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

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 10^th, 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 forward”¹³, 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 15^th, 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 6^th, 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 expression “where 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 19^th, 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!