Skip to content

Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 2 of 3

August 17, 2011

Here is part 2 of my 3 part transcript of Matt Drudge’s analysis of the Michael Jackson trial in 2005. Here is the link to part 1, for your convenience.

The Matt Drudge Show: April 10th, 2005

Matt Drudge, Sunday night, it is the Drudge Report. We are learning details on why exactly Michael Jackson’s mother left the courtroom. If we believed Nancy Grace and all of the other aggressive women that appear to be out to get Michael Jackson on the cable news shows. (Drudge then begins to imitate Nancy Grace):  “The testimony was so graphic and horrifying the mother had to excuse herself from the courtroom because she didn’t want to hear this….”.  Well, the mother has said through a press release that she left the courtroom during the molestation trial last week to use the restroom!1 How about that! She said that “accusing me of leaving due to graphic testimony when I simply went to the restroom is not fair and not accurate.” Do you hear that, Nancy Grace? Do you hear that, Diane Dimond, and all the multitudes………if I had to hear it one more time on Friday “Oh, the mother raced out because the testimony was so graphic from all these witnesses.” She said “no, I was just using the bathroom”. You know, that’s what humans do from time to time. Well, a guy who has not really been working with the pack, because if you follow the press pack, you would think Michael Jackson already has ordered the sheets next to his cell with Marilyn Manson out there at the hardcore prison cell, which he will spend if he’s found guilty of this for probably the rest of his life.  A gentleman who has been operating from more of a “let’s see what the testimony is in the courtroom, including the cross examination”, which is getting left out of a lot of coverage. When a lot of talk hosts and cable hosts are doing is reading the first A.P. story, which has the D.A. and the prosecutors, and their questioning of the witness, but they are leaving out the cross examination until later in the day, and the hosts don’t bother to actually the write through on the A.P., so you’re not hearing how witness after witness are disintegrating on the stand! There has not been one witness, at least lately, who has not admitted to perjuring themselves in previous proceedings, either in this case or some other case. Horrifying! Because what is the consequence of lying in court? Or perjuring yourself with police? What’s the consequence in Sneddon’s world there in Santa Barbara? Nothing! Anyone can lie, anybody can………..I’m getting ahead of myself. Roger Friedman, thanks for joining us tonight.

Roger Friedman: You’re welcome. I’m actually driving, and I’m almost back in Santa Maria for tomorrow morning’s testimony.

Matt Drudge: Now who are they going to drag out of the closet tomorrow? Do we know?

Roger Friedman: Well, tomorrow morning, I think that we’re going to have Bob Jones, who was Michael’s PR person for about 20 years, and who has a long history at Motown, but on Friday, you’re right, we had Phillip LeMargue, he and his wife had worked at Neverland from 1990 to 1991, for about 10 months, and a lot left out from their testimony that I’m gonna have in my column tomorrow on Foxnews.com, a lot of it comes from, most of it comes from a very interesting tape recordings that were made in the early 90’s by a National Enquirer writer, who has since deceased, his name was Jim Vettieager, and he went through a lot of different pitches with people like the LeMarques, and a lot of the other witnesses who’ve come on to testify for the prosecution2.

Matt Drudge: So Sneddon’s case so far, at least going back to the past, has been a trial of tabloid rejects, or tabloid sources?

Roger Friedman:  Yeah, his case is largely based on the National Enquirer reporting, and we wouldn’t know about this except for these extraordinary tapes. We were lucky they were left to a guy named Paul Baressi, who is an investigator in Hollywood, who came to me, and I don’t even think I was the first person he came to, but I was the only one who would listen to him, and he said “Listen to these tapes! They will tell you about how the National Enquirer dangled hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of everyone to get them to say that Michael Jackson molested a kid or did anything inappropriate.3  And in all the time that they tried to do it, the National Enquirer never came up with another kid besides Jordie Chandler, the kid who we call the $20 million dollar kid……….

Matt Drudge:  Who is not willing to testify? Which Sneddon never brought charges based on that case, which he could have. I don’t buy the theory that because he settled out of court that he couldn’t bring charges . Bogus! That’s just bogus!4

Roger Friedman: Actually, they tried to bring charges, they had a grand jury that met in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, trying to bring charges on the Chandler case with Michael Jackson, and the grand jury concluded that there was no case!5

Matt Drudge: Wow!

Roger Friedman: That was adjudicated, to the best it could be.

Matt Drudge: Will the jury be told that? Will Mesereau, in his defense, say “Listen, they tried to bring this into a legal system, not a National Enquirer system, and they couldn’t because there wasn’t the evidence required to meet the standard.”

Roger Friedman: I don’t know if the jury will be able to hear that. But what they have heard, and what’s not reported, and you’re right, is that the cross examination of the witnesses is usually fatal to them. And you have one witness who said “Alright. I lied about everything!”  So the cross examination has been withering in most of the cases.6

Matt Drudge: Hold on a second! Freeze it right there! You have someone in a court of law, saying they lied about everything previously under oath? What is the consequence for someone who does that out there in Sneddon’s world?

Roger Friedman: None.

Matt Drudge: None? So you can march into the courthouse now and lie, or say you’ve lied in previous depositions, because you were scared, or whatever excuse you were using, the generic excuse. And there’s no consequence?

Roger Friedman: Well, former employees get up on the stand, and they say, the things that were said on Thursday and Friday were the most salacious……..Thursday was a very bad day. When Thursday started, that first hour was with this guy Ralph Chacon, who had worked at the ranch as a security guard. He told the most outrageous story, it was so graphic, and of course everyone went running outside to report on it, but there was 10 minutes right before the break, the first break on Thursday, when Tom Mesereau got up and cross examined this guy, and obliterated him.

Matt Drudge: We didn’t hear that, Roger. We didn’t hear how he was obliterated, they don’t tell us that. Out here, where Michael Jackson is being literally crucified, the nails have gone into both hands at this point, and the crowd is on. This is serious business, the smearing of the reputation. We’re just sticking to what’s actually happening in the courtroom at this point. So this guy was obliterated how by Mesereau?

Roger Friedman: When he was asked, he suddenly could not remember when anything happened, where it happened, how it happened, I mean, it was funny, and it wasn’t so funny because we knew that you only have a short time to present your case to the jury and convince them. And we had 10 minutes, from 9:35 to 9:45 am on Thursday morning. I wrote in my column that it was the most crucial 10 minutes maybe in Michael Jackson’s entire life, because Mesereau had those 10 minutes to convince the jury that this man was lying, that he had been in bankruptcy, that he had done all of this for money, that he sold his story to the tabloids, and he couldn’t remember the fact that he had been one of five people who sued Michael Jackson in 1995 and lost, and owed him now $1.6 million dollars!7 So when Mesereau said to him…………..

Matt Drudge: So hold on a second here, hold on a second. Sneddon is calling witnesses who owe Michael Jackson money?

Roger Friedman:  Well four witnesses, five people unsuccessfully sued Michael Jackson in 1995 for wrongful termination and sexual harassment. They lost their case, the judge threw the case out, and said that they owed Michael Jackson all of his legal fees, they each owe him $1.6 million dollars, it drove four of the five of them into bankruptcy.

Matt Drudge: And this is the guy who said he saw Michael Jackson performing oral, excuse me, on one of the kids?

Roger Friedman: Yes.

Matt Drudge: This was the bombshell that bombshell that shook the earth, and talk radio went crazy, “this is it! this is the last straw!”

Roger Friedman: It was incredible. It was shocking to hear him say, to have him actually describe it, but then, when Mesereau stood up and said “Well how much money do you owe Michael Jackson from that case?” and he said “I don’t remember!”, and Mesereau said to him “You don’t remember owing somebody $1.6 million dollars?” He didn’t remember anything! He couldn’t actually remember anything! And it was pathetic! And you looked at these people, and you say that “Well, you know, they were all dismissed for various reasons, this was a long time ago….”, and I watched one of the jurors literally lean forward, he came forward in his seat, with a grin, looking at this, and I thought he was going to start shaking his head, saying out loud “Why are we here?”

Matt Drudge: What is happening is that the reporters, the anchorwomen like Nancy Grace are not conveying this. They’re doing quite a disservice; they’re not reporting what is happening there. We have Laurie Ingle of KFI, locally in Los Angeles, report that jurors were laughing and snickering8, the judge finally had to say that there was no investigation in this, people were talking mistrial, they were hoping for a mistrial, and Sneddon could do it all over again and not call the airline stewardess, not call the sister, and not even call Gavin this time, if he had to do it. Stay right there, Roger Friedman.  He is in the courtroom, he has had a front or second or third row seat in there. He is looking at this from a different point of view. If you just bear with us, because you are hearing a lot of this “Michael Jackson is finished, this is devastating, how could all these people be lying….” The question is, “Maybe they are all lying?” Why isn’t that a possibility? Especially under the revelation that five of these witnesses have owed Michael Jackson money for disgruntled, and lawsuits that have gone down the toilet, and all the other things.  But you see what’s going on. This started as a very compelling case, and I want to know why Sneddon is not charging people with perjury up there?  What is going on? To have any kind of credibility at all, you have to have in that courtroom that if you lie under oath, you are going to be in serious trouble. Oh, that’s the Clinton oath? Don’t get me started on that. That’s last century. We’re dealing with 2005 here. This is Drudge.

Matt Drudge: Sunday night, this is the Drudge Report. And he’s travelling up I guess Route 5 or the 101, somewhere there on the coast. Going back to the courthouse for another day………

Roger Friedman: This is the most beautiful part of California, and it’s hard to believe this is going on here, because it’s an extraordinary place.

Matt Drudge: Well, the world’s biggest pop star is about to be sent next to a jail cell of Charlie Manson, if in fact they find him guilty.

Roger Friedman: I doubt it.

Matt Drudge: Can you imagine verdict day on this when you have an entire media establishment that has convicted Michael Jackson already, and the jury finds him “not guilty”, they’re gonna say “Well, he’s a superstar, you can’t convict a superstar…”, and all the rest. I already see Diane Dimond, et al, spinning that up. But you are saying it’s based on the testimony, and the witnesses, and what you are seeing there with your own eyes.

Roger Friedman: There’s certainly reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson could be acquitted here. And what we’re faced with is, a lot of people have come on the stand and said “Look, there are a lot of 12 year old boys roaming around Neverland, they spend time in Michael Jackson’s room, but that’s all!” That’s all anybody really knows. They sleep there. Whether anything else has happened beyond that, has been sort of disproved in every cross examination.

Matt Drudge: Why isn’t Macaulay Culkin willing to come defend Michael Jackson in this case?

Roger Friedman: There’s no upside for Macaulay Culkin here. He’s already said it! He said it on Larry King. He said nothing happened. His father gave me an exclusive interview, thank you Daphne Barack  who ripped me off subsequently9, but father Kit Culkin gave me an exclusive interview last week and said absolutely nothing happened! “I was there with Macaulay, I was there with all my kids, they were fine with Michael Jackson!” So we sit in the courtroom and listen to the maligning of Macaulay Culkin, wondering what his request is I think the public imagination now is that he definitely was abused by Michael Jackson.

Matt Drudge: I think if you did a pulse poll, of people listening to these local talk shows, they would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!10 If, in fact, they knew, for instance you’re reporting tomorrow that you’ve listened to tapes that are in conflict with what a witness testified under oath, just on Friday. This to me, and I don’t know if Mesereau is exhausted, and is not following all the details on this, he better have gotten some rest this weekend, why isn’t this being used as testimony to debunk the witnesses?

Roger Friedman:  That’s a good question, because the guy who has the tapes, this man Paul Baressi, has offered it. He’s offered it to both sides. He said “Here, listen to this. Listen to what these people said 10 years ago.” And we’re the only ones who bothered to print what these people said 10 years ago.  And now we know, for the first time, for example, that this man who testified on Friday (Phillip LeMargue), about trying to sell his story in 1993, it turned out, unbeknownst to anyone, he didn’t mention this on the stand on Friday, that he tried to sell his story first in 1991, and no one wanted it! He also, listen to this, he also, after his was fired from working at Neverland, tried to come back and infiltrate Neverland for the National Enquirer, for Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding to Larry Fortesnki in 1991!

Matt Drudge: That was that “Course of Miracles” wedding. Right.

Roger Friedman: Yeah, but what you have is, you like a bunch of people who worked at Neverland…………..Neverland must have like the worst personnel manual in any business! It’s a bunch of thieves who’ve come and gone, sold stories about Michael, they’ve been mistreated, granted, it’s not been a great personnel policy at Neverland, but I’ve never seen a group of employees with so much venom, all just coming to work there, simply to see if they can break their confidentiality agreement later!

Matt Drudge: But the pedestrian is left thinking “something is going on there, too many people are saying all this, we have Michael admitting to sleeping with the kids”, even though he’s not being charged with that as a crime, sexual molestation is the crime, and that should be denoted11, so you can understand why there is so much momentum against Michael Jackson at this hour, because the coverage has not been as detailed as you’ve been offering.

Roger Friedman: I’m tired of hearing the expression “where there’s smoke, there’s fire12”, because if that were the case, there’d be a lot of convictions in this country.  I’m not sure what Michael Jackson did, but if I were the jury, and I’m listening to this, I’d say that there’s reasonable doubt.

Matt Drudge: Also, there is a gap of 10 years when Sneddon doesn’t have anything doing anything, the recent 10 years, up to Gavin, and I wonder what happened in those 10 years? Why didn’t anyone come forward? Why

is it just there this sort of cluster activity around these employees who, as you’ve said, now owe Michael Jackson money, where is 10 years in the life of Neverland Ranch where nobody, NOBODY, where’s that?

Roger Friedman: In fact, the real test of these extraordinary National Enquirer tape recordings that Baressi has, I said to someone at the National Enquirer just the other day, I said “Listen, in 12 years you’ve dangled millions of dollars in front of anyone who will come forward, and no one came forward13, and they said “We agree, finally”. And even the tabloids……… you notice the National Enquirer has not written a word about this case so far, they’ve stayed away from it completely….

Matt Drudge: Because they know these witnesses are damaged goods, that’s what they’re really doing.

Roger Friedman: The witnesses are damaged goods, and they know there’s nothing there, and there were no other kids!

Matt Drudge: Alright, we’ve just got a short time left, Roger Friedman from Fox News, you’re sitting there in the courtroom, why isn’t the mother testifying? Why isn’t the mother calling this “Janet Jackson” to get nasty on the stand? She’s a key witness. Where is she?

Roger Friedman: Well, that’s a good question. Presumably, she’s the last witness….

He’ll finish it off with a cherry on top!

Roger Friedman: She’s an unreliable witness, and if she starts to tell a story about being kidnapped, the defense is ready, to show receipts from her “kidnapping” , and you and I would like to be kidnapped just nicely!

Matt Drudge: OK! Let’s go get kidnapped! Roger Friedman, hate to cut you off there, we’ll see you in your column tomorrow, thanks a lot!

There he is, an eyewitness in the court who is taking a little bit of a different approach from some of these other, shall we say, “women”, anchor women who have already convicted Michael Jackson, judge and jury.  It’s Drudge on Sunday night.

Analysis

1. “Well, the mother has said through a press release that she left the courtroom during the molestation trial last week to use the restroom!” This is one of the biggest lies that was perpetuated during the trial, and it shows how desperate the media was to pounce on any tiny, little tidbit of information and sensationalize it for their agenda. Katherine Jackson left the courtroom to merely use the restroom, and didn’t return in time and was prohibited from re-entering, and Grace and her goons lied and reported that she left to avoid hearing the “graphic testimony” of the accusers. What a joke! This is how bottom-feeders operate; this is the M.O.!  This is undeniable proof of their deliberate and malicious intent to slant the coverage in favor of the prosecution and convict MJ in the so-called “court of public opinion”.

Here is the text of Katherine Jackson’s statement regarding her leaving the courtroom:

2. “He went through a lot of different pitches with people like the LeMarques, and a lot of the other witnesses who’ve come on to testify for the prosecution.” Here’s a little background history on Phillip and Stella Lemarque, taken from the “HIStory vs. EVANstory” post:

After the Filipino couple, Philippe and Stella Lemarque (ex-Neverland employees who were fired in 1991) crawled out and contacted former porn star Paul Baressi to help them sell their stories and make the negotiations for them. Stella was dating Baressi prior to her marriage, and knew his connections to tabloids. They sold their story (describing Culkin’s fondling by Jackson) to a British tabloid for $100,000, and when the price became $500,000 the story changed. At the time the Lemarques had a $455,000 debt. The child star would discredit them and would later defend Michael Jackson in his 2005 trial. He is the godfather of Prince and Paris Jackson, and he spoke in Michael’s defense on Larry King Live on May 24, 2004. Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit Culkin called the Lemarques a “predator pair”. Mr. Culkin not only discredited them, like his son, but he also said something that was corroborated by all the other parents and Neverland staff: that there were always parents present having access everywhere in the house and also the staff was looking after the kids.  Baressi was recording the couple as they were making up stories according to the price. He would later explain in detail how he manipulated the media by involving the authorities so he could sound more credible and ask for a better price. He admitted that he didn’t care if the story was true, as long as he had a good percentage from the deal, and he was giving different versions of the fictional story to tabloids to decide which fairy-tale they liked more. The Lemarques had a long history of cashing in on Michael Jackson, and they were negotiating with the National Enquirer in 1991 to sell stories for Jackson, such as Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding at Neverland. They even asked the tabloid to cover their expenses if Jackson sued them. Philippe Lemarque later ran a porn site called Virtual Sin.

Let’s look at what Macauley Culkin’s father Kit had to say about the Lemarque’s in his 2005 book “Lost Boy”. From pages 55-57:

As to the scavenger fish: A word (a personal word) if I may. Some years back (in fact, nearly a dozen years ago), a magazine article was handed me that purported to be an expose on how tabloids often get their stories (those tabloids who actually do “get” their stories; which is to say, actually do have a source, named or unnamed). I didn’t read the whole piece, just that section (pointed out to me) that had to do with my son Mack. In it the article noted that there was a married couple, once employed at Neverland as chefs, who were busy peddling a story to the tabloids that had to do with their eye-witnessing an encounter of a sexual nature between Michael Jackson and this son of mine; this, not so incidentally, at just the time when the press was all over the 1993 allegations. For $20,000 (or possibly it was $200,000) Michael’s hand would be witnessed by this conspiring couple as on Mack’s knee, while for $50,000 (or possibly it was $500,000) Michael’s hand would be witnessed as in Mack’s pants; and, almost needless to say, for no dollars at all Michael’s hand would be witnessed as clearly nowhere to be seen.

I was by this time, you should know, becoming rather thick-skinned (certainly as thick-skinned as I was able, given my position and the circumstances) about the fourth estate’s reporting on my young son’s “sexual exploits” (“sexual exploits” with everyone-and-anything from Raquel Welch to the next door neighbor’s dog), so I merely tossed the magazine (in disgust) away. I only raise this portion of its contents here to give some first hand and quite just example as to how greed will have its day, and to suggest further that if rapaciousness such as this is not to be considered a lethiferous drink in-and-of-itself (the gin of it), of how it can then most certainly, when mixed with the very possible and even probable element of personal resentment and former employee disgruntlement (the vermouth of it), come to be considered (the ‘shaken or stirred’ of it) a most mortuous potion indeed (the grand martini of it).

Imagine getting paid (and getting paid handsomely) to get even with your former boss!

Have we died and gone to heaven?!

I feel that I need here mention the story of the chefs trying to sell their stories oh-so-many years ago for quite personal reasons because (low and behold) if the male half of this predatory pair didn’t resurface only recently (and after all these years) to give witness for the prosecution in the current court proceedings. Went into that courtroom, he did, and told the $50,000 (or possibly it was the $500,000) account of what it was that he had witnessed so many years past. Yes indeed he did. And not only this, but apparently told the court also that unlike the other eye-witnesses to various things in these proceedings, he had never sold his story to the tabloids (Such was certainly the claim made to the press outside the courtroom immediately following the testimony by the man’s attorney; a rather sleazy-looking fellow who refused to take questions).

Now I haven’t really been following the current case all that closely, but (believe you me) I did look up a television set for this part of the trial. Most of the reporters and other t.v. talking heads seemed to accept this chefs testimony at face value (or, at least, so it seemed to me), but there was one (I couldn’t help but note) who had actually, and quite happily, done some homework; homework which only backed-up what I remembered reading years ago. According to this reporting, after being cashiered at Neverland, and after the original/1993 allegations against Michael had surfaced, this unbashful brace of up-to-no-goods had approached a close friend or relative or theirs with their varying 

stories and their list of varying prices; a friend or relative whom they had had reason to believe had connections with the news media. The good news for the couple was that he did. The bad news was that they were double-crossed. The close friend or relative, instead of acting as the agent for their stories, gave both them and their stories up in the selling of his own story, which was (of course) as to how they had come to him with theirs; hence, what I had read years previously. The reason that the chef had never sold his story to the tabloids is that he had been quite publicly exposed, and no longer had a story to sell; not, that is, until the prosecutor in this current case called him as a state’s witness, and in so doing helped to restore the perception of his credibility. And no doubt just in time, for (according to more homework from this reporter) the chefs had apparently fallen on hard times; hard times that have dogged them ever since their departure from Neverland. Exposed for their press fraud and unable to secure any further work as chefs in private homes, they had gone into the pornography business only to find that their profitability in the bedroom only matched that of their profitability in the kitchen. Now, of course, and courtesy of his association with the district attorney in the present case, the story will (as I must say again) be given new life; a new life that will undoubtedly translate into the tabloid deals that the couple were all these years denied, and which should now carry them over the rough spots to the day of their next seedy scam.

Let me here (if I might) interpose a question: Why did the prosecutor, when he was first told this story by this future witness, not immediately get in touch with Macauiay (even if he need subpoena him to do so) and ask him as to whether or not any of this was true? Was this of no interest to him? After all, as chief officer of the court, wasn’t it first and foremost his sworn duty to get at the truth? As an analogy: Suppose that a witness goes to the police and reports that he has just witnessed a certain person hold up a bank. Before making an arrest, wouldn’t the police first want to go to the bank to see as to whether or not it had in fact actually been held up?!

As to the actual story that the chef told, I found it a bit curious that he should have witnessed the molestation which he said that he witnessed in the process of delivering to Michael some food that Michael had just ordered. Knowing that food is on the way, would this be the time and the place that one chooses to commit such a crime? If one were intent upon committing a rape in one’s hotel room, would one commit that rape just after having ordered room service?! (an inapt comparison perhaps, as in the chefs account there wasn’t even the protection of a hotel room door; this supposed delivery being made to the quite open and very public club house-turned-video arcade).

And before we leave this subject, let me here inquire as to whether or not it is too much to ask as to why, when this “eye-witness” actually witnessed what he said that he witnessed, he didn’t immediately confront Michael; and as to why it was also that (for whatever reason or reasons there may be) he didn’t then immediately call the police and/or contact children’s protective services and/or come to me (for I was most certainly there); and as to why it was also that (over and above this), if he was indeed worried about losing his job with this (by his very own witness) child molester in this den of pedophilia, he didn’t then make any-and-all of these communications clandestinely. Had he witnessed a murder, would he have proved any less diffident?! In some states it is considered a crime (as well it should be) to not come forward with such witness, just as in not a few states ‘Good Samaritan’ laws are being passed to make it a crime to merely turn one’s head and walk away and not want to get involved, for in the name of all that is good, to do otherwise would be nothing more or nothing less than depraved indifference (Let me repeat that word: Depraved). Yes indeed, is it too much to ask why this mountain of moral rectitude only thought to report on that which he only quite subsequently said that he witnessed when he thought there to be a perfect mountain of money on the table?!

3. “They will tell you about how the National Enquirer dangled hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of everyone to get them to say that Michael Jackson molested a kid or did anything inappropriate.” Here is a perfect example of the checkbook journalism that Friedman is talking about:  in 1993, the National Enquirer tracked down a former acquaintance of the Jackson family named Ronald Newt Sr.  He and his twin sons Robert and Ronald Jr. stayed at the Hayvenhurst compound in 1985 for two weeks.  Joe, Katherine, Michael, Janet, and Latoya Jackson were all residing there at that time.

After the scandal hit the airwaves, the National Enquirer essentially had a bounty on finding any other “victims” of MJ, and they actively sought any and everyone who had ever met MJ, hoping to be the first tabloid to break the “bombshell” news that there is another victim.  So to make a long story short, they offered Ronald Newt Sr. a whopping $200k dollars to say that his boys were molested!!  Coming from a poor background, he contemplated the offer (after all, he’s only human!), but then rejected it outright.

If you have any doubts as to the vicious, malicious, and heinous motives of the tabloids, then this quote will remove that doubt! From Robert Newt, who was 18 years old in December 1993 when he was offered the money to lie:

“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told ushe took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.’”

That comment should send chills down your spine, because it exposes the tabloids (and the people who plagiarize them, like Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth) for the ruthless, lying, blood sucking, cold-hearted, demonic people that they are. Instead of offering that $200k to somebody to lie and put an innocent man in prison, why not donate that money to organizations that help survivors of child abuse? Oh, that’s right, it’s because they don’t have a heart, or a conscience, and they couldn’t care less about child abuse survivors!

The good thing that came out of this story, after nobody accepted their blood money, is when the editor of the Enquirer said “maybe there aren’t any other kids”. Gee, you think?

Another piece of good news that I’d like to report here is that the publisher of Enquirer has recently filed for bankruptcy!  They claim that they will still continue to publish this trash rag, but let’s hope for its demise anyway.

4. “I don’t buy the theory that because he settled out of court that he couldn’t bring charges . Bogus! That’s just bogus!” This is certainly one of the biggest myths that has plagued MJ’s legacy since 1993: that he “bought” his way out of jail by settling the Chandler’s civil lawsuit. As Drudge clearly states in this quote, that idea is bogus! Just bogus!

In order to understand exactly the legal ramifications of what happened in 1993, you have to know the basic fundamentals of criminal and civil law. For example, if a math teacher told you that a circle has 375 degrees, would you believe them? No! Because everyone knows that a circle is only 360 degrees, whether you’re a geometry whiz or not! Similarly, if a chemist told you that the chemical composition of water is H1O, you’d laugh in that person’s face because water consists of H2O! That same logic applies to law; if some legal “analyst” tries to tell you that MJ “paid off” the Chandlers and Francia, you should immediately disregard them, despite their educational credentials, because they’re lying!

I included a lengthy but detailed explanation about the difference between civil and criminal law in this post about the media’s lies regarding MJ’s settlements. Please read the “Civil Law vs. Criminal Law” section at the beginning to learn the basic fundamentals of law, and how it is impossible to “buy” your freedom!

5. “The grand jury concluded that there was no case!”  Similar to civil law and criminal law, it is important to realize the difference between a preliminary hearing and a grand jury proceeding, in order to get a complete grasp of how weak Sneddon’s case was, despite his desperate “grasping for straws” strategy that backfired at every angle. Here is the difference between the two hearings:

When a felony case is initiated in court it must first go through a probable cause determination before the matter can be set for trial.  There are two different forms in which this can occur.

The first is called a grand jury; this is where the prosecution presents the case to a group of citizens outside the presence of the defendant and the grand jurors are asked to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecution.  If the grand jury finds probable cause they return an indictment which then becomes the charging document in that particular case.

Alternatively a felony charge can be initiated through a preliminary hearing, which is conducted in a manner very similar to that of a trial; however, during a preliminary hearing there is no jury, rather a judge is the fact finder and the burden of proof is much lower than that ordinarily required at a criminal trial.  At a criminal trial when a person could potentially be imprisoned if convicted our constitution requires that the prosecution provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt before that can occur.  During a preliminary hearing however the prosecution is required only to demonstrate that probable cause exists for the case to move forward in the court system.  If a preliminary hearing is held and the judge finds probable cause the state is permitted to file a document called an information which would be used as the charging document throughout the remainder of that case.

Because felony cases involving indictments are initiated through the grand jury, where neither the defendant nor the defense attorney are present, the prosecutor has special obligations to present the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and present evidence that is clearly exculpatory, meaning that it tends to show that the person accused is not guilty.  If the prosecutor fails to present the evidence to the grand jury in this manner the case could be remanded to the grand jury for a re‑determination of probable cause.

If not one, but freakin’ TWO grand juries refused to indict MJ in 1994, what does that say about Sneddon’s and Garcetti’s case?  And let me clear up this misconception that was exploited by our adversary: yes, the grand jurors voted and REFUSED to indict MJ! They were not “investigative” grand jurors, as Sneddon referred to them in 2005!  Please read this post for more information and fact-checking of the grand jury proceedings of 1994.

And did you notice in that last paragraph the part about prosecutors having a special obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jurors? Notice it said it’s an OBLIGATION, not a recommendation! Do you think Sneddon showed the grand jurors in 2004 any exculpatory evidence! Hell no!  For a complete summary of the egregious examples of proscutorial misconduct that took place, please read Mesereau’s NOTICE OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT!  At 212 pages long, it’s practically a book! That should tell you about Sneddon’s unprofessional tactics!

Here is what Mesereau had to say at the November 2005 Harvard Law School seminar about his conversation with a grand juror from 1994:

He had convened a grand jury in the early 90’s to try to get an indictment, and he failed.    The grand jury met for approximately six months, and would not charge Michael Jackson with anything!  And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently, from Los Angeles.  She was on a Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time, and they had real problems with these accusations.  And real problems with a sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges.  So he failed to get an indictment in the early 90s.

6. And you have one witness who said “Alright. I lied about everything!” The witness Friedman is referring to is the one and only Adrian McManus, one of the infamous “Neverland 5”.  She was fired from Neverland for theft prior to the allegations, and then sold lies to the tabloids about witnessing MJ molest young boys, including Macaulay Culkin.  Former employee Francine Contreras testified against McManus’ character by describing the display at McManus’ home of pilfered items from Neverland, including toys that were meant to be given to needy children! Have you no shame, Adrian? How low can you go?

Here is an excerpt from her cross-examination during the 2005 trial, where she is asked specifically about admitting to Prosecutor Ron Zonen about lying in a 1994 deposition. Try to keep a straight face while reading this garbage! I know it’s hard, but give it a try!:

25 Q. Did Prosecutor Zonen discuss with you last

26 night what you were going to say if confronted with

27 this sworn deposition in trial?

28 A. No. 5374

1 Q. Did the issue of what you had said under

2 oath in the Chandler deposition ever come up during

3 the three hours you spent last night with Government

4 Prosecutor Zonen?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Do you remember being asked under

7 oath in that deposition if you ever saw Jordie

8 Chandler‟s clothes at the ranch?

9 A. I believe that I do recall that.

10 Q. Do you remember saying that you saw his

11 mother bring them into Mr. Jackson‟s room in a

12 suitcase?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you remember being asked questions by

15 Mr. Feldman about the alarm system in Mr. Jackson‟s

16 room?

17 A. I don‟t recall that.

18 Q. Remember telling him, “People like to kill

19 celebrities, so you have to be careful with your

20 life”?

21 A. I don‟t recall that.

22 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if

23 I show you that portion of your deposition?

24 A. Sure.

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

26 THE WITNESS: Okay.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

28 review that page? 5375

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

3 you said under oath to Mr. Feldman on that subject?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You did say, “When you‟re a celebrity, you

6 live a different life than regular people. I mean,

7 people like to kill celebrities, so, you know, he

8 has to be careful, you know, with his life.” And

9 then —

10 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as to

11 hearsay, reading from a deposition that‟s not

12 inconsistent with current testimony.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, are you telling the

15 jury that throughout this deposition you committed

16 perjury?

17 MR. ZONEN: Objection; calls for a legal

18 conclusion.

19 MR. MESEREAU: I believe it was raised on

20 direction examination by the prosecutor, Your Honor.

21 MR. ZONEN: Not issues of perjury.

22 THE COURT: I‟ll sustain the objection to

23 the question as phrased.

24 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

25 Q. You told Prosecutor Zonen that you

26 repeatedly lied under oath in that deposition,

27 correct?

28 A. Are you — what are you talking about? 5376

1 Q. When Prosecutor Zonen asked you some

2 questions today in court, remember that?

3 A. Okay, yes.

4 Q. He asked you if you had lied under oath in

5 the Chandler deposition, right?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. You said you did, right?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you know how many times you lied under

10 oath in the Chandler deposition?

11 A. I believe the whole time I did not tell the

12 truth on that.

13 Q. Did you believe you were committing a crime

14 when you did that?

15 A. I really didn‟t. I really didn‟t think of

16 it that way.

17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: So far, you‟ve 

18 admitted you lied under oath in the Chandler

19 deposition for what, a day?

20 A. Well, throughout that — throughout that

21 deposition, yes.

22 Q. And Judge St. John found that you lied in

23 that trial, right?

24 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

25 argumentative.

26 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the jury found you

28 didn‟t tell the truth in your suit against Mr. 5377

1 Jackson, right?

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

3 and argumentative.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 Mr. Mesereau, a few questions back, after

6 you refreshed her recollection with the transcript

7 about “you‟re a celebrity,” I sustained an

8 objection, and I was incorrect.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

10 THE COURT: Do you want to reask that

11 question? I‟ll reverse my ruling on that.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: So what had happened is she‟d

14 refreshed her recollection, and then you wanted

15 to —

16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

17 THE COURT: Go ahead.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember I showed

19 you the page of the deposition about what you said

20 about “people try to kill celebrities”?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did that refresh your recollection about

23 what you said on that issue under oath?

24 A. I believe so.

25 Q. Okay. And as you recall, what did you say

26 under oath on that issue?

27 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 5378

1 THE WITNESS: I forgot.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your

3 recollection if I show it to you again?

4 A. Yes.

5 THE COURT: What I‟m going to do is let you

6 read it to her. That‟s what I stopped you from

7 doing. And I‟ll allow you to do it.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: And he‟s going to ask you if

10 this is —

11 You ask her.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. All right.

14 Q. Ms. McManus, this is what you said under

15 oath: “But you have to understand now, when you‟re

16 a celebrity, you live a different life than regular

17 people. I mean, people like to kill celebrities, 

18 so, you know, he has to be careful, you know, with

19 his life, and that little sensor benefits him for

20 his life.”

21 Remember saying that?

22 A. I believe so.

23 Q. Okay. Now, you weren‟t lying when you said

24 that, were you?

25 A. No.

Notice how she oh so casually admitted to lying throughout the entire deposition, but didn’t think it was a crime? What do you expect from someone who steals toys that were meant for underprivileged children? But fortunately for MJ, she was telling the truth regarding his bedroom alarms, which would help vindicate him against Star Arvizo’s claims of walking in and seeing MJ abuse Gavin.  Larry Nimmer’s incredible documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland” shows the incredible test that he performed on the alarm systems to prove that they worked, and MJ would have heard if someone was approaching his room.

7. “He couldn’t remember the fact that he had been one of five people who sued Michael Jackson in 1995 and lost, and owed him now $1.6 million dollars!”  This is so self-explanatory that I think we should just go straight to the official court transcript!  Here is an excerpt of the cross examination of Neverland 5 member and chronic amnesia sufferer Ralph Chacon! Once again, try to keep your laughter to a minimum!

8 Q. I‟d like to ask you a few questions about

9 that lawsuit you lost. That was the longest civil

10 trial in the history of Santa Maria, right?

11 A. I don‟t know, sir.

12 Q. It went about six months, didn‟t it?

13 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

14 Q. You sued Mr. Jackson and you wanted $16

15 million, right?

16 A. Well, I don‟t know about the 16 million.

17 Q. You wanted millions, true?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Really?

20 A. Well, I don‟t know, sir. Whatever our

21 attorney was — he‟s the one who was speaking for

22 us.

23 Q. Okay. We‟ll get into that.

24 You sued Mr. Jackson claiming you were

25 wrongfully terminated, right?

26 A. That‟s correct, sir.

27 Q. He sued you claiming you had stolen property

28 from him, true? 5202

1 A. That‟s correct, sir.

2 Q. The jury found you were not wrongfully

3 terminated by Mr. Jackson, correct?

4 A. But we were, sir.

5 Q. Answer my question, please. Did the Santa

6 Maria jury find you were not wrongfully terminated

7 by Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. And they also found you had stolen property

10 from Mr. Jackson, correct?

11 A. But I didn‟t, sir.

12 Q. Did the Santa Maria jury find you had stolen

13 property from Mr. Jackson?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr.

16 Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had

17 stolen, correct?

18 A. For candy bars, sir?

19 Q. A judgment was entered against you for

20 $25,000, the value of what the Court found you had

21 stolen, correct?

22 A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much,

23 yes, sir.

24 Q. That‟s not all you owe Mr. Jackson

25 currently, is it?

26 A. No, sir. I don‟t owe him.

27 Q. In fact, Judge Zel Canter of this court,

28 entered a judgment against you and your 5203

1 co-defendants for $1,473,117.61, correct?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. He ordered you pay all of Mr. Jackson‟s

4 legal fees and costs, correct?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Have you ever paid any of that judgment, Mr.

7 Chacon?

8 A. No, sir. I filed bankruptcy.

9 Q. Now, the jury found you not only stole from

10 Mr. Jackson, but you acted maliciously, correct?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. Did a judge find you had acted with malice?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Is there a judgment against you for acting

15 with fraud against Mr. Jackson?

16 A. That I know of, no, sir.

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look

18 at the judgment?

19 A. Yes, sir.

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

21 THE COURT: Yes.

22 THE WITNESS: Okay.

23 Oh, it‟s there, sir. I didn‟t know. Yes,

24 sir.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

26 look at that judgment, Mr. Chacon?

27 A. Do you mean right now?

28 Q. Yes. 5204

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. There is not only a judgment against you in

3 favor of Mr. Jackson —

4 MR. SNEDDON: Wait a minute. I‟m going to

5 object. He asked to refresh his recollection. He

6 should ask him if it did.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

8 THE COURT: That‟s correct.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

10 look at the judgment against you, Mr. Chacon?

11 A. I looked at that, yes, sir. But I don‟t

12 remember it.

13 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that

14 there‟s a judgment against you for fraud and

15 malice —

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. — in favor of Mr. Jackson?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. You never heard of that before?

20 A. Well, probably, but I don‟t remember.

21 Q. After a six-month trial, you don‟t remember?

22 A. Well, it‟s been 12 years also, sir, or so.

23 Q. Do you remember stipulating and agreeing

24 that you had personally acted with fraud, oppression

25 and malice against Mr. Jackson?

26 A. Probably so, sir.

27 Q. You did that, didn‟t you?

28 A. No, sir. 5205

 

1 Q. You didn‟t stipulate that you had acted with

2 fraud, oppression, and malice against Mr. Jackson in

3 that case?

4 A. Well, yes, sir.

5 Q. After a six-month trial, this is a good way

6 to get even with him, isn‟t it?

7 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative. Object, Your

8 Honor. Move to strike.

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have any motive

11 today, sir, to get even with Mr. Jackson?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Do you remember telling a therapist you‟d

14 rather get a million dollars from Mr. Jackson than

15 work?

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. Do you remember being evaluated by a Ph.D.

18 named Dr. Scott Gorsuch?

19 A. I don‟t recall, sir.

20 Q. Do you recall being evaluated by a therapist

21 in that lawsuit?

22 A. Probably at one point, but I don‟t recall

23 it, sir.

24 Q. Who was your lawyer in that case?

25 A. Mr. Ring from Santa Barbara.

26 Q. Do you remember, in response to being called

27 a malinger, you said, “I‟d like just a million from 

28 Mr. Jackson”? 5206

 

1 A. That‟s not true, sir.

2 Q. Never happened?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Do you recall making statements you didn‟t

5 want to work again?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Okay. After you left Mr. Jackson, you filed

8 for disability, didn‟t you?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You weren‟t disabled, were you?

11 A. I think it was just unemployment, wasn‟t it?

12 Q. Did you file for disability, Mr. Chacon,

13 after you left Mr. Jackson‟s employment?

14 A. It was unemployment, I believe it was.

15 Q. Okay. You had a deposition taken in that

16 case under oath, correct?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And that was not the first time you had ever

19 been deposed, correct?

20 A. I don‟t understand, sir, what you‟re saying.

21 Q. You had had your deposition taken in

22 lawsuits before that one, true?

23 A. No, sir. Not that I recall.

24 Q. That was the first deposition you‟d ever had

25 taken that you recall?

26 A. In my life?

27 Q. Yes.

28 A. Yes, sir. 5207

1 Q. Okay. Do you remember being asked if you

2 were aware that your attorney wanted $16 million for

3 you from Mr. Jackson and you said you understood

4 that?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show

7 you a page from your deposition?

8 A. Yes, sir.

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

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: Where does it say 16 million?

12 Oh, okay, I see that.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

14 look at that page of your deposition?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Remember you said you were aware that your

17 lawyer had asked for 16 million?

18 MR. SNEDDON: I‟m going to ask that counsel

19 be directed to ask whether it refreshes his

20 recollection before he reads.

21 MR. MESEREAU: I‟m sorry. I will withdraw

22 the question.

23 Q. Have you looked at that deposition?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. You were under oath at the time, correct?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

28 admitted you knew your lawyer had asked for $16 5208

 

1 million?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. In fact, you said you didn‟t think 16

4 million was enough, correct?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

7 show you your deposition?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: That‟s on there.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

13 look at that page?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

16 didn‟t think $16 million was enough to you?

17 A. No, sir, I don‟t.

18 Q. You didn‟t say that?

19 A. No, I mean, I don‟t — now I see it‟s

20 written down there, yes, sir.

Absolutely pathetic! Sneddon had the audacity to call this tabloid reject as a witness against Michael Jackson? And to put the icing on the cake, and demonstrate just how sleazy and corrupt not only the Neverland 5 were, but their lawyer Michael Ring as well, take a look at the major offenses he committed, and the punishment that was meted out to him by the court! From the Kentucky New Era newspaper on March 15th, 1997:

Lawyer in Jackson suit fined

A lawyer suing Michael Jackson was fined $28,350 for hiding evidence from the singer’s lawyers during pretrial fact-finding.

The lawyer, Michael Ring, represents five former employees at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in Santa Maria, CA., who claim they were harassed and wrongfully fired. He was fined $10,000 previously for concealing facts.

Superior Court Judge Zel Canter also fined the former workers $1,500 each for colluding with Ring and being evasive when asked about the evidence, which involved interviews they gave to two writers.

The workers claim they lied to a grand jury that investigated child molestation accusations against Jackson after being threatened by his bodyguards.

Prosecutors investigated the allegations against Jackson in 1993, but never brought charges. The accuser refused to cooperate after receiving a reported $15 million settlement from Jackson, who denied the accusations.

Wow! So this scumbag Michael Ring was fined a total of $38,350 dollars for committing the two most common and egregious forms of prosecutorial misconduct: concealing facts and hiding evidence! And they were fined $1,500 each for colluding with him! That shows that they acted with malice and forethought to file a frivolous lawsuit and try to win a huge settlement from MJ.  After reading that article, there should be no doubts in your mind – as if there were any to begin with – that the Neverland 5 lawsuit was a total sham.

One thing that jumped out at me was the fact that they gave interviews to two “writers”. I would bet my life savings that the two “writers” that they granted interviews to were none other than Maureen Orth and Victor Gutierrez! Those two hacks are the only people on earth who would give the time of day to the Neverland 5! They have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get salacious information for their slanderous books and articles, and they have both proven that when it comes to bringing down MJ, they will leave no stone unturned. As a matter of fact, Chacon actually admitted to speaking with Gutierrez in 1994!

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

Read this post for more information about how the Neverland 5 were “inspired” by Victor Gutierrez!!

8.”Jurors were laughing and snickering.”  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s actually true! Some of the jurors literally laughed out loud at the testimony of Jason Francia!  I will briefly discuss his cross-examination here, but for a complete summary of not only his testimony, but that of his mother Blanca and his attorney Kris Kallman, please read this post, where is refuted the notion that they were paid for their “silence”.

13 Q. How old were you when you claim Mr. Jackson

14 first tickled you improperly?

15 A. Seven and a half the first time.

16 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as vague

17 when we‟re referring to the claim or the tickling.

18 MR. MESEREAU: I think I was — I‟ll

19 rephrase it if the Court wants me to. I think I was

20 clear.

21 THE COURT: The objection‟s overruled. The

22 answer was given.

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you telling the jury

24 that at some point — excuse me. Let me start

25 again.

26 As of today, you‟re telling this jury you‟ve

27 never told your mother what you claim Mr. Jackson

28 did to you, right? 4852

1 A. I believe in counseling. I never told her

2 specifics on — that I was molested, but I did in

3 counseling tell her that I was molested.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. But it was in — shoot. It was a crying

6 time for —

7 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking you about the details.

8 Just answer my questions.

9 A. It was just hard for me to remember because

10 I was crying.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. So — I was young, and I was 14 or 15.

13 Q. So when you told the jury earlier that you

14 never told your mother about this, that wasn‟t true,

15 right?

16 A. I‟m sorry, I probably spoke quickly.

17 Q. So when you told that to the jury, that was

18 not really correct, right?

19 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as vague.

20 What is “not,” or “that”?

21 THE COURT: The objection‟s overruled.

22 I‟ll have the court reporter read the

23 question back to you.

24 THE WITNESS: Okay.

25 (Record read.)

26 THE WITNESS: And when I told “that” being —

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase it.

28 When you told the jury, in response to the 4853 

1 prosecutor‟s questions, that you had never told your

2 mother you were molested, that wasn‟t true, right?

3 A. I was mistaken.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. Okay. In fact, you had told your mother

7 that you were molested, right?

8 A. Yeah, I must have misunderstood his question

9 with the — with the details of it. I never told my

10 mom that I was molested three times by Michael

11 Jackson. My mom, I don‟t even think to this day,

12 knows that I was molested three times and the

13 specifics of it. If she does, then she does, and

14 that sucks.

15 Q. Your mother went on the T.V. show Hard Copy

16 in the early „90s, right?

17 A. Okay. I —

18 Q. Do you know if that‟s true?

19 A. She was on Hard Copy.

20 Q. She was on Hard Copy in 1993, was she not?

21 A. If you told me „94, I‟d agree. I don‟t

22 know. I don‟t know the exact year. I do not.

23 Q. Are you telling the jury that before your

24 mother went on Hard Copy, you never discussed what

25 you claim Mr. Jackson did to you with your mother?

26 A. Yeah, I‟m pretty sure that I never told my

27 mom that he molested me before Hard Copy.

28 Q. And before sheriffs came to talk to you for 4854

1 the first time, had you told anyone that you had

2 been molested by Michael Jackson?

3 A. I don‟t think so, no.

4 Q. They just kind of came one day and surprised

5 you?

6 (Laughter.)

7 A. Yeah.

8 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.

9 (To the audience) I‟m not going to put up

10 with that.

11 THE WITNESS: Thanks.

12 THE COURT: If there‟s any laughing again,

13 I‟ll remove people from the courtroom.

14 Go ahead, Counsel.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

16 Q. You have — you all right?

17 A. Yeah. I was just a little tense. Sorry.

18 Q. You have reviewed the tape and transcript of

19 your first interview with the sheriffs, correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And when did you review that interview?

22 A. Like when did I listen to the tapes again?

23 Is that what you‟re asking?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Sunday.

26 Q. And how did you get the tape?

27 A. Chris – I don‟t know his last name – gave

28 them to me. 4855

1 Q. Is that the lawyer?

2 A. No. He‟s not a lawyer, I don‟t think.

3 Q. Is he a sheriff?

4 A. It‟s a tall man.

5 Q. Is he a sheriff?

6 A. I don‟t know. I believe so.

7 Q. How did you run into him?

8 A. I met him when I met all these gentlemen.

9 Q. The prosecutors?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. So Chris was with the prosecutors

12 when you met them last, right?

13 A. I‟m sorry?

14 Q. Chris was with the prosecutors when you

15 spoke to the prosecutors, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And Chris gave you a tape of your interview

18 from 1993, correct?

19 A. I believe that‟s the year, yes.

20 Q. And if you remember, who was at that

21 interview in 1993?

22 A. I don‟t remember. Two men. Detectives, I

23 believe.

24 Q. And where did it take place?

25 A. I already answered that to him.

26 Q. Would you please answer it again for me?

27 Where did it take place?

28 A. At the sheriff‟s station, or the probation — 4856

1 I think it was the sheriff‟s.

2 Q. Was that in Santa Maria?

3 A. In Orcutt.

4 Q. In Orcutt, okay.

5 You were given a copy of the tape to listen

6 to, right?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. And you were given a transcript of the tape

9 to read, right?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. And you did that, right?

12 A. Yeah.

13 Q. And a Detective Russell Birchim from the

14 Santa Barbara County Sheriff‟s Department was

15 present for that interview, right?

16 A. I don‟t remember his name.

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

18 show you a copy of the transcript?

19 MR. ZONEN: I‟ll object as to which

20 interview. Talking about the 1993 one, or the

21 recent one where he reviewed the transcript?

22 MR. MESEREAU: I‟m talking about the 1993

23 one.

24 MR. ZONEN: I‟m sorry.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let‟s get back to the 1993

26 interview.

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. You have recently reviewed a transcript of 4857

1 that interview, right? 

2 A. In the „93 interview?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. The tape and the transcript?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Have I reviewed them both?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Didn‟t I answer you that already?

9 Q. Would you please clarify it? Because

10 there‟s been some confusion.

11 A. Yes, I have.

12 Q. You have listened to the tape and you‟ve

13 read the transcript, right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. But as you sit here today, you‟re not sure

16 who was at the interview with you in 1993, right?

17 A. I was 13 years old.

18 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

19 you a copy of the transcript with the names of the

20 people who were with you?

21 A. Sure.

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

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

25 THE WITNESS: Okay.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

27 look at that transcript? Mr. Francia, have you had

28 a chance to look at the transcript I just showed 4858

1 you?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Did it refresh your recollection

4 about who was there for that interview?

5 A. Yeah. I just read it. It said Vince and

6 Russell.

7 Q. Vince Neglia and Russell Birchim, right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, did someone tell you to

10 review that transcript before you testified?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who told you to review that transcript

13 before you testified?

14 A. I‟m under some pressure. Mark — it‟s not

15 Mark. It‟s Russ. I‟m so bad with names.

16 Q. Is it Prosecutor Zonen, who just asked you

17 questions?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. Okay. Did he tell you you‟d be asked

20 questions about that?

21 A. About —

22 Q. What you said in that interview in 1993?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Did he tell you to study it carefully

25 and make sure you knew what you said and didn‟t say,

26 right?

27 A. Actually, he didn‟t say, “Study it

28 carefully.” 4859

1 Q. Did he tell you to read it?

2 A. He told me to review it.

Let’s summarize that exchange between Mesereau and Francia: 1) you can see in the transcript that there was excessive laughter going on in the court after Mesereau asked if the cops came and surprised him by asking him about the molestations (and this shows the total absurdity of his story), 2) Francia had complete amnesia when it came to remembering the two detectives who interviewed him in 1993, and 3) Francia CONFIRMED that the prosecutors showed him his 1993 interview transcript and told him to “review it”, obviously to make sure he kept his story straight! (Which he didn’t!) If Sneddon and Zonen told Jason Francia to review his past interviews, then they certainly must have told the Arvizos to review their past interviews, right? And the amazing thing is that even with all of their “cramming”, both Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo STILL gave contradictory testimonies!

9. “His father gave me an exclusive interview, thank you Daphne Barack  who ripped me off subsequently” Prior to a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Daphne Barack (although I did see her 2004 interview with Joseph and Katherine Jackson, not knowing who she was or the significance of her access to the Jackson family).  But ever since the younger brother of a member of a now defunct 90’s boy band claimed that he was given alcohol and cocaine by Michael Jackson, Barack’s name has been synonymous with sleazy, yellow journalism to readers of this blog!

As so eloquently stated in this post, in 2005 Barack tricked Kit Culkin into thinking that she would help him get a book deal for his book “Lost Boy”, but instead she copied Culkin’s copyrighted material from his book and printed it in the New York Daily News tabloid, giving readers the impression that this was an actual interview between Barack and Culkin!  This is what bothered Friedman so much, because he actually did conduct an interview with Culkin, but Barack stole his thunder by publisher her “interview” with Culkin.

10. “They would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!”  Aprhodite Jones was the first to shed light on the despicable media coverage, and she articulately described this phenomenon iin this promotional trailer for her documentary and book “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, beginning at 3:25:

11. “We have Michael admitting to sleeping with the kids, even though he’s not being charged with that as a crime”:  Here are what two of MJ’s arch-nemeses Tom Sneddon and Nancy Grace have to say about an adult sleeping with a child:

A) In a press release dated February 6th, 2003, Sneddon quoted the California Penal Code sections 288, 647.6, 314.1, and 803(g):

A review of these sections reveals that the act of an adult sleeping with a child without more is insufficient to warrant a filing or support a conviction. I direct your attention to these sections. If you read them you will notice that in each instance they require affirmative, offensive conduct on the part of the perpetrator and a mental state that accompanies any touching that may occur. The mere act of sleeping in the same bed with a child alone without either a touching and the required mental state would not satisfy the statutory requirements. Furthermore, while Section 803(g) allows prosecution of offenses which occurred beyond the statute of limitations, it requires as a prerequisite that the victim initiate the request to investigate by reporting the allegations to law enforcement.

B) As a guest on Larry King Live on February 21, 2003, here’s what Nancy Grace had to say when asked by Larry King if MJ’s conduct was criminal:

Well, absolutely not. Having a child falling asleep in your bed.”

12. “I’m tired of hearing the expressionwhere there’s smoke, there’s fire”.  Let me take this chance to include another shameless plug of my good friend Sean Chai’s new MJ blog, “Smoke Without Fire”, which is a combination of her two previous MJ blogs “The Smoking Room” and “Smoke and Mirrors”.  As I’ve stated before, Sean Chai is one of the foremost experts in the world when it comes to these false allegations, and her research proves it!

13. “Listen, in 12 years you’ve dangled millions of dollars in front of anyone who will come forward, and no one came forward” What does that say about not only the tabloids, but the people who were offered the money? It shows that the tabloids will stop at nothing to bring down MJ with false charges, and it shows that the people who rejected their blood money have a lot of loyalty to MJ, as well as integrity and self-discipline. In addition to Ronald Newt, whose story I included above in Bullet Point #3, or Alfonso Ribeiro (from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air sitcom), who in 1993 described to Geraldo Rivera how his father was offered $100k from a tabloid to lie about MJ!  From “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, page 79:

Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson.

Lately, the tabloid industry has come under fire in the wake of the hacking scandal that has brought the industry down to its knees! In fact, The News of the World tabloid had to shut down in the aftermath of negative publicity!

As a result of this mess, Rev. Catherine Gross has invited journalist and MJ expert Charles Thomson as a guest on her “A Place in Your Heart” radio program, scheduled to air on Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 3:00pm CST.  Thomson will discuss the state of yellow journalism today, and you won’t want to miss it!

Continue here for part 3


82 Comments leave one →
  1. shellywebstere permalink
    April 16, 2012 8:00 pm

    He doesn’t spoke a lot about the 1993 case, he just did an interview with Geraldine Hugues.

    Like

  2. April 16, 2012 7:57 pm

    Shelly, thank you for the news from the Reflections on the dance blog. I hear for the first time that Larry Nimmer is handling the 1993 case too! Honest people are finally gathering around Michael and we wish Larry Nimmer every success in what he is doing!

    Here is a quote from http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Larry-Nimmer-Interview.html

    DK: With the DVD, what do you hope to achieve with the people that see this?

    LN: I hope to help vindicate Michael. I hope to show people that aren’t sure whether he was a pedophile or not, to show that he really wasn’t. These people made up stories. Some people say “well, the accuser in 2005 was bogus, but what about the $20 million settlement in 1993?….” I go into that story too and show how that family too were opportunists and how they apparently made up their story too. I hope to create a sympathetic reaction for Michael for those who weren’t sure one way or the other that didn’t really follow the trial closely and even though he was found “not guilty” by all the jurors, a lot of people still don’t know if he was guilty or not because of how the media portrayed it. I wanted to show on the DVD how the media can hurt somebody the way they hurt Michael. They can hurt a celebrity or anybody. The motive of the media really is profit. The more sensationalist they make it, the more outrageous they make it, the more people want to watch, and the more money they make from advertising.

    To order Larry Nimmer’s DVD, “Michael Jackson, The Untold Story of Neverland,” visit http://www.nimmer.net

    Like

  3. shellywebstere permalink
    April 16, 2012 1:32 am

    From Larry Nimmer

    ” I think Gavin Arvizo is a broken young man now, to the best of my understanding and the mom Janet Arvizo, I hear, is semi-unstable. Apparently not too long ago she contacted the Sheriff’s department and they didn’t want to have much to do with her from what I heard second-hand.”

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Larry-Nimmer-Interview.html

    Like

  4. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 2:46 pm

    As for Chacon did he spoke to Gutierrez or not

    “Q. Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

    individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

    that?

    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

    Gutierrez?

    No, sir. 5277
    Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

    A. No, sir.”

    Under cross examination

    Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

    author named Gutierrez?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

    book author named Gutierrez?

    A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

    and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

    the date or the time.

    Like

  5. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 1:58 pm

    ““He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said.

    It’s Mc Manus testimony about Barnes, lol and by the way I really wonder what was the subject of the 3 hours discussion she had with Zonen

    “25 Q. Did Prosecutor Zonen discuss with you last

    26 night what you were going to say if confronted with

    27 this sworn deposition in trial?

    28 A. No. 5374

    1 Q. Did the issue of what you had said under

    2 oath in the Chandler deposition ever come up during

    3 the three hours you spent last night with Government

    4 Prosecutor Zonen?

    5 A. No.”

    Like

  6. ares permalink
    September 8, 2011 12:15 am

    Does anyone knows if Drudge gave his thoughts or if he commented on MJ’s acquital in 2005?

    Like

  7. Alison permalink
    September 2, 2011 2:30 am

    i only just heard about this campaign and its finished! too late to write a letter i think but i just ‘signed’ the online petition so it must still be active to do that. its a campaign from mjjustice to ask the estate to allow larry nimmer to show his documentary ‘The Untold Story of Neverland’ on the TV.

    if you didn’t know about it here is the link:

    http://mjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/neverland-campaign

    Like

  8. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:49 pm

    I wish they would also quote what Jennifer Batten said about Simmon’s words!

    Like

  9. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:17 pm

    This is the transcript from Showbiz Tonight regarding Gene Simmons:

    Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. It is 30 minutes past the hour. I`m Carlos Diaz, in for A.J. Hammer. And right now, SHOWBIZ TONIGHT is breaking big news – did Gene Simmons just call Michael Jackson a child molester again?

    Gene Simmons and Kiss were just forced to pull out of a big Michael Jackson tribute concert his family is putting together after outraged Michael fans around the world pointed out, hey, isn`t that the same guy who said he believed Michael was a child molester?

    SHOWBIZ TONIGHT caught up with Gene in Hollywood and he`s not backing down. Watch what he revealed exclusively to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.

    SIMMONS: Well, I mean, it had to come to that. I refuse to take back my words. I stand by every word I said. I admire the man and his music, not so much the man in his private life.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    DIAZ: Gene, I admire you but, remember, Michael was never found guilty of a single charge of child abuse. With me tonight in New York is attorney Midwin Charles of Midwin Charles and Associates. And from Hollywood tonight, defense attorney Debra Opri.

    Gene Simmons kicked off this whole controversy when he told a rock magazine there had been too many accusations against Michael Jackson for them not to be true.

    Listen to what Gene said, “Where there`s smoke, there`s fire. There`s no question in my mind he molested those kids. Not a doubt.”

    Midwin, is it time for Gene Simmons to just shut up about this? Or is what he is saying what a lot of people still believe?

    MIDWIN CHARLES, ATTORNEY, MIDWIN CHARLES AND ASSOCIATES: Well, I don`t think he should shut up. What he`s saying is what a lot of people still believe. And remember, there were two separate allegations. One resulted in settlement. The second one resulted in a trial.

    So what he`s saying isn`t unorthodox. It`s not unreasonable, given the facts. And he`s entitled to speak his mind.

    DIAZ: Debra Opri, what do you think? Should Gene Simmons leave this alone?

    DEBRA OPRI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I have a little personal vested interest in this, because I represented Katherine and Joe. I adore the family then. I adore them now.

    I believe, out of context, he can make a statement. It`s First Amendment, but how stupid is he to accept an invitation to play at a celebration of Michael and his music? He can`t have it both ways. And I think the fans –

    DIAZ: But, Debra, in all honesty –

    OPRI: Those fans – no, Carlos. The fans – the fans have been the leading, leading key to the success of the Jackson family. And they still cater to the fans and, well, they should because Michael was a very talented musician. And I feel for the family that this happened.

    DIAZ: But Debra, don`t you see the weirdness in what you just said? It was dumb for him to accept the invitation. Wasn`t it dumber, if you will, for them to extend the invitation?

    OPRI: Well, if they didn`t or weren`t aware of his statements prior, it is an oversight. It is not a good oversight, but it was an oversight. And the fans caught it in seconds and they immediately backpedaled.

    So it just tells you who is surrounding Katharine Jackson in terms of the promoters and what they`re doing. I think should fleshed all of this out prior to. Does he ever have the right to make his comments? Yes. But certainly, don`t participate in an event like this after making these statements. You know it`s two-faced.

    DIAZ: All right. We expect more big Michael Jackson news to break tomorrow. There`s another hearing leading up to the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray on charges he was responsible for Michael`s death.

    Like

  10. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:11 pm

    @kaarin22 – I agree with you. The media and others make it sound as if Michael took Blanket by one hand and swung him over the crowd. It happened for 1 second and he was back in the hotel room with the baby. I get so sick and tired of hearing that and it being called “dangling,” when it was not dangling.

    Like

  11. August 26, 2011 7:51 pm

    The s.c. baby dangling has been greatly exaggerated.Just look carefully,
    Michael has his arm and hand fully around Blanket.He did lot move the
    child around as in dangling.And the episode was brief indeed.

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 6:18 pm

    I think Boteach is right on that

    “BOTEACH: Then talk about those things, but not in the way he raised his children. He sequestered his children from public view. He even went to an extreme for which I criticized him. You can`t wear veils but he certainly never exploited them. Never made a buck off of them. Never shoved them in front of cameras.

    So why have they become

    BOTEACH: And by the way, the family — the family then shoved them in front of the world at the funeral which again, Michael would have gotten up from his coffin and objected to that.

    Like

  13. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 5:40 pm

    Ok, so last night I watched the Joy Behar show because one of the topics had to do with Michael. It was hosted by Don Lemon and his guests were that Rabbi Schmuley and the head of Los Angeles Child and Social Services (someone who knows absolutely nothing about Michael Jackson).

    Here’s the transcript:

    LEMON: There is just a month to go until the start of the Conrad Murray trial and lots of testimony is expected about Michael Jackson`s erratic behavior and prescription drug use. But what impact will those score of details and the high-profile nature of the case have on the Jackson kids?

    Well, Prince, Paris and Blanket that`s who we`re talking about. And here to talk about this, are Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, former spiritual advisor to Michael Jackson and Dr. Charles Sophy, a psychiatrist and medical director for the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

    Ok so thank you both for joining us. Listen, why do you think — have you — have you been in touch with — with the children? And how are they dealing with this upcoming trial, Rabbi?

    RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, FORMER SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO MICHAEL JACKSON: I have not been in touch with the children since they were children. And to see that they seem to be a little bit up unsupervised in terms of the debates they`re entering into and with people who are disparaging of Michael or their — their lineage. It`s a little bit disturbing because this is — everything about — concerning Michael`s high-profile. And these are kids who need to retain their innocence, their vulnerability.

    Interestingly, Michael`s raison d`etre was to try to proclaim the innocence of a child. It was something he spoke about so often eloquently in the lyrics of his songs and that`s why he was so careful as a father to monitor his children`s progress.

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: But in your observation just as a casual of observer like many of us. Do you think they`ve adjusted?

    BOTEACH: I don`t know as an outsider. What I do know is that there are — whether or not they`ve adjusted to some of the facts of the case, certain things have to proceed. Number one, someone has to be held accountable for what happened to Michael. Whatever actions he took, he`s responsible for and he`s not around unfortunately, he suffered the ultimate consequence.

    But there were people who facilitated his demise. And we`ve seen so many of these celebrities who inspire us but who have handlers around them —

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: Yes.

    BOTEACH: — who are just feeding at the trough and they never turn off the spigots and its judgment day. Because if not we`ll see more Amy Winehouses and more Michael Jacksons — someone has to be held accountable.

    LEMON: And I think you`re saying that — and that the children are going to be exposed, that it doesn`t get better for them until something gets better when it comes to this situation.

    BOTEACH: I`m saying that — that no matter — whether they`re exposed to the aspects of the trial or not, somebody has to pay the price for why Michael had a mountain of pills around him always.

    LEMON: Got you.

    Dr. Sophy, let`s stick with the kids here. It`s been two years since —

    (CROSSTALK)

    DR. CHARLES SOPHY, PSYCHIATRIST: Right.

    LEMON: — since their father died. Do you think this is going to be a setback emotionally for them? Because you know this is going to be all over the place. You`re going to see it everywhere.

    SOPHY: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, they`re in the process of mourning, yes. But this will set them back. They`re going to hear things, they`re going to see things and they`re going to feel things that they really didn`t expect to do.

    So I think the family has to be really wise. They have to really be aware of the fact that these children cannot be exposed, should not be exposed. Making sure that they know there is TVs on in people`s homes and cars and all that kinds of stuff and when they`re with their friends. So being well aware of protecting them because the wound is not healed yet.

    LEMON: Yes and you know — it`s — you`ve — it`s hard to shield children now especially w. the Internet and I mean, and you go to the airport and the television is on. You go into a restaurant, the television is on. Do you think and I know you said someone should — should answer the — the questions, why Michael Jackson had so many drugs around him.

    But do you think with all of these details coming out in the trial, that the children are going to know about it? And — and how much do they already know about their father`s drug use?

    BOTEACH: It`s impossible to sequester these — the children from the information that`s going to flow through every media avenue. And what really needs to be done is to put that — those facts in context.

    LEMON: You think they know now though?

    BOTEACH: Of course they know.

    SOPHY: Of course.

    BOTEACH: And the — and the fact is that Michael, in the conversations that he related to me that became the book of Michael fame, he wanted the world to know about the lonely aspects of fame. He wanted the world to know the level of pain that he`d lived with. Because you have to understand, everybody wants to be loved and Michael felt so demonized and hated.

    And the kids have only heard all of this stuff and it`s never been put into context. I would not sequester them, I would not shield them. I would say to them you father was a very special man who inspired millions of people.

    But by his own admission, he allowed himself to cross certain lines and — and he lived with a lot of emotional pain and he turned to doctors in order to ameliorate that pain when in reality, what you have to — the three of you have to learn but Blanket is probably is too young, but certainly Prince and Paris you have to learn from his original message which is that people have to be a blessing to others and when you feel purposeful, that`s when the pain goes away.

    LEMON: Ok.

    BOTEACH: And it`s not about fame and money.

    LEMON: Ok. Ok. Listen, the kids as you said, they have to know something. But it`s different coming from Katherine or Janet or whoever is telling them about their father.

    BOTEACH: Right. Right.

    LEMON: To hear about it in a courtroom —

    SOPHY: Right.

    LEMON: It`s going to be pretty tough and hear and on the television, that`s going to be tough to hear.

    SOPHY: Absolutely. It`s painful. It`s going to devastate them, it`s going to create a lot of stuff because at the end of the day, let`s remember, every child loves their parent. No matter how bad we may think they are they love their parent.

    So the bottom line is what they see, what they hear, do your best but they have to have a place to be able to deal with their emotions. They have to be able to be told, it`s ok to feel that way but let`s deal with it this way.

    We see your dad didn`t deal with it necessarily in the right way maybe because he used meds or use whatever. Let`s teach these children better ways to deal with their feelings. Not that they`re bad to have but a better way to deal with it.

    LEMON: And the reason I`ve — I`m going to go on to continue with that question, because as we sit here defense attorneys are predicting that this is going to be the most publicized trial in history, even bigger than Michael and the huge ratings when Michael died. And the children, of course, are going to be party to that and they`re young kids.

    SOPHY: Right.

    BOTEACH: Look Don, a lot of this comes down to media responsibility as well. I mean what —

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: The media is responsible for Michael Jackson`s kids?

    BOTEACH: No, no of what value was there for the media to speculate as to the patrilineal descent of these children. I mean, if anyone person on this network or a sister news network which is to speculate as to the eternity of Barack Obama`s children, Michele Bachmann`s children, it will be seen and shown in the same way.

    Why was it open season on Michael? To the extent that he makes mistakes to the public arena and he was a public figure, he deserved to have been scrutinized.

    But when it came to his kids, I saw whole programs about people going on and saying, I was a sperm donor for these kids. And I saw news anchors interviewing him about this and that was just disgusting. It was loathsome.

    These children have every right to believe that this is their father. Should the family come forward and say something, that`s their business. But I mean, there are areas that still have to remain private. Michael Jackson was not a cartoon character, he was not a caricature, he was a real human being. He died tragically. No one has really dealt with the tragedy —

    LEMON: I understand that but in many ways and even — I think if Michael were around, he might admit it and even some of his family members would admit it now, that he was sort of a cartoon character in the way that he led his life — in the way that he transformed —

    (CROSSTALK)

    BOTEACH: Not in the way he thought —

    LEMON: He transformed his face and what he did in order to stay relevant.

    BOTEACH: Then talk about those things, but not in the way he raised his children. He sequestered his children from public view. He even went to an extreme for which I criticized him. You can`t wear veils but he certainly never exploited them. Never made a buck off of them. Never shoved them in front of cameras.

    So why have they become —

    (CROSSTALK)

    BOTEACH: And by the way, the family — the family then shoved them in front of the world at the funeral which again, Michael would have gotten up from his coffin and objected to that.

    LEMON: Ok. Rabbi, hold that thought. Not never because we all know the balcony thing. The balcony thing was not shielding his children from the press.

    Hold that thought though. We`re going to talk more in just a minute. We`ll be back in a minute.

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    LEMON: I`m back with my panel talking about the upcoming Conrad Murray trial and its potential impact on Michael Jackson`s kids.

    I want you to finish your thought here because I think the sort of general nature of what you`re saying about Michael trying to show these kids was correct. He had his moments where he didn`t always do that but usually he put veils on them. He didn`t want them to be seen.

    BOTEACH: You spoke about the dangling incident. I was not there. I can tell you that on your sister network, CNN in April of 2004, I said that Michael Jackson, God forbid, will not live many more years. The professional handlers around him knew what he was consuming and it was devastating.

    So I don`t know what frame of mind he was in when he took — when he was such an overprotective father and he takes his baby and dangles him. In fact, the people around him should have just gotten him help when that happened. But instead, they booked 100 concerts for him because they needed him to make money.

    But the fact is that Michael was in the right frame of mind he was always an extremely responsible parents. He always gave his children their privacy. And I think Prince and Paris and Blanket deserve that.

    LEMON: You thought that was one of wake-up calls for Michael Jackson, that incident?

    BOTEACH: If that wasn`t a wake-up call, then there was an alarm clock that was bursting his managers` ear drums that they didn`t hear. It is not normal for a father to dangle his baby, even as some sort of prank over a patio.

    LEMON: Let`s talk about this because Michael Jackson is gone. We know that. But these kids will potentially be called as witnesses. It was said, they were in the house, they usually came up at this time. He asked me to call on the telephone. He asked one of the young kids to call on the telephone and to come into the room. So they could be called as witnesses.

    SOPHY: Absolutely. That`s a legal decision but if that does happen, please, I hope someone prepares these kids for this kind of stuff. The ability to be scared is going to overwhelm them. It`s unbelievable.

    Practice with them. Talk with them. Give them something to know so they know what`s coming and they can predict because these are scary times for these kids to open up old wounds and to create new ones.

    LEMON: Paris was a victim of cyber-bullying. You know what surprised me about that is that Paris would even have a Twitter or a Facebook account. When I started to think about it, I said, you know what, maybe Katherine Jackson just wants them to be as normal as possible like their friends.

    SOPHY: Some normalcy.

    BOTEACH: There`s nothing normal about that. All kids need to be supervised on the Internet. Michael would be in shock if he knew his children had that level of access especially to people who could harm them or bully them.

    Michael hated bullies, by the way. He hated bullies in his professional. He hated being bullied in his personal life. He always withdrew from that and that made him even more — he felt bullied whenever he was called “Whacko Jacko”. Whatever errors Michael Jackson made, he was actually in many aspects an exemplary father.

    What the Jackson family now needs to do — because this is a family that in general has been ravished by celebrity. It wasn`t just Michael who had a lot of issues, the family has had issues. They need to regroup. They need to understand that they have to get back to basics and they need to supervise these kids.

    LEMON: And some of the kids are going to be appearing at this controversial Jackson concert. In your estimation, good idea, bad idea for them to be doing this?

    SOPHY: Look, they want to honor their father, I understand. It may be not the best timing but the bottom line is they love their dad, they want to honor their dad. There`s nothing wrong with that.

    BOTEACH: Terrible idea and whoever is doing it, I want to know what money they`re making off. The kids should be allowed to have a private life. Leave them alone, for God`s sake.

    Like

  14. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:21 am

    @ BJ

    So now he was molesting little girls as well? This is news to me, I thought MJ was gay according to haters.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:19 am

    @ Shelly

    I don’t know what happened between Barresi and Schaffel. I didn’t watch Hollywood Interrupted. What was in it?

    I know Schaffel has a shady past and I wish Michael would have never hired him. But reading that article you have linked in, it made me remember that all this happened at the hight of Michael’s feud with Sony and I think Michael’s desperation for support (financial and in terms of management) had to do with the fact he didn’t get rid of him even after they showed him that video. Also I’m wondering if it wasn’t someone from Sony who gave this tape to the police. Or do you think it was Barresi? (If I remember correctly he was a porn actor earlier, so he was in the same business.)

    But you know, the fact Schaffel was working for him and Michael still didn’t have any of the kind of products Schaffel was doing in his past (instead he had hetero porn), speaks for Michael not being interested in that.

    Like

  16. August 26, 2011 4:20 am

    The media is doing it again with the headline: “Soleil Moon Frye, aka Punky Brewster: Michael Jackson and I shared Jacuzzi”

    Hair was very tall, music was very synth, and Michael Jackson was at the height of his global reign when Soleil Moon Frye charmed America as the spunky, titular character on the popular kids’ show Punky Brewster.

    When Frye’s path crossed with the late King of Pop, it was before his high profile criminal trial on charges he had engaged in inappropriate acts with minors. Jackson was known for often keeping company with high-profile kid stars back then, spending time with 80′s teen star Corey Feldman and 90′s pop icon Aaron Carter.

    In a new memoir, Frye recounts having visited Neverland and being “babysat” by Jackson:

    “We went outside on his stunning property and began walking over a bridge when a swan jumped out at me… Michael threw me to the ground in an effort to protect me. he explained that the female swan was pregnant and so the male swan was protecting her. Seemed normal, I guess.”

    After the swan incident, Jackson invited Frye “to take a Jacuzzi” with him, and the two spent time “talking about life, love and the secrets of the world” while in the tub. But like many of Jackson’s child-friends who have since grown, Frye recalls a kind and insightful man that treated her with respect and regard:

    “I remember him talking about the fact that he related more to kids than adults and that grown-ups never completely understood him. He sat across from me and we had a dialogue as if we were peers – a true heart-to-heart. He never made me feel like this was a bizarre situation. It just seemed as if he really wanted someone to talk to, someone who would make no judgments about him.”

    In fact, the actress holds the memory fondly, and says:

    “This story is not one I have shared often, but now I realize, if even for only one night, Michael Jackson was my babysitter. As strange as it all sounds – and I know it sounds strange – it was a highlight in my young life.”

    Frye said the encounter was her one and only with the King of Pop

    http://www.inquisitr.com/136377/soleil-moon-frye-says-she-and-michael-jackson-shared-jacuzzi-in-the-80s/

    The haters are really hyping this situation to say he was a pervert.

    Like

  17. August 26, 2011 3:59 am

    Nan,

    Thanks! yeah keep us posted I would love to see him over those other people.

    _________

    Btw, DD has been throwing a hissy fit on twitter today. Joe Vogel posted 1 tweet yesterday informing everyone that he wouldn’t be on the scheduled HLN panel, cause he HLN replaced him with DD instead. Well, fans caught wind of what happened and they been tweeting DD and it seems she’s been blaming Joe….smh. That woman is a complete nut. She’s being all melodramatic and spinning like crazy. The woman can dish it out, but she can’t taken it when folks call her out on her crap.

    Like

  18. nan permalink
    August 26, 2011 3:08 am

    gigi..cb baxter said he would take a break and do some more in December.He suggested making a list of ones people are interested in and voting on teh most popular ones..I think it is great that he at least did mj with bashir and others and he states unequivically he was showing all the hallmarks of honesty ..
    i am going to keep a lookout for him and try and get him to do sneddon, zonen, gavin and dimond

    Like

  19. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 2:25 am

    @suzy,

    I know it wasn’t child porn, but Schaffel has a very shady past. I read the Paul Barresi part about that story in Hollywood Interrupted and I was wondering how was trying to blackmail who? Did Schaffel really wanted to blackmail MJ or was it Barresi who tried to blackmail Schaffel?

    Like

  20. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2011 10:41 pm

    I also think it could be part of the PR of the Santa Barbara police and the DA: deliberately making innuendo before the trial. Their PR team in action. This wasn’t child porn and I bet they knew it from the get go. But they were making innuendo by getting the FBI “investigate” it. The man in the video I linked in says “two men”, Michael says “two guys”.

    “The outcome of the FBI probe was unclear” – I’m sure it was clear. I’m sure it was clear before the probe as well. If it had been child porn they would have said so long before. Don’t tell me the outcome of a probe remains “unclear” for three years! So actually I’m pretty sure this article is a part of Sneddon’s PR work before the trial.

    Like

  21. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2011 10:20 pm

    @ Shelly

    I think it’s just the media trying to sensationalize things once again.

    It was not child porn, it was just gay porn. The same video that was shown to Michael by John Branca in 2001 after this video about Schaffel directing it was discovered by someone. It’s also in the article.

    Michael is asked about it here (the interviewer never claims it was child porn): http://www.veoh.com/watch/v18723325DtkXqcR8?h1=Michael+Jackson+Deposition%2C+1996

    If it had been been child porn I’m sure it would have been somehow brought up by Sneddon in court. Or at least the information dangled around in the media for a very long time. The claim that this was possibly child porn died quickly and later the media only called it gay porn. Maybe the FBI were checking if the participants in the video were underage, but they probably found they weren’t.

    BTW, Schaffel’s past has nothing to do with Michael. None of Schaffel’s productions of gay porn has been found in Michael’s house or in his possession. Katherine Jackson is doing business with another ex-pornographer, Howard Mann, that doesn’t mean it’s fair to associate Katherine with anything Mann has done in his past?

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2011 9:12 pm

    I find that article and I’d like to know if someone has more info on that story

    “Santa Barbara detectives have been tracking Schaffel’s movements since November, when they received a phone call from the FBI in Los Angeles informing them that Schaffel was under investigation for alleged involvement in child pornography in Budapest, law enforcement sources said.

    Schaffel could not be reached for comment.

    His lawyer, Tom Byrne, did not return calls over the weekend, but denied last month that Schaffel had done anything wrong.

    “Mr. Schaffel has nothing to do with child porn,” Byrne said. “I don’t know anything about any investigation by the FBI or the Santa Barbara police.”

    The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department declined to comment. Attorneys for Jackson did not return phone calls.

    FBI officials also declined to comment, but law enforcement sources said the agency last year investigated a videotape filmed and produced by Schaffel that involved alleged child pornography. The outcome of the FBI probe was unclear, but sources said the latest charges against Jackson renewed the agency’s interest in Schaffel’s activities.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/02/local/me-jackson2

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2011 6:01 pm

    I find that interesting, it’s from Salas grand jury testimony

    “According to Salas the Arvizo boys slept in Jackson’s room and spent “most of their time” with Jackson while they were in Neverland. He said he “personally took some sheets and pillows and sleeping bags” to Jackson’s room during their stay, directly contradicting the boys’ contention that they slept in Jackson’s bed with him.”

    http://smokeandmirrorsmj.blogspot.com/2010/09/grand-jury-jesus-salas.html

    Like

  24. August 25, 2011 11:42 am

    nan,I will copy a few lines from an Ameican,highly regarded book on
    child psychiatry,from a chapter on False Allegations;Children who are
    genuine victims of abuse ..often embarrassed and less willing to reveal
    details about..In contrast.. who falsely aaccuse may embellish events,incorporate unrealistic details and have RELATIVELY LITTLE DIS-
    COMFORT in revealing alleged abusive acts…Changing narratives and may
    even look to the parent for assistance in perpetuating the false account.
    I remember that Jordan in his interview with Dr, Gardener often referred to his mother regarding details.Gavin was couched and still got it wrong.

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    August 25, 2011 6:13 am

    When was the 1108 law created, I read that

    “Exercising caution, the judge cited a case early in his career where the prosecution first presented ‘prior acts’ of alleged abuse in a similar case. Consequently, the primary case that the prosecution then presented was so weak that the defendant was convicted on the alleged ‘past acts.’ Judge Melville called this a “miscarriage of justice” and stated that he would not allow something like that to happen in this case.”

    http://aboutmichaeljackson.com/m-news+article+storyid-113.html

    Like

  26. August 25, 2011 5:23 am

    @Nan

    I’m sure if enough people asked CJ Baxter I’m pretty sure he would do a video on Sneddon & the rest of the clan. I’d be interested in him covering DD. The only one’s I’ve viewed was the police interview and the O interview.

    Like

  27. nan permalink
    August 25, 2011 4:37 am

    Kaarin22.
    I think Tom Sneddon is absolutely ruthless…..powercrazed……I remember Aphrodite Jones saying when she was promoting her book in the local bookstore , she felt uncomfortable , because you never really know just how much this man is capable of..
    i see that Frank Dileo passed away today..I know he was going to write a book and supposedly set the record straight about a lot of things.I hear good and bad about Dileo, but i do know he showed up at that trial to support Michael.I am sorry we wont get to hear his thoughts as I dont think he had a chance to complete his work.
    I dont know if you know of this man cb baxter who has been doing mj body language, of interviews mj has done, as well as the Neverland 5 deposition.He is absolutely certain of his mj innocence..I know that he took a quick look at Gavin Arviso talking to the police and just said he was a lying so and so.
    I would really love him to take a look at the prosecutor Ron Zonen at the frozen in time seminar talking about Gavin….as well as sneddon interviews after verdict… I think the tape of the Arviso clan proclaiming Mj an angel speaks for itself…but I would really love to hear his take on tom sneddons body language

    Like

  28. August 25, 2011 3:23 am

    nan, luckily I am not a local,reading your whole post aug.24 2.54 am. was outright scary.
    Sneddon seems more and more sinister the more you know about him.
    Your post came up on my regular email page.It was shocking.

    Like

  29. nan permalink
    August 24, 2011 6:35 pm

    I just watched the punky brewster clip, as my husband had even mentioned it to me.I think it is pretty obvious that she is just bringing up MJ to give herself some kind of status..The fact that her parents seemed to have dumped this kid on MJ is the only thing I took away from it..She didnt say ” and then Michael invited me for a hot tub”..Just sounds like yet another kid following him around like a puppy.
    Frankly she seemed disappointed to me that Ann Curry didnt give it much credence..MJ was generous with everyone , not just with material things, but with his attn also…. , case in point how he said he learned from sammy davis and those guys to be generous..he would admire something they were wearing, they just took it off and gave it to him,,seems to me he did the same, thats why corey feldman and others had article of clothing like hats , jackets of MJ..I dont think he thought anything of it..Same with giving a little girl who her parents seem to be to busy to know where she is , some time and attn…every generous and selfless thing this guy did seems to be turned against him for 15 minutes of fame..

    Like

  30. Suzy permalink
    August 24, 2011 8:24 am

    @ David

    I agree. And also the use of words like “strange”, “weird” doesn’t help the situation. Like this:

    “On Tuesday’s TODAY, Frye told Anne Curry of the visit, “I didn’t realize how strange it was then.”

    Why was it “strange” if she didn’t realize it was strange then?

    Like

  31. Julie permalink
    August 24, 2011 8:15 am

    @lcpledwards – I totally agree with you — Frye knew exactly how that was going to sound. Of course, thankfully Anne Curry didn’t try to make anything out of the story, which I was glad. They showed a clip of Frye from her Punky Brewster days and she told Curry that the jacket she was wearing in the interview was given to her by Andy Gibb.

    I read this today that was said by Ryan Gosling who was talking about working with George Clooney: “It was amazing, like watching someone try to explain a song in their head,” he said of working with Clooney. ” I can only compare it to seeing Michael Jackson in “This Is It,” where he’s trying to explain to a keyboard player how to play a certain part — even in the sea of parts being played, he can pick that out. That’s kind of what George is like. He’s like Michael Jackson, basically.”

    And yes, that is a compliment. Gosling told the magazine:

    “I love Mike Jackson. [Clooney] knew exactly what he wanted, and he was very specific. A lot of directors aren’t so clear.”

    Of course it brings out the haters in full force and you will even note by the sarcasm by the writer of the article above when Gosling has to explain that it was a complient. How sad!

    I have probably watched the Motown 25 video a thousand times in the last two years, but yesterday I looked up the finale which was lead by Diana Ross. She comes out to praise Barry Gordy and then begins to call some of the other people out. Several other acts are then on stage with Ross when Michael comes out — it is so cute — he walks past everyone to get to Ross and just hugs her. She doesn’t hug him for very long and then moves on to Marvin Gaye. Michael just keeps standing there by her like a lovesick puppy. In any event, she starts singing a song and everyone on stage then joins in. Right in the middle of the crowd is someone (I didn’t recognize) and he’s holding Emanuel Lewis. Then the next shot Jesse Jackson is then holding Lewis as they put the microphone up to him to let him sing as well. A big deal was always made about Michael holding Lewis at the grammys, but then you see that Lewis is in essence being passed around the crowd at the Motown 25. So Lewis wasn’t just with Michael and Frye was given gifts by other pop stars, but it’s only Michael that gets the negative garbage said about him.

    I didn’t watch Dr. Drew tonight — I had seen the interview that bodyguard gave back in 2009, which I thought was very respectful even though he did mention in 2009 about Michael overmedicating at times. I can’t seem to stomach Dr. Drew any more after his opening line on the first show calling Michael “Jacko” and the rest of it. Until I began this quest of finding out everything I could about Michael Jackson after he died I honestly had no idea how dishonest and deceitful the ENTIRE media is and how they report opinion as fact. It is all about the ratings and whatever scandal they can create to get viewers.

    Like

  32. lcpledwards permalink
    August 24, 2011 6:49 am

    @ Julie
    Thanks for that link. I watched that video today, and although I haven’t read the book and I don’t know the entire story of her time with MJ, I don’t like how she sensationalized it by writing the following:

    “So there I was sitting with Michael Jackson, alone in his Jacuzzi, talking about life, love, and the secrets of the world. I was eight years old. Yes, I know you’re probably horrified, or at least a little confused as you read this, wondering how in the world I got there,” Frye writes.

    She knows damn well that her quote will be picked out and exploited by the media to make MJ look bad, yet she chose to include it in the book anyway! All she had to say was that she met MJ, spent time with him at his house, describe what a wonderful person he was, and THAT’S IT. Talking about the time she spent alone with him in a jacuzzi when she was 8 years old will only haters in the media to rehash the false allegations.

    Here’s some advice to anyone who has known MJ for more than 5 minutes: If you can’t keep your comments about MJ at 100% positive, then just keep your mouth shut.

    Another example of the media scraping through the bottom of the barrel for anyone with trash to sell on MJ is “Dr.” Drew, who invited one of MJ’s former bodyguards (not the 3 who are writing a book) on as a guest so he could talk about the times that MJ passed out! Utterly pathetic! And this is only a sneak preview of what we can expect once the trial starts. I don’t know how any doctor who truly cares about the well-being of his patients can exploit them by showing them at their lowest moments during rehab on a freakin’ REALITY SHOW! He’s a disgrace to the medical profession!

    Like

  33. nan permalink
    August 24, 2011 2:54 am

    i sent william wagener a link to this site a while ago, so i know he knows about this site..i have sent money to his cause, even donated enough to get an autographed tie by him and mesereau..in janurary mesereau is speaking at his old prep school , philips academy .i hope to get to go so i can shake his hand..
    i had commented on the pension story and someone did come back and say it was not a vendetta.
    —————————————————-
    I see Mr. Sneddon and a few others involved in the Michael Jackson fiasco that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, due to what it would seem to me and many others,in my opinion…. Mr Sneddons personal vendetta and inability to look at cases from an objective viewpoint when it came to this particular citizen…as F.B.I. files would seem to back up, be it his trips around the world looking for imaginary victims , or not passing along exculpatory evidence to the defense etc…..a decade of stalking this poor man ,only to have 14 not guilty verdicts on those ridiculous charges, come back and hit him like a pie in the face….Still, he cant see the forest for the trees….Such a waste of manpower and money…
    Whats a few more million at the county’s expense?

    Nancy90 (anonymous profile)
    August 23, 2011 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Nancy90: Sneddon filed malicious lawsuits against many people, including Michael Jackson, not as personal vendettas, as a means of bankrupting them in order to seize their real estate – do a search. He also filed charges against the competition for his DA job, Gary Danby, not as a personal vendetta, but as an abuse of his DA position to eliminate competition.
    Validated: SAT scores and collective bargaining have no dependence. You’re using the irrational and ignorant thinking that local anti-drug Nazis used during mmj dispensary discussions to create the fallacy that alcoholism is dependent on cannabis use because most rehab clients have used cannabis. They’ve probably also worn white socks and eaten pizza, and neither of these are related to alcoholism either. If you want to try to prove that collective bargaining influences test scores you need to show a dependence, not a correlation. You need to find a change in SAT scores when collective bargaining was initiated or discontinued.

    14noscams (anonymous profile)
    August 23, 2011 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    ————————————————–

    i am hoping the person who answered is a local person who knows the truth about sneddon………at any rate he must have intimidated a whole lot of people into silence…i think wm has a lot of guts to call sneddon out for his abuse of power..i hope he gets the documentary done..

    Like

  34. August 24, 2011 1:17 am

    it’s Corey Feldman on his blog, when MJ died http://coreyfeldman.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/leave-me-alone/

    Shelly, what a great find! I hope Corey doesn’t mind it if I post it here in full.

    The major thing he says is that Michael NEVER did anything inappropriate towards him and is that he NEVER showed him any pornographic journals.

    And these are the words of a man who has first-hand knowledge as a molestation victim! His testimony is ten times, no a hundred times more precious than the speculations of liars like Francia, Arvizo or guys like Victor Gutierres because he knows what he is talking about and can compare.

    And he words it so well that he should become a writer or journalist, not entertainer:

    “Hi all,

    The purpose for this blog is once again a bit out of the norm for me. I want to start off by saying this is in no way directed towards my regular readers and fans. This is not directed at the wonderful people who have been so caring, thoughtful, and understanding during this difficult time. This is directed at the awful journalists and bloggers who have been ripping me apart for the last several days since Michael’s memorial. I am fed up. I have had enough and I am asking you to give a little respect to those who have been in mourning. Since the memorial last week, there have been countless rumors, lies, and insults directed at me from multiple news sources. All over the internet there has been a free for all of personal attacks directed towards me. I have intentionally refused countless interviews in hopes of allowing the situation to blow over. Unfortunately that has not happened and I am continuously being ridiculed. So instead of doing whats politically correct and sitting quiet while my name gets drug through the mud, I am going to answer all of the ridiculous questions I shouldn’t have to answer. My hope is that maybe if you hear it in my own words , you might take a moment to think and stop hurting people with hateful words.

    I am now going to list some of the untrue claims people have been making, and then give a brief answer or reply. Some of these are so outlandish that they are obvious lies but I feel I should address it all while I’m at it.

    First off I have been slammed and ridiculed over my choice of clothing at Michael’s funeral. Fox news contacted us Wednesday morning with this message…”.Urgent News Inquiry…Did Corey wear that outfit to hurt anyone?” What? Are you serious? People are being killed at war and this is urgent news!!!! No No No!!! I did not wear an outfit to hurt anyone. I wore a jacket that I have owned for a couple of years and have worn to other events, my sunglasses are the same brand I have worn for years, and I wore the fedora as a tribute to Michael. In fact I was encouraged by a member of the family to wear the hat as that is what Michael may have wanted. I have many personal photos of Michael and I wearing matching fedoras. It was just part of being friends. I would raid his closets and try on his jackets and hats. Everyone did. There was nothing strange about honoring my friend in that way.

    I have also read that it was an insult, or disrespectful to the family. This is another lie. At the memorial 80% of the audience were wearing something as a tribute whether a tshirt, hat, or sequined glove. I have always considered the Jacksons as extended family. I was at their Encino home until nearly 10 P.M. that evening. My wife and I brought our son to meet Katherine. Nobody in that family was worried about what I was wearing, they had much more important things on their mind. These are very shallow statements to make about people who are enduring much pain.

    I have also read untrue statements attributed to me during his trial. Stating that I had said that he showed me porn magazines, or left them lying around his house. Again totally untrue…I never said that. I have also seen countless references to him molesting me or us having a sexual relationship. Let me be very clear 1 more time. Michael Jackson NEVER tried to touch me in an inappropriate way. Yes during the trial I expressed certain concerns, but that does not mean I believed the accusations. The bottom line is he was found innocent on all counts by a jury of his peers in the state of California, and I trust our justice system and respect the decisions made by it, and I have absolutely no evidence to the contrary and that story will NEVER change!

    When photographed crying at the service it was written ”he does not deserve to cry, he is a traitor” I do not feel I need to explain again the complexity of being friends with Michael, but I will try to explain that even if you have a fight with someone and then don’t speak for several years that does not mean that you want them to die. I loved Michael….I was mad at him, I ignored invitations from him to move forward, and I have regrets, but that does not diminish the pain you feel when you lose a friend of 18 years. Not a traitor, not conveniently switching sides, just a friend who felt betrayed ,holding on to a grudge, and shocked by an untimely loss.

    The LA times said I have had a “well publicised battles with drugs over the years” UNTRUE! Maybe you are confusing me with someone else…… 1 battle, 20 years ago. I fell into addiction at 16 years old. I was clean at 19 years old and have NEVER had any other battle with my own addictions since. Let it go people…that was 20 years ago. I have not even seen those drugs since. I would think someone overcoming addiction at such a young age and never returning would be recognised as a much better story than implying otherwise. If addicts were applauded for recovery, instead of terrorised for their disease some of the lost might be alive today…….

    The most absurd of all was a Hollywood gossip site claiming that I may actually be the father of Michael’s oldest son……. I’m not even going to comment!!!

    In the last week I have been called (loser,douchebag, zlister, gay, weird, freak, has been, money grubbing, drug addict, jerk,asshole, etc)…to name a few. Really people? I have spent the last year of my life creating an album and tour trying to help the environment. I am a husband and a father. I am an actor and a musician. My job is to entertain. I try to use that position to make positive change in the world. I still believe this world can get better. I believe in peace for all of Gods creatures. I believe if we work together we can reverse the effects of global warming. I also believe in forgiveness, and have learned to value every moment of the short life we have.

    Does it strike anyone else as a sad statement of the human condition that society feels it has the right to assassinate good people because we disagree with their fashion choices? That is what this is all about isn’t it. I am not perfect. I am the first to admit that. But I do not feel I deserve this abuse. If a quarter of this press was focused on my attributions as opposed to tearing me down, you may have heard my last album or have watched my last film. But instead it’s so much easier to say ”he hasn’t done anything in 20 years except dress like Michael Jackson”.

    I would like to move on. I am currently in preproduction on 2 films and have a tour to plan. I also have a birthday this week and would like to put this negativity behind me and try to celebrate with my family. I humbly ask for your respect of our privacy. I do not want to address this issue again. I hope I have cleared up these very important topics.

    To the rest of you who are here regularly I will be back next week with my regular cheery, positive blog. Until then….

    PEACE LOVE HAPINESS TRUTH

    COREY

    Like

  35. shelly permalink
    August 24, 2011 12:26 am

    I don’t know where to post that, it’s Corey Feldman on his blog, when MJ died

    http://coreyfeldman.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/leave-me-alone/

    Like

  36. kaarin22 permalink
    August 23, 2011 4:34 pm

    When I first came to the States supposedly many parents were hoping their son(sic, what about the daughters)would become a doctor.,Now it is lawyer ,pref. a CEO.

    Like

  37. August 23, 2011 2:11 pm

    “I agree, I nominate David too.”

    Alison, David wrote to me that though he fully supports William Wagener’s cause he doesn’t have time to commit himself to helping WW – which I fully understand (all of us here are working on the brink of human possibilities). This leaves us with another alternative – we can establish contact with William and supply him with the facts uncovered during this small investigation. Although he knows a lot there is no harm in adding a couple of details.

    I also encourage everyone to help William Wagener with his documentary. Here is his site: http://mjjforeverinnocentfoundation.org/

    And this is what William Wagener says:

    This was a man of incredible generosity. Michael did have a childlike heart. He donated to charities around the world. Mostly he did it without asking for any recognition whatsoever. He was almost embarrassed to be recognized for charity. That’s the side of a real Christian.

    You and I have a duty for the future generations to set the record straight.

    I need you to go over here and give a donation – $10, 20, 50 – whatever you can give comfortably without feeling a financial pain. We need to gather $20mln. not just to produce a documentary but also to buy national airtime on the network media and show the world what the truth really is that has not yet been seen.

    Now it is up to you. If you are one of the million Michael Jackson’s fans we are looking for, now is the time to click on the button and donate directly, or you can mail a check to our PO box if you prefer it.

    Now is the time. These are dark days and as the time moves on you can be sure – those that do evil, and love evil and love deception and loved to lie about Michael they will have many people trying to tear down Michael, myself and the Foundation – anybody that defends the truth.

    Truth is – Michael Jackson truly was innocent. Not only of charges of Gavin Arvizo but also of Jordan Chandler. And many witnesses were brought in. The law was changed specifically to get Michael Jackson. Thomas Sneddon is the one that led that quiet change to change the law, just so that he personally could get Michael Jackson in jail. And he failed to do so. But the people who rewrite the history will say he’s guilty anyway because the media said so – UNLESS WE DO THIS DOCUMENTARY.

    And I thank every one of you, friends. You’ll get a printable receipt and I hope you show up for our foundation event in Los Angeles.

    I’m William Wagener.

    Now it’s up to you to speak with your donation. Are there 1 mln. Michae Jackson fans in the world, who would give $20-50 each to see documentary done, Sneddon exposed and a demand for Sneddon to be indicted?

    I am looking to you, the Michael Jackson fans and the Michael Jackson fan community leaders.

    I am looking to you, people who are not Michael Jackson fans but love justice – sign on, make your donation, make a statement while you still can, still have freedom to produce the documentary.

    I am William Wagener for the MJInnocentForever foundation.

    Hit the button. See you.

    We, the People for Truth, United.

    Failure is not an option.

    Donate today if you mean it when you say you love Michael Jackson.

    Like

  38. Alison permalink
    August 23, 2011 7:57 am

    I agree, I nominate David too.

    I encourage everyone to donate, i did it through paypal because i’m not in US, its very easy and i think paypal is safe isn’t it?
    the truth needs to get out there to joe public.

    Like

  39. August 22, 2011 11:27 am

    “Does anyone know how William Wagener is doing with the fundraising? I was on the site the other day and he doesn’t have a measure or anything and it didn’t look as if all that many people had donated. Does anyone know how its going? there are also some vacancies for board members – VMJ?? David?? Lynande?? You have done so much work on the evidence you would have so much to offer and i think at least one of you should be on it.”

    Alison, I don’t know how the fund-raising is going – frankly, it seems that the fans are not very enthusiastic to part with the money. Which is a pity because Michael deserves much more support from his fans – he himself never hesitated to do it. I do hope things will change.

    But the idea of some of us filling a vacancy and assisting William Wagener in collecting information is great. I suggest David as he is focusing on the 2003 case. There is indeed a lot to offer on his and our part.

    Like

  40. Alison permalink
    August 22, 2011 3:49 am

    Does anyone know how William Wagener is doing with the fundraising? I was on the site the other day and he doesn’t have a measure or anything and it didn’t look as if all that many people had donated. Does anyone know how its going? there are also some vacancies for board members – VMJ?? David?? Lynande?? You have done so much work on the evidence you would have so much to offer and i think at least one of you should be on it.

    Like

  41. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 2:53 am

    @Shelly
    ‘How do you know they got the date wrong?”
    I read an article right after Michael died that had all of these allegations against Sneddon and that article said it was 1992. Helena has found another article where they say 1994. If it was 1994 there would have been very little sympathy for Michael after the original allegations and the settlement so I am inclined to believe that 1992 was the correct date. The way it is described it sounds more like they were trying to find ways to get rid of Michael and that would have made sense in 1992. In 1994 they had found their way they just needed someone like the Arivizos to carry through with it after they had the laws changed in 1995 so a family couldn’t settle anymore.It might have been in 1994 but if they were thinking of ways to get rid of him they had found it. The article I read also included Brooks Firestone by name as being in on the discussion.

    Like

  42. August 22, 2011 2:19 am

    “This article has a list of of other people that Sneddon went after and if you notice they were/are mostly large landowners or people that could get in Sneddon’s and Firestone’s way in their land aquisition.”

    Lynande, here is one more article about Sneddon and the Santa Barbara vindictive prosecution done on a routine basis. What is interesting is that when wrongly prosecuted people sue them back their cases are often settled out of court at the expense of tax-payers’ money!

    New allegations against prosecutor of Michael Jackson
    By K.C. Arceneaux
    RAW STORY COLUMNIST

    On April 30, 2004, the indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him. Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.
    The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts. Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts.

    On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA’s office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio. Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he operated.

    Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram’s wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA’s office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

    Sundaram’s allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA’s office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to “get Michael Jackson out of the county” were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.

    Sundaram’s allegations are not an isolated instance. There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA’s office. The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called “stacking charges.” In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004, Dunlap gave his opinion that “stacking charges” was a common practice of the DA’s office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.

    Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA’s office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations. Dunlap said, “. . . I mean, it’s one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.”

    The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer’s expense. There is the example of George Beeghly, whose case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.

    This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case. The extent of the law suits for false arrests, false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement. The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases.

    DA Tom Sneddon’s public relation’s firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.

    When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case. However, he went on to say, “. . . the very fact that he’s being prosecuted by Sneddon’s office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he’s guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney’s office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis.” If Dunlap’s allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA’s office might shed new light on the Jackson case.

    Author K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D., is a Pushcart nominee and winner of a Tara Fellowship from the Heekin Group. e-mail karcx@yahoo.com First North American Serial Rights, Copyright May 12, 2004.

    http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm

    Comments (also interesting):

    K. C. Arceneaux

    I am of the opinion that the Jackson case is at heart a civil rights issue, and could prove to be a vanguard case for years to come. Our constitutional freedoms depend on the impartiality of the law, and whether or not a crime has been committed, rather than personal opinions about the accused. I am also of the opinion that there is enough history to civil rights abuse cases in Santa Barbara County, in addition to those detailed in the article, that the issue should be raised as to whether or not the DA should be removed from the case.

    The point here is civil rights. It doesn’t matter if a person is a biker, a gang member, Hispanic, black, white or other, or if he is Michael Jackson. The law should be applied fairly to everyone. Sundaram was charged but never convicted. The biker’s were charged but not convicted. Cruz was convicted and encarcerated, but the fact is, a court judged that he did not commit the murder. The question is equal application of the law for everyone. If that does not happen, then no one is safe.

    Vicki (in reply to someone):
    checkyoursources, are you suggesting that civil rights are only for those who lead “pure” lives? So if Sneddon throws false charges on me, and I win, I’m guilty in your eyes because I was once accused? I do not agree with your view of the justice system.

    If a person did not do a crime, it does not matter what their lifestyle nor does it matter whether they did a crime in the past. If they are innocent of the charges put before them, they are innocent. Period. End of story.

    To listen to your view of the justice system — once accused, forever guilty. No thanks! Justice is not only for the chosen few, but for everyone.

    Great article, K. C. Arceneaux. Please keep up the great work. And don’t be surprised by the nay sayers such as checkyourwork. There will always be people who refuse to look at the dirt that’s been swept under the rug for so many years. But look, we must. Sneddon needs to be investigated. There is something very wrong with that man.

    K. C. Arceneaux

    A Google search will confirm the Beeghly information, as in:

    http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2002/3813.html

    Like

  43. August 22, 2011 12:05 am

    Numbers 3, 4 and 15 should all be noted too. #3.Jim Anderson the Sheriff in 2003-2005 during the trial, #4Jim Thomas former Sheriff MSNBC analyst in 2005and #15 Russ Birchim Detective in charge of the case in 1993. The man that was in the room whenthe photos were taken. Very interesting list nan. Another thing that is interesting is that Brooks Firestone was on the County Board when these guys retired. Does william Wagener know this I wonder?

    Lynande, it seems that it is time we started supplying Willian Wagener with the data for his documentary. The list is indeed tale-telling. I’ve put your comment beside each name and it does look like the list of chief liars in 1993 and 2003 cases:
    http://independent.com/news/2011/aug/19/which-pensioners-get-most-green/

    County Releases Pension Data
    152 Former Employees Receive More Than $100,000 Per Year

    Friday, August 19, 2011
    by CHRIS MEAGHER (CONTACT)
    The average pensioner getting money from the Santa Barbara County Employee Retirement System (SBCERS) receives $2,881.85 a month, or $34,582.21 a year, according to data provided by SBCERS last week.

    Of the 2,904 people who receive a pension through SBCERS, 152 get more than $100,000 per year and 25 people — including ten who worked in the Sheriff’s Department — receive more than $150,000. Of the top 25, eight served as the heads of their respective departments at one time of another. Six retired prosecutors from the DA’s office are also in the top 25. The highest name on the list is longtime District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who rakes in a whopping $224,672.64 every year.

    The information was made available after a public records request from multiple newspapers. Recent court decisions require retirement systems to identify members receiving retirement allowances.

    On the other end of the spectrum, 167 people receive less than $500 a month. There are 28 people who receive less than $100 a month.

    Former County CEO Mike Brown collects $10,151.48 a month, or $121,817.76 annually. Attached at the bottom is a PDF of all SBCERS retirees, their monthly benefit, and their last employer.

    Here is a list of the top 15 names on the list:

    1. Tom Sneddon, $224,672.64 (chief liar)

    2. Ken Shemwell, $206,803

    3. Jim Anderson, $206,448.12 (the Sheriff in 2003-2005 during the trial)

    4. Jim Thomas, $190,045.32 (former Sheriff and MSNBC analyst in 2005)

    5. Norman Horsley, $189,666.24

    6. Patrick McKinley, $189,497.76

    7. Kenneth Pettit, $186,071.52

    8. Thomas Martinez, $185,062.32

    9. Jim Laponis, $184,982.88

    10. R. Scott DeuPree, $183,598.32

    11. Tom Franklin, $178,773

    12. Joseph Smith, $171,805.80

    13. Malvin Parr, $167,856

    14. Frederick Olguin, $167,335.44

    15. Russell Birchim, $164,575.08 (Detective in charge of the case in 1993)

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    August 21, 2011 10:23 pm

    @lynande,

    How do you know they got the date wrong?

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    August 21, 2011 9:44 pm

    @hana and Alison It was Dr. Thambiah Sundaram a dentist that had set up a free dental clinic. It was not that he would spread the photos of him around Santa Barbara it was in 1992, before any of the allegations started. He overheard Brooks Firestone and Tom Sneddon talking about how to deal with the Michael Jackson problem.They were discussing other people that owned substantial amounts of land in SB County that Firestone wanted to add to his property for vineyards.This article has a list of of other people that Sneddon went after and if you notice they were/are mostly large landowners or people that could get in Sneddon’s and Firestone’s way in their land aquisition.The only thing that the writer got wrong in the article was the year.The fundraiser occured in 1992 not 1994.IN 1994-1995 Sneddon managed to get not one but 2 laws changed because of the Michael Jackson case. One was the addition of 1108 evidence of prior bad acts and the second one was civil code 1669.5 allowing a prosecutor to intervene in a civil child molest lawsuit to compel the victim to testify in crimal proceedings first.Brooks Firestone was a California Assmemblyman. This is where the a law is introduced. I have searched the records and have not been able tofind who it was that introduced the changes to these two laws in 1995-1996 session. The other thing that is important is that Brooks Firestone was running against others for a seat on the SB County board in 2003 and won that seat in 2004. Right in the middle of everything that was going on with the case and the trial.He was also on the county board when 4 of the top fifteen paid retirees retired.That has to be approved by the board.
    http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/santabarbara.html#3
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Firestone

    Like

  46. Alison permalink
    August 21, 2011 1:47 pm

    @ hana permalink
    August 20, 2011 4:46 am
    “Don’t forget about the guy name Dr. S, who mentioned in an interview that he was having lunch with Sneddon and a few of his friends and overheard them joking about spreading naked pics of Michael Jackson throughout Santa Barbara so that he would be humiliated and leave.”

    – WHAT??!!! i’ve never heard that, where is that from please Hana?

    .

    Like

  47. August 21, 2011 12:48 am

    What a waste of tax payers money.And that pension…

    Like

  48. August 20, 2011 8:32 pm

    Just as many have mentioned Sneddon really did not really believe the Neverland 5 and witnesses.Also, maybe, maybe he gave a thought to the cost of an expensive and futile trial.It is a shame that he gets nearly a quarter of a mln$ /year in pension. He should be prosecuted, and tax payers could feel relieved.

    Like

  49. nan permalink
    August 20, 2011 5:04 pm

    I sent William that list via his youtube acct .I recognized the Jim Thomas,, but i didnt recognize the others……..They certainly were well taken care of ..one hand washing the other..

    Like

  50. shelly permalink
    August 20, 2011 10:26 am

    @hana,

    That Dr was on the defense witness list.

    Like

  51. lynande51 permalink
    August 20, 2011 7:51 am

    Numbers 3, 4 and 15 should all be noted too. #3.Jim Anderson the Sheriff in 2003-2005 during the trial, #4Jim Thomas former Sheriff MSNBC analyst in 2005and #15 Russ Birchim Detective in charge of the case in 1993. The man that was in the room whenthe photos were taken. Very interesting list nan. Another thing that is interesting is that Brooks Firestone was on the County Board when these guys retired. Does william Wagener know this I wonder?
    As for Sneddon believing the conspiracy or the other charges. I don’t know if he believed them or not but he sure went out of his way to help them develope them.

    Like

  52. nan permalink
    August 20, 2011 5:33 am

    this is an article that says sneddon makes the highest pension , over 224 thousand a year..http://independent.com/news/2011/aug/19/which-pensioners-get-most-green/

    Like

  53. hana permalink
    August 20, 2011 4:46 am

    Don’t forget about the guy name Dr. S, who mentioned in an interview that he was having lunch with Sneddon and a few of his friends and overheard them joking about spreading naked pics of Michael Jackson throughout Santa Barbara so that he would be humiliated and leave.

    Like

  54. August 20, 2011 3:24 am

    @shelly

    I don’t think the DA believed any of the charges because they didn’t take any of the proper protocols that are taken in a child-molestation case.

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    August 20, 2011 12:04 am

    I don’t think that the DA really believed the conspiracy charges.

    Like

  56. lynande51 permalink
    August 19, 2011 7:35 pm

    About the bail. It has not escaped anyones attention at least not Gerlado’s anyway that the bail that was set was $3million dollars. It was argued three times and never reduced. Geraldo pointed out that the cost of the trial to Santa Barbara County was just over $3million. Now before they went into the trial they would have had someone do a cost analysis to project what the trial would cost the county. It is also interesting that the charges he was facing could also have a fine imposed not just imprisonment. And last but not least the collateral for the bail was Neverland. If the bail would have been forfeited Neverland could have gone up for auction for a mere $3million USD to cover the county lien. Enter Brooks Firestone, friend of Tom Sneddon and former California Assembleyman. Brooks Firestone had originally wanted to purchase the Sycamore Valley Ranch When Michael bought it.He wanted to turn it into a vineyard to expand his vineyard and winemaking business. If you Google the largest money making industry in California you do not come up with entertainment, It is agriculture and in particular vineyards and wine. There was a dentist that gave a statement to the defense team and was on their witness list. His story was that he was present and heard Brooks Firestone and Tom Sneddon along with others at a function discussing what to do about “the Michael Jackson problem”. This conversation was in 1992. After he overheard them they started all kinds of investigations and charges against him. Interesting story isn’t it. He is on the witness list and he was one that had already submitted his statement.It was also Brooks Firestone that helped Sneddon get not one but two laws changed in 1994-1995. One was the admission of prior bad acts and the second one was Civil Code 1669. The law was changed to compel a child witness to testify in criminal court by allowing prosecutors to interupt a civil case.
    And don’t forget what else I said before about in order for this to be important you have to know what borders Neverland. Across the road is a grade school, adjacent to the South is a private boys prep school. Why do you think they stressed the boy point so much. If Michael had been found guilty he would have had to register as a sex offender that means he could not live in close proximity to a school.

    Like

  57. hana permalink
    August 19, 2011 4:14 pm

    Lets not forget that Sneddon and his office also wanted to make sure that MJ would be bankrupt. That’s one of the reasons why they set his bail at $3 million, rather than the $1 million that his attorneys had requested. The defense’s wish should have been granted given the fact that they don’t even do that much for homicide cases and also because MJ didn’t have a criminal record. Judge Melville was also in on the conspiracy to destroy him which is why the majority of his rulings were in favor of the prosecution. Like how he disallowed Larry King’s testimony, and called it “hearsay”–yet allowed the neverland 5 to parade around with all kinds of salacious tabloid stories.

    Like

  58. Suzy permalink
    August 19, 2011 3:27 pm

    @ David

    Right. And it’s the same reason why the alleged co-conspirators weren’t charged with anything. If they truly believed they helped MJ to kidnap and molest the Arvozo kids, then why weren’t they charged? Of course, this also points to the fact that Sneddon’s only goal was to send MJ in jail, not justice.

    Like

  59. August 19, 2011 12:01 pm

    Thanks for this post. Great analysis, as usual.

    Like

  60. lcpledwards permalink
    August 19, 2011 7:18 am

    @ Shelly
    Sneddon didn’t prosecute them for essentially “aiding and abetting” a child abuser because, deep down, he really didn’t believe they were honest. He simply used them as a means to justify an end (i.e. putting MJ in prison). Sneddon didn’t believe the Arvizos either, but exploited them for his own evil purposes. Even Roger Friedman pointed this out this article when he said that Sneddon “used” them.

    Any prosecutor with an ounce of integrity would have charged them with lying, but Sneddon doesn’t have any integrity!

    Like

  61. lcpledwards permalink
    August 19, 2011 7:15 am

    @ hana
    Orth hated Michael because she is a media hack who couldn’t care less about reporting the truth. She sold out whatever journalistic credentials she had for money and fame. She never wanted justice, she wanted a conviction. She wanted to believe that MJ was guilty, so that she could take pleasure in his downfall, at the expense of his “victims”. That’s really the best way to explain it.

    She never lost a lawsuit against him; in fact, she never sued him, and unbelievably he never sued her. MJ couldn’t possibly sue each and every person who ever wrote an untruthful article about him; otherwise, he’d be in civil court every day!

    Like

  62. hana permalink
    August 19, 2011 4:41 am

    Quick question..Why did Maureen Orth have such strong feeling towards MJ? Did she lose a lawsuit against him or something?

    Like

  63. shelly permalink
    August 19, 2011 3:49 am

    There is something that I don’t get, if the Neverland 5 really saw him molesting people, they could have at least talk to the parents, but they didn’t. Why weren’t they prosecuted for not helping the kids?

    Like

  64. August 18, 2011 7:07 pm

    @lcpledwards Sorry, couldn’t do it – get through without laughing out loud I mean – a couple of times. Was it Mark, Russ?? Why no! It was Ron! That was one time I laughed.

    If only it wasn’t such a serious issue. An awful lot of scam artists were involved – and I’m not referring to the witnesses in this instance! Just how the prosecution got away with all they did, both times, is really beyond a joke.

    Researching what happened to Michael also turns up more than a few instances of very questionable (to say the least) goings on over many years within the DA’s office in Santa Barbara and the legal cases it pursued. (Sorry good people of Santa Barbara.) If a group of law students organized a veritas project, concentrating on prosecutorial misconduct and beginning with those cases brought by Sneddon and Zonen, it would be very, very interesting to see the results. Somehow, I doubt we would ever see such a thing.

    Like

  65. lcpledwards permalink
    August 18, 2011 4:18 am

    @ RJ
    The Neverland 5 were a group of 5 former employees of Neverland who claimed to be wrongfully terminated by MJ after cooperating with authorities during their investigation in 1993. They consist of Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Melanie Bagnall, Adrian McManus, and Sandy Domz. The Hayvenhurst 5 were a group of former security guards who were fired in February 1993 from the Jackson’s Hayvenhurst compound, and after the 1993 scandal hit the airwaves, they claimed they were fired due to seeing MJ acting inapprorpiately with young boys. They consist of Morris Williams, Leroy Thomas, Fred Hammond, Aaron White, and Donald Starkes. Both groups of employees filed frivolous and baseless lawsuits that were either thrown out of court. I will write about them in much greater detail in an upcoming post, so stay tuned!

    By the way guys, I have added the video of the Drudge interview to the beginning of the post.

    Like

  66. August 18, 2011 2:14 am

    David, thank you very much! Your post is very thorough, detailed and is a splendid summary which brings lots of information together. I am especially grateful to you for making a transcript of Drudge’s conversation with Friedman as many of us are unable to grasp the full meaning of what is being said unless the words are put down on paper. And this way you make this conversation comprehensible to all. Thank you again!

    Please do not forget that Adrian McManus completely compromised herself by stealing money from the two children who stayed with McManus and her husband. The simply embezzled it! So her credibility is heavily tainted not only by her stealing things from Neverland – she also stole from the two small children who were placed in her care! And she was found guilty of it in court!

    Like

  67. shelly permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:42 am

    It was on s show called CBS a 2 special assignment with Drew Griffin.

    Like

  68. August 18, 2011 1:31 am

    “I want to post as kaarin22 as before,please”

    Kaarin, we have no power over the way you post – all is done automatically. You give your name and email address to wordpress.com and that’s it – and admins have nothing to do with it. The trouble with your comments must have been due to some malfunction.

    Like

  69. shelly permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:27 am

    The Jim Mitteager tapes (the enquirer tapes) were played in 2004.

    Like

  70. R.J permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:18 am

    Excuse me David, if you don’t mind me calling you David. I have a question regarding the Neverland Five who are mentioned in this article. Unfortunately around the time that the allegations happened; I was young VERY, young! Who exactly are the Neverland Five because I always used to think that they were five former security guards who worked at Neverland and turned on Michael for the sake of money.

    I also heard mention of the Hayvenhurst 5 in another article; who are they as well? I’d really appreciate if it were clarified for me. Thank You!

    Btw, this post is absolutely amazing! I’ll be keeping an eye out for the third part.

    Like

  71. August 18, 2011 12:29 am

    What a great,well researched article.These should all be saved and put together.Now that old dirt is dug up and trashed for the N.th time.

    Like

  72. August 18, 2011 12:23 am

    Great post David!

    Like

  73. nan permalink
    August 17, 2011 9:23 pm

    Thank you for doing this article ..Tom Sneddon is a disgrace to his office..I hope one day the f.b.i. release those enquirer tapes..More and more evident that MJ was completely innocent and who the guilty parties really were..And there is a list as long as my arm..I love how if you read the court transcripts regarding Jason Francia…, the laughter.on record……..Mike Tiabbi reported on the laughter coming from the jury break room right after his testimony also , and Maureen Orth seething over it in her article for vanity fair , complaining bitterly about the jurors laughing, chatting and rolling their eyes during his testimony…..how cold hearted they must be etc….
    funny how no matter what some people just cant see the truth , Orth being one of them…..
    .that was the only kid that showed up..pfft.
    Wm Wagener had said he had been at his house at an earlier time seemingly bragging about his mom working for MJ..
    Thats how flying under the wire some of these people who helped destroy a reputation have been..I remember seeing Jason and his mom Blanca Ruth on fb,just happy as larks..Some one must have messaged them regarding MJ and now their accounts are private.
    I think it is important to mention his name as well as Ralph Chacon and the others so that they can be held accountable in the court of public opinion , because for years, they got away with it imo…
    I am sure this must be somewhere on here , but on the Positively Michael site podcast Tom Mesereau mentions the woman from the grand jury from 94 making a point of speaking to him regarding how they just didnt buy what the prosecutors were selling etc.., same as you mentioned he did at Harvard , i believe…..Great article !!
    http://positivelymichael.podbean.com/

    Like

  74. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2011 8:55 pm

    Great article again!

    Thank you, David!

    Like

  75. August 17, 2011 4:24 pm

    Tremendous post David.

    There is to this day, little public knowledge about the fact that tabloid outlets placed a tangible bounty on Michael Jackson’s head. This practice cannot be considered journalism. It is fraud and entrapment.

    In other words criminal.

    Murdoch wasn’t the first and he won’t be the last. These Drudge posts also show clearly how the baselessness of Sneddon’s case was effectively obscured by the media coverage — which masked the extent of the deception.

    Like

  76. August 17, 2011 2:38 pm

    I really prefer my user name kariina22.Have had it for ages. Now when i try to register the response is that my e-mail is already in use and that my username is presently not availanle.They have been with you for over a year. I don´t wabt to loose touch ,especially as I am going to be away for a grat part in September and want all the posts fot that time to come in.
    G5raet post tha part 3.

    Like

  77. August 17, 2011 1:41 pm

    &Transscript 3 by VMJ. What a massive amount of work and indepth analysis.I will return to it later as I nees to take care of some issuea in my own life today.
    There was a pop up aking for your Password for Woldlpress.com. I probably have one ,but cannot find it.

    Like

  78. lynande51 permalink
    August 17, 2011 10:29 am

    David great post! One thing we should let people knowis that it would have looked incredibly bad for Sneddon to charge his STAR witnesses with perjury. Very bad form after all. LOL

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 5 of 7: Exposing the Lies of the “Youth Minister” Jason Francia « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 5 of 6: Exposing the Lies of the “Youth Minister” Jason Francia « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: