17 am

    Wow, 3000? Wow..

    Allison, Mike also wore size 30-32 back in the Dangerous recordings too. Sam L Parity has a story about going shopping for him then ’cause he’d run out, and he says that’s what he took.


  91. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    May 10, 2011 1:53 am

    Thank you for this fantastic post Lynande.

    I would also love to see that discovery document. Will you add to this post or write a seperate one?


  92. lynande51 permalink
    May 10, 2011 1:32 am

    You know what that’s what they get for chasing the made up piece of fantasy provided to them by Victor via the Chandlers.


  93. lynande51 permalink
    May 10, 2011 1:31 am

    You guys I just found a court document regarding discovery that says that the prosecution turned over a list of three thousand names of people that they had interviewed in 1993- 1994. None of them substantiated the Chandler story.


  94. Dialdancer permalink
    May 9, 2011 10:35 pm

    I and the check out bagger were talking about Michael, slowing down the line when the cashier told me if this article was true then I should be happy and asked what difference does it make? I wanted to explain in depth, but I sensed the impatience and rising hostility of the people behind me so I just said because what was done was wrong and left. I am searching to see if any of the more widely read sites or online papers have published this story and while doing so I ran across the below link in my Google search results.

    “. Also noted is the kid-gloves treatment afforded Michael Jackson when he was …. the press proceeded to pretend as though it had never been aired at all. …”

    It is long, this is this man evidence of how Michael was treated during the investigation and trial. See if you recognize anything in this statement…….I don’t.

    “Also noted is the kid-gloves treatment afforded Michael Jackson when he was
    charged with molestation: “even though the accusations against him are widely
    believed to be true, [they] are merely passed off with a laugh among other smirking
    monologue jokes on Jay Leno.”


    That is why this story and hopefully followup stories like it matter. There are decades of intentional lies, self-serving greed and agendas, bigotry and ignorance realized in Media print to correct.

    There something familiar about McGowan…. Those ties that bind, Australia for sure, Fox News perhaps. Hopefully it will come to me soon.


  95. May 9, 2011 6:37 pm

    “I thought I might print the post off and leave a copy on the bus, in the library et.c. Would that be OK with you?”

    Alison, absolutely! Only correct my mistakes first so that the text doesn’t look too foreign, please. I think the idea is very good – we are disseminating the truth and shouldn’t be shy about it. You could put the papers into neighbors’ mail boxes too.


  96. Suzy permalink
    May 9, 2011 5:33 pm

    @ Linda

    Can you give links to those videos?


  97. Linda permalink
    May 9, 2011 5:31 pm

    Ok folks, I saw a bunch of videos on utube that say Jordie finally fessed up, even showed a written confession. This is the first I’ve heard of it, so I figure if he did you guys would know about it. Did I miss something this big, or is it made up.
    One of the videos, he said it was all a lie for money forced on him by his dad, but he COULDN’T fess up because his mom might go to prison. Kind of contradictory. Any truth there? This is one of my main resources for facts because I can tell you do your research and then send me all over the net checking them all out. Thanks for all your hard work and all the


  98. nan permalink
    May 9, 2011 3:15 pm

    I think it is encouraging that at least after the Today show , this agency came out and supported Katherine Jackson.Little by little , the truth is coming out and for this agency to speak out is a very positive sign. This reflects very badly on Tom Sneddon and his cronies..I left a comment for the Today show retractions/comments asking when they were going to cover the childrens services statements. They had many very good comments pointing to the truth by viewers..Hopefully with enough people speaking out , they will be more encouraged to be fair minded regarding Michael Jackson.


  99. Alison permalink
    May 9, 2011 2:46 pm

    I’ve been away a while, work pressures, so I have a lot to catch up on.
    This was a very excellent post Helena, but as Dialdancer says, sad and angry that the mainstream are not picking it up. I thought I might print the post off and leave a copy on the bus, in the library et.c. Would that be OK with you? it will print off with your website details. perhaps if lots of people did that?, it would start to disseminate the info.

    according to John Branca, Michael Jackson has 32 million facebook friends – quite a force to be reckoned with! we have a lot of power if we take hold of it.


  100. Meredith permalink
    May 9, 2011 4:38 am

    DAMN Fucking Straight!!!!!!


  101. Dialdancer permalink
    May 9, 2011 3:44 am


    I’ve waited for someone to begin printing this information and I expected to be jubilant when it came, but that is not how I feel. There is a sadness, a feeling of “way too late” and anger at the Mainstream Media which continues to ignore this story. A feeling unless there is some great scandal which befalls someone within the story most will not pay attention, because it should have been told in its own time to give the report the significance it deserved and finish vindicating a Man who should not have needed any more after an acquittal. I am exceptionally please that Jen Heger took the time to look into the story and used her knowledge and skill to report it right.

    It is ironic that within days of this story appearing Diane Dimond has published a webpage article on Casey Anthony.


    Maybe even she is coming to understand what she helped to bring about and what part she played that lead to the death of an innocent man. When Diane Dimond finally forsakes the fake image of caring and prints an article like the one above where she clearly and loudly says she was a major media player who with deliberate intent and great relish set about to destroy another human being, one who did everything in her power to “saturate the jury pool with negative stories” then I will believe her. She may wish to do just that, but ego and the need to defend the indefensible gets in her way. Do I want sackcloth and ashes from her?…… At the very least.


  102. Dialdancer permalink
    May 9, 2011 2:31 am


    “I would love to know what Gil Garcetti has to say about Sneddon’s persecution of Michael Jackson! He has been relatively quiet in all of this and there must be a reason he was not as zealous as Sneddon”

    I’d like to know as well. I truly believe if former DA Garcetti had been involved in the 2003 accusation and investigation the Grand Jury would not have gone down like it did, there would have been no indictment unless the evidence and witnesses were on the up and up. There is a rumor that Gil Garcetti tried to counseled Sneddon not to do this, but he would not listen.


  103. lynande51 permalink
    May 8, 2011 6:06 pm

    The actual investigation by DCFS was as long as it took to interview all of the children that were connected to Michael. The only one that was stopped by the police was the Chandler case momentarily. They did go back because they had to because in the Chandler and Schwartz households there were other young children as well. According to Evan Chandler his son Niki was a witness to Michael and Jordan sleeping in the same bed. If that had been true Niki would have been a victim because it makes a child a victim if they witness abuse of a sibling. There has never been and never was a mention of Niki, or his little sister Gabrielle by anyone except Victor and Ray C in their books.


  104. May 8, 2011 1:46 pm

    “The problem is the DCFS was only involved for a few days in 1993.”

    Shelly, I have found irrefutable evidence that TWO MONTHS after starting their investigation of the 1993 case the DCFS authorities were still looking into the case. Here is a an excerpt from the LA Times article – please pay attention to its date which is two days after the photos of Michael’s genitalia were made:

    “Two controversial members of Michael Jackson’s defense team–a lawyer who blundered in court and a private investigator whose tactics and public comments drew fire–have resigned from the case as Jackson continues to battle allegations that he sexually molested a young boy.
    Meanwhile, new details emerged Tuesday about a potential second child molestation victim who has been interviewed by police and social service workers during the last two months”.

    Now the post has been fully amended.

    I also found out that the DCFS recently probed whether Michael’s children had been exposed to prescription drugs. This is what they media is really discussing. Still no word about the DCFS’s recent statements on Michael’s innocence!


  105. Suzy permalink
    May 8, 2011 11:36 am

    This is the first part:


  106. Suzy permalink
    May 8, 2011 11:18 am

    They have other great videos:


  107. Suzy permalink
    May 8, 2011 11:00 am

    Great video:


  108. okunuga permalink
    May 8, 2011 10:16 am

    Ps, I forget to add that the comment is on the site Radaronline.


  109. AnnieDomino permalink
    May 8, 2011 9:55 am

    I would love to know what Gil Garcetti has to say about Sneddon’s persecution of Michael Jackson! He has been relatively quiet in all of this and there must be a reason he was not as zealous as Sneddon. We have truth and evidence on our side. I read the comments on these websites sometimes and the people who believe in MJ’s guilt always bring up the sleepovers, absence of girls in MJ’s life and many of them invoke OJ as an example of “rich people getting away with it”. As we know the issue of the sleepovers has been misrepresented, there WERE girls and when you bring up OJ I think you have a race agenda. Facts and evidence mean nothing to these people.
    Another bit of good news is Alan Duke of CNN saying that Blanket is “obviously” Michael’s son. Denying Michael’s parentage of his kids is another way he gets emasculated.


  110. May 8, 2011 9:02 am

    Shelly the DCFS was not involved for a few days. They were asked by LAPD to stop at one point, and after a small pause they worked together again.


  111. okunuga permalink
    May 8, 2011 8:45 am

    Some idiot was still perpetuating the garbage of JESUS JUICE,correct discription of MJ’s genetelia in the comment section,i couldn’t post a rebuttal to it because i don’t know how.


  112. Maria permalink
    May 8, 2011 7:49 am

    Time for the truth in the media. We are waiting.


  113. Hana permalink
    May 8, 2011 7:44 am

    “Better to let 10 guilty men go free then to put an innocent man behind bars.”


  114. May 8, 2011 4:22 am

    “I added an excellent quote by Malcolm X about the influence the media has on society.”

    David, thank you! It seems that I’ll have to add even more than that to it and partially rework the post. This will take some time.

    In the meantime, guys, please don’t lose a chance to show your support for those few people who took it upon themselves to spread the DVFS news. Shower them with comments please – and take the news further.

    And I promise to present a new version of the post later today.


  115. May 8, 2011 4:09 am

    The problem is the DCFS was only involved for a few days in 1993. The article is not completely accurate’

    Shelly, I’ve checked the dates and the events that followed opening the 1993 investigation – the DCFS first being informed of the alleged abuse, then the rivalry between them and the police, the DCFS being ousted from the case and then returning to it in spite of the orders not to come back and them finally working together – all this makes the DCFS involvement definitely longer than just a few days (I would be happy if you could provide the date when the DCFS arrived at the final conclusion).

    I agree that there is no proof that the DCFS saw the photos and had a chance to compare them with Jordan’s description themselves. However, knowing how wary the police was of the DCFS at the very beginning and how jealous Tom Sneddon was of the DCFS in the 2003 case, I have no doubt that if the photos had matched Tom Sneddon would have never missed the chance to shove this fact into the face of DCFS. And if he had done it the DCFS wouldn’t be so definite now that all the allegations were false.

    In other words if the sheriff had informed them of their mistake (most probably it is a routine procedure in such cases as some form of interaction between them should exist) the DCFS would have formed a different opinion about Jackson.

    But they didn’t change their opinion of him and it means that their conclusions were correct from the very beginning.

    Technically speaking you are right when you say I worded it inaccurately – so I will try to reword it in some other way when I have a couple of hours sleep. I just omitted several links in the chain of thought and worded it in a simpler way – but it seems that simpler ways are not always the best.


  116. lcpledwards permalink
    May 8, 2011 4:06 am

    Helena, I added an excellent quote by Malcolm X about the influence the media has on society. It’s listed near the end after Aphrodite Jones’ quote about Fox News.


  117. shelly permalink
    May 8, 2011 3:06 am


    It’s not a problem, it’s just the article is not completely accurate.


  118. May 8, 2011 2:35 am

    “I sent you something that you should add to this article. Also, the last few paragraphs are centered instead of left justified.”

    David, as you can imagine I terribly struggled with my mobile Internet to post it in a more or less proper way and will be very grateful to you if you could adjust it yourself. Please feel free to add to it whatever you want.


  119. ares permalink
    May 8, 2011 2:34 am

    And why is that a problem?


  120. shelly permalink
    May 8, 2011 2:27 am

    The problem is the DCFS was only involved for a few days in 1993. But anyway, it’s good news.


  121. lcpledwards permalink
    May 8, 2011 1:49 am

    Helena, check your email! I sent you something that you should add to this article.

    Also, the last few paragraphs are centered instead of left justified.



  1. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Unmask Michael Jackson posers and fakers – Part 1 « Free Advicer
  3. Michael's innocence: It's not just Mrs. Jackson's "opinion" | MJJ-777

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: