Skip to content

MICHAEL JACKSON’S 1993 CASE: Jordan Chandler’s declaration, Blanca Francia’s deposition and Tom Sneddon’s leaks to the press

October 9, 2012

This post is a review of some details around Jordan Chandler’s declaration about Michael Jackson made in 1993.

For those who don’t remember the most basic facts of that case let me remind them that the paper was part of the civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson which was running parallel to a criminal investigation.

The criminal investigation was carried out by four law enforcement bodies including the District Attorneys (Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti) and the Sheriff departments of Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties.

Their 12 months investigation (August 1993-Sept.1994) ended in nothing as the two Grand Juries of both counties looked into all the evidence gathered by the prosecution but did not find anything to indict Jackson for.

The other bodies involved in the investigation were the Departments of Family and Children Services and the FBI. As a result of all this scrutiny in the Jordan Chandler 1993 case no criminal charges were ever brought against Michael Jackson.

Jordan’s declaration was a big lie

Jordan made a declaration to his civil lawyer Larry Feldman on December 28, 1993.  And though the paper is nothing but a statement not corroborated by any evidence it is still raised as a banner by anti-Michael troops each time Michael’s supporters provide proof that Jordan Chandler lied. The line of reasoning of Michael’s detractors is that the boy said it and this alone is regarded by them as reason enough to believe his lies.

However the specifics of slander is that anyone can say anything about anyone at all, especially when big money is at stake, so the words themselves are meaningless unless they are backed up by something more substantial – for example the evidence proving that the words are true.

Sane people all over the world have long been aware of the fact that  the story told by Jordan Chandler was a big lie as MJ was scrutinized so ruthlessly that the police even photographed his private parts and still never arrested him. However even this fact pointing to Michael’s innocence is not good enough for his detractors. They keep claiming that the boy received money in a settlement of a civil lawsuit and then refused to testify against MJ, and this was the reason why the criminal investigation was not brought to its logical end.

So initially the idea of the present post was to find out whether the prosecution was indeed that helpless in investigating the Jordan Chandler case if  the boy refused to testify. However while writing the post some other facts worked their way into the general picture and what you will see here is the result of bringing together some important details around Jordan Chandler’s declaration.

First let me remind everyone that Jordan Chandler’s declaration was just a statement similar to the one you make in case you’ve seen or heard of an accident in the street. Even if you make it under oath it still remains what it is – a piece of paper with your version of the story, put down by someone in the lawyer’s office and then offered to you to sign.

Much in what you tell in your story depends on your memory and truthfulness. You may be simply wrong in your description, you may fantasize to make yourself look more important than you are and you may even maliciously lie in order to derive some benefit from drowning another person in the mud. Many people do not even have to answer for their lies because it is difficult to tell whether they are simply wrong or are involved in deliberate perjury.

Jordan Chandler’s signature under his declaration of Dec.28, 1993

In my opinion Jordan Chandler told a deliberate lie. After analyzing the signatures of Jordan and his parents I came to the conclusion that the signature under the declaration belonged to Jordan,  though it doesn’t look like the signature of a 13 year old boy and speaks to a very willful, grown-up and determined character.

The signatures his parents put under the retainer agreement of Larry Feldman are totally different, so this leaves us with the only option that the person who signed that paper as “J. Chandler” was actually Jordan. Of course we cannot rule out that he signed the paper without looking at the text of it, but let us not find any excuses for the boy who probably knew what he was doing.

The signatures of June Chandler and Evan Chandler under Larry Feldman’s retainer agreement. After comparing them with Jordan’s declaration I  think that Jordan Chandler’s signature there is authentic

Why he put his signature under a totally false statement is another question but since none of us want to have any illusions here I think it would be correct to assume that Jordan Chandler did sign that paper, and consequently became part of his father’s scheme against Jackson – at least by the end of 1993.

The details of that statement do raise one’s eyebrows and make you wonder – the name is never cited in full but is spelt as “J.Chandler” only, there is no lawyer’s signature or accompanying document to verify the fact that the lawyer was present during the process and there is no confirmation from anyone at all that they witnessed J.Chandler to be the Jordan Chandler we are talking of and that it was him who signed the paper. Yes, there are a lot of questions around that paper but let us give its creators all the benefit of the doubt and assume that the statement is authentic and made in accordance with proper rules.

Jordan’s declaration was no deposition

However  no matter how hard we look at this paper nothing will turn it into a deposition which it is not (though it is often called that way).  No, it is categorically no deposition and its value as a legal document is absolutely no comparable to that of a deposition. Two years ago I made a special post about Jordan’s declaration being no deposition, so please feel free to get familiar with it here:  https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/did-jordan-chandler-make-a-deposition/

The very short of that post is that a deposition is a testimony recorded by a court reporter and made in the presence of a lawyer from the other side who has the right to ask questions. It is so serious a document that may be occasionally used to replace the absent witness’s testimony if it is made in the required form of a court reporter’s transcript or video recording.

But Jordan Chandler’s declaration is different. It is just a statement that can be made almost by any passer-by who thinks he heard or saw something important for the case. Never mind if he makes a mistake – all of us are human and are prone to making mistakes.  And even if the witness tells deliberate lies but is below the age of 14 (as Jordan Chandler was) the story-teller will never answer for slandering the other side as children under that age are not legally responsible for perjury.

This small detail is in fact crucial for understanding why it was so terribly necessary for Larry Feldman to record the boy’s story on the eve of the New Year of 1994. The problem is that only two weeks later – on January 11, 1994 – the boy was turning fourteen, so making a statement after the birthday was not safe any more, and no one in the flimsy Chandler’s case wanted to take any more risks than they had.

Here is a quote from Lisa Campbell’s book “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, 1994)

Beginning January 11, Michael Jackson’s accuser would no longer be referred to by the media as “the thirteen year old boy”. Jordy Chandler turned fourteen.

Another point to remember about Jordan Chandler’s declaration is that it emerged in very dramatic circumstances, which look extraordinary even on the background of all the other madness that was taking place around Michael Jackson at the time.

The declaration was made almost immediately after Michael Jackson’s humiliating strip search (arranged on December 21, 1993) to which MJ agreed to prove his innocence.  As a result of the strip search and taking photos of Michael’s genitalia no match was found between MJ’s intimate parts and the boy’s idea of them, and this is the reason why MJ was never arrested.

The fact that there was no match was mentioned (somewhat in passing) by Reuters and the USA Today in a single line the next day after the settlement, which was surely not enough for a sensation like that. However for serious people even this single line is not needed – the mere fact that Michael Jackson was not arrested after comparing the photos with the boy’s description is proof enough that there was absolutely no match.

Intimate strip searches are no fun and require a special search warrant which Tom Sneddon obtained by some miracle. If the photos had coincided with the description of the boy MJ would have been arrested then and there (actually Tom Sneddon attended the procedure for that very purpose). But if the photos did not match it was logical to immediately end the case as the discrepancy effectively showed that the boy was telling lies.

However in the case of Michael Jackson the criminal investigation lasted for another tedious half a year as now the prosecution was interested in how come his private parts turned to be so different from what the boy fantasized about them. Checking up the medical records ensued, subpoenas to Michael’s mother about circumcision or non-circumcision issues followed and questions whether MJ could grow foreskin on his genitalia while he stayed in Europe for a month were researched.

In short a lot of nonsense took place instead of  a quiet admission of the fact that the boy turned out to be a gifted narrator of science fiction stories.

However photographing Michael Jackson naked had a somewhat cooling effect on Jordan’s declaration. The text carefully avoided any description of the subject so that it would not accidentally betray the fact that the boy was lying. It also didn’t mention the boy ‘masturbating’ the other side. Had this process really taken place the boy would have surely seen that Michael Jackson was not circumcised and wasn’t dark in that part of the body (they boy said he had “light splotches the color of his face”) but was actually white there and had some dark spot as the photos showed it.

No, the declaration was vague, lacking dates and was just telling a story, devoid of any details that could be checked and verified in order to establish the real truth.

Making that story more than three months after the lawsuit was filed was of course a totally unnecessary thing to do, as a similar and more detailed account was contained in the text of the lawsuit itself. The only real reason for a new declaration was the need to reach a new victory in the tug-of-war initiated by Larry Feldman against Jackson and to finally win a war in the court of public opinion. Jordan’s declaration was a sort of a retaliatory blow to reverse the tide in the public opinion which began to turn in Michael’s favor after he submitted himself to a strip search, was not arrested after it, publicly spoke of his innocence over satellite TV and said that he hoped that the authorities would find the truth.

This could absolutely not be tolerated by the accuser’s side, hence they hurried to make a declaration and refresh in people’s mind the allegations against Jackson in all their naked horror. The pretext for it was a motion filed by Jordan’s lawyer to obtain Michael Jackson’s detailed financial records.

What one has to do with the other and why a much more detailed text of the lawsuit could not suffice to back that motion is totally beyond my understanding. The same amazement was expressed by Jackson’s lawyers who called the declaration a publicity move meant to bias the public and especially the potential jury.

In her book of 1994 “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa Campbell wrote about it:

“Following Michael’s live statement and the resulting dramatic swing of public opinion in his favor, Feldman had to somehow even the score. A statement taken from the boy on December 28 was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on January 10 which detailed, again, the specific acts which the boy said he and Michael engaged in.

Howard Weitzman explained the new court document, which contained nothing that hadn’t already been detailed in August, was simply a counter punch by Feldman following Michael’s very public statement. He very much needed to keep the allegations in the mind of the public, and especially potential jurors, “Because it’s clearly this kid’s story against Jackson’s story. So the motion was really filed to generate more publicity to get out there these allegations to attempt to make Michael look bad so you’ll ask me the type of questions you’re asking me, and to generate amongst potential jurors a negative image of Michael. That’s what that motion was all about.”

The statement was filed by Feldman as part of a request for Michael’s detailed financial records. He figured he would need such information in assessing a proper amount of damages should he actually win the case. One more in a long line of indications that Chandler was very interested in money from the case and nothing more”.

If we look back at the year 1993 from what we know about the case in 2012 now, we will realize that it would be wrong to say that it was the word of Michael Jackson against the word of Jordan Chandler. These days we have the evidence that the word of Jordan Chandler was a word of lie against Jackson and that it was none other but his own lawyer Larry Feldman who actually provided us with the proof of this lie.

Forget for a moment  the mantra repeated by MJ’s haters about the so-called “match” between the photos and the description. This nonsense was based on Tom Sneddon’s lies fed to the media and freely spread by it  for decades to bias the public against Jackson. Use your brains instead and look at the fact which is by now very well known to Michael’s supporters.

On January 5, 1994 the Los Angeles Times informed its readers that Larry Feldman approached the court with a motion concerning the photos made by the police. The motion suggested an incredible alternative –

– either the police provided the copies of the genitalia photos to the boy (so that he finally learned what the genitals were like and corrected his story accordingly) and Michael Jackson submitted himself to a second search after that (!)

or… the Chandlers’ lawyer insisted that the court barred the photos from the civil trial as evidence (!)

So this was the degree of the boy’s confidence in his own description (and story itself)? The near ultimatum we’ve just seen shows that their confidence in their own words was so low or even zero that the boy and his lawyer demanded to bar the photos altogether from the civil trial! They didn’t even know what the photos showed but they nevertheless didn’t want them!

What is the best word to describe this situation? I would call it a totally panicky state following a discovery that a well thought-out story based on nasty fantasies about Jackson was collapsing right in front of their eyes.  So panicky that the lawyer openly demanded to bar the main evidence that proved the boy’s lies. Such a panic could arise only if the lawyer received a hint from the police that the boy’s story about what he had allegedly seen was a complete lie.

The proof of Larry Feldman’s panic over the photos was discovered by our Lynette in an article published by the Los Angeles Times on January 5, 1994.  Larry Feldman speaks at length there about Michael Jackson’s fictional “guilt” but the very idea of his motion explicitly tells us that the sole purpose of all this vagueness is to cover up for the panic he feels over the discrepancies found:

 Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body 

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF

January 05, 1994

The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.

Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.

“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.

Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.

Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

This request alone explains why Jordan’s declaration, surely accessible to the Grand Juries in 1993, did not make any impression on them and why there was never any indictment and no criminal charges brought against Jackson. Why pay attention to the lies told in the declaration if there was nothing to prove his lies? Or to be more precise, why pay attention to the declaration if foolproof evidence was found that actually disproved those lies?

The Declaration struck again in 2003

However the people who had Jordan’s statement on their hands decided that if they couldn’t use the statement in court they could find a way to put it to an even better use. In court the declaration can be disproved and even considered perjury while if it is leaked to the press it will become a heavy propaganda tool against Jackson which will be very difficult to refute. This is why and how the paper concocted with the sole reason to slander Michael in 1993 was used for the same purpose ten years later – in 2003 when the public remembered very little  about the details of the Chandler’s fictional story.

By then the media the public had been brainwashed long enough to finally think that the settlement was made due to the photos allegedly “corroborating the description” while it reality the settlement was made in spite of the photos proving Michael Jackson’s innocence.

The only thing the photos corroborated was that Michael Jackson was telling the truth and that he settled with the boy only because he wanted to scramble together the remaining shreds of his health, life and reputation, and because he could no longer tolerate the pain of his half-a-year crucifixion arranged for him by greedy accusers, a revengeful Prosecutor, the nasty media and ignorant public.

However someone wanted to turn the pain of 1993 into a life-long torture for Michael Jackson and disclosed Jordan Chandler’s declaration immediately after Bashir’s documentary aired on TV in February 2003. This somebody leaked the declaration to the media the very same day the film was broadcast in the US  (February 6, 2003).

The Smoking Gun says that Jordan’s declaration was leaked on February 6, 2003 or the same day Bashir’s documentary aired in the US

Out of the four parties who had access to this highly confidential (and sealed) document Tom Sneddon looks to me as the most possible offender.

Michael Jackson can be crossed out from the list of suspects for obvious reasons, the Chandlers would also refrain from leaking it for fear of losing the settlement money, and the third party, Larry Feldman vehemently denied any leakages from his office in a conversation with Roger Friedman:

  • On Monday I spoke to Larry Feldman, the lawyer who represented the boy’s family and cut the $20 million deal with Jackson. Feldman’s name is on the court papers, but he is adamant that he had nothing to do with their release. “You can say that categorically we did not release the complaint,” he said.

According to another report Larry Feldman hinted at Tom Sneddon as the only party who could disclose that slanderous document (or at least this is the way I understood his words). Judging by Tom Sneddon’s behavior he could indeed take his revenge on Michael Jackson by leaking that paper after the humiliating defeat he sustained from Michael even despite investigating him for a whole year in 1993/94.

Knowing the insane methods of the “mad dog”, as Tom Sneddon was called by his colleagues, we cannot rule out that by disclosing Jordan’s declaration Tom Sneddon hoped to create a favorable climate of public hate for further prosecution of Michael Jackson,  plant some crazy ideas into the minds of the Arvizo family and probably even suggest a text which a prospective accuser could use as a pattern for his future accusations. Considering that Sneddon went as far as leave his visiting card under Janet Arivizo’s door at a time when she wasn’t making any accusations it wouldn’t be a big stretch of imagination to think that Sneddon was sort of encouraging the Arvizos to come up with a convenient story helping him to reopen the case against Michael Jackson.

Incidentally if you haven’t yet signed a petition in support of William Wagener’s initiative to have Tom Sneddon’s investigated by the authorities, this is the right time to do it (please go the site mentioned on the right).

If you have done your duty towards justice for Michael Jackson you can now proceed to an article where Larry Feldman hints at Tom Sneddon as the source of leaking Jordan Chandler’s declaration as well as the settlement agreement which was also leaked, only several months later.

Please note that Roger Friedman calls Jordan’s declaration a sealed document.

June 18, 2004

Friedman On Leaked Documents

Roger Friedman’s column on June 16, 2004 comments on the recent leak of documents by Court TV which are said to feature details on a 1994 settlement:

[…] Meanwhile, the Jackson camp is scrambling this morning in the light of the unauthorized release, to Court TV’s intrepid Diane Dimond, of the settlement agreement between Jackson and his pre-teen accuser from a decade ago.

The papers are not a complete surprise. They say that Jackson paid the child $15 million to be put in a trust, with another $1.5 million for each of his parents. All of this was put on a payment plan.

But the really interesting part of the agreement is a $5 million payment to the family’s attorney, Larry Feldman.

The very same Feldman who, a decade later, represents the family of Jackson’s current accuser and stands to profit again if Jackson is found guilty — kind of a cottage industry for one attorney.

The “release” of the settlement agreement is a scoop for Dimond, but it does raise the question of where the papers came from. They were sealed by the court, and, I am told, destroyed by some of the lawyers in the case so they could never be fingered as sources.

Certainly the family of the accuser from 10 years ago didn’t want the papers to come out. You don’t have to be Columbo to figure out that leaves Feldman and prosecutor Tom Sneddon as prime suspects.

Interestingly, in February 2003, literally right after the special “Living with Michael Jackson” aired on ABC, the highly salacious complaint against Jackson from the 1993 case, which had also been sealed, surfaced.

The papers had a court stamp and were drawn up on Feldman’s letterhead, something I asked him about at the time. He insisted they did not come from him, but said the guilty party was close at hand and that “just a little connecting of the dots” was needed to get a name.

Now that sealed documents have twice surfaced and wound up in the same place — Court TV/The Smoking Gun Web site — maybe it’s time to think about who had access to them and how they could possibly have gotten out.

Source: FoxNews; Fox411 Roger Friedman by special permission / MJFC

So February 6th 2003 was when Jordan’s declaration really hit the public and this is when it really did the damage it failed to do in 1993. At the time the declaration was initially made very few people – or none at all – had a chance to read it as the document was sealed, and when Michael was not indicted by the Grand juries the people lost interest in this statement.

But ten years later the long-forgotten declaration delivered Michael a fatal blow – despite its absolute falsity it was leaked right after  Bashir’s terrible innuendoes and was the final straw that turned the public against Jackson. It also gave ideas to the Arvizos (the Arvizos boys admitted during their 2005 testimony that they knew of the first accuser) and most probably prejudiced the Grand jury as they finally indicted Michael on totally ridiculous charges in the bogus Arvizo case.

To see what a bombshell effect Jordan’s declaration produced in the year 2003 here is a sample of how the media reacted to it at the time. Together with Bashir’s film it created a total hysteria that made the public demand that Michael’s three children be taken away from him:

Boy’s bombshell: Michael Jackson had sex with me

13-year-old’s court declaration describes romps with pop star

Published: 02/07/2003 at 10:20 PM

(excerpt)

The bombshell court declaration of a 13-year-old whose family was paid multi-millions by pop star Michael Jackson over allegations of child sexual abuse has finally seen the light of day, revealing in graphic detail the sexual relationship the two shared, reports The Smoking Gun.

The four-page document signed by “J. Chandler” under penalty of perjury, posted on the Court TV affiliate’s website, is purportedly the September 1993 statement given by teen-ager Jory Chandler, which was the basis of his family’s claim against Jackson for sexual battery, willful misconduct and emotional distress. Following the settlement, the family dropped the charges.

The Smoking Gun claims all the exclusive documents it posts are “100 percent authentic.”

WorldNetDaily contacted the Santa Monica, Calif., law firm whose name is stamped along the side of the document to verify its authenticity. The firm confirmed it handled the Chandler case. The secretary of the attorney involved with Chandler’s court declaration said the firm had not verified “word-for-word” that what was posted on the Internet was the real declaration.

If authentic, the document undermines the singer’s latest attempt to rehabilitate his troubled reputation, although the attempt itself has largely backfired.

As WorldNetDaily reported Tuesday, the British documentary “Living With Michael Jackson” had its debut in London and the U.S. this week. It aired on ABC’s 20/20 last night.

Tom Sneddon, the district attorney in charge of the Chandler investigation, is paying close attention to the new allegations of Jackson “sleeping with boys,” a spokesman told the London Times.

Meanwhile, Santa BarbaraCounty officials are reportedly considering launching an investigation into Jackson’s fitness to be a parent. He has three children. In November Jackson caused gasps around the world when he dangled his baby son, Prince Michael II, over the balcony of a Berlin hotel, appearing briefly to lose control.

Following the broadcast on Makers Granada Television in England, Jackson released an angry statement calling the program “terrible and unfair” and saying he felt “betrayed.”

“Everyone who knows me will know the truth which is that my children come first in my life and that I would never harm any child,” said the statement.”

However let us return into the year 1994 and see what effect Jordan’s declaration produced at the time.

The depositions presented by Larry Feldman had  “half-truths and “untruths”

The effect produced in January 1994 was equally bad as Feldman chose the eve of Jordan Chandler’s birthday, January 11 for filing his motion and the whole event turned into a big publicity stunt. Though all Larry Feldman had from Jordan Chandler was a mere statement  which repeated his words said three months before that, the motion created a lot of public noise.

There was so much fuss over the various depositions  accompanying the motion that the general public thought that one of the depositions was that of Jordan Chandler (though he was never deposed)  and that Larry Feldman deposed all the Chandlers (though he never did). The public belief that Feldman had deposed Jordan was so big that every other media person referred to Jordan’s declaration as a deposition though no such thing ever existed.

We were also under the same illusion and it was only from some other articles of the period that we accidentally learned that none of the Chandlers were ever deposed – it sounds incredible, but almost everyone was deposed except the main accusers!

On January 10, 1994 Feldman did a very cunning thing.  He submitted the depositions of other people – a driver, a secretary, a maid, etc. plus a declaration from Chandler which had nothing new in it – in order to create the impression that the boy had been deposed too, was not afraid to cross-examination  and probably even disclosed some new sensational details there.

Let me also note that besides the Chandlers’ missing depositions there was actually one more person whose total absence from the case was almost screaming of something being really wrong there.

This person was June Chandler’s maid who was actually the first person to approach as she was a live-in maid who lived in June Chandler’s house exactly at the time when Michael Jackson supposedly visited her, her son and her daughter on “30 occasions”.

However not a single word was ever said about this witness and never did she make her appearance either in 1993 or 2005 or any time at all. I wish we could see this honorable woman one day in order to learn the real truth of the matter about the Chandler case.

As to the Chandlers the surprising fact that the Chandlers were never deposed was confirmed by Johnnie Cochran, Michael Jackson’s defense attorney.

Michael’s first lawyer Bert Fields hoped very much to cross-examine Jordan Chandler during his deposition – only he did not have an opportunity to do so as he made one unfortunate blunder during a press-conference and was fired by his partner Howard Weitzman. The lawyer was replaced by Johnnie Cochran who immediately started negotiations with Larry Feldman for a settlement  (now we know that Johnnie Cochran was friends with Larry Feldman and advised Michael Jackson to take a highly questionable decision which Michael Jackson later regretted very much indeed).

Whatever the reason for it was, none of the Chandlers were ever deposed and therefore Michael’s defense was never given a chance to subject Jordan Chandler, his mother and father to a heavy crossfire of questions.

In her book Lisa Campbell says about it:

  • “Colleagues said Fields was against negotiating a settlement because it would be seen as in indication of guilt. He also wanted the opportunity to cross-examine the boy. Johnnie Cochran, seen as being shrewder about limiting the amount of damage done, did not oppose a settlement. As soon as Cochran took over for Fields, he began negotiating the settlement. Legal experts speculated that had Cochran been representing Michael Jackson at the beginning, it wouldn’t have gotten so out of control. “
  • In a taped interview, Johnnie Cochran stated there was never a deposition taken from the boy.  Cochran stated further that in her deposition for the civil case, the maid stated she never did see Michael Jackson in the shower with anybody, and she never saw Michael Jackson molest anybody.’

The above piece is very valuable to us as besides confirming the fact that Jordan Chandler was never deposed we also find out that Johnnie Cochran himself said that the initial deposition of Blanca Francia did not contain the allegation that she saw Michael Jackson in a shower with a boy. This allegation appeared 13 years later, when she was giving her testimony at the 2005 trial.

Blanca Francia did not speak of MJ “showering with a boy” in her 1993 deposition

Indeed, in the deposition of the maid made in 1993/94 there was no such statement. Instead there was a statement that she never saw Michael Jackson in the shower with anybody at all.

Why did I emphasize that fact that Johnnie Cochran himself said that this allegation was missing in Blanca Francia’s initial deposition? The answer is because Johnnie Cochran was present at that two-day deposition as a lawyer from the other side and even asked Blanca questions. This top important evidence from Johnnie Cochran about Blanca should be remembered by us by all means.

The misinformation about the shower could very well come from Francia’s interview with Diane Dimond for her Hard Copy TV program and nasty reports following it. Though we have no transcript of that interview we can very well assume that the lie about a shower was generated by Dimond in her notorious program.

The Hard Copy interview preceded the deposition and if  the “shower theory” was launched in that program questions about the shower should have been asked at the deposition too (they were indeed asked there). And when she was asked that question we now know from Jonnie Cochran what answer she gave –  she said she had never seen Michael in a shower with anyone at all.

Of course there is a slight measure of supposition here but in the absence of the actual 1993 Blanca Francia’s transcript this is all we can do (the deposition was sealed, same as Jordan’s statement).

When asked in 2005 whether she remembered saying to Diane Dimond about a shower Blanca Francia said that she didn’t remember it, but the fact of such a question seems meaningful to me – DD’s program could very well be the place where the shower story originated :

12 Q. And you told Diane Dimond that?
13 A. Yeah, I think I did. 
14 Q. Now, this is the bathtub or this is the 
15 shower? 
16 A. I don’t remember if I told her about the 
17 shower. But I remember that I told him about the
18 bathtub and the Jacuzzi, I think.

The article below also touches upon Blanca Francia’s deposition of 1993 in connection with the documents enclosed by Larry Feldman with his motion. What is exceptionally interesting about the article is that though it gives a pretty detailed account of Blanca Francia’s deposition (unavailable to us, alas) not a single word there is said there about Blanca allegedly seeing Michael with anyone in a shower!

This confirms to us that Johnnie Cochran’s information was totally correct – in her initial deposition Blanca Francia did not say a word about the shower, otherwise this smashing news would have been the first thing reported by this article!

Won’t it be interesting to find out at what point the shower allegations appeared in Blanca Francia’s story? Very interesting indeed,  however for the moment let us just memorize the fact that  during the  initial deposition  taken by Francia twelve years before her 2005 testimony not a word was said about that “shower” point.

Please also note that Larry Feldman’s motion of January 10, 1994 was accompanied by much distortion of the truth on the part of Larry Feldman himself.  We know it for a fact as both Michael’s lawyers Howard Wiezman and Johnnie Cochran complained that the depositions mentioned in the motion were misrepresented. Translated from the legal language it means that the motion contained lies from Larry Feldman which Wiezman carefully named half-truths or untruths. 

See how the journalists call both Jordan declaration and the depositions of others “sworn statements”. Well, technically they may be right as both a declaration and a deposition are sworn statements, but from the point of the legal weight of those documents they are totally incomparable:

Lawyer Seeks Jackson Financial Records : Investigation: Attorney for the boy allegedly molested by the singer files partial transcripts of depositions telling of bedroom activity and photos. Jackson’s counsel says the papers misrepresent sworn statements.

January 11, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Michael Jackson routinely shared his bed with young boys, kept a hidden closet with photographs of children and installed a security system to alert him whenever anyone approached his bedroom, according to former employees interviewed as part of a lawsuit brought by a boy who says the entertainer molested him.

Partial transcripts of those depositions were filed Monday in Superior Court as part of a motion brought by the boy’s lawyer, who argues that he should be allowed access to Jackson’s financial records because there is a “substantial probability” that his client will win his lawsuit. Also included is a declaration from the alleged victim, who repeats almost word for word the allegations he made to police and social workers last summer.

The transcripts and other legal documents filed Monday provide the foundation of the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson, detailing the evidence for the first time and summarizing the civil case against the pop superstar. They include sworn depositions from the singer’s chauffeur, former maids and a former secretary who admits that she told police Jackson was a “chicken hawk,” or pedophile, though she now regrets the statement and disavows it.

“There is substantial direct and circumstantial evidence that plaintiff was sexually molested by Jackson,” the boy’s lawyer, Larry R. Feldman, said in his motion. Feldman’s client was 13 years old at the time of the alleged molestation. He turns 14 today.

Howard Weitzman, one of the lawyers representing Jackson, said the portions of the transcripts filed by Feldman misrepresent the depositions, and he vigorously reasserted his client’s innocence.

These are half-truths and untruths,” Weitzman said of the claims made by Feldman. “When all the facts come out, we are confident that Mr. Jackson will be vindicated.”

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who also is representing Jackson, echoed Weitzman’s remarks. “This is innuendo and misrepresentation,” he said of Feldman’s motion. “It just points out how he is trying this case.”

Nevertheless, the latest legal effort by the boy’s attorney highlights the difficulties that Jackson faces as he attempts to battle allegations of child molestation and sets the stage for his scheduled deposition next week. In fact, even as that deposition date draws near, Jackson’s lawyers warned that he may decline to speak under oath unless he can get assurances that his testimony will not be used against him in the possible criminal case that prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties are contemplating.

“That’s a decision that Johnnie (Cochran) and I still have not made,” Weitzman said when asked whether Jackson would agree to give his deposition as scheduled. “However, it is unlikely that we would be willing to give up any constitutional protections that Mr. Jackson might have.”

Among the partial transcripts attached to Feldman’s motion are long excerpts from the sworn testimony of Blanca Francia, a former maid to the entertainer who has previously spoken to police as well as to The Times and to the tabloid television program “Hard Copy.” Francia’s statements during her Dec. 15. deposition were her first under oath, however.

Francia, who will be questioned again by lawyers today, worked for Jackson for five years beginning in 1986. During her deposition, she detailed a number of instances in which she said she saw the entertainer naked or partially clothed with young boys–whose names are deleted from the transcripts. She also recounted seeing Jackson in bed or in a sleeping bag with boys, sometimes during the day, and she said that Jackson told her not to tell anyone.

“He says that whatever I saw is none of anybody’s business,” said Francia, who immigrated to the United States from El Salvador in 1975. “And that he liked me, and that if I (was) ever asked by anyone, not to tell anything about him.”

While working at the Neverland Ranch, Francia also said she once found a photograph of a young boy, apparently naked except for a sheet that covered his genitals. Francia told the attorneys that she does not know what became of that photograph, but she added that Jackson stored a number of photographs and videotapes of children in a “closet within a closet” at the ranch.

Weitzman confirmed that there is a closet such as the one described by Francia, but he said it had been built by the previous owner of Jackson’s home. Moreover, Weitzman said, the closet did not contain anything suggesting that Jackson ever molested children.

“The inference that Michael Jackson built it for some nefarious purpose is false,” Weitzman said, “absolutely false.”

During her deposition, Francia also disclosed that shortly after she began working for Jackson, he installed a security system at his Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos. Among other features, the system would alert Jackson whenever someone approached his bedroom, she testified.

“It make a bell, like a little bell,” said Francia. Another maid, Adrian McManus, also discussed the security system during her deposition.

In addition to sensors that would alert Jackson to anyone outside the bedroom, the door to the room contained a peephole, Francia added, according to the deposition transcript.

Weitzman dismissed the importance of the security system, noting that a common feature of such systems is that they warn their owners if someone is in the house and might be approaching a bedroom. “Most homes that are equipped with sophisticated security systems have electric eyes at strategic locations,” Weitzman said.

Several representatives of companies specializing in home security told The Times on Monday that motion detectors are common features.

Francia’s earlier comments have been challenged by members of the Jackson family and legal team, many of whom note that she was paid thousands of dollars for her interview with “Hard Copy.” Although Francia was not paid for her interviews with police or The Times, Jackson’s lawyers say the money she received from “Hard Copy” undermines her credibility as a witness.

In addition, Cochran said that Francia told attorneys that she never saw Jackson molest any boys. He cited Feldman’s failure to include that portion of her deposition as evidence that Feldman’s motion misrepresents the facts of the case. Feldman insisted that he did not withhold any relevant information from deposition excerpts he filed Monday.

Francia’s account is not the only one cited in Feldman’s motion for access to the singer’s financial records. The boy himself submitted a sworn declaration in which he repeated the allegations he made to social workers and police last summer.

As in his interview by police and social workers, the boy described an escalating series of alleged sexual advances by Jackson, beginning with hugs and kisses and culminating in Jackson masturbating himself and the boy. The relationship ended in July, according to the boy, after his father obtained custody of him and broke off his contact with Jackson.

Jackson has maintained that he is the victim of a failed extortion attempt by the father, and he has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence. Although police and sheriff’s deputies from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties continue to investigate the allegations of sexual molestation, Jackson has not been charged with any crime.

Feldman and Jackson’s attorneys agreed last month not to divulge certain kinds of information–including details about children and Jackson’s security systems. Late Monday, Superior Court Judge David Rothman sealed the documents filed by Feldman in order to determine whether the material contained in them should be protected by court order.

Among other edited depositions filed Monday in connection with the lawsuit is one taken from Jolie Levine, who worked as Jackson’s secretary for two years starting in 1987. Levine told the lawyers that she called Jackson a “chicken hawk,” a slang term for a pedophile, when police interviewed her about the allegations against her former boss.

“And when you told that to the detectives or the police, you meant by that that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, correct?” asked Robert Turner, an associate of Feldman who also is representing the boy.

“I was caught off guard, angry, surprised,” Levine said. “I didn’t really mean saying that.”

Jackson‘s lawyers accused Feldman of filing the documents Monday merely as a way to make allegations against the singer public. But Feldman, in the papers, argues that he needs access to Jackson’s financial records now because analyzing them will be difficult and time-consuming.

In addition to his income and real estate holdings, Jackson, one of the world’s wealthiest entertainers, owns the Beatles’ song catalogue and other difficult-to-value assets.

“He is a millionaire hundreds of times over whose assets are tied up in intangibles,” Feldman wrote. “Plaintiff will need the three months remaining before the trial date to be able to track down these assets and come up with an approximation of their worth.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-11/local/me-10709_1_michael-jackson/2

 By the author’s attention to detail you can judge for yourself how thoroughly (but not necessarily accurately) the article reported Blanca Francia’s deposition of the year 1993.

Now we have at least two sources  – one direct and the other indirect – stating that Blanca Francia never said in her first deposition that she allegedly saw Michael Jackson “in a shower with a boy”.  This fact will be important to remember when we handle Blanca Francia’s testimony at the 2005 trial where, as you know, she changed her tune.

How the public can read the declaration even when it is sealed

I gather that it is customary legal practice for the US to open the documents to the public once they are accompany a motion filed in the court. This was why when Larry Feldman made his motion on January 10, 1994 Jackson’s lawyers accused him of doing it for publicity sake.

However in that particular case a different course of action was taken by the judge – evidently under the insistence of Jackson’s lawyers and considering the public effect the disclosure of all those documents would have on the public and potential jury the judge sealed these documents the same day:

  • “Partial transcripts of those depositions were filed Monday in Superior Court. …. Late Monday, Superior Court Judge David Rothman sealed the documents filed by Feldman in order to determine whether the material contained in them should be protected by court order.”

So does it mean that the media could not really have access to Jordan’s declaration in January 1994? It seems so.  And this is why the declaration produced such a bombshell effect in 2003 when it was finally disclosed to the public the next day after Bashir’s film.  And was such a sensation. Because the media and the public never heard that story in all its salacious detail before!

Let me remind you  that Jordan’s declaration was a statement which was never corroborated by any evidence at all. So the only thing the public heard in 2003 was a highly frivolous story which didn’t produce the impression even on the Grand Jury 10 years before that, as it was a clear contradiction to the photos made of MJ’s genitalia. The declaration was sealed by the judge in 1994 as soon as it was filed by Feldman together with the motion and was all the more kept under the seal when the agreement reached with the Chandlers put a stop to the civil suit which generated it.

But even despite all those restrictions the paper was still leaked to the public ten years later, and in connection with Bashir’s film though it had nothing to do with it!  And did a lot of damage to Michael because the people were brainwashed enough to think that there were some grounds behind it!

Doesn’t it amount to malicious spreading lies about Jackson? Isn’t it the use of media for manipulating people’s minds? And isn’t it proof enough that someone was so terribly determined to throw Michael into the mud that was ready even to break the law by leaking to the public a sealed and totally unsubstantiated paper?

If the leak was the doing of Prosecutor Tom Sneddon it means that he wanted to impress on the public solely the prosecution side of the matter. However the duties of a prosecutor are different – his duties are  not to accuse by all means, expecially by breaking the law.  His duty is to seek justice. 

All sources say that a prosecutor is a lawyer who is:

  • “charged with not only being a legal representative but a vigorous advocate on behalf of the people relying on the courts to make ACCURATE and FAIR rulings”.
  • The Prosecutor’s duty and mandate is not only to prosecute and seek conviction, but TO SEEK JUSTICE in the first place.

Malicious dissemination of lies about someone as a revenge for a flop in the previous case and misinformation of the public in the form of leaking unproven lies about this man is absolutely no part of the prosecutor’s work.

Sad picture

Out of all those who could commit this offence against Michael Jackson the only real candidate seems to be the District Attorney Tom Sneddon (or someone else equally dishonest from his department).  But if this was the case then it means that Michael Jackson was a victim of the most malicious prosecution and legal harassment the world had probably ever seen. It  lasted for no less than 13 years and was stopped only due to the honesty of 12 jurors who had the fortitude to stand up to all that madness.

Add to it that Tom Sneddon was consistenly spreading lies about Jackson by saying for more than a decade that the photos matched the description given by the boy (and no one asked him a simple question why he never arrested Michael Jackson if his words were true), and you have a very sad picture of collusion between the prosecution going after the innocent, dishonest media ready to spread lies, corrupt false witnesses cooperating with the authorities and ignorant public which gladly swallowed every lie told to them about Jackson.

No wonder that Michael Jackson was so devastated by all this injustice that he even talked of a huge conspiracy around him. He mentioned it in his interview with Jesse Jackson in March 2005. Whether this was a conspiracy or simply the mass madness of the nation I don’t know, but what I am sure of is that the law was gravely violated in respect of Michael Jackson and his rights, and no one seemed to give a damn about it.

Here is the statement Michael Jackson made when his rights were violated again when another of those innumerable leaks took place and this time his confidentiality agreement with the Chandlers was disclosed:

June 18, 2004

Statement Of Michael Jackson

CONTACT: Raymone K. Bain

Michael Jackson issues the following statement regarding the recent release of confidential information:

I respect the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all of the parties to the 1993 proceedings. Yet, someone has chosen to violate the confidentiality of those proceedings. Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disrespect for the Santa Maria Court’s “gag order” as they are a determination to attack me.

No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these efforts for what they are.

These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press, rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child. I have always maintained my innocence, and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career.

I ask all of my neighbors in Santa Maria, the people whom I give my loyal trust and admiration, to keep an open mind, and give me a chance to show that I am completely innocent of these charges. I will not let you down.

Source: Raymone K. Bain / MJFC

http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=167%3A2004&id=185%3A2004-june&Itemid=75

And here is an excerpt from Michael’s interview with Jesse Jackson where Michael Jackson spoke of a conspiracy around him:

Michael Jackson: I just know in the end that I will be vindicated, I pray, because I know the truth. I’m an innocent person. And I believe in God and love God. And just continue to pray for us.

Rev. Jackson: You know that, given your faith, in God and in yourself, and your declaration of innocence and while you are going through this storm ahem, presuming that you ah – win this, this has been a close battle, ahhh, a very intense battle, because the battle is-is not over, ah, the, appearance, given your relationship ahh, has called for lots of consternation. Is there anything that you will do differently? When this season is over?

Michael Jackson: Is there anything that I would do differently?

Rev. Jackson: Differently? When this season is over?

Michael Jackson: (Clears throat) Ahem, my level of trust will change. And ah, there-there there’s a lot of conspiracy going on. I’ll say that much. A lot of it.

Rev. Jackson: Do you think that….

Michael Jackson: All around me.

Rev. Jackson: Is the conspiracy connected to the celebrity or to the trial or to the catalog – what do you think the source of it is?

Michael Jackson: I-I can’t comment. I can’t comment Jessie, I-I don’t wanna… it ah, I’m under a gag order and it’s a very serious thing. I don’t want to say the wrong thing. With the wrong flavor. It’s a very delicate area. Very delicate where we are now.

See how far the reflections on Jordan Chandler’s declaration took me? So far that there is no space and time to answer the question with which I started, i.e. whether the refusal of Jordan Chandler to testify could effectively put a stop to the criminal investigation of the case. This matter is so serious and so vast that it will have to be left for the second part of this post.

And while I am putting it together please do not forget to support William Wagener’s initiative to have Tom Sneddon answer for his crimes against Jackson and the truth.  Tom Sneddon should answer for what he did.

*  *  *

Supplement:

Legal Difference Between an Affidavit & a Declaration

by Grace Keh, Demand Media

Affidavits are written documents attached to an oath or some affirmation (i.e., notary public) that the statements in the affidavit are true.

Declarations are merely written documents that the author believes to be true, but the statements are given without the author being sworn in by a court officer.

Declarations under the penalty of perjury (sometimes referred to as sworn statements) are very similar to affidavits. Courts consider both to be legally equivalent, though most court systems and businesses still prefer affidavits over declarations.

Affidavits are signed in front of a notary public or commissioner of oaths and require notarization.

Declarations must be signed only by the author, though sometimes before a justice of the peace or, at least, legal counsel. U.S. Code 1746 permits an individual to submit as true a declaration under the penalty of perjury.

Wording

Both affidavits and declarations require signatures of the authors. One who submits an affidavit is referred to as a “affiant.” One who gives a declaration is called a “declarant.” Declarations under the penalty of perjury must be accompanied by a statement in substantially this form: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,” as well as the date on which it was executed and the declarant’s signature.

Critiquing the Affidavit

An affidavit can inconvenience a witness because of the requirement that the witness be sworn and the written document notarized. It also incurs a notary fee, at the minimum. Some courts are turning to declarations under penalty of perjury as substitutes for affidavits because of the efficiency of these statements and their efficacy in forcing people to tell the truth.

The Other Statement

Alongside affidavits and declarations, depositions are often used to take the statements of witnesses. Depositions differ specifically in one way from affidavits: They allow for cross-examination. Depositions are recorded by the court reporter and become written transcripts that can be used in court. The witness is sworn in before making a deposition and is considered under oath, regardless of whether the deposition takes place in a courtroom.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/legal-difference-between-affidavit-declaration-3194.html

172 Comments leave one →
  1. October 24, 2012 3:05 am

    One more reason not to believe the report by Jordan, apart from the signature and things that have been said about the interview itself,whichever parent took him to see Dr.Gardner was not really wanting any “truth” from Jordan. The sc. suicide or maybe homicide, as Alderaranredstar suggested, is not presented to Dr. Gardner, something any truly concerned parent would have done. Or then it is omitted.,purposefully(?).When a child
    produces a picture, the first thing you try to do is place some distance between the picture and the child.Issues are often too hot to be dealt with staight on .Maybe at the very end of an interview you may ask some direct questions relating to a picture. Usually not necessary as there will be much other material to draw conclusions.
    You ask the child to give the characters names, names haphazardly “not somebody you know or yourself”, and then to tell a story about the picture.Others may have a different approach.This makes it easier to tell a story too painful if about something oneself has expierienced.

    Like

  2. October 20, 2012 11:37 pm

    And since we are now on the subject of the Spanish Hideout forum I need to say one thing. Very often you can find in old forums something which has long disappeared from the regular press. In the Spanish-language forum you can see it only in back translation, but as far as the general idea goes even this may be extremely interesting.

    For example, I was greatly impressed by the idea about Pellicano expressed by Roger Friedman. It is clear even from this terrible Google translation and suggests that there was a connection between Pellicano’s imprisonment and the Neverland surprise raid in November 2003:

    Friedman: They could go for secret recordings Pellicano of 93

    02/27/2004, 18:33
    Of all the problems that Michael Jackson may have now, one of the biggest might be one of which he has not thought: the jailed investigator Anthony Pellicano.

    Some insiders are wondering why the days when Pellicano was arrested and registration [raid?] of Neverland are connected. Pellicano went to prison for possession of weapons (grenades and plastic explosive). Tom Sneddon began his record [raid] in Neverland the next day.

    What is the connection? Pellicano worked hard for Jackson’s attorney, Bert Fields, in 1993.

    It is known that Pellicano illegally recorded many phone conversations with her celebrity clients, and many of them were then investigated by the FBI and other authorities.

    My sources say that Pellicano could provide information on Jackson in those days. It is possible, though no one can be sure that Pellicano had materials on Jackson in 1993 for FBI.

    Pellicano expert source tells me, “It’s very possible that he [could] deliver the material to the FBI and they would give it to Sneddon. It is too coincidental that Pellicano was in prison the same day that there was Neverland.”

    http://mjhideout.com/forum/archive/t-34782.html

    I agree with this “source” – it was too much of a coincidence. [VMJ: Correction – I found that Pellicano was arrested on November 21, 2002 or one year before the Neverland raid by Sneddon, though at the time when Bashir’s provocative film about MJ was already in the making].

    “Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

    It is over here, in point 7 of the table (it was published the same day and in the same Daily Beast which posted that crazy story about Pellicano saying that Michael did something “worse than molestation”). That was a lie, and this is the truth – only very few people noticed it due to that media distraction trick:

    Like

  3. October 20, 2012 7:17 pm

    I need to clarify (just so I am not misunderstood) that in his lyrics, he never identifies with a pedo-le. What Michael is aware of is the danger that Victor Guotorrez and T: + the media poses to him, as persecutors. Naturally he knew all too well the disgusting writings by V.G.
    He saw this as persecutor/victim (that he was) and the anger he must have felt. He expresses idebtities of doer v.done to (or rather against) in some lyrics. I just don´t want anybody to think he ecen in lyrics identified as a p-file. This addendum relates to my comment re the 93 case, oct.18 2012

    Like

  4. October 20, 2012 1:22 pm

    “Tom Sneddon is such a horrible person..The way he tried to get those pictures in when he knew there was no basis.. Did they announce in the beginning of the trial that JC would definitely not testify? I know he made it clear in the FBI files when he talked to Zonen, and of course, he wasnt showing up, wasnt on the prosecutors list, but I had thought at some point the prosecutors were still pretending that he might have a change of heart”

    Nannorris, if I remember it right the prosecution did not announce that Jordan would not be testifying – I think they simply did not talk about it, implying that he probably would. In September 2004 Ray Chandler publicly expressed doubt that Jordan would testify. It was only Diane Dimond who kept repeating at every forum that she had a 99% certainty that Jordan Chandler would be a witness.

    MJEOL wrote about it in April 2004:

    93 Accuser Not Cooperating with Prosecution? – Bullet #118
    Written by Administrator | 02 April 2004
    Spread This News!

    Remember all of the ominous discussions forecasting that Jackson’s 93 accuser was definitely ready to testify in front of this grand jury? Remember the speculations of doom and gloom and predictions of what he was supposedly going to say? Remember tabloid reporter Diane Dimond emphatically stating that there was a 99% certainty that the accuser would testify? Well it looks as though these certainties, and the speculation derived from those certainties, was more than a bit premature.

    Celebrity Justice of all places, along with a number of other outlets, is now reporting that the 93 accuser will (or may) not testify after-all.

    Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond had previously told at least 3 different media outlets that the chance of this 93 accuser testifying for the prosecution was a 99% certainty. In fact, she was on Court TV’s Catherine Crier (Crier Live; other guest was Joe Episcopo) when the following exchange occurred:

    CRIER: …We’re talking about the 93 accuser. A lot of people think he – you think he actually might testify.

    DIMOND: I think it’s about 99% that he will testify.

    Keep in mind this is only one occurrence of her spreading her 99% figure around as if she knew for a certainty it would happen. On The Big Story Weekend w/ Rita Cosby (March 27) Dimond repeated her alleged 99% figure in this exchange:

    COSBY: The other thing, the boy from the 93 case. Are you hearing, I’m hearing he’s probably gonna testify. Why is that critical?

    DIMOND: 99% I hear that he is going to testify…

    So in April 2004 all of them (Dimond, Sneddon) were still in great hope that Jordan would testify, in September 2004 Ray Chandler said it publicly that Jordan would not (none of the Chandlers would except June, including Ray Chandler himself though he was subpoenaed), and the FBI files of September 2004 also confirmed Jordan’s vehement refusal – but despite all that, at the very end of the trial in May 2005 Sneddon still pretended that he had a witness?

    Otherwise how can he explain that he was ready to introduce those photos? Under the 6th Amendment it was impossible to do it – at least for an adult witness. So the only other option we have is that all that talk about the photos was for effect only – Sneddon tried to throw a stone into a glass window and run away after that like a small street hooligan.

    Like

  5. nannorris permalink
    October 20, 2012 8:25 am

    Tom Sneddon is such a horrible person..The way he tried to get those pictures in when he knew there was no basis..
    Did they announce in the beginning of the trial that JC would definitely not testify? I know he made it clear in the FBI files when he talked to Zonen, and of course, he wasnt showing up, wasnt on the prosecutors list, but I had thought at some point the prosecutors were still pretending that he might have a change of heart…Just the way the judge says definitely , so assuredly,, it makes me feel like he knew what he had said to the FBI and prosecutors.., and how adamantly he refused….
    I dont trust Melville either .I thought the only reason Mesereau complimented the judge as being an excellent jurist is because he had such a huge victory over Sneddon , because I thought he was pro prosecution, for sure..

    Thank you all for all this information..It is heartbreaking that MJ was subjected to this stalking monster Sneddon…

    Like

  6. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 11:19 pm

    I just included the RMartin info to show that this is the world that Nelson Mauri aspires to. He says he saw RM from a distance when he went to Miami. RMartin seems like a good, honorable person, and he gives money to charity as well. The Miami scene is obviously very friendly to the gay community.

    Like

  7. October 19, 2012 11:12 pm

    Yes!VMJ ,Victor as a person of interest certainly merits a post.And in the end a book. To weigh against the ?39-100 written obout Michael.I want to change one statement of mine: MJWML was Victor´s love/hate letter to Michael.

    Like

  8. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 9:35 pm

    Some info from Wikipedia on Ricky Martin, who is mentioned in the Nelson Mauri article. R.M. co-owns a restaurant in Miami called Casa Salsa, and used to own a home there, but sold it. He was part of a boy band Menudo, and was an altar boy as a Catholic.

    After the success of “Livin’ la Vida Loca”, Martin’s personal life became a subject of interest due to his large gay following, and he was questioned about his sexual orientation. In a December 2000 interview with The Mirror, Martin was asked to comment on the rumors surrounding his sexuality. He replied that “I don’t think I should have to tell anyone if I am gay or not, or who I’ve slept with or not.”[87][88] On March 29, 2010, Martin publicly acknowledged his homosexuality in a post on his official website stating, “I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am.”[89][90] Martin said that “these years in silence and reflection made me stronger and reminded me that acceptance has to come from within, and that this kind of truth gives me the power to conquer emotions I didn’t even know existed.”[91] In 2010, prior to Martin coming out, Barbara Walters expressed some regret for pushing Martin in a 2000 interview to admit if he was gay. The Toronto Star quoted her as saying, “When I think back on it now, I feel it was an inappropriate question.”[92][93]
    Martin announced on The Oprah Winfrey Show that he was in a relationship.[94] In 2011, during his acceptance speech of the Vito Russo Award at the 22nd GLAAD Media Awards, Martin publicly thanked his boyfriend, Carlos González Abella, an economist.[95][96] Martin has also expressed support for same-sex marriage in an interview on Larry King Live, and commented on his experience of being closeted and coming out. “Everything about saying that I am gay feels right…”, Martin stated, adding “if I’d known how good it was going to feel, I would have done it ten years ago.”[97]

    Interesting that Walters says asking RM if he is gay is ‘inappropriate,’ but has Oprah ever said the same thing about HER question asking MJ if he was a virgin?

    Like

  9. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 8:49 pm

    You’re welcome–it was a pleasure to work on such a beautiful letter! Big Kudos to Marcelo Morales. The phrase ‘from Pisces to Aquarius’ is interesting–it means it runs the gamut, the whole zodiac, b/c if you travel from Pisces to Aquarius you pass all the signs. Also, you can only see Pisces and Aquarius in the Southern sky–we can’t see those constellations in the Northern hemisphere.

    I will look at the comments to the original Nortero letter–thanks, Susannerb, for the link. I agree, Kaarin22, J. Cochran wanted his cut.

    Like

  10. October 19, 2012 3:27 pm

    Aldebaranredstar, thank you so much for the great translation! Now the text is so much more impressive! Now I feel simply obliged to make a post about VG (will try to).

    The fact that VG keeps slandering people and repeatedly gets away with not paying the fines imposed on him by the judge makes me think that he has someone really powerful in law enforcement bodies who protects him from answering for his actions. I will look up the article about his sister holding a very high position in Chile.

    And look, Gutierrez keeps to one pattern – if he wants to get rid of someone he accuses him of pedophilia, like he did to MJ and to a candidate for the presidency in Chile. The slandered victim files a suit against him, the matter is decided in favor of the victim … and then Gutierrez does not pay for years (and no one cares). An interesting method, isn’t it?

    P.S. I’ve edited the text with the better translation you offered later.
    As regards the original comment in Spanish I will post it here in several hours when I am home.

    Like

  11. October 19, 2012 1:49 pm

    So Feldman ended getting 5 mil. through that settlement?. I read somewhere that chochran was thirsting for that money too,maybe that explains some of the haste with that settlement.
    I really do´t know,but maybe worth looking into.Johnnie C. was not too eager to fight for Michaels innocence on that King talkshow with Nancy Grace-was he ?

    Like

  12. October 19, 2012 1:44 pm

    William Wagener, I hope one day thanks will come to you for your attempt to put things right. You are a brave man.

    Like

  13. October 19, 2012 1:38 pm

    So true Susannerb, a big thankyou to Morales Navarro and to Aldebaran who now can reach out to Chilean sources on Victor G.
    and W.W.. I am so sorry you have suffered after your valiant effort to put things in true order.You hit the nail when targeting T.S.. It is clear that that horrible bodysearch and those phoptos finally are there to prove M.J´s innocence where it not for T.S. spouting falsehoods and other dirty tricks to again cloud the the mass-cosciousness and preventing truth to prevail.

    Like

  14. October 19, 2012 12:48 pm

    This is the link to the orginial article:
    http://www.elnortero.cl/admin/render/noticia/20027
    It emerged as the first link when I searched for the name of Marcelo Morales Navarro, and that’s good!
    There are a lot of comments I would like to read. I studied Spanish once, but due to the lack of practice I lost a lot of my knowledge.

    Like

  15. October 19, 2012 12:37 pm

    Marcelo Morales Navarro hit the nail on the head. A big, big Thank you to him.
    And thanks for translating this properly, Aldebaranredstar.

    Like

  16. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 5:38 am

    Could you give me the original Spanish of this comment? Thanks.

    veronica August 15, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. #
    There is a site named MJHideout, which effectively says that Victor Gutierrez was hired in 1994 the U.S. broadcaster NBC to cover the trial of Jackson and sink step by false and his book, in exchange for a salary of 83,000 dollars per month. This confirms the fact that Michael Jackson was taken to court for defamation and wins, as Victor Gutierrez testifies before the judge that “he was paid to sink Michael Jackson”.“

    Like

  17. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 5:21 am

    Hi, VMJ, I translated that letter and I think it is really a beautiful letter and the writer has a wonderful heart and intelligence!!!!

    Like

  18. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 19, 2012 5:14 am

    Open Letter to the Journalist Victor Gutierrez

    One of the daily local papers “El Nortero” published a column concerning his opinion with respect to the ‘journalist’ VG, a person very in vogue recently since we heard the news of the death of Michael Jackson. We have published on this matter before, on our concern about the media garbage and exaggeration from some publications, like LUN, when publishing news of Michael Jackson. In this particular case, Marcelo Morales in an Open Letter to VG gives us his insightful examination of the exploitation of others with the sole aim of making money. Here is the letter, copied from ‘El Nortero.”

    Open Letter to Victor Gutierrez:

    I suppose that you must be happy with the death of MJ; that your cell phone hasn’t stopped ringing; and that your fees for articles and interviews have increased substantially. I suppose that now you can breathe easy knowing that the plaintiff has died and the case that you lost in 1997 is closed and that the $2.7 million that you were ordered to pay after losing the suit in USA will no longer bother you. When you said you had in your power a video that incriminated Michael Jackson in compromising circumstances and you were not able to prove its existence and you lost the case, Chilean journalism was affected, its image, its professionalism, its ethics.

    But you said:

    “I declared bankruptcy and I had 10 years to come up with the money. June 07 was the deadline and after that, they can get nothing.” This strategy of letting time pass, of finding solutions that could be legal but which have nothing to do with morality, is habitual with you; it portrays the misery of your person and your lack of values, the total ignorance of living honorably, the indecency of a vulture and the immorality of a deadbeat conman throwing accusations in the air, unable to prove the truth of your statements. Nor did you respond when in 2001 the Supreme Court of Chile sentenced you to pay $47,000 to Cecilia Bolocco for saying without any foundation that she was the lover of the Brazilian writer Paulo Coehlo. Here also you did not have the decency to pay the fine. How easy to do what you do, trash people, gain a lot of money in interviews, write books and articles full of lies and not lose anything when fines are levied against you when you lose, which has always been the case with you. How easy and how miserable is your life as a parasite. What evil you do to society. “A journalist will not invent sources, covering them up as ‘insiders,” “an official,” etc. guarding in this manner the credibility and dignity of the profession.” (Article 8vo. Code of Ethics of Journalism). In ‘Las Ultimas Noticias de Hoy’ [The News of the Day] you said, “Now I can negotiate the movie rights to my book, negotiations which were on hold,” “and of course programs all around the world are calling me to sell them information and even photos which I have of him when he was a child.”

    What morality, Mr. Gutierrez, in continuing to negotiate, continuing to earn money at another’s cost, continuing the pursuit of money with a disgraceful agenda, even in death. You have gone beyond all the limits of decency and respect, you have gone beyond the Sixth Article of the Code of Ethics of a journalist, which says, “A journalist must always establish a clear distinction between facts, opinions, and interpretations, preventing all confusion or deliberate distortion between them.” In 2003 when you knew the scandalous history of Claudio Spiniak YOU had no qualms in connecting Joaquin Lavin, at this time candidate for the presidency, with pedophilia, earning you once again a complaint that you could not prove your assertions with facts. You had no qualms about imagining a montage that infected a public candidate with the web of pedophilia. As always, it all ended in nothing but YOU. You waited for the waters to become calm, hiding your head like an ostrich.

    This morning you said on ADN radio “Why keep talking about Michael Jackson when there are more important subjects?” And YOU said this? You who have lived and fed for years on reports and articles based on lies? You who have never had the honor to face criticism or pay what justice has imposed? How can you say there are more important topics if YOU have lived on these stories? How can you be such a miserable human being, a journalist who can reach this level of sordidness and dishonesty.

    “I am not gay; my partner is gay” (VG, Revista El Periodista, 31 March 2003). To me YOU are a despicable person, who in your known and infamous homosexuality we see sexual deviations from Pisces to Aquarius and who looks for fame and money in the worst manner; far from morality and professional ethics, committing murders of reputations and when these portraits you paint are shown in reverse, we see a faggot in the most literal of definitions. The homosexual person is someone proper and respectable and I have nothing against that person, but to be a shit faggot like YOU I condemn openly and I consider it an evil birth that inundates society with evil, with falsity, hypocrisy and dishonesty.

    YOU will never make a real contribution as a journalist, you are merely a paparazzi who gossips about life and who is distant from ethics, decency, and values.”

    Michael Jackson, thank you for your music that filled the celebrations of my youth with happiness, and for your enormous contribution to the music of the world. Rest in peace.

    Marcelo Morales Navarro

    Like

  19. October 19, 2012 1:15 am

    “I think the exchanges between the lawyers and the judge are very important!!! Sneddon is a snake! I am so glad Melville did not allow that.”- aldebaranredstar

    Judge Melville COULD NOT allow such a grave breach of the law. Admitting the photos without actually listening to the initial description? Even if they had admitted the photos what would the jury have compared them with?

    Even if the humiliation of those photos had taken place how could the jury determine whether the photos were correct if Jordan was not there to describe what he had allegedly seen? We should remember that he (supposedly) did not see the photos and was to repeat what he initially said!

    Of course Sneddon and Diane Dimond helped him by openly saying in the press what mistakes he had made – in the circumcision point and in the dark spot vs. white splotches point. But even if Jordan had changed his story at the trial, somewhere in the Santa Barbara archives there should have been the original description he made in 1993, and that description was totally wrong.

    Most probably the initial description was accessible to Thomas Mesereau, though there is a possibility that it was not.

    Why not? Because a motion to introduce those photos was a surprise for the defense (as is clear from Mr. Sanger’s words) – the photos were not included in the original 1108 motion regarding the “prior acts”, therefore at that moment the defense probably had no original Jordan’s paper to get themselves ready for the comparison.

    But all these problems can be disregarded. The Prosecutors knew it themselves that according to the US Constitution if a witness is an adult the photos could not be admitted in his absence, so it was sheer fraud on their part even to try that move.

    We knew it before why the photos were not admitted at the 2005 trial – some legal analysts explained to us that it was due to the “confrontation right” specified by the 6th Amendment. But one small detail helped me understand the crucial importance of the same point for a different period – the 90s.

    The 1995 change in the law allowed those photos be introduced without a child witness and this turned all those assurances of Sneddon that the photos were a match into sheer crap. Now the law allowed him to reopen the case without Jordan but Sneddon was still not doing it. All he needed was the boy’s declaration and the evidence – and while the declaration he had, the evidence he had none.

    In public he was saying that the photos matched, but in reality he could not use them because they were different, and this is why he did not reopen the case against Jackson in 1995, when the law finally allowed it (without a witness present).

    But in the year 2005 he all of a sudden decided to use them. Solely for drama, solely for the effect of it, because Jordan was an adult and HAD to be at the trial if the photos were introduced. Sneddon knew it, and though he could not produce his witness he nevertheless played his dirty trick.

    This is why it is so terribly important for William Wagener to make his documentary about Sneddon. Who else will tell the world about Sneddon’s dirty methods? Does any of you expect the largest TV networks to make such a documentary and tell the public that Sneddon allowed himself fraudulent methods at every step of the trial?

    Please donate to William Wagener’s documentary.

    WILL YOU BE THERE?

    Like

  20. October 19, 2012 12:08 am

    William Wagener,you are a good soul. I did sign,but anononymously as I dont like my name or e-mail to go around. I´ll do it again if they accepy 2 from 1 IP.

    Like

  21. October 18, 2012 11:49 pm

    My hypothesis:Victor Guitirrez,a homosexual,pederast and pedophile-mortally smitten by Michael J..A love unrequitted.V.G.´s deeds against &towards Michael exibit the typical signs, emotions of a rejected lover- love&hate & persistent obsession. His heart broken and bleeding splattering it´s vengeful blood worldwide, soaked up by the newspapers,the minds of DD,NG MB and so on.
    -Many of Michael`s songs and lyrics express a play of identities exchanged.The 2 never met in person.Michael knew Victor G´s mind and feelings-all is in MJWML- Victor´s long love letter to Michael.He pulled Michael into a destructive,evil dance.
    “Blood on the Dancefloor” comes to mind. The last pic.- the knife in the heart.
    Most ordinary people have some expierience of love rejected. So did Michael, maybe DR?.
    Like most people Michael was able to go on with his life positively and productively.
    Victor G. took a vengeful path,obsessed forever. “Money” comes to my mind, V.G. sold his soul to the devil.You can not blame him for his feelings but for his deeds.

    Like

  22. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 11:31 pm

    ok, I will work on this open letter and get back to you. Where did you find this letter? We have to be aware that VG has enemies in Spanish-speaking countries, including Chile!!

    Like

  23. October 18, 2012 11:30 pm

    William Wagener’s message to MJ’s fans and non-fans:



    Like

  24. October 18, 2012 11:25 pm

    William Wagener speaks to fans in Netherlands about the false evidence presented by the Santa Barbara Prosecutors at the 2005 trial:
    WW in Netherlands

    Like

  25. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 11:24 pm

    “The dancer returned to Chile with ‘gringo thoughts’ The American Dream of Nelson Mauricio Pacheco. By Rosa Marie Pineda

    Nelson Mauri is no longer the adolescent who danced in “Rojo” [Red] and the guy whose teammates sang to him to get him to go to high school. Today he is grown up and since his trip to Miami, where he participated in the taping of the series “Fisica o quimica” [ Physics or Chemistry] for Telemundo, he thinks differently. “It sounds like a cliché, but it’s true, when you put all your energy and work into something there’s nothing impossible. Here in Chile, many people feel limited by their social class, appearance or sexual identity. There [in Miami, USA] you are valued for who you really are,” he confesses.”

    Ok, I am not going to translate the whole thing. He says he got called as a contestant in a talent show “A Minute of Fame’ while in Miami. He is supposed to sing in that series, but is not sure he will be selected. Also he took English classes and wants to go back to Miami and USA. There is a reference to Ricky Martin, who I believe is also gay. He wants to work in USA. He says the people in Miami did not believe he is Chilean b/c he is “too cute” and they think all Chileans are dark skinned, like Mexicans or Blacks.

    I think it is very significant his comment about ‘sexual identity.’ He doesn’t mean male or female, for sure! Probably a better translation is “sexual orientation.”

    VMJ, I know this is off topic, but I don’t know where else to put it right now. Also, I wanted to say the quote about age being relevant to the definition of who is a pedo and who is not is not from VG, it’s from Italo P. (who was the boyfriend of VG).

    Thanks for the comments on the photos. I think the exchanges between the lawyers and the judge are very important!!! Sneddon is a snake! I am so glad Melville did not allow that. I think there would have been a mistrial if he had BTW.

    Like

  26. October 18, 2012 11:14 pm

    “I have lived in 3 Spanish-speaking countries and will do my best if I can be of help in translations.”

    Aldebaranredstar, oh, it’s great that you can. Sorry for the immediate request, but could you rewrite (just a bit) the translation of the Open letter to Gutierrez that I’ve posted, please? Just to make it more comprehensible? Thank you very much in advance!

    Like

  27. October 18, 2012 11:06 pm

    Guys, let me show you an example of the kind of information I have on Gutierrez. This Open letter to Gutierrez was in Spanish – here is a Google translation of it. You will be able to grasp the main idea, but the details will be missing and some grammar is not correct. However even the way it is, it is impressive.

    Also please pay attention to one comment which says that Victor Gutierrez testified before the judge that “he was paid to sink Michael Jackson”:

    From “The Nortero” :

    OPEN LETTER TO JOURNALIST VICTOR Guitierrez

    I imagine you must be happy with the death of Michael Jackson, that your cell phone has not stopped ringing and your articles and interviews fee has gone up significantly.

    I guess now you can breathe easy knowing that the plaintiff has died and the trial you lost in 1997 is closed and that $ 2.7 million to be paid for losing the lawsuit in the United States will no longer be your concern.

    When you said you were in possession of an incriminating video Michael Jackson in compromising situations and failed to prove its existence you lost a case which affected the image, professionalism and ethics of Chilean journalism. But YOU said:

    “I declared myself bankrupt and had 10 years to find money. In June 2007 was the deadline and could not get me anything. ”

    This strategy of letting time pass by filing petitions that may be legal but not ethical is habitual for you. It portrays the misery of your person and the non-existence of values, the total lack of good living, indecency of a vulture and the immorality of a deadbeat bastard throwing accusations in the air, unable to prove the truth of your statements.

    Neither did you respond when in 2001 Chile’s Supreme Court sentenced you to pay $ 47,500 to Cecilia Bolocco for saying without basis that she was a lover of Brazilian writer Paulo Coelho. There was no resources or manhood to assume the sentence. How easy it is to do what YOU do, trash people, make lots of money for interviews, write books and articles with lies and no losses when demand and lost, as has always been the case. That is easy and that is your life of a miserable parasite. Too bad you do to society.

    “The journalist is not to invent sources, conceal them as ” senior officials of the institution ” thus safeguarding the credibility and dignity of the profession.” (Article 8th. Code of Journalistic Ethics)

    In the latest news today you said:

    “Now I can negotiate my film rights to my book which was pending”
    “and of course I am calling programs around the world to sell them information and even photos that I have of him when a child”

    Morality is that Mr. Gutierrez continues doing business, continues to receive money from others, continues profiting from the misery of others, from death.

    You have exceeded all bounds of decency and respect be passed by any party article sixth of the code of journalistic ethics. It says:

    “A journalist must always establish a clear distinction between facts, opinions and interpretations, avoiding any confusion or deliberate distortion of them”

    2003 knows the rough history of Claudio Spiniak. You did not hesitate to relate to Joaquín Lavin, by that time candidate for the Presidency with the pedophile, earning a complaint again unable to prove. you had no qualms about devising a montage linking public representative with the paedophile network. As always everything ended in nothing. You waited for the waters to be still hiding your head as an ostrich.

    This morning you said in DNA Radio “why keep talking about Michael Jackson if there are more important issues” And YOU said so? You who have lived and been fed by years of reports and articles based on lies? Have you ever had the manhood to face sentences or pay what justice has been imposed?

    How you can say that there are issues more important if you to lived these stories. How can you be a human being so miserable, how can a journalist reach such a level of sleaze and dishonesty.

    “I’m not gay, my partner is Gay”
    (Victor Gutierrez, magazine The Journalist, March 31, 2003)

    For me you are a despicable person since you recognized and bad vivid homosexuality view sexual deviations up to aquarium fish and looking for fame and money from the worst of the forms; away from morality and professional ethics, committing murders of image and that when the boxes are presented adverse becomes gay in the most literal definitions.

    Being homosexual is a proper and respectable determination and I have absolutely nothing against it, but being a faggot shit like you condemns it openly and consider it a bad birth that floods the society of evil, falsehood, hypocrisy and dishonesty.

    You never transcend as a journalist by being a real contribution but by farandulizar life and by remoteness that has ethics, decency and values.

    Michael Jackson, thank you for your music that flooded my youth festivals of happiness and your huge contribution to world music.
    Rest in peace.
    Marcelo Morales Navarro

    Response to “Open letter to the journalist Victor Gutierrez”

    veronica August 15, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. #
    There is a site named MJHideout, which effectively says that Victor Gutierrez was hired in 1994 the U.S. broadcaster NBC to cover the trial of Jackson and sink step by false and his book, in exchange for a salary of 83,000 dollars per month. This confirms the fact that Michael Jackson was taken to court for defamation and wins, as Victor Gutierrez testifies before the judge that “he was paid to sink Michael Jackson”.

    For those of you who know Spanish here is the original letter:

    Carta abierta al periodista Victor Gutiérrez

    Uno los corresponsales del diario ciudadano “El Nortero” publicó una columna acerca de su opinión con respecto al “periodista” Victor Guitiérrez, persona muy en boga últimamente desde que se supo la noticia del fallecimiento de Michael Jackson.
    Algo habíamos publicado anteriormente, nuestra molestia por la flojera y la exageración desmedida de algunos medios como LUN al publicar la noticia de Michael Jackson.
    En este caso en especial, Marcelo Morales nos cuenta en formato ¨Carta abierta al periodista Victor Gutiérrez¨ su atinada mirada con respecto de el aprovechamiento que algunos hacen con el fin de generar más dinero.
    Aquí tienen la carta, extraída desde “El Nortero”:
    CARTA ABIERTA AL PERIODISTA VICTOR GUITIÉRREZ
    SEÑOR
    VICTOR GUTIERREZ
    PERIODISTA
    PRESENTE

    Imagino que debe estar feliz con la muerte de Michael Jackson; que su teléfono celular no ha parado de sonar y que su tarifa por artículos y entrevistas ha subido ostensiblemente.
    Imagino que ahora puede respirar tranquilo al saber que la parte demandante ha fallecido y el juicio que perdió el año 1997 se cierra y que los 2,7 millones de dólares que debía pagar por perder la demanda en Estados Unidos ya no serán su preocupación.
    Cuando UD dijo que tenía en su poder un video que incriminaba a Michael Jackson en situaciones comprometedoras y no pudo probar su existencia perdió un juicio en el cual el periodismo chileno vio afectada su imagen, su profesionalismo y ética. Pero UD dijo:

    “Yo me declaré en bancarrota y él tenía 10 años para encontrarme dinero. En junio de 2007 venció el plazo y no pudo sacarme nada”,

    Esa estrategia de dejar que el tiempo pase, presentando recursos que pueden ser legales pero que no tienen nada de ética es habitual en UD.; retrata la miseria de su persona y la nula existencia de valores, el desconocimiento total del buen vivir, la indecencia de un buitre y la inmoralidad de un bastardo aprovechador que lanza acusaciones al aire, sin poder probar la veracidad de sus dichos.
    Tampoco respondió cuando en el año 2001 la Corte Suprema de Chile lo condenó a pagar 47.500 dólares a Cecilia Bolocco por decir sin ningún fundamento que era amante del escritor brasileño Paulo Coelho. Ahí tampoco tuvo recursos ni hombría para asumir la condena. Que fácil es hacer lo que UD hace; basurear a la gente, ganar mucho dinero en entrevistas, escribiendo libros y artículos con mentiras y sin pérdidas cuando se le demanda y pierde, como siempre ha sido su caso. Que fácil y que miserable es su vida de parásito. Que mal le hace a la sociedad. “El periodista no inventará fuentes, encubriéndolas como “un cercano”, “un alto funcionario de la institución”, etc., resguardando de este modo la credibilidad y dignidad de la profesión.” (Articulo 8vo. Código de Ética Periodística)
    En Las Últimas Noticias de hoy UD. Dice:
    “Ahora podré negociar los derechos de mi película sobre mi libro que estaba pendiente”
    “y por supuesto me están llamando programas de todo el mundo para que les venda información y hasta fotos que tengo de el cuando era niño”

    Que moralidad Sr. Gutiérrez; siga haciendo negocios, siga recibiendo dinero a costa de los demás, siga lucrando con la desgracia ajena, con la muerte.
    Usted ha sobrepasado todos los límites de la decencia y del respeto, se pasado por cualquier parte el artículo Sexto del código de ética periodística
    que dice:
    ”El periodista deberá establecer siempre una distinción clara entre los hechos, las opiniones y las interpretaciones, evitando toda confusión o distorsión deliberada de ellos”

    El año 2003 al conocerse la escabrosa historia de Claudio Spiniak UD no tuvo reparos en relacionar a Joaquín Lavin, por esa época candidato a la presidencia con el pedófilo, ganándose nuevamente una querella al no poder probar los hechos. No tuvo reparos en idear un montaje que vinculaba a personero públicos con la red de pedofilia. Como siempre todo quedó en nada y UD. Esperó que las aguas se aquieten escondiendo la cabeza con un avestruz.
    Hoy en la mañana usted dijo en ADN Radio “Para que seguir hablando de Michael Jackson si hay temas mas importantes” ¿Y UD lo dice? ¿Usted que se ha vivido y se ha alimentado por años de reportajes y artículos basados en la mentira? ¿Usted que nunca ha tenido la hombría para enfrentar condenas ni pagar lo que la justicia le ha impuesto?
    Como puede decir que hay temas mas importantes si UD. a vivido de estas historias. Como puede ser un ser humano tan miserable, Como un periodista puede alcanzar tal nivel de sordidez y deshonestidad.

    “Yo no soy gay; mi pareja es Gay”
    (Víctor Gutiérrez, Revista El Periodista, 31 de marzo de 2003)
    Para mi UD. es una persona despreciable que desde su reconocida y mal vivida homosexualidad ve desviaciones sexuales hasta peces de acuario y que busca fama y dinero de la peor de las formas; alejado de la moralidad y de la ética profesional, cometiendo asesinatos de imagen y que cuando los cuadros se le presentan adversos se convierte en maricón en la más literal de las definiciones.
    El ser homosexual es una determinación propia y respetable y no tengo absolutamente nada contra ello, pero el ser un maricón de mierda como UD lo condeno abiertamente y lo considero un mal nacido que inunda la sociedad de maldad, de falsedad, hipocresía y deshonestidad.
    UD. nunca trascenderá como periodista por ser un aporte real sino por farandulizar la vida y por lejanía que tiene con la ética, la decencia y los valores.
    Michael Jackson, gracias por tu música que inundó de felicidad mis fiestas de juventud y por tu enorme aporte a la música mundial.
    Descansa en Paz.

    Marcelo Morales Navarro

    Like

  28. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 10:36 pm

    Hi, VMJ, I am about to read the comments below, but I want to say I can translate. I have lived in 3 Spanish-speaking countries and will do my best if I can be of help in translations.

    Like

  29. October 18, 2012 9:55 pm

    “It may be time to move from studying Michael to study Victor Guitirrez instead.”

    Kaarin, I keep studying Gutierrez and read everything that comes my way. But most of the texts are in Spanish and I can go only by their Google translation which sometimes is very misleading and is definitely no good for a post.

    The second thing I noticed about Gutierrez is that there is very scarce information about him on the net. It looks almost like someone is filtering it for him – given his extensive activity the number of times when his name is mentioned is unnaturally small.

    What I found out about Gutierrez is that his sister is a very big boss either in the police or some security service, therefore it does not surprise me that information about him is rarely leaked.

    But I still need to do one more post about his book. I wanted it to be the main post in my series about it, but since so much time has passed I need to read his filth once again and this, as you can imagine, is the last thing I would want to do.

    Like

  30. October 18, 2012 9:35 pm

    It may be time to move from studying Michael to study Victor Guitirrez instead. Unfortunately my Spanish is very rudimentary, so I did not understand much of the twitter posts in Spanish. There certainly are thruth seekers with good knowledge of Spanish to help out with translations.

    Like

  31. October 18, 2012 9:29 pm

    There are these annoying references to Michaels private life, without any attempts to clarify whether true or just rumors, as they are.

    Like

  32. October 18, 2012 9:20 pm

    So much relevant info. It is still a pity that in many mainstream media and books there is references to” Michaels strange private life, rumors ..etc”. It is an excellent idea to make a separate post re Victor Guitirrez, as the core and the root of all the rumors, tabloid stories
    that still figure in mainstream media though it is not stated whether they are to be believed or not. But they are repeated like a mantra to this day.

    Like

  33. October 18, 2012 4:09 pm

    Guys, the talk about Gutierrez has started in a post where it does not belong, so I think it will have to be transferred to some other place (into a special post about Victor Gutierrez?), or otherwise we will never be able to locate these valuable findings again. Things in the comments get easily lost.

    I would like to return to the main issue – the fact that the prosecution was playing an extremely dirty game with MJ’s photos at the 2005 trial. The point is exceptional in its finesse and is also exceptionally difficult to understand.

    Introducing the photos at the 2005 trial was pure bluff (deception, deceit, fraud, hype, hoax).

    Knowing that the photos could not be introduced the prosecution tried to create the impression that the photos were correct (though in reality they were not). They themselves knew very well that the judge would never allow them due to MJ’s right to confront Jordan Chandler and cross-examine him in case this “evidence” was submitted (according to the 6th Amendment and its “confrontation right”).

    What the prosecution was doing is similar to a swindler offering to pay in a supermarket with a fake gold watch knowing that payment with watches is not possible anyway. He is sure that no one will check whether the watch is fake or real since watches are simply not a legitimate form of payment. The payment will be rejected, however the people around will still be impressed – the man lost his wallet and offered his gold watch instead, but it is refused purely for technical reasons as watches are not accepted for money. No one doubts that the watch is gold, while in reality it is pure trash.

    This is what all that bluff was all about. Such a thing is done for effect only.

    Tom Sneddon COULD introduce the photos without a witness only when Jordan was a child (due to the new child hearsay exception from the 6th Amendment adopted in 1995) but he didn’t do it. He didn’t reopen the case because he could not – the photos were no match. He didn’t introduce the photos even though the change in the law was made specifically for that purpose – to introduce the evidence without a child witness’s testimony.

    But in 2005 Tom Sneddon COULD NOT introduce the photos without a witness because Jordan was a grown-up and had to be cross-examined. According to the 6th Amendment (no exceptions here any more) the defendant has a right to confront his accuser. However Sneddon KNEW that there would be no witness and no accuser, so all this talk about the photos was just that fake gold watch that could never be used. It was purely for the effect and drama of it – to create the impression that the watch was gold (I mean that the photos were a match).

    Look at the arguments of Michael’s lawyer Sanger, Prosecutor Zonen and judge Melville’s decision and see how it happened at the 2005 trial (very short excerpts):

    MR. SANGER, MJ’s DEFENSE ATTORNEY (he refers to Carter and Crawford precedents):

    14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from
    15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had
    16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.
    17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these
    18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is
    19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the
    20 Carter case.
    21 And Carter also says that the Court is
    22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late
    23 in the trial
    that’s going to have an undue effect.

    17 But when you get right down to it, the main
    18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates
    19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not
    20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly
    21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that
    22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do
    23 interviews, and they get information and they write
    24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and
    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates
    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.

    MR. ZONEN, PROSECUTOR:

    14 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?
    15 MR. ZONEN: Just briefly with regards to
    16 Crawford. This is not hearsay at all. It’s not an
    17 exception to hearsay. It’s not hearsay.
    18 The issue is whether or not this child had
    19 knowledge of the existence of that particular spot.
    20 And the evidence of his knowledge, certainly his
    21 ability to draw that picture, would be
    22 circumstantial evidence that he knew about it. It
    23 would be the equivalent of a child being able to say
    24 that a room was green. And he would only know that
    25 if he had been in the room. It’s not for the truth
    of the matter that the room is green.

    THE COURT:

    ……………………………… I still
    9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to
    10 cross-examine
    the boy — or the — you know, Mr.
    11 Chandler
    . He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,
    12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would
    13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.”

    The sentence is so short that no one has time to understand the meaning of it – Jordan is an adult, so now if Prosecutor introduces the photos MJ has the right to confront Jordan and have him cross-examined. But Jordan is “definitely” not available, so the photos definitely cannot be admitted.

    Therefore all Zonen’s talk about introducing those photos is just theatrical play and nonsense (about the room being “green”).

    Like

  34. October 18, 2012 3:13 pm

    Oh, of course, Helena. Sorry, I didn’t understand what you wanted say. But that’s true.

    Like

  35. October 18, 2012 3:03 pm

    Guys, of course the word “pololo” is not used in its literal meaning – who would talk about some “knickerbockers worn by young children at the beginning of the 20th century” these days?

    It is the figurative meaning of the word and a hint at a youngster. So it is not just a “boyfriend” – it is a hint at a young boyfriend.

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    October 18, 2012 2:55 pm

    Just like any language, several words have more than one meaning in Spanish. It can also vary from country to country. I don’t think they were asking Gutierrez about a pair of knickers which mean sort pants cut just below the knees. In the UK knickers are a slang term for underwear.
    I think VG knows full well what he is..What is the most interesting is the age dististinction that he makes when he is talking about what he sees as pedophilia and what the world sees as pedophilia.

    Like

  37. October 18, 2012 1:13 pm

    Yes, Helena, but it’s only one meaning of pololo. There are several meanings: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pololo_%28desambiguaci%C3%B3n%29
    one of them is “novio” – boyfriend

    Like

  38. October 18, 2012 1:04 pm

    Susanne, the Google translation of “pololo” from Wiki says:

    “The boyfriend” is a female garment in the form of knickerbockers consisting dress shorts.
    During the first half of the twentieth century, the garment was brought [worn?] especially by young children. Also women wore bloomers culottes mode for gymnastics. It is believed that “the boyfriend” was invented by The Women’s Section of the Falange of José Antonio Primo de Rivera (directed by her sister, Pilar Primo de Rivera) to allow women to play sports in a “modest”.

    The original:

    El pololo es una prenda femenina en forma de pantalones bombachos de vestir que consiste en un pantalón corto.
    Durante la primera mitad del siglo XX, la prenda era llevada especialmente por niños pequeños. También llevaban pololos las mujeres a modo de falda-pantalón para hacer gimnasia. Se cree que el pololo fue inventado por La Sección Femenina de la Falange de José Antonio Primo de Rivera (dirigida por su hermana, Pilar Primo de Rivera) para permitir que las mujeres hicieran deporte de manera «recatada».

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pololo

    Like

  39. October 18, 2012 1:02 pm

    I think the sentence “cuanto tiempo fuiste pololo de Italo pasalacua?” means rather:
    “How long have you been the boyfriend of Italo Pasalacua?” – (or even worse than a boyfriend)

    Like

  40. October 18, 2012 12:55 pm

    These are the meanings of “pololo”:
    http://es.thefreedictionary.com/pololo
    It’s a word that apparently is especially used in Chile.

    Like

  41. October 18, 2012 11:03 am

    “It would be good to find out who is Nelson Mauri. Another of VG’s boyfriends, one he took to Miami with a story (a tale) that he just wanted to ‘internationalize’ him?”

    He took part in some popular youth TV contest in Chile. If we are to believe the knowledgeable person who left his comments about VG, Gutierrez took him to Miami to “internationalize” him there. However “internationalizing” evidently wasn’t that successful. This year, in May 2012 Nelson Mauri [NELSON MAURICIO PACHECO JIMENEZ] was jailed for theft of $300 (about 150,000 pesos).

    His guilt still needs to be proven:http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/fl-mdc/2012-05-07/nelson-mauricio-pacheco-jimenez-120029182

    I have no idea what this article is about but since it says “Miami” and “Americano” I am posting it here:

    Nelson Mauri jailed

    Like

  42. October 18, 2012 9:19 am

    “VG certainly has interesting friendships.”

    Aldebaranredstar, let us make a couple of preliminary conclusions. Taken separately the information about Gutierrez’s friends would not be that meaningful and could be considered simple innuendoes. But if taken in combination with Victor Gutierrez’s own words that he was a “reporter” at a NAMBLA conference at about 1986 and considering the pedophilia-oriented views he expressed in a book of lies about MJ, all of it becomes too suspicious and points in one direction.

    As far as I remember Gutierrez said about that conference that he heard the attendees hoping to make MJ a poster boy for promoting their ‘values’. It wouldn’t be too illogical to suppose that after the conference he had a mission to prove that Michael Jackson was their kind. He says it himself that he started collecting materials about MJ several years before the 1993 allegations so the dates fit in.

    He made rounds of the parents of almost all children who were friends with MJ and judging by his conversation with the mother of Wade Robson (described in his book) he was actually telling them lies about Michael and not really gathering information from them. There is no doubt that he was in contact with Evan Chandler too as he had access to Evan’s diary and some documents which could come only from Evan Chandler. It is only the time when he first contacted Evan which may be disputed here.

    By the year 1993 Victor Gutierrez collected a big stack of papers and was the only one who could show those papers to Diane Dimond in 1993. Later on he became Diane Dimond’s “best source” as she said it herself in a program devoted to a false video tape (which never existed). He was even summoned by the police to present his papers there, but they didn’t produce much impression, because later on he complained that he was no authority for them as he was just a “poor Latino”.

    In that beautiful CNN interview on August 26, 1993 http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm provided to us by Lynande51, DD speaks of her source and says that he had separate files on five children. Now we know that they were Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Jimmy Safechuck. And though MJ actually had much more friends – for example, Frank and Eddie Cascio – just “coincidentally” Jordan Chandler described no one else but the other four boys from those files. This makes us think that Jordan Chandler also familiarized himself with those papers – most probably when he was staying with his father during the custody battle between the parents. Those papers were probably also a way to bring Jordan over to his father’s side and make him accuse MJ.

    So whichever way you look at it, the 1993 allegations were provoked and instigated by Victor Gutierrez. If we learn who he really is we will get to the very root of the problem.

    Like

  43. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 7:18 am

    http://twitter.com/GutierrezNews

    This is Twitter account of VG’s called Gutierrez News. Yuck!!

    Like

  44. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 7:13 am

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentiras_verdaderas_(Chile)

    About the TV cable show that VG was on–Mentiras Verdaderas (True lies). The host is Eduardo Fuentes and the show started in 2011.

    Like

  45. October 18, 2012 12:50 am

    Great info coming out. Unfortunately I cannot get the vid.clips to open on my computer.

    Like

  46. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 12:47 am

    Hi, VMJ–thanks so much for investigating that comment. What I get out the quote from Italo is that when he ‘goes with’ 15 or 16 year olds, that is not ‘pedophilia’ b/c pedophilia applies only to 12 year olds or younger. Going with 15 or 16 year olds is just ‘going out with young people’.

    It would be good to find out who is Nelson Mauri. Another of VG’s boyfriends, one he took to Miami with a story (a tale) that he just wanted to ‘internationalize’ him?

    Who is Alex Hernandez, the ex-director of Mekano, and what drugs were involved here that he and VG transported or took?

    This comment is very interesting and thanks for investigating it. This is my translation –there are slang terms here I don’t know right now.

    “Victor Gutierrez: How much time did you spend with Italo Pasalacua (I am not sure what ‘pololo de’ means). Why did you take Nelson Mauri to Miami, telling a cover story that you wanted to ‘internationalize’ him? How many drugs did you move (or take) with Alex Hernandez (not sure what el waton means), the ex-director of Mekano? Victor, you also have your history. Greetings from USA!” youtube comment

    “Italo Passalacqua received his degree in journalism on Jan 3, 1978 from the U.of Chile. He was the newspaper editor of the show Tuesday 13 on Channel 13. He worked on the morning show Good Morning Everyone of TVN until June 2004, when he resigned from the station because of accusations of pedophilia made on the program First Floor of Chilevision. In 2001 he publicly acknowledged he is a homosexual.”

    In response to the accusations of pedophilia, Italo Passalacqua says: “When Gonzalo Caceres says that I am with a boy of 15 or 16, that is not being a pedophile. To be a pedophile is to be with boys up to 12 years old, more or less. The other case (15 or 16 year olds) is to go out with young people.” Looks like the statement was made July 4, 2010 about what Caceres said in June 16, 2004.

    Who is Gonzolo Caceres? Another question. Looks like he is the one who got Italo fired. VG certainly has interesting friendships.

    Like

  47. October 17, 2012 10:13 pm

    “VG has his own TV show, apparently, called Mentiras Verdaderas”–or True Lies. Looks like a Hard Copy, Chilean style.”

    Aldebaran, you cannot imagine how much I like translating from Spanish everything concerning Victor Gutierrez (via Google of course as I don’t know a word of Spanish). I looked up the Spanish comments following the video you posted and among other things found the following text:

    victor gutierrez
    cuanto tiempo fuiste pololo de Italo pasalacua? por ke te llevaste a nelson mauri a miami con el cuento de internacionlizarlo? cuanta droga movias con el waton alex hernandez, el ex director de mekano? victor, tu tambien tienes tu historia. Saludos desde USA!

    Google translation came up with an intriguing text saying that Gutierrez “has his history” and sending best regards to him from someone in the USA:

    victor gutierrez
    How much time went by Italo pasalacua boyfriend? by nelson ke mauri you took to miami with internacionlizarlo tale? how much drugs were moving with Waton Alex Hernandez, former director mekano? Victor, you got your history. Greetings from USA!

    Well, for a start I looked up Italo Pasalacua. It is a real person for whom Spanish Wiki provides the following text:

    Ítalo Passalacqua. Recibió su título de periodista el 3 de enero de 1978 en la Universidad de Chile. Fue editor periodístico del programa Martes 13 de Canal 13. Trabajó hasta junio de 2004 en el matinal Buenos Días a Todos de TVN, fecha en que fue despedido del canal tras unas declaraciones sobre pedofilia en el espacio Primer plano de Chilevisión. En 2001 asumió públicamente su homosexualidad.

    Google translation of it:

    Ítalo Passalacqua received his journalism degree on January 3, 1978 at the University of Chile. Program was newspaper editor Tuesday, 13 Channel 13. He worked until June 2004 in the morning Good morning to all of TVN, when the channel was fired after a statement on pedophilia on Chilevisión. In 2001 he admitted his homosexuality publicly.

    Isn’t it interesting that someone who knew Gutierrez in the USA connects his name with Ítalo Passalacqua who was fired from TV for making a statement about pedophilia? Some of Passalacqua’s words are also provided by WIKI:

    Cooperativa.cl (16 de junio de 2004). Consultado el 4 de julio de 2010. «[Passalacqua] señaló que “cuando Gonzalo Cáceres anda diciendo que estoy con un niño de 15 ó 16 años, eso no es ser pedófilo (…) Ser pedófilo es para con niños de hasta los 12 años, más o menos (…) Lo otro es andar con menores de edad”.».

    Google translation of it:

    Cooperativa.cl (June 16, 2004). Retrieved on July 4, 2010. “[Passalacqua] noted that” when Gonzalo Cáceres around saying I’m a child of 15 or 16 years, that’s not being a pedophile (…) Being a pedophile is for children up to age 12 or so (. ..) the other is to walk with minors. “‘.

    Italo PassalacquaSo as far as understand according to Passalacqua being around a child (boy?) of 15 or 16 years old is not being a pedophile – it is just “walking with minors”?
    If we are to believe the person who left that comment on the video Victor Gutierrez has interesting friends…….

    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo_Passalacqua

    Like

  48. October 17, 2012 5:17 pm

    “I find that incredibly disingenuous when you consider in the first lines of the Schwartz/Chandler tape has her name in it and they are talking about Michael being in love with her.” – lynande51

    Look what Ray Chandler says about June Chandler in his interview to Metro among all other crap:

    -You paint a picture of June, your sister-in-law, as being dazzled by Jackson’s fame. Maybe that’s got something to do with your concerns?
    She was in a marriage she wanted to get out of, needed financial security and Jackson provided her with that and gave her the jet-set princess lifestyle she wanted.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/139-raymond-chandler

    I can imagine how charming she was with Michael if these were her plans. Probably she was genuinely in love. And he could be too.
    June Chandler was very attractive. In this picture she is in Monaco in May 1993 (in white) together with her daughter Lily and Jordan (on the left).

    During the ceremony she was sitting in the second row behind her children (Michael took the children to the first row). Now Michael is on stage receiving a prize:
    June and Lily Chandler in Monaco

    Like

  49. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 17, 2012 9:26 am

    VG has his own TV show, apparently, called Mentiras Verdaderas”–or True Lies. Looks like a Hard Copy, Chilean style.

    Like

  50. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 17, 2012 8:56 am

    Thanks, Lynande, I didn’t know about the unnamed co-conspirators at all–how can Sneddon accuse the defendant’s own lawyer? This is mind boggling and seems totally unjust. I didn’t know that was why Geragos had to leave the case and Mesereau take over. It is so unbelievably corrupt!! This is truly a prosecutor run totally power mad without any check or supervision. Yes, I do wonder if Janet gave him those things, how did they end up being ‘fpund’ at NL??? Good question.

    On the other hand, Wegener does say Sneddon went to LA himself, so are you saying he did not?

    I think Sneddon got so cozy with high-level media people like Orth and Dimond that his ego got inflated. I am sure these media folks complimented him, urged him on, etc., and together they convinced themselves they were doing something wonderful to fight crime–and yet THEY were the CRIMINALS.

    This is not only the most shameful moment in media history but also the most shameful moment in legal history. Michael was innocent and all the means at his disposal to defend himself–both in 93 and 03-05–were taken away from him, even to the point of changing dates, manufacturing evidence, and accusing his own lawyer of a conspiracy to obstruct justice–why were there never any media “What Really Happened?” programs on THAT??? I know why–b/c the media did not want that.

    By the way, NBC Dateline (the very NBC that Michael rejected, the very NBC that went with the “Unmasked” crap right after the LWMJ, HIRED that scumbag V.G. in 05 as a “consulting producer.” Does anyone know where VG scumbag is now?? Do you know the name of the LA Spanish paper he worked for in the 80’s?

    I think Norma Salinas, the Chandler’s maid, helped VG a lot, maybe he paid her. She might have been illegally in USA and maybe that is why she disappeared? if she helped VG and esp. if she was paid, Sneddon or Garcetti could not use her. The investigation in 93 said that there were 400 witnesses interviewed–who were all these people? That is a LOT of people. After all that, no case.

    Like

  51. lynande51 permalink
    October 17, 2012 6:08 am

    The investigators’ name was Terrence “Terry” Flaa. He was the one that originally contacted DCFS in LA and got a report on the Arvizo family. I believe it was a Karen Walker that read the transcript of the Arivzo DCFS interview to him verbatim. They both determined there was nothing else there.
    What Sneddon “investigated” in 2003 was to locate Brad Millers office on November 8th 2003 in preparation of the Search Warrants. On the same date was when he met with Janet Arvizo behind the Federal Building in LA and showed her photographs of individuals for her to identify. He stated that he showed her DMV photos of Brad, Hamid and a couple of other people. He also took possession of a DVD and a Jacket that Janet gave him.She had a DVD of the Neverland Channel Demo that Star did with Hamid and I believe the one that everyone has seen of one of Gavin’s first visits to Neverland where Michael is pushing him in a wheelchair. That put that “evidence” into question because of the chain of custody.
    The whole thing about Brad Millers office was in question because Brad worked for Mark Geragos and when they seized his computers and files they were in fact seizing attorney work product which is protected through the attorney work product rule.It was for those reasons that they had to have a special hearing was to protect the attorney work product and determine the chain of custody for some of the evidence.
    I have a question though if he got those from Janet Arvizo why were they then added to the list of things seized at Neverland on November 18th?
    Then they wanted to cover the whole mess up whichis why they added the conspiracy charge.The conspiracy charge served a multitude of purposes for the prosecution. If you read the statement of probable cause you will see that the grand jury testimony and her statement to the police on July 6th of 2003 has no changes but they asked for a conspiracy charge from the grand jury, they did not aks for one in the beginning.
    Next it allowed the Arivzos to change the timeline which was something they desperately had to do to bring the case because Michael had several air tight alibis for the first set of charges die to the timeline.He was not at Neverland with the Arvizo’s when they said the molestation happened he simple was not there. Michael was in Florida for the better part of February at Al Malniks.
    Then with the conspiracy charge he also got rid of the exculpatory testimony of Frank, vinnie Deiter, Ronald and Marc Schaffel. If anyone has ever read the grandy jury indictment you will see that there are five named unidicted co-conspirators and unnamed unindicted co-conspirators. Those were: Mark Geragos, Brad Miller, Johnny Majetich, Asef Vilichek and AL Malnik. I believe at one time they also wanted to name Brian Oxman because they subponaed his phone records before he was on the case.
    Then because he had the unnamed unindicted coconspirator on Mark Geragos Mark could no longer represent Michael and he had to find new counsel.In essence he deprived Michael of the constitutional right to an attorney of his choice.In order to use the phone call from Frank, the rebuttal tape and Brad Millers interview Mark had to testify.

    Like

  52. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 17, 2012 1:13 am

    This is great, Lynande51 and VMJ. So we know Larry Feldman (AKA snake) handed the declaration to the Associated Press–that means a reporter who works for the Associated Press, right?? So we can figure out who the reporter was who worked for the Associated Pressin LA at that time (Jan. 11, 1994), and that will be a clue as to who had it and what that person’s connections were. I am assuming that person knew it was a major document and passed it on, made copies to someone who passed it on or sold it.

    Wagener’s interview is also highly significant for 2 reasons. First, he says that Sneddon ignored his own senior investigator (Terrence Draw–is that the last name?) and instead got 2 inexperienced investigators and went HIMSELF to Beverley Hill, LA “digging around trying to find people.” Was one of the people he DUG UP V.G.? Also, when was this–was it in 2003, 2004? Was it in June 2003? At that time VG had resurfaced, I think, and had been hired by NBC–although I am not sure of the date. Orth says she contacted VG in her April 03 article for VF.

    The other significant thing Wegener says, and this is really a BOMBSHELL IMO, is the following:

    “This is beyond just a lynching or a railroad job. This is a corporate conspiracy that has hijacked our prosecution team of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office to make sure that Michael Jackson is bankrupt.”

    This to me is solid gold. “A CORPORATE CONSPIRACY” that hijacked the prosecution, which had the power and the expense account of the state at its disposal. This means that the profit motive, the ability to earn mega bucks by bringing down Michael Jackson, was what the various media corporations wanted and achieved. The allegations that resurfaced due to Bashir’s LWMJ were a bonanza for the media. Mesereau talks about the never before seen number of media people in Santa Maria to cover the trial, that it was more than O.J. and Robert Peterson combined, that it was over 2,000 media reps. It was a vulture feeding frenzy that was only stopped when MJ was acquitted. Mesereau was told by a media executive that MJ’s acquittal cost the media millions of dollars that they were hoping to make covering his jail time.

    The other point is, as Gretta Van Sustern pointed out in the CNN interview that Lynande51 posted, a public person (MJ) has to prove MALICE, which is very difficult to prove, in slander or libel cases, as opposed to a normal person. So the media knew due to First Amendment Shield Laws, they could get away with it. Even DD got off when she went with the VG claim about the videotape of Michael molesting his nephew (thanks to Sneddon). Malice is hard to prove in court. She also never got sued for the ‘love letters’ crap.

    Feldman–you scumbag.

    Like

  53. lynande51 permalink
    October 17, 2012 1:10 am

    There is another photo op that he did in the Dominican Republic with the judge that married Michael and Lisa Marie. It is another old tabloid trick called a capture. Gutierrez walks up and calls out the persons name. He introduces himself and shakes hands asking him any innocuous question. All the time there is someone across the street to quick take a picture so they can say they met with him when in reality he could have been saying the exact opposit of what Gutierrez would later write.
    I was reading through Evans book again and it brings up the “whirlwind romance’ of Lisa and Michael. The detractors like to say that it was whirlwind to prove that Michael married her to make himself look “normal”. I find that incredibly disingenuous when you consider in the first lines of the Schwartz/Chandler tape has her name in it and they are talking about Michael being in love with her. She was seeing him as far back as then. They knew about it and all the crap that came after came from them trying to pretend they weren’t extortionists.

    Like

  54. October 17, 2012 12:42 am

    “at least Sneddon and DD tried to get in touch with them, as Frank tells in his book. He writes that “the district attorney sent my father a fax expressing concern that his children were at risk spending time with Michael Jackson. My father ignored it.”
    And: “One reporter, Diane Dimond, a correspondent for Hard Copy, showed up at the front door and stuck a microphone in my father’s face.””

    Susanne, thank you for checking up the book. I need to refresh it in my memory – it was a great read and a treasure trove of information. So the D.A. sent a letter to them and his father ignored it? Good. However I think that Gutierrez would have never approached the Cascios. Gutierrez is no fool and knows who can be approached and who is not.

    Gutierrez is very cunning and knows how to throw dust in people’s eyes and create the necessary impression. For example, I once came across a photo of him together with Larry King and nearly fell off my chair – what can these two people have in common? But later I realized that Larry King was simply signing his book for VG after he retired from CNN and Gutierrez took this chance to have a photo with him. He is probably bragging somewhere that they are “friends” and showing these pictures to impress people (like Evan Chandler’s maid).

    These photos help him to look like a decent journalist and make people trust him. This is how he set his foot in all those homes – through small tricks like that. Please note that Gutierrez tried to produce the impression that he was embracing Larry King.

    Like

  55. October 17, 2012 12:24 am

    William Wagener calls the way Michael Jackson was treated more than lynching. He says this is a corporate conspiracy to make sure that Michael Jackson goes bankrupt:

    Like

  56. Susannerb permalink*
    October 16, 2012 11:57 pm

    Helena, I suppose it’s true that VG never had a chance to approach the Cascios because they just were Michael’s “second family” and too close to him. But at least Sneddon and DD tried to get in touch with them, as Frank tells in his book. He writes that “the district attorney sent my father a fax expressing concern that his children were at risk spending time with Michael Jackson. My father ignored it.”
    And: “One reporter, Diane Dimond, a correspondent for Hard Copy, showed up at the front door and stuck a microphone in my father’s face.”

    Like

  57. October 16, 2012 10:53 pm

    “A copy of the four-page statement was given to The Associated Press by the boy’s lawyer, Larry Feldman. The document was sealed after it was filed in court in connection with the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-156785912.html -lynande51

    A great find, Lynette. A great find.

    So it was Larry Feldman in 1994. And someone in the press kept it until Bashir’s documentary aired in the US and leaked it exactly on that day.

    And he “vehemently denied” it! Technically he was right of course – he didn’t disclose it in the year 2003, but why didn’t he simply admit that it was him who passed over Jordan’s declaration to the press in 1994 for publicity sake?

    What a bunch of liars all these people are!

    Remember him saying to Larry King that he didn’t believe Janet Arvizo and that she was out for money? But in spite of that he still reported the case to Tom Sneddon, and Sneddon started an investigation. And when Larry King was going to testify about Larry’s words at the 2005 trial, he denied that he ever said it…

    Like

  58. lynande51 permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:44 pm

    Here is an article that explains how the press got Jordan’s Statement. It was Larry Feldman on the day he filed it that handed it out to the press as he filed it.So it was probably just kep on file somewhere and when they wanted to they just brought it out again.

    JACKSON ACCUSER DETAILS SEX ABUSE.(MAIN)

    Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)
    January 11, 1994
    SANTA MONICA, Calif. — The 13-year-old boy who accused Michael Jackson of molesting him detailed his alleged sexual encounters with the entertainer in a declaration filed in court Monday.
    The boy’s signed statement is the first to describe in his own words the sexual activity he says took place with Jackson. The entertainer has denied molesting the boy and has not been charged with any crime.
    A copy of the four-page statement was given to The Associated Press by the boy’s lawyer, Larry Feldman. The document was sealed after it was filed in court in connection with the boy’s lawsuit against Jackson.
    The teenager said in the statement signed Dec. 28 that he frequently shared a bed with the entertainer and that “Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on many occasions.”
    The boy, who turns 14 today, said Jackson showered him with gifts and trips and methodically seduced him over a five-month period starting last February. He said “the whole thing really got out of hand” when they took a trip to Europe and started bathing together.
    Attorney Howard Weitzman, who represents Jackson, said the teenager was seeking more publicity. “It’s just a plaintiff repeating his allegations, which Mr. Jackson vehemently denies,” Weitzman said. — Associated Press
    COPYRIGHT 2009 Albany Times Union
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-156785912.html
    ________________________________________

    Like

  59. Rodrigo permalink
    October 16, 2012 8:58 am

    I got this from the interview David posted. An interview with Charles Thomson –

    I also wrote a blog about how the files revealed that Tom Sneddon, the DA pursuing Jackson, tried to get the FBI to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act. The Mann Act is an inherently racist law which was widely used after its introduction to punish black men who consorted with white women. The notion of interracial relationships was at that time considered ‘immoral’. As such, any black men caught traveling with white girlfriends could find themselves prosecuted under the Mann Act for ‘transporting a female over the state line for immoral purposes’.

    Now was Sneddon THAT desperate, or just THAT racist?

    http://dancingwiththeelephant.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/inside-the-jackson-fbi-files-with-charles-thomson/

    Like

  60. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 16, 2012 5:28 am

    Wow–that transcript of the Cnn interview is a real eye opener. DD comes right out and practically names her source:

    DIMOND: Well, I’ll tell you, Mary, I was in a unique situation because Hard Copy is the only- I think I’m the only reporter, I think I can safely say that, to have seen the official documents, the official allegations against Michael Jackson. I got lucky, I’ll be honest with you. A source came to me, said, ‘I want you to see something.’ I met him at a location and looked at it, and it was a stack that thick of documents about the Michael Jackson case. We ran with it on Tuesday because I had it in front of me. I studied these documents for a long, long time.”

    This has to be V.G. Where did this rat come from? Does anyone have a bio on him? I know he is Chilean but what else? And in 2003, he was first hired by NBC and then moves to ABC to help Bashir with the ‘Secret World” crap. How did he get people to talk to him–people like Chandlers–and the other big question, why did LaToya give him a HUG?? (it’s on Youtube). Where is he now? still at ABC? He still owes Michael 1.2 million and I hope he pays it. It’s obvious that Bashir was in touch with him for LWMJ. I bet it was VG who set Michael up for the Gavin interview–put him on tape, have Michael hold his hand, have Gavin put his head on Michael’s shoulder–it was a set up. VG and Bashir are scum. And I am now convinced that VG leaked the declaration, the grand jury transcripts, and the DCFS papers to the Smoking Gun. He was back on the scene thanks to Bashir, Orth, DD. He no doubt got them through some paid contacts or from Sneddon.

    I was glad at what Gretta VanSustern said about journalists not crossing the line. DD and the person from VF were drooling over the ‘horrifying’ thought of Michael molesting children. There was nowhere an objective, let’s wait and see stance–it was all arugh tpo judgment with them. Disgusting.

    Like

  61. October 15, 2012 4:24 pm

    “There was in fact five different ones that Jordan told the police. Is it simply a strange coincidence that they are all the same boys that Gutierrez stalked? I don’t think so. It is also funny that it is them that he names when he talks to Gardner. What is really odd is that they never name Frank and Eddie Cascio who were in fact Michael’s constant companions.” – lynande51

    I think the fact that Jordan Chandler never mentioned Frank and Eddie Cascio perfectly fits into the whole picture. If Jordan Chandler was deriving information from Victor Gutierrez’s “file” about those other four boys, he could not say anything about the Cascios. And vice versa – if Jordan didn’t talk about the Cascios it means that they were not in Gutierrez’ file.

    Why weren’t they? Because the Cascios were so good friends of Michael Jackson that Gutierrez even did not attempt to approach their parents. He said he was making rounds of the parents of all children around Michael, but the Cascios were evidendly bypassed and even avoided. It was simply dangerous for Gutierrez to approach them as they would have surely contacted Michael and told him what was going on behind his back.

    So everything fits in – Gutierrez did not approach the Cascios, Jordan never read about them in VG’s dossier and told the police and the psychiatrist only about those four other boys for whom various lies were collected there. I do not rule out that he also believed some of those stories (at least partially).

    Like

  62. October 15, 2012 4:02 pm

    “That signature supposedly Jordan´s is not authentic. That signature is very adult and most people only get it in their 20ies”

    Kaarin, yes, this is the first thing all of us noticed. Of course it is doubtful that the signature is Jordan’s. All we can compare it with is the signature provided in Victor Gutierrez’s book but again, Gutierrez is not a person to be really trusted. Let us wait and see whether time will present us with some other documents to make the final determination.

    Like

  63. October 15, 2012 3:40 pm

    “From the very beginning it was Evan and Jordan that said that Michael told Jordan aboutother boys. He named Brett, Wade, Mac, and Jimmy Safechuck. Where do you think they got those stories from? Victor that’s who”

    Yes, Lynette, this fully coincides with those “five separate case files” in Victor Gutierrez’s stack of papers provided to Diane Dimond (about which she spoke in that CNN program) – Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck and Jordan Chandler.

    But if Victor Gutierrez had already been in contact with Evan Chandler for some time, we can be sure that he showed him that stack of papers too. It is quite possible that Jordan Chandler also studied them when he was staying with his father. This was probably one of the ways Evan Chandler affected his son – through all those “documents”.

    So it was not necessary for Jordan to read Gutierrez’s book [1996] – it was enough for him to read in 1993 all those papers, stating Gutierrez’s ideas, conclusions, observations, providing descriptions of various episodes which Victor Gutierrez heard from various maids and embellished in his own manner. All those ideas which he later described in his “declaration” could very well come from Victor Gutierrez’s dossier.

    Everything seems to fit in.

    Like

  64. lynande51 permalink
    October 15, 2012 3:30 pm

    There was infact five different ones that Jordan told the police. Is it simply a strange coincidence that they are all the same boys that Gutierrez stalked? I don’t think so. It is also funny that it is them that he names when he talks to Gardner. What is really odd is that they never name Frank and Eddie Cascio who were in fact Michael’s constant companions. They questioned everyone and everyone but him said no. Corey Feldman said they wern’t interested in hearing about the real abusers in Hollywood only Michael Jackson. I think if you read Diane Dimonds part and look up the Kelly Michael’s case you will find that interesting too. Especially if you look through the court documents and find that Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome is the expert that Sneddon was going to call to explain the Arvizo’s everchanging timeline and the reason that no allegations were made until they met with Katz after Feldman’s referral.What matters the most is that Janet and the prosecution said that the boys couldn’t have made up the allegations to sound so much like the Chandler case when they knew nothing about the Chandler case. THey had ample opportunity to make up a story even while they were are Neverland.

    Like

  65. October 15, 2012 3:10 pm

    I have the transcript of a show on CNN in which Diane Dimond talks about her having the police documents. In one part someone says that the documents are being faxed around. http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm – lynande51

    A very interesting interview. The part about the papers made available to Dimond points to Victor Gutierrez. He was the only one, in my opinion, who could have that “stack of papers” collected by the time the scandal broke out. And we also know that he had been ‘working’ on Evan Chandler, and making rounds of other parents for several years before the 1993. This is how those “five separate case files” came about (none of them were true of course):

    DIMOND: Well, I’ll tell you, Mary, I was in a unique situation because Hard Copy is the only- I think I’m the only reporter, I think I can safely say that, to have seen the official documents, the official allegations against Michael Jackson. I got lucky, I’ll be honest with you. A source came to me, said, ‘I want you to see something.’ I met him at a location and looked at it, and it was a stack that thick of documents about the Michael Jackson case. We ran with it on Tuesday because I had it in front of me. I studied these documents for a long, long time, I corroborated as much as I possibly could, and I, too – like Leslie, I’ve covered a lot of child abuse stories back in New Jersey, the Kelly Michaels case, several of them – and I read the narrative of this child and it was familiar, the same terminology was used. This boy said that when he finally, in June, told the superstar that ‘I don’t want to see you anymore’ – they were in Monaco at the time – Jackson threatened him and said, ‘Well, you know, if you tell, you’re going to go to juvenile hall.’ That’s sort of a typical abuser thing to do.

    Again, I want to stress, I don’t know if the documents I saw, if the narrative of this boy is true. But again, like Leslie says, I think we have a responsibility to report what we- what we know, especially about role models, and especially when it involves children. We told you on Tuesday night on Hard Copy that there were other cases involved, and last night I was able to go with- there are four other what they call corroborating- no, they call them companion cases. The L.A. Times went with it this morning. But we’re not talking about one 13-year-old boy, gee, are his parents having a custody fight. We’re talking about five separate case files.

    Like

  66. October 15, 2012 2:20 pm

    “I think maybe Avram sued him twice? About canceling Dangerous and then the 99 concerts (Munich). I wonder if the ins. covered the cancelled concerts in Dangerous?”

    Aldebaran, as far as I know Marcel Avram sued Michael three times. And it seems that in the first case, when Dangerous tour was cancelled, he received payment of around $20mln. as a compensation. Now I have put those papers aside but at the time I was studying them some information led me to believe that Michael had to pay the money himself (and not through the insurance). However it still needs to be clarified.

    Like

  67. October 15, 2012 1:46 pm

    “I timed the balconey incident when it was shown. In reality it was 2.3 seconds long. When it was shown again on television it went on for 4.5 seconds. Michael was right an editor can draw out the video to make it appear longer than it was.”

    Lynande51, this is extremely interesting! But I’m not surprised.

    Like

  68. October 15, 2012 1:43 pm

    “The Smoking Gun also released other sealed documents, from the investigation by the LA DCFS into 03 allegations, to the entire (over a thousand pages) Grand Jury transcripts!! The LA County Auditor-Controller sent a letter to Art Bell, COO of Court TV, 5/25/04 asking him to provide the source of the leaks to TSG regarding the DCFS leaks. The letter is posted on TSG. TSG actually says right up front that they publish ‘sealed court documents’–how do they get away with this???”

    Aldebaran, I also have some documents on the release of the grand jury transcripts and will try to make a separate post about it.

    Like

  69. October 15, 2012 1:36 pm

    “And Jordan Chandler, whatever your name is now. you can not bring Michael back to life. But don´t wait, nobody knows what tomorrow will bring’.

    Kaarin, I agree. Mistakes should be corrected while we are still here. Then it will be too late.

    Like

  70. October 15, 2012 1:16 pm

    “The Declaration from Jordan first came out in the British Tabloid on Feb7th 2003. Here is an article that says that it was leaked over there at that time.” – lynande51

    And the Smoking gun (TSG) said that they published it on February the 6th, 2003.

    However what does it matter? From the way the news was freely passed to Britain and back between tabloids it is really of no importance.

    Like

  71. October 15, 2012 12:52 am

    That signature supposedly Jordan´s is not authentic. Unless they had him exexcise for hrs each day to acheve something that adult.Too,it´s too late to compare with Jordans signatures on schoolwork.And that primitive style suicide pic.- although childrens style of drawing does regress when they draw very emotionally loaden material, they can in no way be compared to what they do in artclass. But anyway.That signature is very adult and most people only get it intheir 20,ies and if they have to sign a lot..Jt just a pity Evan was able to avoid court. I very mich doubt he could have comported himself appropriately.Everyone if you have saved anyting from age 13-14 or so and then compare it ro your adult signature,I am sure you will note a difference.

    Like

  72. lynande51 permalink
    October 14, 2012 9:06 pm

    Their timeline of events is all messed up. Evan never took Jordan to Mathis Abrams until June was taking him to court to get him back. That was Aug. 17th 1993.
    What happened in July was that in order to appease Evan, June agreed to let Jordan go over there. That was the day after he was taped by Dave. Then he kept him for a few days and presented her with that stipulation regarding custody. That was on the 12 of July. She signed it and then four days later he took Jordan to “pull his tooth”. That was on the 16th of July. It was the same day that an answer to Rothmans hypothetical question was sent by Mathis Abrams.
    He did nto take Jordan in immediately but waited until he was going to have to give him back.
    In the meantime he had Jordan call Michael, which would have been directly against his own stipulation trying to set up a meeting. Pellicano finally agreed to a meeting that took place at the Westwood Marquis on August 4th. According to him Pelllicano and Rothman were trying to “negotiate” a deal but Evan was never satisfied with it because he always wanted $20 million.
    August 17th Rothman sends a letter to Pellicano that says that the $350,000 deal was no good. That letter can be found in my article about the documents found in MJWML.
    From the very beginning it was Evan and Jordan that said that Michael told Jordan aboutother boys. He named Brett, Wade, Mac, and Jimmy Safechuck. Where do you think they got those stories from? Victor that’s who. SO he was on the inside of that house from the beginning and someone told Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan to look for the kids from the World Music Awards.

    Like

  73. lynande51 permalink
    October 14, 2012 8:50 pm

    Here is a link that you can use to get all of the articles about the case. You just have to click on the date you want and then keep going back and going to the next date. I have never been told that I have reached my limit this way.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993/aug/25

    Like

  74. lynande51 permalink
    October 14, 2012 8:22 pm

    That fall happened on June 29th 1999. Then Avram expected Michael to perform two full concerts six months later on December 31st in the same 24 hour period for the millenium. The injuries from that fall never would have been healed enough in time for that.

    Like

  75. lynande51 permalink
    October 14, 2012 7:50 pm

    Actually it was August 17th that Evan took Jordan to Dr. Mathis Abrams.He did that and then the next day in court Barry Rothman did not adress it because Evan was ordered to return Jordan but instead he kept him. Then the police and the DCFS investigated it starting the 18th.The search of Neverland and the Hideout was on the 21st and 22nd. I think it might be important to remember that the first shows were across the international dateline.
    There were actually two concerts in Hong Kong that were cancelled because of the racing season and the venue. They were supposed to be on the 15th and 16th of August. Then his first performance on August 23rd was in Bangkok and he missed two there on the 24th and 26th due to dehydration. If you want to see the list of cancelled dates and the dates that he performed you can go to this link.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_World_Tour#Third_Leg_.281993.29

    Then I have the transcript of a show on CNN in which Diane Dimond talks about her having the police documents. In one part someone says that the documents are being faxed around. Also pay attention to where she says that he wants to come home but someone is telling him not to because he will get arrested if he does. Well we can pretty much be certain that her source for most of this information was Victor Gutierrez. The fact is he couldn’t come home because Marcel Avram would not let him out of the concerts to deal with it.

    http://www.tabloidbaby.com/Book/Companion/cnn.htm

    On another note Marcel Avram shouldn’t have won the second case either. It was in one of the Michael and Friends concerts in Munich where Michael was injured when he fell fifty feet on the Bridge during Earth song. Michael injured his knee and had compression fractures to his lumbar spine from that fall. Marcel Avram should have been paying Michael because it was caused by faulty equipment.

    Like

  76. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 14, 2012 5:32 am

    Hi, Lynande51, I looked through the LA Times Timeline–don’t know if it’s totally accurate. Now they are saying I have used up my 30 free articles! I don’t know when Michael actually left for Dangerous tour. LA Times says he was in Thailand on Aug. 17, 93, when the criminal investigation was leaked. LA Times says KNBC Channel 4 aired the first reports at 5 pm Monday (I guess Aug. 17th). The reports said ‘a woman’ claimed MJ molested her son. 8/24/93 the tour opened its first show in Bangkok. On 8/17 Police Commander David Gascon confirmed the investigation and said it had started ‘a week ago.’ From the LA Times, it would seem MJ had no one speaking for him except Pellicano (why was that?), meanwhile Feldman is spouting off a lot with things like ‘This child is getting crucified.” Michael needed a forceful PR person and apparently there wasn’t anyone, at least according to press reports in LA Times.

    According to the filing of the civil suit on 9/14/03, it alleges Michael told Jordan that sex between friends was normal, and yet the suit alleges great mental, emotional, and physical (???) suffering. So did Jordan think all that suffering was normal between friends??? Doesn’t make sense. I read the (supposed) interview with Gardner and Jordan, a victim with no affect at all when describing the sexual encounters–just like, he masturbated me, like, and then we had oral sex and stuff, like, and I don’t remember when or where, like, and he is so overwhelming, like, but the more I got to know him, the more he was just like anyone else. HUH??? Gardener asks how did it feel and Jordan said it felt good–no mention of all this distress and suffering, it felt good and Michael convinced me this was normal. Unbelievable.

    One thing is clear, after the 93 accusations, Michael never really got back up from that in terms getting recognition/appreciation from the media and the general public. The fans stood by him, but the rest of the world got colder and nastier from that point on. All the money and court problems, so sad.

    I think maybe Avram sued him twice? About canceling Dangerous and then the 99 concerts (Munich). I wonder if the ins. covered the cancelled concerts in Dangerous? There was all this demerol and morphine drug stuff around Dangerous.

    He was one hell of a strong person to keep going in spite of all the nastiness. That’s why he is such an inspiration.

    Like

  77. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 11:36 pm

    By the way stress from emotional trauma is a legitimate claim.The trauma for both claimants, Michael and Jordan came from the same source. THE TABLOID MEDIA.

    Like

  78. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 11:26 pm

    Oh by the way that article is proof that it was settled by an insurance company. Michael would have turned this lawsuit over to his attorney’s. In turn they would have called the isurance company and told them Michael was being sued by Marcel Avram for not completing the tour. They would have asked why he did not complete that tour and Michael would have cited the Chandler lawsuit and the stress from the allegations/threat of prosecution as the reason that he became ill and had to undergo treatment. He had Dr. Forecast there in the US to confirm this. Then the lawsuit would have also been settled because it was the cause of the stress that led to the illness and treatment. So once Marcel Avram filed the lawsuit it was a business transaction and it was out of Michael’s hands because Marcel Avram was suing the business not Michael.

    Like

  79. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 5:47 am

    Does anyone think it was a coincidence that Diane Dimond broke the news on the day that Michael started his tour in Bangkok? I don’t Evan said he had people in certain places ready to move when he said move.I guess VG was the one that leaked that or met her with the papers. She has always said that she believed him and that would be the one thing that would do it for her.

    Like

  80. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 5:43 am

    Remember when I said that Evan Chandler had a stipulation added to the custody agreement with June that Jordan was to have no contact with Michael. Well he did that and then he says that he had Jordie call Michael on August 1st to meet him without lawyers and try to settle their “differences”. Then Michael refused to talk to him or Jordie unless Bert Fields or Anthony Pellicano was there. That is when they set up the meeting at the Westwood Marquis Hotel.
    There was a conversation between Pellicano and Rothman on August 17th about screenplay and you can see the letters from Rothman to Pellicano in my post about the documents found in MJWML.It was on the 16th of August that Michael Freeman filed a motion to get Jordan back.In the court hearing on the 18th he was ordered to do so except that he never went and instead took Jordan to see Mathis Abrams. He said Michael was already out of the country for the tour.
    Their contention was always that Michael took off and did not want to answer the charges. That to them was a sign of guilt. Feldman had everyone in the press thinking that Michael was avoiding coming back deliberately and that was a score for him.That was not true.
    Michael was still in California on August 19th, 1993. He asked his promoter to cancel the tour or delay it but did not give him a reason because he couldn’t because he was being extorted and he was trying to work it out.
    I always wondered why Brett was at Neverland on August 21st when it was searched. It would seem to me that Michael would have taken him with him if he was there to go on tour but he didn’t. Michael knew what the allegations were going to be and he wanted to stay and take care of it. Here is an article that has been overlooked by everyone because of when it was and what was in it. This is an article that was not about the allegations but about Michael beign sued by his promoter for leaving that concert early.In it he says that Michael tried to get out of it as late as the 19th of August.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-29/entertainment/ca-6422_1_pop-star-michael-jackson

    Like

  81. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 13, 2012 5:03 am

    I think Feldman deliberately put that package together and filed it before the judge could seal anything so as to pressure Michael’s team into a settlement. He knew he wasn’t supposed to reveal anything about the ‘children’ according to an agreement with Michael’s lawyers, but he did anyway. Why? B/c he was desperate after the strip search resulted in not a match, no arrest, and he wanted to apply more heat so he could get his 5 million and get the case settled. So he files a ridiculous request to see all Michael’s financial records, before the case even goes to trial let alone before a judgment, and he attached this bogus ‘Declaration’ and some of B. Francia’s bogus claims in her ‘deposition.’ On top of that he brings up the idea of another strip search, etc, all to intimidate Michael’s team to settle. He files this package in the court knowing it is unsealed and therefore will be public info until the judge can seal it. He is truly underhanded, unethical, sleazy, contemptible.

    Like

  82. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 1:00 am

    I have a couple of article dated the day before it showed that claimed that he said things he didn’t in the show. Let me look for the best one that I can find because the press did get teasers from ITV to promote the show.

    Like

  83. lynande51 permalink
    October 13, 2012 12:58 am

    Yes the judge presiding over the case was a judge David ROthman. I already checked a couple of years ago and there was no connection other than the name.
    It is interesting that the same judge Rothman retired from the bench soon after and went to JAMS which is a professional arbitration firm.

    Like

  84. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 13, 2012 12:58 am

    Hi, Kaarin22, The first lawyer that Evan Chandler went to was Barry Rothman, the judge is David Rothman–2 different people.

    Lynande51, thanks for the info re James Newton. I am going to check the timeline (93). The article you quote by Gumbel is dated 2/9/03, and the Smoking Gun released the Declaration on 2/6/03, so the source for Gumbel could have been TSG.

    Do you have any sources in UK earlier than 2/9/03? Also any sources for the uptake footage being shown in UK before Michael showed the ‘Take Two’ footage on Fox 2/20/03? Thanks.

    I agree the source could very well have been Bashir. But as VMJ shows, Sneddon had a long history of criminal activity as far as pushing the law aside when it came to his vendettas against people (thanks, VMJ). He seems to have really been a ‘mad dog.’ On the other hand, Bashir had the most to gain financially by stirring up the interest in his interview, and the timing is so amazing–the same day as his LWMJ shows in USA, the declaration is leaked. The fact that Maureen Orth was in Santa Maria in Nov, 02 tells me that she knew there was something very big breaking against MJ on the horizon–she spoke with Sneddon, DD, VG, in late 02, so they could have all decided to hurt MJ and help Bashir and Sneddon by releasing the Declaration to TSG (or wherever it was released; TSG claims to be the first).

    If Gutierrez was involved, he as a tabloid broker, had links to UK tabloids for sure. Hence, Marlon Brando gets wind of the leak while in London and calls MJ. I wish we knew exactly WHEN Ed Bradley was at NL. When you think about it, many people must have known what Bashir was doing and how he planned to edit the final videos (except MJ sadly).

    Even more recently, I read an 07 post by someone named TheLonelyNewsHound, who wrote what was recently confirmed by the AEG emails, that Michael supposedly locked himself in his hotel room and refused to attend the press conference and was drinking. So the tabloids do know how to find information on their target celebs.

    Like

  85. October 13, 2012 12:31 am

    It was attn Barry Rothman that Evan hired. The nastiest etc whom he could find.

    Like

  86. October 12, 2012 11:37 pm

    Evan said he had contacted “important people,including a Rothman as legal advisor,”
    It ´just can´t be the the judge Rothman? Evan said to Schwarz,if I recollect right,that he had paid these people lots of money

    Like

  87. lynande51 permalink
    October 12, 2012 11:02 pm

    Some Tabloid in the UK was the first to leak it. I can’t be sure but because I can’t find the original document anymore my guess is News Of The World. One thing I have to say is that Sneddon did not do it but someone did it to promote the story not the case. I personally think it was Bashir.

    Like

  88. lynande51 permalink
    October 12, 2012 10:57 pm

    @aldebaranredstar
    The writer James Newton was to be called as a defense witness in the 2005 trial. He was to testify to the timeline of events that he posted in an article when the civil case came to a close.The Prosecution objected to hsi testimony so it was not allowed.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/051805pltmotexcl352.pdf

    Like

  89. lynande51 permalink
    October 12, 2012 10:46 pm

    I posted the article to show that the Declaration was leaked in Britian in conjunction with the Bashir program. It says what it says about everything that was in the documentary.
    It was also written following a showing of some of the outtake footage on British Television where everyone can see how disingenuous Bashir was. When he questioned Michael in Miami for the last portion of his program he referred to the Declaration to form his questions. No one hads ever seen all of that footage because of the confidentiality agreement. Hamid Moslehi has the entire footage and it was shown in court.
    Sometimes when fixing a timeline it is impossible to leave out all of the unpleasantries. I wish I could but then the next thing that happens is that some one will question what the rest of the article said. This is full disclosure.

    I timed the balconey incident when it was shown. In reality it was 2.3 seconds long. When it was shown again on television it went on for 4.5 seconds. Michael was right an editor can draw out the video to make it appear longer than it was.That is what they did then and the only reason that it makes people angry is because the rest of the story is not in there. Michael held him in his arms over the side of the balconey for 2.3 seconds. The next day authorities in Germany did go up and talk to him about it. That is the part that is missing. They cleared him of any kind of Child endangerment at the time.He also said that he was sorry for what he did and said that he did show some poor judgement.Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.It is aknowledging the mistake that makes the difference.

    The entire Bashir thing was edited for dramatic effect. he shot the Arvizo kids in September and Michael left that night for Vegas. He them went to Berlin and then to Miami. What is interesting is that he first shows us Neverland and Michael, then Vegas, Berlin, then back to Neverland where he edits in the footage from the summer, then the footage with Gavin and finally the footage where he appears to be interrogating Michael about everything he said and about children. That was intentional. He built it up to fit his voice over. That voice over was planned and he planned it before he first met Michael. Bashir went in with an agenda and he accomplished what he set out to do.

    Like

  90. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 12, 2012 10:37 pm

    Here is some info on ‘sealed documents’:

    “When the document is filed “under seal”, it should have a clear indication for the court clerk to file it separately – most often by stamping words “Filed Under Seal” on the bottom of each page. Person making filing should also provide instructions to the court clerk that the document needs to be filed “under seal”. Courts often have specific requirements to these filing in their Local Rules.
    (3)The order must state whether any person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.” (Wikipedia)

    When Feldman first submitted the filing to the court–namely to the Clerk of the court– the documents were not sealed until the judge did so later in the day (“late Monday”). Since they were not sealed when first filed, they were public documents and the public could obtain copies, such as Splash News. The media likely had people at the court to advise whenever something on the Jackson case was filed. It didn’t have to be Splash News, but it could have been.

    Here is some info on Splash News:

    “About Splash News
Splash (splash) vt. 1. Fleet Street slang for front page story. Founded in 1990, Splash News is a leading independent entertainment news and photography agency. Splash provides breaking entertainment news and celebrity candid photography and video content to consumers around the world through their favorite media outlets including; newspapers, online sites, magazines and broadcast.

    Headquartered in Los Angeles with offices in London, New York, Rome, Milan, Berlin, Sydney and Florida, Splash News boasts a global network of 3,000 contributors and takes pride in being first and the best in the industry. Splash has been credited with announcing some of the world’s most memorable and controversial entertainment news stories in recent history.” (taken from the website for CorbisImages, owned by Bill Gates, which bought Splash News in 2011. (www.corbisimages.com)

    In the LA Times article Lynande51 referred to, the writer gives info about the Declaration as if he had read it:

    “Also included is a declaration from the alleged victim, who repeats almost word for word the allegations he made to police and social workers last summer.

    Among the partial transcripts attached to Feldman’s motion are long excerpts from the sworn testimony of Blanca Francia, a former maid to the entertainer who has previously spoken to police as well as to The Times and to the tabloid television program “Hard Copy.” Francia’s statements during her Dec. 15. deposition were her first under oath, however.
    Francia, who will be questioned again by lawyers today, worked for Jackson for five years beginning in 1986. During her deposition, she detailed a number of instances in which she said she saw the entertainer naked or partially clothed with young boys–whose names are deleted from the transcripts. She also recounted seeing Jackson in bed or in a sleeping bag with boys, sometimes during the day, and she said that Jackson told her not to tell anyone.

    Francia’s account is not the only one cited in Feldman’s motion for access to the singer’s financial records. The boy himself submitted a sworn declaration in which he repeated the allegations he made to social workers and police last summer.
    As in his interview by police and social workers, the boy described an escalating series of alleged sexual advances by Jackson, beginning with hugs and kisses and culminating in Jackson masturbating himself and the boy. The relationship ended in July, according to the boy, after his father obtained custody of him and broke off his contact with Jackson.
    Feldman and Jackson’s attorneys agreed last month not to divulge certain kinds of information–including details about children and Jackson’s security systems. Late Monday, Superior Court Judge David Rothman sealed the documents filed by Feldman in order to determine whether the material contained in them should be protected by court order.” (By Jim Newton)

    It sounds as if the writer had access to the declaration, or how would he know what the declaration contained in detail and how it compares to allegations Jordan made to police, as he does, right? He refers also to Blanca Francia’s “transcripts” and that names are deleted–sounds like he saw them, right?

    The Smoking Gun also released other sealed documents, from the investigation by the LA DCFS into 03 allegations, to the entire (over a thousand pages) Grand Jury transcripts!! The LA County Auditor-Controller sent a letter to Art Bell, COO of Court TV, 5/25/04 asking him to provide the source of the leaks to TSG regarding the DCFS leaks. The letter is posted on TSG. TSG actually says right up front that they publish ‘sealed court documents’–how do they get away with this???

    “The Smoking Gun has compiled an authoritative, behind-the-scenes account of the prosecution’s case against the King of Pop, who was indicted last April on ten felony counts for the alleged sexual abuse of a Los Angeles boy in early 2003. This story (and the ones linked at right) are based on a review of confidential law enforcement and government reports, grand jury testimony, and sealed court records provided to TSG by sources. The original probe still casts such a shadow over Jackson that when Schaffel’s Calabasas home was raided last January, deputies actually discovered a file folder titled “Chandler Statement.” Inside was a printout from TSG of a sworn declaration by the boy, which we first posted in February 2003.
    Last month, The Smoking Gun provided the first detailed, behind-the-scenes account of the case, which was based on a review of scores of confidential law enforcement reports, sealed court records, and grand jury transcript. Today we go a step further with the publication of hundreds of pages of secret grand jury transcript. In addition, we’ve published three new stories about the Jackson probe, all based on our review of the transcript and other confidential investigative records.Click here for those reports. ” from their website.

    So who were their sources–DD? VG? TS? All of the above?

    Like

  91. October 12, 2012 9:54 pm

    Lynande51,I know you only quoted, Allred was it ,when mentioning “the baby dangling”,even so it makes my bloodpressure go up from anger at stupidity just seeing those words. In the early days I felt a little sympathy for the 13yo boy with his horrible family, but that has dissipated long ago.
    Many were involved in the viciousness against Michael. Martin Bashir, with his video was particularly powerful and central as result of reaching a wast public by TV..
    And he did it after being invited by Michael for 8 months. And Jordan Chandler, whatever your name is now. you can not bring Michael back to life. You can donate a big deal of money to his charities and tell the thruth. If you don´t you will not feel well when in the future your death comes near. This is not a death threat,we all die,even you. But don´t wait, nobody knows what tomorrow will bring.

    Like

  92. lynande51 permalink
    October 12, 2012 9:01 pm

    Helena I posted the Case Summary of the Diane Domond case in the comments some months ago. It does list a Declaration from Tom Sneddon. That is what got her and Paramount out of the lawsuit and VG was not dropped.
    The Declaration from Jordan first came out in the British Tabloid on Feb7th 2003. Here is an article that says that it was leaked over there at that time.
    Neverland deposition adds to Michael Jackson’s woes ; Bashir interview Details emerge of claims made by boy in 1993 abuse allegation

    The Independent on Sunday (London, England)
    February 9, 2003 | Gumbel, Andrew
    There is no let-up for Michael Jackson. After a ratings-busting 27 million Americans on Thursday watched him freely admit to inviting young boys to sleep in his bed, the child abuse investigation that ended in a multimillion- dollar out-of-court settlement 10 years ago is roaring back to life.
    Martin Bashir’s documentary, shown by ITV last Monday, drew one of the biggest audiences all season for ABC, which paid a reported $5m (more than pounds 3m) for the rights. One reviewer described it as like watching a speeding train derail in slow motion – both horrifying and fascinating at the same time,
    Now the authorities in Santa Barbara County, where Jackson lives in hermetic splendour on his Neverland Ranch, are coming under increasing pressure to reopen their long-dormant files on him and interview the four minors he has most frequent contact with – his own three children and a 12-year- old cancer sufferer identified in the documentary as Gavin.
    To make matters worse, a deposition given by the 13-year-old boy at the centre of the 1993 child abuse allegations has just been made public, and it is not pleasant reading. The boy, Jordan Chandler, says Jackson had repeated sexual contact with him over a three- month period and talked about doing similar things to other boys the same age.
    “The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me,” the deposition reads. “The next step was for him to give me a brief kiss on the cheek. He then started kissing me on the lips, first briefly and then for a longer period of time. He would kiss me while we were in bed together.” The boy goes on to describe acts of mutual masturbation, shared baths and oral- genital contact. And, he says: “Michael Jackson told me that I should not tell anyone what had happened. He said this was a secret.”
    The suit brought on behalf of Jordan Chandler was settled for an undisclosed sum believed to be somewhere between $13m and $18m. Prose- cutors in Santa Barbara chose to leave their criminal complaint against the singer “open but inactive”, and little has been heard in the affair since. Jackson has consistently refused all comment, citing the terms of the court settlement.
    The latest admissions about bed-sharing, however, have raised red flags with many of the same people who hurled accusations at Jackson last time around. Gloria Allred, a celebrity feminist lawyer from Los Angeles, wrote to the authorities in Santa Barbara County last week and said: “I am hopeful that child welfare services will initiate a much-needed investigation into Mr Jackson’s activities with children at Neverland.”
    Jackson says in the television programme that there is nothing sexual about his sharing his bed with children, even ones that are not his own. “It’s not sexual, we’re going to sleep. I tuck them in,” he tells Martin Bashir. “It’s very charming, it’s very sweet.”
    The county child welfare services have some discretion in deciding whether to take him at face value or to investigate for themselves. The district attorney’s office, however, felt obliged to issue a statement saying it had no grounds to proceed based on “the act of an adult sleeping with a child without touching”. Certainly, they proved reluctant to intervene last November after the notorious baby-dangling episode in which Jackson brandished his infant son Prince Michael II (also known as “Blanket”) from a fourth-floor balcony at the Adlon Hotel in Berlin.
    In the programme, Jackson suggests there was nothing wrong with what he did, and that his son enjoyed it: “He was responding. He was singing.”
    Since the broadcast, Jackson has said that he was “devastated” by the portrayal, calling Bashir a “salacious ratings chaser” who manipulated the footage to give “a wholly distorted picture of his behaviour and conduct as a father”.
    But US viewers thought otherwise. As Roger Friedman of Fox News said afterwards: “Michael Jackson is over. His career is over. And if he’s not careful, he will wind up logging some jail time before his life is over.”
    Profile: Martin Bashir, page 21
    Gumbel, Andrew
    Copyright 2009 The Independent on Sunday
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1737447.html
    ________________________________________
    HighBeam Research is operated by Cengage Learning. © Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.
    http://www.highbeam.com

    Like

  93. kaarin22 permalink
    October 12, 2012 6:15 pm

    With the media to earn millions and individuals to earn many X their annual salaries just by making a statement, by Sneddon getting a big. famous victory; well finally it boils down to the deplorable taste,lack of logic, lack of ability to think analytically of the majority of the public reading tabloids at breakfast.

    Like

  94. kaarin22 permalink
    October 12, 2012 6:04 pm

    My previous comment was baxed on a hunch only and should be taken as such.

    Like

  95. October 12, 2012 4:45 pm

    Here is something in support of the remark made by Jason Francia when he was over with his testimony in 2005 – “He needs to move away”.

    A lot of people felt that there was an agenda to get rid of Michael Jackson. Some were trying to tell the truth about Sneddon and the plans he and some others were making at the time against Jackson:

    New allegations against prosecutor of Michael Jackson
    By K.C. Arceneaux
    RAW STORY COLUMNIST
    May 12, 2004

    On April 30, 2004, the indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him. Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.

    The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts. Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts.

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

    Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram’s wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting.

    Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA’s office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

    Sundaram’s allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA’s office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated.

    Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to “get Michael Jackson out of the county” were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.

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

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

    The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer’s expense.

    There is the example of George Beeghly, whose case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.

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

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

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

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

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

    So according to one witness the facts are as follows:

    – Police persecution of innocent people by the Santa Barbara D.A. department was common practice
    – Tom Sneddon and other city officials discussed Michael Jackson at a fund-raising event in 1994
    – He and (probably) others were looking into ways to “get Michael Jackson out of the county”
    – They also discussed other alleged vendettas and made racist remarks
    – Tom Sneddon’s department faced multiple civil lawsuits and settled them out of court at taxpayers’ expense
    – In handling his busines against Jackson Sneddon even had a public relations firm – Tellem Worldwide

    Information about Tellem Worldwide:

    Originally founded in 1994 as Tellem Worldwide, TGPR serves a variety of U.S. and Canadian clients in diverse specialties. Best known for its expertise in healthcare, entertainment, consumer products and crisis management, the firm’s client list includes notables such as Broadway Across America, Nickelodeon, Lord of the Dance, Aurora World, Inc., LA Music Academy, Rational Therapeutics, California Poison Control System and Marina Plastic Surgery.

    http://tellemgrodypr.com/2011/10/05/tellem-worldwide-relaunches-as-tellem-grody-public-relations-inc/

    Like

  96. October 12, 2012 4:11 pm

    In addition to leaking the desired information through some of his friends in the media, Tom Sneddon simultaneously supressed information he did not want to surface. With this in view he sent out letters to those who were undesired guests on TV and in the press, telling them that they could be subpoenaed as witnesses to the trial and therefore came under a gag order.

    However the point is that many of them were never summoned and never meant to be summoned as witnesses. This way Tom Sneddon simply silenced those who could speak in favor of Michael Jackson in the press:

    July 25, 2004

    D.A. Sneddon Attempts To Clarify Remarks
    It seems that even with the assistance of a free publicist, Tom Sneddon seems unable to keep his foot out of his mouth.

    Facing criticism that he misused his power by sending out letters to an extensive list of individuals, warning of possible call to testify in the Michael Jackson molestation case, Sneddon is now attempting to “fix it.” Many of the individuals who received letters from the D.A.’s office, like the lawyer of the accuser’s father, only have minimal involvement in the case. Receiving the letter effectively stopped the recipient from speaking about the case.

    But now Sneddon says that he never really meant to prevent people from speaking publicly about court cases. And he was not really referring specifically to the Michael Jackson case.

    The remarks were made during a “training session” at a conference of the National District Attorneys Association that he thought was not going to be covered by the press. He remarked that he had notified people that they were witnesses in order to keep them from talking to the press. “We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV,” he is quoted as saying.

    Sneddon was part of a panal of speakers that included other justice celebs such as James Brazleton who handled the Scott Peterson case.

    Sneddon acknowledged that he cautioned the group not to expect the press to “play fair” but emphatically denied sending gag order letters out to witnesses. “I would have to be criminally dumb to get up and say that.”

    Sneddon called an Associated Press reporter in an attempt to lessen the impact after his remarks at the conference became publically known. Sneddon has been heavily criticised for his handling of the Michael Jackson case.

    Source: AP / MJFC
    http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=184:2004-july&catid=167:2004&Itemid=75

    Like

  97. October 12, 2012 1:56 pm

    Here is one more article about the inseperable link between Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond. This time Tom Sneddon supported Diane Dimond in a civil lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson against her for telling lies about a “a truly explicit molestation video” allegedly handled by the police. It was highly unusual again for a prosecutor to sign a declaration (in a civil suit) in support of Dimond’s version of the events:

    DA HELPED DIMOND OUT OF A ‘HARD’ SPOT
    BY LLOYD GROVE WITH HUDSON MORGAN
    Wednesday, March 16th 2005, 6:48AM

    Does Court TV reporter Diane Dimond owe Tom Sneddon big time?

    Yesterday, I learned that the Santa Barbara district attorney – whose prosecution of Michael Jackson is Dimond’s beat – played a key role in killing a slander suit that Jackson filed against her a decade ago.

    In 1995, when Dimond was working for “Hard Copy,” she reported that Sneddon was searching for an explicit 27-minute videotape showing Jackson molesting a boy.

    Sneddon soon concluded that no such video existed, but not before Dimond appeared on L.A.’s KABC radio and her Paramount-produced tabloid show to trumpet the imagined X-rated details.

    “It was taken right before Christmas, as the story goes, and it was recorded by one of Michael Jackson’s own security cameras,” Dimond said on the radio, touting her “Hard Copy” scoop. “Truly explicit,” she added, noting that she had not seen the alleged tape.

    Sneddon, in an unusual instance of a prosecutor involving himself in a civil suit, signed a declaration supporting Dimond’s version of events. The trial judge dismissed the suit, saying Jackson couldn’t prove malice or false reporting.

    Jackson appealed the judge’s ruling, and Sneddon’s declaration was cited extensively in the November 1998 California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the summary judgment.

    Neither Jackson’s lawsuit nor Sneddon’s role in snuffing it is disclosed in Dimond’s official bio on the CourtTV.com Web site or in the detailed history of her Jackson coverage, which includes her exclusive November 2003 interview with Sneddon.

    “The lawsuit was a public event, and it need not be disclosed every time Diane reports on Jackson, nor will it be,” Court TV officials said in a statement yesterday.

    Doesn’t Dimond have a conflict of interest?

    “Court TV does have a conflict-of-interest policy, and neither Diane’s reports on Jackson nor the fact that Mr. Sneddon submitted an affidavit supporting the defense of a lawsuit 10 years ago is even close to any kind of conflict of interest – at Court TV or any other news organization,” the statement insisted.

    “For Diane Dimond to cease reporting on Jackson because he sued her would mean that he had intimidated her from reporting on his activities.”

    I guess I’ll leave it to the court of public opinion.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2005-03-16/gossip/18287023_1_diane-dimond-tom-sneddon-court-tv

    Like

  98. October 12, 2012 1:45 pm

    “I did catch Jason Francia remark about “he needs to move away” .Pretty obvious that he agreed that Sneddon had a vendetta and that the only way for this stuff to stop was to move away..as in away from Sneddon area of power. He didnt have the option of saying no , imo, like Jordan because he lives in the area…” – nannorris

    I don’t know how big the influence of a District Attorney can be in general, but all those who were wrongly prosecuted by Tom Sneddon said that in the Santa Barbara county his power was almost unlimited.

    I also have a few articles about Tom Sneddon’s contacts with Diane Dimond. Here is a working link for one of them::

    DID JAX REPORTER BRIEF DA?
    BY LLOYD GROVE WITH HUDSON MORGAN
    Tuesday, March 15th 2005, 6:48AM

    Has Court TV’s Diane Dimond helped prosecutors gather evidence in the Michael Jackson case?

    New Jersey businessman Henry Vaccaro Sr. claims that’s exactly what she did last March, vowing to alert Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon after discovering a pair of soiled Calvin Klein briefs – presumably Jackson’s – among the items in Vaccaro’s extensive collection of Jackson family memorabilia in a warehouse in Asbury Park.

    The morning after Dimond’s visit, Vaccaro told me yesterday, Sneddon personally phoned Vaccaro, said that Dimond had informed his office about the underwear and other potential evidence, and asked to borrow the items for use in the investigation.
    But Dimond, through a Court TV spokeswoman, insisted yesterday that she simply had sought comment from Sneddon’s office “on some evidence that might be of interest to the prosecution.”

    Yesterday, journalistic ethics expert Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center for Excellence in Journalist, told me: “The standard is that journalists should try to avoid becoming an extension of law enforcement or any government agency.” If Dimond did so, “that would be very unusual,” Rosenstiel added.

    In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.”
    Dimond, who has tangled with Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, is known to many close observers of the trial for coverage that seems to favor the prosecution in her reports on Court TV, as an analyst for other television outlets and in a newspaper column.

    Dimond’s behind-the-scenes contact with Sneddon’s office was revealed in just-unsealed court papers involving litigation between Vaccaro and the Jacksons concerning who rightly owns the collection (which Vaccaro seized through a previous federal court judgment).

    In a Jan. 13, 2005, letter to Sneddon, requesting the return of the items, Vaccaro writes: “I was contacted by your office after Diane Dimond of Court TV informed you that there were various items of potential interest to you among the contents of a warehouse in Asbury Park, N.J.”
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2005-03-15/gossip/18294369_1_vaccaro-sneddon-items

    Some facts to remember from the above:

    – we have proof of Diane Dimond’s close cooperation with Tom Sneddon. At least in some instances she supplied Tom Sneddon with “evidence” and he followed her lead, though the standard in the US is that journalists should be independent and not work together with law enforcement or government agencies (this is typical for countries like the one I live in).

    – Diane Dimond fell as low as take some soiled underwear from Henry Vaccaro’s collection, assume that it was MJ’s and go with it on TV (I have a transcript of her speaking about it at great length and showing it to the public). The pretext was that it could contain some “DNA evidence”.

    This makes you wonder – couldn’t Tom Sneddon obtain MJ’s DNA in a more conventional way? Or was the whole thing done on such a grand scale simply to harass and utterly humiliate Jackson?

    Like

  99. October 12, 2012 11:55 am

    “I have read that Bashir and Victor G. were good friends? Anyone know if this is true?”

    The Spanish-speaking press said that Victor Gutierrez worked as one of Bashir’s assistants when he was making his second documentary “MJ’s secret world” for ABC (it turned out to be much more salacious than the first). From what I read about it I got the impression that ABC was even embarrassed by how much fiction it was.

    “All I can say is there is a lot of NBC here–DD at NBC, Orth worked for NBC before she married Russert, the Senior VP of NBC News (Dateline is part of NBC News). NBC former partner of Court TV, which bought The Smoking Gun in 2000. And Bashir went from ABC to MSNBC. Just saying.”

    NBC was for sure part of it as many others in the press, but this is a slightly different matter.

    All I am saying is that there was a leak though Jordan’s declaration was sealed by the judge. And it could be leaked only by those who had immediate access to it.

    Like

  100. October 12, 2012 11:00 am

    “Sneddon saw things in terms of simple good/evil categories; and he thought he was himself on the side of the angels!!”

    This is correct. Sneddon saw things as black and white only, same as a huge number of other people. This is why he had so many followers and so much support from the public.

    Like

  101. October 12, 2012 10:48 am

    “Sneddon a catholic, so many catholic boys molested.”

    Kaarin, I’m sorry but I think that it is too far-fetched. And by the way molestation is done not only by Catholic ministers. Absolutely not! It is one of the media grave exaggerations or even an agenda. For example, the British pedophile Tom O’Carroll was convicted together with a “retired” British Anglican minister and a former “school chaplain”:

    “61-year-old Thomas Victor O’Carroll, an out of work journalist and 67-year-old Michael John De Clare, a retired Anglican minister, were arrested in January 2006 after the Met’s Paedophile Unit conducted a series of co-ordinated searches and arrests.

    O’Carroll collected a cache of indecent material of children from Studdert, which he had left there for safekeeping, and then drove to another part of the country to give the material to another associate. Unbeknown to O’Carroll, the other associate was an undercover police officer.
    During the arrest phase of the operation, a search of Studdert’s extensive country home, and some 17 acres of grounds, uncovered two highly sophisticated hidden compartments within his bathroom One was hidden behind a false wall by the bath and the other was hidden in the eves of the house and accessed by a secret door opposite the toilet. The ‘hides’ contained a massive hoard of indecent images of children, believed to be his lifetime’s collection, with images from the 1950’s to modern day in a variety of formats.
    The formats included videos, photographic slides, cine films, photographs, magazines and photographic negatives. In terms of formats it was the widest ranging personal collection of abusive material known to the Metropolitan Police Service ever attributed to one person.
    http://cms.met.police.uk/news/convictions/paedophile/men_jailed_for_making_and_distributing_indecent_images_of_children

    Born in Co Carlow, O’Carroll, of Leam Street, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire in England, pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing child porn images between January 1994 and July 2005.

    Also detained was millionaire Michael Studdert, 67, a former Anglican minister and school chaplain from Surrey. He was sentenced to four years.

    The court heard the vault, built in a house on a 17-acre country estate at Hindhead, contained one of the largest child porn collections of its kind.

    Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm

    The BBC article says that the “retired”f minister admitted making those pictures (at least some of them):

    “Former minister Michael Studdert, 67, was jailed for four years after admitting making indecent images.”

    Like

  102. October 12, 2012 10:29 am

    “The Declaration was attached in the Motion for Michael’s Financial Records. He attached it then and none of these were sealed until after the settlement on Jan 24th 1994. Anyone in the press could get it then.They were all aware of it at the time.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-11/local/me-10709_1_michael-jackson/2

    Lynande, thank you, but this very article is provided in the text of my post (have you read it at all?). The article says that the documents WERE SEALED THE SAME DAY. They were filed on Monday and everal hours later (“late Monday”) they were sealed to determine whether the material should be protected by court order.

    To me it means that the documents were NEVER disclosed as they were sealed even before the final decision:

    “Late Monday, Superior Court Judge David Rothman sealed the documents filed by Feldman in order to determine whether the material contained in them should be protected by court order.”

    Like

  103. October 12, 2012 10:12 am

    “TSG is an acronym for The Smoking Gun–they are just referring to themselves in acronym form”.- aldebaranredstar

    Oh, I see. Thank you very much, it clarifies this matter. So the document was leaked by the Smoking Gun after all.

    “Feldman filed the papers on Monday and “late Monday” the judge sealed them. So there was a window where they were filed but not yet sealed.”

    Exactly. The window of several hours when the papers were still under consideration by the judge. Do you think that it was possible to leak that document within those several hours? I also wonder if the papers could be disclosed only after the judge decided whether they were to be made available to all or sealed?

    Like

  104. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 12, 2012 7:22 am

    Diane Dimond was a reporter for Hard Copy until she went to NBC in 98 and co-hosted a show with Geraldo “UpFront Tonight.” We know she was sooo tight with Sneddon and hounded Michael for over a decade. So DD was at NBC in 98, and in 98 NBC sold its share in Court TV to Time Warner. Court TV became TruTV in 08. (NBC was an original partner in Court TV when it was launched in 91).

    Orth met with Sneddon late 2002 when she was at the Marcel Avrams trial in Santa Maria. They spoke about the ‘baby-dangling’ in Germany, that took place on Nov. 19, 2002, which she and Sneddon regarded as ‘child endangerment.” Orth quotes Sneddon as saying “Any other judge would have thrown his ass in jail.” Could it be punishment for this supposed act when Sneddon issued the arrest warrant for Michael on the same day as the ‘baby-dangling’–Nov. 19, 2003?

    Orth says she checks out court records at the Santa Maria courthouse and speaks with prosecutors, in preparation for her April, 03 VF hit piece. Her last hit piece had been in 95. Like a vulture, she was preparing to aid and abet what she knew would be another attack on Michael, this time from Bashir. Why else was she in Santa Maria in late 02? She says she spoke to Dimond and quotes her and also tracked down Victor Gutierrez.

    I have read that Bashir and Victor G. were good friends? Anyone know if this is true?Orth quotes a lot from VG (disgusting sex stuff). Orth says Sneddon’s wife is an evangelical Christian who has written 2 books for teens and contributes to Christian Parenting Today.

    All I can say is there is a lot of NBC here–DD at NBC, Orth worked for NBC before she married Russert, the Senior VP of NBC News (Dateline is part of NBC News). NBC former partner of Court TV, which bought The Smoking Gun in 2000. And Bashir went from ABC to MSNBC. Just saying.

    Like

  105. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 12, 2012 5:29 am

    Info on TSG from Wikipedia:

    “The website was founded in 1997 by William Bastone and Daniel Green, former reporters for The Village Voice, and graphic designer Barbara Glauber. Most of The Smoking Gun’s content is obtained Freedom of Information Act requests to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and from public records such as court documents. The site has used those requests to assemble a collection of mugshots of current and historical celebrities.
    Court TV (now truTV) purchased The Smoking Gun, as well as the website Crime Library, in 2000.”

    Like

  106. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 12, 2012 5:22 am

    Kaarin22, yes, I thought of that too. Sneddon went to Notre Dame as well. I mentioned this once before to SaneMJfan. I thought perhaps Sneddon might have encountered another boy who had been molested, or even just heard of one, and that might have created a fervor in him to punish child molesters–it is possible. One thing for sure, there is very little available info about Sneddon–his life experience, etc. A journalist in Santa Barbara commented that Sneddon saw things in terms of simple good/evil categories; and he thought he was himself on the side of the angels!!

    Like

  107. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 12, 2012 5:14 am

    Hi, Lynande51, thanks for that link. The link says that Feldman filed the papers on Monday and “late Monday” the judge sealed them. So there was a window where they were filed but not yet sealed.

    VMJ, TSG is an acronym for The Smoking Gun–they are just referring to themselves in acronym form.

    Like

  108. lynande51 permalink
    October 12, 2012 3:03 am

    The Declaration was attached in the Motion for Michael’s Financial Records. He attached it then and none of these were sealed until after the settlement on Jan 24th 1994. Anyone in the press could get it then.They were all aware of it at the time.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-11/local/me-10709_1_michael-jackson/2

    Like

  109. October 12, 2012 2:13 am

    Aldebaran, ofcourse Evan, Jordan and Ray would fight to the bitter end,whatever that could be for them,not to testify. They were all BigTime Liars and needed to be at a safe distance from court.
    Just now something popped up in my mind,and I have to admit I am a bit uncertain whether to write it or not. But any way ,what so motivated Sneddon agains Michael? There could be many answers to that.So here it is:Sneddon a catholic, so many catholic boys molested. Sure that did not start yesterday.

    Like

  110. October 12, 2012 12:54 am

    “-but I am guessing (speculating, b/c of course I don’t know, although I would love to know the truth) that the media was deeply involved in this leak” – aldebaranredstar

    I am afraid we cannot afford guessing. Proper research is much more than guessing. It is searching for all possible variants, comparing them with each other and choosing the one which is backed by the biggest part of information. After that comes checking it up and testing it. Ideally if the result is correct it will ideally fit into the picture and will help to make further steps. If it turns out false, it is not bad either as it shows that the direction is wrong and we should not follow it.

    Of course the media could be involved in it, but let me say it again – all the documents were sealed! Compare it with the Grand Jury transcripts in 2004 that were also sealed, but still were disclosed. If I remember it right it was then that the Sheriff had to conduct a short investigation and released a statement that they had nothing to do with the leak. This is how serious it is – the Sheriff thought it necessary to clear his department of the suspicion!

    I think that Jordan Chandler’s declaration was the same serious kind of a document. No one could have access to it. And if the judge’s order was violated an investigation was to be carried out (but it was not). This is why Michael was so concerned about it – none of the law enforcement bodies gave a damn.

    “What kind of site is The Smoking Gun and who runs it? That would be good to know. Was it the only site to leak the Declaration?”

    Let us start from the very beginning of it. I did not specifically look into where the declaration surfaced, because I did not think it necessary, but since you are asking I think that the Declaration ended up on Smoking Gun, but the Smoking gun itself says that the Declaration was first published by TSG.

    Smoking Gun on Jordan's declaration

    What is TSG? The only TSG that I was able to find which more or less fits into the picture is a site publishing photos called T’s Sind Geil Gallery (“A Tribute to the Wacken Open Air Phenomenon”). http://www.woa-tsg.com/woa-tsg/tsg-gallery/index.php

    What it is I have no idea. But it is quite possible that someone anonymous just published the Declaration there and from then on it assumed a life of its own.

    Like

  111. October 11, 2012 11:59 pm

    “Perhaps you can verify them.”

    Susanne, yes, we still need to verify each date. This was only a preliminary try. After reading each article we need to fill in the list of dates and verify each date by other sources.

    Sometimes it is difficult to do. For example, Veritas Project is a pretty accurate source and this is why I provided the dates of the social workers’ interviews from the Veritas Project. They extended the dates of the interviews. Could they include the fact that one of the social workers met Janet Arvizo in a shop and asked her about her children? Janet Arvizo spoke about the way they were doing at school, etc. And there were no complaints about MJ again, though technically this was already the time when “molestation” had allegedly “taken place”.

    Was it an interview? Most probably it was, only Sneddon did not know about it until one of the social workers started her testimony at the trial (otherwise he would have shifted everything to an even later date).

    Like

  112. October 11, 2012 11:38 pm

    “Do the people who accomplished this ever have pangs of conscience.”

    Kaarin, I would very much like to see people like Diane Dimond and her kind enjoy all the fruit of their deeds. I hope there will be a time when people shun her when she comes to a public place, never shake her hand and turn their backs on her saying to themselves “She is the Diane Dimond who poured so much dirt on an innocent person”. Probably she and others like her will be able to understand what it’s like to be in Michael’s shoes.

    I really hope we will live to see her and Tom Sneddon’s utter shame.

    Like

  113. Rodrigo permalink
    October 11, 2012 11:17 pm

    Evan, Jordan and Ray all refused to give testimony in 2005. They were prepared to fight to the death to avoid it if pushed. I wonder why?

    Like

  114. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 11, 2012 11:13 pm

    Hi, VMJ–I don’t say the media had ‘easy access’–but I am guessing (speculating, b/c of course I don’t know, although I would love to know the truth) that the media was deeply involved in this leak, if not as source certainly as the conduit.

    What kind of site is The Smoking Gun and who runs it? That would be good to know. Was it the only site to leak the Declaration?

    Why do I suspect NBC? Maureen Orth is another ‘mad dog’ similar to Sneddon (and Dimond and Gutierrez). She wrote 5 articles condemning Michael for VF. The one in April, 03 was titled “Losing His Grip.” She was married to the now deceased Vice President of NBC News–Tim Russert, the guy in charge of Meet the Press, and, like Sneddon, an ardent Roman Catholic. In the eyes of Sneddon and maybe other devout Catholics, such as Russert and Orth, child molestation must be punished as it is such an evil crime and they thought they were doing something noble?? Orth says in her article that Sneddon’s wife has published (religious ?) children’s books. Orth also met with Sneddon and the prosecutors (and was allowed access to files I think). She also spoke with prosecutors in LA.

    NBC was not doing well in the competition with CBS and ABC. They desperately wanted a boost in the sweeps. Maybe it was in revenge for MJ not accepting their offer? Maybe it was to pump up the interest in the ‘MJ Unmasked’ Dateline piece, which was going to be aired. That show got 14 million viewers. The ABC LWMJ got 27 million viewers. These are big numbers in these powerful media industries. If MJ had accepted NBC’s offer of an exclusive rebuttal to LWMJ, the viewership would have been enormous. Ed Bradley’s interview had 18.8 million viewers, even though it didn’t air til January 04.

    As far as Blanca Francia’s deposition not leaking, the Jordan Chandler Declaration was the piece de resistance and most in demand; in comparison Blanca’s deposition did not have the same importance to the media IMO. In other words, Jordan’s declaration was worth the big money and the risk, Blanca’s wasn’t.

    Like

  115. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 11, 2012 10:44 pm

    Sneddon got Jordan’s mother June to testify in 05–did he also ask Evan? Did Evan refuse? Anyone know? Just curious, b/c it would seem that Evan’s testimony would be more important since he brought the charges against MJ, hired the lawyers, etc.

    Like

  116. October 11, 2012 10:33 pm

    “So NBC could have been involved in the leak of the Declaration” – aldebaranaredstar

    But why do you think that the media had an easy access to the declaration? You forget that the document was SEALED the same day when Larry Feldman made his motion accompanied by this document. Compare it with other documents, for example, Blanca Francia’s deposition which was also in the same package (together with some other depositions). NONE of them have ever been leaked.

    This is why we have to restore Francia’s deposition piece by piece, through various indirect sources. The same goes for Jordan’s declaration. It was sealed and only those who had direct access to it could disclose it.

    “Part of NBC’s offer to Michael was that they would not show the Dateline special; they would withhold it.”

    It was a fraud. NBC was deceiving Michael. They were not going to keep their word as later they themselves said that Dateline belonged to a different, so called “news” department while the interview was to be paid for and belonged to “entertainment”. They said “they could not withhold the “news”.

    I analyzed their fraudulent offer to Michael in detail in this post:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/big-business-around-bashirs-documentary-time-to-find-who-was-who-in-the-game/

    Like

  117. Susannerb permalink*
    October 11, 2012 10:33 pm

    Helena, I’d like to add to the timeline that the Arvizos travelled to Miami (with Chris Tucker) in February 6 to see Michael, who was in Miami at that time, when LWMJ aired, and they altogether were back at Neverland on February 8.
    According to what I wrote down for myself once, on February 13 was the recorded phone conversation between Frank Cascio and Janet Arvizo, that was used in the trial.
    The interview the DCFS workers did with the Arvizos I thought was on February 20, and the video recording with Brad Miller was on the same day (during the night hours before the Arvizos went back to LA to see the DCFS workers).
    There must have been another recorded interview Brad Miller did with Janet A. on February 16 (only audio?).
    And there was another date in February when Gavin A. was interviewed by his teacher.
    These are all important dates because they did not fit in Sneddon’s timeline of the alleged abuse.
    I’m not quite sure if these are all exact dates, but I once wrote them down for myself (I think from posts I read on your blog).
    Perhaps you can verify them.

    Like

  118. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 11, 2012 10:25 pm

    Thanks so much, VMJ and Lynande51, for your great information. I really think the events of 2003 are so critical to understanding what happened to Michael in the deepest sense of who was behind the take-down and how it was coordinated. I did not know the Declaration leaked the same day as the USA LWMJ appeared–there are no coincidences here. I had no idea about ‘tabloid brokers’ or the ‘cold calls,’ so I underestimated how truly corrupt and totally unethical they were and are. I also did not know about how stories got fed from USA to UK, and back again. WOW.

    Thanks, VMJ, for starting the timeline for 2003. I am happy!!

    I recently came across a statement Mesereau made about the media and the prosecution (it’s on youtube):

    “They were blinded by the media and the media was blinded by them. I saw this interesting chemistry between the media and the prosecution. They both were massaging each other. They both were reinforcing each other’s delusion as far as I was concerned.” (The Lip TV; Meseareau on Media Mayhem, 12/15/11)

    So I think this media-prosecution-court connection is all-important. One could not function without the other. They fed each other’s ‘delusion’ as Mesereau says. The media needed a court case, needed a ‘mad dog’ prosecutor, and they found him.

    I may be wrong here but I read a few things about the 03 events. First, Maureen Orth attended some court events In Santa Maria re the Avrams case against MJ for the concerts that didn’t happen. So she saw MJ, who appeared in court, and met with the prosecutors in late 02. She of course may have met them before, and probably did, during her crap writing for VF in the 93 case. Just that she was in contact with Sneddon in 02 and then writes an article for VF in April, 03, fanning the flames of the allegations now raised by LWMJ. Most of the article is about the 93 stuff. She says she got in touch with Gutierrez–tracked him down in Chile. I wonder how she got his info? I am guessing all the ‘journalists’ who were writing on MJ–Orth. Dimond, Bashir, Gutierrez, etc.–were in contact with each other. As a tabloid broker, I am guessing Gutierrez had the Declaration. The other point is that the Declaration was in Sneddon’s files and in the LA DA’s files–and I believe Orth also spoke to the prosecutors in LA. So anyone who was allowed to see these files could have copied them, including Dimond. All you need is a cell phone with a camera to take a photo, right?

    Dieter Weisner (and I know he is not welcome but he might have info) spoke about the NBC offer and how it was not favorable to Michael and that’s why they rejected it and went with CBS. So if Ed Bradley was already there at NL, with cameramen, etc., ready to do the interview, then maybe the NBC negotiations had been done earlier, before the time Ed Bradley arrived.(?) Ed said that Michael spoke with him for a while before deciding to actually do the interview. Then he went upstairs to get ready for it, and that’s when he got Brando’s call.Thank goodness Bradley was there as it helps us to know about the Arvizos being there and Brando’s info re the leak upcoming. Was the Declaration only leaked to Smoking Gun? Is that a UK or USA site?

    I am going to check the links Lynade51 has given me, but I want to say re Jordan: now we know WHY he was adamant NOT to testify in 05. Going under oath would have been a disaster for him. He would have either had to lie, and perjure himself (and now he can’t be considered a child any more), or tell the truth, and destroy his family, himself, the whole hot mess, including the lawyers like Feldman who went along and profited. The haters never really ask themselves: IF Jordan was molested, WHY didn’t he rejoice at the chance to testify about how awful MJ was and send him to jail??? Makes no sense unless Jordan was lying, lying, lying and surrounded by liars who supported and created his disgusting lies.

    I agree with Nannorris that once people like Jordan (who’s stepfather was an auto mechanic, right?) and Gavin, who lived in a small apt. with s crazy mom and an abusive man, got a taste of the life Michael led, they wanted more and they felt entitled to more.

    Thanks very much for this!!! Great!!!

    Like

  119. October 11, 2012 9:54 pm

    Michael was psychologically abused for decades,his productivity and creativity suffered ,and as result his economic situation..All this brought him into the hands of an unscrupulous ,unethical doctor which ended his life on earth.Do the people who accomplished this ever have pangs of conscience. You know who you are. Never see a word from you. How are you?

    Like

  120. October 11, 2012 9:44 pm

    Jordan was not stupid. Had he perjured himself in court (ie done that after his 14:th birthday) he run the risk if thruth coming out eventually and therefore constantly being anxious that money´s had to be repaid.He preferred the safer road.As things are now he sits safe on the millions.
    This is a worldwide malignant, evil net of lies,fed by corruption, under the table payments for lies, all to undermine and blackmail an innocent man.Much has been done to uncover this hornets nest.These are people whithout a conscience, total disregard for the truth and relishing in the riches this has brought them.They are not believers of God but the other guy.I wonder who is the master of ceremonies for this evil bunch,Or is it a triumvirate?
    Sneddon must have bitten his nails or tongue, after all the nasty bodysearch of Michael has benefitted him, Michael.

    Like

  121. October 11, 2012 7:02 pm

    One more piece. This time about Ed Bradley’s interview with Larry King (on February 4, 2004 or a year after the planned interview with Michael Jackson which never realized). MJEOL says:

    “Ed Bradley appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live last night (Feb 4) and made some shocking revelations about this accusing family.

    According to Bradley, he went to Neverland in Feb 2003 to interview Jackson. Remember, the DA is alleging Jackson abused this accuser from Feb 7 2003- March 10 2003. During his many hours there, Bradley saw the accusing family at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.

    Bradley says as he was waiting on Jackson to return and do an interview then, he sat in the kitchen “having coffee and doughnuts and sodas” with the accuser and his family. The mother and her kids, including the accuser, all were willing to go on television and talk about what a great person Jackson is.

    King appeared to be shocked as well with this information. Keep in mind the timeline. According to the accusing family’s story now, they allegedly were being held hostage at Neverland at this time. They made no mention of being “held hostage” to Bradley.

    Bradley did not mention that there were people seemingly keeping the family at Neverland either. Just before Jackson was about to do the interview with Bradley, he allegedly received a phone call from Marlon Brando warning him that someone had leaked the 1993 accuser’s affidavit to the press, without leaking Jackson’s answer to that affidavit.

    This story was made available to millions of people all over the world and anyone with access to a computer would be able to read the sordid, unproven details. It is unclear if this current accuser had access to the details of the 1993 accuser’s affidavit. When asked by King how he responded when he found out this accusing family was the same family he talked to in Feb 2003, Bradley says:

    “I was stunned because they were there to tell me that day what a great person he was…I was shocked that that was the kid because both the child and his mother were praising Michael and were sitting there in his kitchen eating and saying what a great person he was”
    Does this sound like people who were being kidnapped to you? Me either. Further, Bradley and others have placed the mother there with her children. This shoots down the asinine theory that Jackson “lures” these children away from their family and is always with these children “unsupervised.”

    When asked about the New York Times article, which accused CBS of paying for the 60 Minutes interview with Jackson, Bradley was emphatic in his denials. He said the Times article, which has been questioned by other news agencies such as Fox, was “completely wrong.”

    Bradley says CBS News never paid for the Jackson interview, Jackson’s people never asked them for money, and that the story in the Times used a disgruntled ex-employee of Jackson’s as its source. Bradley says:

    “The quote was put in my mouth in the New York Times story saying I said, “don’t worry, we’ll take care of it”. Who said I said that? The person they attributed that quote to was described as a disgruntled former Jackson associate, unnamed, who felt that he was owed money. Now, that’s not a very credible source. What bothered me was that they never contacted me directly to say, ‘did you say that?’ ”

    Contrary to some legal analysis by talking heads after the 60 Minutes interview, Mark Geragos was the person who was in contact with CBS about Jackson doing the interview.

    Ed Bradley had a chance to talk to Michael only almost a year later, on December 25, 2003
    The interview aired on December 28, 2003

    Like

  122. October 11, 2012 6:16 pm

    The Veritas project also says about that time:

    “Prompted by what was shown on the Living with Michael Jackson documentary, a school official contacted the Department of Children and Family Services and requested that they investigate Jackson. From February 14th to February 27th, 2003, social workers interviewed the Arvizos, who all maintained that Jackson had never acted inappropriately around them. Mrs. Arvizo stated that her children had never been left alone with Jackson and that they had never slept in a bed with him.37

    Another investigation was launched when media psychiatrist Carole Lieberman filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department in February 2003. She asked for Jackson to be investigated and also demanded that his children be removed from his custody. “Bubbles the Chimp [Jackson’s former pet] is reportedly now living in an animal sanctuary. One would wonder how and why that came about. If Mr. Jackson is unable to take good enough care of his pet chimpanzee, shouldn’t you be concerned about his children?”

    Here are some other dates for our timeline:

    February 7 – March 10, 2003 – initial dates in Sneddon’s case against Jackson [the December 2003 version]
    Feb. 14 – Feb. 27, 2003 – the Arvizos are interviewed by social workers from the DCFS

    Date ? – April 2003 – the police started their own investigation which ended in April 2003.

    February ~ 18 – a tape made by Brad Miller. On the tape, Miller working for Jackson defense attorney Mark Geragos interviews Gavin Arvizo, his brother, sister and mother. All of them say nothing happened. Joy Jackson was also said to be present. The tape was discovered during the illegal raid of Brad Miller’s office in November 2003.

    February 20 – March 12 – the new version of dates of alleged “molestation” [the April 2004 version]. Sneddon had to change the dates of the charges so that they began after the tape was made and the interviews with the DCFS were conducted.

    February 24 – Michael Jackson released his own documentary “Footage you were never meant to see”
    * * *

    February 15 – Dateline NBC contacts Michael Jackson for an exclusive interview for $5 mln., he refuses
    February 17 – Dateline NBC Special shows “Michael Jackson unmasked” it was extended to 2 hours instead of 1 hour as a sort of a revenge for Michael’s refusal to talk to them)

    Note: February of each year is a “sweeps month” for all TV channels (a month when that advertizing rates for every TV channel are set). This clears shows that the media was very much interested in this scandal. More about this big business in an earlier post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/big-business-around-bashirs-documentary-time-to-find-who-was-who-in-the-game/

    Like

  123. October 11, 2012 5:24 pm

    “I think we need a definitive timeline for 2003. So we can try and sort it all out and identify the possible players, which IMO include extremely powerful media heads (for example, NBC) as well as the ‘usual suspects.’ The dates I have are as follows: 2/3/03 LWMJ airs in UK; 2/6/03 LWMJ airs in USA; 2/8/03 the Declaration leaks to Smoking Gun. Is this correct? So Ed Bradley was at NL BEFORE the Declaration leaked, and at the same time Marlon Brando gave Michael the advance word of the leak BEFORE it appeared.” – aldebaranredstar

    Yes, I think we need a definitive timeline both for 2003 and 1993 and should work on it.

    Here is my first contribution to it:

    February 3, 2003 – Bashir’s documentary aired in the UK
    February 6, 2003 – it aired in the US
    February 6, 2003 (the same day) – Jordan’s declaration was leaked to the press

    The source where I took the date from:

    After TSG first published the below document on February 6, 2003, Jackson issued a statement noting that he “has respected the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all the parties to the prior proceedings, yet someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality” and use the boy’s statements to “further sully” the star’s character.
    He added that, “it should be remembered that, at the time, the confidentiality obligation was a mutual one, designed as much to protect the teenage boy as the singer himself”.
    Jackson concluded, “Whoever is now leaking this material is showing as much disregard for the boy as their determination to attack Michael.”
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jacko-original-child-abuse-allegations

    We cannot know for sure when Ed Bradley went to see Michael as he didn’t specify the date. Probably it was between Feb. 3 and Feb 6 (Feb.5?), and most probably the declaration was released first in London, and only then in the US (on Feb.6).

    Judging by what the “Tabloid Baby” tells us the US media sources used to leak some information about MJ to British tabloids and after it was printed in Britian, they pretended that they were “reprinting” it from a British source. This way they took all responsibility for the leak off their shoulders and told the US public “Look what Europe is talking about!”. However the source of the leak was still in the US.

    Sneddon was very much on the alert even when the documentary aired in Britain. Veritas Project says what Sneddon was doing at the time:

    Tom Sneddon “repeatedly implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate the boy’s story but failed to provide an explanation as to why two grand juries did not indict the pop star if such evidence actually existed. In 1995, he told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”

    Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 5, 2003, Sneddon said:

    “After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.” Regarding Jackson’s comments that he had allowed children to sleep in his bedroom, Sneddon replied by saying that it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.”

    Elsewhere in the statement, Sneddon stressed the fact that the case could not go forward without a “cooperative victim.” Coincidentally, the very same boy who appeared in the documentary would later become Jackson’s second accuser.

    Sneddon was not the only principal player from the 1993 case who came out of the woodwork after the airing of the Bashir documentary. In February 2003, the Chandlers’ former civil attorney Gloria Allred made numerous television appearances where she demanded that Jackson’s children be removed from his custody.

    Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who negotiated the $15 million settlement on behalf of the Chandlers in 1994, also spoke to the press, vehemently denying that his office was responsible for leaking Jordan Chandler’s deposition.

    Finally, in a salacious Dateline NBC special entitled Michael Jackson Unmasked, Bill Dworin, a retired LAPD officer who had worked on the Jackson case and Ray Chandler, the uncle of Jackson’s accuser, spoke to correspondent Josh Mankiewicz. Both Dworin and Chandler claimed that there was strong evidence to prove Jackson’s guilt in the 1993 case.

    According to the defense, it was during this time that the Arvizo family began to cause problems within the Jackson camp. The family’s alleged suspicious behaviour coupled with the public relations disaster that ensued after the airing of Living with Michael Jackson prompted Jackson to hire criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos.
    http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/part1.html

    So here is one more date to our timeline:

    February 5, 2003 – Sneddon releases a press statement saying that they will tape (or already taped) Bashir’s documentary and are going to review it. He says that all local departments are taking the matter seriously.

    Like

  124. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 5:22 pm

    I have often wondered what might have happened if Michael had gone against that stipulation and called Jordan. Would Evan have let him talk to him? If he had answered the phone and Michael just started talking to him like he always had what would Jordan have said? Woul Jordan have gone through with it if Michael had been allowed to talk to him or if he was allowed to see him? I doubt it, and I think that is exactly why that stipulation was added to the custody agreement.

    Like

  125. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 5:13 pm

    “You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.

    Now does anyone think that there is any difference in the story of Jordan and Gavin? Gavin knew he was on the way out. When Evan got custody of Jordan in that agreement was the stipulation that he have no contact with Michael. Then when he went to convince Jordan that Michael was “dropping” him he had the evidence right there. Michael wasn’t calling him anymore.The only thing is it was a lie because Michael couldn’t call him and it was because of Evan’s stipulation.

    Like

  126. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 5:07 pm

    Oh and by the way Mr Ralph Chacon… Michael did not return to Neverland after the “Grammys”. It happened to be the 1993 Soul Train awards where Michael performed “Remeber The TIme”seated in a gold chair.He twisted his ankle the day before. It was March 9th, 1993 and then he was still on the crutches two days later at an American Film Institute award for Elizabeth Taylor. Sorry you got the story so wrong from your tabloid friends.

    Like

  127. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 4:53 pm

    I think the sickest thing that Sneddon did was to believe these people when he knew better. He knew that Chacon had said that it was Brett in 1994 and then changed his story to Jordan in 2005 in time for the trial.
    Sneddon knew it was one kid and then the true evidence of Sneddon’s racism is in Chacon’s testimony when he says that Brett and Jordan looked so much alikeSneddon helped him with that.That is a very old and very racist white persons take on people of color, “they all look alike”.
    If anyone thinks I’m wrong then explain why Sneddon, Russ Birchim, and Lauren Weiss even went to Australia in June of 1994 looking for Brett’s parents to tell them what a security guard said.If it had been Jordan in his1994 statement then there would have been a trial because chacon could have backed up hsi story. The Grand Jury back then would have indicted Michael if he had testified in front of them.

    Here is an excerpt from Diane Dimond’s Book Be Careful Who You Love. From Page 227:

    * In February 2005 , I recieved an e-mail from former Neverland Security guard Ralph Chacon, It was an open letter to Michael Jackson on the eve of his trial.
    “Well, Mike, It’s the showdown. You knew this was coming. I know you have been thinking about how many times you have gotten away with it and you figured that you are invicible because you were at the top of the charts. But what you fail to realize [is} that karma is blind and it’s your turn now.
    Oh I know you are upset with those making noise about the “allegations”.
    What did you say once, “tell a lie enough times and people will believe it”.
    Remeber the night of the Grammys annd you went on stage in a wheelchair and crutches? Then you got back to Neverland and you threw those crutches out of the limo window and ran inside? Oh yeah you know how to play the part.
    Well this is not a game like the ones you play with the innocent. Oh, I know about how you play people against each other.Oh that is mean and you are so predictable, like the nights you and that little innocent boy played withthe Ouija board and you wanted “thing” ______ you know what I’m saying.
    You have a rude awakening coming, Mike. what are you thinking right at this moment? You need help because your sexual desires aren’t normal. You need help. Get it before court starts. This is your conscience talking to you. Wake Up MJ.”

    So if this email is in fact written by Ralph Chacon nothing says revenge more than this threat does it?

    Like

  128. October 11, 2012 4:52 pm

    “This will give you an inside picture of what the tabloid are capable of. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html – lynande51

    Lynande, as to me I have no illusions about the media and have reported this story myself on many occasions. But since the story is indeed smashing I’ll repeat part of it:

    “Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland “victims.” But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

    And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, 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 us he 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.'”

    Prior to Bobby’s meeting with Mitteager, Bobby’s father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

    Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being “hooked up” to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

    “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.

    Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts’ story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

    The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.”

    Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

    He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

    “Exactly! And he didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

    Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

    “He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

    Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts’ story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

    I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

    When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

    “I said all that,” he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

    As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson “victim” Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

    Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday’s testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

    “Wade is straight as they come. He’s getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either,” Newt said.

    He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

    “You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.

    And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn’t bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

    “They probably didn’t like it. And this is their way of getting back at him,” he said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

    Like

  129. October 11, 2012 4:41 pm

    “It is all covered in the book Tabloid Baby” – lynande51

    Yes, it is covered there. I haven’t got the book but Dialdnancer once sent some screenshots from it. I’ve typed once piece from it which is very enlightening.

    Tabloid baby, page 285:

    “Here is how it worked: Say someone in the office heard – or decided to start a rumor that Michael Jackson was caught en flagrante with his Ilama. The assignment editor in New York would call the L.A. office to check it out. If the story turned out to be uncomfortable – or untrue – it wasn’t necessarily shot down or declared dead.

    If the story was good enough, some tabloid vet in New York would then feed the deflated item to one of the many British tabloid newspaper journalists encamped in Los Angeles. The Brit would seize upon the rumor, pay someone as a supposed “unnamed source” to confirm it, then write the story as gospel for one of the outrageous London tabloids. The story would next be faxed from L.A. to London, published in England, then faxed back to the A Current Affair office in New York, where the staff would do a quick day-of-air story on what they knew never happened in L.A.
    The story would include a shot of the British newspaper headline to show they were only reporting “what the world is talking about”.

    So a story that was generated in New York City, shot down in Los Angeles, concocted for England, published in London, and sent on its way back to New York City, would now air across America. The Fox lawyers would okay the story because it was attributed to the London papers.

    No wonder Wacko Jacko was gulping prescription pills by the bottle. No wonder no one took A Current Affair seriously anymore.

    The show had committed the cardinal sin: it treated its viewers like fucking morons. No longer could the show be appreciated on any number of levels by any number of audiences, from college kids gathered around the dorm TV to other journalists chuckling at the in-jokes. A Current Affair became a cut-and-paste wastebasket of scandal and the ones who had been there from the start, the ones who knew better, were merely feathering their own nests as the show slid headlong towards doom.”

    All these people have long forgotten that Michael Jackson is a human being. They treat him like a commodity which has no soul and heart. And these people call themselves civilized?

    Like

  130. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 4:23 pm

    Here is some info about Splash News and how it started and where it ended up, with Gary Morgan becoming a multimillionaire.
    http://www.splashnews.com/breakingnews/
    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/kevin-smith-leaves-splash-after-journey-one-man-band-30m-turnover-business

    Like

  131. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 4:18 pm

    And here is a link that is the best explaination fo how tabloid work outside the book Tabloid Baby.
    http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/tabloid1.htm

    Like

  132. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 4:13 pm

    Here is a link to a story from Roger Friedman. He tells the story of Robert and Ronald Newt. This will give you an inside picture of what the tabloid are capable of.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

    Like

  133. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 3:39 pm

    Here is a link to MJ Truth Now Blog and you can watch the Frontline Piece that wa done about the Michael Jackson Scandal. It is worth it because you can see the Spash News guys Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan in it.They tell you first hand what they do. They bought the documents and they sold them over and over again to the highest bidder.
    http://mjtruthnow.com/

    Like

  134. lynande51 permalink
    October 11, 2012 3:30 pm

    I don’t think Sneddon gave that out to the press. The press, in particular, Diane Dimond and her friends from Splash News out of the UK had these all along. Bashir probably told them what the “main event” was in his trash piece and they went with it.They went around and bought everything and in particular paid the Neverland Five for their stories about Michael.
    This is how the tabloids work. They go in and purchase “information” from someone through a broker. That is what Paul Barressi was, a tabloid broker.That is what VG was, a tabloid broker, he got money for finding people to sell a story and someone to buy them.He brought the transaction together and got a fee for it.They hunt for people to say that they saw or heard things and if the price is right they get their “source”.
    It is all covered in the book Tabloid Baby.They would actually cold call phone numbers of anyone and make a statements about Michael and ask the person if they agreed with their statement.If the answer is yes they have their unnamed source. Do you get it?There never is a source because they just make the statement up and then might even ask the person at the next desk if it sound true or not.
    Once they get that “confirmation” then they keep the stories and recycle them over and over again. You can tell that it is the same story but in England they are allowed to use something called “artistic license”. What artistic license is is when they rewrite with some of their own personal fiction an alreay existing ‘story”.That is how the story “sounds” new but it is the same thing with a little bit of new fiction added to it.

    Like

  135. nannorris permalink
    October 11, 2012 11:08 am

    This is such an interesting article ..Thank you for writing it.
    My feeling about Jordan is that , just like with Gavin, MJ misjudged Jordans character.
    Yes, Jordy really liked MJ, but when his father made those accusations, he pretty much had to go along with them because if he denied it, his father might have been charged with a crime, That is why they had Shapiro consulting with them..So I think Jordan went along with it , because he was never going to be in MJ life again anyway, There is a sense of entitlement , as if , since MJ introduced them to the good life , he deserved it ..And really , , I think he just justifies it all by blaming his parents.
    The apple doesnt fall far from the tree..Both his folks were greedy opportunists , imo..
    I was watching something on YOUTUBE about MJ visiting the troops, in Japan, and some had gotten angry because they didnt think he spent enough time with them..Seems to me that once people meet MJ, they can never get enough, and become angry when he moves away..
    I did catch Jason Francia remark about “he needs to move away” .Pretty obvious that he agreed that Sneddon had a vendetta and that the only way for this stuff to stop was to move away..as in away from Sneddon area of power.
    I am sure he wasnt in a hurry to come to court and make a fool out of himself, we all recall the laughter in the transcripts, but he was also in Sneddons area of control…He didnt have the option of saying no , imo, like Jordan because he lives in the area….They would have put immense pressure on him to testify, just like they pressured him into making an accusation.
    As far as who gave the press Jordans statement , I have to go with Sneddon, …Feldman hadnt been in contact with the Arvizo at that time, so there wouldnt have been a financial motive for him , and that all he is cares about….
    I think Sneddon is so obsessed with MJ he kept copies of everything..
    Even if Sneddon was blind and ambitious enough to ignore the evidence showing this was a plot by Evan back in 93, I see no way that these prosecutors didnt realize it before they ever walked into court in 2005.
    I think they had to save face and purposely tried to suppress evidence and witnesses..This was such a grudge match, they were willing to go to any lengths to have MJ convicted ..Even the misdemonors they asked for at the end of the trial…mj allegedly served alcohol to a minor..HOw do you go from him holding people in confinement and serving alcohol in order to commit a crime , to …..well maybe , he just gave him some wine..It really makes no sense at all..Just desperation… …

    Like

  136. Rodrigo permalink
    October 11, 2012 2:58 am

    Gutierrez was in Chile, wasn’t he? But he was out of harms way, so he would have most likely been involved as well in some way.

    Like

  137. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 10, 2012 11:05 pm

    re NBC. They had offered Michael 5 million to do a rebuttal to LWMJ and were furious that Michael decided to go with CBS and Ed Bradley instead. So NBC could have been involved in the leak of the Declaration. NBC was losing in the ratings competition with ABC and CBS at the time. Also Tim Russert worked for NBC as the head of the NBC News vision; he was married to Maureen Orth, and we know how involved she was in bringing Michael down.

    More on NBC:

    MJ Unmasked”: Dateline NBC. 14 million viewers. shown on 2/17/03. NBC furious that MJ refused their 5 Million offer and instead went with Ed Bradley for the rebuttal interview after LWMJ. Andrew Lack becomes SONY chair after Mottola in 03 (Lack was pres of NBC and asked Dateline NBC to do show in Feb re MJ’s ‘collapsing face and the downslide of his career.’ Dateline says MJ had 50 operations on his face. Now he is at Bloomberg since 08. 4 consecutived years he was named most powerful person in TV news by electronic media. Was pres.of NBC starting 01.

    Many deals could be made or considered before the official airing of LWMJ in UK or USA. LWMJ was shown also in other countries and shown repeatedly in USA. LWMJ was first shown on ABC, introduced by Barbara Walters. Bashir was then HIRED by ABC. ABC re-broadcast the LWMJ, and also NBC bought it and aired it. 2/20/03 Fox broadcasts the ‘Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See.’ Part of NBC’s offer to Michael was that they would not show the Dateline special; they would withhold it.

    The journalists closest to Sneddon were Orth and Dimond, right? What about Gutierrez? Could he have been involved in this leak of the Declaration?

    Like

  138. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 10, 2012 10:41 pm

    What I meant by saying adults wrote the Declaration and the description of the molestation is that Jordan was coached, heavily coached, brainwashed, told what to say, and the adults (dad, lawyers) were INVENTING and SCRIPTING the whole thing. Jordan initially insisted NOTHING happened. He was TOLD what to say and convinced to go along with it.

    Like

  139. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 10, 2012 10:33 pm

    Hi, VMJ, this is why I think we need a definitive timeline for 2003. So we can try and sort it all out and identify the possible players, which IMO include extremely powerful media heads (for example, NBC) as well as the ‘usual suspects.’ The dates I have are as follows: 2/3/03 LWMJ airs in UK; 2/6/03 LWMJ airs in USA; 2/8/03 the Declaration leaks to Smoking Gun. Is this correct? So Ed Bradley was at NL BEFORE the Declaration leaked, and at the same time Marlon Brando gave Michael the advance word of the leak BEFORE it appeared. So my question is, How did Marlon Brando, who was in London, know this? I am guessing he learned it from media sources in the UK. This does not tell us who leaked, but it does tell us who knew about the leak BEFORE it happened–the media in the UK. If we could find evidence that Bashir was involved in this leak, maybe we could use it against him to good effect.

    The arrow points in Bashir’s direction IMO. He and Granada made millions on this and Michael did not make a penny, but lost so much.

    Like

  140. October 10, 2012 1:21 pm

    Guys, with all this talk about Jordan’s declaration I wouldn’t like you to overlook a tremendously important piece of information provided to us by Johnnie Cochran. He said that in her depositions of 1993 Blanca Francia NEVER said that she saw anyone else but Michael in the shower. She saw ONLY ONE image.

    The story about the shower was boosted and “embellished” by Diane Dimond in her Hard Copy TV program. The program came before the deposition and therefore when deposed Blanca Francia was asked questions about it. And nevertheless she said at a deposition that she saw only the image of Michael Jackson in the shower. There was no one else there, no young boy, not anyone else – that’s the point. It was Diane Dimond’s sinister version which became popular and was discussed in full seriousness at the 2005 trial.

    Did you pay attention how much time the prosecutor and Michael’s defense attorney spent around the point “whether the deposition was before or after Diane Dimond’s program”? When I was reading the transcript of Blanca’s testimony it surprised me very much why they devoted so much attention to it. But now we have the answer – the lie was told in Dimond’s program and not by Francia, though by the year 2005 it was assumed by Blanca Francia herself.

    Like

  141. October 10, 2012 8:39 pm

    “I was talking about if other accusers other than Jason came to the 2005 trial. I know about the other loonies like Kapon etc..”

    Truth Prevail, no, there was nobody else but Jason.

    Like

  142. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 10, 2012 8:17 pm

    @VindicateMJ

    I was talking about if other accusers other than Jason came to the 2005 trial. I know about the other loonies like Kapon etc..

    Like

  143. October 10, 2012 12:48 pm

    “It would surprise me greatly if Bashir was not aware of the leak, it is too much of a coincidence timewise.And why would he not be in contact with a fellow “journalist”, D.D. Could have been an arraignment of sorts” – kaarin

    Of course Bashir was aware of the leak and DD was evidently the one who actually did it. But to be able to leak something the press must first have access to the document. And Jordan’s declaration was sealed and could be obtained only from the party which possessed it.

    The Chandlers of course had it too, but they were too cowardly for leaking it by themselves. This way they were breaking the confidentiality agreement and the agreement did not allow them to have any deals with the media (with the police yes, but not with the media). After Michael winning his lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and the judge ordering Gutierrez to pay MJ $2,7 mln. in damages (which he never paid) the Chandlers would not have taken such a risk.

    Moreover by 2003 Evan Chandler had lost almost all his money extorted from Michael and was living on what Jordan provided him with. It does not mean that if it came to a criminal trial he would have refused to testify. Even in 2005 Thomas Mesereau said that Michael wanted to testify. He was simply not strong enough for that.

    Like

  144. October 10, 2012 12:37 pm

    “- Surprisingly, though Michael was the accused party it was he who wanted the criminal case to go first.”
    – This is not, in fact, surprising.”

    No, it is not surprising at all. It was just an attempt at humor on my part. What I tried to say was that a real criminal will never insist on being tried in a criminal court. Imagine a murderer say “I don’t want a civil lawsuit, I want the criminal investigation to go first” (!)

    “If the civil suit came before the criminal case, anything presented by the defense as evidence or any argument would have been known in advance by the prosecutors, so they could prepare to counter it.”

    Exactly. Add to it that in a civil lawsuit if the defendant refuses to be deposed it is considered a sign of guilt, while in a criminal trial it is customary and normal for the defendant to plead the Fifth amendment and not testify against himself.

    Michael could not refuse to be deposed in a civil lawsuit without risking to be called guilty (even before being tried). Therefore he agreed to a deposition in a civil case but only on condition that the deposition would not be read or used in any other way at a criminal trial. Evidently such guarantees were not provided to him.

    Like

  145. October 10, 2012 11:42 am

    “Maybe there is some Dimond-Bashir link? I don’t know, but I do think Bashir is lurking in the background here. Feldman cannot be believed as he could have leaked it himself and was covering up. How can we believe Feldman, the source of the major lies in the Chandler suit?” – aldebaranredstar

    In fact none of these people can be believed. Larry Feldman managed to “misrepresent” in his motion to court even the depositions! (This was stated by Howard Wietzman and Johnnie Cochran, both of whom were present at Blanca Francia’s deposition).

    As regards Bashir and other media personalities let us remember that Bashir’s documentary was shown in Britain first and only then in the US – with a three days difference or so. After the news became known in Britain someone in the US had enough time to prepare for the US broadcast and make Bashir’s documentary look even more sinister by leaking that 13 year-old paper from Jordan.

    Whoever did it wanted Michael in the center of a new grandiose scandal and hoped for a chance of a new criminal investigation (a criminal investigation was indeed opened and closed in April the same year as nothing was found. The Arvizos made their allegations only in June 2003 after a visit to Larry Feldman).

    But in my opinion, if the source of the leak were just some media personas they wouldn’t have waited for so long. They would have done it much much earlier – that’s for sure.

    No, this was a concerted effort of several entities. Someone leaked the declaration to the press just in time for the documentary to be shown in the US and the media gladly responded with what someone else encouraged them to do.

    Someone counted very much on the double effect this would produce on public opinion.

    It could be either Sneddon or Feldman (or their people). However I doubt that they would have done it on their own, without the approval of their bosses. Too risky.

    Like

  146. October 10, 2012 11:19 am

    “IMO neither Jordan’s declaration nor his description of Michael’s body were written by him; they were done by adults” – aldebaranredstar

    Of course Jordan’s declaration was done by adults. It is in the very nature of this document. It isn’t a transcript of the actual words – it is a summary of someone’s words made by a lawyer. Then it is typed and given to the witness for signing.

    In fact Jordan’s presence was not even needed. Since the lawsuit filed in September 1993 had a much more detailed account of the same story Larry Feldman could have picked the basic ideas, put them together, had it typed and then signed by Jordan.

    What is very important in this declaration is that in contrast to previous versions of Jordan’s story now there was not a single word about him allegedly masturbating the other side. The reason for this glaring ommission is the fact that the photo session a week before that proved that Jordan did not correctly describe MJ’s genitalia. This is why this idea was omitted from the new declaration.

    However in the interview with Dr. Gardner two months before that (in October 1993) Jordan Chandler boldly spoke of “masturbating” the other side. But if he did how could he not notice all those glaring differences? I mean the fact that the other side was not circumcised and that the overall color was the opposite from what Jordan thought?

    There is only one answer to all this mess – Jordan never saw what he was describing. He simply did not expect the real genitalia to turn out that different. Nature and God saved Michael.

    Like

  147. October 10, 2012 7:27 am

    And Feldman got 5 mil. out of this. Would he have gotten any from a criminal trial ?
    Cottage,?, I would say village industry.

    Like

  148. October 10, 2012 7:24 am

    It would surprise me greatly if Bashir was not aware of the leak, it is too much of a coincidence timewise.And why would he not be in contact with a fellow “journalist”, D.D.
    Could have been an arraignment of sorts.

    Like

  149. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 10, 2012 6:44 am

    “Surprisingly, though Michael was the accused party it was he who wanted the criminal case to go first.”

    This is not, in fact, surprising. Why? B/c in a criminal case the standard of proof and therefore the protections are much greater for the accused than in a civil suit. Another major concern Michael had was that anything presented in the civil suit would have been available to the prosecution for the criminal case. This is also called denying him his constitutional protections regarding ‘due process’ and the avoidance of ‘double jeopardy’–meaning trying someone twice for the same crime. If the civil suit came before the criminal case, anything presented by the defense as evidence or any argument would have been known in advance by the prosecutors, so they could prepare to counter it.

    Like

  150. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 10, 2012 6:35 am

    Thanks, Lynande51, for the info about the Splash News writers buying up the docs. IMO neither Jordan’s declaration nor his description of Michael’s body were written by him; they were done by adults, his father, his lawyer, his psychologist (Stanley Katz, I believe, also this was same psychologist in the infamous McMartin child molestation case, which was, like Michael’s completely fraudulent).

    I still think Bashir had a lot to do with the leaking of the declaration, since it was so much to his advantage and he is known to be an unscrupulous liar who was hoping to make his name with this interview and land a high paying job in USA, which (disgustingly) he did. Maybe there is some Dimond-Bashir link? I don’t know, but I do think Bashir is lurking in the background here. Feldman cannot be believed as he could have leaked it himself and was covering up. How can we believe Feldman, the source of the major lies in the Chandler suit?

    Like

  151. October 9, 2012 11:36 pm

    It is natural that a single male wants to know when someone is about to enter his bedroom.
    No explanation needed.

    Like

  152. October 9, 2012 11:29 pm

    “There’s more to it than just a DA who thought he was after a genuine criminal. He KNEW Michael was innocent.”

    Rodrigo, I think ALL those who really looked into Michael Jackson’s case know that he was innocent. Even Diane Dimond. They simply cannot admit it as it would be equivalent to admitting that their life was lived in vain.

    Like

  153. October 9, 2012 11:17 pm

    “The only boy other than Gavin claiming abuse happened to him at the hands of Michael was Jason Francia who showed up at the 2005 trial was there any other boys at the 2005 trial claiming abuse? Jason Francia was the one who was interviewed in the 90′s and said nothing ever happened in his original questioning I’m I right?” – Truth prevail

    There were two and a half of them, but all were fake. Jordan Chandler was the first case (the most difficult one as very little evidence is left and we have to do real fine work here). The civil case with the Chandlers was settled and the criminal case took the prosecution nowhere though the investigation lasted for a year.

    However the fact that the Chandlers were paid opened the road to others (this is why Thomas Mesereau said MJ’s lawyers made a mistake, the Chandlers should not have been paid).

    Many outsiders tried their luck but all of them went nowhere while Blanca Francia was difficult and over here another settlement was made. She was a personal maid, and though she never said that she had seen any “molestation” she was going about the media telling stories about Michael (on Hard Copy for example). And it was well in her power to invent an incredible story about MJ and her son which everyone would have believed.

    Her son did not claim any “abuse” in his first interviews in 1994 and even said that he wanted to strike them on their heads with someting heavy. But in the last interview in 1994 he changed his tune and in his 2005 testimony even made it sounnd worse. However the most he claimed even in 2005 was that Michael Jackson “tickled” him – twice.

    Now that the situation with the Chandlers is more or less clear (at least to me) I want to focus on the Francias to see what these beasts were up to.

    As to Gavin Arvizo – that was so laughable a case that it is not even worth talking about.

    Like

  154. October 9, 2012 10:34 pm

    “Please explain to me how Jordan could receive that money if the case was inconsistent?” – Leninha

    Easily. For many people outside the US (same as me) it may be difficult to understand one thing. There are two types of trials – a criminal one and a civil one. The civil trial handles only civil lawsuits where no one goes into jail in principle – it is all about money. And even if the case is inconsistent if the two parties agree between themselves the judge simply approves this decision, and that’s it. The case is settled out of court, even before the civil trial starts.

    While all this money business is going on the criminal case may run parallel to it if the police are also looking into the matter.

    In MJ’s case the criminal investigation was opened by the police in August 1993. But the Chandlers filed their own civil lawsuit after it, in September 1993. The two teams (police and the civil attorney) started sort of competing with each other.

    Surprisingly, though Michael was the accused party it was he who wanted the criminal case to go first, because he hoped to prove his innocence there, sought justice for himself and if he was proven innocent in a criminal trial the civil suit could drop off on its own. His lawyer Bert Fields was fighting for the opportunity to complete the criminal investigation first.

    However the boy’s civil attorney convinced the judge, who was to decide the matter, that the civil case should go forward and a civil trial should start first (in March 1993). It could last for several years, as civil cases last forever. So at some point Michael’s team took a decision to settle the civil suit and get ready for the criminal case which was still going on. Later on the sum of the settlement was covered by the insurance.

    The criminal investigation lasted for another 8 months after that, but the prosecution was still unable even to bring criminal charges against Jackson, not to mention taking the case to a trial. They found nothing. The Grand Jury which convenes to see whether the evidence collected for the prosecution is enough to bring criminal charges against the accused, looked into everything and found nothing either.

    So all this talk of Sneddon about the case being consistent was just a smokescreen to hide his embarassment at seeing Michael completly clean.

    “Why the judge ordered to pay millions of dollars to a family that could not prove anything against Michael?”

    The judge did not order anything. The parties came to an agreement themselves. And though the Chandlers could not really prove anything in court (all they had were their proclamations) we must understand one thing.

    In order to prove himself innocent Michael Jackson was to agree to disclosing the main evidence which would exonerate him – the photos. But producing the photos to the jury was probably the most humiliating thing he could go through after being photographed naked during that strip search.

    Add to it that fact that the trial was to be TELEVISED (as it was reported in the press) and you will understand the degree of Michael’s despair. He had the evidence that fully proved that he was innocent but he could not show it to anyone. And without the main evidence only God knows what would be the outcome of the civil trial.

    Mind you that those photos could have ended up on the TV screens. Actually Michael even said so to Bashir in that documentary of theirs that he was afraid that the trial would turn into a televised show:

    “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ [Simpson] and all that stupid stuff,” Jackson said. “It wouldn’t look right. I said, ‘Look, let’s get this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous. I’ve had enough.”
    http://www.mjshouse.com/stories/living_with_mj_transcript.wm

    “I can not understand what facts the judge relied to convict Michael to pay a fortune to this family of swindlers”

    The judge did not convict Michael. The case never went as far as any trial – even the civil trial. In civil lawsuits most of the cases (90% or more) are settled out of court. And in civil trials there is no “conviction”. The jury simply decides the matter in the favor of one of the parties and that’s it.

    “If proven fraud Chandler will be fought him to return the money and will be arrested?”

    In theory the Chandlers could have been tried for fraud, but in theory only. To prove that they were lying Michael had to produce those photos again, and this was probably the last thing he ever wanted in life.

    Like

  155. Rodrigo permalink
    October 9, 2012 10:26 pm

    Thanks, Helena. I was a bit confused about the process.

    My point about Sneddon, is that he did all he could to convince people that Jordan’s description was accurate. But that was because we know he wanted Michael out Neverland before 93. There’s more to it than just a DA who thought he was after a genuine criminal. He KNEW Michael was innocent.

    Like

  156. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 9, 2012 9:52 pm

    Please tell me if i am correct or wrong.

    The only boy other than Gavin claiming abuse happened to him at the hands of Michael was Jason Francia who showed up at the 2005 trial was there any other boys at the 2005 trial claiming abuse?

    Jason Francia was the one who was interviewed in the 90’s and said nothing ever happened in his original questioning I’m I right?

    Like

  157. October 9, 2012 9:42 pm

    “But that worked perfectly into their favour, didn’t it? Because as close as it could possibly be, it would never be right. So Michael wouldn’t have been thrown in jail for probable cause. If that had happened the Chandler’s wouldn’t have gained anything.”

    Rodrigo, I don’t agree. If Michael had been thrown into jail the Chandlers could have sued him all the same. As far as I understand one thing does not rule out the other. Moreover the process of discovery (of the evidence) would have been much easier. If someone’s guilt is proven in a criminal court it becomes a totally technical matter to claim damages in a civil lawsuit. If Michael had been thrown into jail the Chandler would have gained a lot and received even more millions that they did.

    “More interestingly though however is that description didn’t match, then who tried as hard as they could to say otherwise? Sneddon for starters.”

    Sorry, I didn’t get it. The description did not match, and it was only Sneddon who said that it did (all the rest of them said that “they were told” that it was a match – the sheriff, the doctor who was to make the determination and others).

    Sneddon’s official point of view was that though he said that there was “a match” he could not jail MJ because his accuser refused to testify.

    But this is complete nonsense.

    First of all, the accuser cannot stop the criminal case of his own free will – he does not have the power to do so, it is solely the right of the prosecutor who decides whether to bring criminal charges against the accused or not, independent of what the accuser says.

    Secondly, even if the accuser did not want to testify, the prosecutor in this case still claimed he had physical evidence on his hands (“the match”) and this was already enough to convict MJ (if his words about the match had been true of course).

    Thirdly, the nature of child abuse cases is such that children often refuse to testify. In this case a deposition can be made which may be used at a trial and replace the witness’s actual testimony. And a deposition is something a person cannot refuse if he is subpoenaed.

    There are some other factors which I hope to write about in the near future.

    The summary of it all made the prosecution perfectly equipped with all the tools they needed for bringing criminal charges against Jackson and taking the case to a trial. And the fact that they did none of it and the two Grand Juries refused to indict MJ (though they saw all their evidence collected) proves that the prosecution did not have any facts.

    There was NO MATCH – that’s the main point. There were too big discrepancies between what the boy said and the “real thing”.

    Like

  158. Leninha permalink
    October 9, 2012 7:46 pm

    Please, Helena,I hope you understand me, I’m using google translate. Please explain to me how Jordan could receive that money if the case was inconsistent ? Why the judge ordered to pay millions of dollars to a family that could not prove anything against Michael? I can not understand what facts the judge relied to convict Michael to pay a fortune to this family of swindlers. If proven fraud Chandler will be fought him to return the money and will be arrested?

    Like

  159. Rodrigo permalink
    October 9, 2012 6:52 pm

    That’s what I meant, Helena. Jordan intentionally lied.

    But that was the whole point though. If that description matched Michael, he would have been done. Of course without Jordan actually seeing him, they had to come up with something as close to Michael as possible. But that worked perfectly into their favour, didn’t it? Because as close as it could possibly be, it would never be right. So Michael wouldn’t have been thrown in jail for probable cause. If that had happened the Chandler’s wouldn’t have gained anything. Considering Evan’s scare tactics for getting that money, this was probably just another.

    More interestingly though however is that description didn’t match, then who tried as hard as they could to say otherwise? Sneddon for starters.

    Like

  160. October 9, 2012 5:42 pm

    Guys, the thing to remember about Jordan’s declaration is not whether his signature is genuine or not. The thing to remember is that the declaration itself was a LIE. Anyone can declare anything with no responsibility whatsoever.

    If the declaration is not under oath there is no responsibility for perjury AT ALL. If the declaration is made under oath there is some responsibility but from the age of 14 only. But even in this case proving that slander was intentional and not a mistake is still very difficult.

    That declaration was a sheer propaganda tool.

    Let us educate ourselves a bit on the matter of various witnesses’ statements:

    Legal Difference Between an Affidavit & a Declaration
    by Grace Keh, Demand Media

    Affidavits are written documents attached to an oath or some affirmation (i.e., notary public) that the statements in the affidavit are true. Declarations are merely written documents that the author believes to be true, but the statements are given without the author being sworn in by a court officer. Declarations under the penalty of perjury (sometimes referred to as sworn statements) are very similar to affidavits Courts consider both to be legally equivalent, though most court systems and businesses still prefer affidavits over declarations.
    Affidavits are signed in front of a notary public or commissioner of oaths and require notarization. Declarations must be signed only by the author, though sometimes before a justice of the peace or, at least, legal counsel. U.S. Code 1746 permits an individual to submit as true a declaration under the penalty of perjury.

    Wording
    Both affidavits and declarations require signatures of the authors. One who submits an affidavit is referred to as a “affiant.” One who gives a declaration is called a “declarant.” Declarations under the penalty of perjury must be accompanied by a statement in substantially this form: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,” as well as the date on which it was executed and the declarant’s signature.

    Critiquing the Affidavit
    An affidavit can inconvenience a witness because of the requirement that the witness be sworn and the written document notarized. It also incurs a notary fee, at the minimum. Some courts are turning to declarations under penalty of perjury as substitutes for affidavits because of the efficiency of these statements and their efficacy in forcing people to tell the truth.

    The Other Statement
    Alongside affidavits and declarations, depositions are often used to take the statements of witnesses. Depositions differ specifically in one way from affidavits: They allow for cross-examination. Depositions are recorded by the court reporter and become written transcripts that can be used in court. The witness is sworn in before making a deposition and is considered under oath, regardless of whether the deposition takes place in a courtroom.
    http://homeguides.sfgate.com/legal-difference-between-affidavit-declaration-3194.html

    Like

  161. October 9, 2012 5:12 pm

    “Support of Affidavit Concerning Criminal Conduct of Tom Sneddon – 2005 Michael Jackson Trial – L.O.V.E., Can you sign here
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/662/053/218/support-of-affidavit-concerning-criminal-conduct-of-tom-sneddon-2005-michael-jackson-trial/

    Yoshimi, I fully support this petition and hope that it works.

    Some time ago I received a message to my Facebook account from Martine Vaudon who met William Wagener. He was on a visit to Europe to see Michael’s fans there. Her account impressed me so much that I can’t help sharing it with you:

    Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 5:23am

    I spent 2 days and a half and almost 2 full nights to speak with William J. Wagener in France, eyes to eyes, by his side, I translated to the fans into French what he said in PARIS during many, many hours, not missing one word, he answered all their questions, I am a 53 years old woman, who has much, much experience in life, I am a very serious person, recognized in my job as an expert, I work in scientific field, I swear you that this man has changed my life forever,just like Michael did 40 years ago, he has completely touched my heart and my soul, he is sincere, commited, devoted, pure souled and highly sensitive, I saw him crying, I cried myself with him in HIS arms (my husband was here, he saw both of us and understood and was not jealous or anything, he just UNDERSTOOD how true and beautiful this was) when I heard him telling me how he saw Michael Jackson, every day during 5 months of trial, how he was, how he appeared to him suffering agonies and how he was when he heard the verdict, completly knocked down and completely destroyed by the legal corrupted system William Wagener is NOT a LIAR, he has a pure soul, he s a genune person, he fears for his life, I can tell you he really does!

    I am a professonal translator, I could earn money, working at home when I finish work, with this skill and by using my knowledge, as so few French people can speak fluent English, I have offered him my competences, know-how and experience as well as my support within all the social networks I joined, I know thousands and thousands of people throughout the planet, I have offered him my unconditional and endless support because I believe him, because he stands for Michael AND RAISE HIS VOICE as we should all do, it is such an enormous mistake to doubt him, and claiming to be a MJ fan.

    This man is fighting for Michael Jackson, he is not seeking any kind of fame. He wants to clear Michael’s name for Michael,his kids and his legacy. If you insult me or attack me you have nothing to do on my friends list, if you slander me you are not a MJ fan, you are not part of MJ’s legacy, I tell you this from the bottom of my heart I LOVE WILLIAM WAGENER and I TRUST HIM FOREVER

    Martine Vaudon

    I trust William Wagener too.

    Like

  162. October 9, 2012 4:09 pm

    “But when Jordan was describing Michael, did he knowingly and intentionally get it wrong?” – Rodrigo

    How could Jordan intentionally get it wrong? He intentionally lied – this is what he did. He could not provide the correct picture of MJ’s private parts as he had never seen what he was describing. Ray Chandler wrote in his book that he and Larry Feldman sat for two hours trying to work out a description (that would prove his statements), but even after all the titanic effort they missed the point.

    I don’t know when Jordan’s “transformation” took place but at a certain point he did become a willing participant in his father’s scheme. It may not be easy to part with illusions, but I am afraid we will have to. Jordan slandered not only Michael but Brett Barnes and other boys. I’ve read that after hearing what Jordan said about him, Brett Barnes didn’t want to talk to him any more.

    Like

  163. October 9, 2012 3:52 pm

    “since Marlon Brando gave Michael a head’s up that the declaration was leaked and Brando was in London, maybe Brando got word from a media connection in London. I say this b/c Bashir would want the maximum profit for his LWMJ and having the declaration leaked benefitted him enormously as it created more interest in his interview.” – aldebaranredstar

    Of course there might be other possibilites as to who leaked the declaration, but I wouldn’t be pointing at Tom Sneddon if it were not for Larry Feldman. The words he said to the press (Roger Friedman) make me think that he could talk only of Tom Sneddon. How else can you interpret these words of Larry Feldman?

    “The papers had a court stamp and were drawn up on Feldman’s letterhead, something I asked him about at the time. He insisted they did not come from him, but said the guilty party was close at hand and that “just a little connecting of the dots” was needed to get a name.

    Now that sealed documents have twice surfaced and wound up in the same place — Court TV/The Smoking Gun Web site — maybe it’s time to think about who had access to them and how they could possibly have gotten out. Source: FoxNews; Fox411 Roger Friedman by special permission / MJFC”

    Feldman could not talk of some obscure figures in London. He was speaking of someone close at hand. Even if he talked of Diane Dimond it was essentially the same as she and Tom Sneddon were in an exceptionally close contact with each other.

    “At this point in time Sneddon was not making aggressive moves, and IMO it would have been very risky for him to release the declaration”.

    I think that Sneddon was always making agressive moves against Jackson after 1993. Though he claimed he didn’t even think of Jackson in fact he spoke of him on a regular basis and intervened each time someone told the truth about the 1993 case. You can find yourself numerous cases when Sneddon furiously reacted to someone saying that there was no match. Each time he intervened and said that there was!

    But why didn’t anyone ask him then why he didn’t arrest Jackson if he was so sure? Physical evidence is all you need in such cases.

    Like

  164. October 9, 2012 3:06 pm

    One more point:

    In his interview with Larry King Ray Chandler said that in the year 1993 none of the Chandlers were summoned to testify:

    CHANDLER: Oh. Well, you know, the allegations became public in August of ’93. The district attorney never filed a charge or never intended to file a charge. The family was not asked to testify all through the year of ’93.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/lkl.00.html

    I don’t know about Gil Garcetti, but imagining that Tom Sneddon who was also investigating the case “did not want to file a charge” is simply impossible!

    Why didn’t the Prosecution want the Chandlers to testify? Why didn’t Larry Feldman want the Chandlers to be deposed? The only explanation I can find is that neither the police nor Larry Feldman wanted these people to be cross-examined.

    Like

  165. October 9, 2012 2:48 pm

    “the only thing I have to tell you is that Jordan NEVER could have signed this or anything else that was under penalty of perjury, because he could not legally sign for anything until he was 18”

    Lynette, I’ve found information that a minor can sign even a sworn in affidavit (not to mention a declaration) without a parent or a guardian ad litem.

    Can a minor sign a affidavit without a parent or guardian present, and the police are not the ones who wrote out the affidavit?

    – That depends on what the affidavit is for. Is the child a witness? They she/he should have written the statement themselves. Is the affidavit a confession? Then they would have been asked to read it and make any corrections. The law does not require the parent or guardian to be present but they may be able to challege the affidavit based on the status (age, mental state, etc.). You should contact a criminal defense attorney who handles juvenile case in the city/county where this occurred.

    http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-minor-sign-a-affidavit-without-a-parent-or-g-412257.html

    Is it illegal for a minor to sign an affidavit without a legal guardian present?

    Cynthia Russell Henley, Houston Criminal Defense Attorney:

    – It is not “illegal” for a minor to sign an affidavit. However, the affidavit language generally says that “I am of legal age and capable of making this affidavit” or something like that. I assume that it can be changed without a problem A minor can testify under oath in court and his/her testimony is given equal weight. The parents’ presence or absence have nothing to do with the child’s capability of swearing to tell the truth.

    http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-illegal-for-a-minor-to-sign-an-affidavit-wit-256370.html

    P.S. An affidavit must be notarized and is always made under oath. A declaration may not necessarily be under oath.

    If a declaration is made under oath it is close to an affidavit but is easier to make as it does not require notarization. Both affidavit and declaration are no depositions as a deposition involves cross-examination. Lawyers from both sides can subpoena for a deposition and the subpoenaed side cannot refuse.

    Like

  166. October 9, 2012 11:38 am

    “Helena the only thing I have to tell you is that Jordan NEVER could have signed this or anything else that was under penalty of perjury, because he could not legally sign for anything until he was 18…. The Settlement document had to be signed by his Guardian Ad LItem, Judge Jack Goertzen. It is not legal for him to sign that.”

    Lynette, your observation about the Settlement agreement is very insightful. Indeed if the settlement agreement was signed by the Guardian Ad Litem instead of Jordan, why couldn’t the same man sign the declaration as well?

    Then we need to check the date when Judge Jack Goerzten became Jordan’s Guardian Ad Litem. And if he was already his Guardian at the end of December when the declaration was made, this may explain that signature under the paper.

    Incidentally I’ve stored in my computer a document which carries the same signature as the one under Jordan’s declaration and when I was downloading it I called it (for some reason) “the signature of Jordan’s Guardian Ad Litem”. Now I don’t remember where I have taken it from. It seems that the paper is coming from Victor Gutierrez’s book. Since you have the original of it could you check up whether this document is indeed there? And whether the text explains that it is signed by the Guardian Ad Litem?

    UPDATE:

    I’ve checked up Victor Gutierrez’s copy you earlier sent me. The paper is there but the text says that it is genuine Jordan’s signature saying:”Only a few documents exist with Jordie’s handwriting, and furthermore with his signature”.

    We are absolutely not obliged to believe Gutierrez of course, so I am writing it only as a necessary step to finding out the real truth. I mean the truth about the role Jordan Chandler played in this story. Truth is all we need to know.

    Here is the paper: Paper signed by Jordan's Ad Litem

    In fact the paper from VG’s book is slightly different, so the “black” picture was taken from a different source and could consequently have a different text accompanying it (this may explain why I wrote it down as “Ad Litem’s signature).

    The picture from Victor Gutierrez’s book is as follows:

    null

    Like

  167. Rodrigo permalink
    October 9, 2012 10:29 am

    The psychologist’s letter that Evan presented to Michael at the meeting was supposed to be the one and only thing that scared Michael into submission. It was a hypothetical letter as well, just full of if’s and maybe’s based on what Evan had told the psychologist (his name escapes me).

    But when Jordan was describing Michael, did he knowingly and intentionally get it wrong? Because what good it would have been to the Chandler’s if Michael was sent down?

    Like

  168. October 9, 2012 9:34 am

    日本の全Michaelファンの方々へ サンタ バルバラ法廷へのスネッドンに対するサインをお願いします!!!
    Support of Affidavit Concerning Criminal Conduct of Tom Sneddon – 2005 Michael Jackson Trial
    – L.O.V.E., Can you sign here
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/662/053/218/support-of-affidavit-concerning-criminal-conduct-of-tom-sneddon-2005-michael-jackson-trial/
    TO ALL MICHAEL’S FANS
    WE NEED YOU!!!
    JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL JACKSON
    WANT 40MILLION SIGNS!!!
    Yoshimi

    http://www.mesereauyu.com/a-tribute-to-michael-jackson
    THE IGNORANCE IS DESTROYING THE PEACE.

    Like

  169. lynande51 permalink
    October 9, 2012 6:48 am

    It was Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan of Splash News that were buying up all the documents that they could from this case. Later one of them was in the room with the Neverland Five and vicotr Gutierrex when they were negotiating a deal to buy their “story”.So they knew Vg ab dhe knew the,
    They talk about it in the Frontline Documentary.

    Like

  170. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 9, 2012 6:25 am

    Hi, VMJ, I read somewhere that there was a British journalist working for the tabloids who was snapping up all court docs he could get his hands on in the 93/94 civil suit, and that the declaration was submitted to the court before it was sealed and this journalist may have gotten a copy. I will try and locate my notes on that and see if I have more info. Remember that Michael was going to be interviewed by Ed Bradley of CBS in Feb. of 03, after Bashir’s program had aired, and he was all set to do that when he got a call from Marlon Brando from London telling him that the declaration had been leaked and was going to be published. Michael was so devastated he could not do the interview, and Ed Bradley had to leave Neverland. The Arvizo family was there at the time and Ed Bradley spoke with them and they said how great Michael was and so on. Ed Bradley told Larry King all about this. So since Marlon Brando gave Michael a head’s up that the declaration was leaked and Brando was in London, maybe Brando got word from a media connection in London. I say this b/c Bashir would want the maximum profit for his LWMJ and having the declaration leaked benefitted him enormously as it created more interest in his interview. At this point in time Sneddon was not making aggressive moves, and IMO it would have been very risky for him to release the declaration. Sneddon (even though he is a mad dog) is a religious man, a Roman Catholic, and is convinced he is on the side of the angels, so I don’t see him doing this–leaking the declaration. Gavin was denying that anything happened for a long time, at least a few months after the LWMJ.

    Jordan’s declaration is such an indefinite thing–no dates, no places, no times–it is totally vague. “MJ molested me on many occasions.” I am sure it was done solely for publicity and pressure on MJ. I can’t believe a judge would have granted Feldman access to all Michael’s financial documents even before the trial started–that was another ploy or threat. The idea that Jordan should get copies of the photos, that Michael should submit to another strip search–WHY???–is also without any rational justification. If there was already a strip search, why do it again? And then, demand #2–banish the photos from court!! This option has no logical connection to option #1. I can’t believe a judge would have bought any of this, but it shows how truly evil Feldman is.

    As far as the criminal case, without Jordan testifying, no jury would convict Michael IMO, and that’s why there was no criminal case after Jordan refused, which he did not have to do as the settlement allowed for the criminal suit to proceeed. But Jordan and Evan had got the $$$ they wanted and so there was no purpose in a criminal suit, where they would have been perjured and where the truth would have come out that they were lying, lying, lying. They both could have ended up either in jail or juvenile court b/c the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is much higher than in a civil suit. Such dregs of humanity!!

    Like

  171. lynande51 permalink
    October 9, 2012 5:40 am

    That declaration was nothing but Chandler Propaganda.

    Like

  172. lynande51 permalink
    October 9, 2012 5:39 am

    Helena the only thing I have to tell you is that Jordan NEVER could have signed this or anything else that was under penalty of perjury, because he could not legally sign for anything until he was 18.He could not legally be held accountable for his statements at that time. You can verify that with the testimony of Jason Francia in 2005. When he was being cross examined by Tom Mesereau he asked him about signing for his settlement and his attorney when he was on the stand confirmed what I say.
    If it was Jordan he could not and would not be held accountable for the statement. In other words the under penalty of perjury part is a farce. He could not be charged with perjury until he was 14 in the state of California.The statement that David Arvizo made to the defense investigators in 2004 confirms this when he is talking about his daughter testifying in the abuse case against him. The judge in that case called her into his chambers and reminded her that she was 16 and couldbe held for perjury and so her testimony changed.The Settlement document had to be signed by his Guardian Ad LItem, Judge Jack Goertzen. It is not legal for him to sign that.
    When Feldman filed this with the partial transcripts he also asked for a Guardian Ad Litem for Jordan because all insurance settlements with minors required them. That is to prevent the parents from having control of the money that is settled on the child.So that is how you can tell this was going to settlement at that time.
    Then the Settlement document that we saw that was provided by Diane Dimond via Henry Vacarro has insurance written all over it when you know what you are reading. In it there is a reference to Qualified Assets Premiums in Paragraph 4 or 5. Left out of what we are allowed to see is how the TOTAL amount of $15,331,250.00 is broken down in payments to a trust with a portion of it going to June and Evan to assure that they don’t write a book about it because they knew he alreadyhad. Feldman, if you do the math from the retainer, was paid 25% and then payments were made to a trust for Jordan, three of them to be exact with the last one in 1999.
    IN surance companies are not stupid.They do this every single day.That is their jobs. IF there was more that $15,331,250.00 that would have been spelled out in the settlement and the reason it was not there is because that is how much there was. It was shared as it was supposed to be. The reason the eight pages were redacted and not shown to the public is not because we can’t read it, It is because Diane Dimond doesn’t want us to. Why? Because if my math is right Jordan got a little over 7 million in trust. That gives a whole different look to the story then doesn’t it?
    Who leaked the Statement? It had to be Evan via Ray would be my guess. That or Victor via Diane.Both have and agenda and that agenda was to ruin Michael.

    Like

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: