Skip to content

THE 1993 CASE: Jordan Chandler’s declaration, Michael Jackson’s photos and Tom Sneddon’s tricks

October 15, 2012

HIGHLIGHTS:
1. Did Jordan Chandler ever want to testify?
2. Why wasn’t Jordan Chandler deposed?
3. The criminal investigation is over. Tom Sneddon goes on talking
4. Prosecutors urge changes to the law to “nail” Jackson
5. Can a child’s declaration be admitted without the child’s testimony?
6. The Sixth Amendment and exceptions for children allowing them not to testify
7. Jordan’s case – a declaration with no evidence
8. A bluff with the 1993 photos at the 2005 trial

This post is a review of some facts known to us about Jordan Chandler’s civil case against Michael Jackson which will be now supplemented with new information from recently discovered legal sources.

I myself am absolutely sure of the conclusions made here, however if anyone wants to dispute my points the post is fully open to discussion.

The question that interested me most was whether it was possible to bring criminal charges against MJ in the absence of the accuser Jordan Chandler who in 1994 refused to testify against Jackson.

The question arose because Michael’s haters usually call it the main reason why the criminal case didn’t go any further.

Though the prosecutors didn’t have a witness they claimed they had other evidence – 1) the boy’s declaration made within a civil suit (in addition to police interviews),  2) a certain description of MJ’s genitalia given to the police and 3) the respective photos taken during Michael’s strip search conducted by the police too.

From various sources and our own findings we know that the photos did not match the description, but Tom Sneddon repeatedly claimed that they did, and if we are to believe his words this alleged match looked to me like sufficient reason to bring charges against MJ irrespective of the boy’s wishes.

This belief was based on the universal concept that prosecutors can file charges even when victims refuse to proceed with their accusations.  

The main rules guiding the criminal procedure are as follows:

  • The criminal trial always begins with the filing of charges. Until formal charges have been filed against you–even if you have been arrested–you have not been charged with a crime. Contrary to what you see in movies and television shows, the decision to file charges rests not with the victim, but with the prosecutor.
  • Criminal Charges A criminal charge is the formal declaration from the state that a person is suspected of committing a crime. Charges are filed only when a prosecutor believes he has a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
  • Prosecutorial Discretion. Only the prosecutor has final say on filing charges. The prosecutor has unfettered discretion when determining whether to file changes and what kind should be filed.
  • Victim’s Rights. Contrary to popular belief, victims do not have right to file charges. By pressing charges, a victim is letting the prosecutor know that she/he wants the charges filed and is willing to proceed with the case, but the decision still rests with the prosecutor. Prosecutors can file in cases where the victim wants charges dropped, and can refuse to file in cases where the victim wants to proceed.
  •  Who is the Victim. Under the American criminal justice system, the “victim” is actually the state. The prosecutor is representing the entire citizenry, and ultimately must make the decision as to what is best for everyone, not just the individual victim.
  • Law Enforcement Input. In addition to the victim, law enforcement officers are also allowed to state whether they think charges should be filed. Again, while the prosecutor takes that opinion under advisement, only he has final say.

 http://www.ehow.com/facts_5731320_authorized-file-criminal-charges-court_.html

If you read the above and compare it with the actions of prosecutors Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti handling the Jordan Chandler case you will realize that something does not add up here.

If the decision to file charges depends wholly on the prosecutors, why didn’t Sneddon file charges in 1994 against MJ if he really had the physical evidence he claimed he had? Did the prosecution really need Jordan that much if in addition to the statement from the boy they also had the photos and the description that allegedly matched?

Jordan’s declaration to Larry Feldman we all heard of can be brushed off as unimportant – it is only a piece of paper where anyone can say anything and a boy under 14 is not even liable for perjury made under oath (Jordan was 13 and turning 14 two weeks after making the statement).

But the alleged “match” was supposed to be really hard evidence.  In fact this was all  the prosecutors needed to at least bring charges against Michael Jackson, however they never did.  Why? Is there a possibility that they really couldn’t due to Jordan’s refusal to testify?

This last question is crucial for the case, but in order to answer it, first we need to find answers to other questions concerning the 1993 case.

1. Did Jordan Chandler ever want to testify?

Why didn’t Jordan testify against Jackson in a criminal trial? Of course it never came to even as close as bringing the charges against MJ, but still – why didn’t he?

He had a perfect right to do so after the settlement. The Chandlers’ agreement with Michael Jackson said that they could not speak to the media and not to the authorities, and even if it had said otherwise it would have been illegal and therefore invalid. The boy could have given his testimony in a deposition, within the civil case or in a criminal trial, within both civil and criminal cases – but he never did, same as his parents.

The answer to it is that Jordan never wanted to testify. A testimony means a scrutiny by the other side, and he admitted he didn’t want it when he said that he was afraid of a cross-examination.

He spoke of his fear of being cross-examined in an interview with psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner to whom he was sent by Larry Feldman for the evaluation of his story. 

The interview is now freely found in the Internet and is part of Ray Chandler’s so-called documents laying the basis for his book “All that glitters”. The book was self-published in September 2004, evidently after many years of the Chandlers carefully considering how to present to the public the sensitive issue that they took the money but disregarded the chance to testify against Jackson.

Jordan spoke to the doctor in October 1993, only a couple of months after the alleged molestation events allegedly took place.  The doctor was asking Jordan about something totally different – the fears and pangs that usually haunt real child abuse victims for as long as they live.

As to that kind of fears Jordan had none. Moreover he even added that he had “nothing to hide” which is totally uncharacteristic of child abuse victims  – they usually feel so ashamed and separated from the rest of the world as a result of their dirty experience that prefer to keep silent about it.

However our boy couldn’t care less whether he would have to tell the sordid details of his alleged “molestation” to a big audience or not – he had “nothing to hide” from these people and his only fear was about a cross-examination his story would be subjected to:

Dr. Gardner: “What about fears? Any fears of any kind?”
Jordan: “No.”
Dr. Gardner: “Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”
Jordan: “Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

And this was said only a couple of months after the alleged events took place? Betraying the boy’s easy frame of mind (even before any ‘therapy” he reportedly received later) and good knowledge of legal proceedings so uncharacteristic of a child?

The same fear of having to answer in a criminal case was expressed by Evan Chandler in a conversation with Larry Feldman. The conversation was described by Ray Chandler in his book.

Larry Feldman:

“…I’m going forward.  We’re going to push on.  So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed.  The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first”.

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain until now.

“You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”

 “Yeah.”

“Jesus Christ! 

 “Right! So we don’t want that.”

It was somewhat reckless of Ray Chandler to record in writing his brother’s fear of criminal proceedings and seeking only money in a civil suit. However in his numerous interviews over the release of the book Ray Chandler tried to correct the mistake and explained the situation differently. He implied that the family was waiting to testify (but no one asked them to) and since they were “tired of waiting” they finally decided to settle.

Here is an example of a typical reply from Ray Chandler, in this case in an interview with Larry King. Judging by the repetitions he makes it takes him some time to find a reply to Larry King’s question:

KING: Why did they settle?

CHANDLER: Why did they settle?

KING: Why did they settle?

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. A lawsuit was filed — they got civil lawyers. The civil lawyers said you cannot wait. We don’t know if the DA is going to file, if the DA isn’t going to file.

Ray Chandler intentionally leaves out of the conversation Tom Sneddon as the second District Attorney involved in the investigation. Tom Sneddon is so aggressive and tenacious a prosecutor that anyone claiming that Tom Sneddon “never intended to charge”  will be simply laughed off. Therefore Ray Chandler limits himself to the criticism of  Gil Garcetti only, who was District Attorney of the Los Angeles County, implying that Garcetti was intimidated by Michael Jackson’s stature:

KING: So you think he didn’t bring the charges because…?

CHANDLER: No, I think he didn’t bring the charges because he did not feel that he could get a conviction against a man of that stature on the same evidence he could get against me or any normal person.  

In all his interviews Ray Chandler adheres to the concept that the family was “tired of waiting” for the criminal charges to be brought against Jackson and therefore had to take money.  However this idea fully contradicts his own account of how terrified his brother Evan was of criminal proceedings (“Jesus Christ”!) and how hopeful of the success of the civil suit he was.

And a civil suit is all about money and not justice, as you remember.

Ray Chandler says that “the family was not asked to testify all through the year of ’93”. He repeats the same in his March 2005 interview where he stresses that Jordan was asked to cooperate with the authorities only after the settlement.

To us it is very important as it means that Jordan did cooperate with the police after the settlement.

10th March, 2005

Andrew Williams: The case was famously settled out of court. How come?

Raymond Chandler: One of the biggest myths around this case is that my family took money rather than press criminal charges. There weren’t any criminal charges pending at the time; the family were waiting and waiting for charges to be filed. The real question people should ask is why Jackson settled out of court. He was telling journalists about how innocent he was but there was so much evidence gathered against him, his lawyers advised him to settle. It wasn’t until five months later that the District Attorney asked my family to help with a criminal prosecution.

The police was of course looking into the case before the settlement (as the strip search proves it), but it is true that due to the judge’s decision the civil case was drawing most of the attention.

The settlement that followed gave both parties every chance to testify during the on-going criminal proceedings (or in a criminal trial should it come to it)  and June Chandler’s testimony at the 2005 trial is the best proof that none of the Chandlers had obstacles for cooperating with the authorities.

Ray Chandler feels he owes people an explanation why they never used the chance to testify and in 2005 offered another explanation –  he said the family was afraid for their safety:

Andrew Williams: So what happened with the criminal charges?

Ray Chandler: My family asked for police protection – at the time, there were even Jackson fans coming over from England trying to break into the office and we’d find headless animals left outside the house – but we didn’t get it. The DA’s office turned us down because they didn’t think the risk was serious. At the same time though, they assigned police protection to the family’s lawyer because he’d received similar threats. The criminal case wasn’t pursued because my family didn’t feel safe to do so.

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

Now the “fear factor”  is the main and only pretext given by the Chandlers for not testifying in 1993/94 . Ray Chandler claims that the family was intimidated by MJ’s fans and wanted to be placed under a witness protection program, but their request was refused.

Gil Garcetti, D.A. of the Los Angeles county

He says that for Gil Garcetti it was a matter of “politics and saving face” and though for Tom Sneddon Ray Chandler has much more respect he still cannot explain why Sneddon failed to provide any protection for them too.

However there was nothing to protect them from. There was no danger, same as there was no danger for the Arvizos when they testified in 2005. Michael Jackson was no gangster and considering all media attention to his personality was the first interested party to have his accusers safe and sound.

Tom Sneddon would have done ANYTHING to have Jordan Chandler testify

What’s interesting is that Tom Sneddon himself never presented the “fear-factor” as a reason for Jordan Chandler’s refusal to testify.

Tom Sneddon is a person who would have done anything to obtain Jordan’s testimony in court and would have placed the Chandlers under any kind of program if only he had only agreed to testify, and this is why Ray Chandler’s version is so terribly unconvincing:

It was about this time, April 1994, that the DA began putting pressure on Evan to have Jordie testify at a criminal trial…  Evan and his family mulled over the decision carefully, and in the end told the DA that they would consider testifying if they were placed in a witness protection program immediately after the trial.  For reasons that were never disclosed, their request was turned down.

Nevertheless the DA was insistent that the Chandler’s testify, and at times Evan came close to giving in.  “The overriding factor was always the safety issue,” Evan commented.  “But I also had this gnawing feeling that the DA was more concerned with saving face..with the politics and notoriety of it all, than with seeing justice done.  It would have been their OJ before OJ ever happened.  Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the feeling I got -from L.A., that is, not Santa Barbara.  I mean, Tom Sneddon wanted us to testify, too. But he seemed genuine, like his entire motivation was to put this criminal behind bars.  He understood my fears and my need to protect my family, and he didn’t try to push me around.  I have a lot of respect for Sneddon”.

As regards their fears there was indeed one case of a MJ girl fan from Britain who got into Evan Chandler’s yard (she was deported back after doing no harm to anyone). The episode was ridiculous but even if we regard it as a serious danger in the year 1994,  it does not explain why Jordan didn’t take the chance to testify against Michael Jackson in the year 2005.

By that time Anthony Pellicano (a frightening character for them) had been put into jail, Michael Jackson was under another criminal investigation in connection with the Arvizos’ allegations and it was just the right time for Jordan to make his appearance in court. Or at least take a deposition which could be read out or shown there – of course if he and his family really wanted the “predator” to be in jail.

From the recent events around real criminals like Sandusky we know that when law enforcement bodies finally look into the actions of a real molester, his victims from the past join the first witness who was bold enough to break the silence. This is very much understandable. After so many years of suffering in silent despair, once they feel that there is a real opportunity to bring their abuser to justice they start coming in packs, though for all of them this is no easy experience. They have been waiting for this chance for so long that the matters of shame, fear and publicity are no longer important for these people – all they want is justice, vindication and a catharsis for themselves which will finally set them free from the horror of their past recollections.

But Jordan is the exact opposite of real child abuse victims.

Only a couple of months after the alleged “molestation” took place, in October 1993 he was calmly narrating his story to a psychiatrist without any visible emotion.  He sounded reserved, bored and disinterested. He had no hard feelings, regrets, doubts or haunting recollections whatsoever and his only fear at the moment was that of  a cross-examination.

It sounded like a well coached speech devoid of  any emotion,  and this is what we are supposed to believe?

Jordan Chandler was to be assessed by the FBI Behavior Analysis Unit in September 2004

In 2004 the Behavior Analysis Unit of the FBI wanted to conduct another of their innumerable  investigations of Michael Jackson after being approached by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office in June that year.

The investigation was made on September 14 -December 9, 2004 and concerned Jordan Chandler again.

The idea was to urge Jordan to testify in support of the Arvizos’ claims. But when the FBI agent and the Santa Barbara D.A. representative met Jordan Chandler in a New York City hotel in September 2004 he vehemently refused to come to the trial and even said that he would sue them if they insisted, dropping a mysterious phrase at that.

“He believed that he had done his part”.

He had done his part? Was it a theatrical play or a scheme he took part in?

Do real victims of molestation behave that way or is it the answer of a person who knows that he slandered an innocent man and he doesn’t want to have anything to do with any more?  Or is a sign of the person’s fear that his story may fall apart and the truth may be finally uncovered during cross-examination?

When a FBI agent and a Santa Barbara D.A. representative met Jordan Chandler at a hotel in New York he said he would not testify and would legally fight any attempt to do so. He had “done his part” (September 28, 2004)

In his totally pornographic book of lies about Jackson, Victor Gutierrez described an interesting episode. Though generally not an authority for us, over here he had no reason to tell a lie as this particular story refutes the whole concept of Jordan’s “molestation” and this is why I tend to believe it.

In this episode Jordan Chandler is described as being relieved and happy at hearing the news that the authorities stopped the criminal proceedings against Jackson.

The way the author describes the scene you start realizing that Jordan was ashamed of his accusations of Michael and felt an enormous sense of relief when the case against him was finally closed. If even a liar like Gutierrez could not help reporting this fact, it means that there is truth behind it.

This makes me more or less come to terms with what Jordan did to Jackson. After all he was only a thirteen year-old boy who found himself in the midst of all this horror and had to face a terrible choice between profitable lies and profitless truth – a dilemma to which even few adults are able to find the right answer…

Herer is this episode from Gutierrez’s book:

“A representative from the OA’s office telephoned him, and told him “Michael Jackson will not be prosecuted, but if some day you change your mind and you want to testify against him, the case will be open for another six years.” Upon hanging up the phone, Jordie felt “relief and peace,” according to what he told to his best friend. “No one would speak about it anymore.” Jordie went to the swimming pool at his house where his stepbrother and Nathalie were, and jumped in with his clothes on. When his brother asked him if he was crazy he answered, smiling and hugging him, “You don’t understand, but this is a good day.”

To more or less accept Jordan and see him as a sort of a victim in this tale of lies, greed and shamelessness let us add to the picture the fact that Jordan made a drawing describing his feelings over the events he was involved in.

He made that drawing not at the time when he associated with Michael Jackson, but after his father made it clear that he would sue Michael. It is a suicide note which shows that the need to tell lies about an innocent man in court was so unbearable to Jordan that it brought him almost to the point of a suicide. According to Victor Gutierrez the drawing was found by Evan Chandler at the time when he was going to file a lawsuit against Jackson.

I don’t know what Gutierrez was thinking about when he was writing it, but the fact that Evan Chandler was contemplating a lawsuit for a monetary settlement immediately after he first confronted Michael Jackson with his allegations proves to us more than anything else that the matter was about money from the very start of it and was never meant to be taken to a criminal trial at all:

“Evan and Rothman thought that they would have to file a lawsuit against Jackson. Jordie was fearful and depressed about what had occurred at the meeting with Jackson, and about his father’s consideration of filing documents with the court. The idea that he would have to testify in court against his “first love” depressed him so much that, before going to bed that night, he drew a picture of a boy jumping off of a building and another person yelling at him to stop from behind. The drawing also showed a figure on the pavement covered with blood. This was a message. It was a suicide note. Evan found the paper the next morning. When he saw the drawing, he wrote on it the sentence “Don’t let this happen!”

He thought that the reason for the suicide note was that Jordie had been sexually abused by Jackson. The drawing appears exclusively in this book. Jordie’s reason for suicide was not because he felt shame for his sexual acts with Jackson. He was depressed because his father had promised him that nobody would know. Now his own father was negotiating and planning to go to court to tell all. His father had betrayed him.”

Gutierrez belongs to the kind of people who believe in a tender sexual love between men and boys, but since Michael’s advocates categorically oppose this idea the only explanation I see for the above is that Jordan was so pressed by his father to tell lies about Jackson and so ashamed of what he was doing (or so afraid of cross-examination?) that initially he was on the verge of a suicide.

It was only much later that he learned how to come to terms with those lies – once the harm is done and he will now be considered “a boy of MJ” forever – no matter what he does or says, so let him at least be rewarded for this inconvenience by the money he would have as a compensation for the label.  Someone could have taught him this wise thought or the bright boy could have come to the idea himself, but this does explain why Jordan could put his signature under that false declaration of his, doesn’t it? (if the signature is his of course).

Whatever it is the main thing for us to remember is that Jordan Chandler was so afraid of the trial that he never contemplated the idea of testifying against Jackson – either in 1994 or 2005.

2. Why wasn’t Jordan Chandler deposed?

But even if Jordan Chandler did not want to testify at a criminal trial could he be at least deposed during all those proceedings? Deposition is one of the routine discovery tools – it takes place in the presence of lawyers from the other side and allows to cross-examine the witness.

Generally people are deposed mostly in civil cases where lawyers for the defense have an almost unlimited right to depose witnesses from the side of the plaintiff.

Lawyers for the plaintiff also have this chance but it is somewhat limited as the defendant can take the 5th Amendment if he is not willing to testify. In a criminal case it is quite a routine occurrence, however if the defendant uses this right in a civil case it will be frowned upon and may be even regarded as a sign of guilt (the idea of it is – why not testify if you are not going to jail anyway and the most you risk is money only?).

However in the Jordan Chandler vs. Michael Jackson case the advantage was firmly on MJ’s side as he was the defendant in a civil case and therefore had an unlimited right to depose his accuser, though of course Larry Feldman would have done his best not to allow Jordan Chandler to be cross-examined by Michael’s lawyers.

Could the prosecutors depose Jordan Chandler within a criminal case? Yes, they could as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not preclude depositions as part of the discovery process. Moreover it is a very convenient discovery tool as in criminal cases the lawyers of the other side (MJ) are not allowed to be present.

It is less common to take a deposition in a criminal case than in a civil one, but it is still possible. Usually it is done when there is a danger that the witness will be unavailable at the time of the trial or may refuse to testify – and the latter was exactly Jordan Chandler’s case!

Here is more about the possibility of depositions during civil and criminal proceedings and their routine use for discovering truth behind the allegations:

Pretrial Discovery Won’t Harm Justice System

Daily Journal – Mar 8, 2006

Any experienced civil litigator can tell you that depositions (and subsequent investigations to check the truth of deposition testimony) routinely allow civil defendants to prove witness testimony is false.

In light of the fact that a civil defendant has an almost unfettered right to depose a civil plaintiff’s witnesses before trial, it seems illogical to argue that the same discovery in a criminal case would cause “harm that is not correctable on appeal.”

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not preclude discovery depositions, or that the rules violate a criminal defendant’s Due Process Clause and Confrontation Clause rights.

By Dana Cephas http://www.cephaslaw.com/articles/Pretrial_Discovery/

The Chandlers’ resistance to testifying against Jackson was evidently so strong that even Tom Sneddon did not manage to depose any of them.

And let us once again note the top important detail that in civil cases the defendant – I repeat – the defendant has an almost unfettered right to depose a civil plaintiff’s witness before trial.

This means that Michael Jackson as a defendant in the civil case had an almost unfettered right to depose Jordan Chandler by his lawyers!

Michael Jackson had this right, not Jordan. Michael Jackson was not obliged to answer any questions as it wasn’t his deposition, however he had the right to be present at the deposition, and listen and look  while his lawyers grilled the witness.

In fact Jordan’s deposition was the easiest thing to do for Michael’s lawyers as the boy’s story had already been trumpeted by the media all over the world in minute detail and there was nothing to lose anyway,  but despite this easy chance Michael still preferred not to do it.

This  looks very meaningful to me – Michael spared the boy and did not take his right to cross-examine Jordan because he didn’t want to subject him to even more torture than the one he had already gone through owing to his parents’ efforts.

However Michael’s defense attorney Bert Fields was still planning to depose Jordan. Mary Fischer wrote about it in her article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”:

“It was reported in November 1993 that Jordan Chandler had given a description of the singer’s genitals, and Feldman at that point declined to comment.

Howard Weitzman said he was not aware of any search warrant regarding the issue and added “You got to be kidding me. Mr.Fields is going to depose this young man at the appropriate time. And we are not concerned about those issues in this case. We don’t believe it. Period”.

It would later emerge that the description was false, and as a result Michael Jackson was not arrested after the search, as he would have been if it matched.

Mr. Fields would later say “They had a very weak case, we wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.” 

http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Bert Fields was so sure of Michael’s innocence that he fought for criminal proceedings to come first

Bert Fields was unfortunately fired by Howard Wiezman (and was followed by his investigator Pellicano who left on his own) after making a technical blunder.

As we know Fields was so keen on speeding up the criminal investigation and having it completed prior to the civil case that he made a statement to court that the Grand Jury had already convened and they could expect an indictment of Michael Jackson very, very soon.

(An indictment is no proof of guilt but is a sort of consent of the grand jury that the evidence collected is valid enough to be examined in a court of law).

This information was wrong and the announcement looked like the lawyer hoping to have his own client indicted, while in reality Bert Fields was making a desperate attempt to prevent the judge from letting Larry Feldman’s civil case go before the criminal one investigated by the police.

Lisa Campbell says about it:

  • During the November 23 hearing, Bert Fields told the court “a grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and are about to take evidence, if they haven’t already started, and that means we should expect a charging decision very, very soon.”
  • This information given to Fields turned out to be false and Fields’ statement was immediately recanted by co-counsel Howard Weitzman. The grand jury session had not actually been called”.

Everything was upside down in this totally absurd situation – the defense attorney hoped for a grand jury to convene and take the matter further in the criminal proceedings against Michael Jackson, while the accuser Jordan Chandler didn’t want to testify in court and seek justice for the person who allegedly “molested” him. When you come to learn the details of the 1993 case nothing adds up in that crazy situation with the Chandlers!

The indictment was certainly wishful thinking on the part of Bert Fields – the Grand Jury never indicted Michael, either before or after the settlement, or ever in that case.  And despite Bert Fields’ desperate attempt to prevent the fateful decision the judge nevertheless decided in favour of the civil lawsuit going forward.

However the boldness of Bert Fields’ move to put off the civil case and push the criminal proceedings forward, as well as the extent of his confidence in the defendant’s innocence will never stop to amaze me – the defense lawyer and his defendant wanted the criminal proceedings to go first while the accuser and his lawyer did not!

Add to it Ray Chandler’s almost deadly fight against a subpoena from Michael’s defense team in the year 2005 and his lack of desire to submit the “documents” he allegedly had against Jackson and you will see a family portrait of con artists who decided to make big and quick money at the expense of Jackson but were afraid of testifying like the plague.

The real reason why they were so terribly afraid of the need to prove their case in court was that they themselves were absolutely not sure that any molestation of Jordan had ever taken place. When promoting his book in September 2004 Ray Chandler gave in interview on Dateline and over there played a record which shows that his brother believed that the relations between MJ and his son were purely platonic.

Ray Chandler said that the tape was made around the time of making the allegations, and this means that even at the time Evan was making his accusations he didn’t believe them himself!

Tape Shown of Former Jackson Accuser’s Kin
Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:19 AM ET

LOS ANGELES – Tapes of the father of a boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation in 1993 were played on the TV news magazine “Dateline,” a decade after the singer reached a settlement with the boy that included an agreement not to discuss the case.

The boy’s uncle played the recordings for NBC television’s “Dateline,” saying he made them around the time of the allegations.

The alleged victim declined to cooperate with prosecutors, and no criminal charges were brought against Jackson at the time. The boy’s uncle told “Dateline” that the family initially tried to help prosecutors bring charges, but stopped cooperating when authorities refused to place them in the witness protection program. 

Uncle of Ex-Jackson Accuser Tells All
Mon Sep 13, 5:20 PM ET

By Josh Grossberg
… The uncle, who had no part of the estimated $20 million settlement, played audiotapes he made with the boy’s father that paint a disturbing portrait of Jackson at the time of the scandal.  In the recordings, made by Chandler with his older brother’s knowledge and made available to Dateline’s producers, the father is heard expressing sympathy for the then 35-year-old King of Pop, believing the relationship he struck up with his 13-year-old son in the fall of 1992 was strictly platonic. 

“He’s childlike. He’s a child. Nothing to fear,” the father said on one tape. “You put that together with the way he looks…and you feel sorry for him, okay. And you know that he–this tells you that he grew up an intensely lonely person.”

So Evan Chandler was not sure and was even sorry that he was doing it to Michael, but the desire for money was still bigger. This explains the civil suit and this explains their unwillingness to cooperate with the authorities too.

3. The criminal investigation is over. Tom Sneddon goes on talking

We are coming a little closer to the initial question (“Could the prosecutors continue with the 1993 case even when Jordan refused to cooperate with them?”) but are still not quite there. We still need to sum up  a couple of other things.

The criminal investigation lasted for thirteen months – from August 17, 1993 to September 21, 1994.  More than 400 witnesses were interviewed, two Grand Juries looked into all the evidence collected, but did not return an indictment, and on September 22, 1994 the District Attorneys of Los Angeles (Gil Garcetti) and Santa Barbara (Tom Sneddon) finally had to announce that no charges would be filed.

However the emphasis was made on the fact that it was due to the settlement that the accuser refused to testify and that in California victims of child abuse cannot be forced to testify.  Therefore the case would remain open should  the accuser change his mind.

This opportunity was open until the statute of limitations expired in about 6 years which would take us to the year 2000 as a deadline. Within that period the prosecutors were “ready to proceed with charges against Jackson”.

This is how the news was reported by the New York Times on September 22, 1994:

No Charges for Now Against Michael Jackson

By SETH MYDANS
Published: September 22, 1994

After more than a year of investigation, accompanied by lurid speculation in the press, prosecutors said today that they would not file child molestation charges against the pop superstar Michael Jackson.

At a joint news conference, the District Attorneys for Los Angeles and Santa BarbaraCounties said they had decided not to proceed with allegations that Mr. Jackson had sexually molested three boys because the “primary alleged victim” had decided not to testify.

The prosecutors said that the case would remain open and that charges could be filed if the boy changed his mind at any time before the statute of limitations expired in about five years.

The boy, who is now 14, reached an out-of-court settlement with Mr. Jackson in a civil suit filed last September. Although details of the settlement were not made public, a friend of Mr. Jackson said it involved a payment by the singer of more than $10 million. The suit accused Mr. Jackson of sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence. Mr. Jackson has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing since the allegations became public in August 1993.

In announcing that no charges would be filed now, Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney, said: “After about 13 or 14 months of investigation this is our conclusion. We have a very important witness who has told us, ‘I am sorry, I do not want to and will not testify.’ And I’m telling you that if he stepped forward a month from now, two months from now, and says, ‘I’m willing to testify,’ we would re-evaluate our case at that time.”

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, where Mr. Jackson owns an estate, said more than 400 witnesses had been interviewed in the case and that two other possible victims had been identified. But he said one of these, who is now in therapy, had asked not to be involved in the case and the other was out of the country and had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.

In California, a victim of sexual abuse cannot be required to testify in court.

The two District Attorneys made it clear that they had been prepared to proceed with charges against Mr. Jackson. In a joint statement they said: “We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of the victims. Should circumstances change or new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be re-evaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/22/us/no-charges-for-now-against-michael-jackson.html

This District Attorney Tom Sneddon should be reminded that he does not have the right to call anyone a “victim” until the alleged abuser’s guilt is proven in court. However he did speak of MJ’s “other possible victims” even without bringing charges against the man!

For ten years following that press-conference  he claimed that he put the case involving Michael Jackson out of his mind. However this source  http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/11/19/867/02974#004397 shows that Tom Sneddon actually never intended to leave Michael Jackson alone and never did.

When the Chandler investigation was over this is what Tom Sneddon said:

  • “When that case went to bed … it went out of my mind. I haven’t given it a passing thought”.

And this is what he did  – and here comes a collection of Tom Sneddon’s quotes saying that it is “just a sampling of what their Lexis research turned up out of 100 entries for “Tom Sneddon” and “Michael Jackson” between 1994 and 2001”.

When you read these quotes please pay attention to how Tom Sneddon escalates the matter when speaking about it  – “the charges were brought”, ‘the charges were dropped”, then “a third boy” appeared together with a “lawyer who worked on a new settlement” and even “two more victims were identified”.

All of it is a completely crazy stuff as no charges were ever brought against Jackson, there was neither third boy nor his lawyer, and there were no other “victims” identified.  Who told to the media all this crap? Tom Sneddon?

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) March 7, 2001

“Heal The Kids” was described as an image-building deception by Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who prosecuted the singer for alleged child molestation in 1993. Jackson avoided trial by paying the family of his 13-year-old accuser around $20 million. Sneddon recently warned the case could be reopened at any time.

Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) February 16, 2001

In a twist on the eve of his launching appeal [for a children’s charity program], the district attorney who brought the case said it was not closed. “The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated,” said DA Tom Sneddon. “It’s in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.”

Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001

Remember the child molestation charges levelled against Michael Jackson a few years ago? So does the district attorney in Santa Barbara, California, Tom Sneddon. He’s the one who investigated Jackson in 1993 when a then-13-year-old boy claimed Jackson molested him. Jackson later settled with the family and was never charged by authorities.

Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn’t run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.

Daily News (New York) February 14, 2001

Michael Jackson is not out of the woods.

So says Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges against the singer in 1993.[wrong, there were no charges] Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative. Although Sneddon can’t be there in person, he’s definitely arching an eyebrow from 3,000 miles away.

“The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated,” Sneddon says. “It’s in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.”

The Advertiser January 27, 1996

“But the reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch.

Charges against Jackson were dropped when the boy refused to testify. But Mr Sneddon says, contrary to popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.

The New York Beacon August 23, 1995

Magazine: Michael Jackson Lied To Interviewer Diane Sawyer.

Michael Jackson lied to Diane Sawyer about his relationship with young boys and withheld information about a pending civil action, Vanity Fair reported.

Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime Time Live.”

“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward,” Sneddon said. The magazine also reported, quoting unidentified sources, that there is a third boy [crazy rumor] whose lawyer is working on a settlement with Jackson. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges” of child
molestation.

But Sneddon told the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.” Others familiar with the evidence told Vanity Fair that the photos match descriptions given by a young boy to investigators.

The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995

Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother, Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.

Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994

GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.

VERCAMMEN: Prosecutors said their investigation also turned up two other children allegedly molested by Michael Jackson. But the district attorneys added one boy is out of the country and denies wrongdoing by Jackson, and the third alleged victim is reluctant to testify. Prosecutors said they will reopen the case should any witnesses have a change of heart.

TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances change, should other evidence become available within this period of the statute of limitations, like Los AngelesCounty, we would re-evaluate the situation based upon what information is available to us at that particular point in time.

The New York Times, September 22, 1994

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, where Mr. Jackson owns an estate, said more than 400 witnesses had been interviewed in the case and that two other possible victims had been identified But he said one of these, who is now in therapy, had asked not to be involved in the case and the other was out of the country and had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.

The Independent (London), August 20, 1994

A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness, Thomas Sneddon is not burdened by a litany of heavily publicised previous blunders. Nor is he willing to accept that his case is hopeless without the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler.

”The Santa Barbara office is still quite involved in investigation of the Jackson allegations,” says Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well. ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”

4. Prosecutors urge changes to the law to “nail” Jackson

From the above articles we find that after the criminal investigaton was suspended Tom Sneddon first extended the case against Michael Jackson by an indefinite period as Jackson was “out of the country for much of the time”, and then, together with Gil Garcetti, urged the state legislators to amend the California law – evidently to make further prosecution of Jackson easier.

One of the amendments made in 1996 allowed the victims of prior child  molestation cases to come forward at any time with allegations of prior misconduct. This was why the officers from Tom Sneddon’s D.A. department were able to urge the first accuser, Jordan Chandler to testify against Jackson in the year 2005, or twelve years after the 1993 events,  however the boy (now a grown-up) declined the invitation and threatened to sue the visitors instead.

As a result of the 1993 case several other amendments were made.  Tom Sneddon admitted it himself that the law was amended only due to his flop with Michael Jackson:

  • “It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney’s office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation,” Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/jackson_case.htm

The major reason for the mistake was of course Tom Sneddon’s free interpretation of the law, however the public was also ready to understand it that way. When the 1993 investigation was over prosecutors Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti explained to everyone that they failed to bring charges against Michael Jackson because the boy refused to testify (and not because they had no evidence against MJ) and spoke of the need to compel the witness:

Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson

USA TODAY – McLean, Va.
Author: Wickham, DeWayne
Date: Feb 7, 1994

DeWayne Wickham discusses attempts to change the California law that prohibits forcing sexual assault victims to testify in criminal proceedings, which would allow Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti to compel the 14-year-old boy whom Michael Jackson reached an out-of-court settlement with to possibly testify in any criminal trials growing out of his widely reported charge that the superstar sexually abused him. He says the line between justice and injustice is getting harder and harder to find.

Forcing the witness to testify was what the prosecutors wanted to do, however the legislators had a different view on the problem and did not do as they were asked.

They did change the law but how?

Actually finding information about it was almost impossible. Everyone talked about everything else but not about the main change.

One Los Angeles Times article explained that Sneddon had spoken of the amendment which said that money under a civil agreement could not be allowed to be paid out for more than a year and forbade the so-called “hush money” to be spread over an extended period of time.

Since you have naturally thought about Jackson in this connection let me say that the money paid to Jordan Chandler was not  hush money as everyone knew of the story anyway (it simply could not be any louder) and the agreement  never  precluded Jordan from testifying during the whole period when the money was paid.

In Jordan Chandler’s case the money was spread over years as a guarantee that the Chandlers would not talk to the media, and this is probably why Ray Chandler ventured to publish his book only in 2004 when the payments were already over.

So this amendment does not apply to Jackson’s case at all, though Tom Sneddon surely wanted everyone to think that way.

Tim Rutten clarified at least a couple of points:

The error that keeps on erring

December 03, 2003|TIM RUTTEN

Error, according to the classical reckoning, enjoys no rights. But in the 24-hour news cycle, it sometimes achieves a kind of immortality.

That’s never truer than in the coverage of criminal cases. One particular thread of the Michael Jackson case is strikingly instructive on how this can occur — even in the face of the news media’s prompt and repeated attempts to root out the mistake.

In this instance, the error involves not some peripheral narrative detail, but an issue fundamental to the prosecution: Does a California law adopted after an abortive 1993 investigation into allegations that the singer had molested a young boy allow prosecutors to compel an alleged child victim to testify?

The answer is no. There is no such law.

If you thought there was, you’re in extensive company — including a large number of the callers discussing the case on AM talk radio and a clutch of reporters and commentators. In part, that’s because the error originated with one of the story’s principals, Santa Barbara County Dist. Atty. Tom Sneddon.

In a nationally televised news conference Nov. 19, he recalled the 1993 situation in which the alleged victim declined to cooperate with prosecutors after Jackson paid him a settlement that amounted to tens of millions of dollars.

“The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation,” Sneddon said. “As result of [that] Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California.”

Within hours, cable news producers from coast to coast were beating the telephonic bushes for “legal experts” to explain this new law, which — oh, delicious causality — had been passed because of Jackson’s earlier conduct in a similar case.

Here, somebody might have paused to apply what could be called the old how-would-that-really-work test. Imagine for one second the fate of an elected district attorney who compelled a child victim to recount the details of his sexual abuse by threatening to have the tyke jailed for contempt of court…. The operative words here are “elected” and “child victim.” Any prosecutor who did such a thing would be out of office quicker than you can say Gray Davis. In fact, they’d probably be lucky to fend off involuntary commitment to a home for the criminally thick-witted.

But common sense notwithstanding, it is a now wearisomely unremarkable fact that there was no shortage of talking heads with law schools in their pasts willing to appear on camera that night to dance evasively around the nonexistent law.

What was remarkable is that they did so in the face of an Associated Press story filed later that very day, setting the record straight. In that piece, AP special correspondent Linda Deutsch and her colleague Tim Molloy noted that Sneddon’s description of the law had “baffled legal experts.”

In an follow-up interview shortly after his press conference, Sneddon told Deutsch and Molloy he was referring to another law. That statute regulates only civil settlements, forbidding payments to an alleged victim more than one year after the settlement is reached. In other words, no long-term hush money.

“Sneddon said he was aware that children cannot be forced to testify,” according to the AP story, “and that reporters and other attorneys had misinterpreted his remarks at the news conference.”

The next morning, however, there was NBC’s “Today” show host, Katie Couric, interviewing attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who represented Jackson in the negotiations that lead to the 1993 settlement:

Couric: “Well, now a new law states that a minor can be called as a witness by the D.A. without consent. So, it’s slightly ironic that this change in law that resulted from this previous case may be the thing that actually gets, possibly, gets Michael Jackson in the end.”

Cochran: “I think the law was changed after that…. And now they can call witnesses and compel their testimony.

Oh no they can’t, a slightly exasperated Jeffery Toobin, CNN’s legal affairs analyst, told colleague Miles O’Brien later that same day, as they covered Jackson’s surrender to authorities.

O’Brien: “As a parent, I can’t imagine anybody trying to compel an 11-year-old … to testify in court. I’m sure a lot of people would have problems with that.”

Toobin: “No, it can’t be done under California law. In fact, the law is broader than that. You can’t even compel an adult victim of a sexual assault to testify. That statement by the district attorney is simply wrong. There can be no compulsion.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/03/entertainment/et-rutten3

I don’t know whether it was a chance mistake of Tom Sneddon or his deliberate tactics to misguide the public, but the trick about compelling a child to testify did work. Even Johnnie Cochran was deceived by Sneddon’s words!

Toobin clarifed the point by saying that no child complainant could be forced to testifyIn fact the law does not allow to force even adult alleged victims of molestation, not to mention children – given the nature of these crimes the testimony of these people should be purely voluntary.

The next article says that a lot of other changes were made in the California statutes, evidently as a result of the 1993 case, which makes me think that Tom Sneddon was sort of equipping himself in advance for a new case against Jackson:

Santa ClaraUniversity law professor Gerald F. Uelmen is the bar’s go-to scholar on issues of California law.

“This law I keep hearing about in the media doesn’t exist,” he said. “The Santa Barbara D.A. misspoke and completely blew it. Whatever he claims now, he said there was such a law and he was dead wrong. He was right that, since 1993, there have been a lot of changes in the California statutes that make it easier to prosecute child abuse cases. But there is no statute that allows anybody to compel any victim of abuse to testify.

“What’s a lot more interesting is how the media picks up these things and then feeds off each other’s misinformation so that it becomes impossible to put one of these pseudo-facts to rest.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/03/entertainment/et-rutten3/2

Okay, by now it is crystal clear that no minor or even adult can be compelled to testify in a child molestation case, but how does it help us in answering the question this post started with?

The question was: Could the prosecutor do without the witness at all and still bring criminal charges against the defendant?  For example, on the basis of the declaration the child made and other evidence the prosecution had?

5. Can a child’s declaration be admitted without the child’s testimony?

As if to answer our question the Los Angeles Times made a comment about one more amendment made by Sneddon to the California Statutes. This one is much more interesting to us as it has a direct connection to Jordan Chandler’s declaration.

This amendment to the California law says that if a child under 12 has given a prior statement under circumstances that the court thinks are reliable, and then the child withdraws his/her cooperation, that previous statement can be admitted in court. 

Whether a written or videotaped statement, the statement can still be admitted in court and though this article was printed at the time of Arvizo allegations it still refers to the amendments made in the year 1996:

 Toobin: California law allows admission of child’s prior statement

November 20, 2003

Jeffrey Toobin

(CNN) – Singer Michael Jackson surrendered to authorities in Santa Barbara, California, on Wednesday to face child molestation accusations. (Full story) CNN anchor Kyra Phillips spoke with CNN legal analyst about changes in California law that apply to alleged juvenile abuse victims.

KYRA PHILLIPS: Explain to us how the law has changed in California. There was a lot of back and forth on this yesterday and even today. The DA (district attorney) coming forward and saying, “the law is different from 1993, when allegations first came forward about Michael Jackson and child molestation.” He said now the law has changed, that’s why we’re filing charges and going forward in this manner. How has the law changed? Is it with regard to the victim being forced to speak or not to speak? Explain that to us.

JEFFREY TOOBIN: This really was the subject of, I think it’s fair to say, some incorrect information that was provided by the district attorney yesterday. He, let me give you a little background of why it’s significant.

In the 1993 case, Michael Jackson was accused not in a criminal court, but there was a civil accusation that he molested a child. A criminal investigation followed. There then was a civil settlement between Michael Jackson and the child. He paid the child a great deal of money, several million dollars. That child and his family then said we will not participate with the criminal justice system, we will not testify, we’re checking out.

Yesterday, the district attorney said, well, things are different now, because children can be forced to testify in these investigations. That’s simply not true. That is not the law. But the law did change in an important way.

What happens, the law now is that if a child under 12 — and that’s a significant fact, if the child is under 12 — has given a prior statement under circumstances that the court thinks are reliable, and then the child withdraws his cooperation, that previous statement can be admitted in court. If it’s a written statement, if it’s a videotaped statement, that statement can be admitted in court even though it’s hearsay. So that’s a big change. But it is not a change that says kids can be forced to testify, because they can’t.

PHILLIPS: Sounds like there’s a big challenge here with regard to proving intent.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-11-20/justice/otsc.toobin.law.change_1_child-molestation-law-criminal-justice-system?_s=PM:LAW

The wording of the amendment makes me think that the previous version of the law also allowed declarations of children to be admitted in court as evidence in a criminal trial, only then it applied to children older than 12 – which was exactly Jordan Chandler’s case.

So could the prosecutors admit Jordan’s declaration as evidence even though he didn’t want to testify? At least in the year 1995? Especially since the case was not closed but only suspended? I think that in accordance with the 1995 Amendment to the Penal Code they could.

Let us remember that admitting the declaration as evidence does not at all mean that the jury will return a verdict in favor of the child – it is simply giving the child’s statement a chance to be heard in the court of law.

And this means that Sneddon could admit Jordan’s declaration as evidence even in Jordan’s absence.

After digging through a pile of legal materials I’ve found that in the litigation process (in civil cases) it is quite common to admit statements or declarations from children even smaller than the age of 12 without the child witness actually taking a stand.

This practice will surely be challenged by the lawyers of the defendants who refer to the rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence in the absence of the actual witness and his testimony, but in child abuse cases such efforts are often unsuccessful. Here is an example from the state of Kentucky:

Unavailability and Admissibility: Are a Child’s Out-of-Court Statements About Sexual Abuse Admissible if the Child Does Not Testify at Trial?

1987

JoEllen S. McComb

The critical evidence against those accused of sexually abusing children is supplied most often by the victims. 1Yet, very young victims may not testify against the defendant at trial for a variety of reasons. A child may be found incompetent as a witness because of lack of memory 2 or lack of testimonial capacity due to age. 3 Children may also be unavailable as witnesses because they refuse to testify, 4 have retracted 5 an original report, 6 suffer “from a mental illness or infirmity,” 7 or because there is a “substantial likelihood of Severe mental harm to the child if . . . [he is] required to testify in open trial proceedings.” 8

When the child is found either incompetent or unavailable as a Witness, his or her out-of-court statements made to a Parent, 9 custodian, 10 police officer, 11 social worker, 12 doctor, 13 or others, 14 are offered by the prosecution to prove both that the crime occurred, 15 and that the defendant was the perpetrator. 16 These statements may be challenged under the rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence17 Such challenges are often unsuccessful, resulting in the statements’ admission into evidence. The statements are admitted in one of three ways: 1) under one of the traditional exceptions to the rule; 18 2) under the residual rule; 19 or 3) under a special statutory exception for statements made by child victims of sexual abuse. 20

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=76+Ky.+L.J.+531&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=613a766025200cd48bb6af4a7eb7fb0f

If similar practice was effective in California in 1994 it means that in a civil case Jordan Chandler would not even have to attend the trial – his declaration (not even a deposition involving a cross-examination!) could be just read out at the civil trial and that would be it. The defense lawyers would certainly object saying that it is hearsay evidence, but in civil cases such matters are regarded as not too important as the article says that the “challenges are often unsuccessful”.

Criminal cases are different though.  Admitting hearsay evidence into a criminal trial is an exceptionally serious matter. Its admission comes into confrontation with one of the fundamental rights of the defendant – the right to confront his accuser. This right is given to the defendant by the so-called Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

6. The Sixth Amendment and exceptions for children allowing them not to testify

Let us read the following article carefully – it was posted in the Criminal Law section and concerns cases when a witness is unavailable in a criminal case and situations when prosecution wants to submit statements of unavailable witnesses. It explains the essence of the 6th Amendment and the defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser in accordance with it:

What if a Witness Is Unavailable to Testify?

POSTED IN CRIMINAL LAW PROCESS BY LAWYERS.COMSM 0

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/What-if-a-Witness-is-Unavailable-to-Testify.html

A witness’s trial testimony helps a jury decide a defendant’s guilt or innocence. However, sometimes a witness is unavailable to testify at trial. The general rule is that testimony can’t be used unless the witness testifies in court because it’s hearsay, which is evidence based on someone else’s report rather than the witness’s personal knowledge. Hearsay can be thought of as rumor. If an unavailable witness’s statement can be used at trial depends on if it fits into one of the hearsay exceptions. A judge decides the unavailability of a witness and the admissibility of hearsay.

When Is a Witness Unavailable?

An unavailable witness is someone who can’t or won’t testify at trial. Unavailable can mean that a witness:

  • Claims that he doesn’t have to testify because of a protected privilege like marriage, doctor-patient or attorney-client relationships
  • Refuses to testify
  • Testifies that he can’t remember
  • Died or has physical or mental illness
  • Is absent from the state

A tricky question arises when the prosecution wants to admit an unavailable witness’s statement because this conflicts with a defendant’s right to question witnesses.

This is known as a defendant’s right of confrontation. Essentially, a defendant has a constitutional right to see, face-to-face, and hear the witnesses testifying against him in court.

So, the prosecution must show that the witness really was unavailable. For instance, if a witness is not in the state, the prosecution has to show that the witness was beyond process, meaning that he couldn’t be served with court papers ordering him to come to court and testify. Also, the prosecution must show that it made a good faith effort to get the witness to attend court.

There are some rules regulating the cases when hearsay evidence can be admitted at trial. Out of these rules some are more or less applicable to the Jordan Chandler case:

·  Statements in a Prior Proceeding

Statements made at an earlier hearing or deposition by a witness, who becomes unavailable, are admissible if the defendant was present at the earlier proceeding and had a chance to cross-examine or question the witness.

[This means that a defendant can be present during a prior hearing of the witness, and even has a chance to cross-examine him. However this is not Jordan’s case as he was never deposed and cross-examined]

·  Statements by a Witness Whose Unavailability Resulted from Misconduct

If the prosecution or defendant deliberately acted in a way to “make” a witness unavailable, the statements by the witness are admissible. For instance, if a defendant intimidated a witness into not testifying, the witness’s statements will be admissible.

[To me this point means that if the defense ever really threatened Jordan as Ray Chandler insinuated it, the rule of hearsay could be ignored and Jordan’s statement could be admitted to a criminal trial.

This is a very effective tool against any intimidation from the defense and the fact that the declaration never reached its destination at a trial shows that all talk from Ray Chandler about “fears” and “witness protection program” was sheer nonsense. No one intimidated them, it was just a pretext not to testify.]

Helpful as these sources are, they still remain indirect indications that  Jordan’s declaration could have been used by the Prosecutor even in the absence of  Jordan’s personal testimony.

And now attention please, here comes one more  amendment made to the California law after 1993. 

This amendment allowed to make exceptions for “out-of-court” comments  from children and exactly in child abuse cases.

This is what I found in the Los Angeles Times dated December 1997:

Hearsay Comments in Sex Abuse Cases Upheld

California and the West

December 30, 1997|MAURA DOLAN | TIMES LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER

SAN FRANCISCO — A juvenile court, deciding whether to restrict a parent’s access to a child, can consider out-of-court comments the child made to others about being sexually molested even if the child cannot distinguish truth from fantasy in a courtroom, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 6-1 ruling comes at a time of growing concern over the credibility of young children who make allegations of sexual abuse. “There is an increase in the number of child abuse cases involving very young children, so this will affect quite a few cases,” said Stephanie M. Davis, one of the lawyers in the case.

The state high court reaffirmed a precedent that allows juvenile courts to admit out-of-court statements during hearings to determine if a possible sex abuse victim should be made a dependent of the court.

Even if a child is incapable of testifying, the “hearsay” statements about sexual abuse can be admitted if other evidence exists to corroborate the statements, the court said in establishing new requirements for admitting such out-of-court statements.

The decision came in a Los Angeles case in which a 3-year-old girl told a preschool aide that.. http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/30/news/mn-3502  (the rest of the story is sheer horror, so I will omit it).

The main idea of this article is that a child’s statement can be admitted without the child’s presence in court but only in case it is supported by other evidence which can corroborate the statement.

This means that Jordan could stay away from the criminal trial but his statement could have been admitted in court only if it had been supported by the photos. This fact looked smashing to me but required verification.

Another day of digging through another pile of legal materials confirmed that the idea was right – a child’s statement can be admitted in a trial, but only if it is confirmed by some other evidence.

This amendment was introduced into the California law in 1995:

The California Legislature in 1995 enacted a statute based on the Washington model directed at certain types of offenses of child abuse and neglect.(Evid. Code, § 1360.) The Washington statute, the California statute, and the American Bar Association Recommendations all have the following requirements in common for admission of out-of-court statements:

(1) the court must find that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provides sufficient indicia of reliability;

2) a child must either be available for cross-examination or there must be evidence of child sexual abuse that corroborates the statement made by the child; and

(3) other interested parties must have adequate notice of the public agency’s intention to introduce the hearsay statement so as to contest it.

7. Jordan’s case – a declaration with no evidence

So this was how the California Legislature was amended in 1995? The legislators did indeed allow the prosecutors to admit a child’s statement even in case the child refused to testify, but only on condition that the statement was corroborated by the respective evidence.

But this means that Jordan Chandler’s participation was not that necessary and all the prosecution had to do was to submit the child’s declaration and provide the evidence  to support it.

The change was made in 1995, only a year after the case against Jackson was suspended, and if Sneddon really had the evidence corroborating Jordan’s words he could have easily re-opened the case on the basis of Jordan’s statement alone and the physical evidence he claimed he had.

By physical evidence I mean the photos of MJ’s genitalia which Tom Sneddon said allegedly “matched” the boy’s description.

However despite all his assurances of the above Tom Sneddon did not reopen the case, either in 1995 or at any time at all. Even after the California law was amended. Even though it was amended exactly because of Jordan Chandler’s case and was aimed to reopen the case against MJ.

Why didn’t he?

Because there was no evidence to support that fake declaration of Jordan Chandler. 

The declaration was just a piece of paper with a “story” written on it, and the photos did not confirm anything Jordan was saying.

And all Sneddon’s lamentations about the unavailability of the “victim” were just a smokescreen meant to cover up for this unpleasant fact.

8. A bluff with the 1993 photos at the 2005 trial

Michael Jackson’s haters will be tempted to apply the same amendment allowing to admit the evidence in the absence of a child witness to the 2005 case.

You remember that at the very end of the trial Sneddon tried to admit the old photos from 1993 as evidence against Michael Jackson accompanying it with his usual mantra that the photos were proof of something horrible.

On the face of it it seems that Sneddon tried to do in 2005 what he failed to do in the 90s –  admit the “evidence” (photos) without the “victim” (Jordan Chandler). However these two cases are worlds apart as in the 90s Sneddon could do it, while in 2005 he could not.

Why not? Because in 1995 Jordan was a child, while in the year 2005  Jordan was an adult.

And the child hearsay exception to the law does not apply to adult witnesses.

To adult witnesses applies the 6th Amendment rule which obliges the witness to be present in court.

Here is the proof of it. The 1995 amendment to the California law calls this exception a ‘child dependancy hearsay exception” where the word exception is the key one:

“This court believes the time . . . is [now] ripe for a recognition of what we will call a ‘child dependency hearsay exception.’ It appeared generally to follow the American Bar Association Recommendations and the Washington statute on child hearsay, and similar statutes, at least inasmuch as it concluded that child hearsay statements recounting sexual abuse may be admitted when “ ‘. . . the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability’ ” and the child either testifies at trial or is unavailable as a witness.”

However in 2005 Jordan Chandler was 25 years old and was not a child to whom this exception could apply.  

And if the photos had been admitted in court Michael Jackson would have had the “defendant’s right of confrontation” which is the essence of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In other words if the photos had been admitted Michael Jackson would have had the right to demand Jordan Chandler’s presence and confront him in court.

But at this point we suddenly recall that Tom Sneddon knew perfectly well that Jordan Chandler was not going to testify.

How do we know it?  We know if from the FBI file.

The FBI file says that Jordan refused to testify in September 2004 and did not intend to testify in 2004 or in 2005 or at any other date.

And when Sneddon wanted to introduce those photos in May 2005 he had already known for about a year that Jordan would not be available as a witness in court. 

But even though he could not have his witness, he said he wanted to introduce the photos.

The main point here is that Sneddon tried to introduce the evidence despite the fact that he knew that it would be never allowed in court.

Introducing it without a witness was a grave violation of Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights, and Sneddon knew that the judge would never allow it. Then why did he arrange this show?

For the sheer effect of it.

The word “knew” here is the key to the whole riddle. Knowing that they are absolutely safe in introducing wrong evidence because it will never be allowed in court, makes swindlers absolutely sure that they will get away with the lies. No one will simply check it up.

What will be the right word for this behavior of Sneddon? A fraud? A bluff? An attempt to bias the jury and make them think that the photos were a match though they were not? Waving false evidence in the air and never giving anyone a chance to check? A theatrical act meant for effect only and a signal to the media to rush and report his lies?

I think it was all of it. The whole stuff was just a theatrical gesture, aimed to deliver the final blow to Michael Jackson. It was the last drop meant to bring the jury over to the accuser’s side and force them into returning a wrong verdict. It was a try to humiliate and torture Jackson beyond any possible measure as a mere thought of your naked genitalia scrutinized by the jury is a nightmare. It was a blow below the belt and an utterly mean thing to do. It was a crime against the truth and justice and an attempt to make the injustice win.

Fortunately it didn’t win, thanks to the honesty of the jurors and the titanic efforts of Thomas Mesereau and his team.

Tom Sneddon himself said on Court TV that the evidence could be admitted in court ONLY if a witness testified (and could be cross-examined). But in November 2003 he didn’t yet know that his own words would be used against him…. Thanks to Lynette for the link: http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20031121/21nov2003003553.html

Many people will be bored to look into the 6th US Amendment and will be appalled at the mere idea of having to do with all those tedious legal details. However I have developed complete admiration and utmost respect for the 6th Amendment.

It helped us to find out that Tom Sneddon arranged a huge theatrical show at the 2005 trial involving Michael Jackson’s genitalia photos from the  earlier case.

It helped us understand that Jordan Chandler’s story about Jackson was a complete bluff too. Those photos never matched the boy’s description and this is why Sneddon never used them – he didn’t use them in 1995 when he could, and pretended to use them in 2005 when he no longer could.

All Sneddon’s talk about the “match” between the photos and Jordan Chandler’s description was a a lie  and a huge publicity stunt. Actually we knew it all along from the two mistakes Jordan made in his description and the fact that his own lawyer Feldman demanded that the photos should be “barred” from a trial. And the USA Today article of 1993 said the photos didn’t match. And today’s story is just another confirmation that all of it was just a dirty game.

This means that Sneddon shamelessly slandered Michael Jackson and spread vicious lies about him for more than 10 years. 

As to Jordan Chandler he at least had the decency not to take part in this cheap show.

9. Summary

For those of you who have skipped this long and tedious legal exercise let me sum up.

1. When a witness is an adult and makes a complaint wanting his alleged offender to be prosecuted, the defendant has the constitutional right to confront this witness in court (according to the 6th Amendment). But if the witness hits and runs (makes a complaint but doesn’t want to testify), this complaint is not admitted as evidence. It is “hearsay” not corroborated by the person’s testimony.

This situation arose at the 2005 trial. Sneddon wanted (or said he wanted) to introduce the photos of MJ’s genitalia but at the same time knew that Jordan Chandler would not testify. This way he was using the photos only as a means to influence the jury, the media and the general public.

His mere intention to introduce those photos was breaking MJ’s constitutional rights. You choose the reason why he did it – either because Sneddon was legally illiterate or because he was breaking MJ’s rights deliberately.

2. But for children there is an exception to the “hearsay” rule. To protect the child from further damage the child is not obliged to testify in child-abuse cases. Instead of the child’s testimony the prosecution can admit a child’s declaration but only if it is supported by evidence corroborating it.

The case will be admitted in court if the judge decides that the evidence is indeed valid and the declaration is reliable. Often “spontaneous” declarations are considered to be the most genuine (Example: one 3-year old unfortunate girl said to the request of the caretaker “Please don’t touch yourself there”. “But my daddy always does it”. Unfortunately the evidence also corroborated it. Criminal charges were brought against that beast).

3. The “child hearsay exception” has existed in the laws of various US states since late 80s and was probably even part of the California Penal Code too. This I don’t know. But we know that after MJ’s case the California law was amended (in 1995-1996) and one of the amendments (1995) said that now the statements of children under 12 can be admitted, but again – only if they are corroborated by respective evidence.

4. So at least since that time – the year 1995 – Tom Sneddon (or Gil Garcetti) could reopen the case against Jackson, but only in case they had the corroborating evidence (the photos matching the description). Given that the amendment referred to children under 12, it is quite possible that before that the law also allowed the same procedure, for children older than 12 (like Jordan), and the prosecutors simply did not use the chance.

5. Gil Garcetti did not reopen the case, but he never said that the photos matched. Tom Sneddon didn’t reopen the case either, however he kept saying to the media that the photos were a match. But the very fact that he never reopened the case (though he could have) shows that the description was wrong and that he was telling a terrible lie. Actually the USA today also said in a tiny article of theirs in 1993.

6. So Sneddon didn’t use the photos in the 90s when he could do it, and wanted to use the photos in 2005 when he no longer could!  He had no chance in 2005 as the witness was an adult and admitting those photos in the absence of the witness was a grave breach of Michael’s constitutional rights.

So how would you call it? A travesty of justice? A theatrical show for laymen? A deliberate attempt to mislead the jurors and force them to return a guilty verdict by presenting the 1993 case as a genuine crime though he never had any proof of it? Using the photos as an intimidation tool and as a means to slander and humiliate Michael further? All of it, I think.

If this is no proof of malicious prosecution on the part of Sneddon, then I don’t know what is.

10. Lawyers confirm it at the 2005 trial

Now we know that 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 nevertheless tried to do it to produce a certain impression on the jury. They knew very well that the judge would never allow them because that “evidence” could come only in a combination with the witness whom they didn’t have.

Look at what Michael’s defense lawyer Sanger said at the 2005 trial and you will see that it was for this reason that judge Melville refused those photos:

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 ChandlerHe’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 if the prosecutors introduce the photos now Michael Jackson has the right to confront Jordan and have him cross-examined. But Jordan is “definitely” not available, so the photos definitely cannot be admitted.

And all this is just a cheap and dirty theatrical show unfortunately totally lost on the general public.

11. Sneddon confirms the accuracy of our conclusions

The accuracy of the above conclusions has been confirmed by Tom Sneddon himself.

In the Press-release his office issued the same day Bashir’s documentary shattered the world on February 6, 2003  Tom Sneddon said that they were planning to review the documentary in connection with Michael Jackson’s earlier case which was “open but inactive” and explained the fact that the criminal case was not completed in 1993 because they didn’t have a witness and … the evidence to prove the veracity of the witness’s words.

Tom Sneddon’s press release on February 6, 2003 (excerpt)

This is the essence of  point 5 of his Press-release:

5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations. 

Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated. Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable.

While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.

So “there is no case without a witness OR other evidence.”

This way Tom Sneddon himself refuted his own story that he had the evidence to support Jordan Chandler’s words but the case was closed only because the witness refused to testify. The California law needs only one of these conditions to proceed with a criminal case  – Testimony OR Evidence, but from what Sneddon said in this own press-release the prosecution had NEITHER of them.

This conclusion crosses all t’s and dots all i’s in the Jordan Chandler case.

The case was sham and was based on lies, and though Tom Sneddon knew that it was a lie he still chose to slander Michael Jackson in the press for more than ten years after that. And everyone allowed him to do it.

And he continued to call “victims” everyone who was frivolous enough to accuse Michael of abuse though all these people are just “complainants” until the opposite is established in court. In Jordan’s case Sneddon did not even bring any charges against MJ which made his tendency to call Jordan a “victim” an even grosser professional misdeed.

Other prosecutors would have been disbarred for such a misconduct, but not Tom Sneddon. Tom Sneddon has retired with honors and is receiving the highest pension in his county.

Jordan Chandler intimidated by the infinite power of lies left the county for the New York City and the possibility of us hearing the truth from him one day now wholly depends on whether Tom Sneddon is brought to justice or not. Though being a pensioner now the former Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon is still too powerful a figure to set Jordan Chandler free and let him tell the truth.

Attachment

Jackson Attorney: FBI Files Are ‘Almost Vindication’

A lawyer for the Michael Jackson family said that the FBI file on the late pop superstar shows that “there’s not one scrap of evidence” that Michael Jackson ever harmed a child.

According to one of the FBI agents involved in the Jackson investigation, the bureau was brought in at the request of local police. “We have the international and interstate capabilities that local law enforcement and local DAs don’t have,” agent James Clemente told “Good Morning America.”

One major revelation in the more than 300 pages of government documents was that the FBI had assisted Santa Barbara, Calif., officials in their attempt to get cooperation from a person who could have been a key witness in the 2005 child molestation case against Michael Jackson: the boy who accused the pop star of molesting him in 1993.

No criminal charges were ever filed in the 1993 case. Instead, the then 13 year-old boy  refused to cooperate with officials and accepted a multi-million dollar settlement from Jackson.

The documents released Tuesday under the Freedom of Information Act show that the FBI and Santa Barbara officials met in 2004 with Jackson’s 1993 accuser but were unsuccessful in getting his cooperation.

Jackson was acquitted of all charges in the 2005 case, which went to trial.

The heavily redacted FBI documents do not reveal the name of the boy that officials met with.

“Victim indicates that he has no interest in testifying against Jackson,” according to the documents, “and would legally fight any attempt to do so.”

Prior to the FBI’s interview with the accuser, the documents show that the FBI helped Santa Barbara prosecutors with “interview strategies for a victim who alleged that Michael Jackson had abused him in 1993.”

The documents also quote the boy as saying that he “believed that he had done his part,” presumably referring to his initial involvement with law enforcement before agreeing to a civil settlement with Jackson that is believed to be $20 million.

Former FBI Behavioral Unit agent Ken Lanning, who consulted on the 2003 molestation case, told ABCNews.com Tuesday that this kind of coordination is common.

“Child molestation cases are the type of cases that involve multi agencies,” he said. “There were potential federal violations and the FBI has jurisdiction in a couple of areas. What the FBI behavioral analysis unit does is try to work on the approach, help them understand the issues.”

During the 2005 trial it was known that the FBI’s behavioral and forensics units had consulted on the case, but the file released Tuesday reveals that various arms of the FBI assisted the Santa Barbara district attorney’s office.

They included the crimes against children unit (CACU), innocent images national initiative against children unit, computer analysis response team(CART), the FBI lab, Los Angeles NCAVC coordinator and the Department of Justice’s child exploitation and obscenity section (CEO’s).

Full story: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jackson-attorney-fbi-files-vindication/story?id=9407615#.UH1qoW8xre9

44 Comments leave one →
  1. October 14, 2015 5:37 pm

    Toradol forsure is no “thruth drug”.Sodium amythal is a possibility, but just now I don´t remamber if it can be injected im.A better thruth drug would be a combination of a barbiturate (as sodium amythal is) with dexedrine.That would be malpractice in my opinion.

    Like

  2. October 14, 2015 5:37 pm

    “Toradol doesn’t have the side effects that Chandler wrote about in his book.”I believe that they gave him Sodium Amytal. Now apparently Chandler didn’t get the answers that he wanted otherwise he WOULD have had a tape.He didn’t.” – lynande51

    Lynande51, I know. When I was in hospital the patients were given Toradol after their operations and I was too. And the most it did was alleviating the pain and helping us to sleep. There was not a trace of the symptoms described by Ray Chandler.

    So Evan must have injected Michael with something different, only he didn’t want to admit that he had given Michael a narcotic or Sodium Amytal as you are suggesting. Evan was always ready to provide narcotic drugs to the stars via his anesthesiologist as Carrie Fisher wrote, and as to Sodium Amytal he himself said that he had used it on his son, so it was logical for him to try it on Michael too.

    Don’t know which of these drugs is worse but both could be used for loosening Michael’s tongue and interrogating him in this state. And it was an interrogation as Evan arranged it not to merely gossip about “who was gay in Hollywood” but extract some horrible secrets from Michael and record them. And he definitely didn’t get the answers he wanted, otherwise we would have had a tape. But there is none.

    Actually several weeks after Michael’s stay in Evan’s home Evan was still saying (in his July telephone conversation with David Schwartz) that “he had no idea what was going on”. So no matter how hard Evan Chandler provoked Michael Jackson and no matter what sensitive situations he put him into he couldn’t obtain a single shred of evidence of any wrongdoing on MJ’s part.

    That episode is described in a nasty article by Josh Mankiewicz which makes it clear that the invitation to Evan Chandler’s home was a fact-finding mission for him. And it was a weekend only, and not a “month” as Diane Dimond is lying in her interviews.

    “Norma Salinas worked for the boy’s father and step-mother, cleaning house and caring for their two younger children in their comfortable Brentwood home. She says she was surprised when the boy came to live with his father because the teenager was rarely more than a weekend visitor who spent his time alone. The father usually too preoccupied with work, until that weekend.

    Norma Salinas: “Much later I started to understand everything. At first, they didn’t want this boy in the house and later when the relationship started with Michael, the boy came here to live. From then on there were strange things going on in this house.”

    The story about what happened that weekend changes, depending upon who’s telling it. Jackson says it was the beginning of a plot to extort money from him. The boy’s father wrote in a letter to his lawyers that he was simply trying to protect his son, re-establish a relationship that had been damaged by his son’s involvement with Michael Jackson, and get to the bottom of what was really going on between a 13-year-old boy, and a 35-year-old man.

    Salinas: “It was a big impression on me because the father brought him home for an entire weekend. I was very surprised because he is a big star and to arrive like that without bodyguards without anything I was a bit astonished.”

    She says the boy’s father and step-mother acted as though there was nothing unusual about the visit, except when they instructed Salinas to keep the drapes pulled shut the entire weekend while Jackson was visiting.

    Salinas: “The boy’s step-mother told me to pull out the trundle bed that goes next to the boy’s bed because that’s where Mr. Michael was going to sleep.”
    It was in this spartan room, a room without a TV set Salinas says, that Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy spent virtually an entire weekend — all with the father’s full knowledge and consent.

    Salinas: “I entered the room the next day to do the housekeeping as I always do. I noticed that no one slept on the bed because there were no signs of anybody having slept there… I suspect that he slept on the bed because there was no other bed.”

    An undocumented worker who doesn’t speak English, Salinas says she never went to police. She admits she didn’t always get along with the father, whom she holds partly responsible for what happened.

    Salinas: “In few words, you can say that he sold his son to Michael… They should both be in jail together. Michael, for what he did to the boy and the boy’s father for what he did to his son.”

    Ernie Rizzo [a detective hired but quickly dismissed by the Chandlers] says the father used that weekend as a sort of fact-finding mission.

    Mankiewicz: “Was there any surreptitious recording done of Michael Jackson and the boy during the time that Jackson was at that house?”
    Ernie Rizzo: “Well yeah. Let me say this, the father had related some conversations to me. There were things that I don’t think anybody could have heard through that bedroom door. My gut feeling would have been that there may have been a tape recorder in that bedroom.”

    Rizzo says the father knew he would need powerful evidence, like an audio tape, before he could take on the extremely powerful Jackson.
    Rizzo: “It takes a lot of guts to accuse Michael Jackson of molesting. I think before he made his move he wanted to make sure, and I think he made sure.”
    Mankiewicz: “Even though that would mean exposing his child to someone who he suspected might be molesting him?”
    Rizzo: “I mean, I wouldn’t do it.”

    Salinas also suspects that the boy’s father rigged the room with a recording device, but she has no evidence of that either. But she says after that Memorial Day visit, everything changed.
    Salinas: “After that weekend, the boy’s father stopped going to work.”

    Salinas says that from then on, to say that Jackson was unwelcome in the home would be an understatement.
    Salinas: “Michael’s name was never mentioned again in the house. That name was prohibited in the house.”

    The father has refused to talk to Dateline. He did tell a family member that although he told both his son and to others that he’d secretly recorded his boy and Jackson together, he was in fact bluffing, hoping to get his son to confirm or deny his suspicions.

    Like

  3. lynande51 permalink
    October 14, 2015 7:29 am

    Helena the story that it was Toradol is impossible but I do believe that they gave Michael an injection of something. Toradol doesn’t have the side effects that Chandler wrote about in his book.It’s a powerful NSAID which is like Aleve.I have given countless shots of Toradol and have never seen the reaction that Chandler writes about. Here is a list of side effects that Toradol has;
    Toradol side effects

    Get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction to Toradol: sneezing, runny or stuffy nose; wheezing or trouble breathing; hives; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

    Get emergency medical help if you have signs of a heart attack or stroke: chest pain spreading to your jaw or shoulder, sudden numbness or weakness on one side of the body, slurred speech, feeling short of breath.

    Stop using Toradol and call your doctor at once if you have:

    shortness of breath (even with mild exertion);
    swelling or rapid weight gain;
    the first sign of any skin rash, no matter how mild;
    signs of stomach bleeding – bloody or tarry stools, coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
    liver problems – nausea, upper stomach pain, itching, tired feeling, flu-like symptoms, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);
    kidney problems – little or no urinating, painful or difficult urination, swelling in your feet or ankles, feeling tired or short of breath;
    low red blood cells (anemia) – pale skin, feeling light-headed or short of breath, rapid heart rate, trouble concentrating; or
    severe skin reaction – fever, sore throat, swelling in your face or tongue, burning in your eyes, skin pain followed by a red or purple skin rash that spreads (especially in the face or upper body) and causes blistering and peeling.

    Common Toradol side effects may include:

    nausea, stomach pain, indigestion, diarrhea;
    dizziness, drowsiness;
    headache; or
    swelling.

    All of these side effects are more to do with an excessive bleeding side effect which is what you would expect.

    Now knowing that, what drug did they give Michael?From that list of side effects what would make someone think that after that injection they should start asking that person questions like an interrogation? I believe that they gave him Sodium Amytal as well as Jordan for the following reasons.
    1. Chandler admits giving them both a drug.
    2. After giving the drug they both have reactions more like a conscious sedation.
    3. He says he gave them both Toradol and it doesn’t have a sedative property in it.
    4. After becoming “sedated” Chandler then thinks it’s a good time to start asking questions or a better word for it would be interrogating them.
    5 Chandler expected a more “truthful” answer after giving the drug that he gave him.

    Now apparently Chandler didn’t get the answers that he wanted otherwise he WOULD have had a tape.He didn’t.

    Like

  4. October 13, 2015 1:29 pm

    UPDATE: I’ve checked up my comments on Ed Opperman’s report and found that they were deleted or not approved (or are at least not seen by the viewers).
    So this Opperman is not a naive guy – he knows what he is doing and is spreading Diane Dimond’s lies intentionally. Now I understand why there are no comments debunking her myths there.
    Well, at least this “President of accurate information recovery” has shown us his true worth. God save us from “accurate” information like this.

    Just in case you think my comments were not there – this is the basic truth I tried to explain to him:

    – Ed, it is simply incredible that you chose Diane Dimond as a source of “accurate” information about MJ. Half of what she told you is a flat lie and the other half is half-truth. For example, MJ never stayed in Evan Chandler’s home for a month – he was invited there for three days and Evan Chandler placed MJ on that bunk bed HIMSELF. MJ was nearly unconscious after an injection of painkiller Toradol made to him by Evan Chandler (Michael was in the midst of operations on his burned scalp and suffered from terrible migraines at the time).
    The invitation to Evan’s home was a sort of a fact-finding mission for Jordan’s father – he hoped to have a tape incriminating MJ but got nothing as a result. Incidentally the Toradol injection was made in Michael’s buttocks (so he saw Michael’s vitiligo with his own eyes) and Evan took the chance to sort of interrogate Michael under the effect of the drug. For details read the book by Evan Chandler’s brother Ray.

    – Diane Dimond didn’t tell you who provided her with the so-called “police” documents. It was Victor Gutierrez, a Chilean journalist who by his own admission was a NAMBLA-conference attendee. For several years prior to the 1993 scandal Gutierrez made rounds of all families who were friends with MJ (including Wade Robson’s mother) and spread lies about him.
    Gutierrez admitted that the goal of NAMBLA members was to use MJ as their poster boy. However to achieve that goal they first needed to label him as “one of them” and this is what Gutierrez was actually busy with. Evan Chandler was naturally among the parents whom Gutierrez approached and who even worked on Evan’s so-called diary. Ray Chandler later called Gutierrez a “sleazebag”.
    When the 1993 scandal broke out Gutierrez brought all his “findings” to the LA police and was interviewed by them for two days. His stories about MJ were pure hearsay and Gutierrez who first proudly called himself a “journalist covering the NAMBLA convention” and then an “undercover agent working for the LA police”, later complained that they didn’t listen to him as “he was nobody for these people, just a poor Latino”. It was at this moment that he approached Diane Dimond and since then turned into her “best source” as she herself said. Can you guess in what capacity Victor Gutierrez attended that NAMBLA convention?

    – Michael Jackson sued Gutierrez and Diane Dimond for $100 million when she reported Gutierrez’s story about a non-existent video tape where MJ was allegedly molesting his nephew. Dimond shifted all the blame for this lie to her source hiding behind the shield law protecting journalists, but Gutierrez was fined for $2.7 million for slander. He fled to his native Chile not to pay the money, but in 2005 managed to get miraculously employed by NBC as a “consultant” for covering the trial. Gutierrez bragged that he also worked with Martin Bashir on one of his documentaries about MJ.
    When you see Diane Dimond next time ask her about Victor Gutierrez – it will be interesting to know what she tells you. Gutierrez’s own book about Michael (“Michael Jackson was my lover”) is banned in the US due to its openly pedophilia nature. Whenever someone reminds her of who her “best source” was she usually bans these people without further ado.

    Like

  5. October 11, 2015 4:10 pm

    “What would you think if I said that Diane Dimond and Louise Palanker knew each other years before the Arvizo case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHn5lbMOPCM On this radio program Diane is talking about her acquaintance with Palanker. How it started and how long they have had this friendship.” – lynande51

    Lynande51, I first came across this program last year but it wasn’t on Youtube and didn’t allow to leave a comment there. This time I forced myself to listen to it again but managed to go through half of it only – facing so many Diane Dimond’s lies I could bear it no longer and left a couple of comments there.

    I think that none of us should stay away from this discussion – this Ed Opperman presents himself as “President of accurate information recovery” but is so star-struck by the “famous” Diane Dimond that he swallows each of her stories hook, line and sinker.

    Just imagine that he thought of nothing better but turn to Diane Dimond for accurate information about Michael Jackson! At about 10:00 he even asks her opinion about “why the media shows only the prosecution side of court cases dismissing the defense case?”

    Seeing so much virgin land in the face of this Ed Opperman Diane Dimond took her chance to shine and said that she isn’t the one to “cram her opinion down people’s throats” and that she provided “only facts and left people to decide”.

    I wish someone told Ed Opperman at least about those “love letters” of whose existence Diane Dimond “absolutely knew” but which naturally never materialized (for a quote see Charles Thomson’s article mentioned today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html) This could probably cool Ed Opperman’s enthusiasm over DD a bit and help him to select his guests more carefully in the future.

    As to Palanker and DD being friends I see no surprises here. All these people were like a mafia around Michael and it is no chance occurrence that whichever way you turn you see the same old familiar faces.

    remember that Janet Arvizo said that she didn’t know anything about the 1993 case… that she was too busy raising her young children to pay attention to it so she could never have coached her kids to make the allegations sound similar. Should we now accept that Louise Palanker who was friendly with the Arvizo’s long before they met MJ, didn’t warn Janet about MJ’s past when she was friends with the very person that had “investigated” the previous allegations? I don’t, I think it was a set up.

    Possibly it was – Sneddon urgently needed a victim and could wait no longer. As to Janet Arvizo allegedly never knowing of Jordan Chandler’s case – well, she must be a truly rare species. She was probably the only one in the world who didn’t hear about it.

    Like

  6. October 10, 2015 6:24 pm

    “MJ just didnt behave like a black man, was expected to, in that community …Not to Tom Sneddons liking. He didnt know his place” . – Nannoris

    There is very much truth in these words. Very much truth. Now I realize it better than ever before that all his life Michael was fighting for freedom (in art and every other aspect of his life), and behaved like a really free man, and this infuriated others, including Sneddon of course.

    But it also infuriated the media and the public. Otherwise it would be impossible to understand why there was so much ridicule over innocent little things like Michael having a chimpanzee as a pet or being photographed in a hyperbaric chamber. If someone else had done it, it would have been perfectly okay, but when Michael Jackson did it, it was presented as some unthinkable craziness.

    Almost everyone tried to set limits to him and make him live according to their rules. When you read what the media was writing about Michael it seems that the only thing they were busy with was regulating his life. So in some respect Sneddon was very much part of that trend – only he had much more power than others and saw no bounds in abusing it.

    But what’s noteworthy is that many others were also taking part and hailed what he was doing. The media and all those liars who sold their stories for money also had power to turn Michael’s life into a nightmare and also fully abused it.

    By the way these days people can’t even understand why all those media stories about MJ were such a big deal. I’ve recently come across the following exchange of opinion about the huperbaric champber, for example:

    – I recently saw an episode of the boxing show 24/7 that showed boxer Sergio Martinez climbing into a Hyperbaric Oxygen Chamber during his training to help his body recover quicker and to keep him feeling younger. Swimmer Michael Phelps apparently uses a similar chamber, as do Tiger Woods and Tim Tebow. It got me thinking, why was it such a big deal in 1986 when these photos appeared in The National Enquirer showing Michael Jackson sleeping in a Hyperbaric Chamber???

    – It was a different time. Ignorance usually breeds fear, people didn’t understand what a hyperbaric chamber does. In 2014 being “self” is promoted because it is a liberal ideal, we are a very politically correct society in that even if something is different, we try to understand why is it different (i.e. stepping on eggshells to understand why someone else is “weird”), back then that wasn’t the case.

    – During that period he: was recovering from the third degree burns on his scalp
    dealing with the balloon injections under his skin to replace the lost skin
    was just diagnosed with lupus and vitiligo
    began bleaching his skin to balance out the blotches on his neck, hands and arms
    It’s insane that the burns he received in that Pepsi commercial fu*ked his life up. The pain never ended, he never fully recovered. You gotta think like the accident happened in January of 1984, by march and April he was doing press, went to the White House and etcetera. Who else does that though? Those burns were serious. If you’ve never seen the footage you should.

    And here is an article making us understand that what they trashed Michael for is almost routinely used now for treatment of ahtletes’ injuries and muscle fatigue (in addition to burns, etc.) all of which Michael had:

    Why Are Hyperbaric Chambers So Popular With Athletes?
    JANUARY 29, 2013 BY DR. NICOLE G. FREELS
    Have you heard of these chambers before? Sure you have! They are somewhat infamous for being associated with Michael Jackson and his recovery from the Pepsi fire, but more recently they have been utilized by professional athletes.
    Terrell Owens even had one of these pricey chambers installed in his house!
    So what gives? What’s so great about an oxygen chamber?
    Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is the medical use of oxygen at a level higher than atmospheric pressure. So, the concentration of oxygen increases the oxygenation throughout body and is thought to speed up healing time and reducing muscle fatigue.
    HBOT is used in treating acute traumatic ankle/foot fractures and sprains to improve tissue oxygenation to prevent further tissue damage. Sounds like it would be perfect for football players, right?
    Well, in recent years, professional and college teams have started using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat sports injuries ranging from muscle contusions, ankle sprains/fractures, and delayed-onset muscle soreness.
    When used clinically, HBOT is considered an adjunctive therapy as soon as possible after injury diagnosis. Physical therapy is also imperative to restore range of motion and ankle strength lost while being casted/in a protective splint. With these two therapies combined, athletes are thought to be back on their feet quicker than without the HBOT.
    Lexington Podiatry doesn’t prescribe the use of hyperbaric chambers as the norm because insurance does not currently pay for the procedure while research is in the works for more evidence of results. Stay tuned!

    Michael Glindmeyer, PT, DPT, ATC
    Doctor of Physical Therapy
    Athletic Trainer Certified
    http://www.lexingtonkypodiatry.com/why-are-hyperbaric-chambers-so-popular-with-athletes/

    Like

  7. nannorris permalink
    October 10, 2015 12:58 am

    Also , I just wanted to comment on what a terrific piece of investigation this article is.
    Now in hindsight we see , just howdevious DA/prosecutors/sherriffs were
    Not only insisting the photos matched , but in hearing testimony in the AEG trial, we know much more about MJ physical condition, from the top of his head to the tip of his toes.
    Jordan Chandler not only got his genitalia wrong, but he got other parts of his body wrong also..

    And the situation with scarring on MJ body wasnt mentioned by the Chandlers, but certainly would have been seen by the police doing the strip search.
    Yet another red flag, completely ignored by detectives
    I dont even think MJ ever took his hat off in front of anyone in that family
    During the Arvizo grand jury testimony , let us not forget about Sneddon, handing off evidence to Gavin, and then sending the magazines out for fingerprints .
    Talk about drunk with power

    MJ just didnt behave like a black man , was expected to, in that community …Not to Tom Sneddons liking .He didnt know his place and I think Weitzman pretty much alluded to that, in an interview .
    Sneddon was on the ultimate power trip in front of the world .
    I feel terrible this happened , but I am glad there is so much research to point out the actual culprits
    Tom Sneddon abused the power of his office , any way he saw fit , and not only did he get a way with it, his cronies got together and put a plaque up for him , to help cover his sins ..shameful

    Like

  8. nannorris permalink
    October 10, 2015 12:37 am

    lynande51 wrote:
    What would you think if I said that Diane Dimond and Louise Palanker knew each other years before the Arvizo case.

    Frankly it doesnt surprise me , and it is curious, that she would not have reminded the Arvizos about the Chandler accusations , since that was her friend Diane Dimonds , bread and butter .
    It would make sense to me that it would have come up on conversation at some point .
    I dont know if it came up innocently on Palankers part, just in conversation, or if she may have warned Janet Arvizo, to beware …
    I am just wondering if it somehow came into an innocent conversation,( maybe about make a wish people going to his ranch, other cancer patients ) which may have sparked Janet Arvizo pursuing MJ , someone who had been out of the limelight for some time, and really someone the Arvizo brothers would have had no point of reference with .
    Not a comedian , or sports figure
    Gavin supposed dying wish was to meet Jackson, and yet in his testimony , he says , he had no idea , what Neverland even was..Thought MJ was inviting him to a dude ranch of some kind.That doesnt add up , of course
    So , when you look at the connection to Palanker and Dimond, and then Janet from my understanding meeting with a lawyer regarding MJ several months BEFORE they even met him .it seems premeditated to me
    in Gavins initial story , Gavin asks MJ if he and his brother could sleep in his room.
    This was confirmed by Frank Cascio , in his book, where , MJ said to them “oh you better ask your mother , and they replied , it is fine with her.
    Then MJ , thinking this is Gavins last wish, allowed then to sleep in his bed with his own children, while Frank And Mj took the floor.
    Talk about no good deed going unpunished.
    I would think this was Janets plan all along , she just couldnt get MJ in a situation alone with her children, he was avoiding them, as testimony shows .
    Of course then she found out , if Tom Sneddon is in charge, nothing has to make any sense whatso ever to attempt to jail MJ.
    The only reason , I am not sure , that Palanker had helped set this up , in some way, is that evern she told the police “that these kids have been brought up to lie ” when she didnt think she was being recorded .
    If she was still in touch with DD, when this was going on, I cant believe ,that Dimond, didnt try to edge some accusations along, or atleast drop a dime to Tom Sneddon.., that he should check this thing out ,,He might get lucky with a case

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    October 8, 2015 7:10 am

    What would you think if I said that Diane Dimond and Louise Palanker knew each other years before the Arvizo case.

    On this radio program Diane is talking about her acquaintance with Palanker. How it started and how long they have had this friendship.
    Then remember that Janet Arvizo said that she didn’t know anything about the 1993 case… that she was too busy raising her young children to pay attention to it so she could never have coached her kids to make the allegations sound similar.
    Should we now accept that Louise Palanker who was friendly with the Arvizo’s long before they met MJ, didn’t warn Janet about MJ’s past when she was friends with the very person that had “investigated” the previous allegations?
    I don’t, I think it was a set up. I think they told Gavin to ask to meet Michael because their story isn’t logical when you know that they knew each other.

    Like

  10. October 7, 2015 8:05 am

    “The layers are being pulled back little by little, and you can see what a dirty group of prosecutors they were.” – Nannoris

    Yes, the layers are indeed being pulled back little by little. Kristinpan’s post is another proof that truth really runs marathons and one day the whole truth will be uncovered. There is more to find in the treasure trove of the 2005 trial and all it needs is someone really looking.

    “To me it isnt a question of Jacksons innocence, it is, at what point before they ever stepped into that courtroom, did they realize that it was a bogus case”

    Given that Sneddon always knew that there was no match between Jordan’s description and the photos, but twelve years later they still decided to toy with the idea, they must have known that their case was bogus from the very start of it. They needed the Arvizos just as a pretext to resume their persecution of MJ.

    Living where I live I am perfectly aware of how this type of prosecution is functioning. The prosecutors have their own understanding of “what is right” and the truth and lack of evidence are only standing in the way to their ideas. So if the truth contradicts the idea, it is the truth that is sacrificed to the idea and all of it is done in the name of some “common good”.

    Sneddon also had a fixed idea about Michael and was absolutely not disposed to change his opinion even despite lack of evidence. This idea is voiced by many Michael’s detractors and is as follows:

    “How can a person be innocent if he allows small boys to sleep in his bed? He must be guilty, even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found. And it doesn’t matter in which way we will nail him down – this simply must be stopped! And if the truth needs to be stretched, the evidence meddled with and obvious liars are to be involved, so be it. The end justifies the means”.

    In this kind of a “justice” system it is the idea (ideology) that comes first, while the lack of evidence doesn’t matter. Whatever scraps of information and disinformation they have all of it will be pulled into one knot and work for the triumph of the idea.

    And if the idea is considered correct and is supported by the majority of the public, the prosecutors feel that they have a free hand and the way they nail down the “criminal” is not important. The winner will not be doubted, public morals will be “saved” and the fact that the person was innocent doesn’t matter. The reasoning is – “He should have known better, we warned him but he didn’t comply, so he is the one to blame for everything that happened to him”.

    Even now this idea is used to justify the horrible character assassination of Michael Jackson. And no one really wants to know that the idea itself was wrong in the first place and that Michael’s real lifestyle and character were totally different from what they imagined it to be. And that he never slept with “boys” but simply preferred the company of children to that of adults and they – boys and girls alike – never wanted to leave his side and followed him like ducklings wherever he went.

    And he was not to blame for it – his love of children and their love for him, same as his unprecedented fame and forced isolation from the world were both his blessing and his curse.

    Like

  11. nannorris permalink
    October 5, 2015 10:12 pm

    Kristipan…thank you for doing that research..Just imagine how many other people , on Sneddons vendetta list , he probably did similar things to , but couldnt afford a good legal team.
    They even boast about him getting cases retried due to hung juries , in his obituary .
    Essentially using his office to bankrupt people,by retrying them , forcing people into plea deals with stacked charges , run them out of town , just like what happened to Michael.
    I would guess at the very least Ron Zonen, was completely in on this , and that is why , imo, he is still stroking the Arvizo brothers., trying to pretend he believed them
    The layers are being pulled back little by little , and you can see what a dirty group of prosecutors they were
    To me it isnt a question , of Jacksons innocence, it is, at what point before they ever stepped into that courtroom, did they realize that it was a bogus case, but they had already had their big super duper raid and press conference.
    Since they were looking for Jordan to testify, I feel certain, they knew this judge was going to make sure 1108 evidence came into play,( Zonen has said , they got the courthouse they wanted , and the judge they wanted ) and as we can see from your research,, regarding the photos , Sneddon knew wouldnt be brought into court , yet used it to dirty MJ up yet again.
    These prosecutors were a total disgrace to the office

    Like

  12. October 5, 2015 12:13 pm

    Dear Helena,
    Youre right the whole bluff needs to be seen in the context of the 6th amendment. I added that at the beginning along with additions about 1101. after preventing Dr strick from comparing the evidence he did the same with the defense. It was a double hoax. it is so absurd and obviously suspicious yet sneddon did manage to fool so many people. Im wondering if Zonen and Auchingloss knew what was going on.

    Like

  13. October 4, 2015 6:23 pm

    “I found out how Sneddon kept the defense from comparing Chandlers description. Sneddon cleverly withheld the evidence using the evidence and discovery laws. That explains the weird way they tried to get this evidence in. It was truly all a bluff. ” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, your discovery is very, very interesting. To put it in plain language it wasn’t a chance occurrence that Sneddon wanted (or said he wanted) to enter the description\photos 1) at the very end of the trial at the rebuttal stage when the defense already rested their case and 2) motioned to bring them in under evidence code 1101 (character evidence) instead of 1108 (prior bad acts).

    You find that the wrong code was absolutely no mistake on Sneddon’s part and was used intentionally – to keep the defense away from comparing the description and the photos themselves. 1108 compels the disclosure of all evidence to the defense in due time, while 1101 allows to break it upon the other side out of the blue as it is supposed to be a surprise and be used for rebuttal of something said during the main part of the trial (“the case-in-chief”).

    Code 1101 absolutely did not apply here as there was nothing to rebut, but it didn’t matter to Sneddon – his goal was not to give a chance to the defense to compare the description and photos, so hence his manipulation with the codes.

    By discovering this point you filled in a very important gap in the research, and my only suggestion is that you put it in the context that Sneddon was perfectly aware that he could not enter that evidence at all.

    Indeed he only said he wanted to enter that evidence but there was absolutely no way to introduce the description\photos in Jordan Chandler’s absence as it would have broken the defendant’s constitutional rights – his right to face the witness and ask him questions (the confrontation right according to the Sixth Amendment). And this is actually why the judge ruled against Sneddon’s motion. This outcome was obvious, well-expected and unavoidable.

    If you bring your discovery into the context of Sneddon always knowing that his motion would go nowhere the resulting picture will be even more impressive. You will find that Sneddon wanted not only to cheat and also to make sure that no one found out that he was cheating. Not only did he want to shock the media and public with his hollow declarations of the alleged “match”, but he also manipulated with the evidence codes not to give the defense a chance to check up on his declarations. So it was purely a publicity stunt meant to be never known that it was a lie.

    If Sneddon had motioned to enter the description\photos under code 1108 the judge wouldn’t have allowed them anyway (due to the confrontation right), but in this case a big complication would have arisen for Sneddon – the defense could have had access to that evidence and could have had an expert’s opinion about it, and could have easily challenged his lies in the media. Thomas Mesereau would have said in each of his interviews that there was no match and the expert could have corroborated his words.

    But this was absolutely not to Sneddon’s liking. He wanted to tell a lie and get away with it too. So showing that “evidence” to the defense was out of the question for him, and this is why he manipulated with those codes. Code 1101 allowed him to only talk about it and never show it to the other side.

    I encourage everyone to read kristinpan’s post – it adds a lot to our understanding of the situation. https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/

    Liked by 1 person

  14. October 3, 2015 10:41 am

    Hi Ive written an new post and I found out how Sneddon kept the defense from comparing Chandlers description. Sneddon cleverly withheld the evidence using the evidence and discovery laws. That explains the weird way they tried to get this evidence in. At the same time it further lowered chances of getting it admitted. Another proof of their vicious ways and trying cases in the court of public opinion. It was truly all a bluff.
    https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/how-sneddon-withheld-chandlers-description/
    Thanks

    Like

  15. September 6, 2015 4:02 am

    Dear Helena,
    Im happy to read your reply. Youre right they must have used that option in the grand jury proceedings otherwise the jury would have had nothing to see except the bogus “eyewitnesses”. So Ill add that too.
    So do we know what the grand juries really got to see? they might have heard someone repeat Chandlers description and then the prosecutors tried to tell the jury that whether there was a match or not was unimportant because Michael could have changed his appearance since then. or maybe they saw the photos and were then told about possible foreskin restoration, bleaching etc.
    when it comes to Bill Dworwin Im wondering if he even had the authority to see the evidence. some years after the media stopped reporting what chandler really said sneddon started showing around the pics (illegally) but kept the actual description under wraps I suppose. So I dont think Dworwin or anyone else could compare for themselves but of your boss and prosecutor of 25 years tells you there was a match and everyone repeats the same to you you believe it.
    Thank You for your good work
    Kristin

    Like

  16. September 5, 2015 4:14 pm

    “My first post is about how Sneddon could have brought in Chandlers description at the two grand juries even without his cooperation and achieved an indictment. Ofcourse only if there had been a match which there wasnt. Thought you should see this https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/ I would very much welcome your input on this” kristinpan

    Kristinpan, this is an important detail and your first post makes the Chandler case clearer for understanding.

    You have indeed proven that the evidence rules for grand jury hearings have an exception that allowed Lauren Weis and possibly other law enforcement officers who interviewed Jordan to testify on his behalf and repeat what he said to them regarding his so-called description of Michael Jackson’s private parts.

    And you then make a conclusion that if there had been a match “Sneddon could have easily introduced that evidence in two grand jury proceedings and they would have certainly returned an indictment.”

    The conclusion is absolutely correct, but there is a need to add some more observations here.

    1) First of all I’m sure that Sneddon (the Santa Barbara DA) and Gil Garcetti (the Los Angeles DA) did take the opportunity to repeat to the grand jury the testimony of their main witness Jordan Chandler without actually presenting the witness himself.

    We know it from the fact that Michael’s private parts were discussed by the grand jury. Michael’s mother Katherine was subpoenaed and was asked questions of intimate nature – whether Michael Jackson changed the appearance of his genitalia so that they would not match a description provided to them by Jordan Chandler.

    Actually these questions alone prove that there was no match!

    2) But when making a comparison just a description is not enough – there should be something to compare it with and in this case it was the photos. And this is where the prosecution had a problem.

    a) The expert who was nominated by the prosecution for deciding whether it was a match or no match was Dr. Richard Strick and if this expert had testified about the match there would have surely been an indictment. But Dr. Strick could not testify about it as he wasn’t allowed to make any determination at all – in one of his interviews he said that “he was told that it was a match” and this means that he himself didn’t have a chance to compare and had to go by what others said.

    b) Michael’s haters claim that there were other people who said that the photos and the description “matched”. Very well then – your study shows that any of those in law enforcement who heard Jordan’s description (or saw the picture drawn by him) and compared them with the photos could testify about this “evidence” before the grand jury if they just fulfilled the necessary requirements of working for 5 years in law enforcement, etc.

    Laureen Weis, Rosibel Ferufino and Deborah Linden could easily fit those requirements, but neither of them evidently saw any match and this is why none of them said so to the grand jury – because if they had there would have surely been an indictment.

    Sheriff Jim Thomas also said that “he was told by his people” and was indefinite about the issue. And out of all those taking part in the investigation only two people, Tom Sneddon and investigator Bill Dworin were still spreading stories of a “match”.

    But strange enough, this is what they said only to the media and neither of them testified under oath to the grand jury about it – and this is again known to us by the fact that there was no indictment. Many years later, in 2005 Sneddon made a declaration about those photos but even there he was extremely indefinite about the issue and tried to avoid a straight answer to the question.

    So your conclusion is absolutely correct – “had Sneddon found that Chandlers description matched he could have easily introduced that evidence in two grand jury proceedings and they would have certainly returned an indictment”, but what’s important is that it wasn’t only the description. After all a description is just a story and without corroborating evidence it is nothing.

    And if the police had had any evidence, the law enforcement officers taking part in the investigation would have testified about it to the grand jury.

    But none of them did, because there was no such evidence. The photos were completely different from Jordan’s description.

    Like

  17. September 5, 2015 10:57 am

    Hi there Ive started writing a blog too. My first post is about how Sneddon could have brought in Chandlers description at the two grand juries even without his cooperation and achieved an indictment. Ofcourse only if there had been a match which there wasnt. Thought you should see this https://truthrunsmarathons.wordpress.com/
    I would very much welcome your input on this
    Thanks

    Like

  18. November 19, 2012 11:05 pm

    Later, Jackson gave her perhaps the biggest acknowledgement of all by listing her name in the “Thank Yous” section of his album HIStory, on the same page as legends such as Quincy Jones and Paul McCartney. “I had no idea (that I would be listed), I just bought my copy on the first day of release. I read the ‘Thank Yous’ because I like to know who all those people are,” she said. “It was beyond any of my highest expectations. I hoped I’d somehow know that Michael was aware of my work, but he was so gracious with me and so nice in everything that he did for me. ”http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2012/11/michael_jackson_life_story_chr.html

    Lisa Campbell is very much like Michael – very modest, very undemanding and superbly professional at that. She did the incredibly good and accurate work in 1994 and didn’t even ask for any “thank yous” or other rewards from Michael. He knew and rewarded her in the best way he could, by placing her name beside the names of Paul McCartney and Quincy Jones. What fantastic interaction they had.

    I’ve been using Lisa Campbell’s second book like a bible for true information about Michael and have a feeling that her third book will be an eye-opener for the general public. This book should be bought by all of us and given as present to all nay-sayers for Christmas!

    Like

  19. sanemjfan permalink
    November 18, 2012 6:31 am

    Here’s Campbell’s facebook fan page! Please “like” it! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lisa-D-Campbell/218521298270820?fref=ts

    Like

  20. sanemjfan permalink
    November 18, 2012 3:29 am

    Great news! Lisa Campbell is finally come out of hiding (LOL!) and recently did a story on her new book, “MJ: The Complete Story of the King of Pop”! Here’s an excerpt from the article, and it speaks VOLUMES about her accurate and meticulous research! Not only did MJ send her 3 dozen roses for her birthday in 1993, but he also thanked her in the liner notes of the HIStory album! Unbelievable!

    Here’s the excerpt:

    The Flint Central High School and University of Michigan-Flint graduate penned “Michael Jackson: The King of Pop” in 1989, when Jackson was touring for his album “Bad.” She sent two copies of the books to Jackson’s office in Los Angeles: one for him to keep, and one for him to sign and keep back.

    She got back more than she expected.

    “Michael’s manager called my house, and said that Michael flipped over my books. He loved them,” she said. “He had his publicist call me and work with me in promoting the book.”

    Campbell appeared on CNN and talk shows by Vicki Lawrence, Patrice Berry, and later, E! Entertainment Television. She also said that she received three dozen red roses on her birthday from Jackson’s camp.

    She was scheduled to be flown out to Los Angeles to attend an award ceremony that Jackson would be honored at, but he was slammed with the child abuse allegations, and he asked to be withdrawn from the event.

    Later, Jackson gave her perhaps the biggest acknowledgement of all by listing her name in the “Thank Yous” section of his album HIStory, on the same page as legends such as Quincy Jones and Paul McCartney.

    “I had no idea (that I would be listed), I just bought my copy on the first day of release. I read the ‘Thank Yous’ because I like to know who all those people are,” she said. “It was beyond any of my highest expectations. I hoped I’d somehow know that Michael was aware of my work, but he was so gracious with me and so nice in everything that he did for me.”

    http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2012/11/michael_jackson_life_story_chr.html

    If that doesn’t encourage you to buy and support Campbell’s newest book, then nothing will! LOL!

    Even more good news, guys! Lisa Campbell recently joined FB, and she has a personal page now! https://www.facebook.com/lisa.campbell.90281 I assume she’s very new to FB, because it would be better for her to have a fan page instead of a personal page, and I’m going to suggest it to her, because I know she will surely surpass the 5,000 friends limit very soon!

    Hopefully I’ll be able to convince her to do Catherine Gross’ Blog Talk radio show to promote her book. She’s been commenting in numerous MJ Facebook pages about her book, so I know she certainly has the desire to promote her book, and I’ll do what I can to help her!

    By the way, she also confirmed that this book includes her first 2 books from 1993 & 1994, as well as new information about everything that has happened since then, including the child molestation and Conrad Murray trials. That explains why it’s over 700 pages long! But that’s a good thing, because her first 2 books are out of print, and very hard to find (and not everyone knows that they are available to read on Google books!)

    Like

  21. October 25, 2012 7:34 am

    Michael Jackson is a person of honor on the Planet Earth

    The world is not the same without You.

    The Sneddon’s Los Angeles Police was the last Auschwitz of the 20th century.
    Michael, the power has abused you, as happened to many saints and heroes innocents       in past centuries, who had lived and left this trace of their life.
    We know everything you have donated with Your NOBLE LOVE, spiritual and material, in the world : for everybody, children and adults, elderly in difficulty on the entire Planet Earth.
    I would not do ever harm to people who made you suffer – the SNEDDON’s L. A. police, Martin BASHIR and Nancy GRACE- Journalists, even the CHANDLER’s FAMILY and the ARVIZO FAMILY: because they’re all people who don’t deserve nothing, are uncivilized,
    poor in spirit, without human dignity and lack the capacity to love.

    And why, by Michael, I want to learn TO LOVE and BE LOVED.
    And why, in Michael, I saw A PERSON OF HONOR.

    And because Michael not back more.

    I can’t stop my tears : coming from the bottom of my heart, devastated by mourning.
    Michael JACKSON, You are the greatest person in the world, I love You.
    Yoshimi

    Support of Affidavit Concerning Criminal Conduct of Tom Sneddon – 2005 Michael Jackson Trial
    WANT 40MILLION SIGNS!!!
    – 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
    Yoshimi

    Like

  22. October 18, 2012 12:56 pm

    “About the other person mentioned in that comment on VG (the youtube comment). The guy, Alex Hernandez, was the director of a very popular TV program for Chilean youth called Mekano from 1997 to 2007. He was accused of sexual abuse of one of the female hosts (?) on Mekano called Catherine Guzman in 05. In other words, Alex Hernandez is an important media person in Chile.” -aldebaranredstar

    Yes, the girl was 17, she was one of participants in the program.

    There seems to be a pattern here. All three people mentioned in that comment in connection with Victor Gutierrez are either hosts or participants of youth programs on Chilean TV. Italo Passalacqua was fired from a TV channel for his ideas about pedophilia, Alex Hernandez was involved in a sexual scandal with a 17 year-old girl participating in his TV program, and the third Nelson Mauricio was another TV young star who was (allegedly) taken by Victor Gutierrez to Miami to get intertionalized there, but ended up in jail for stealing $300.

    So if we are to believe our anonymous informer Victor Gutierrez does indeed have a history of his own.

    Like

  23. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 6:51 am

    About the other person mentioned in that comment on VG (the youtube comment). The guy, Alex Hernandez, was the director of a very popular TV program for Chilean youth called Mekano from 1997 to 2007. Then Alex moved on to another TV station. He was accused of sexual abuse of one of the female hosts (?) on Mekano called Catherine Guzman in 05. In other words, Alex Hernandez is an important media person in Chile.

    About the program Mentiras Verdaderas (the one that VG appears on a lot), VG may just be a frequent guest and not a host or co-host. On youtube, he is there a lot talking about other sex scandals. If you go to youtube, and search VG, you will find him.

    Like

  24. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 18, 2012 6:14 am

    On the VG thing, I looked up Nelson Mauri. He is a cute boy. Here is some info and a pic:

    He is a dancer and a panelist on TV Chileno. He is known as Nelson Mauri and Nelson Mauricio Pacheco (2 names). So according to the comment on youtube, VG took this young man to Miami and maybe put the moves on him?

    Like

  25. October 17, 2012 3:59 pm

    “And here is a write up on Court TV quoting him after the raid on Neverland in an Interview with Diane Dimond of Nov.23, 2003. This is my favorite excerpt. “Sneddon said the evidence would be admissible to demonstrate prior criminal behavior — so long as the man backed up his claim in court”.“Otherwise you just could bring in anybody off the street to say ‘Oh, this happened, this happened, I heard it third-hand hearsay — which is totally unfair.”

    Lynette, this quote is now my favorite too. I’ve included it into the updated version of the post, thank you. Let me explain the point to those readers who have joined us just now:

    – Jordan Chandler refused to testify in September 2004
    – But during this Court TV program in November 2003 Tom Sneddon didn’t yet know that a year later Jordan would vehemently refuse to testify against Jackson and would threaten even to sue them if they insisted
    – But without Jordan’s testimony Sneddon could not introduce MJ’s photos as it would be like “bringing someone from the street and say this happened, this happened”(see the quote above)
    – But though he could not, he nevertheless did it in May 2005 though he knew perfectly well that the judge would never allow it
    – the judge could not allow it as it was a grave violation of the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution
    – the 6th Amendment says that the defendant has the right to confront his accuser and cross-examine him
    – but the accuser was missing. He said in September 2004 that he would not come and would not accuse
    – and Sneddon knew about it very well.

    So why did Sneddon introduce the photos? For the sheer effect of them only.
    He knew that the witness was not coming and thought it was safe to scream that his fake evidence was correct because he knew that it would never be allowed in court.

    But as regards the safety of this trick he was wrong.
    Not this time, old boy.

    Like

  26. October 17, 2012 2:28 pm

    Guys, I’ve discovered that the numerous improvements I’ve made to the post were lost and I had to rewrite and rearrange the text once again. Now the post is (probably) more or less finished. Sorry for the mess.

    Like

  27. lynande51 permalink
    October 17, 2012 12:59 am

    Yes we can use his own words against him. I don’t know how these guys heard what Michael said in the Bashir interview but it was always their contention, just like Tom Mesereau said, that Michael admitted that he slept with boys.
    He did not say that and as a matter of fact made it quite clear that he was not alone in the room with the Arvizo’s or any other child. He also made it clear that they had to have their parents permission. What he said was he slept in the bed with many children and made it clear that girls were there just as much as the boys if they wanted to be.
    What else that means is that Chacon was lying in 2005 when he went on the stand. He said that he saw Michael abuse Jordan. If that had been the case in 1994 it would have gone to trial with Jordan’s video tape, declaration and Chacon as an eye witness.
    Even the Motion that Sneddon filed to prevent Marie Barnes from testifying about what happened when they went to Australia to confront the Barnes famiyl proves that it was Chacon that said he saw Michael abuse Brett. If not they never would have been there to begin with.
    Even the Statement of Declination put out by Sneddon and Garcetti you can tell just who it was that they are talking about when they say the boy issued a general denial that anything happened and he was out of the jurisdiction of the court. Then the other boy that was recieving therapy was obviously Jason Francia.
    That part is not a leap to a conclusion it is a fact and the facts speak for themselves. The crime that Sneddon comitted was in 2004 when he met with Chacon just before his testimony to think of a way to change it from Brett to Jordan. To do that they used the oldest and most racist thought out there.That belief is that all people of color look the same.

    Like

  28. October 16, 2012 10:13 pm

    Here to is the Press Release that Sneddon issued on February 5th 2003 regarding the Bashir Program. He explains the law there for everyone so we can use his words against him.
    “While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050906080439/http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf

    This press-release does not contradict the post I’ve written, but confirms it. Look at this:

    Point 5: “While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness OR OTHER EVIDENCE to establish the corpus there is no case.”

    It means that if Sneddon had had a witness (Jordan Chandler) or other evidence (the photos corroborating the boy’s description) he could have had his case. But besides having no witness he didn’t have this “other evidence” to support Jordan Chandler’s declaration either.

    So Sneddon’s story about the photos being a match was a LIE. The photos did NOT match Jordan’s description.

    We knew it all along and have proved it our way, but now we have practically Sneddon’s word for it. Sneddon deliberately slandered Michael by speaking about the match to the public for so many years. He didn’t have the right to raise the issue of photos at the 2005 trial either.

    We can indeed use his own words against him.

    Like

  29. October 16, 2012 6:19 pm

    Since Michael’s haters raise FBI in connection with Michael Jackson I decided to include some screenshots from the FBI files into the post. Also a direct link to the FBI files was added to the blogroll its “Helpful sources to study” section.

    Here is also an article about the files from ABC News which gives an idea how extensively the FBI investigated Michael Jackson:

    Jackson Attorney: FBI Files Are ‘Almost Vindication’

    By LEE FERRAN and EILEEN MURPHY
    Dec. 23, 2009

    A lawyer for the Michael Jackson family said that the now public but heavily redacted FBI file on the late pop superstar shows that “there’s not one scrap of evidence” that Michael Jackson ever harmed a child.

    “In all these pages, hundreds of pages, many many hours of investigations … there’s not one scrap of evidence that Michael Jackson ever … did anything wrong, committed any crime,” said Brian Oxman, who represented several members of the Jackson family. “It’s almost a vindication, when you look at this. The FBI looked at all of these matters and said, ‘There’s nothing here.'”

    Oxman said the sheer scope of the documents — 333 pages out of the 673-page file were made public — came as a shock to the Jackson family.
    “I spoke to Joe Jackson last night. He said that this FBI file was something he never heard of,” Oxman said. “We’re surprised and shocked by what we found.”

    Oxman said he knew the file existed but “had no idea” the FBI had investigated Jackson’s home computers in search of child pornography as the documents state.

    According to one of the FBI agents involved in the Jackson investigation, the bureau was brought in at the request of local police.

    “We have the international and interstate capabilities that local law enforcement and local DAs don’t have,” agent James Clemente told “Good Morning America.”

    One major revelation in the more than 300 pages of government documents was that the FBI had assisted Santa Barbara, Calif., officials in their attempt to get cooperation from a person who could have been a key witness in the 2005 child molestation case against Michael Jackson: the boy who accused the pop star of molesting him in 1993.

    No criminal charges were ever filed in the 1993 case. Instead, the then 12-year-old boy refused to cooperate with officials and accepted a multi-million dollar settlement from Jackson.

    The documents released Tuesday under the Freedom of Information Act show that the FBI and Santa Barbara officials met in 2004 with Jackson’s 1993 accuser but were unsuccessful in getting his cooperation.
    Jackson was acquitted of all charges in the 2005 case, which went to trial.

    The heavily redacted FBI documents do not reveal the name of the boy that officials met with.

    “Victim indicates that he has no interest in testifying against Jackson,” according to the documents, “and would legally fight any attempt to do so.”
    Prior to the FBI’s interview with the accuser, the documents show that the FBI helped Santa Barbara prosecutors with “interview strategies for a victim who alleged that Michael Jackson had abused him in 1993.”

    The documents also quote the boy as saying that he “believed that he had done his part,” presumably referring to his initial involvement with law enforcement before agreeing to a civil settlement with Jackson that is believed to be $20 million.

    Former FBI Behavioral Unit agent Ken Lanning, who consulted on the 2003 molestation case, told ABCNews.com Tuesday that this kind of coordination is common.

    “Child molestation cases are the type of cases that involve multi agencies,” he said. “There were potential federal violations and the FBI has jurisdiction in a couple of areas. What the FBI behavioral analysis unit does is try to work on the approach, help them understand the issues.”

    The documents also reveal that Santa Barbara police had concerns about a possible terrorist attack related to the 2003 arrest of Jackson, which led to a request for FBI assistance. The FBI concluded there was no threat.

    The 1993 accuser’s mother, June did testify at the trial 2005 and told the court that the ordeal with Jackson in 1993 fractured the boy’s family and cost her the relationship she had with her son.

    The accuser’s father Evan killed himself last month. A onetime Beverly Hills dentist, Evan was found in his New Jersey waterfront apartment dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
    Sources close to the family say his suicide most likely stemmed from his longtime debilitating illness.

    During the 2005 trial it was known that the FBI’s behavioral and forensics units had consulted on the case, but the file released Tuesday reveals that various arms of the FBI assisted the Santa Barbara district attorney’s office.

    They included the crimes against children unit (CACU), innocent images national initiative against children unit, computer analysis response team(CART), the FBI lab, Los Angeles NCAVC coordinator and the Department of Justice’s child exploitation and obscenity section (CEO’s).

    The FBI examined Jackson’s motor vehicle records to see if he “transported a minor across state lines for immoral purposes.” The agency went to London and Manila to investigate other accusations that Jackson had engaged in improper behavior with boys.

    The agency also investigated another allegation from a woman and her husband who worked in child services in Toronto, Canada. The couple had taken the same train as Jackson from Chicago to the Grand Canyon and said Jackson had a minor boy with him whom he identified as a “cousin.” The couple reported that Jackson was possessive of the boy and that they heard questionable noises. The woman was concerned enough to notify a conductor.

    Before the 2005 trial, the FBI and DA also met to discuss “…the collection of sexually explicit images in magazine and books” and a VHS videotapethat the FBI analyzed as part of a child pornography investigation.

    Also within the documents is a lot of material pertaining to threats made by Frank Paul Jones, who was convicted in 1993 of stalking Janet Jackson and threatening to commit mass murder at a Michael Jackson concert. This was all reported at the time, but it’s not clear if Jones’ letters were ever released.

    In one letter, dated 5/21/1992, Jones threatened to kill Michael Jackson if “I don’t get my money.”
    Jones copied the FBI and the late mob boss John Gotti on the letter. He also threatened to kill President George H.W. Bush.

    On July 16, 1992 Jones threatened in another letter to “commit mass murder” at a Michael Jackson concert, if necessary, in an attempt to kill Jackson.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jackson-attorney-fbi-files-vindication/story?id=9407615#.UH1qoW8xre9

    Like

  30. lynande51 permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:43 am

    And here is a write up on Court TV quoting him after the raid on Neverland in an Interview with Diane Dimond. This is my favorite excerpt.

    Though it remains unknown whether the alleged 1993 victim, now in his 20s, would be willing to testify in the current case should it go to trial, Sneddon said the evidence would be admissible to demonstrate prior criminal behavior — so long as the man backed up his claim in court.

    “Otherwise you just could bring in anybody off the street to say ‘Oh, this happened, this happened, I heard it third-hand hearsay — which is totally unfair.”

    Jackson reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with his alleged victim in the 1993 case, drawing an end to criminal charges brought against him.

    More trial and crime news from Court TV
    http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20031121/21nov2003003553.html

    Now this is the real crime that he comitted. In 1994 they went to Australia because of what Chacon said. That is corraborated in the motions from them not to let Marie Barnes say anything bad about her. In 2005 just 2-3 weeks before his testimony Sneddon met with Chacon and informed him that Brett would be coming to testify and of course they helped him find a way to change it to Jordan when the dates that he says would not be possible.
    That is the crime. He aided Chacon and even encouraged what he knew was perjury.Then when you look at the rest of the 1108 witnesses isn’t that statement above about the hearsay just a little ironic?

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    October 16, 2012 9:11 am

    Here to is the Press Release that Sneddon issued on February 5th 2003 regarding the Bashir Program. He explains the law there for everyone so we can use his words against him.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050906080439/http://www.countyofsb.org/da/documents/PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    October 16, 2012 8:55 am

    Here is the original Statementof Declination issued by Sneddon and Garcetti in September of 1994.

    Statement of Declination: Statements from LA County and SB County (Sept 21 1994)
    STATEMENT OF DECLINATION ISSUED JOINTLY BY
    THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICES
    OF LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES
    September 21, 1994
    It became clear at the inception of the investigation into child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson that those allegations involved conduct that occurred in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties. Therefore, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office participated in a joint investigation of those allegations.
    After approximately one year, the investigation is now concluded. During the course of the investigation, approximately four hundred witnesses were contacted (some more than once) and additional thirty witnesses were called before grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Hundreds of “clues” from the public were probed. Much time was spent pursing potentially exonerating evidence as well as inculpatory evidence. Several leads were explored which later turned out to be false.
    The first alleged victim who came forward and who was the catalyst for this criminal investigation is the same individual who filed and settled a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson. The factual allegations underlying the civil lawsuit are identical to those which would support a criminal prosecution.
    However, at the present time this alleged victim has chosen to assert his rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 1219 and has declined to testify. This decision was not communicated to either prosecutorial agency until July 6, 1994. Until that time, the alleged victim had indicated his possible willingness to testify and we continued with our investigation.
    During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.
    As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.
    The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.
    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.
    In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be re-evaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.

    Like

  33. October 16, 2012 8:03 am

    Thank you Linda, happy to see you. Yes, it was reopened sometime in August. Sorry I didn’t inform you earlier. It was a surprise for me too and was done somewhat by accident – when that Jacksons’ letter demanding the Estate lawyers’ resignation emerged. I simply could not keep silent.

    Like

  34. Linda permalink
    October 16, 2012 7:55 am

    Soooo glad my fave site is going again. Looks like I have some reading to catch up on next weekend. You have no idea how good it feels to be back here, just wish I had known sooner. Welcome back to all of us!

    Like

  35. October 16, 2012 7:40 am

    “I wonder, Nannorris, if this lack of a charge in a criminal case in 93-94 has to do with the hearsay rules of evidence.”

    Aldebaran, yes, it has to do with the hearsay rules. I must have explained myself very poorly. Sorry for that. The gist of what I was trying to say is this:

    1. When a witness is an adult and makes a complaint wanting his offender to be prosecuted, the defendant has the constitutional right to confront this witness in court (according to the 6th Amendment). But if the witness hits and runs (makes a complaint but doesn’t want to testify), this complaint is not admitted as evidence. It is “hearsay” which is not corroborated by a testimony and denies the defendant the right to cross-examine the witness.

    This situation arose at the 2005 trial. Sneddon wanted (or said he wanted) to introduce the photos of MJ’s genitalia but at the same time knew that Jordan Chandler would not testify. This way he was using the photos only for their effect on the jury (and the media) and his mere intention to introduce those photos was breaking MJ’s constitutional rights. Over here we have only one alternative – either Sneddon was legally illiterate or was breaking MJ’s rights deliberately.

    2. But for children there is an exception. Taking the sensitive nature of such crimes a child’s declaration supported by evidence corroborating it can be admitted and without the need for a child to testify too. This is done only in cases when the judge looks into the matter and decides that the declaration is reliable. Often “spontaneous” declarations are considered to be the most genuine (one 3-year unfortunate girl said to the request of the caretaker “Please don’t touch yourself there”. “But my daddy always does it”. Unfortunately the evidence also corroborated it. Criminal charges were brought against that beast).

    3. The “child hearsay exception” has existed in the laws of various US states since late 80s and was probably even part of the California Penal Code too. This I don’t know. But we know that after MJ’s case the California law was amended (in 1995-1996) and one of the amendments (1995) said that now the statements of children under 12 can be admitted if they are corroborated by respective evidence.

    4. So at least since that time – the year 1995 – Tom Sneddon (or Gil Garcetti) could reopen the case against Jackson, but only if they had the corroborating evidence (the photos matching the description). Given that the amendment spoke about children under 12, it is also quite possible that before that the law also allowed the same procedure, but only for children older than 12 (like Jordan).

    5. Gil Garcetti did not reopen the case, but he also never said that the photos matched (the photo session was done by Tom Sneddon only). Tom Sneddon didn’t reopen the case either, however he kept saying to the media that the photos were a match. But the very fact that he never reopened the case (though he perfectly could) shows that the description was wrong and that he was telling a lie!

    6. So Sneddon did not use the photos in the 90s when he could do it, and decided to use the photos in the year 2005 when it was no longer allowed? In 2005 the witness was an adult and admitting those photos in the absence of the witness was a grave breach of Michael’s constitutional rights.

    How do you call it? A travesty of justice? A theatrical show for laymen? A deliberate attempt to mislead the jurors and force them to return a guilty verdict by presenting the 1993 case as a genuine crime though he never had any proof of it? Using the photos as an intimidation tool and as a means to slander and humiliate Michael further? All of it, I think.

    If this is no proof of malicious prosecution on the part of Sneddon, then I don’t know what is.

    Like

  36. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 16, 2012 6:51 am

    I wonder, Nannorris, if this lack of a charge in a criminal case in 93-94 has to do with the hearsay rules of evidence. You have to have a witness who saw something. Evan said he saw Michael and Jordan sleeping in a ‘spooning’ position but they were both fully clothed, and ‘spooning’ fully clothed is not child sexual abuse. On the other hand, June was called and she also never saw anything, according to her, so why they brought her in is a mystery except for the ‘poor mother’ of the ‘poor victim’ emotional appeal?? However, in the 05 trial they had 3 actual children willing to testify–Jason, Star, and Gavin. In 93-94 they had no child who would testify.

    Like

  37. nannorris permalink
    October 16, 2012 6:33 am

    If Sneddon had a match with the photos and they had Jordans statement , and then later you have Ralph Chacon saying he witnessed acts, he could have done something to bring it to court.
    Sneddon wanted this so bad…Even the way he says J Francia didnt want to be involved in a case against MJ.
    They had no case with Francia..All his statement shows is he was being badgered by police into making an accusation
    For someone who wants to send MJ to jail, he didnt bring Evan in to testify in 2005, when Evan had claimed he saw spooning..
    There is no way he didnt know that MJ was innocent in the Arvizo accusations, and certainly he should have known the 93 stuff was baloney before he ever walked into court also.
    They had to know and the strategy of only bringing in June Chandler , who didnt initiate the extortion, just shows me they knew Evan Chandler was the guilty party

    Like

  38. October 15, 2012 11:35 pm

    Guys, I forgot to write why I started looking into this subject at all. Here is a foreword to the post which explains the premise I proceeded from (now it has been added to the post):

    The question that interested me most was whether it was possible in 1994 to bring criminal charges against MJ in the absence of the accuser (Jordan Chandler). The question arose because Jordan refused to testify against Jackson, however Tom Sneddon repeatedly claimed that the police photos of MJ’s genitalia “matched” the boy’s description. If this was true, the alleged “match” looked to me like sufficient reason to bring charges irrespective of the boy’s wishes.

    This supposition was based on the universal concept that prosecutors can file charges even when victims refuse to proceed. Here are the main rules guiding these procedures for all of us to check:

    The criminal trial always begins with the filing of charges. Until formal charges have been filed against you–even if you have been arrested–you have not been charged with a crime. Contrary to what you see in movies and television shows, the decision to file charges rests not with the victim, but with the prosecutor.

    Criminal Charges A criminal charge is the formal declaration from the state that a person is suspected of committing a crime. Charges are filed only when a prosecutor believes he has a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

    Prosecutorial Discretion. Only the prosecutor has final say on filing charges. The prosecutor has unfettered discretion when determining whether to file changes and what kind should be filed.

    Victim’s Rights. Contrary to popular belief, victims do not have right to file charges. By pressing charges, a victim is letting the prosecutor know that she/he wants the charges filed and is willing to proceed with the case, but the decision still rests with the prosecutor. Prosecutors can file in cases where the victim wants charges dropped, and can refuse to file in cases where the victim wants to proceed.

    Who is the Victim. Under the American criminal justice system, the “victim” is actually the state. The prosecutor is representing the entire citizenry, and ultimately must make the decision as to what is best for everyone, not just the individual victim.

    Law Enforcement Input. In addition to the victim, law enforcement officers are also allowed to state whether they think charges should be filed. Again, while the prosecutor takes that opinion under advisement, only he has final say.

    http://www.ehow.com/facts_5731320_authorized-file-criminal-charges-court_.html

    Something didn’t add up here. If the decision to file charges depended wholly on the prosecutor, why didn’t he do it if he really had physical evidence proving his case? Did he really need Jordan that much if he had a declaration from the boy, the description he reportedly gave of MJ’s genitalia and the photos that allegedly “matched”?

    The declaration could be brushed off as it is only a piece of paper where anyone can say anything at all, but was it the discrepancy between the description and photos that was the real reason for not bringing criminal charges against Jackson?

    This last question didn’t give me any quiet. But in order to answer it, first I had to find answers to many other questions concerning the 1993 case.

    Like

  39. October 15, 2012 9:42 pm

    “I love it in the Gardner interview how Jordan is so quick interrupt him to get this fact across
    “When you say you stayed in the room – – “
    “stayed in the same bed”
    He’s so quick to make that known he actually INTERRUPTS Gardner. Like’s he been coached by Evan to get the facts straight as hell, not leaving out one detail.”

    Rodrigo, there is a big number of such instances in that interview. I have no doubt that after Dr. Gardner listened to all that crap his opinion of the veracity of Jordan’s words was negative. If even we see how coached Jordan sounds, what could the main expert on false child abuse say?

    By the way I’ve read somewhere that Jordan’s interview was a videotape.

    Like

  40. Rodrigo permalink
    October 15, 2012 6:50 pm

    I love it in the Gardner interview how Jordan is so quick interrupt him to get this fact across

    “When you say you stayed in the room – – “
    “stayed in the same bed”

    He’s so quick to make that known he actually INTERRUPTS Gardner. Like’s he been coached by Evan to get the facts straight as hell, not leaving out one detail.

    That’s very telling behaviour there. He changes the occasions of abuse from less than 5 times to over 15 times. He mentions kids’ names who Michael was supposed to have abused, followed by him saying they were on TV. It’s like Evan and co were selecting the ones who would have been a threat to their story. But other kids who were also in Michael’s company in the past were singled out as well. Kids who Gutierrez would know easily about being a journalist.

    Why do we see this, yet I see NOTHING like this with Jimmy Savile and Jerry Sandusky?

    Like

  41. October 15, 2012 3:56 pm

    “I am wondering why Michael’s legal team did not depose Jordan as soon as he turned 14. It should have been done, no? Then we would have a legal record, instead of partial transcripts of interviews, and ‘declarations.’ The deposition is done with both sides lawyers present and the defendant’s lawyers can ask questions.”

    Aldebaran, when Jordan turned 14 (January 11, 1994) Johnnie Cochran and his assistant Carl Douglas were getting ready for the agreement already. The preparations were in full swing. When Johnnie took over the case (early December, as far as I remember) he immediately began talking settlement with Larry Feldman as Lisa Campbell writes about it. I think he never even tried to really defend Jackson in the 1993 case and kept to the line of least resistance.

    Carl Douglas is hopeless as he is dancing attendance to Larry Feldman and will say anything to please Feldman (as that lawyers’ seminar transcribed by David shows it).

    However we also have Howard Weitzman who was also Michael’s attorney at the time. He was the one who fired Bert Fields. If we are lucky he will probably tell us one day of the way the events developed in 1993/94.

    Like

  42. Jovana permalink
    October 15, 2012 9:37 am

    I’m really appalled and shocked to which lengths this man went to destroy Michael. How was he even tolerated as a DA for so long in Santa Barbara, didn’t these people see his ways…..

    Like

  43. aldebaranredstar permalink
    October 15, 2012 6:52 am

    “What about fears? Any fears of any kind?” asked Dr. Gardner

    ”No.”

    ”Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”

    ”Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

    This exchange is so revealing. Gardener is asking about fears–fears of the molester, nightmares about the abuse, fears that the ‘victim’ will be molested again, post-traumatic stress, anxiety, insomnia. These are the experiences that Sandusky’s victims talked about so eloquently. To this question, Jordan calmly says, “No.” So Gardener has to repeat the question, asking about “experiences of this kind,” meaning molestation. And the only fear that Jordan can find in himself is fear of CROSS-EXAMINATION!!!! No fears even of TESTIFYING, just the cross-examination. This says it all. The whole thing was a bogus accusation and Jordan knew it. That’s why the cross-examination was his only fear, his ONLY fear as a result of being molested MANY times–his only fear even though he claimed Michael masturbated him, performed oral sex on him, many times. Jordan claimed he climaxed, yet in the interview with Gardener he merely says ‘it felt good’–he doesn’t talk about sexual feelings, even though he told Gardener this time with Michael was his first sexual experience.

    He claims Michael climaxed and Jordan masturbated him to climax, yet there is no sexual content–it is all devoid of details, of feeling. This is why it does not feel real. Then in the civil suit, Feldman makes claims of great suffering, distress, physical pain, mental and emotional pain, but when Jordan talks to Gardener there is no emotion, no tears, no anger, no revulsion, nothing at all except a fear of CROSS-EXAMINATION.

    Frankly, I have no real sympathy for Jordan. There is something dead inside him. The California law is too lax in that it allows an ADULT who was a child abuse victim to escape all responsibility for destroying another person with false accusations. Jordan should have been forced to testify in 05, and to call a 13 year old a ‘child’ in the same legal category as 5 year olds is somewhat ridiculous in itself.

    I am wondering why Michael’s legal team did not depose Jordan as soon as he turned 14. It should have been done, no? Then we would have a legal record, instead of partial transcripts of interviews, and ‘declarations.’ The deposition is done with both sides lawyers present and the defendant’s lawyers can ask questions.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Quora

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: