Skip to content

Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 1 of 3

February 22, 2012

On April 11th, 2005 Michael Jackson’s former publicist of 34 years Bob Jones, and former Jackson family friend Stacy Brown were called to testify against MJ by the prosecution. During this time period, they were in the process of writing a sleazy “tell-all” book called “The Man Behind The Mask”, and Sneddon and his goons obviously thought that they had a lot of dirt on MJ.  Here is what Sneddon had to say about what Bob Jones would testify about when he submitted his PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES pleading on December 10th, 2004:

Bob Jones worked for Michael Jackson for 34 years as his public relations advisor and played a significant role in managing Jackson’s career as a pop star. His termination by Jackson in early 2004 severed his business relationship with Jackson.

During those 34 years, Mr. Jones was intimately involved in Jackson’s career. He accompanied Jackson on his tours. He traveled with Jackson on business and musical projects. He traveled with Jackson on vacations and was present when he entertained a succession of young boys.

Over the years Jones observed a procession of young boys, who were described by Jackson as his “little friends” or “special friends.” The “special friends” status meant lavish gifts to the young boys and their parents, trips with Jackson on tour, vacations, and sharing Jackson’s bedroom and eventually his bed. Mr. Jones was amazed at Jackson’s ability to determine a “woo-able” child and compliant parent(s). According to Jones, Jackson operated with a great deal of finesse in his relationship with these young boys and the parents.

Jones was aware of one such young child with whom Jackson managed to carry on a clandestine relationship for years. The boy and his parents traveled with him around the world throughout 1988 and 1989 on the “Bad” tour. Jackson and the young boy spent virtually all their time together. The boy would sleep in Jackson’s room at night. In the afternoons Jackson would send the parents shopping at his expense, clearing the way for him to spend hours in the privacy of his bedroom with the young boys.

During the time of this tour, while in Paris, Jones told Jackson, “The press is going to start asking questions about all these little white boys you keep around.” Jones described Jackson’s angry retort, “Who cares what they think?”

Jones describes a trip in 1992 when he traveled to Africa, primarily to the Republic of Gabon. Upon their departure from LAX for Africa, Jones was waived to Jackson’s limo, which was being swarmed by media. He looked inside and saw another of Michael Jackson’s “little friends” sitting on Jackson’s lap. Michael Jackson had somehow convinced the parents, who resided in Australia, to allow the child to travel with Jackson to Africa without parental supervision. They hid the boy so Michael Jackson could get on the plane and the press would not be aware of the child’s presence. During the course of their stay in the African countries of Gabon, Tanzania, Kenya and Morocco, Jones saw the boy go into Michael Jackson’s private bedroom and stay with Jackson for long, long periods of time. Jones states that he is aware that the parents received expensive gifts from Jackson.

Jones described another of Jackson’s “special friends” as another young child from Australia. He remembered this boy’s mom would often complain to Bill Bray. She would be begging to see her child. She was asking Bill Bray to intercede with Michael Jackson to see her own son.

Jones described how Michael Jackson usually lost interest in the boys once they reached the approximate age of 13. Jones describes Jackson as devious, a manipulator and a schemer. Jones believes that the entire Neverland Ranch environment is an enormous expensive lure, the ultimate candy from a stranger by which Michael Jackson gains the confidence and affection from young boys and creates the bond that gives them “special friends” status. Jones saw young boys go into Michael Jackson’s room and not come out for three or four days. Jones said Jackson had a terminology for women. He didn’t want any of them around at all. Jones knew Jackson well enough to know that he had no desire for women and that he had a preoccupation with young boys. According to Jones, Jackson had a saying that went like this: “No wenches, bitches, heifers, and hoes.”

Mr. Jones was present when Jackson traveled with the Chandler family. Jones identified Jordan Chandler as another of Jackson’s “special friends.” Mr. Jones described an occasion when Jackson had taken June and Jordan Chandler on a trip to Monaco. He observed Jackson and Jordan hugging a lot. Jones stated that as they flew a plane from Monaco back to the United States, he observed Jordan Chandler sitting next to Michael Jackson. Jordan had his lead on Jackson’s chest. That Jackson would lick the top of Jordan Chandler’s head. Jones had almost forgotten about this incident until he heard various media accounts describing Jackson’s almost exact behavior with Gavin Arvizo.

Well, that’s Sneddon’s story, and he’s sticking to it! So let’s see what happened when Jones and Brown actually testified! Before I get to Jones’ testimony, I want to take this opportunity to refute Jones’ claim that MJ “hid” the young Australian boy named Brett Barnes from the press: in the video below, which consists of a compilation of photos and footage from MJ’s 1992 trip to Africa, at the  0:05 second mark, you can clearly see MJ with Barnes out in the open, in full view of the media and public!

Here is Bob Jones’ direct examination from assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss!

Here is where Jones first discusses his book:

4 So I believe you testified you were

5 terminated late in 2004; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And since that time have you had any

8 employment?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Have you been involved in any activity at

11 this time concerning — during that period of time

12 since your termination that concerns your years of

13 employment with Michael Jackson?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What is that?

16 A. I went to the State of California and filed

17 a complaint for my vacation pay.

18 Q. All right. Other than that, have you been

19 involved in the writing of any memoirs of your years

20 with Michael Jackson?

21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

22 THE COURT: Overruled.

23 THE WITNESS: Is it —

24 THE COURT: You may answer.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And can you

27 specifically tell me what you’ve been doing in terms

28 of writing those memoirs? 5525

1 A. Preparing a book.

2 Q. Preparing a book?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what is the subject matter of that book?

5 A. My — well, my years and — my years with

6 Michael Jackson.

Here is where it gets heated!  Auchincloss hammers Jones on whether he truly remembered if MJ licked Jordan Chandler’s head in 1993!

8 Q. Mr. Jones, during the World Music Awards

9 when you were watching Mr. Jackson and Jordie

10 Chandler sitting together, did you ever see Mr.

11 Jackson lick Jordie Chandler’s head?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Have you been interviewed by police officers

14 concerning this matter?

15 A. Not that I recall.

16 Q. Didn’t you have an interview with Steve

17 Robel and your attorney and myself last week in the

18 victim/witness room —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — concerning this incident?

21 A. Yes, yes, yes.

22 Q. At that meeting, didn’t you tell Mr. Robel

23 and myself and your attorney that you weren’t sure

24 if that happened?

25 A. I was very —

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

27 THE WITNESS: I was adamant in saying I was

28 not sure that that happened. I could — I could 5530

1 definitely say that they were embraced in one

2 another’s arms on the flight, but I don’t recall

3 anything about head licking.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, didn’t

5 you say that you didn’t remember that, but you

6 weren’t sure whether or not Mr. Jackson licked

7 Jordie Chandler’s head?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading, and

9 argumentative, and misstates the evidence.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is impeachment, Your

11 Honor.

12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: I might have said that. But I

15 don’t recall.

16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall

17 whether you said that?

18 A. No, I don’t recall ever seeing any head

19 licking, and I made that as adamant as I could.

20 Q. All right. So is it your testimony today

21 that you don’t have a recollection of the head

22 licking —

23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative,

24 and asked and answered, and leading.

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I don’t think I’ve gotten

26 an answer yet.

27 THE COURT: Well, you haven’t got the

28 question out, so go ahead and state your question. 5531

1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m trying to clarify

2 the state of your memory, sir.

3 A. Sure.

4 Q. Is it your testimony today that you do not

5 remember whether or not you saw any head licking?

6 A. No. I don’t remember having seen any head

7 licking.

8 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say you were not

9 saying it couldn’t have happened?

10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation.

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are you saying you just

14 simply do not have a recollection of it?

15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and

16 answered; argumentative; and leading.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

Auchincloss begins to question Jones about the contents of his book, and when asked if the book is fact or fiction, Jones a surprising answer! Well, actually it really isn’t surprising, considering that it’s a tell-all book motivated by money and revenge! Notice how Judge Melville asks Auchincloss if its his intent to impeach Jones with the contents of his book, and he says “Yes!”

18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jones, you said

19 you’re writing a book in this case?

20 A. Sure.

21 Q. What is the title of that book?

22 A. “The Man Behind the Mask.”

23 Q. What is the complete title of that book?

24 A. “The Man” —

25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.

26 Hearsay; relevance.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. 5532

1 THE WITNESS: Oh. “The Man Behind the

2 Mask.” In all honesty, I don’t — I can’t tell you

3 the subtitle.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall the

5 name of your book?

6 A. No, I don’t recall the subtitle. I do know

7 “An Insider’s View of the Rise and Fall of the King

8 of Pop.” Maybe that’s it.

9 Q. Is the name of your book, “Michael Jackson,

10 The Man in the Mirror, An Insider’s Account of the

11 King of Pop’s Spectacular and Catastrophic Fall from

12 Grace”?

13 THE WITNESS: No.

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; hearsay.

15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That is not the title

16 of your book?

17 A. The “Catastrophic” —

18 THE COURT: Just a moment. There’s an

19 objection.

20 It’s overruled.

21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

22 THE WITNESS: “Catastrophic Fall” was taken

23 out. It was a suggested title and I took that

24 “Catastrophic” out. And it isn’t “The Man Behind

25 the Mirror.” It’s “The Man Behind the Mask.” Maybe

26 one of the suggested titles was that other that I

27 did not approve of.

28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is your book presently 5533

1 at the publisher?

2 A. It is being edited, but the book is not

3 complete. It is far from complete.

4 Q. Is your book presently at the publisher?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. What’s the name of that publisher?

7 A. System, I think. My co-writer handled that

8 end of it.

9 Q. And your book is currently being edited?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Has it been accepted by the publisher as a

12 prospect for publication?

13 A. It has been, but it has not been approved by

14 me.

15 Q. The manuscript that is at the publisher —

16 well, let me strike that.

17 Is the book that is being reviewed by your

18 publisher currently an honest account of your years

19 working with Michael Jackson?

20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for

21 speculation; irrelevant opinion.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you reviewed the

24 manuscript that is at the publisher’s?

25 A. I have looked at a manuscript that has not

26 been approved by me.

27 Q. How many times have you looked at this

28 manuscript? 5534

1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.

2 THE COURT: I’m not sure where you’re going

3 with this. Are you — is it your intent to impeach

4 him with his manuscript, is that what you’re —

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.

6 THE COURT: All right. The objection is

7 overruled.

8 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I’ve looked at it twice

9 and I have — I have a co-writer.

10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. This manuscript

11 that you’ve looked at, is it fact or fiction?

12 A. It’s part —

13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; no foundation.

14 There’s a co-writer. It’s not been approved. It’s

15 being edited by some other people.

16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m talking about the

17 manuscript he’s looked at.

18 THE COURT: Objection’s overruled.

19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is this a factual

20 manuscript or is it a fictional manuscript?

21 A. It is factual to a degree.

22 Q. To what degree is it factual?

23 A. It’s to a degree, because I — my co-writer

24 also has included things that I didn’t approve of.

This is where Auchincloss asks Jones to describe in detail the portions of the manuscript that he wrote, compared to what he did not write. Jones obviously doesn’t have a lot of faith in what he wrote!

2 Q. If I’m accurate, Mr. Jones, you indicated

3 the first paragraph in the lower portion of the page

4 you didn’t write, but the second paragraph you did

5 write?

6 A. Yes.

7 THE COURT: Is that clear to you which he

8 indicated, Counsel?

9 MR. MESEREAU: I think so, but I’d like to

10 talk to the prosecutor first. I think I understand.

11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. That second

12 paragraph — Mr. Jones, that second paragraph is an

13 account of what you observed at the World Music

14 Awards; is that accurate?

15 A. That’s what I observed on the airplane.

16 Q. Okay. In that paragraph, it states —

17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s impeachment. And I

19 can show it to you, Your Honor.

20 THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.

21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It states, “I looked at

22 what was going on with the king and the boy.” Who

23 is “the king” in your —

24 A. The king of pop, Michael Jackson.

25 Q. All right. “Others looked at them rather

26 strange, too. They were holding each other tight,

27 almost in a romantic sense, cooing. There were

28 pecks on the cheeks and licks on the top of the 5537

1 head.”

2 Those are your words, sir, true?

3 A. Sir —

4 Q. That’s a “yes” or “no” question.

5 A. Yes, with reservations.

6 Q. Mr. Jones, did you see Michael Jackson lick

7 Jordie’s head?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

9 answered.

10 THE COURT: Sustained.

In this excerpt, Auchincloss successfully impeached Jones by asking him about an email where he gleefully states that the story of MJ licking Jordan’s head will “bite him” because he was also accused of doing it in the current case! This ends Jones’ direct examination.

14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jones, I show you

15 People’s Exhibit 804. It appears to be an e-mail.

16 Can you identify that for me, please?

17 A. It’s from an e-mail that I sent to Stacy

18 Brown, my co-writer.

19 Q. The cite — well, I won’t quote, but that is

20 your e-mail address at the top?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. And those are your words?

23 A. If they were sent by my e-mail, yes, they

24 have to be my words.

25 Q. You don’t dispute that those are your words?

26 A. No.

27 Q. And I show you People’s Exhibit No. 805. If

28 you’d identify that for me, please. Also appears to 5538

1 be an e-mail dated the same date, but the time on it

2 is 22:30:17 EDT.

3 The first one, for identification purposes,

4 804, is dated — the time on it is 19:55:32 EDT.

5 Okay. So showing you Exhibit 805, is that

6 one of your e-mails, sir?

7 A. Well, they’re both from my e-mail.

8 Q. All right. You wrote them?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And in the first e-mail, 804 —

11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered as impeachment.

13 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You wrote — and

15 this — first of all, let me ask you, is the date of

16 this e-mail accurate, October 30th, 2004?

17 A. I would imagine it is, sir.

18 Q. In that e-mail, you wrote, “Stacy: The

19 licking is going to be important because he did it

20 in this case, too.” Are those your words, sir?

21 A. Apparently so.

22 Q. And in the e-mail that was dated the same

23 day just a few hours later, did you write, “Stacy:

24 The stuff with Jordie will bite him big”?

25 A. If it’s — if it came from my e-mail, I

26 wrote it. But I don’t — that sounds a little

27 strange from my writing.

28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no 5539

1 further questions.

2 THE COURT: Cross-examine?

3 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.

Here is Mesereau’s cross-examination! He gets right down to business by asking Jones about his interview with the police on April 7th, 2005, just a few days prior to his testimony. In that interview, Jones repeatedly denied ever seeing MJ lick anybody’s head! Jones also admits that portions of his book were sensationalized by Stacy Brown!

5 CROSS-EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. MESEREAU:

7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones.

8 A. Good morning.

9 Q. My name is Tom Mesereau and I speak for

10 Michael Jackson.

11 A. Sure.

12 Q. We haven’t met before, right?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Okay. The prosecutor referred to an

15 interview that you had with Sergeant Steve Robel and

16 another officer on April 7th, 2005.

17 A. Uh-huh.

18 Q. Do you remember that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And do you remember you were asked by an

21 officer, “Um, did you see Mr Jackson engage in any

22 head licking in the World Music Awards?” And your

23 answer was, “No, no, no,” right?

24 A. Uh-huh.

25 Q. And then you were asked, “Um, did you see

26 Mr. Jackson engage in any head licking of anybody?”

27 And your answer was, “Never.” Remember that?

28 A. I recall. 5540

1 Q. Okay. And what you were not — when you

2 were dealing with your co-writer and publisher, you

3 were not under oath, were you?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And of course today you are, right?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.

8 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question. He

9 answered that.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The reality is, Mr. Jones,

11 you have repeatedly said you don’t recall seeing

12 head licking on the plane, right?

13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; misstates the

14 evidence.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t recall seeing

17 head licking by Michael on the plane with Jordie, do

18 you?

19 A. I said it, but it was in the — it appeared

20 in an e-mail. I said I did not recall seeing it,

21 but it — apparently so, because it appeared in an

22 e-mail that came from my machine.

23 Q. Well, in response to the prosecutor’s

24 questions, you said you had reservations about that

25 statement —

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. — correct?

28 And what are your reservations about that 5541

1 statement?

2 A. That I just don’t recall exactly seeing

3 that. I truly don’t.

4 Q. And would you agree when you’re working with

5 a co-writer and a publisher to prepare a book about

6 Michael Jackson, there’s pressure to make things

7 sensational when you can, right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And your publisher and others want a book

10 that can sell, correct?

11 A. My co-writer. The publisher wasn’t involved

12 in that particular end of it.

13 Q. Okay. And certainly, having worked with

14 Michael all those years, you’ve seen numerous

15 attempts by numerous people to sensationalize

16 aspects of Michael’s life, right?

17 A. Correct.

In this excerpt, Mesereau asks Jones about how he communicates with co-author Stacy Brown as they write their tell-all book, and about Jones’ recollection of what he told police during an interview a few days prior to testifying.  Notice the number of corrections that he sarcastically mentioned that he had to make their manuscript because of Stacy Brown inserting things that he didn’t say!

18 Q. Okay. Now, did you begin writing your book

19 after your employment ended?

20 A. I had made notes on certain things. Yes,

21 the actual beginning of the writing of the book

22 started after my employment ended, yes.

23 Q. And has there been an effort by you or your

24 co-writer to market the book overseas?

25 A. Well, I would imagine that the publisher

26 has.

27 Q. Has there been an attempt to market it in

28 the United States? 5554

1 A. I would imagine that the publisher has.

2 Q. Okay. And who is in charge of that issue?

3 A. My co-writer.

4 Q. Okay. Now, do you typically meet with your

5 co-writer periodically?

6 A. We talk on the phone. That’s — that’s

7 perhaps one of the reasons there is some confusion,

8 because our — he’s based in New York and I’m based

9 in Los Angeles.

10 Q. Okay. And do you sort of fax or e-mail

11 manuscripts to one another?

12 A. We e-mail.

13 Q. Okay. And do you then typically correct or

14 change what you think is either inaccurate or

15 inappropriate?

16 A. Oh, I’ve changed millions of things that

17 were inaccurate that I didn’t say.

18 Q. And how far away from having a product that

19 you think is accurate and complete are you?

20 A. I would say six to eight weeks.

21 Q. Okay. Have you come up with a date during

22 which you intend to announce the availability of the

23 book?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Do you remember in your interview on

26 April 7th, 2005, a police officer asking you about

27 whether or not there was any licking on the plane by

28 Michael, and you said, “I just don’t remember and I 5555

1 would be lying to say that I did”?

2 A. Of course I recall saying that.

3 Q. And that was the truth, right?

4 A. Yes.

In this excerpt (which closes out Mesereau’s cross-examination), Mesereau tries to catch prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss in a lie by getting Bob Jones to admit that Auchincloss misquoted what he said about witnessing the “head licking” incident in his interview with him!

11 Q. Have you ever spoken to any prosecutor for

12 the government in this case directly?

13 A. Who do you mean, the government?

14 Q. These people. The prosecutors.

15 A. Certainly. I’ve — Mr. Auchincloss and

16 Steve Robel.

17 Q. When did you last meet with Mr. Auchincloss?

18 A. I met with him on Friday when I was told to

19 go home and come back.

20 Q. Okay. And did you meet with him before

21 that?

22 A. Of course. You mentioned an April date that

23 Mr. Auchincloss had me to come up.

24 Q. Okay. Was that April 7th?

25 A. I guess, sir. I don’t — I’m not good with

26 dates, so —

27 Q. You had an interview with Sergeant Steve

28 Robel, right? 5557

1 A. And Mr. Auchincloss.

2 Q. Okay. How many meetings did you have with

3 Sergeant Robel, if you know?

4 A. I only met Sergeant Robel when I was with

5 Mr. Auchincloss. I met them both at the same time.

6 Q. Okay. So when you said, “I just don’t

7 remember and I would be lying to say that I did,”

8 about head licking, Mr. Auchincloss was right there,

9 right?

10 A. We were — we were there, yes, we were —

11 the three of us were in the room.

12 Q. So he clearly heard you say that, correct?

13 A. Mr. Auchincloss was in the room with Mr.

14 Robel.

15 Q. And he tried to misquote you in court today,

16 correct?

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. This is

18 argumentative; improper.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your

21 Honor.

Let’s look at what Auchincloss quoted Jones as saying about the head licking incident from earlier in his direct examination of him. Auchincloss did indeed misquote Jones (whether intentional or not!) by omitting the following from the end his quote: “I would be lying if I said that I did!”

16 Q. Didn’t you have an interview with Steve

17 Robel and your attorney and myself last week in the

18 victim/witness room —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — concerning this incident?

21 A. Yes, yes, yes.

22 Q. At that meeting, didn’t you tell Mr. Robel

23 and myself and your attorney that you weren’t sure

24 if that happened?

25 A. I was very –

26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.

27 THE WITNESS: I was adamant in saying I was

28 not sure that that happened. I could — I could 5530

1 definitely say that they were embraced in one

2 another’s arms on the flight, but I don’t recall

3 anything about head licking.

4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, didn’t

5 you say that you didn’t remember that, but you

6 weren’t sure whether or not Mr. Jackson licked

7 Jordie Chandler’s head?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading, and

9 argumentative, and misstates the evidence.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is impeachment, Your

11 Honor.

12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

13 You may answer.

14 THE WITNESS: I might have said that. But I

15 don’t recall.

16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall

17 whether you said that?

18 A. No, I don’t recall ever seeing any head

19 licking, and I made that as adamant as I could.

Once again, this is what Bob Jones said in his interview with the police, and Mesereau was professional enough to actually read from the transcript, instead of paraphrase Jones as Auchincloss did!

25 Q. Okay. Do you remember in your interview on

26 April 7th, 2005, a police officer asking you about

27 whether or not there was any licking on the plane by

28 Michael, and you said, “I just don’t remember and I 5555

1 would be lying to say that I did”?

2 A. Of course I recall saying that.

3 Q. And that was the truth, right?

4 A. Yes.

After Mesereau concluded his cross-examination of Jones, Auchincloss then begins his re-direct examination. He was intent on focusing on the head licking incident, and a sparring match between he, Jones, and Mesereau ensued. The quote that Auchincloss misquoted earlier was the source of the tension, because Auchincloss tried to argue that what Jones meant was that he saw MJ licking Jordan Chandler’s head, but didn’t remember it at the time of the police interview, but now remembers it:

23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

25 Q. Mr. Jones, you told Stacy Brown about this

26 head licking incident, true?

27 A. Apparently I did, sir.

28 Q. And you have previously stated that the 5558

1 words on the second paragraph of People’s Exhibit

2 803, which I’ve shown you – that’s the quotes from

3 the book —

4 A. Uh-huh.

5 Q. — the second paragraph – those are your

6 words?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Your Honor, if

9 I may, I’d like to admit —

10 THE WITNESS: With — with — may I see

11 that, sir, again?

12 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, you may.

13 A. Because — it may be with exception.

14 Oh, yes, those are my words.

15 Q. All right. So you agree that those are your

16 words.

17 Your Honor, I’d like to admit People’s

18 Exhibit 803 into evidence at this time.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

20 foundation; relevance.

21 THE COURT: Let me see the exhibit.

22 All right. The objection’s sustained. It’s

23 not going into evidence.

24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. May I see

25 that?

26 Q. But so that we’re clear today about your

27 testimony, is it true that you looked at what was

28 going on with the king and the boy, they were 5559

1 holding each other tightly, almost in a romantic

2 sense —

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and

4 answered; move to strike.

5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe there’s been —

6 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: “Holding each other

8 tightly almost in a romantic sense, cooing. There

9 were pecks on the cheeks and licks on the top of the

10 head”; is that true, those are your words?

11 A. I — I — with reservation. I know about

12 the — as I told you —

13 Q. I’m asking you are those your words, sir?

14 A. They apparently are my words. If you have

15 them in an e-mail from me.

16 Q. Today your testimony is that, “The licking

17 is going to be important,” you told Stacy that,

18 “because it happened in this case, too.” Those are

19 your words as well?

20 A. I don’t recall saying anything about this

21 case. But if it was in an e-mail, I said it.

22 Q. You acknowledge that those words — that

23 this is your e-mail address?

24 A. B7436@aol —

25 Q. And this is — you acknowledged this is one

26 of your e-mails to Stacy Brown?

27 A. Nobody else could have done it but me.

28 Q. So do you acknowledge, based upon all the 5560

1 information that you have today, that you did, in

2 fact, see Michael Jackson lick Jordie Chandler on

3 the top of the head, sir? Yes or no.

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

5 answered.

6 THE WITNESS: I guess — yes.

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.

8 THE COURT: Just a moment. There was an

9 objection.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Sorry.

11 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. The

12 answer was, “Yes.”

13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And your testimony is

14 that this incident happened on a plane flying back

15 from Europe?

16 A. On flying back from Paris to Los Angeles.

17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no

18 further questions.

Mesereau begins his recross-examination by getting Jones to acknowledge what he told the police in his interview, and at the very end, he finally acknowledges what that he told police he’d be lying if he said he remembered that incident:

20 RECROSS-EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. MESEREAU:

22 Q. Mr. Jones, on April 7th, you told the police

23 and Mr. Auchincloss you’d be lying if you said you

24 saw Mr. Jackson licking Mr. Chandler, right?

25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Misstates the

26 evidence and argumentative.

27 THE COURT: Overruled.

28 You may answer. Do you want the question 5561

1 read back?

2 THE WITNESS: I would say since he — I have

3 to say it has to be true if it came in my e-mail.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But, sir, you just told

5 the police the other day that you’d be lying if you

6 said he did that, right?

7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objections.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Right?

10 A. I — I, again, have to say what I said. If

11 it’s in my e-mail, it’s true.

12 Q. But you just told the jury you don’t recall

13 seeing something like that, correct?

14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Asked and

15 answered; argumentative.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 THE WITNESS: I go back with the same

18 answer. It was in my e-mail. So if it was in my

19 e-mail, I’m taking responsibility for the e-mail.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, but you’ve also

21 indicated a number of the things you wrote are not

22 accurate, true?

23 A. I didn’t write anything. My co-writer wrote

24 those things. But he is — he has shown me an

25 e-mail that I wrote and sent to my co-writer.

26 Q. But, sir, you just told the jury what you

27 told the police last week, which is that you’d be

28 lying if you said you saw that, right? 5562

1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe that misstates

2 the evidence.

3 THE COURT: Overruled.

4 Is that what — he’s really asking you, “Is

5 that what you told the police?” Did you tell the

6 police —

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what I told the

8 police.

9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Auchincloss decided to ask Jones even more questions about the emails and his statements, and afterwards Mesereau declined to further question him, as he had already established the fact that Jones told police he would be lying if he said he remembered the incident, and that he was pressured to sensationalize his book!

11 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:

13 Q. Mr. Jones, you didn’t say, “I would be lying

14 if I said that.” You said, “I would be lying if I

15 said I remembered that”; isn’t that true?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. And is it fair to say that based on

18 everything you have before you today, you now

19 remember the incidents that you’ve testified

20 concerning the licking?

21 A. I don’t remember. But there is an e-mail

22 which provides explicit evidence that the e-mail

23 came from me.

24 Q. And you believe your e-mails are true;

25 you’ve testified to that?

26 A. I would not have just made it up.

27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.

28 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5563

1 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may

3 step down.

4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 Subject to re-call.

6 THE COURT: All right. I haven’t excused

7 him.

8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry.

9 THE COURT: Call your next witness.

10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Stacy Brown.

To show how much of a 180 degree turnaround that Jones did after he decided to write his book, look no further than this lengthy interview that he gave to the Los Angeles Sentinel on September 2nd, 1993. The interview is so long and detailed that we dedicated an entire post to it called “What Bob Jones Really Thought About Michael Jackson”, but here is a short excerpt.

You can take sides if you chose to, and everyone has an opinion. I’ve met Michael, and I chose to believe the best about him. I saw his compassion and his loving kindness towards children. Yet, although I chose to believe all things, I know all things are not expedient for me. But Jones has lived with Jackson upwards of 30 years, and if there was an inkling towards misbehavior on Michael’s part, he would have gleaned it, or Michael is a darn good actor at espionage. 

In ending this first of a two-part story on Jones’ long association with Michael, and what happens when mega-minds converge, let me end on Jones’ words and Jesus’ and not Michael’s detractors for we’ll all have to wait until the final verdict is in. And then will we even know the thing-in-itself, Jones’ above statements make it abundantly clear, can we ever be really sure? Jones told me, “God has given him some kind of gift, and he ( Michael) believes in sharing that gift. And he realizes that there is something that God has given him that is special, and that is the reason he does and shares with the kids and the youth the way he does.” Truth. God knows. Michael has always let his moderation be known to all men.

And in the immortal words of Jesus, “Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.”

And if that wasn’t enough proof of how much he supported and defended MJ in 1993, look at the foreword that he wrote for Lisa Campbell’s 1994 book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, which completely exonerates MJ of the Chandler accusations. (It can be downloaded for free from Google Books by pressing the “download PDF” button from the drop down box in the upper right corner of the screen, as well as her 1993 book “The King of Pop”).

And finally, here is a rebuttal to a sleazy trash documentary by some amateur “journalist” named Jacques Peretti called “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened”, and Jones was featured prominently in it, along with Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez.  And this post further scrutinizes Jones’ testimony regarding Michael’s trip to Monaco in May 1993.

In Part 2, I will dissect Stacy Brown’s testimony, and fact check his book “Man Behind The Mask”! 

43 Comments leave one →
  1. February 27, 2012 11:34 am

    David & Lynande : thank you.

    Like

  2. shelly permalink
    February 27, 2012 5:54 am

    The old links send me to the adobe website and I have adobe on my computer.

    Like

  3. February 27, 2012 5:42 am

    The whole book please. I don’t know why but I can’t download (I don’t know if it’s the right word) the book with the links you gave me a few months ago (I could read them at that time).

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2012 5:14 am

    Which one? Just the photo pages?

    Like

  5. February 27, 2012 4:18 am

    By the way, is it possible for you send me other links to the VG book, please?

    Like

  6. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2012 4:01 am

    Shelly I have a ton of photos that I have saved that I don’t remember where I got them because I have had them for a long time. So I think it might have just been on the internet somewhere. Why haven’t you seen that one before? You should see the ones I have of Janet Arvizo weilding a knife that her ex husband David took. Those are really good so are the ones that they found at the Neverland search that were polaroids taken of them while they were at the ranch. I know that everyone would like to see those but just yesterday and today I have been going through my photos and looking at some things and getting rid of some things that I don’t need anymore like photos of a vial of propofol and others. I will do a post of some photos soon I hope that includes some of the photos from MJWML and others of LMP and Michael with her kids about 3 years after their divorce. There are also photos of him and Lisa out in front of the IVY on her birthday in 1999 of you google MJ and LMP at the IVY you’ll find them.

    Like

  7. February 27, 2012 2:40 am

    Where did you find that picture Lynande?

    Like

  8. February 26, 2012 10:05 pm

    Same baseball cap he was always wearing. The dark woman next to Bill Bray looks a lot like Brett’s mother.

    Brett’s name and face was all over tabloids back then, Michael didn’t hide him at all.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    February 26, 2012 9:42 pm

    I have a better picture of them in the limo before they took off.And yes this is really me and the photo is safe. That is just another example of the lies because there is Brett “hiding” in plain sight. See how ridiculous that story was.Compare the two caps and you have Brett sitting there the whole time right where the Editor, Robert Johnson of Ebony/ Jet magazine could see him. I actually have several photos of them from that trip. I should do a show and tell piece with some of the photos that I have.

    Like

  10. sanemjfan permalink
    February 26, 2012 9:38 pm

    @Rockforeveron
    Yeah, it probably is Brett!

    Like

  11. February 26, 2012 9:15 pm

    There’s a photo of MJ in a plane on the way to Africa

    Isn’t that Brett in the seat in front in the baseball cap?

    Like

  12. nan permalink
    February 25, 2012 4:46 am

    From Carrie Fischer excerpt:
    Regarding Evan Chandler…

    He referred his patients to a mobile anesthesiologist who would come into the office to put you out for the dental work. And as if that wasn’t glorious enough, this anesthesiologist could also be easily and financially persuaded to come to your house to administer the morphine for your subsequent luxury pain relief.

    This remark is so disturbing to me.., even back then, Evans connection to an anesthesiologist that makes house calls…
    .Just reminds me of the doctors showing up for MJ at hotel rooms etc..I didnt realize how many doctors might be willing to do that..
    I wonder if Evan might have introduced this to MJ,..the house call stuff for doctors..
    MJ spoke extensively to childrens services back then without a lawyer present as I recall., so I dont think a man who was willing to be photographed naked to prove his innocence would have been that upset to testify in a civil trial…
    He did depositions on other things……Maybe he was concerned he might have to testify regarding some pain med issues from back then, that Evan knew about in a civil trial…

    .

    Like

  13. Suzy permalink
    February 24, 2012 6:48 pm

    @ Lynette

    They definitely knew VG. VG’s book was published a lot earlier than Ray’s yet many stories are basically the same (of course each of them having their own twist on them, according to their own agendas). For example, how did VG knew about Evan drugging up Michael in his house? The only other source for this story is Ray Chandler’s book which was published years later. So IMO the initial book that Ray and Evan shopped right after the settlement would have been ghost-written by VG. They were working on it together initially, IMO. Then they had a falling out and each had their own version published. There are many more signs of VG having contact with the Chandlers during the allegations.

    And we know how VG approached Joy Robson stating to her as a “fact” that MJ was a p-le. Not asking, not investigating whether he was, but stating it to her as if it was a known fact. Joy saw through the BS, but I believe that’s how he approached Even Chandler as well. And we know all the rest.

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2012 6:15 pm

    @ Suzie
    Yes and everyone goes straight to the parts of the Chandler/ Schwartz tape that were played on TV and they don’t look at the whole transcript where Evan says ” I have certain people in certain places”. People and places are plural, more than one, which is why I think he alreadyknew VG at that point because I think it was him that leaked everything to Diane Dimond and the rest of the Tabloid world.He would have know how to do it since his job description at that time was a “freelance writer”. Then we have to look at why the police even look him up and took him into questino him within five days of that story surfacing. That is not just coincidence they picked him up and talked to him for a reason because first they would have had to find him or even know that he existed.
    Then years later when they finally get some attention for their book Ray Chandler calls Victor Gutierrez a sleazebag? How would he know about Victor if he didn’t play some part in their story and he didn’t know Victor?

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    February 24, 2012 9:03 am

    @ Lynette

    Yeah, I noticed how according to Fisher Evan said they are suing Michael because he and Jordan slept in the same bed and because he might have touched Jordan’s privates. So they are suing him without even knowing if anything did or didn’t happen? Plus he’s only talking about touching his privates here, not about masturbation, oral sex etc. that later they accused Michael of. So even at the point when they already decided to sue their story was still developing?

    Not that it’s surprising since in the Schwartz convo Evan is already preparing to sue while admitting to Schwartz he has no idea if anything is happening or not. He just wants to ruin Michael because he’s angry with him for getting between him and June and Jordan. Considering all this it’s a bit too convenient that after spending a couple of weeks in his father’s care and Rothman’s office Jordan comes out with the allegations…

    Another interesting point of the Fisher extract is how Evan is trying to pimp his son to Michael because he falsely assumes that’s what Michael wants. What crazy parent does that? This is consistent with other accounts, such as accounts that he tried to get Michael build an addition to their house and then a new house and move in with Jordan and Evan. Where did this guy get his ideas of child molestation from that it’s some kind of nice, consesual relationship (because surely he acts that way)? I think VG was already in his ears.

    But Michael was not having his suggestions and attempts to pimp Jordan out to him and it was after that weekend when Evan tried to convince him to build that addition and move in with them, when he cut ties with Evan and stopped taking his calls. I think that was the moment when Michael realized what crazy ideas this guy had.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2012 7:06 am

    I think he joined it to get Evan off his back. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t willing it just means he did it for Evan because he was afraid of him. Evan tried to sue Michael on the grounds that he has broken the confidentiality agreement when he went on Prime Time with Lisa and said it was lies all lies. The thing is the confidentiality agreement was between Michael and Jordan first and foremost. I think Evan Chandler bullied Jordan into suing on those grounds because he couldn’t. I think that Jordan filed for emancipation just to get him more money so he would leave him alone. Think about what kind of person Evan Chandler turned him into.
    Evan was a brutal man. He beat his second wife and Dave Schwartz at least two times. Then the icing on the cake was when he nearly killed Jordan in 2005. Is there any question that he used violence to get what he wanted from people? I think they made up the tooth story because they were going to say that Jordan told the truth while he was under the influence of a “truth serum” but that backfired on them when the news came out that it created false memories. I think Jordan lived a life of hell after he got that money and his father got only a small pittance. Larry Feldman says in his testimony that it was given to June and Evan because the defense wanted them bound by the agreement because they knew there was a book that they were writing.

    Like

  17. February 24, 2012 6:53 am

    I guess the question is why did he joined it?

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2012 6:43 am

    By the way that case summary is why I don’t believe that tooth story at all any more. I think everything about that tooth story is made up because Jordan was a willing party to the second lawsuit too once he joined it.

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2012 6:09 am

    @kaarin
    I think Jordan shared his money with Evan. In June 1995 (the letter from his attorney for his trust was dated June 13th, 1995). is when he filed for or contacted his attorney’s by phone in regard to his emancipation. I supposed they saw the commercials for that interview and were planning on suing him again based on that.That was when Evan wanted to sue Michael after the Diane Sawyer Prime Time Interview on June 14th,1995.That was so he could make his own record and 60 million dollars. In the end it was dismissed and Jordan had to pay for Michael and Lisa’s legal fees. That wouldn’t have been a very small amount either considering they took it to appeal before it was finished. I’ll see if I can find that Case Summary for everyone to look at.

    Case Summary

    Case Number: SC052717
    JORDAN CHANDLER VS. MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON ET. AL
    Filing Date: 05/26/1998
    Case Type: Commrcial Compl-Not tort or Complx (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Judgment by Court-Petition granted 07/01/1999
    ________________________________________
    Future Hearings
    None
    ________________________________________
    Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
    Parties
    CHADLER JORDAN – Plaintiff
    GOLDENRING & PROSSER – Attorney for Plaintiff
    JACKSON MICHAEL JOSEPH – Defendant
    KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS & ROSENMAN – Attorney for Defendant
    KIRKER & FOX – Witness
    MIJAC MUSIC – Deft’s DBA
    MIRAN INTERNATIONAL – Defendant
    MJJ PRODUCTIONS INC. – Defendant
    RAYMOND CHANDLER/CHARMATZ – Witness
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
    Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    02/05/1999
    11/22/2000 Memorandum of Costs (MEMO OF COSTS ON APPEAL CLAIMED BY DEFTS AGAINST PLTF – JORDAN CHANDLER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    11/22/2000 Memorandum of Costs (MEMO OF COSTS ON APPEAL CLAIMED BY DEFTS AGAINST PLTF, JORDAN CHANDLER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    10/17/2000 Remittitur filed (DEFTS ARE TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS ON APPEAL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, FROM PLTS. DEFT, LISA MARIE PRESLEY, IS TO RECOVER HER COSTS ON APPEAL FROM PLTF. )
    Filed by Second Appellate District
    08/26/1999 Memorandum of Costs
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/16/1999 Notice (NTC TO ATTY IN RE NTC OF APPEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/12/1999 Notice of Entry of Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    08/03/1999 Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/16/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/04/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    06/04/1999 Declaration
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    05/12/1999 Order
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/12/1999 Ex-Parte Application
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/15/1999 Notice (NTC OF ENTRY OF ORDER )
    Filed by Witness
    03/05/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTN TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS RAYMOND CHANDLER/CHARMATZ & PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA; DECL OF JANE FARR IN SUPPORT THEREOF)
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Declaration (- of Jane H. Farr re notice of ex parte application of defendant Michael Jackson for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third-party witness)
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Order (- shortening time )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/02/1999 Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third- party witness )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/26/1999 Ex-Parte Application (DEFTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPEARANCE OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/25/1999 Order (ORDER CONSOLIDATING ARBITRATIONS )
    Filed by Defendant
    02/24/1999 Notice of Ruling (MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/19/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (supplemental opposition to defendant’s motion to consolidate )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    02/18/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (DEFTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/16/1999 Opposition (PLTFS OPPOSITION TO MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES DECL OF JAMES E. PROSSER )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    02/09/1999 Proof of Service
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    02/05/1999 Motion to Consolidate
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    01/26/1999 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (STATUS CONFERENCE CONT TO 6-16-99 9:45 AM DEPT WE A )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    10/05/1998 Order (COMPELLING ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/25/1998 Response (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL ARBITRTATION AND STAY CIVIL ACTION; DECL OF ZIA F. MODABBER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/24/1998 Declaration (DECL OF JANE H. FARR RE: FILING OF REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY CIVIL ACTION. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    07/14/1998 Opposition (OPP TO DEFTS EXPARTE APP FOR ORDER TO SEAL RESPONSE TO THE COMPLT SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    07/14/1998 Order (PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    07/14/1998 Ex-Parte Application (APP FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/26/1998 Complaint Filed
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
    Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
    07/01/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding
    Motion to Vacate – Motion is granted in Part
    06/16/1999 at 10:00 am in Department WEA, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status conference is held & cont.
    05/12/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEG, Paul G. Flynn, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding – Granted-Uncontested
    03/08/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Motion Denied
    03/03/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (Ex parte application denied onMarch 2, 1999 is readdressed andgranted.) – Granted-Uncontested
    03/02/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening timefor a hearing on his motion tocompel the appearance of third-party witness) – Denied
    02/26/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEJ, Lorna Parnell, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (DEFT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ANORDER COMPELLING THIRD PARTYWITNESS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) – Denied
    02/22/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Consolidate – Motion Granted
    01/25/1999 at 09:30 am in Department A203, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status Conference continued
    09/10/1998 in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Motion Granted
    08/26/1998 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Submitted
    07/14/1998 at 08:30 am in Department WED, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding (APP/ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERDOCUMENTS ORDERED SEALED) – Motion Granted
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

    Like

  20. February 24, 2012 4:36 am

    Excellent as always. I am so grateful that you are on Michael’s side as well as on the case for what is right and just. It still causes me great pain to learn what he had to contend with every second of evey day for so many years and by many people whom he had befriended either personally or professionally. Don’t stop til we get enough!

    Like

  21. February 24, 2012 4:34 am

    There is Michaels headache and Jordans tooth..Did Evan give both of them Sodium Amytal or not.It is for sure not a traetment for head ache and would not have put Michael to sleep for the whole night.It might have created false memories for Jordan so he could lie more easily and thus would be believed . But then he never testified in court.I think Evans plan for money just worked out,only it went to Jordan and he was left with a petty 1 1/2 million.

    Like

  22. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2012 12:45 am

    As fare as Francia…they try to make it out like he was bought off so MJ wouldnt be brought to court but he was a supposedly co operating person for the police,

    Nan Jason and Blanca didn’t even file their lawsuit until the case had been closed or declined or whatever they want to call it. So him not testifying in a case the police and the DA declined was not due to being bought off it was as Jim Thomas put it “Not enough of a crime”. Yeah that is what he said on national televison in September of 2004, it was not enough of a crime. So how would it get to be such a big deal during the trial when they want to call him a “second victim”? I’ll tell you why, because they didn’t have anything else to bolster their 1108 evidence but him, his mother and the Neverland Five. How hopeless did that story have to get?

    Like

  23. nan permalink
    February 24, 2012 12:19 am

    I didnt know Pellicano taped Jordan..I thought he just asked him, not taped him,,I always thought it was a blunder not to have thekid on tape..
    I am glad Carrie Fischer wrote that stuff..
    As far as sleeping in MJ bed..
    Are we certain this actually did happen?
    Because the Chandlers at one point said that MJ was on a roll out cot in evans house and his sons were sleeping in their beds..
    As far as June inviting him over..
    Well we all know her intentions..
    She is the person really inviting MJ where to sleep in her house..
    If there was only one bed in the room and multiple times we have heard abou tMJ and others like Frank grabbing blankets ans sleeping on the floor.
    Who knows for sure if he even let this kid sleep in his bed.
    We have really only heard Evans sordid rants over and over again.
    That is the thing with the Chandlers and Arviso
    Not only do they contact a civil atty before the police, but they CONTINUE to have their children engage with someone they are accusing of pe@o stuff.
    It is ridiculous and it should have been obvious to Sneddon.but instead he enabled these people.
    As fare as Francia…they try to make it out like he was bought off so MJ wouldnt be brought to court but he was a supposedly co operating person for the police, ..It was the police who looked at that case and didnt go forward..
    Mj just didnt want bad press, had nothing to do with avoiding a criminal trial.
    Little by little the truth is coming out ..
    I hope someone soon realizes what an incredible injustice was done to this man and makes it mainstream..
    After all MJ is incredible popular again..Somebody could make some good money off exposing this injustice.

    Like

  24. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2012 11:38 pm

    Suzy that’s right she said it all and most of us don’t have to think about it at all. His reaction to get a lawyer and start asking for money months before Jordan ever “told” him anything is just not right. His reaction, especially for a man that had such a bad temper, to just say “okay, I just want money that will be good enough” is not a normal parental reaction. If you look back at the time this was happening there is also in the news a story about a woman named Ellie Nesler. She shot the man accused of abusing her son in the courtroom of all things and the news stories were all about how they were charging her for it.The court of public opinion was that she should not be charged with murder because her reaction was considered by the general public to be the normal reaction to the situation. What does that say about society when they believe that Michael was guilty because a few members of that society would like you to believe that it is okay to hang your kid out to dry while you get rich. Everyone in their right mind knows better. No one but someone looking for money in the first place would react that way and the money itself was enough motive to make the whole story up from the beginning.
    It is also important for her to write that he said they were suing him for sleeping in the same bed as Jordan and that he thinks he might have been touched by him. Wait a second… I thought that by the time the lawsuit came up, which includes all those false allegations, he would have known for sure right? That statement means that he had every intention of suing Michael for it from the minute it happened and Jordan was asking to sleep in his room at Neverland by the second visit. What does that mean? Was Jordan part of the plan from the very beginning?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/30/us/mother-is-found-sane-in-killing-accused-molester.html

    Like

  25. Suzy permalink
    February 23, 2012 10:24 pm

    According to Evan’s story at this point when he drugged Michael, he already had suspicions. If so then why on Earth did he put Michael to sleep in Jordan’s bedroom? The whole story is very weird and doesn’t add up.

    And BTW, here are an interesting extract from Carrie Fisher’s book. Evan Chandler was her dentist shortly before the allegations:

    “I am fairly certain that I first met Michael in Arnie Klein’s office around the time Billie [Carrie’s daughter] was born, which makes it about eighteen years ago. My friend Bruce Wagner is one of her godfathers, and Arnie is the other. Billie would call Arnie “Godfather Two.”

    When Billie was about six months old, Michael saw some pictures of her in Arnie’s office, called, and left me a message, in that voice of his, with its own dialect. And picking up this message of his was an amazing and disconcerting thing. In a way, it was like getting a communication from Santa Claus, or some other fairy-tale character. Michael’s message was that he wanted pictures of Billie. Now, that was odd. But you know, also—given that all the court case stuff hadn’t happened yet—kind of sweet. It was like he identified with or was drawn to all things innocent. And yet everyone turned that into something perverse. No one could believe that he was that innocent or that his motives were innocent. But I actually did.

    But getting back to the special medical access I mentioned earlier, I had this dentist at the time, a Dr. Evan Chandler, who was a very strange character. He was what would be referred to as the Dentist to the Stars! And as one of the people who would have unnecessary dental work just for the morphine, this man was one of those people who could arrange such a welcome service. He referred his patients to a mobile anesthesiologist who would come into the office to put you out for the dental work. And as if that wasn’t glorious enough, this anesthesiologist could also be easily and financially persuaded to come to your house to administer the morphine for your subsequent luxury pain relief. And I would extend my arms, veins akimbo, and say to this man—“Send me away, but don’t send me all the way.”

    But remember that dentist who sued Michael for molesting his kid?

    Yes, that was my dentist. Evan Chandler, D.D.S. Dentist to the Stars. And this same Dr. Chandler—long before the lawsuit was brought (though not necessarily before it was contemplated)—needed someone to brag to about his son’s burgeoning friendship with Michael Jackson. (This was years before Michael had children of his own.) And so my “dentist” would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son. And the most disturbing thing I remember him saying was, “You know, my son is very good looking.”

    Now I ask you—what father talks about his child that way? Well, maybe some do but (a) I don’t know them, and (b) they probably aren’t raising an eyebrow and looking suggestive when they say it. Over the years I’ve heard many proud fathers tell me, “My son is great,” or “My kid is adorable,” but this was the only time I’d ever heard this particular boast:

    “My son [unlike most average male offspring] is VERY [unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink] good-looking [pause for you to reflect and/or puke].”

    It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson wanted, and it happened to be his son. But it wasn’t who his son was, it was what he was: “good-looking.”

    So here was Dr. Chandler telling me how Michael was buying his kid computers and taking him to incredible places and sleeping in the same bed and getting him . . . WAIT!

    “Hang on,” I said. “I have to interrupt here. Let’s just go back a tic, okay?”

    “Sure,” Chandler said.

    “They’re sleeping in the same bed?!”

    He blinked. “Well, yeah, but my ex-wife is always there, so it’s okay, and his stepfather and . . . and . . . and . . .”

    Dr. Chandler’s stories became longer than my treatments. The drugs were wearing off before the story. Not that there was enough dope in the world to make these stories palatable. This was one creepy story. Off hand, I’d say the creepiest. And somehow I’d become this freak’s confidante.

    So I told this bizarre tale to my friend, Gavin de Becker, who specializes in, among other things, celebrity weirdness, with a particular expertise in protecting celebrities from stalkers. He’s written four compelling books about fear and security and the like. So I called Gavin and told him about this dentist dumping this ghastly tale of his son and Michael Jackson in my lap, and Gavin told me, “Here’s what you should say to the guy: ‘Let me get this straight. You’re telling me your son is having sleepovers in the same bed as Michael Jackson. Let me put this to you another way and tell me if you think this is okay. Your thirteen-year-old son is sleeping in the same bed as a thirty-something African-American millionaire. Is that okay with you? Or does it need to be Michael Jackson to make this incredibly flawed situation make sense?’ ” I said this to Chandler and, as I dimly recall, we didn’t speak much for a while after that.

    Then one night some months later, Dr. Chandler came up to my house again and told me that he and his wife were going to sue Michael.

    “Why?” I asked.

    “Because,” he explained rationally, “Michael is sleeping in the same bed with my boy.”

    Now, I know for a fact that when this first started happening, the good doctor saw no problem with this odd bunking! Excuse me, he had been creepy enough to have allowed all this to happen, and now he’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—virtually consumed with moral indignation! “Can you believe it? I think Michael may have even put his hand on my child’s privates.” Well, what was this man thinking in the first place? Why did he encourage him to sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson to begin with?

    He did it because he knew, somewhere, he would eventually be able to say, “Oh, my God! I suddenly realize that this thing between Michael and my son is weird. I’m horrified. My son may have been damaged! And the only thing that can repair this damage is many millions of dollars! Then he’ll be okay! And we’re not going to buy anything for ourselves with that money! It’s all going toward our son being okay!!!” This was around the time that I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the fact that one’s skin is crawling.

    The thing is, though, I never thought that Michael’s whole thing with kids was sexual. Never. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn’t normal doesn’t mean that it had to be perverse. Those aren’t the only two choices for what can happen between an adult and an unrelated child spending time together. Even if that adult has had too much plastic surgery and what would appear to be tattooed makeup on his face. And yes, he had an amusement park, a zoo, a movie theater, popcorn, candy, and an elephant. But to draw a line under all that and add it up to the assumption that he fiendishly rubbed his hands together as he assembled this giant super spiderweb to lure and trap kids into it is just bad math.

    I actually don’t think Michael was sexual at all. Incredibly talented, yes. Childlike, for sure. Pathologically kind, absolutely. But how stupid would you have to be to have sex with the little kids you’re endlessly hanging out with? And Michael was not stupid. He might have been a little naïve and definitely richer than most anyone in the whole world, and it was this absolutely fatal combination that made people want to desperately try to figure out how to squeeze some of that money out of his enormous wallet.

    But wait! Check this out! Let’s say your “really good-looking son” started hanging out with this odd-looking famous multi-multimillionaire that could maybe be persuaded to give you twenty-two million dollars if you threatened to tell everyone in the world that he touched your son’s underage, maybe-not- even-fully-grown-yet member. Well, I don’t know what you’d do? But when my dentist was presented with a choice between integrity and twenty-two million dollars, you’ll never guess what he did! That’s right—he went for the cash! But hey, he was only human-ish, right? But really, who could blame him? I mean, besides you and me and anyone else alive who cares about ruining their kid’s life, who else could blame Dr. Chandler for what he did? (I’ll wait while you think.)”

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2012 8:49 pm

    @ Maral
    All three accounts have a similar version of Michael having a headache, Evan calling Mark Torbiner and giving Michael something for it. In all three versions they say that Evan started questioning Michael and this was always the same with more names in VG’s version. They finish and then THEY put Michael into the bed to sleep it off. Michael did not even get into bed by himself so did Jordan climb in there without Michael even knowing? According to all versions Michael was out until the next day so he had no knowledge what so ever that Jordan was even in that bed if he was even in that bed.
    What is interesting is that Evan somehow thought that he should question Michael while he was under the influence of what ever it was that they gave him.I know the effects of the drugs that the different versions say and I can tell you that there is no reason for someone to think that questioning someone at that time would give some kind of unguarded response which is what that whole sceneario implies.On Toradol it would be like taking Aleve because they are the same Drug family.The effects of Demerol would be basically the same only stronger. You are not more forthcoming on either one of them and yet that is what is implied when they say that Evan started questioning Michael.
    Someone in that house was given Sodium Amytal. In VG’s book is a copy of Consent for Anesthesia and it is on the day that Jordan supposedly gets his tooth pulled. Now back before the Holly Ramona case was settled it was widely thought that because of the state of unconciousness that that drug put you into you not only were easily suggestable but also more forthcoming in your answers so it was dubbed a “truth serum”. Now giving someone that would make you start to question someone if that was your intent in the first place to get information from someone. So was Michael also given Sodium Amytal? I think so based on the accounts that are available I think it is very likely that they gave him that and then Evan started pumping him for information. Now we know that Evan told Jordan that he had taped Michael and him but he said he was bluffing after the allegations became public knowledge.
    What if he told Michael the same thing about taping him when he was under the influence of a “truth serum?” People overlook some of the things in the bigger picture like right about the same time that Evan hired Barry Rothman Michael hired Bert fields and Anthony Pellicano. There had to be a reason that he hired them in the first place especially at least 4 weeks before Jordan went to live with Evan. Did Evan tell Michael he had something incriminating against him and then ask to be made a partner in his deal with David Geffen and Steven Speilberg? I think so.This is my opinion and I base my opinion on the implications of that whole scenario of giving him something and then questioning him because at no time would someone familiar with the effect of those drugs think that they would make a person more truthful because they don’t.
    I would also like to point out that just like in the Arvizo case when Brad Miller taped them saying wonderful things about Michael,Anthony Pellicano taped Jordan where he was being questioned about what was happening between him and Michael and Jordan vehemently denied at that time. That recording was done at Michael’s condo, June and Dave were upstairs and Michael was not there. That is in Junes testimony.

    Like

  27. Maral permalink
    February 23, 2012 6:08 pm

    so basically according to VG Evan drugged Michael. so how on earth did Jordan got into the same bed? they want us to believe that Michael took the kid into his bed while he was so drugged? make no sense. and i never understood the head linking. let’s say MJ was a pedo as clever as they claim. what idiot would do that in PUBlIC? they can’t have it both ways. either he was stupid enough to do that (if he was he would be in jail) or a master of the game who covered up his crimes (again if he was he would not A) wait months to pay chandler B) never let bahit talk to Gavin C) fier bob jones the way he did). seriously if on think about it everyone who “saw or heard something” were ones who MJ axed out of his life. if i was a criminal i would keep those who were in the known close.

    Like

  28. February 23, 2012 5:41 pm

    Lol, Bob Jones & Brown even used the Orth’s voodoo story.

    Like

  29. February 23, 2012 5:20 pm

    Richard M. Steingard was Bob Jones’s lawyer.

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    February 23, 2012 2:52 pm

    I don’t think he spent lots of time with him. It’s not a new story, I have the original Paris Match article which.said the sme thing.

    Like

  31. shelly permalink
    February 23, 2012 2:50 pm

    Yes, it’s what I meant Lynande. I wonder how much time he spent alone with Barnes during that trip. I just read a french book from Gonzague St Bris who was a journalist for Paris Match. He was on the trip and he said they, just the 2 Of them,spent almost every night, sometimes the whole night, talking about art, history.
    They spend the day travelling. I know Barnes slept in his bedroom.

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2012 7:42 am

    I just wonder if they realized how the story of the trip to Africa looks stupid. MJ was followed by the press during the whole trip. Why would they hide Brett at the airport. The press was going to see him anyway.

    Shelly here is the testimony of James Van Norman who was on Michael’s A team for security from 1991-1994 when he took over as Ranch Manager. James VanNorman is or was a sworn police officer that had retired just like all of Michael’s other A team body guards. He was called about the Abdool case because he was one of the ones that they sued. He was with Michael every night and even slept in the same suite or the small maids quarters in the hotels that they stayed at. Here is his testimony about the limo story.

    Q. Do you remember them having to take Mr.

    7 Barnes away from Mr. Jackson and hide him away from

    8 the people to get on the plane in a separate way?

    9 A. No, I don’t.

    10 Q. You don’t recall any of that?

    11 A. No, I don’t.

    See he doesn’t know what it is all about either. There was an editor named Robert Johnson that traveled right with Michael that was writing a story about his trip to Africa for Ebony/Jet Magzine. He was with him the entire time as well. If they had had to hide Brett wouldn’t he have noticed all that shenangins when Brett showed up beside Michael in all those pictures that his photographer took. When people say crazy stuff like this they just hope that no one will ever check it out and that was the biggest problem people in general just got lazy and believed what they were told by the tabloids.

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2012 6:15 am

    Hey you know what I just found Bob Jones name in MJWML how about that! It is on page 71. This is the VG version of Michael being drugged by Evan and he says of course that MJ was given Demerol by Evan that night so while under the influence of the “Demerol” Evan starts to question Michael about whether or not he is gay and here is what VG says his response is:
    Evan:

    ” Michael, I know that many of your advisors are gay, like your dermatologist Arnie Klein, David Geffen [ millionaire movie producer and owner of his own record label], Sandy Gallin and Bob Jones… Michael are you homosexual?” Evan asked.
    Jackson chuckled and said: “No.”
    Jackson did futher comment about Arnie Klein: ” He likes little fat men, like his present boyfriend who works at one of the rides at Disneyland.”

    Now how did his name get into VG’s book is what I would like to know? And how was it that it was Evan that was using it? This is kind of important because I am going to find you an article here in a minute that says something else about the Grand Jury proceedings in the case.

    Jackson Case Panel Asks About Sexual Orientation : Grand jury: An employee of the singer says he was questioned about the star and about himself. The witness’s lawyer calls the inquiries improper; some experts dispute him.
    March 31, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
    Prosecutors investigating allegations that Michael Jackson sexually molested a 13-year-old boy asked a witness to tell a grand jury about Jackson’s sexual orientation and to testify about his own sexual orientation as well, according to sources familiar with that witness’s testimony.
    The witness, an employee of Jackson who appeared before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recently, told his lawyer about the questions, and that attorney fired off an angry letter to the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County district attorney’s offices in response.

    In his letter, lawyer Richard M. Steingard accused prosecutors of exceeding the proper limits of grand jury questioning. Steingard wrote that grand jury questions must be limited to evidence that would be admissible in court–a contention that legal experts disputed even as some expressed reservations about inquiring into a witness’ sexual orientation.
    “One would think that prosecutors of your stature would, at a minimum, know this to be the law and attempt in your questioning of witnesses to comply with this rule,” Steingard wrote. “Based on the above, you apparently believe that the questioning of a witness has no limits or boundaries and that anything, even a witness’ sexual preference, is fair game.”
    Steingard’s letter is the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara who are investigating the allegations against Jackson. The entertainer’s lawyers have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry, which was launched last summer, while ministers, civil rights activists and other Jackson supporters have added their criticisms as well.
    Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said officials there could not comment on the allegations raised in Steingard’s letter. Prosecutors are prohibited by law from discussing any matters that are before a grand jury–even to confirm that a grand jury probe is under way.
    Legal experts, meanwhile, disputed Steingard’s reading of the law about the limits of grand jury inquiries.
    “The grand jury is given powers that we do not give police or prosecutors . . . and it may ask a broad range of questions whose relevancy might not be clear until other evidence is gathered,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who has extensively researched issues related to grand juries. “For the most part, the grand jury can ask whatever it wants.”
    During grand jury inquiries, prosecutors generally question witnesses, but jurors also can ask questions.
    Several experienced lawyers said they considered it highly unusual for prosecutors to inquire about a witness’ sexual orientation. One area of particular concern, they noted, is that state grand jury transcripts become public documents if the subject of the inquiry is indicted. As a result, the information about the witness’ sexual orientation could become public if Jackson were indicted.
    Steingard’s letter indicates that his client was asked about three topics he considered objectionable: the sexual orientation of Jackson, the sexual orientation of Jackson associates and the witness’s own sexual orientation.
    “The grand jury can ask questions that are relevant to the inquiry,” said Donald M. Re, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. “Given the nature of this case, the first two questions may be proper. . . . The third question, ‘Are you yourself gay?’ gets a lot closer to the line.”
    Harland W. Braun, another defense attorney who also is a former prosecutor, agreed, saying he believes the district attorney could explore the topic of Jackson’s sexual orientation.
    As to the question about the witness’s orientation, Braun called it “close to the edge.”
    Under most circumstances, asking a witness about his or her sexual orientation would almost certainly be irrelevant during a trial, legal experts agreed. But even in that context, a witness’s own statements might make it relevant. For example, if a witness described impressions of Jackson’s conduct or conversations about homosexuality, the witness’s own perspective on that topic might be deemed relevant in court.
    Steingard declined to comment Wednesday on the questions that were posed to his client during his grand jury appearance. But Steingard confirmed he had sent the letter to the district attorney’s office and said he stood by the statements in it.
    “In general, to ask questions of grand jury witnesses about sexual orientation I think is outrageous,” he said. “I cannot fathom any circumstance in which that would be proper.”
    Howard Weitzman, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said prosecutors have “spent considerable time, money and energy to construct a case that does not exist.” Although the lawyer said he did not know whether a witness had been questioned about Jackson’s sexual orientation or his own, Weitzman added: “If what (Steingard) claims in that letter is true and the investigation is now down to that level, it is a real sad commentary on the prosecution in this case.”
    The case has been under investigation since last summer, and an array of witnesses, including Jackson’s mother, have been forced to appear before grand juries meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Authorities in the two counties are conducting investigations because Jackson allegedly molested the boy in both jurisdictions.
    At a meeting with the courthouse press corps March 15, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said he expected the Jackson investigation to be concluded within a month or so. Sources familiar with the case now say they expect it to conclude by the end of April.

    Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    February 22, 2012 2:36 pm

    I just wonder if they realized how the story of the trip to Africa looks stupid. MJ was followed by the press during the whole trip. Why would they hide Brett at the airport. The press was going to see him anyway.

    Like

  35. lenell permalink
    February 22, 2012 1:38 pm

    Excellent analysis(as always) David. My prayer is that the Estate will sue them all, especially ‘mad dog’ sneddon and diane demon; from what I hear the dirty woman is still at it! Oh, bashir too! How could these people set there in the presence of Michael and deliberately LIE is beyond my comprehension! For sure I would never leave my or anyone’s children with any member of the prosecution, they have perverted, sick imagination!

    Like

  36. nan permalink
    February 22, 2012 9:54 am

    lynande51
    It is amazing when you read this stuff that these people were supposedly credible..
    If the picture at the top of this post is true and that is really Bob Jones walking into court dressed as if he is going to a baseball game instead of the ex publicist of thirty years for a famous person, showing up for court…??..doesnt he have a tie??
    It is ridiculous..

    How could MJ ever have cleared his name if, even after all this,…STUPIDITY.. Sneddon was still planning more investigations and Mesereau had to tell MJ to leave town..
    This is an indication of how crazed he was in the 90s also…………… something Weitzman alluded to with the “mad dog” tag..
    MJ could have been on the other side of the world , as he was with the Francia time frame and it wouldnt have mattered.
    It is just incredible..and extremely sad…

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2012 9:15 am

    @ nan Exactly I have said that again and again if there had been cameras in the courtroom it would have been a whole different story. Just imagine everyone seeing Janet Arvizo snapping her fingers at the jury and saying things like ” I thought we would have to escape in a hot air balloon”. It sure would have been easier for her to climb over the fence that was four feet high or just stayed away. But no she had to go to get full body waxes and stay at the Calabasas Country Inn and Suites to be kidnapped.Not to mention a five day shopping spree at Vinnies expense.The only ones that were held hostage were Frank and Vinnie and it was by her because the “media” was after them.

    Like

  38. nan permalink
    February 22, 2012 8:21 am

    Thank you for doing this….fantastic research…… I cant believe the prosecutor is grilling his own witness because he is angry the guy wont say what he wants to hear under oath…And he knew Jones had already backed out of what he claimed in his email before he put him on the stand..
    This just shows , they knew their call was complete B.S.
    It is just mind boggling., how desperate these people were to save face…
    Can anyone imagine what the jurors must have been thinking..Wasting all their time with this case…for months..!!
    If only there were cameras in the courtroom., Sneddon would have been a national laughing stock..

    Like

  39. Louis (Rockybalboa211) permalink
    February 22, 2012 3:22 am

    A magnificent and informative analysis!😀

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. March 7th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Davellin Arvizo (Cross Examination) and Star Arvizo (Direct Examination), Part 2 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  2. It’s Not Up To Michael Jackson’s Fans To Prove That He Was Innocent; It’s Up To Michael Jackson’s HATERS To Prove That He Was GUILTY! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Rebutting Wyman and “The Education of Michael Jackson”-Part Two | AllForLoveBlog
  4. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « 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: