Skip to content

NO MORE Groundhog Days for Michael Jackson

February 14, 2013
I will say that I am particularly upset at the handling of this matter 
by the incredible, terrible mass media
[Michael  Jackson]

In a recent Youtube interrogation I had to sustain from Michael’s haters some important details of the 1993 case were mentioned but not elaborated on for lack of space. Up till now these details were only occasionally stated in the comments of this blog and now need to be grouped together into a separate post. Also some conclusions from that nasty, hasty and technically limited Youtube conversation need to be made and put into words.


InnocentOne thing has become clear to me. After three days of going on errands of Michael Jackson’s haters to explain the specks of dust picked from the various allegations here and there, I’ve realized that there is something basically wrong in having to go over and over again over every little scrap of evidence taken from the Chandler or Arvizo cases.  The three sides involved in the process (prosecution, defense and jury) already examined every tiny bit of every possible rumor heard about Jackson in the period of 1993-2005 and gave them their evaluation, so there is no point in constant rerunning the process and turning it into a never-ending explanation routine.

Questions like “How can you explain the picture on page 5?” are basically wrong because they were already answered at the trial or sorted out at the stages prior to it, so if we keep going through the trial archives again and again it will mean that the trial will never end. It will overstep the boundaries of the courtroom in time and space, and disregard the not-guilty verdict which is already there.

Of course we can look at page 5 and say what we think of it, but it may come as an exception only as retracing the steps and starting it all over again will be disrespectful to the legal system proper and therefore fundamentally wrong.

The general public must realize that if Michael Jackson was scrutinized by every law enforcement body existing in the US and several times too, it is time for this search of Michael’s “misbehavior” to stop. 

It is simply pointless to search for the remnants of some fictional guilt of Michael Jackson in a house where every wall was already pulled down in an effort to find something incriminating. The house is already in ruins from a hundred of previous searches and all that remains to be done now is close it not to display the ugly sight of the devastation that took place there.

This does not mean that we should not be searching for the truth. Since very few really looked for the evidence exonerating Jackson we still reserve the right for ourselves to go to that house and seek something  no one ever tried to find  there. It could be very well lying there in full view of the public with no one picking it for lack of necessity.


When we are interrogated about Michael Jackson they constantly remind of  OJ Simpson. And this makes me wonder.

What’s the point of comparing these two cases if Michael Jackson was examined inside out by every law enforcement body existing in the country and for 12 years too, while in Simpson’s case even some grave technical blunders were made which allowed loopholes for the defense?

So what if Johnny Cochran was involved in both cases? He defended many other people as well, so does it mean that all those who were acquitted with his help were actually guilty? Shall we doubt the outcome of all the other cases too?

If Michael Jackson’s detractors continue to constantly raise Simpson in connection with Michael’s acquittal I will be forced to make a couple of suggestions.

If OJ Simpson’s case is to be forever used as a reproach to the legal system and “proof” of MJ’s guilt, now we will have the right to disregard every not guilty verdict passed by the US  justice system. Whenever they tell us that someone was acquitted, we will have the full right to say that the justice system is unreliable and that despite all their effort we are sure that those acquitted are actually guilty as hell. Or vice versa, that those convicted and jailed are actually the innocent little angels.

I wonder how they will like this mess and possible unrest which is the inevitable outcome of their own doubt in their own legal system.

What I mean is that if they choose to call Michael Jackson guilty even after his full acquittal in the court of law it means that they don’t believe their legal system themselves. And if they don’t believe it themselves why should we then?

And what are we supposed to think of all those people who scrutinized Michael Jackson for more than 12 years and never found anything bad? Are we supposed to call all of them star-struck, corrupt or unprofessional? Actually this is what the press and MJ’s haters practically tell us on a daily basis, so why not start thinking that way too? The fact that they are forcing us into this frame of mind themselves is what makes things only funnier.

How many more law-enforcement bodies do people need to make sure that Michael Jackson was innocent of the crime he was accused of? Aren’t the two Sheriff departments, two District Attorney offices, two Grand juries of Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in addition to the DCFS and FBI not enough for them?

How much more scrutiny must a person undergo to finally convince the public that it is simply impossible to find fault with an innocent person if he is really innocent, no matter how hard you try?

The Thumbs up gesture meant that the gladiator would live

The Thumbs up gesture meant that the gladiator would live. Why not accept this system now? Easy and economical

Well, if they say that their justice system is so helpless or unreliable in determining the truth, I suggest we abandon this old outdated stuff and go by something new instead  – public opinion polls for example. The system seems not to be working anyway, as people doubt its verdicts and believe tabloids instead, so what’s the point of keeping it then?

Only imagine how much more economical and thrilling it would be if TV channels replaced the existing justice system and arranged their own trials. They could invite an assortment of TV pundits and Hollywood stars, and upon covering the case a public opinion poll could be taken to determine which side was the best and decide the fate of the accused person.

If the majority thinks that he is guilty let the police throw the villain into jail. If everyone thinks that he is a lovely little angel let him go free and award him with a prize.


The “thumbs down” was the signal that a defeated gladiator should be condemned to death; “thumbs up”, that he should be spared. The crowd decided it all

It will be a modern day version of the ancient crowd in a Rome arena which decided the fate of their gladiators by a mere move of their thumbs, but on the other hand it can also be regarded as a triumph of “true democracy” too.


In comparison with the above novel and exciting approach the existing  justice system is much more complex, boring and is no fun.

If a crime happens or is suspected it starts with opening a criminal case. The investigators rush to do their job, the prosecutor looks into everything the investigation team collected and decides whether to bring criminal charges against the accused person or the case should be dropped for lack of the necessary proof.

Sometimes prosecutors take all the evidence to the Grand jury which is a sort of a preliminary test on how good or bad their case is (or how good or bad the work of the investigators was). If the Grand jury does not indict it means that the prosecutor cannot bring any criminal charges and there is no case.

The existing legal system is explained in very simple language by this site:

Who Is Authorized to File Criminal Charges in Court?

By Michael J. Scott, eHow Contributor

The criminal trial always begins with the filing of charges. Until formal charges have been files 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 he/she 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.


  • Police and other law enforcement agencies are integral to the filing of charges against criminal defendants. These professionals conduct investigations, and the evidence they gather is used by prosecutors in determining whether or not to file charges.


  • Private citizens (those who are not employed by the state) play a role in the filing of criminal charges whenever they give testimony or provide evidence to investigators. Filing a complaint with the police is one of the more common ways they provide this evidence.


  • A prosecutor must be able to show they have enough evidence to show probable cause exists that the person charged with a crime committed it. This is less than the evidentiary standard required for a conviction in a court of law.

Grand Juries

  • Grand juries can be convened by some prosecutors to investigate whether or not there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges. If the grand jury believes there is, an indictment (criminal charges) will be filed against the defendant(s).

Also see here:

So the person who is considered to be a victim does not have the right to file criminal charges. Neither can he stop the prosecution from carrying on with the case if he extorted money from the accused person and wishes to stop at that.

That is why the Chandler civil case was standing absolutely apart from the criminal case. The latter was the subject of the criminal justice system while the civil case is a matter between the two parties where lawyers are kind of negotiators debating the sum. The criminal case was running parallel to the civil suit, and could never be stopped even if the civil suit was amicably settled.

In order to take Jackson to court the police first had to charge him with a crime and all they needed for it was a declaration of the alleged victim containing at least some evidence (for example, description of the man’s intimate parts) and the photos of the real genitalia to coincide with that description. This was all they needed. No, it wasn’t determining the final truth yet (this can be done only in court) but this was the minimum required for bringing criminal charges against Michael Jackson as the very first step necessary for a trial at all. And the problem is that that the prosecution did not have even that.


Jordan Chandler spoke to the police and they put down a certain description of the intimate parts he had allegedly seen. The description was given at the very beginning of the criminal investigation, first to the Los Angeles police in September 1993 and then to the Santa Barbara investigators in December 1993. Then the Santa Barbara people proceeded to make the  photos of the actual genitalia, and this was done on December 20, 1993.

What was a thrilling story for the public was a dehumanizing and humiliating ordeal for Michael Jackson.

I am hoping for a speedy end to the horrifying, horrifying experience to which I have been subjected.

I am hoping for a speedy end to the horrifying, horrifying experience to which I have been subjected….I have been forced to submit to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department earlier this week. They served a search warrant on me, which allowed them to view and photograph my body including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs, and any other area that they wanted….It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer.

But even after the body search, when everyone was waiting for the sensational front page news of Jackson being arrested and the criminal charges brought against him at last, a sudden lull followed.

Two days later Jackson was still free and on December 22,1993  he  even made a public statement via a satellite saying in a trembling voice that he had been submitted to a humiliating strip search of his penis, lower torso, etc. It was the most terrifying experience of his life but he nevertheless agreed to endure it in order to prove his innocence.

The police, the Chandlers and their lawyer Larry Feldman fell into silence and produced the impression of being in a confusion.

The confusion was over the fact that there was no match between the photos and the description provided by the boy.

When Larry Feldman finally came to himself he issued a declaration in the name of Jordan Chander  (Decembler 28, 1993) repeating the same old lies, only this time extra care was taken not to mention that the boy ever saw MJ naked. Otherwise it was just the same old stuff, completely vague, indefinite and uncertain, but graphic as before. This boy had a talent, you know.

Random voices began to be voiced hinting that the photos “matched”, however no one bothered to explain why, if this had been the case, no criminal charges were brought against the man.

A month later an agreement in the civil suit was signed and the media sighed with relief  – now they knew what to trash Michael Jackson for. There was so much hoopla around the settlement that no one paid attention to the news published by the USA TODAY, saying that there was actually no match at all.

Well, probably no one just noticed it because the truth was printed in so tiny letters, using Lisa Marie’s expression, that it was simply impossible to notice it.

Now the truth about the photos contradicting the description is also extremely difficult to find. It is not only as tiny as it was before, but now it can be bought for money only, and this makes you think that those who have no money or are unwilling to pay will have to satisfy themselves with lies which are freely available to all, while the truth is restricted and available only to the few.

Now the truth about no match between the description and the photos is extremely difficult to find and can be bought only for money, which makes you think that if you are willing to pay you will have to satisfy yourself with lies which are freely available for all.

Now the truth about no match between the description and the photos is extremely difficult to find and can be bought only for money while lies are freely available to all

The criminal investigation of Michael Jackson lasted for another eight months after the strip search,  until September 1994 when it ended in a zero result as you know.

The eight months that passed between the strip search and closing the case meant that the photos baffled the police so much that all the remaining time they tried to figure out how come the photos could be so different from the accuser’s description. It was so vivid and graphic, you know…

The two Grand juries refused to indict Jackson even after listening to 400 witnesses and reshuffling all the evidence, and this sent the general public into wild guesses about the biggest mystery of all times  – how could the grand  jury not indict Jackson if it was supposed to be a match as they were constantly told by the media and police?

The answer to the mystery was in a total mismatch of course, but with so much media poison in their ears and cotton wool in their eyes the people’s brains simply refused to function.

The prosecution explained their fiasco of bringing no charges against Jackson by the fact that there was no second victim.

If anyone wondered why they needed a second victim if they allegedly had the first one, and with a so-called match too, this question was never answered and was left hanging in the air. The police simply diverted everyone’s attention from the fundamental absence of proof of Jordan’s words to another topic and invited the public to search for a second accuser instead.

The search was more or less successful as after several sessions with a son of Michael Jackson’s maid they finally managed to convince him that the two cases of tickling he had allegedly suffered in the hands of MJ were absolutely sexual in their nature and intent. To the Grand jury the boy noted the pressure under which this groundbreaking confession was made (this we know from the transcripts produced by Thomas Mesereau at the 2005 trial) – the boy said that he wanted to strike his interviewers with something heavy on the head, so this is how bad it was.

However despite all this resistance from the boy the end result was still quite satisfactory for the police – Jason Francia agreed to bolster Jordan Chandler’s story with his tickling account.

But at this point another blow was awaiting the police. For several months after the January settlement with Michael Jackson the first accuser Jordan Chandler had been cooperating with the authorities, but now he flatly refused to testify:

“…it was not until July 6, according to Feldman and Weiss, that the boy finally decided he could not take the stand against Jackson.”

The official tale has it that he was afraid of threats from Michael Jackson’s fans, though the real reason was different – it stemmed from Jordan’s fear of a cross-examination, which he himself admitted to in his notable interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner.

Since now the prosecution lost their main witness (in addition to having no match and no evidence of the crime) they made a loud announcement that without the first witness they could not carry on with the case. The criminal case would be suspended until after the main witness changed his mind.

 I will say that I am particularly upset at the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusions. I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal, 'cause I am innocent.

I will say that I am particularly upset at the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusions. I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don’t treat me like a criminal, ’cause I am innocent.

Everyone believed the official story. The witness was still a child and children are exempt from the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment says that those who accuse someone of a crime are obliged to come and face the defendant in the courtroom, to enable the defendant to ask them questions.

Fortunately for Jordan Chandler he was still a child, and no one could force him to come and testify against his alleged abuser. Thus the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution saved the face of the prosecutors and their investigators. They did a splendid job, however the boy refused to testify, so what could the poor police do?


With the first act of the drama over but its closing scene somewhat inconclusive for the audience, the second act was opened by Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti (the LA District Attorney) by approaching the legislators with a request to amend the law and let them take the case to court without a child witness, on the basis of the evidence alone. If accepted, the proposed change would make Jordan Chandler free as a bird and would not require him to face the defendant in court or need to undergo a cross-examination.

The good news came for Jordan Chandler sometime in 1995 with an amendment to the law which allowed children to no longer testify. The legislators met the prosecutors’ request and made an exception for those child abuse cases when the prosecution had enough evidence to prove their case without a child’s testimony.

Those who knew of the new legal procedure must have held their breath waiting for Sneddon to reopen the case against Jackson. Now he no longer needed Jordan Chandler to prove his case in court. All he had to do was submitting the evidence of the supposed “match” to bring criminal charges against Jackson.

However all those who expected Sneddon to make the next step for which he actually had the law amended fell flat in their faces. Sneddon simply did not make that step and didn’t reopen the case which is another proof that he had no ‘evidence’ to support it.

Statement 6

It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer. Even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied. They wanted to take even more pictures. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare, but if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it.

Sneddon simply continued spreading lies about Jackson and the media had tremendous fun trashing Michael solely on Sneddon’s words.

Isn’t it interesting that the media is so selective towards the system of justice – Sneddon they do believe even if he simply says so, while the acquittal verdict by the jury they do not?


When the first two acts of the fake ‘molestation’ show were over and the Arvizos finally made their entrance it became clear what Sneddon was waiting for these 12 long years – it turned out that he still had nothing against MJ and was still waiting for a second ‘victim’.

If anyone wonders why all this time he needed a second victim though he could do with the “match” alone and did not require even the first victim (not to mention the second one) due to changes in the law, their questions will remain unanswered.

The third act of the performance opened with new problems for the prosecution.  Even though now Sneddon had Gavin Arvizo as another alleged victim, the first liar Jordan Chandler had already become an adult and now the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution became fully applicable to him.

It meant that if Sneddon wanted to produce the photos of a supposed “match” in the 1993 case he was also obliged to provide a live testimony from the liar himself.  The liar was 25 years old, and now Jackson and his lawyers had the full right to look him in the face and ask him a couple of questions in the courtroom.

Of course the liar could refuse to testify as technically he was still an “abuse victim” and these people are not forced to appear in court. The only difference in his position is that while he was a child the photos could be introduced without his testimony in accordance with the law changes, while now that he was an adult the photos could not be produced in his absence. Other than that nothing changed and he could still refuse to testify as the concept of protecting real abuse victims and consideration for their feelings is valid for all times.

The problem Sneddon had with the first liar (Jordan Chandler) was that he refused to come to court again. Sneddon approached the FBI for help. But when the FBI and police went to see the liar in New York in September 2004 he was still uncooperative, dropped a mysterious phrase that he “had done his part” and even said he would sue them if they further insisted on his testimony.

Jordan Chandler

Jordan Chandler “has done his part”

This is how Sneddon lost his main victim again. The first time Jordan refused him in 1994 and ten years later, in 2004 he had Jordan’s refusal again, only this time as an adult.

The root of the problem was the absence of any evidence of course.

However Jordan’s refusal did not stop Sneddon from playing his own part and making a dramatic stage appearance with the photos of Michael Jackson’s intimate parts made in 1993.

The photos actually proved that there was no match, so it was absolutely not in Sneddon’s interests to disclose them to anyone.

The very idea of the third act of this show was to pretend that Sneddon possessed some evidence against Jackson, all the time having a legitimate reason not to show it to the jury.

Since Jordan wasn’t there Sneddon could only wave the photos from a distance and tease the jury and the public into thinking that he had ‘something’ there, while those in the legal profession knew that it was a bluff – an empty gesture meant for effect and vile purposes only.

Without Jordan Chandler the photos could never be used, so Sneddon was absolutely safe in his lies, and after throwing him a tired look the judge had to remind him of the 6th Amendment which meant that either the photos came in a package with the witness, or Sneddon could not use them at all.

The general public was taken in by Sneddon’s spectacular performance and didn’t realize that all of it was a big lie, and if it had not been for the jury’s diligence and dedication to the law, the raging public would have sent Jackson into jail until the end of his time and would have probably lynched him on the way.

After looking at all this noisy bazaar involving the prosecution, public and the media Michael’s defense lawyers advised him to leave the country which Michael Jackson actually did. However while he was abroad he grew somewhat forgetful that his not-guilty verdict meant nothing for his countrymen and in December 2007 he decided to return home.


CNN Dec. 31, 2007A year after Michael Jackson returned from Ireland CNN suddenly decided to remind Jackson and the public of the most notable points of the 2005 trial and retrieved from that period their most ‘interesting’ articles archiving them into a special file dedicated to Jackson.

The file still exists and is a way to rekindle doubts in Michael Jackson’s innocence despite his full acquittal.

It was published by the CNN Court TV on December 31, 2007 – exactly when Michael Jackson was thinking of restarting his career. All in all there were 11 articles. One of them carried a  flashy title: “Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear” and contained some of the dirtiest lies about Jackson.

December 31, 2007 — Updated 1518 GMT (2318 HKT)

Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear

Editor’s Note: As part of’s new Crime section, we are archiving some of the most interesting content from This story was first published in 2005.

(Court TV) — From the witnesses lawyers chose not to call to evidence ruled inadmissible, some of the most intriguing details of Michael Jackson’s molestation trial never made it to the jury. A look at what the jury didn’t hear:

The blemished penis
The judge nixed photos and drawings of Michael Jackson’s private parts. The images were collected during the 1993 investigation into the singer’s allegedly inappropriate relationship with then-13-year-old Jordie Chandler. Prosecutors hoped Chandler’s drawing of Jackson’s distinctive blemishes, allegedly corroborated by search-warrant photos, would prove Jackson was not ‘shy and modest” with sleepover guests.

The missing sleepover guests
Prosecutors scored a major victory when the judge allowed evidence about Jackson’s alleged “bad acts” more than a decade ago. A parade of witnesses testified they saw the singer putting his hands in inappropriate places on the bodies of five different boys, actor Macaulay Culkin among them, but jurors heard nothing about two of the boys. Prosecutors say Jackson “groomed” the two with special attention, but the judge denied the evidence because no witnesses actually saw Jackson touch them.

Cash for silence, but how much?
Jackson never faced charges or admitted wrongdoing in any of the alleged prior bad acts. Jurors learned, however, that Jackson settled with 1993 accuser Jordie Chandler, who did not testify, and a 1994 accuser, who told jurors Jackson groped him during tickle games. But the judge ruled that the dollar amounts the boys and their families received, about $20 million and $2.4 million, respectively, would not be divulged.

Private lessons
Former Neverland employee Charlie Michaels claimed she saw Jackson and Jordie Chandler practicing dance moves in the singer”s studio when Jackson grabbed the boy’s genitals. Demonstrating his famous crotch-grabbing dance move on the boy was presumably a pretense to touch his groin, from the prosecution point-of-view, but the judge ruled out Michaels’ testimony.

A late-night lubricant request
Former Jackson security guard Kassim Abdool told jurors that he saw Jackson and Jordie Chandler frolicking in a Jacuzzi and sharing a lingering embrace under a Peter Pan display. But jurors were not allowed to hear about an uncorroborated story the time Abdool claims he delivered a jar of Vaseline to the sweaty, naked pop star, who was entertaining Chandler in his bedroom.

King of Talk silent
Talk show host Larry King was set to testify that he met last year with Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing the accuser and his family. King said that during their breakfast meeting, Feldman revealed that he thought the accuser’s mother was a “wacko” who was only in it for the money. The judge found his proposed testimony inadmissible.

Macaulay’s marijuanalogues
Actor Macaulay Culkin testified that the charges against his “childlike” friend were “absolutely ridiculous.” Prosecutors were not allowed to question the “Home Alone” star about his own pending charges. Culkin was pulled over for speeding last year in Oklahoma City and was nabbed for possession of marijuana and prescription drugs.

The bodyguard
Former bodyguard Chris Carter was expected to testify that he confronted the accuser one night about being drunk, and the boy allegedly told him, “Michael said if I can handle it, it’s OK. It’s part of being a man.” Carter, who is facing armed robbery and bank-robbing charges in Nevada, promised to plead the Fifth if called. Prosecutors decided not to call him.

JCPenney redux
The defense lost its bid to call two security agents involved in the 1998 scuffle outside JCPenney, which resulted in a $152,000 settlement for the accuser’s family. Dexter Mason and Paul Krugman were expected to testify that the mother apologized and hugged them the next day, in an attempt to support the defense’s claim that the family’s suit against JCPenney was fraudulent. The judge ruled that he would not allow attorneys to relitigate the JCPenney case.

Chef’s other interest
Attorneys bickered over the proposed testimony of Angel Vivanco, an assistant chef at Neverland who became close with the accuser’s 16-year-old sister during the time the family was allegedly held captive. In the end, Vivanco was not questioned about what prosecutors called a “quasi-sexual” relationship with the minor sister, nor about her alleged statement to him that her mother was “a psycho.”

The writer who escaped the stand 
Journalist Ian Drew was asked by the Jackson camp to interview the accuser and his family in spring 2003 for a positive story about Jackson’s friendship with the boy. But Drew said a Jackson aide canceled the interview because of the family’s “escape” from Neverland. When questioned outside the presence of jurors, Drew said he wasn’t completely certain the word “escape” was used. The judge ruled that his testimony could not be used.

The librarian and the profiler
The defense wanted to call librarian Mary Minow to analyze the singer’s book shelves and testify about the artistic merits of such books as “Boys Will Be Boys” and “The Boy: A Photographic Essay.” But prosecutors argued that if Minow was in, then former FBI Special Agent Ken Lanning, who specializes in pedophile profiling, should be allowed to testify that Jackson’s reading materials, some of which was seized during a search by police (pictured), could also be used to arouse young boys. Both sides agreed to pull their witnesses.

Diana’s cousin, the duke
Michael Jackson’s hide-and-seek games with the 5-year-old son of a duke did not come in when the judge denied testimony from Alexander Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, who also goes by Alexander Montagu Manchester — the 13th Duke of Manchester and cousin of Princess Diana. The duke claims that after a family visit to Neverland, Jackson would call his Newport Beach, Calif., home at all hours, crying and asking to see his “hide and seek” partner.

Celebrity character witnesses
The defense’s star-studded witness list promised appearances from such Jackson pals as Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder and Diana Ross. But prosecutors threatened to conduct the same kind of pornography showdown with these celebs that choreographer Wade Robson endured. They also threatened to introduce evidence that Jackson shared his bed with children while addicted to Demerol and that LaToya Jackson once stated she saw a $1 million payment in hush money to one boy’s family. The defense opted to pare down its list.     E-mail to a friend

I don’t know what impression you get from the above but to me the list looks like a page from Victor Gutierrez’s book, from the point of view of its salaciousness and obvious agenda.

Most of it is sheer nonsense but the story about a “lubricant” is simply some horrible science fiction. [Update] Now that Kassim Abdool’s testimony is available to us we see that he simply never said it.

Instead he was reminded by the defense of his own statement back in 1994 where he said that he, as “a father of two children, 9 and 13 would have no problem of leaving them alone with Michael Jackson” and that “he had never seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in any way that could be construed as sexual”. And he, in fact, put his signature under both of those statements.

And the CNN Court TV has the audacity to tell us blatant lies like that?

CNN archive of Dec.31, 2007 header

To a certain degree I agree with their headline – some things have indeed been hidden from people, only it is the opposite of what the CNN is talking about.

The truly intriguing details of the lies told about Jackson are rarely reported by the press as they are terribly awkward and inconvenient for the official media. The media never wanted us to know these hidden facts which will be enumerated in the second part of this post (which is still in the making).

In the meantime let me say that it is even not that bad that Court TV recorded all those outrageous stories about Jackson as their basic archive about the man – there will surely come a time when this impressive historic document will be used against the CNN Court TV to show their horrible bias against Jackson and the lurid lies they kept telling to their audience instead of the truth.

This makes me wonder. If such a powerful and seemingly credible media network as CNN selected only this trash to present to its readers what can we expect of tabloids and ordinary citizens then? How can we expect them to be different? No wonder that people’s heads are filled with so much garbage.


In their lies against Jackson the media often uses people who were working in the investigation team at the preliminary stage of the 1993 case, even before the evidence was presented to the prosecutor and to the Grand jury where these facts were scrutinized and eventually rejected. One of such people is Bill Dworin.

Bill Dworin

Bill Dworin has reasons to be angry. And we are fully on his side. The cases of child abuse are sky-rocketing: “We see new pictures every day of children being molested. The volume is extremely great,” Dworin said. “There are so many Web sites we can’t count them. . . . This is a national issue, not just a local one.” All this is true, only Michael Jackson does not have anything to do with it

Who is Bill Dworin? He is one of the investigators in the Los Angeles police department who collected everything there was to collect against Jackson in 1993 and submit it to the prosecutor to decide what to do with it further.

In the 2005 era he was often invited on TV to share his views on the earlier Chandler case. Their favorite subject for discussion were the two books with half-naked boys (one boy was shown fully naked) swimming and playing on the beach, which were found in Michael’s home in 1993.

It is simply impossible to have to talk about these books for so long, but let me still say that one of the books was a present from a fan as it had the respective inscription, and the other book was intended for a fan as it had Michael Jackson’s inscription and even his signature on it (you don’t inscribe and sign books for yourself, don’t you?).

Both books were absolutely legal of course and the unsuspecting Michael surely had no idea what Bill Dworin would think of it. And Bill Dworin thinks that such books may be used for arousal of (real) child molesters. Probably they are, only we ordinary citizens may be totally unaware of it, same as Michael Jackson.

Since the prosecution did not regard the facts collected by Bill Dworin as valid enough for an indictment, we can very well understand his hurt feelings – he worked so hard, but neither the prosecution nor the Grand Jury saw anything incriminating in his findings.

His frustration is easy to explain. The zero end result in the 1993 case either points to his poor professional performance (which is a blow to his self-esteem) or it is the assertion of Michael Jackson’s innocence, which means that he wasted a year of his work on a hopeless case. If Dworin appears on TV again and attempts to throw MJ into a bad class again, someone should ask him which way he prefers it – does the absence of incriminating evidence point to MJ’s innocence or did Dworin simply fail in his job?

The most probable answer you will get is that everyone involved overlooked some crucial evidence, which is hardly likely, but even this will not be able to explain why the boy’s description didn’t coincide with the photos, which is all that matters in this case.

Many other investigators were disappointed that all the work brought them nowhere, but the chief spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department Cmdr. David J. Gascon had no criticism for the prosecutors – they see the whole picture and have the final say:

For the investigating agencies that led the Jackson investigation, Wednesday’s decision brought disappointment and resignation. Although it was expected, some police and social workers grumbled that the district attorneys had demanded an airtight case since the target was such a rich and powerful figure.

Nevertheless, Cmdr. David J. Gascon, chief spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department, declined to criticize the prosecutors.

“It’s our responsibility to conduct an investigation,” Gascon said. “That’s what we did. We presented the information to the district attorneys, and they have made their decision.”

At the Department of Children’s Services, whose investigators conducted one of the first interviews with the boy whose complaint sparked the probe, some workers were disappointed, while others said they had long expected Wednesday’s announcement.

“We thought there would be a lot of attention given to this case because of who is involved, but when you get down to the facts of the case, you can’t always proceed,” said Ivy Mondy, a supervisor in the department’s sexual abuse unit. “There might be some disappointment in how it was handled. If it had not become such a media event, it might have had a different outcome.”

So all the prosecutors demanded was a “airtight case” not allowing mistakes. And their statement that “when you get down to the facts of the case, you can’t always proceed” conveys to us that there were no facts to support the initial accusations. And by “the different outcome” they mean that if had not been such a media event, the criminal investigation would not have taken so much time and effort and would have closed much earlier.

Someone should now explain to Dworin, his TV hosts and other media personalities that we cannot return again and again to the very beginning of the case and disregard the follow-up events that proved the initial accusations to be wrong. Once the end has been reached we cannot go over to the start of it again and constantly rerun it as if it were the Groundhog Day movie.

Some respect should be finally shown for the justice system and its verdict, so could we ask Michael’s detractors  to please stop making rounds on TV and speak of the 1993 case as if it was not yet over?

If they continue to do so the very least we can do for them is stop watching their shows and stop listening and reading their news. I did it with our TV channels six years ago, and have felt only much better ever since.

*  *  *

Related article:

20 Comments leave one →
  1. February 14, 2013 11:40 pm

    Yoг are trying to apply logic to these people’s arguments, but they are never driven by logic. On the contrary, when you start a discussion with such a person, you quickly find out that they have very little knowledge of what they are talking about and cannot follow cause-and-effect relations in their own claims (let alone make any generalizations).

    There will always exist many conspiracy theorists that will believe that someone is hiding something, tricking people, that everyone around is a fool, but if they dig deeper, they will discover “the truth”. And even if they are too lazy to dig deeper, “the truth” is still out there. They will believe that Michael was guilty, that Branca forged the will, that Murray was set up by the powers that be. Even if it contradicts the court verdicts, the facts and simple common sense.


  2. February 15, 2013 1:38 am

    “Yoг are trying to apply logic to these people’s arguments, but they are never driven by logic. On the contrary, when you start a discussion with such a person, you quickly find out that they have very little knowledge of what they are talking about and cannot follow cause-and-effect relations in their own claims (let alone make any generalizations).”

    Morinen, I think they cannot follow cause-and-effect relations because they don’t believe in what they are saying themselves. Therefore there is on logic. I cannot be sure of it but think that all of it is just pretense on their part. They would probably love to have Michael among their ranks.


  3. February 15, 2013 2:29 am

    “I cannot be sure of it but think that all of it is just pretense on their part. They would probably love to have Michael among their ranks. – vmj”

    Well, Morinen, half an hour later I am already sure that all their hate for Michael is only pretense. Michael is their hero and they are dreaming of a chance to put his image on their banners. And we are standing in their way because we do not agree with their labelling him a ped-le. Therefore we (or probably only I am) are their worst enemy, and that is why they are so preoccupied personally with me.

    As I’ve just written on another thread, I went to my Monaco Youtube video which is occupied by my adversaries now, to see what’s going on there and saw this jay bob stating the following there:

    jay bob
    Are you sure your research was set out to find facts refuting the paedophile claims. Because I did non bias research, and used common sense. I gave you hints of why he could be a paedophile. Which is not illegal. Most people I know, believe hes a paedo, but his great music over shadows that. Michael never penetrated them, and where do you expect the dna to stay? There were DNA stains of 3 different males from his bed, but of course you have an excuse for that.

    This British guy thinks that ped-lia is not illegal. In other words it is legal in his opinion. To me it is the same outrage and sickeness as if he said that it would be legal to dig up corpses and have sex with them. By the way corpses at least don’t feel anything, so despite all the sickness of it, it is still less harmful. But I would nevertheless prefer to have them isolated in some way.

    So just as I expected my worst adversaries are either pedophiles themselves or are advocates of pedophilia. But they are not only my adversaries.

    They are the worst enemies of Michael Jackson.

    They think they are his friends, only it is Michael Jackson who does not want to make friends with these people.

    By the way there is an interesting conclusion following from the above. If the worst Michael’s harassers are pedophiles, who out of their great “love” for him are trying hard to prove that he was one of them, what are we to do in order to get rid of all those constant attacks and allegations against him?

    Correct. We need to fight pedophiles and pedophilia.


  4. Rodrigo permalink
    February 15, 2013 3:16 am

    Even MJfacts are guilty of this.
    Topix posters I believe too…I look at their personal messages ‘through’ the posts, and obviously like Jimmy Savile, you can see underlying darkness there.

    ¨Admit Michael was a pe-le. However, it’s fine to like his music.¨

    Trying to corrupt society through Michael because they know how popular he is and will always be. His popularity only increases with each passing day.


  5. February 15, 2013 3:41 am

    The DNA determinations have developed enormously since 1995.OJ may not have walked had they been as sophisicated as today.He totally lost the civil case against him. He ended up in jail some years later anyway.-The L.A. uprisings (2-3 years before) that occurred as result of policebrutality may have had something to do with his aquittal in criminal court.
    I will never forget the words of Mr. Rodney King(who was the victim) on TV appealing to all people that we all have to get along.Unfortunately I cant remember his exact words.


  6. February 15, 2013 9:37 am

    “LaToya Jackson once stated she saw a $1 million payment in hush money to one boy’s family”

    You know, this never made sense to me. And Jason Francia receiving the 2.4 million.

    Jason received that just because Michael couldn’t deal with things after the Chandler fiasco.

    LaToya claiming One million to another “victim”.

    Yet Michael never offered anything like that to Evan, did he. Evan was demanding 20 million of course, he then lowered it to 15. But Michael was only ever offering him peanuts during negotiations.

    Look at it logically. If Michael supposedly paid people a million to “hush” them, because he was that worried he would be exposed, then why offer Evan only peanuts? 350 grand wasn’t it? Why offer them a writing deal that would help mend a father/son relationship? That was the real problem and everybody knew it. Michael knew why Evan was doing it, Michael must have realised he had come between father and son, and was trying to put it right. That’s the only explanation I can think of. Because no hater can ever answer the simple question


    And here’s something else that baffles me, but someone can correct if I’m wrong in my confused state.

    Hater’s say Michael couldn’t possibly cough of up 20 min on a plate, because he wasn’t making that much to cover things in the 93 period.

    And we know Michael paid installments over the years. I don’t know about the insurance company…but if Michael did pay out of his own money with installments, why not tell Evan that in the first place. Because surely somebody on the “guilty” party must have thought about that if Michael was incapable of paying the full whack. And THAT WAS Evan’s demand, for installments over a 4 year period.

    Michael could have easily handled that right? If he’s spending millions on other victims, just as good as Evan’s “reasonable” installment demands…then why not do it in the first place?


  7. nannorris permalink
    February 16, 2013 9:38 am

    Kaarin22..Rodney King said “Cant we all get along?”
    As far as OJ,I happened to be home on maternity leave when the murder occurred , which I believe was June and I had time off til December.
    It was non stop coverage on television…
    It was ridiculous, as every person in the room was overwhelmed to be on camera.The only person who didnt seem to be making money or becoming a celebrity ,off their new found fame was the limo driver .
    When I went back to work at my job at a local court house, I was surprised to realize the people I worked with, , thought the police might have messed with the evidence, because they felt he was guilty and wanted to even the playing field for the renowned guy, because they were so certain he was guilty..I was stunned, but then I was pretty young back then..
    Henry Lee the criminologist , involved in the case spoke at my daughters school a few years ago and said that, initially a certain amount of blood was collected around Bundy ( scene of the crime) and a few weeks later the police went back and discovered more on a back gate, that was OJ, ..They also found more blood in his bedroom , I think it was on a sock or something, that had not been noticed at first.
    In the meantime , they had taken a specific amount of OJ blood for DNA purposes..When the defense worked backwards on the DNA evidence they found that the amount of blood found at a later date at the home and crime scene, matched an amount that was missing from the original amount taken in the vial..
    That was a reason for him getting off, because it appeared the police had messed with the evidence, to insure a conviction.
    Mark Furman , who found the bloody glove at OJ house had a history of being a racist, he had lied about , on the stand, and then there was prosecutor Dardin stupidly asking OJ to try the glove on..
    This is my understanding of why the jury couldn t convict , even if they thought he did it..It gave the defense reasonable doubt, due to what the police and prosecutors had shown in court
    As far as Latoya seeing million dollar checks , at that time, I think she would say anything about her own brother for money or attn.
    I also think that when MJ refused to go on tour with some of these relatives or include them in things, they would sell their own tabloid stories for money.
    Wasnt it Latoya , who sold those death bed photos over in England?
    He was a rose surrounded by landfill, imo.
    If she had anything to say , she would have been called by the prosecution..They would have brought in a paper trail from the checking acct, Katherine would have been called, because I believe the initial story involved her also..
    This entire withchhunt was put on by a prosecutor who was very ambitious and was way too involved with Diane Dimond.
    Can you imagine the District Atty having a press conference and referring all questions to her, calling her the MJ expert.
    Talk about blurring fact and fiction..The tabloids must have been having an orgy over that remark


  8. February 18, 2013 5:03 pm

    It was also a question of determining the DNA from mixed blood.There was a lot of that and OJ had a cut finger.Nowadays a 1 cell or even less can be used to determine DNA. They have a method of of the DNA multiplying in vitro so they get a sufficient amount.
    They should have determined the size of the gloves that were not common. OJ´s wife
    Nicole had brought them from Bloomingdales or one of the other expensive stores in NYC. For ex. instead of trying that glove, kept in mud ,wet and then I guess in a refrigerator
    where it must have shrunk and crumpled on OJ´s hand and on top of a surgical glove they
    could with methods of today have attempted to get DNA from the inside of the glove.They can find DNA from archeological findings now that is almost unbelievable.
    If you own a wellfitting leather glove try to fit it on to your hand over a surgical or thin rubberglove.OJ did not try too hard to pull it on anyway.Why should he?
    To me OJ seemed medicated, Prozac I guess, throughout the trial. To keep his nerves in order..


  9. February 18, 2013 9:46 pm

    These fondling issues are so tiresome. What parent has not fondled her or his young child.
    The summers in California are hot, Michael had a swimming pool, they are usually chlorinated to some degree and after swiming or dipping you take a shower,So what if a little kid took the shower naked? Michael was from a big family and a little house. Oh, there was even a naked picture of him climbing into the bath.And maybe they took showers together, the brothers I mean,Nudity is not immediately connected with sexuality in all cultures.It appers though that some get hot just thinking Michael saw pictures of boys in
    shorts , is it “they” who got so turned on?.Anyway nobody said they saw a naked kid with Michael.,exept his own children whom he kept in his arms.
    And Ms Francia got rewarded ,for what? For pimping her son? Then she should have been prosecuted for child abuse or commerce in children.
    Children are attractive just because they are children. Nature has it that way, they need to attract nurture, not sex.


  10. lynande51 permalink
    February 19, 2013 12:17 am

    As far as I know Bill Dworin wasn’t the lead detective in any part of the 1993 investigation. One of the photos from the Gutierrez book has his name on a receipt for items taken from Havenhurst. He found various old magazines in Michael’s closet and in reading some of the titles they were all teen magazines. The names were Tiger Beat, Teen Beat, 16 and a couple of other teen magazines. My guess is that Michael was featured in many of them as a matter of fact I think one of the last issues he was in was during the Dangerous Tour. These were particularly popular in the 1970’s with youing girls ages 12-16 years old.


  11. Tina permalink
    February 19, 2013 12:54 am

    Just to deliver an old article regarding neverending speculations and dirt over MJ and his personality since he was acquitted and still…. years after his passing. Will the man never find peace? Or at least: that is so disturbing for his children :-(( But MJ was labelt over decades asTHE “Society-Freak” right? And such a “Freak” has to be guilty in some dirty way right? Seems no way out… Shameful.


  12. February 19, 2013 1:17 am

    “Will the man never find peace?”

    Tina, I think that Michael will find peace only when (if) we bring it to him. No one else but us should handle the media and give no peace to them.


  13. February 19, 2013 1:21 am

    “As far as I know Bill Dworin wasn’t the lead detective in any part of the 1993 investigation.”

    Lynande, I think that the role of Bill Dworin was specially exaggerated by the media to show that he was someone “important” possessing top important evidence whose opinion was neglected by Gil Garcetti or Laureen Weis of the LA police. He was important enough as one of the many investigators involved but that was it. Tom Sneddon did not even mention him in his Declaration of May 2005.


  14. February 19, 2013 1:25 am

    “And Ms Francia got rewarded ,for what? For pimping her son? Then she should have been prosecuted for child abuse or commerce in children.”

    Kaarin, I haven’t read all the comments yet, but if you are talking about Blanca Francia allegedly seeing Michael in a shower (and with a boy too!) I think I can prove that she was telling a big lie. It is a bit early to speak about it as not everything is ready yet, but the way I understand it it was impossible even in theory.


  15. February 19, 2013 7:43 am

    Yeah, MJ did loads of Teen Beats, 16 magazines, etc back in the 70s and 80s


  16. February 19, 2013 7:45 am

    The summers in California are hot, Michael had a swimming pool, they are usually chlorinated to some degree and after swiming or dipping you take a shower,So what if a little kid took the shower naked? Michael was from a big family and a little house. Oh, there was even a naked picture of him climbing into the bath.And maybe they took showers together, the brothers I mean,Nudity is not immediately connected with sexuality in all cultures.It appers though that some get hot

    Blanca Francia lied, she contradicted herself numerous times. There’s no question about whether “if” this happened or not, it didn’t, it doesn’t need to be explained as it never happened.


  17. February 19, 2013 6:08 pm

    I know Blanca Francia lied. Thanks to V,G,,her friend, she was totally mixed up in her head.She had probably seen, witnessed some quite innocent interactions between Michael and some children. V.G. capitalised on this turning her memories around 180 degrees.And on that photo V.G. looks so young, meaning that their friedship had started much earlier than usually thought or known. And also was close, why else such a pic. where Blanca is so formally dressed. And spanish was their common language.


  18. Matthew Chiglinsky permalink
    March 1, 2013 8:35 am

    I’m confused. This blog post is recent, but Michael Jackson died almost 4 years ago. He doesn’t even feel relevant anymore. I watched one of his old music videos the other day, and I didn’t even feel impressed like when I was a kid.

    I could see through the illusion. Michael Jackson was just one of the many false gods in the modern, materialistic celebrity culture that’s been polluting this world for too long.


  19. March 1, 2013 11:31 am

    “I’m confused. This blog post is recent, but Michael Jackson died almost 4 years ago. He doesn’t even feel relevant anymore.”

    Since you are a cynic, for you Michael Jackson is not relevant (and has never been). But for the rest of us he is and even more so with new coming day. Let us call it a recovery process. A recovery from cynicism and from the old bad habit of sacrificing truth and conscience to money.

    As to conscience even a princess like Lisa Marie Presley is regarding it as a top value now. She said it was due to total lack of this precious thing in people around her that she dropped everything and settled somewhere in a village in the UK. And this is why she prefers to sell fish and chips in a pub now to a glamorous life in Hollywood. This is what recovery is all about.

    “I went through a huge transition in my life where everything and everyone I knew and trusted didn’t turn out to be that way. People that were in my life for a long time turned sinister and tried to control me and all kinds of weird stuff happened. But there was no conscience involved, that threw me more than anything,” she told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “ After that experience I had a really bad view of humans and I didn’t want to feel that way so I moved to the middle of nowhere, to the countryside in England … I enjoy coming back to L.A now because I’m not living in it. I have tons of fun, because I know I can leave.”

    Where’s Lisa Marie? Selling Fish & Chips in a Village
    By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff
    Posted Sep 28, 2012 2:19 PM CDT

    Elvis Presley’s daughter, donning an apron to serve fish and chips in a quiet English village? Yep, and that’s how she likes it, the New York Daily News reports. Having moved to Rotherfield with her husband two years ago, Lisa Marie Presley enjoys hanging out at a local pub run by two of her friends. So when they asked her to help sell food from a van, she was game. “We were laughing because the customers didn’t know it was her,” says one of the pub owners. “She really enjoyed it.”

    What’s more, Presley says she prefers the friendly Brits to “self-absorbed” Californians. “I lived in the same neighborhood [in California] for 17 years, and I didn’t even know a neighbor,” she told the BBC. “When I moved here, I was getting notes and flowers. That’s what I love about it. It’s simple, it’s not flash, it was a quality of life I needed.

    “I watched one of his old music videos the other day, and I didn’t even feel impressed like when I was a kid.

    Michael Jackson was not allowed to work in his full capacity for the last twenty years of his life. We will never hear the new rhythms and music he would have created had he not been hampered in his work, though from what he did in the past century we can assume that it could be smashing.

    But even if some people may not be impressed with his older music, there is an even bigger number of people who come to appreciate him as a great man he was. The value of a real human being does not die and becomes only clearer with time.

    By the way his music is still smashing if you ask me. It is simply turning into a classical one.


  20. Coup De Grace permalink
    November 16, 2016 1:06 am

    Bill Dworin’s “involvement” in the 93 investigation always confused me. I have reasonable suspicion to believe he hardly was involved, if at all. Everyone who we KNOW was involved said they were TOLD the photos matched, but this guy seems out of place.

    Why on Earth did he WAIT 10 years to confirm Chandler’s description matched during a MEDIA FRENZY and make appearances on slanderous documentaries to say that? He should have said it matched right away! Instead, he makes rounds around the Media and partakes in profitable biased documentaries during the second accusation 10 years later.

    Also… I don’t know, I find it odd that LAPD investigated Neverland when it’s on Santa Barbara. I mean, wouldn’t it be more logical to have THEIR officers do the job, since it’s a lot closer? Bill Dworin however, wasn’t even present at the strip search. And it’s like you said Helena, Tom Sneddon makes no mention of him in his 2005 declaration. So what’s his deal?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: