Skip to content

Jackson Case: WHAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT HEAR

February 19, 2013

The continuation of the previous post took longer than I expected. It is meant to be a counter balance to the list called  “Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear”, compiled by the CNN Court TV on the eve of 2008.

The present list includes facts meant to be never heard by the public, and this is the reason why it is much longer than the one made by CNN  – the facts the jury didn’t hear are very few or even none, while what the public did not hear is a huge lot.

The CNN headline is not quite right because even the most salacious of their stories were presented to the jury as I myself read them in the transcripts, so the idea to republish them on the eve of 2008 – several years after the acquittal verdict and a year after Jackson returned to the US – could have no other reason but sheer malice. The Court TV wanted to refresh the old nasty lies in people’s minds, guide them on how to properly remember Michael Jackson on the eve of restarting his career, as well as send Michael a certain message we can only guess of.

Judging by the stories selected for their archive, like the one about a “lubricant” passed by a bodyguard to the “naked sweaty star” to “entertain” Jordan Chandler with, the Court TV drew its inspiration from the book written by Victor Gutierrez where this informant of Diane Dimond and self-confessed attendee of a NAMBLA conference relished this kind of writing. His story is called “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and it is due to its totally false content and openly pro-pedophilia character that it is still banned in the US.  The degree of lies told there is manifested by the fact that the bodyguard in question could not see any of the above even in theory as Jordan Chandler was hardly familiar with Michael Jackson in the period described.

My list of facts has a goal similar to that of the CNN Court TV – it is to tell people the facts they were never meant to hear, see or remember, with the only big difference that my sources are not dubious authors like Gutierrez, but the mainstream US media everyone can check up for themselves. These facts were reported by the media just once but were later completely dropped for some reason.

Long as it is the list will be far from full as the ocean of true but unreported facts about Michael Jackson is simply boundless. Many of them are already well-known for the readers of this blog while some are relatively new as they were previously mentioned only in the comments. 

1. THEY DO NOT MATCH 

We start with a short piece of news so precious on the news market that it is available now for pay only. It is the news which was reported by Reuters and the USA today saying that the police photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia contradicted Jordan Chandler’s lies.

The news came on January 26, 1993 or the next day after the settlement agreement with the Chandlers, so we can imagine how this tiny piece of news was overshadowed by all the roaring, howling and hoopla around the agreement.

Buy Complete Document: Abstract  Full Text Purchase Options   

Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser

[FINAL Edition]

USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) – McLean, Va.

Date: Jan 28, 1994
Start Page: 02.D
Section: LIFE
Text Word Count: 106

Abstract (Document Summary)

The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/55226686.html?did=55226686&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=Photos+may+contradict+Michael%27s+accuser1

Some inquisitive readers were good enough to pay for the rest of this tiny text and never regretted it as what they found was a contrast between how the headline and the body of the article were telling the same news – the headline said that the photos may contradict the accuser, while the text itself said that it did contradict his story:

Full Text: Copyright USA Today Information Network Jan 28, 1994

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday. http://site2.mjeol.com/important-article/photos-may-contradict-michaels-accuser-1994.html

You will agree that there is a big difference between the supposition in the headline and the sure way the news is actually reported by Reuters. The photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia did not match the description given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct and there is no place for doubt here. The fact of the mismatch is undeniable.

The difference in the headline and the story itself made me think a funny thought that for free most people browsing the internet are getting doubt and uncertainty which allows further trashing of Michael Jackson, but for money the inquisitive few are allowed to learn the solid truth about his innocence. Is it a new type of discrimination – by the income and wealth of the reader? Or is it a test of public desire to know the truth – if you want to know the truth work for it and you will finally get it?

The media definitely doesn’t want people to know the truth about Jackson as the news about the photos contradicting the boy’s description was reported just once and by two or three sources only. Now you will not be able to find it anywhere else except the above source and this casts an interesting light on the picture of the media objectiveness and the so-called freedom of information, at least in respect of Michael Jackson.

The contradiction between the photos and the liar’s story is actually all we needed to know about the 1993 allegations, so we could very well stop here and consider the mission fulfilled – Jordan is a liar, Michael Jackson was innocent and was simply slandered by the Chandlers in 1993.

However all these media manipulations with information make me curious to know how the media machine is working against Jackson and take me further to look for its hidden mechanics. It is the same kind of a thrill and curiosity that makes a child lift the cover of an old clock to see its inner mechanism and find out why all its wheels are running so well inside it.

2. LARRY FELDMAN SEEKS TO BAR THE POLICE PHOTOS

Since the photos contradicted the description it is no surprise that soon after Michael Jackson was strip searched and photographed by the police, the boy’s lawyer Larry Feldman wanted to have the photos barred from the civil trial.

Larry Feldman’s request usually makes Michael’s detractors twist and turn as if on a frying pan as it betrays more than anything else the fact that the photos were no match to the boy’s description. Of course Larry Feldman did his best to mask his intentions with a mass of words contradicting his actual purpose, and present the desire to bar the photos as if it were almost a favor to Jackson.

The way it was worded was totally incredible. It was a so-called multiple-choice request filed with the court on January 5, 1994 and insolently demanding that Michael Jackson:

  • either provides Jordan Chandler with copies of the police photographs after which he submits to a second search
  • or Larry Feldman is going to ask the court to bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.

Since it was preceded by an introduction about “Jackson’s guilt” few people reading this precious story realized what he was talking about. Despite all Larry Feldman’s dances around this subject the gist of it was actually a threat: “Michael Jackson, look here, either you give us the photos, we see your genitalia and correctly describe them to the police (with your second strip search being an option) or I’ll arrange for the photos clearing you of suspicion to be barred under some pretext, understand?”

It is no wonder that this beautiful gesture is found nowhere else but in one short article in the Los Angeles Times. To their big credit up till now this paper has not archived this article and it is even freely available to all, for which I am really grateful to the LA Times – they look like an island of credible information in the sea of lies or suppressed truth practised by almost everyone else I see around them.

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTYNEWS IN BRIEF

LOS ANGELES : Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body

Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTYNEWS IN BRIEF

January 05, 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

My huge thanks go to the LA Times for this great news all people have the right to know.

3. SIMPLE LOGIC AGAINST SNOBBISH STUPIDITY

Michael Jackson always said to us that the photos did not corroborate Jordan Chandler’s lies. He appealed to the simple logic of people and explained that if he wasn’t arrested then and there, and there were no criminal charges brought against him and he was sitting there in the Prime Time TV studio together with his wife Lisa Marie Presley giving an interview to Diane Sawyer, all of it should be enough to convey to the public the simple truth that the police had found nothing to match the boy’s false charges.

Here is an excerpt from the June 14, 1995 Prime Time interview where they were discussing this point:

Diane Sawyer: How about the police photographs, though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?

Michael: The police photographs?

Diane Sawyer: The police photographs.

Michael: That they took of me? ….

Diane Sawyer: Yeah.

Michael: There was nothing that matched me to those charges, there was nothing.

Lisa Marie: There was nothing they could connect to him.

Michael: That’s why I’m sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that was found, that could connect me …..

Diane Sawyer: So when we’ve heard the charges….

Michael: There was nothing……

Diane Sawyer: …markings of some kind?

Michael: No markings.

Diane Sawyer: No markings?

Michael: No.

Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the…..

Michael: Why am I still here then?

Lisa Marie: You’re not going to ask me about them, are you? [laughing] Sorry. About the markings?

Diane Sawyer: You volunteered.

Lisa Marie: No, I’m just….the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing a tiny area], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.

Michael: Because it isn’t so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSaM4h_9kkY&feature=related

I’ve heard that some Michael’s fans are dissatisfied with Diane Sawyer’s interview with Jackson and they have their own reasons for it. However they will probably warm up a bit to Diane Sawyer if they learn of the amount of mockery and pressure she had to cope with from her colleagues from the New York Times, for example – the paper called by Larry King “the pillar of American journalism”. They labeled Diane Sawyer’s program “just a professional’s inexpensive disclaimer in an hour’s worth of promotion of the latest Michael Jackson blockbuster album, “HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I.”

The NYTimes was furious that the interview could help promote the new album and on two of its pages spat its disgust at both Michael Jackson’s marriage to Ms. Presley and what they called “a true union” – the one between ABC News and Sony. The judgment they passed on Ms. Sawyer degraded her as a journalist as they accused her of the desire to win cheap fame: “Ms. Sawyer must have discovered some time ago that working as a serious journalist is not the surest path to fame and money on television”. Special stress was made on the fact that “she earned her large salary”.

After such a statement the naïve readers could probably imagine that the NY Times would have made a much more balanced interview had their journalists handled the same story, and it is only the specimen of the NY Times own writing about Michael Jackson which will dispel these naïve thoughts.

A month after Reuters published the news about no match between the photos and the accuser’s the NY Times was lamenting over the corrupt state of affairs in this world where the ‘gilded hand of the offence (meaning the “molestation”) shoved the justice’ and the ‘wicked prize (meaning the agreement) buys out the law’.

This quote from Shakespeare was placed by the NYTimes editor on their site as a sad reflection over the sad morals of the society where these poor intellectuals are forced to live. It is indeed deplorable that these respectable people including the newspaper’s editorial staff and its audience who read Shakespeare in their free time, didn’t bother to check a short piece of news from Reuters telling that the ‘offence’ was never there, and the prize was indeed wicked however not for Jackson, but for the Chandler family who never deserved it.

As if the news of all these lies never reached the part of the world where the New York Times is residing,  the paper is still keeping that accusatory piece in their choicest articles about Michael Jackson:

MICHAEL JACKSON; Two Kings, Similar Dilemmas

Published: February 27, 1994

To the Editor:

In his essay “What’s Next for the King of Pop?” [ Feb. 6 ] , Jon Pareles ponders the fate of Michael Jackson. Shakespeare wrote of a similar dilemma in “Hamlet” (Act III, Scene III) when the King asks of himself: May one be pardon’d and retain th’ offence?

In the corrupted currents of this world

Offence’s gilded hand may shove by justice,

And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself

Buys out the law.

MARSHAL ALAN PHILLIPS Los Angeles

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/27/arts/l-michael-jackson-two-kings-similar-dilemmas-285609.html?src=pm

If I understand it right the above piece compares Michael Jackson to the king who killed Hamlet’s father and married his mother –  so it is actually a murderer who they are comparing Michael Jackson with! And they are doing it despite the Reuter  information that the allegations against Jackson were a lie!  Some media indeed wants to “be pardon’d but stil retain th’ offence”.

4. GIL GARCETTI: “HE IS INNOCENT LIKE ANY CITIZEN IN THIS ROOM”

Gil GarcettiThe person who surprised me most among the officials involved in the 1993 case was Gil Garcetti, the LA District attorney who was the first to start a criminal investigation of the Chandler case on August 17, 1993 (the Santa Barbara authorities opened their investigation later) and closed the case without bringing criminal charges against Jackson together with Tom Sneddon on September 22, 1994.

In contrast to Sneddon who trashed Michael Jackson forever after the year 1993 Gil Garcetti said a number of things which sound somewhat fresh to my ear. From Garcetti’s statement made when closing the investigation we learn that:

  • Jordan Chandler said he did not want and would not testify against Jackson.  Jason Francia also said that he didn’t want to be involved in the case. No mention was made about any fear of fans, the need to heal the shattered nerves of the “victims” and similar factors often cited in connection with the 1993 case.
  • From Gil Garcetti we also find that the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is still valid. He even stressed that Michael Jackson was presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room and should be treated as someone who had never been convicted of a crime (which he sure wasn’t).

The above is completely true of course but after so many years of the media openly calling Michael Jackson a criminal this news sounds a little strange to our untrained ear. It will surely take us some time to get used to what the real law says about the 1993 case – Michael was not charged with a crime, and is therefore innocent and is no worse than any of us sitting at our computers now.

Here is an article quoting Gil Garcetti:

No Charges for Now Against Michael Jackson

By SETH MYDANS

Published: September 22, 1994

…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.”

But, responding to questions, Mr. Garcetti told reporters: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted of a crime. We are not charging Michael jackson with a crime.”

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

A year later, in his 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer, Michael Jackson allowed himself to simply repeat the same truth, but instead of listening to what the law was saying, the media and the public broke into a roar of indignation, fury and mockery, all of which lead to repercussions against Diane Sawyer and a lawsuit for defamation against Michael Jackson (later tossed out) from Evan Chandler for $60 mln. this time.

None of them wanted Michael Jackson to ever speak about his innocence in public.

5. THE KEY EVIDENCE IS SUPPRESSED

The media agenda against Jackson is manifested extremely well by some people’s fixed idea on erasing everything there is to erase about Jordan Chandler’s wrong description of Michael Jackson, and even manipulating with the evidence and replacing the true facts with fiction.

Changing the color in the description given by Jordan Chandler is a very funny example of it. What Jordan described as the “light splotches the color of his face” allegedly seen on MJ’s genitals and fixed by Detective Deborah Linden in her 1993 report before the photos, after the photos was changed into “one dark spot” about which Sneddon spoke in his declaration many years later, in 2005.

The news about the color of one real spot became known much earlier than 2005 of course, and the first people to learn about Jordan’s mistake were the Chandlers. Therefore Victor Gutierrez, who worked in close collaboration with Evan Chandler when writing his book, was also the first to change the story into the opposite one. He mentioned it in 1995, two years after MJ’s photo session. Then the correct color of the spot was repeated by Maureen Orth in her Vanity Fair article and many years later by Diane Dimond in her book.

This true detail unfortunately added much credibility to their stories and this confused many minds, however the basic fact that it was reported after making the photos was somewhat overlooked by some analysts. The fact that Victor Guttierez was the first to know it betrays the link between Victor Gutierrez and Evan Chandler, and Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond being Gutierrez’s avid readers, however no one rules out still another version – that it was Tom Sneddon or someone in his office who informed these two ladies about the color of a marking  found on the photos and consequently the light (not dark) color of the genitals.

Jordan initially spoke of several light splotches “the color of his face”. The genitalia he thought to be dark in reality turned out to be light. This grave mistake was described in minute detail in various earlier posts, so let us not get stuck on that. Instead we need to focus on another more sinister process taking place now and it is a mass, deliberate and artificially incited amnesia of Jordan’s words about the so-called Michael Jackson’s circumcision.

6. CIRCUMCISION AMNESIA

The story of Jordan’s mistake concerning Michael’s non-circumcision is much more difficult to forge and while it was still fresh in people’s minds no one really tried to change things into the opposite. However now that 20 years have passed such an attempt is finally being made.

We know from the autopsy report that Michael Jackson was the way the mother nature made him – he was not circumcised. And Jordan Chandler said that he was. Why he said it is clear – the majority of males in the US are circumcised, Jordan was half Jew himself and neither he nor his father who was inventing the fictional molestation story could ever imagine that Michael Jackson would turn out not to be circumcised like all others are.

But since Michael was not, it became the biggest stumbling block for the police. They tried to play with the idea of the penis being erect at all times, but the theory was not good enough as it still did not explain how someone masturbating someone else didn’t see the foreskin moving during the process (my apologies to the reader)

However nothing is impossible for the media and prosecutors like Sneddon. If you browse the internet for the circumcision issue now you will be greatly amazed that all mention of Jordan’s words was erased and that Michael’s detractors are claiming now that Jordan never said those words.

If you say that he did say it they will demand a source and sadistically add that they need a “credible” source and not some tabloid like the Smoking Gun which they have suddenly stopped believing. They believed every word of it for the past 20 years and now all of a sudden it is no longer good for them, you know.

Never mind the report of Deborah Linden that recorded Jordan’s circumcision words in 1993 (the report or its description are nowhere to be found now). Never mind the quotes from the report recklessly reprinted by the Smoking gun in 2005 – at that time they did not yet know what a terrible strategic mistake they were making by repeating Jordan’s words and only after the autopsy report quickly removed the article from public view (I hear that now it is back though). Never mind the fact that all of us still remember the media frenzy over the circumcision issue and that Jordan did call MJ circumcised.

Despite this fact still well remembered by us all information about this crucial issue was effectively erased from all over the net – except for the books, of course.

Fortunately the “circumcision” point was recorded in the books of that period and it is the first time I thank God that he kept for us the heinous pieces by Victor Gutierrez and Stacy Brown recording Jordan’s lies, as well as several reissues of Randy Taraborrelli’s book where his words are now carved in stone.

As one of the examples of Jordan calling MJ circumcised let me quote Victor Gutierrez as the worst Michael Jackson’s hater. The quote is provided with the sole purpose not to let anyone twist now the original Jordan’s lies the way they were told in 1993.

With all this media manipulation around Michael Jackson we’ve found ourselves in an incredible situation when even their lies have to be recorded for them by truthful Michael’s reporters so that these liars never forget how they lied about Jackson!

  • “Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised.” (Victor Gutierrez)

Victor Gutierrez alleged that he had access to the so-called Jordan’s drawing, which he included into his book, and over there the word “circumcised” was written on the very top of the drawing.  The piece looked like it was made by Evan Chandler and not Jordan, and had words like “my theory” which pointed to the description being a supposition only, but for fixing Jordan’s words about Mike being “circumcised” it is the best of all documents:

Evan's drawing - part of it

Can anyone tell me why the media is so preoccupied with hating Michael Jackson that it is ready to revise history and deny the obvious, so that they delete every single mention of Jordan’s original words even from their archives?

7. ALL OF THEM WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS A MATCH

Besides erasing the key evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence a lot of other  funny things are taking place around the official version of the 1993 case. One of these things is the fact that all those involved in the investigation say that they were told that the photos and Jordan’s description matched. The only explanation I can find for this strange phenomenon is that no one wants to bear responsibility for this big lie and everyone shifts the blame onto someone else’s shoulders.

Jim Thomas later worked as a consultant for NBC

Jim Thomas later worked as a consultant for NBC

Even the then Santa Barbara sheriff Jim Thomas, who led the investigation in 1993 together with Sneddon’s department,  joked in ‘The Abrams Report’ of May 26, 2005 that he ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos. Abrams sounded delighted by the joke but evidently totally missed the point that  it was actually the Sheriff’s duty to look and compare.

Imagine the same Sheriff saying that he ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos from the scene of a murder, and even joking about it now, and you will realize that the spectacle he arranged for the Abrams’ audience was a cheap comedy:

ABRAMS:  Jim Thomas, you led the investigation in 1993.  Did you look at the pictures of Michael Jackson‘s genitals?

THOMAS:  Well, I had the opportunity to, Dan, and I turned it down.  And that‘s a decision that I still cherish to this day.

(LAUGHTER)

ABRAMS:  Yes, I guess it‘s not exactly one of those things that you want to have sticking in your head for all that time, kind of image.  But the bottom line was, though, Jim, how consistent was the picture that the 1993 accuser drew to what the actual photographs showed?

THOMAS:  Well, what I hear from my investigators from back then is that it was almost identical.  I don‘t know that to be a fact, because I didn‘t view them.  But I understand they were very consistent.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  All right.  Well, Jim Thomas‘s claim to fame will be, “I refused to look at the pictures of Michael Jackson‘s genitals.”

THOMAS:  And I stick by it.

ABRAMS:  Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8044583#.UKtBYOQ3YcQ

There can be no doubt that he did compare the photos with the description and now he is  making jokes only to avoid the need to give a direct answer about the gross contradiction between these two ‘exhibits’.

And the way he is talking about the alleged ‘consistency’ would be funny if it were not that tragic – he didn’t view them himself, but he heard from his investigators that they were almost identical and very consistent, though he doesn’t know it for a fact. And we hear all this from a person who was actually leading the investigation…

Dr. Richard Strick

Dr. Richard Strick

When Dr. Richard Strick was speaking to Geraldo, he also said that he had been told about the match, but his case was different. The doctor was specially assigned by the authorities to compare the photos with Jordan’s description and make the final determination, and with this purpose he took part in Michael Jackson’s body search.

The doctor produces the impression of an honest man, so in his case he was most probably simply not given access to the second part of the ‘exhibits’ – I mean the boy’s description, though the genitalia and the photos he did see.

In the video below Dr. Strick speaks of that notable body search and somewhat in passing mentions that he was told that it was a match. Someone even told him that it was an absolute match:

  • “Michael had a disease vitiligo, in which the pigment is lost and attempts had been made to bring the pigment back which had been unsuccessful , then to bleach it out so it would be one color. …The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin.
  • I was told later that the description and the photos that were taken, absolutely matched what the child had described.

The full version of the  interview is found here: http://video.foxnews.com/v/3935470/scarred-star#q=scarred+star

Aren’t these two top specialists involved in the case making an odd couple? One of them is familiar with the drawing but ‘turned down’ the photos, while the other one is not familiar with the drawing but saw the photos instead. And both say they think it was a match because they were told so!

But look here. If Dr. Strick is familiar with only one side of the story (the photos), so how could he talk about it being strange that the boy could describe the color marks on MJ’s genitals? First of all the boy’s description was not correct in respect of the color marks either. Second, any of us could say that due to vitiligo MJ had spots there, same as on the rest of his body. And third, Dr. Strick didn’t even know what Jordan had said as he didn’t see the drawing or the description himself.  He must have heard about it from someone else and is just repeating this person’s words.

Well, the further we go the funnier it gets.

Okay, let’s go over the full list of those who could have access to those photos and drawings, make the determination and inform all the others of a false match.

We learn of all the parties involved in the process from Sneddon’s declaration submitted to the 2005 trial. Here is the first part of it:

DECLARATION OF THOMAS W.SNEDDON, JR.

I, Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., say:

1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in all the courts of this state. I am, and since 1983 have been, the elected District Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara. I am the lead counsel for the prosecution in the trial of The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1133603.

2. In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation of allegation by Jordan Chandler, a minor child, and his family that young Jordan had been sexually molested by Defendant in Los Angeles and in Santa Barbara Counties. Los Angeles Police Detective Rosibel Ferrufino was one of the investigators in that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department commenced its own investigation of the allegation, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department. Sheriff’s Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators.

3. In the course of LAPD’s investigation of the allegations, Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present. Jordan was asked to relate information concerning his reported relationship with Michael Jackson. In the course of the interview Jordan Chandler made detailed statements concerning the physical appearance of Michael Jackson, in particular the coloration of and marks on the skin of his lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis. Jordan was asked to draw a picture of Mr. Jackson’s erect penis and to locate on that drawing any distinctive marks he recalled. Jordan did so. The drawing was signed and dated by Jordan Chandler and was attached as Exhibit 1 to Detective Ferrufino’s report in LAPD Case No. 930822245.

4. On December 13,1993, as part of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s investigation into young Chandler’s allegations a search warrant was obtained authorizing the search of Michael Jackson’s person and for the taking of photographs of his genitals. That warrant was executed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara on December 20, 1993. The resulting photographs have been retained by the Sheriff’s Department, under tight security. (Note: the Veritas Project says that the security was so tight that even Geraldo Rivera had a chance to see the photos)

Let me try and sort out this mess for you:

  • The Los Angeles police department started a criminal investigation [on August 17, 1993]. The investigation team included Detective Rosibel Ferrufino and other investigators (Bill Dworin was among them but he isn’t even mentioned by Sneddon). The investigation team submitted all their evidence to Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney and Laureen Weis as his Deputy.
  • Laurin Weis interviewed Jordan on September 1, 1993 with Ferrufino and a court reporter present. A detailed description was made by Jordan Chandler.

*  *  *

  • Some time later the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department commenced its own investigation. Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators. Her boss was Jim Thomas (the one who later ‘turned down’ to see the photos). The investigators submitted all their findings to Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara.
  • On December 13, 1993 Deborah Linden interviewed Jordan Chandler and made a so-called Linden affidavit which no one ever saw but everyone heard of as it was there that Jordan spoke of “the light splotches the color of his face” and the circumcision issue.
  • On the basis of Linden’s affidavit a search warrant was obtained from the judge to make a body search of Michael Jackson. The search and photographing of Michael’s naked body took place on December 20, 1993. [Dr. Richard Strick representing the authorities was present].

Now let us review this list of the candidates for the one who passed a wrong verdict on the compared exhibits.

1. Dr. Richard Strick, who was specially hired for the job, is out as no one allowed him to look at the drawings and all he knows is that he was ‘told’ that it was an ‘absolute’ match.

2. The Los Angeles Unit

Investigator Rosibel Ferrufino of the Los Angeles sheriff deparment is not the final authority to make any determinations. She and other investigators submitted their findings to the Los Angeles Prosecutors (Gil Garcetti and his deputy Laureen Weis) for further evaluation.

As to Gil Garcetti we already know what he said about Michael – that he was innocent (until proven guilty) and should be treated like all of us sitting in this room. So Gil Garcetti most probably saw both “exhibits” and concluded that they did not match.

His deputy Laureen Weis was the one who was conducting the investigation and actually closed it. In his book Victor Gutierrez complained that this woman “didn’t want to file charges against Michael Jackson as he was too powerful for her”.

However Laureen Weis is not someone to be intimidated by either Michael Jackson or the Sheriff’s investigators or personalities like Gutierrez. She took 40 violent felony cases to the jury trial and worked specifically on sexual assault cases as Acting Head Deputy of the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Division. After working for 23 years at the District Attorney’s office she became one of the Superior Court Judges. Here is her biography:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcInglewoodJudgeBirnsteinBio.html

The apparent reason why Laureen Weis closed the case was because she saw both exhibits too, determined that there was a huge difference between them and no reason to bring any criminal charges against Michael Jackson .

3. The Santa Barbara unit

Jim Thomas, the Santa Barbara sheriff who ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos, is out too, same as his employee Deborah Linden – I doubt that she was more informed than her boss.

lindenSo after striking out of the list all these people the only person we are left with is Tom Sneddon to whom the investigators of the Sheriff department brought all their findings and who could be the only one to make a wrong determination and spread lies about Jackson, making his own employees, the media and the public repeat like parrots that it was an “absolute match”.

8. SNEDDON LIED

Tom Sneddon is not even hiding the fact that was him who compared the two exhibits and had the final say. He speaks about it in his declaration, and the only way how the declaration is different from the official media version is that the media confidently reported that it was “an absolute match” while nothing can be more vague and uncertain than Tom Sneddon’s declaration.

As a side note let me say that using the Prosecutor instead of an expert or an independent third party is a somewhat novel approach to evaluating the evidence. If one party only is allowed to do the key determinations in the case defense attorneys will also follow this example and make determinations concerning some evidence, imposing on everyone their own version of the story only and denying access to all those who want to check up their findings.

Imagine Thomas Mesereau making a determination over some photos, presenting his findings to the media as the final conclusion and everyone going by what he said only, forever after and without double checking. This is what Tom Sneddon actually did and perfectly got away with.

Here is the second part of Sneddon’s declaration:

5. I have reviewed the statements made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1, 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I believe Chandler’s graphic representation of the discolored area on the Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.

Incredible stuff, isn’t it? The “light splotches the color of his face” in Sneddon’s version first morphed into a discolored  (i.e. light) area and then into a “brown spot” found at some totally uncertain “relatively same location”.

Similarly Jordan’s words about “circumcision” turned into an “erect penis” implying to those who are unfamiliar with the subject that it is the same thing (while it is absolutely not).

T.SneddonAnd the next Sneddon’s statement is the apotheosis of twisting the truth and saying things the meaning of which no one is able to understand:

6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.

Let me decipher it a bit.  He alleges that Jordan’s Chandler had some knowledge, only does not state what it was. This unspecified vague thing is compared with an absolutely correct opinion of Michael’s defendants that he is shy and modest. The vague thing is mentioned to rebut the defendants’ opinion, but doesn’t do it fully but only substantially.

And this vocabulary acrobatics is stated instead of a simple comparison of  Jordan’s exact words with the specifics of the photos?  The declaration finishes off with the quintessence of uncertainty where the only thing really clear to its readers is that Sneddon is absolutely not sure even of the above statements and is saying all this crap not to bear responsibility for perjury:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.

Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Our contributor Lynande51 explained what the concept of “information and belief” means:

  • “Sneddon based his statement on “information and belief”” which is a term used for information used from a second source other than the photographs or the actual affadavit. In others words someone told him it was a match too but just in case the other person was wrong he could not be held perjurous for giving false information to the jury or the court.”

Very, very nice indeed. So Sneddon was also told  about the match.

All of them were.

When you read documents like the above you never know whether to sob or laugh at it.  And this mess was presented to all of us as an “absolute match” and for two decades too!

As to the media that shamelessly presented this nonsense as solemn truth all I can say is that Sneddon’s stories you reported about Jackson are complete bulls*t, and over here I am tempted to quote Macaulay Culkin who in Black and White video said “Eat this” before kicking his father across the ocean to face some Michael Jackson’s music there.

Sorry guys, just couldn’t resist the temptation.

9. MICHAEL JACKSON AGREED TO BE DEPOSED, THOUGH HE DIDN’T HAVE TO

MJ’s haters like talking about Michael’s unwillingness to be deposed though finally Michael did agree to it. We all know that Michael could refuse to testify and very well use his 5th Amendment right like all other people do, however in civil cases it is very much frowned upon and may even be considered as a sign of guilt.

The worst part of it was that if Michael had been deposed he would have been exposed to the prosecution like a barefoot man facing a knight on a horse clad with a sword and shield. They (the prosecution) know everything about him and he knows nothing about them, and only God knows what they have done with all the evidence provided to them beforehand by means of that deposition.

This concerns not only the deposition proper but all findings made by the other side within the civil suit. In 1993 the new Michael’s lawyer Johnny Cochran (and Howard Wietzman) vehemently opposed provision for the criminal investigation of the evidence obtained as a result of the discovery process in a civil case.

Cochran and Wietzman fought against Laureen Weis, Gil Garcetti’s deputy, but she took the upper hand in the argument:

Cochran and Howard Weitzman, two of Jackson’s lawyers, fought vigorously to prevent information obtained during the discovery process in the boy’s lawsuit from being turned over to prosecutors. They argued that investigators were trying to use the suit to advance their criminal investigation, a technique that Jackson’s lawyers said should not be allowed.

But Lauren Weis, who heads the sex crimes unit of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, said investigators should be able to review that material to assist them in deciding whether criminal charges are warranted against Jackson. Although law enforcement sources previously said a decision about whether to file charges could be reached by January, Cochran said he was recently notified that it will not be concluded before February.

“We have a right to know if these witnesses made contrary statements at other times,” Weis said, in arguing for access to the civil discovery material, which includes sworn statements by possible witnesses. Four people–a chauffeur for Jackson and several maids, including one who alleges that she saw Jackson naked in the shower and in a whirlpool bath with young boys–have been deposed so far in the civil case.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-18/local/me-3080_1_jackson-case

Cochran and Weitzman lost then, but what seemed to be a big disadvantage in 1993 turned into a big advantage twenty years later.

Why? Because it means that Laureen Weis had access to all the evidence obtained by Larry Feldman within the civil suit and this evidence included the worst of what Larry Feldman had – Jordan Chandler’s declaration as well as two depositions of Blanca Francia, Jason Francia’s mother (the one who claimed she had seen Jackson in a shower), the deposition of the driver who allegedly took Michael Jackson for “30 nights” to June Chandler’s home. etc.

Among many other things that evidence included the videotape of Jordan Chandler’s interview with Dr. Richard Gardner made in October 1993.

The fact that the Deputy District Attorney who was head of the sex crimes unit in Los Angeles, saw all that evidence and still found no grounds for bringing criminal charges against Jackson, means that Dr. Richard Gardner most probably made a negative conclusion about the veracity of Jordan Chandler’s words. We have another indirect indication of it as Larry Feldman was forced to take the video to another doctor, Dr. Katz and have it evaluated by him as well.

Dr. Katz’s opinion was also to be made available to Laureen Weis.

Both of those psychiatrists’ conclusions must be somewhere there, in Laureen Wies’s files now. And it was after looking through all that evidence and after the prosecution submitted all of it to the Grand jury that Michael Jackson was nevertheless not indicted, criminal charges were not brought against him and the LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti declared Michael Jackson an innocent man no worse than any of us sitting in this room now.

They saw everything and still found nothing, and this is what we should remember forever after.

Please note that since the photos were made by the Santa Barbara police department there is a chance that Tom Sneddon never showed those photos to the Los Angeles unit. In case he did show them, it means that the Los Angeles unit noted the contradiction between the two exhibits. In case Sneddon did not do it, so much the worse for him – all it shows is that he was keen on suppressing the key evidence exonerating Jackson from his Los Angeles colleagues and should therefore take full responsibility for the lies he was telling about Jackson.

As regards the October interview with psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner let me also note that only a month prior to that, in a lawsuit filed on September 13 Larry Feldman described Jordan Chandler in a bad state, saying that “The alleged sexual acts have and continue to cause the boy “great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering and emotional distress”.

However from the transcript of Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner I didn’t notice any of his suffering.  On the contrary already in October 1993 when his “therapy” had been far from over our brave boy was chirping like a happy bird that he had no stress whatsoever and the only thing he was afraid of was a cross-examination.

And this brings us to a matter which is the next best thing to a cross-examination in a courtroom – a deposition which in a civil suit is to be taken by the accuser by all means.

10. JORDAN WAS OBLIGED TO GIVE A DEPOSITION, BUT NEVER AGREED

The media will never tell you about this, but Michael Jackson as a defendant in a civil case had an almost unfettered right to have Jordan Chandler deposed in order to listen to what the boy had to say against him, why he was accusing him and what proof he could offer to support his allegations. Jordan’s version was to be challenged by Michael Jackson’s lawyers and the whole procedure was the next closest thing to a cross-examination.

I repeat – Michael Jackson’s right to Jordan’s deposition was practically unlimited.

We know about a deposition being an almost obligatory procedure for a plaintiff in a civil suit from an article that argues that the same system should apply to criminal investigations too, however over there it is practiced less often. This conveys to us the idea that in a criminal investigation Jordan was less likely to be deposed, though it was still possible:

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. Daily Journal – Mar 8, 2006

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

The media always focused on Michael’s unwillingness to be deposed (which I understand perfectly well), but keeps total silence about the fact that Jordan Chandler never took a deposition, though for him it was a procedure to which he simply couldn’t say “No”.

Michael Jackson could at least take his 5th Amendment right, while Jordan Chandler could not, so what was possible for Michael Jackson as a defendant was impossible for his accuser Jordan – he had to face Michael Jackson or his lawyers and answer their questions by all means.

Bert Fields, Michael’s first attorney was planning to depose Jordan and was very much willing to cross-examine him after Jordan gave a description of Michael’s genitals. Howard Weizman worded it in an empatic way: “You got to be kidding me. Mr. Fields is going to depose this young man at the appropriate time”.

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

Michael’s detractors will naturally say that Michael was “afraid” to listen to what Jordan would disclose at a deposition and this will be a grave insult to the truth because at that stage Michael had already nothing to be afraid of.

All of it was already in the press, and nothing could be worse that the so-called Jordan’s declaration or the text of the lawsuit with all its graphic descriptions, or even the Linden affidafit with Jordan’s words leaked to the press and all the dirty gossip freely circulating there.

The only party that could be afraid of that deposition was Jordan himself as his fictional version was to be thoroughly challenged by Michael’s lawyers, and the issue of the wrong description would have been surely raised there too. What would Jordan have said if he had been confronted with the huge discrepancies between his description and real Michael Jackson’s body, I wonder?

In fact if Jordan Chandler had been deposed there would have probably be no need for the settlement at all – he would have surely cracked down there and the case would have simply fallen apart.

All questions why Jordan was not deposed should be addressed to Michael’s lawyers of course, but I see a partial reason for it in Michael’s desire to protect Jordan from an even bigger ordeal than his own father was putting him through. Knowing Evan’s evil temper Michael was sorry for Jordan, and knew that it would only get worse if he was humiliated further, especially if Evan Chandler didn’t get what he wanted. Frank Cascio recalled Evan’s terrible temper in his book “My friend Michael”:

“Thinking back on it, I remembered how Jordy had said that Evan had a terrible temper, that when he was upset he’d scream and bang things around the house. “

Many years after the 1993 events Michael told Frank that he did not believe that it was Jordan’s fault and thought that the boy was not to answer for his father’s nastiness and greed. He was probably mistaken here, same as with Gavin Arvizo, but this is what Michael Jackson was all about – he was simply unable to imagine innocent children to be capable of any wrongdoing, and it was only life itself which taught him otherwise.

Frank Cascio wrote about it:

AS FAR AS WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH JORDY’S FAMILY, we only talked to Michael about it when he brought it up. When he did speak about it, it was often in a wistful tone, and I could tell that he was still trying to comprehend the fact that this horrible thing had occurred.

“I did so much for his family,” he’d say.

I would almost always respond with anger, saying things like “I just don’t understand how he could do such a thing.”

“You don’t understand,” Michael would reply. “I don’t blame Jordy. It’s not his fault. It’s his father’s fault.”

Michael forgave Jordy. He knew that a child wouldn’t come at him and ruthlessly attack him of his own volition. He believed it all came from the father. Later, when I was older, Michael would tell me that Jordy’s father had wanted Michael to invest in a film he wanted to make. Michael initially liked the idea, but his advisers were against it. They dismissed Jordy’s father rather thoughtlessly, and Michael, not one for confrontation, blew him off, too. Michael thought that this, more than anything else, had set Evan Chandler off.

And this brings us to the matter of how much the Chandlers wanted and how much they got as a result of a settlement with Michael Jackson.

11. THEY ASKED FOR  $30 MLN. BUT AGREED TO A HALF

 While everyone is talking about millions extorted by the Chandlers, some correction should be made as regards the sum they were extorting – when the civil case was not yet opened they wanted $20mln, but when they filed it they demanded $30 mln.

Evan could raise the sum out of sheer spite, as a sort of punishment for Michael Jackson’s resistance. Or he could be thinking that if you want to get 20 ask for 30 instead  to be able to go back when the buyer starts bargaining.

The true sum of the lawsuit has never been disclosed by the media though the text of Chandler’s lawsuit has been displayed in full view for everyone to enjoy it and savor its most salacious details.

So you won’t be able to find any other source of information for it except the highly credible article by Mary Fischer’s “Was Michael Jackson framed?” published in the October 1994 issue of the GQ magazine when the ink was not yet dry on the final settlement agreement. For some reason not a single mass media outlet chose to repeat those true words. Instead all of them chose to say that the sum of the lawsuit was not disclosed.

However Mary Fischer’s article clearly names $30 mln. as the sum initially demanded by the Chandlers:

In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.

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

I see only one reason why Michael’s detractors avoid naming the real sum and the media never mentions it. The reason is a stark contrast between what the Chandlers asked for ($30 mln) and what they go ($15,3mln).

What I mean is that if they were asking  for 20 and got something around that sum it would have looked like their complete victory, while asking for 30 and getting 15,3 may look like a step back and a forced compromise which may raise questions. Cutting the initial sum by a half  looks especially suspicious as it came almost immediately after Michael Jackson submitted himself to a body search and was not arrested then and there.

The small ‘unpleasantness’ with no match between the photos and the description surely affected the sum of the settlement once the Chandlers realized that they were on a road to a complete ruin.

Many focus on the point that the money was paid by the insurance company and not Jackson, but even if Michael was fighting not for his own money the fact that less than a month after the body search the extortionists reduced the sum by a half  looks like an impressive sign of sheer panic in the Chandlers’ ranks.

However the question still remains – if the photos did not match and the situation was slowly turning against the Chandlers why did Michael Jackson settle then?

My personal opinion is that the straw that broke the camel’s back was the news that the trial could be televised. 

12. THE CIVIL TRIAL WAS TO BE TELEVISED

This media secret is one of the biggest media secrets of all. You will never hear them talk about it, and you will even see them busy hiding this information. The gist of it is that no matter what trial Michael Jackson was facing – civil or criminal, there was a big chance that it was going to turn into a big every day show.

Surprise-surprise, but the channel planning to broadcast the trial was the CNN Court TV, the one we started this post with.  Isn’t it interesting that when CNN was making their recent archive of the most ‘interesting’ articles about Michael Jackson’s molestation cases they totally forgot to mention their own ‘interesting’ role in the 1993 drama.

It is also interesting that the decision to televise the trial was made public almost immediately after Michael Jackson’s strip search, on December 25 which was  five days after the photo session (December 20) and three days after he made his teary TV appeal (December 22).

It could be the sight of Michael Jackson almost crying on the screen that set the CNN Court TV on this road, however in my opinion it was the photos which decided it all.

The prospect of seeing the photos of his genitals on the screen showed to the company the gigantic potential of the TV coverage of the trial. For Court TVit was a win-win situation guaranteeing sky-rocketing ratings for the program and the fun of the century for the public, and it was only Michael Jackson who was guaranteed the worst humiliation of his lifetime.

The first time we see the news about Court TV planning to televise the show was three days after Michael’s statement on TV:

Court TV seeks to televise a Michael Jackson trial

December 25, 1993|By Tom Jicha | Tom Jicha,Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel

Michael Jackson said Wednesday he is hoping for a speedy trial so he can clear his reputation of allegations he has molested young boys. If and when the entertainer gets his day in court, video voyeurs might be able to follow almost every minute of the proceedings.

Steven Brill, chief executive officer and editor of Court TV, said his network “would seek to cover [a Jackson trial] if it happens.”

Court TV would be interested in either a criminal or civil trial. The civil trial brought on behalf of a 13-year-old boy is tentatively scheduled to start in March. No criminal charges have been brought against Mr. Jackson.

California permits TV cameras in the courtroom. Court TV helped turn the lengthy Menendez brothers murder trial into a daily alternative to soap operas for millions of viewers. That there are minors involved in the Jackson case, however, complicates matters.

Mr. Brill said he is not certain that cameras will be permitted in the courtroom, but he hopes Court TV’s record for discretion and responsibility will help gain TV access.

“The [California] rules are unclear when there are children involved,” Mr. Brill said. “However, we would explain to the judge that it is our policy not to use the names and faces of minors.”

At the first prominent court proceeding in the cable network’s brief history, the Palm Beach rape trial of William Kennedy Smith, Court TV used a blue dot to shield the identity of Patricia Bowman, who after the trial allowed the release of her name.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-12-25/features/1993359009_1_jackson-trial-brill-michael-jackson

If no settlement had been made I can bet whatever you like that Court TV would have found a way to explain to the judge that the coverage would be essential for ensuring freedom of information and well-being of the nation as well as the principles of democracy the country was founded on at all. So over here we should have no worry – they would have arranged that TV coverage all right.

It was Michael Jackson who had to do all the worrying.

In order to prove his complete innocence Michael Jackson had nothing else to do but produce those damned photos as the evidence exonerating him – first to the twelve men and women in the jury, the judge, the court reporter, and the police men and women in the courtroomThen there was a possibility that they would be shown to the media and spectators present at the trial, and then possibly to the world TV audience too…

The next day after the news of a possible TV coverage was reported the LA Times confirmed the story:

Now, those immediate problems have been lifted, and he will avoid the spectacle of a nationally televised civil trial probing the most intimate aspects of his personal life.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

Following this December 26, 1993 news a certain silence fell and no one spoke of the subject any further.

After placing all these events in their time perspective I think that it was not after the December 20th strip search that Michael Jackson’s will was finally broken. I think it was after the December 25th announcement of the possible TV coverage of the trial that he realized what a dreadful ordeal was in store for him and that he would be simply unable to cope with it.

Bad as it was the strip search he had to undergo on December 20 was witnessed by several people only, but if the trial is televised his strip search would be witnessed by the whole world.

He was completely innocent as the photos were proving it, but imagine for a second the enlarged photos of your own genitals displayed on the TV screen and you will probably realize that the situation was a total impasse for Michael Jackson, no matter how incredibly innocent he was.

I am sure that the horror of seeing these photos the next morning on the front page of every newspaper existing in the world made the situation even clearer to Jackson and demanded that something should be urgently done to avoid even the slightest danger of it happening.

So when the media and especially the CNN Court TV is feigning surprise as to why that terrible Jackson settled the suit with that little angel Jordan Chandler they should please first look at themselves in the mirror – it is them who forced Jackson into taking this decision and if it were not for the danger that a television camera would stick into his genitals he would have probably never settled and the case could have fallen apart without any trial at all.

But did Michael Jackson know of that TV danger?

Yes, he did.

When Martin Bashir asked him about the 1993 case Michael named a possible TV coverage as the first reason for the settlement.

Bashir 12Before you read the respective quote from the film transcript please pay attention to the shrewd way Bashir is conveying to his audience the wrong idea that Michael could “go to jail” in 1993 and that it was only the financial settlement that prevented it from happening.

Dear readers, the settlement had nothing to do with the criminal case! Jail was not an issue as all civil trials are about money only. Jordan could testify at a criminal trial and refused to do it twice and there was nothing, absolutely nothing (except his fear and probably slight pangs of conscience) that were standing in the way to his testimony.

As for Michael Jackson, by now I am almost ready to cry on his shoulder in full understanding of the terrible prospect he was facing in 1993 and the impasse he found himself in due to that beastly media:

Bashir: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail is  because, because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”

Jackson: “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ, and  all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, look, get  this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had  enough, go.”

http://www.mjshouse.com/stories/living_with_mj_transcript.wm

So Michael was fully aware of the TV danger and named it as the first reason for his decision to settle. And it was only due to his shyness that he never focused on that point as even speaking about it and seeing talk shows discussing the prospect of those photos on TV would have been a dreadful humiliation in and of itself.

The Chandlers must have also realized the impasse Michael Jackson found himself in and saw it as a big advantage for themselves.

Now the media is unwilling to accept their fault for what happened to Michael Jackson in 1993. They are trying to hide the fact of a possible TV show of Michael Jackson’s case and cut out all mention of its possible TV coverage.

We know it from the clipped way the same Michael’s words said to Bashir were reported many years later, on the day of Michael Jackson’s death. What initially sounded like “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ” in the 2009 version turned into a simple “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing”:

Jackson always denied doing anything wrong and justified the pay-out by saying: “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing.”

Jordan Chandler later maintained his silence and refused to testify in the Gavin Arvizo case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5650959/Michael-Jackson-the-child-abuse-allegations.html

The ommission of what is actually the very essence of the story is so tale-telling that it screams the truth better than any words – the media does not want us to know about this particular fact of the 1993 story and does not want us to know the truth about Jackson in general.

I am not saying that television is a bad thing to have in life – no, it may be very helpful as Conrad Murray’s trial showed it, but if Michael Jackson refused the honor of participating in a trial where his intimate photos were to be used for proving his complete innocence, then his decision should be understood and respected.

No one should be allowed to ridicule a man who was declared innocent even by the prosecutor who was investigating the case and said that he was no worse than any of us sitting in this room now. No one should be mocked for his desire to avoid the terrible humiliation of the TV trial that would have turned his life into an ordeal. Michael Jackson had the right and freedom of making his choices too, and everyone should be respectful of his right.

He was innocent and this is the main point.

All we needed to know is found there in those photos, which proved that Jordan Chandler lied and Michael Jackson never did it – and this is all there is to know about the case.  If the media had reported the truth we would have learned it much earlier and Michael Jackson would probably be alive now. The media’s role is to report the truth and not make money, fame or ratings at the expense of lies about the innocent man and his immense suffering.

The fact that the media is not disclosing the whole truth about that story even now makes me think that they know what a disastrous role their disgraceful behavior played in that particular situation and Michael Jackson’s life in general. And there is no need to pretend that we are talking about the freedom of information here – we are talking about the freedom to tell the truth which at some point in history turned into the freedom to tell lies instead.

*  *  *

Related articles:

72 Comments leave one →
  1. Anisa permalink
    August 3, 2016 2:33 am

    Thank you for this. I like that you use verifiable sources unlike all the sites that hate MJ. Those sites keep saying he was too powerful… If he really was that powerful, then why couldn’t MJ prevent a strip search? And the obvious thing of course is that MJ wasn’t charged for anything in the in 2004. If he was even slightly guilty… Surely they would have found SOMETHING. Unless of course MJ was so clever he outsmarted the FBI, put a different Michael on trial and then faked his own death. It’s when I see things like this happen to a kind human that makes me wonder if being kind is just dangerous.

    I was thinking about what happened to MJ and related it to myself on a very small scale and can see how easily this could happen. I’m a very private person, come from a conservative religious Muslim background. I have always kept my dates and BFs a secret, even to my own parents. I’m 34, still single, still a virgin. I’d say I am genuinely a nice person and I would never go out of my way to hurt someone… Even if they have hurt me. I would just quietly walk away and avoid them. Because of my quiet nature… People from my community have called me weird… Have said I must be gay, that I have given up on my religion, that I must be mentally unstable. Some have even gone to the length of using my name and pretending to be me doing something wrong! It’s really quite ridiculous… Esp when these people know me the least. My friends would tell you I’m funny, sweet and have had boyfriends but I have my boundaries. When someone comes from a poor background and were treated badly, they expect you to remain there. But when you out do their expectations and are successful, they want to bring you down in any way they can. And I am a nobody. If this can happen to me… MJ had it on a scale that I cannot even fathom. Rest in peace my love.

    Like

  2. vulcan permalink
    May 11, 2015 7:16 am

    lynande51

    However in Diane Dimonds book starting on page 13 she has the sworn declaration of Sergeant Gary Spiegel the police photographer that took the photos that day. Sneddon said that there was a spot on the right side and Spiegel says it was on the left in his sworn declaration. So who is lying?

    Does anyone has this Spiegel declaration?

    this is now the fourth version of where that dark spot actually was
    1. at the base of MJ’s penis
    2, the right side of the penis
    3. the left side of the penis
    4. right under the corona in the middle of the penis (drawing in the VG book)

    So which one?

    Like

  3. vulcan permalink
    May 11, 2015 5:50 am

    “It’s not a crime for attorneys to try to settle a civil action,” Montagna said. “The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court.”

    What a fucking liar!
    There was not civil action at all in Aug 1993! There was nothing to be settled then.
    Chandler simply demanded money and could Montagna explain why he did that if it was not extortion?
    did he really believe that Chandler just asked for money and MJ would have “settled”
    even if he knew that Chandler would still accuse him?
    That doesn’t make any sense.

    the fucking American police once again screwed a black man that’s what happened here.

    The Chandlers admitted in their book that if MJ had paid in Aug instead of Jan they would not have accused him.
    If that’s not extortion then what is it?

    And Chandler’s own words didn’t convince Montagna that he will ruin MJ unless he gets what he wants? then he demands 20 million from him and MJ doesn’t pay and they accuse him.
    What was that all about if not extortion?

    Like

  4. February 28, 2013 4:18 am

    Reading all the above,including words by Rodrigo, I am one of those people who are of the opinion that the powers-that-be feared Michael Jackson’s wealth, power and influence over hearts and minds globally, and wanted him out of the way, especially as he was making a comeback. A lot of people have suddenly ‘disappeared’ in America, have there not? Also, why did Michael not sue for wrongful arrest, charges etc. and have Evan Chandler prosecuted for extortion?

    Like

  5. February 26, 2013 2:52 am

    “will you have more on this particular picture or the other ,I mean the crap re Mjj’s private parts?”

    Kaarin, if I have an opportunity I’ll sum up what we know about the other picture too. In case some new information arrives we will have a special place to add it to, and it will not be spread all over the comments.

    Like

  6. February 26, 2013 12:21 am

    Jordan wanted to be on the sideline. And really somehow he was. Evan threatened to destoy Michael and was furious over the trip 4 of the characters took to Monaco.

    Like

  7. February 26, 2013 12:14 am

    The picture is unique and can not have been drawn by anybody else. Who else then, Helena, will you have more on this particular picture or the other ,I mean the crap re Mjj’s private parts.This is really interesting. Unfortunately my computer refuses question marks despite a new mouse an tangent board. It has to go in for a through cleanup. I hope not to miss anything relly good info.

    Like

  8. February 25, 2013 1:26 pm

    “And now thanks to Aldebaranredstar and Helena it is complete with full interprtation of the 5 people depicted.”

    Kaarin, I’ve found that there are even more interesting (and probably deeper) interpretations than ours. One Russian reader has sent me one by email and now Nannoris is also saying the same, so I am tempted to write about it too. The problem is that there is a whole list of the most urgent things to be written about at once and I simply have no time for all of them.

    But all these drawings do require a summary – they are too important to be left only in the comments. So if I have a chance I will probably just summarize to bring it to a logical end, before doing anything else.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    February 25, 2013 10:35 am

    The truth about Taraborrelli is that he somehow got named as a Michael Jackson expert by writing about a man he met one time when he was 21. He never met Michael after that and got his information from the usual places.

    Like

  10. nannorris permalink
    February 25, 2013 7:17 am

    To me , the most important thing to take away from the picture JC supposedly drew , is that he is on the sidelines while two adult males fight have conflict..He isnt even the central character , it is the 2 adults.., this is between.

    I thought it was MJ going over the side, but it also could be Evan and MJ ending his life, if he goes after him for extortion, because as I recall, in Geraldines book, Evan was very worried about that he might go to jail, which is why he hired Shapiro,, and in turn Jordan would worry about his father when he would become hysterical about it.
    So it could also be Evan telling his son , “Dont let this happen” to him/Evan …Which would kind of make sense, because nothing was about JC,
    Everything was about Evan,,
    When Mr Schwartz asked how this would effect JC, Evan said it was immaterial or something, It was always about him ..If this is really drawn by JC , he and his mom and sister seem helpless.
    The other thing I remember about Randy book, is when I was reading June Chandlers testimony, I thought Sneddon was asking about stuff in his book, because I had never heard any of the stuff in VG book..I assumed when he was asking where some kid sat in a limousine, he thought she would say on MJ lap, because that was in Randys book, but he must have got that , from VG book., which I didnt know about until I read an article here , that VG had that stuff as well..
    This is like a ten year whisper campaign, where all this garbage went round and round and eventually people took it as the gospel truth.

    Like

  11. February 25, 2013 2:24 am

    If you order or even ask the child or adolescent to draw the child takes it as a test of their artistic or drawing skill. The more spontaneuosly the drawing is the more you can get from it as far as psychodynamics,and emotional states. I had a 4 yo girl who took a red pen and drew a page full of raindroplike lines in red, then said, Me Mariann. This was something to alert you to self harm, her foster mother told she had come to her presenting her with a kitchenknife, asking to kill her. When the child is so to speak ordered to draw they draw slowly and carefully. I am sure that Jordans drawings in school were much more mature in style. That is why I have insisted that this drawing was in fact Jordan’s. And now thanks to Aldebaranredstar and Helena it is complete with full interprtation of the 5 people depicted.

    Like

  12. February 25, 2013 1:32 am

    Later on events developed and he ,Jordan, was sort of protective towards his father, he must have felt betrayed by his mother, June.So he chose to live with his father, something which did not last that long.The 5 people in the drawing were the ones who attended the music awards in Monaco.

    Like

  13. February 25, 2013 1:23 am

    This picture when fully analysed turnes out to be pivotal in the psychodynamics of Jordan ,once he fully grasped his fathers relentless pursuit.This is often the case with with childrens spontaneous drawings.I have had the luck to work wit an exellent art therepist who also was good at detecting psychodynamics,I did my interview and sent the child to her
    * esp. with court referred children or adolescents( without telling her my conclusions,then getting together and conferring…..SeeVMJ post below where she included June and Lily as onlookers through the windows and Michael as pushed down, his fall depicted in stages.
    In this dramatic representation there are 5 people involved , Jordan shouting NO to Evan. Michael pushed down with the fall depicted in stages, June and Lily watching helplessly at the windows.

    Like

  14. February 24, 2013 10:16 pm

    Guys, since I’m doing everything simultaneously, I have also started reading Taraborrelli at last and while reading about the Chandlers found that he is writing monstrous lies. The first impression is that he is simply rewriting Gutierrez! Sometimes word for word!

    The only difference is that he dropped the ped-lia part, but as to the rest of it almost all of it is there and sometimes I don’t even know which one is worse. Plus he added some June Chandler’s crap where she is trying to whitewash herself.

    Well, in comparison with Taraborrelli’s account of the 1993 case even Sullivan is better. When Taraborrelli has information (like the one from Lisa Marie Presley) his account is more or less okay, but when he is missing it, he uses the worst liars without any criticism whatsoever.

    Therefore my plans have changed again. The ped-lia lobby will have to wait, as well as all those so-called Jordan’s drawings – over here you are perfectly okay without me. And the rest of the Insider’s letter will have to wait too. I need to look into this Taraborrelli’s thing first. Please give me some time.

    Like

  15. February 24, 2013 1:01 pm

    “The idea that Michael would be hurt by the idea of his nude porn photos to be seen by the court and the entire world is not enough for him to have settled” -jojo

    Well, in his short answer to Bashir Michael named it as the main reason. He didn’t want a long and drawn out televised show where not only his nude, but intimate photos were to be presented as the main evidence to prove his innocence.

    Like

  16. February 24, 2013 11:15 am

    “The heavily darkened stick figure is facing the viewer looking at the drawing, not looking down at the pavement below or at the falling bodies. The stick figure has one arm lowered as one would expect if you had just thrown something over the edge. In other words, the stance of that figure is not a jumping stance but a throwing stance… Also the stick figure saying NO! is smaller than the darker figure, as is true of a child being smaller, shorter than an adult.” – aldebaranredstar

    You are right. I gave that picture a perfunctory look only and had a sort of a stereotyped perception of it. It is a picture of Evan murdering Michael and Jordan screaming “No” to it. It seems that a short post will have to be made about this picture to correct the previous mistake.

    Like

  17. February 24, 2013 9:46 am

    “There is always an underlying personality which will colour the symptoms would a manic phase occur. Most ok personalitywise people will not be violent during mania, they might overspend money, take trips they can not afford, and generally be overactive in one way or another.” – kaarin

    This is absolutely true. We have a friend with a bipolar condition and the most I’ve noticed about her is that in a manic phase she tends to talk very much and very long, and laughs very loudly at things over which people generally don’t laugh. She can tell a story about some sad occurrance in her life and then laugh at it as if trying to say that she does not care.

    “The danger here is that they might stop medication on their own and the illness runs its course.”

    I remember reading somewhere that Evan Chandler refused to take any medication. He probably thought that everything was okay with him, and anyone approaching him with the idea was subjected to an outburst of his wild temper. And we have indications that he was violent with both of his wives and had a sort of a fight with David Schwartz, not to mention the attempt he made on the life of his own son Jordan.

    Like

  18. February 24, 2013 9:32 am

    “I looked at that picture and thought it was Evan killing MJ and Jordan saying no.” – nannoris

    I looked at the picture once again and now agree that this is probably the best explanation. Yes, the figure at the edge is bigger and blacker than the one standing behind him and saying No. This is the villain who pushes MJ from atop this high building. And the smaller one does not want it.

    Sorry that I misinterpreted it – this is another proof how big a role stereotypes play in our perception.

    “The other thing that I find ridiculous , is these police and prosecutors were so obsessed with MJ for a decade and supposedly, they all DECLINE looking at those photos ..I just cant believe they didnt look at those photos.”

    Of course they looked at them – it was their duty to do it. Especially of the sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Thomas. His employee Deborah Linden recorded all those “markings” in her affidavit, and on its basis they obtained a warrant for Michael Jackson’s body search and made those photos. And after that Linden’s immediate boss Jim Thomas refuses to look at them? It is even impossible to imagine it. This was probably the first thing he did.

    The analysts who worked on the Veritas Project prior to the 2005 trial made a note that the photos had passed around so freely that even Geraldo, the journalist, claimed to have seen them.

    Like

  19. jojo permalink
    February 24, 2013 9:23 am

    PERSONALLY, knowing the fact that the settlement was done by a three judge arbitration, then Michael had no choice whether to settle or not, let alone decide the sum given. The idea that Michael would be hurt by the idea of his nude porn photos to be seen by the court and the entire world is not enough for him to have settled. He was shy but he was also a strong man. This idea was given by the Chandlers in order to get as soon as possible the money they asked, and because the case still involves molestation to a boy under 14, the total amount could not be given to the Chandlers, after all acording to them they never desired to ask for money, it was all for Jordan`s sake, yeah sure!!!!!!!!!

    What bugs me the most is why santa barbara police department did not see the it was all extortion, sure I know they are racist and that was noticed a couple of times. We need to get to the bottom of that. This police department with how they handled the case ruined Michael`s life and reputation. He got treated like a clown after that.

    Like

  20. nannorris permalink
    February 24, 2013 8:17 am

    I looked at that picture and thought it was Evan killing MJ and Jordan saying no..Whatever it is , Evan put a spin on it and blamed it on MJ , just like everything else he did…
    As far as the photos of Mj privates, I wondered if the estate could get them back..The grand jury rejected Sneddons attempts back in 94, I would think that would have closed the case.
    The other thing that I find ridiculous , is these police and prosecutors were so obsessed with MJ for a decade and supposedly , they all DECLINE looking at those photos ..I just cant believe they didnt look at those photos.
    And if he was afraid of them airing his privates on TV, I can certainly understand that after seeing his death picture displayed all over the world.I dont think they needed to show him like that, yet because it is MJ , it went world wide..Breaks my heart

    Like

  21. February 24, 2013 12:48 am

    For the sake of many good people who have this bipolar I condition I have to make this addendum:There is always an underlying personality which will colour the symptoms would a manic phase occur. Most ok personalitywise people will not be violent during mania, they might overspend money, take trips they can not afford, and generally be overactive in one way or another. When correctly diagnosed and with appropriate medication most, if not all can live pretty normal lives, work and have good relationsips. One problem is that at the very early stage of mania, slight hypomania they feel very good and can indeed be quite productive. The danger here is that they might stop medication on their own and the illness runs its course.

    Like

  22. aldebaranredstar permalink
    February 23, 2013 10:55 pm

    Also the stick figure saying NO! is smaller than the darker figure, as is true of a child being smaller, shorter than an adult.

    Like

  23. aldebaranredstar permalink
    February 23, 2013 10:52 pm

    The heavily darkened stick figure is facing the viewer looking at the drawing, not looking down at the pavement below or at the falling bodies. The stick figure has one arm lowered as one would expect if you had just thrown something over the edge. In other words, the stance of that figure is not a jumping stance but a throwing stance. There is no indication that Jordan was depressed or suicidal, either from G. Hughes’ account of what she saw in the office, or from the Gardener interview, where Jordan is not showing any signs of depression, such as eating, sleeping disorders, nightmares, problems in school, withdrawal, etc. On the other hand, Hughes tells us he was solicitous about his father, trying to calm him down, so it makes sense to me he would be the stick figure saying NO!!!–trying to stop Evan’s murderous rage.

    Like

  24. aldebaranredstar permalink
    February 23, 2013 5:44 am

    What is ironic is that Evan writes “Don’t let this happen” and yet he is the one making it happen! He did not see that the drawing was showing the destruction that was going to result from his demand for 20 million dollars or, if he didn’t get it, a massacre. Well, he in a sense got the massacre he wanted and that Jordan depicted.

    Like

  25. Rodrigo permalink
    February 23, 2013 2:16 am

    I was just trying to remember what it felt like to draw characters like that.

    So Jordan drew that on the night he saw Michael for the last time?
    And he already knew what Evan was planning. Pellicano told us that Jordan was upset in the hotel that day, Evan painted it as a different picture.

    So it’s easy to understand Jordan drawing a picture like that from the day of the meeting.
    But of course, it’s also easy to think Evan made him draw that because of the encounter with Michael.

    Because to this day it plays a big part in people thinking it showed how depressed Jordan was because of the abuse.
    It’s less when it shows how low he was because of his father.

    In my mind, I think Evan made Jordan draw it. But in my gut, I think Jordan drew it because of all the crap Evan was making him do.

    When Gutierrez wrote about Jordan jumping the pool and saying it’s a good day because the investigation on Michael was put on hold. Could those events have been true?
    Not for the stupid reason Gutierrez describes, obviously. But Jordan was happy because Michael, his friend, was in the safe zone?
    It’s just that I’ve always laughed at Gutierrez’s depiction of events, I’ve never thought that some of them could be truth, but with his stupid and perverted spin on them?

    Like

  26. February 22, 2013 11:45 pm

    The drawing was spontaneous. You cannot order someone to do such a highly emotional picture.I also agree fully with Aldebaranredstar´s interpretation, and also that he drew it that night after he had witnessed his father loose it.

    Like

  27. February 22, 2013 11:42 pm

    “On close inspection, I agree that it does depict murder. The stick figure standing at the edge of the building is significantly different from figures falling. So the character shouting “no”, is Jordan. The character at the edge of the building is Evan.”– Rodrigo

    But look here, it is only a child’s drawing, and made in a state of a complete despair. In such an emotional state no one would think of portraying any figures close to life. The drawing conveys the idea only and the idea is that the person standing at the edge is on the verge of committing suicide, and it is the person standing behind him who has driven him to such a state. The one on the edge is Jordan, the one behind is his father.

    But we have called it a homicide because this suicide is the result of his father’s extreme pressure on the boy, so Jordan is telling him this way that he is practically murdering him.

    His mother is on a lower level and this signifies that she is playing a secondary role to this tragedy. In fact she is just looking at what Evan is doing to his son, observing the process from afar. And the little girl is still one level lower, which means that she cannot influence the situation in any way at all.

    The person who falls is one and the same boy, only at different stages of the same process. Standing, falling, crashing.

    Like

  28. aldebaranredstar permalink
    February 22, 2013 8:47 pm

    According to Geraldine Hughes, Jordan was fine, happy, playing in his own world, but worried and concerned about Evan, who seemed more upset than Jordan.

    “The boy seemed to just stay in his own imaginary world playing, having fun and not seemingly worried about what was going on in the outside world. He was the one who kept calming and consoling his father, who was a nervous wreck. It appeared as if the boy was protecting his father instead of vice versa. He was more concerned about his father’s welfare than his own. It was obvious to me the boy felt a sense of duty towards his father. He kept walking back and forth checking on his father and asking if he was alright. When the father would have a nervous outburst the boy would soothe and calm him down” (46-47).

    I think it wasn’t until the meeting in the hotel with Michael where Evan screamed at him and threatened him that Jordan saw how bad it was going to be (and maybe that’s why he drew the picture that night). Initially, he hugged Michael when they met at the hotel. On the other hand, when he gets to Gardener in October he shows no remorse or awareness of what his accusations are going to do to Michael, and he seems to have written Michael off as someone who took advantage of him (in other words, by then he has accepted what he has been told to say). To me, Jordan is somewhat of a sociopath without ethics.

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2013 8:10 pm

    At 13 Jordan was to be pitied. At 33 he is a grown man and a wealthy one to boot. His father is dead, Michael is dead and he has no one left to answer to but Michael’s kids. He should consider them in the grand scheme of things because someday he will have children and he will want to protect them. Silence is not the way to protect them from this. The only way is to come out and tell the truth so everyone can be set free. The thing is he has always been able to talk about it if he wants.He just can’t make money off it.

    Like

  30. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2013 8:04 pm

    Also I think it was Evan that wanted to put a spin on it. He had been threatening June, Jordan and Michael since before he got custody that if he didn’t get what he wanted he was going to destroy everyone. Well in the end he did destroy everyone ….including himself and his son that their side says he was so protective of.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2013 8:02 pm

    I think Jordan drew that picture and Evan had Jordan do it. He actually was supposed to have done it the night after Evan and Jordan met with Michael and Pellicano at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. So it was supposedly done for Rothman not Feldman.

    Like

  32. Rodrigo permalink
    February 22, 2013 9:10 am

    I do believe Jordan drew the picture. I was just speculating on whether it was done because he was feeling that low, or he was made to do it by Evan in order to speed things up with the urgency of his mental being for the case. Because Evan did present it to Larry Feldman with that reason and request. It just landed so well into everybody’s favour didn’t it though?

    Forgive me if I’m reading too deeply into it, it’s just that I believe most things were part of a master plan. The drawing may not be at all however. It may depict Jordan’s suicide, or Evan’s massacre of people.
    On close inspection, I agree that it does depict murder. The stick figure standing at the edge of the building is significantly different from figures falling. I’ve zoomed in on it, and the figure at the edge of the building looks almost menacing. Jordan’s highlighted it thickly with black. The other figures are drawn differently, less prominently than the other. The falling figures aren’t consistent with the figure on the edge, so they mustn’t be the same character in Jordan’s mind.

    So the character shouting “no”, is Jordan. The character at the edge of the building is Evan. Could the figures falling/ dead be different people, or the same? Michael or June perhaps? The two of them?

    It does make you wonder. If Jordan drew that, did Evan get him on side with threats of murder? I believe so, especially knowing the violent things he had done over the years. Jordan must have known and witnessed his father’s bipolar back then even.

    Whatever happened, Jordan must have been one terrified and disturbed kid. More to be pitied.

    Like

  33. February 22, 2013 2:18 am

    Jordan was in turmoil, both sad and angry, all emotions mixed up.If you do think it was not drawn by Jordan, but by Evan (maybe) do the following: Set the picture aside and don´t look at it, you know it very well. Then try to draw a copy (need not be 100%) and there after compare the 2 drawings. Jordan must have experienced a number of conflicting emotions.
    no doubt he was angry with his father for breaking up a situation he was privy to. Not with any lover! though. Later he must have felt betrayed by his mother who switched sides for her real fear of Evan. In LA people are pushed down from buildings and this theme is common in crime movies.

    Like

  34. Rodrigo permalink
    February 21, 2013 11:55 pm

    I don’t mean anything by that, Helena.
    I’m just mocking Gutierrez for his lover spin on Michael and Jordan’s friendship. He’s a sick man to do that.

    But yes, I would feel that way. Absolutely. A 13 year old boy being put through that by all this people, it must have been a nightmare for him. Jordan didn’t ask for any of this, and I do feel sorry for him.

    Even now. I know he hasn’t admitted, but he must feel small to this day, especially under the likes of the Sneddon’s and Dimond’s of the world. Probably just washed his hands of it all.

    Like

  35. February 21, 2013 11:39 pm

    “If it was homicide, I reckon Jordan would have drawn something with guns or knives, weapons in general. Or was it a drawing because Jordan didn’t want to betray his lover, according to Gutierrez? lol”

    Rodrigo, sometimes you make me wonder. What does a lover have to do with it? If you were forced to betray a friend who has done you only good, wouldn’t you feel that those who pressurize you are killing you?

    Like

  36. Rodrigo permalink
    February 21, 2013 11:25 pm

    So what Evan perceived as a suicide drawing, was actually a picture of Evan pushing people from a building?

    And his handwriting was as bad as a child’s lol

    But jumping from a high spot is contributed in thoughts of suicide.
    If it was homicide, I reckon Jordan would have drawn something with guns or knives, weapons in general.

    And we need to remember, Evan presented that drawing to Feldman to show Jordan’s apparent mental state, hoping it further the chances of a quick and easy victory. Like Jordan was in no position to testify in court. And that is convenience for Evan and CO.

    And also…Shouldn’t have Jordan have drawn whilst the ‘abuse’ was taking place? Not after, when he was relieved that the truth was out and was eager to get back at Michael, like Evan claimed?

    Or was it a drawing because Jordan didn’t want to betray his lover, according to Gutierrez? lol

    No. Either that was how Jordan felt under Evan’s pressure on him, or Evan made him draw it to help the cause out.

    Like

  37. February 21, 2013 10:26 pm

    “Evan misinterpreted the drawing. It was NOT a suicide picture but a homicide picture, as Aldebaranredstar correctly interpreted it.”

    Kaarin, I decided to place the picture here once again for those who have not seen it. This is how Jordan Chandler felt when his father was making those allegations about Michael. Evan Chandler wrote “Don’t let this happen” when he saw the drawing:

    P.S. The additional benefit of the drawing is that we have a sample of Evan Chandler’s handwriting on it.

    Like

  38. February 21, 2013 8:59 pm

    And not only that. Evan misinterpreted the drawing. It was NOT a suicide picture but a homicide picture, as Aldebaranredstar correctly interpreted it.

    Like

  39. February 21, 2013 8:56 pm

    The drawing was not staged, I know that (older kids) draw in a more primitive way while under high emotional pressure. It is not easy for an adult to imitate this primitive or childish ,fast drawing style.

    Like

  40. Rodrigo permalink
    February 21, 2013 7:10 am

    That’s all definitely plausible.

    But to me, even that drawing was staged. Played right into Evan’s favour perfectly didn’t it?

    I wish I could have read Guttierrez’s book, because I would have loved to have read his version of things when comparing with that is called “offical events”

    But as we know, those “offical events” were created by Evan, Jordan and Guttierrez, amongst others. What was the truth, we will never know. But we know it involves complete and utter innocence on Michael’s part.

    Like

  41. February 21, 2013 6:02 am

    Also Jordan was scared #### being in the center of this highly emotional storm. His Homicide picture shows that he had an awareness of his fathers dangerous potetial. It is Evan C. who is throwing the others off from a high building to their death.

    Like

  42. February 21, 2013 5:45 am

    People with bipolar illness have a suicide rate of 15 to 20 %.

    Like

  43. February 21, 2013 5:42 am

    I never heard thar Evan was drunk when he talked about his plans to Mr.Schwarz,he was in the early stages of a manic episode.Too bad that they cannot send accusers or associates of them for psychiatric evaluations. And there was 1 or 1+1/2+1/2 dysfunctional families, if they now even can be called such, participating in this twarted situation.
    A manic or one 1/2 on his way to fullblown psychotic mania can be extremely scary and forceful while still retaining a semblance of logic in his thinking. As additinal characters there was V.G. and the obsessed Sneddon. What a brew. June C., knowing her ex husband, knew that he would not stop at anything. That is why she initially at least had to change sides.
    Well it is true that bipolars often also drink,so it is not excluded E.C. wasn´t drunk. But he did not need alcohol to be that crazy.

    Like

  44. Rodrigo permalink
    February 21, 2013 1:48 am

    I do believe Jordan was a victim of Evan.

    We know what kind of a man Evan was, and we know the lengths he took to get what he wanted. So God knows what he did to Jordan to get him to change sides. Evan’s violence and mentally disturbed mind must have terrified the kid into submission?

    Did Evan threaten to kill him and everyone else?
    ¨It’ll be a massacre if I don’t get what I want¨
    Remember Evan was drunk when he told Dave Schwartz that, and usually people relay their past deep feelings in that state. A surfacing repeat of things.
    Of course, he was still very much on the offensive with Schwartz about his plans.

    But did Evan do something to Jordan to get him to play along, physical, verbal threats? Most definitely.

    Like

  45. February 21, 2013 1:33 am

    “That Jordan was the poor little victim who couldn’t possibly face his abuser, according to the media… OR..He couldn’t possibly face his first love and betray him like that, according to Gutierrez, which was also officially endorsed by Evan and CO.?”

    Rodrigo, do you mean to say that we have to choose only between these two variants? I see Jordan as a victim of his own father in the first place and then as a “clever” boy who at some point realized that since all these allegations did take place and everyone considers him to be a victim of abuse anyway, it is better to be a rich ‘victim’ than a poor one.

    I think that he put two and two together and simply chose the most convenient way for himself – money and independence from all his crazy relatives who turned his life into hell. Of course it required the need to lie but this could always be explained by the pressure from his father. And he knew that Michael would understand.

    He couldn’t face Michael because of all those lies. Because of some remaining pricks of conscience, the dangers of a cross-examination, the fear to be inconsistent in lies or break up in tears there, whatever.

    Like

  46. Rodrigo permalink
    February 21, 2013 1:03 am

    So, just exactly what are we supposed to believe in all of this, if we were sheepeople like the guys at Topix?

    That Jordan was the poor little victim who couldn’t possibly face his abuser, according to the media…
    OR
    He couldn’t possibly face his first love and betray him like that, according to Gutierrez, which was also officially endorsed by Evan and CO.?

    Like

  47. February 20, 2013 11:51 pm

    “Then they had a perfect excuse with the prosecutors to say he didn’t want to testify and it would be questioned because of the sodium amytal once it was publicly known that it was not a truth serum… Here is a link to the Ramona case and the outcome. It was actually on May 14th, 1994” – lynande

    Then this news came just in time for Jordan to refuse to testify against Jackson. His refusal came only on July 6, 1994 and was the best explanation why his memories were not good enough for a trial. This truth serum story seems to be a perfect explanation for everything the Chandlers did.

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

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-22/news/mn-41669_1_michael-jackson/2

    Like

  48. February 20, 2013 11:39 pm

    “What I found intersting in the article was that Jordan OFFERED the description AS PROOF”

    Lynande, I also find it extremely interesting. For some reason it makes me think not only of Evan Chandler (who did see Michael’s buttocks when he was giving him an injection) but of June Chandler as well.

    Like

  49. February 20, 2013 11:28 pm

    “Of course it is outrageous that these misrepresenting articles are still online while correct presentations are missing, but I don’t think these articles have to kill you, because they are rather ridiculous and embarrassing for the author than flattering, as they are already refuted.”

    Susanne, it is even good that they are still online because it is part of history and we can see for ourselves in what atmosphere Michael had to live. What’s bad is that there are no articles from the same people admitting their mistakes.

    What kills me is the fact that this “pillar of American journalism” (Larry King’s name for the NYTimes) could be so unfair to Michael, so biased, so hateful and even so misinformed. As a “pillar” they were responsible for forming public opinion and setting a certain standard, and if this was the standard for perceiving Michael what do we want of tabloids then? They were only happy to pick up the same tune!

    Another thing is that one of those hate-filled articles was written in 1987, so we see that it was that early that they called him “bizarre”, “freakish”, “messianic”, “disturbing”, etc. If you watch the Bad video now will you agree with them that it is “heavily tinged with the star’s disturbing mixture of messianic pretension, rampant paranoia and narcissism”? I for one don’t see any of it. What I see is a fight against street violence and saying that even good can be a “cool” power, which is correct.

    Or look at them hinting that this Peter Pan-like man is “sadly bizarre” and has a “disquieting” and “dark” side to him:

    “Mr. Jackson’s demeanor in ”Bad” is disquietingly, sadly bizarre. Even the song has a masochistic undertone, as the singer implores, ”If you don’t like what I’m sayin’/ Then won’t you slap my face?” The dark side of Mr. Jackson’s Peter Pan image is a self-flagellating, sullenly martyred outsider. In the years since ”Thriller,” the star has surgically altered his appearance to produce this image.”

    What was so “freakish” about Michael in the Bad video that made them write all that? What “jarring mixed messages” are they talking of? All of it is hugely exaggerated and taken out of all proportion! With reviews like that of course the new album will not be as much success as Thriller:

    “In the ”Bad” video, his skin has taken on an unnaturally ashen hue, and his heavy eye makeup and designer outfit of studded black leather present jarringly mixed messages. Capping the confusion is Mr. Jackson’s speaking voice, which even at its most forceful sounds like a wounded whimper. …unless Mr. Jackson’s freakish new image proves irresistibly fascinating, ”Bad” seems unlikely to match, or even approach, the sales performance of ”Thriller.”

    And over here they simply fall over themselves in sarcasm calling Michael’s lyrics “peace-and-love pieties” and “nursery-rhyme sentiments” meant to give them the “resonance of Scripture” (MAN IN THE MIRROR!).They mock at him for “the pessimism of spiritual salvation by remaining a child” and call him a “disturbing image” only “posing himself as a benign, alien star-child”, a “cartoon like character”, “a surrogate savior” and all this is implied to have something “forbidding” as it “obliterates sex, age and race”:

    Having crafted a disturbing, otherworldly image that is more memorable than the peace-and-love pieties he dispenses, Mr. Jackson is gambling that in today’s pop climate, a performer’s personal iconographic power can give his nursery-rhyme sentiments the resonance of Scripture. But what Mr. Jackson conveys through his image is pretty forbidding, since the distinctions of sex, age and race – three of the principal obsessions of pop music – are all obliterated.

    Posing as a benign, alien star-child stranded somewhere between Disneyland and the astral home of ”E. T.,” he seems to want to demonstrate that spiritual salvation can only be attained by willfully evading reality and remaining a child. What a profoundly pessimistic message! For his self-transformation into a cartoonlike character of his own invention represents a rejection of the very humanity he has sought to help and enlighten through songs like ”We Are the World” and ”Bad.”

    What we are left with is a staggeringly talented, terror-struck symbol of our collective longing for an occult solution to human suffering. As Elvis Presley’s role of ”king” eclipsed his vitality as an entertainer, Michael Jackson has already begun to disappear into his role of pop’s surrogate savior. If we think good thoughts and wish upon the stars hard enough, he would lead us to believe, maybe an extraterrestrial playmate will arrive in time to save us.

    The closing phrase is interesing though. They don’t understand it but despite all their nastiness they seemed to have come very close to the truth.

    Like

  50. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 6:37 pm

    Here is a link to the Ramona case and the outcome. It was actually on May 14th,1994 that the case that was making headlines up until then in California was resolved in Gary Ramona’s favor. I will also add a link to a Psychiatric paper on false allegations which in fact is much more accurate than the social statistics that so many people site. This paper says that in Forensic Psychiatry at least 45% of sexual abuse allegations are in fact false.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-14/news/mn-57614_1_false-memories
    http://www.drrichardhall.com/allegations.htm

    Like

  51. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 5:47 pm

    Kaarin, Evan Chandelr covered the story of the tooth by saying it was a “retained” baby tooth. He was a dentist so he would know what to say. He went to great length to have Jordan say that he WANTED to be put to sleep. The thing with the tooth story is important though because it wasn’t until April that it came out in public that it in fact was used in the Holly Ramona case and her father won the case against the therapist that used it to produce false memories. Then they had a perfect excuse with the prosecutors to say he didn’t want to testify and it would be questioned because of the sodium amytal once it was publicly known that it was not a truth serum.

    Like

  52. February 20, 2013 4:20 pm

    The toth removal must have been a sham A 13-14 yo does not have baby teeth neiter wisdomteeth,

    Like

  53. February 20, 2013 3:54 pm

    After reading these NYT articles you posted, Helena, I must say, though they are of course disgusting, at the same time they are very embarrassing for their authors. History already showed how wrong they were. They wrote such bullshit that the writers should feel ashamed today.
    The first one about Michael being uneducated and underdeveloped (which is only an anonymous “opinion”) is meanwhile disproved in many ways, especially by his own children who are widely recognized as very intelligent and mature. Prince is said to be one of the best at school. I think this is something that most of the public has got meanwhile. It’s impossible for an uneducated, unread, underdeveloped, juvenile (which means totally empty-headed) person to raise such children – as a single parent. A lot of people confirmed how bright, intelligent, well-read and clever Michael was.
    The other one is also so full of mistakes and lack of understanding that the writer should be deeply embarrassed. He didn’t even try to understand in the slightest way what MJ wanted to express with his art. Thank God today we have the books of Joe Vogel, Dr. Willa Stillwater, blogs like Dancing with the Elephant or the MJ Academia Project videos as well as the Bad25 documentary, which people can be educated with.

    Of course it is outrageous that these misrepresenting articles are still online while correct presentations are missing, but I don’t think these articles have to kill you, because they are rather ridiculous and embarrassing for the author than flattering, as they are already refuted.
    The worst thing is what Michael had to go through at that time. It shows again how strong he was.

    Like

  54. Sigrid Marquardt permalink
    February 20, 2013 12:14 pm

    “No one should be allowed to ridicule a man who was declared innocent even by the prosecutor who was investigating the case and said that he was no worse than any of us sitting in this room now. No one should be mocked for his desire to avoid the terrible humiliation of the TV trial that would have turned his life into an ordeal. Michael Jackson had the right and freedom of making his choices too, and everyone should be respectful of his right.

    He was innocent and this is the main point.

    All we needed to know is found there in those photos, which proved that Jordan Chandler lied and Michael Jackson never did it – and this is all there is to know about the case. If the media had reported the truth we would have learned it much earlier and Michael Jackson would probably be alive now. The media’s role is to report the truth and not make money, fame or ratings at the expense of lies about the innocent man and his immense suffering.

    The fact that the media is not disclosing the whole truth about that story even now makes me think that they know what a disastrous role their disgraceful behavior played in that particular situation and Michael Jackson’s life in general. And there is no need to pretend that we are talking about the freedom of information here – we are talking about the freedom to tell the truth which at some point in history turned into the freedom to tell lies instead”

    thank you very much for this wonderful article….. the above summary says it all….. !

    Like

  55. February 20, 2013 11:04 am

    “Sneddon based his statement on “information and belief”” which is a term used for information used from a second source other than the photographs or the actual affadavit….In others words someone told him it was a match too but just in case the other person was wrong he could not be held perjurous for giving false information to the jury or the court.” – Lynande51

    Very, very nice. You explained it so clearly. So Sneddon was also ‘told’ about a match. ALL of them were. Thank you, Lynette, I’ve added your comment to the post.

    “By the way I can still link to “The Story of The Telltale Splotch”. http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    Interesting. At the time when the post was written it was nowhere to be found. Can its return have any relation to our modest efforts here? Of course they’ll say that erasing the article was a temporary phenomenon while they were working on their archive. And I am even almost ready to believe them.

    In any case it is a very good sign. By now Jordan’s words have been found in several books too, so we could do even without the Smoking Gun article, but having it back is still an additional benefit. It is always useful to have another source and a pleasure to know that people are not hopeless and may be also interested in restoring history the way it really was.

    I’ve added the link to the post about the Smoking Gun and its vanish/reappearance trick.

    Like

  56. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 8:40 am

    Oh and I forgot Diane Dimond’s part in it too. Everyone thinks it was the DA’s office that told her months before that there was a another case coming up. What if it wasn’t? I mean maybe it was one of her “most trusted sources?” That was her description of Victor in her story about the video tape.

    Like

  57. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 8:32 am

    Yes it was part of Evan Chandler’s plan and Victor Gutierrez was part of it.
    You know with the way VG hunted down any boy that spent time with Michael it isn’t very far fetched to think he hunted down the Arvizo’s too. He found Jordan Chandler so he could easily have found Janet Arvizo and he was talking her “language” so to speak when he said big bucks would come her way if she made allegations against Michael.
    The thing is that everyone assumes that he was not in the US but it was only a few hours away by plane if he really wanted to find her. Then there is the fact that he was aquainted with the guys from Splash News who were given advanced copy of the transcript of Bashirs show. He had plenty of time from the time the show aired to when the allegations were first taken to Feldman in May. Then there was another month before Katz got “the story” from the family before it went to Sneddon. That was plenty of time for him to find her and help her with her story too.Especially since they knew by that time that MJ didn’t want anything to do with them anymore.
    Yep I really do think it is a possibility.

    Like

  58. nannorris permalink
    February 20, 2013 7:08 am

    Poor MJ ..I recall Carl Douglas siting the pictures in the frozen in time seminar., so I can imagine the horror of having you privates discussed all over television
    All this stuff focusing on his penis.They took pictures of his buttocks also and I have never heard Sneddon say there was a match there either..
    Jordan must have made a comment about his behind also or they wouldnt have photographed that also,

    Like

  59. Rodrigo permalink
    February 20, 2013 7:04 am

    It was all part of a master plan, and I’ll swear by that to my dying day. This was planned. Jordan conveniently “having a tooth removed” was part of it, because the sodium amytal was vital. The mistake for Evan was that it wasn’t a truth serum like he must have thought. Otherwise he wouldn’t have used it if he knew it would be disputed and disregarded by so many experts, I’m sure of it.

    The agenda for so many was, ‘what can we get from the destruction of the biggest star in the world?’ Everybody who came after Michael must have thought that. Evan obviously didn’t care about ruining him and Gutierrez had an agenda. Rothman, Feldman, Sneddon, Dimond, Francia’s, Arvizo’s ALL HAD SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM THEIR MANHUNT ON MICHAEL JACKSON. Justice played absolutely NO part in it. Greed and evil masqueraded as justice in all this.

    The world was meant to believe or at least be clouded in uncertainty, that Michael Jackson was a ped-le for 2 simple reasons –

    The status quo must be restored
    “Why should we stick up for him? The man is unusual and has unusual relationships with children. We can’t stick up for him because what would that do to society? So we will slander him, he’s never been a friend to us anyways”

    The other
    “If we slander him, what will this do for our wallets and personal goals?”

    Even the first reason is probably only created from the second.

    Like

  60. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 6:10 am

    What I found intersting in the article was that Jordan OFFERED the description AS PROOF. It was not the idea of the police or the District Attorney’s but the idea born in two sick and twisted minds. Evan Chandler and Victor Gutierrez! Both with a definite agenda regarding Michael.

    “The boy told police that Jackson frequently m********** him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star’s penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.”

    Like

  61. Rodrigo permalink
    February 20, 2013 5:46 am

    “With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.”

    Yet the completely fails to mention that Jordan was inaccurate.

    And there it is
    THE LIGHT SPLOTCH THAT CHANGED TO A DARK ONE. So Michael’s penis must have changed colour too, no? Jeez.

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2013 4:25 am

    Sneddon based his statement on “information and belief”” which is a term used for information used from a second source other than the photographs or the actual affadavit. It is used to introduce hearsay testiimony using the rules of exception to hearsay testimony. He was actually willing to testify that the affadavit said that there was a spot on the right side without actually using the affadavit. In others words someone told him it was a match too but just in case the other person was wrong he could not be held perjurous for giving false information to the jury or the court. So not only could it be light or dark it could also be right or left wherever he wanted to put it without the affadavit.

    However in Diane Dimonds book starting on page 13 she has the sworn declaration of Sergeant Gary Spiegel the police photographer that took the photos that day. Sneddon said that there was a spot on the right side and Spiegel says it was on the left in his sworn declaration. So who is lying? Is it Sneddon? Spiegel? Or Dimond, all in an effort to disseminate the worst lie in the history of jurisprudence. A quote Mr. Sneddon when he said his mother, if she were alive, would take him to task for not being a good person after calling Michael W**** J**** on a Court TV interview. Well was not in 1993, 2003 and is probably not today.

    By the way I can still link to “The Story of The Telltale Splotch”.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    And in the site Gawker they talk about how the “kids at The Smoking Gun have done it again” and they have seen the affadavit that the story was written about.

    http://gawker.com/029031/michael-jackson-and-the-telltale-splotch

    I have a link to an article from the LA Times that quotes Feldman after Michael went on TV and showed the work that he was not arrested after the search. He spins it in another direction pointing blame at the defense team rather than address the fact that Michael was not arrested.
    .
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-23/news/mn-4806_1_jackson-case

    Like

  63. February 19, 2013 11:50 pm

    Speaking of the NYTimes collection of articles archived under the general title “Michael Jackson” here is one more article which simply knocked me off my feet. It was published in 1995 as a reaction to Michael’s History album.

    Considering the falsity of the 1993 allegations and the humiliation Michael went through, and all the injustice he was facing from Sneddon, the media and public, and the fact that Garcetti declared him innocent after all, this article again makes a splendid document tesfifying to the monstrous atmosphere in which this innocent person Michael Jackson had to live.

    They mock at him for feeling ‘like a victim’, but it never enters their minds that a victim he was. They accuse him of animosity, but their own nastiness towards Jackson is simply unrivalled. They deny him the right to be angry, while they themselves spit their hate in every sentence of it:

    POP VIEW; Michael Jackson Is Angry, Understand?
    By JON PARELES
    Published: June 18, 1995

    MICHAEL JACKSON IS BACK, AND HE’S furious. On his new double album, “HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I,” his rage keeps ripping through the sweet, uplifting facade he has clung to throughout his career.

    He’s not pretending to be normal any more. In his new songs, he is paranoid and cagey, messianic and petty, vindictive and maudlin. Comparing himself to John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ, he’s a megalomaniac who feels like a victim. Yet he remains one of the most gifted musicians alive. And somehow, with the strange synchronicity of pop culture’s longtime survivors, his private distress may have put him back in touch with a public mood: there are a lot of aggrieved, belligerent people who feel just as victimized as he does.

    It has been a long time since Michael Jackson was simply a performer. He’s the main asset of his own corporation, which is a profitable subsidiary of Sony. Sony executives have said that they hope to sell 20 million copies of “HIStory,” which retails for $32.98 for the CDs ($23.98 for the cassettes). They’re going to spend $30 million to do it.

    Half of “HIStory,” titled “HIStory Begins,” is a sure thing, a collection of greatest hits from three of the best-selling albums of all time — “Thriller” (1982, 46 million sold worldwide), “Bad” (1987, 22 million) and “Dangerous” (1991, 23 million) — and from their predecessor “Off the Wall” (1979, 11 million). The other half, “HIStory Continues,” is a collection of meticulous, sumptuous, musically ingenious new songs, nearly all written by Jackson himself. But it’s also the sound of bridges burning.

    In the first of the new songs, “Scream,” Jackson jeopardizes his commercial safety zone, the G-rated kiddie audience, by using profanity. In the second, “They Don’t Care About Us,” he gives the lie to his entire catalogue of brotherhood anthems with a burst of anti-Semitism: “Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don’t you black or white me.” While he does manage to calm down for an occasional ballad or love song, he can’t stop lashing out at tormentors named and unnamed, chief among them the news media that he could no longer manipulate.

    “Stop pressurin’ me,” Jackson yelps in “Scream,” adding, “Tired of you tellin’ the story your way.” In “This Time Around,” he mutters, “They thought they really had control of me.” In “D.S.,” he accuses somebody named Dom Sheldon (though he pronounces it like “Tom Stephan”) of being tied to the C.I.A. and the Ku Klux Klan. And in “Money,” he whispers, “You’ll do anything for money.” With his paranoia, his anti-Semitic lyrics and his endless supply of uniforms, Jackson may be ready to join a militia.

    Over the last two years, Jackson became a media sensation for all the wrong reasons. Things had been going well; “Dangerous” was an international hit, and Jackson had signed a new deal with Sony worth at least $50 million. When he billed himself as the King of Pop, no one contested the title. He garnered sympathy, and high Nielsen ratings, for an interview with Oprah Winfrey in which he suggested that he had been abused by his father and announced that his pink skin tone was the result of a discoloring disease, vitiligo.

    THEN, IN SEPTEMBER 1993, A California boy accused him of child molestation. Jackson cut short a world tour and disappeared, stating he was undergoing treatment for addiction to painkillers. Eventually, he returned to California and in a teary televised statement announced that he had “submitted to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination” and had been photographed naked by police investigators reportedly searching for telltale genital features. But there was no trial. Jackson settled the boy’s civil suit for reportedly more than $10 million, and without the boy’s testimony a criminal suit was dropped.

    A new tabloid frenzy ensued when Jackson married Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis’s daughter, last fall. At the same time, Jackson was working on a few new songs to add to a greatest-hits collection, but they multiplied; the new songs now fill “HIStory Continues,” which might better be called “Case History.”

    From its packaging to its songs, “HIStory” is a psychobiographer’s playground. Everything is on a gargantuan scale. On May 22, MTV began showing a “trailer,” presumably for the videos and hype to come. The trailer shows Jackson leading what looks like the Red Army down a broad boulevard, while workers ready the tombstone-white statue that appears on the CD cover: Jackson, with his fists clenched, in one of his paramilitary uniforms with a “police” insignia on one arm.

    Then come noise and darkness. Black helicopters out of a far-right nightmare swoop over the city, shooting out lampposts. Children scream. The shrouded statue is raised, dwarfing the monumental buildings around it. A child shouts, “We love you, Michael!” as a commando team removes the shrouds. A helicopter flies out between the statue’s legs. (Hello, Dr. Freud?)

    The CD booklet insists that Jackson is popular, beloved, important, good. It includes endorsements from Stephen Spielberg and from Elizabeth Taylor, and it lists every award that he has ever won. He’s photographed with Presidents from Carter to Clinton and, of course, surrounded by adoring children.

    The booklet also includes a baby picture of Jackson with his genitalia revealed — celebrity child porn? — and an illustration he drew to go with a new ballad, “Childhood.” The drawing is of a boy huddled in a corner with a microphone, looking scared. A child’s letter to President Clinton asks him to end war and pollution and to “stop reporters from bothering Michael Jackson,” clearly a matter of equal importance.

    It adds up to a fine-tuned contradiction: Jackson the megastar, the world leader by association, is also Jackson the powerless, suffering child. With all the photographs and testimonials, the booklet has no room to print the most hostile lyrics.

    But they’re the core of the album. Fearfulness used to be part of Jackson’s appeal; the vulnerability of his singing voice and his shy offstage demeanor somehow balanced his mastery of music, dance and hype. He was immeasurably famous, but he was obviously paying a price for it; he was a freak who needed sympathy. Fear carries his most memorable songs, particularly those that made “Thriller” the best-selling album of all time. The hits half of “HIStory” starts with “Billie Jean,” in which the singer says he’s falsely accused of paternity (though the child’s eyes look like his). But most of it shows Jackson’s smooth side, singing about love and proselytizing for tolerance and healing.

    On “HIStory Continues,” fear has turned to aggression. The music has polarized; it’s either clipped, choppy and electronic or glossy and sumptuous, only occasionally trying to combine the two. Most of the time, Jackson sounds as if he’s singing through clenched teeth, spitting out words in defiance of any and all persecutors.

    In the song called “HIStory,” over a collage of vintage radio broadcasts (including the fall of the Berlin wall and the opening of Disneyland), Jackson tries to put a brave face on things. Harsh, clipped whispers spit out an individual’s travails, a rising march asks, “How many children have to die?” and then a gospel chorus and children’s voices preach, “Let’s harmonize all around the world.” But the song seems more obsessed with dying soldiers and “victims slaughtered in vain across the land” than with hope. The other social-conscience selection, “Earth Song,” is a complaint to God about problems that range from war to endangered whales.

    Most often, Jackson is on the defensive, and he has decided the best defense is a two-pronged counterattack. On the “Dangerous” album, he whined, “Why you wanna trip on me?” Now, he snarls accusations of his own. First, there’s the Watergate defense: it’s not him, it’s the news media that are out to get him.

    In “Tabloid Junkie,” he comes close to rapping: “Speculate to break the one you hate/ Circulate the lie you confiscate.” He sings, “With your pen you torture me/ You’d crucify the Lord,” and then, with harmony vocals akin to “Billie Jean,” he tries to put across a catchy message: “Just because you read it in a magazine/ Or see it on a TV screen/ Don’t make it factual.”

    The other defense shows up in “Childhood,” and it’s what might be called a Menendez brothers strategy: no matter what he did, he had an awful childhood that led him to it. Over tinkling keyboards and strings that could be sweeping across a Cinemascope panorama, he croons, “No one understands me.” He adds, “They view it as such strange eccentricities, ’cause I keep kidding around.” He invokes “the painful youth I’ve had,” begs, “Try hard to love me” and, with a breaking voice, asks, “Have you seen my childhood?”

    Jackson usually keeps his animosity general. The two-faced, money-grubbing people who besiege him stay unspecified — “Somebody’s out to get me” — and he insists he’ll tough it out: “I’m standin’ though you’re kickin’ me.” For listeners, those songs could rally any number of individual gripes. But Jackson reveals a more distorted personal perspective in “They Don’t Care About Us.” When he’s not slinging the word kike, he calls himself “a victim of police brutality” and a “victim of hate” and insists that “if Roosevelt was livin’, he wouldn’t let this be,” later substituting “Martin Luther” (King, presumbly) for Roosevelt. A listener might wonder just who “us” is supposed to be.

    To make the songs lodge in the ear, Jackson uses elementary singsong melodies — a “nyah, nyah” two-note motif in “They Don’t Care About Us,” a military-like chant in “2 Bad” — and he comes up with all kinds of surprises in the arrangements. He’s not above the obvious. “Scream,” written with Janet Jackson and her producers, simply picks up the sound of Janet’s “Rhythm Nation,” and elsewhere on the album there are obligatory guest raps (from the Notorious B.I.G. and Shaquille O’Neal). But where Jackson used to sound treacly during his uptempo songs, he has now pared down the music. Choruses are sweeter than verses, but just enough to set them apart, and the rhythm tracks kick and twitch with brilliant syncopation. The ballads are lavishly melodic. “Stranger in Moscow,” with odd lyrics like “Stalin’s tomb won’t let me be,” has a gorgeous chorus for the repeated question “How does it feel?”

    IN THE NEW MATERIAL, THERE’S only one conventional love song, “You Are Not Alone,” written not by Jackson but by the songwriter and producer R. Kelly. It resembles Mariah Carey’s “Hero” and sounds like a surefire hit. But along with “They Don’t Care About Us,” the creepiest new songs are the album’s lushest ballads: “Childhood,” “Little Susie” and a remake of “Smile,” which was a hit for Nat (King) Cole. The ballads deploy sweeping, larger-than-life strings behind Jackson’s most tender voice. “Little Susie” uses a tinkling, music-box waltz (something like “Sunrise, Sunset” from “Fiddler on the Roof”) to tell the story of a murdered child, as Jackson details “the blood in her hair,” in a deliberately gruesome lullaby.

    He closes the album with “Smile” (“though your heart is aching”) a dramatic tour de force. Over quivering strings and a nonchalant piano, Jackson sounds like he’s barely holding back tears. His voice trembles, breaks, pulls itself together and heads for another emotional brink. It ends with an indrawn breath, a sob on the verge of a crying jag.

    The song, and the album, are the testimony of a musician whose self-pity now equals his talent. Jackson seems intent on making the whole world feel sorry for him. But the album’s ultimate popularity will depend on a different factor: whether people who feel sorry for themselves will hear the album as a superstar’s tantrum or as a voice for their own bitter resentment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/18/arts/pop-view-michael-jackson-is-angry-understand.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm

    Like

  64. February 19, 2013 10:58 pm

    “I think this is one of the most important posts you ever wrote – the summarized documentation of the tricks the media and MJs detractors used to manipulate the truth regarding the allegations.”

    Thank you, Susanne. It was also one of the most difficult ones for various reasons. One of them is the sea of unreported facts about Jackson and lots of documentation I have. What I write here is usually only part of what I found and tried to sum up. If I have a chance I will probably make a sequel to it one day.

    “You really have to dig deep today to find all this manipulation from the various sides who now want to hide everything – from Feldman to Sneddon to the media and whoever was involved.(I understand much better now what you wanted to tell me in your mail)”

    As I’ve told you the way the media keeps treating Jackson is killing me. Their agenda is so clearly manifested that it is simply disgusting and extremely disappointing.

    While making this post I found the NYTimes archive similiar to the one made by CNN Court TV, and was amazed by the amount of hate they put into it. Here is one more of their articles published on December 26, 1993 (exactly when Court TV announced it plans to televise the civil trial).

    It is important because it shows the atmopshere in which Michael Jackson had to live and function.

    What was the point of debasing Michael Jackson and speaking of him as someone unread and uneducated? What they are writing here shows that they don’t even know what they are talking about – he was uneducated but he was very well read!

    It looks like the molestation allegations are used by the NYTimes just as a pretext for outpouring their zoological hate towards him:

    Topics of The Times; An Uneducated Life
    Published: December 26, 1993

    In due course the law will decide the validity of the sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson. But it is not necessary to await a legal determination to understand the sad human story involved in the life of the man from Neverland.

    Like Elvis Presley, Mr. Jackson entered the world with phenomenal natural talents. And it was also his lot to be born into a family that, while well versed in music, apparently lacked the resources or will to foster rounded development.

    So Mr. Jackson aged, but he did not in any real sense grow up. While he had better business management than Presley, Mr. Jackson became a victim of his frenetic show business success in another way. He was never educated in any meaningful and useful sense. By most accounts, he is an unread person whose mind operates on a juvenile level and whose psychological self-awareness is seriously underdeveloped.

    The outward signs of that are visible in the cruel extremity of the cosmetic surgery that he has caused to be performed on a now ruined face. He has transformed his visage into a grotesque mask. But that is only the visible damage. The deeper damage comes from having to pass through life without the shield of knowledge.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/26/opinion/topics-of-the-times-an-uneducated-life.html

    Like

  65. February 19, 2013 8:50 pm

    “The timing of “refreshing “all the dirt on Michael in beginning of 2008 is interesting. Was this not the time just before some tentative connections betweeen Michael and Thome were made?”– kaarin

    Kaarin, you are absolutely right, I’ve made a mistake by a whole year (and will correct it now). Michael returned from Ireland in December 2006, and not in December 2007 as I’ve written. When he arrived from Ireland he worked with Jack Wishna on a Las Vegas project and half a year later began to be lured by AEG and Tohme:

    On Christmas Eve 2006, I got a call from Wishna saying he had a blockbuster world exclusive: Jackson was ending his self-exile abroad and landing in Las Vegas within hours. Sure enough, when Jackson and his family stepped off the airplane, Wishna and his wife, Donna, greeted them. The King of Pop’s comeback was under way, with Wishna positioned as the architect.

    But the tide quickly turned. When Jackson was wooed by entertainment giant AEG Live, Wishna moved to his next big plan: develop a global social media website, RockCityClub.com, for musicians and their fans.

    With input from Jackson, Wishna partnered with music mogul Don Kirshner and big-time producers Ron Dante and Phil Ramone. An uber-confident Wishna told it me would be the next big thing in music.

    But his dream suffered a setback came when Kirshner died about two years ago. Sources said Wishna had been under recent financial strain involving investors.

    He died early Tuesday after being found in his garage at his home in Anthem Country Club. The Clark County coroner ruled Wishna’s death as a suicide, by way of carbon monoxide. He was 54.

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/wishna-embraced-the-art-of-the-deal-181337711.html

    P.S. The posts have been corrected. I am very grateful to Kaarin for making me realize the mistake. My memory is quickly turning into a disaster, but the facts provided in the posts are dated correctly as they are actually stated by the sources quoted there.

    Like

  66. February 19, 2013 7:05 pm

    The showing of Michaels body was appropriate for the jury only to see.It brought out to them the very seriuous and tragic end of his life.It is a shame that TMZ and other media, got hold of it.
    The timing of “refreshing “all the dirt on Michael in beginning of 2008 is interesting. Was this not the time just before some tentative connections betweeen Michael and Thome were made? The official story states that Jeremy introduced them,however on Wikileaks (no longer available) Thome, (a then associate of T.Barrack)had kept an eye on MJ for quite some time. Thome and T. Barrack specialising in misplaced or distressed capital were interested in Michael as result of his preciuos catalogue.The rest of that story is wellknown now.

    Like

  67. February 19, 2013 6:26 pm

    Helena, I think this is one of the most important posts you ever wrote – the summarized documentation of the tricks the media and MJs detractors used to manipulate the truth regarding the allegations. It makes clear that it was an extortion of it’s own when Michael had to give in and decide against a trial due to the threat of a televised trial and the use of the photos. I absolutely agree that he couldn’t have lived with that if it had happened and that he would have never been on stage again.
    You really have to dig deep today to find all this manipulation from the various sides who now want to hide everything – from Feldman to Sneddon to the media and whoever was involved.
    (I understand much better now what you wanted to tell me in your mail)

    Like

  68. February 19, 2013 4:49 pm

    “The criminal investigation of Michael closes, while the one of Evan Chandler goes on and ends in a trial.” – vmj

    The above was a projection only. In reality the outcome of Evan Chandler’s extortion case was different. What’s interesting is that the announcement of closing that criminal case was made exactly on the same date as the settlement agreement (January 25, 1994), so the initial impression is that the settlement was accompanied by closing a criminal case against Michael Jackson (and not Evan Chandler). At least this is the impression I get of it.

    The news is presented as a major victory for the Chandlers. Dropping those claims was most probably Michael Jackson’s concession the Chandlers traded with him in exchange for cutting the extortion sum by half. Only $20mln (and not $30mln) are mentioned as this was the sum initially named by Pellicano “immediately after the sexual abuse allegations surfaced last summer” (or before the civil suit was filed in September 1993). So formally everything is correct in respect of the sum. However the article is (a little) biased which mostly manifests itself in misplacing the focus.

    Anthony Pellicano stood by Michael to the very end of it as it is clear from this article.

    January 25, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    Amid signs that a lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of sexually molesting a young boy may soon be settled, prosecutors announced Monday that they will not bring charges against the boy’s father, whom Jackson and his advisers claimed tried to extort money from the entertainer.

    “We’ve declined to file today criminal charges of attempted extortion,” said Michael J. Montagna, a deputy Los Angeles County district attorney who heads that office’s organized crime unit. “The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed.”

    The district attorney’s decision, coming after more than five months of investigation, represents a major victory for the boy’s family, whose representatives have denied the extortion allegations for months. The decision was criticized by Jackson’s former private investigator but praised by the lawyer for the boy’s father.

    “We’re pleased that the district attorney has confirmed my client is innocent of any wrongdoing,” said the lawyer, Richard Hirsch. “Now all the parties can focus on the real issues in this matter.”

    Immediately after the sexual abuse allegations surfaced last summer, private investigator Anthony Pellicano, then employed by Jackson, publicly accused the boy’s father and the father’s lawyer of trying to extort $20 million from the singer. According to Pellicano, the boy’s father went public with the allegations of abuse only after the extortion attempt failed.

    Pellicano released two tape recordings to bolster the extortion claim, and Jackson later repeated the accusations. Jackson’s advisers lodged a complaint with the Police Department, however, only after The Times reported that one had not been filed.

    Montagna cited the Jackson camp’s slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy’s father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case. Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson’s representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy’s father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.

    “It’s not a crime for attorneys to try to settle a civil action,” Montagna said. “The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court.”

    In an interview Monday, Pellicano sharply disputed the argument that the discussions were intended to settle a claim out of court.

    “All during the conversations with Barry Rothman, he was stating that ‘unless we get what we want, we’re going to blow the lid off, we’re going to go to the press, we’re going to ruin him,’ ” Pellicano said. “That’s a threat. I can’t interpret that anyway but a threat.”

    …After a court hearing Jan. 14, Superior Court Judge David Rothman announced that the attorneys had agreed to halt their public comments. Since then, they have declined to talk about the case, refusing to respond to a deluge of press inquiries.

    But sources said Jackson will pay the boy at least $10 million in return for dropping the lawsuit. Estimates from people close to the negotiations range from about $15 million to about $24 million, with some of the money upfront and the rest in a trust fund for the boy.

    …If a settlement has been finalized by this afternoon, lawyers are expected to announce it at a news conference outside the Santa Monica courthouse, though sources say the attorneys will not disclose the agreement’s terms. If no settlement is reached but discussions continue, the lawyers could announce a deal later this week, the sources added.

    Although the announcement by the district attorney’s office and the reports of an impending settlement in the civil case appeared almost simultaneously, prosecutors said that was a coincidence.

    “The rejection would have been issued last week but for the earthquake,” Montagna said. “There is no relation.”

    Pellicano–who no longer works for Jackson but who still fiercely proclaims the entertainer’s innocence and opposes any effort to settle the civil case–scoffed at that and suggested that prosecutors and lawyers in the civil case are orchestrating an effort to dismiss all the cases.

    “If you believe that,” he said of Montagna’s comments, “I’ll sell you some bayou land.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-25/local/me-15027_1_civil-case

    P.S. The dictionary says that bayou is “water surrounded by land”, so the last sentence may probably be understood as “If you are so naive and believe everything you are told, I’ll take advantage of it to sell you some land soaking in water”.

    Like

  69. February 19, 2013 3:22 pm

    “The article title was so beyond false there is no word for it” – Dialdancer

    Dial, thank you very much, I’ll have a look at the email later today. At the moment I asked myself a question what course the events would have taken place if the media had not been biased against Jackson.

    Here is my projection.

    Let’s suppose that everything is the same up to the point of that strip search. The body search takes place, and the photos are made. The world is holding its breath waiting for Michael Jackson to be arrested.

    But he is not. Legal pundits go on TV and explain to the public what it means. It means that the photos did not match the description, and there is a very high probability (99,9%) that the allegations are false. The remaining 0,1% of doubt is being checked up now by the prosecution.

    Then comes the news of the civil trial (if it ever comes to it) to be televised. Everyone comments on the necessity to use those very photos for Michael to exonerate himself. Women are thrilled by the prospect of seeing them on TV, men chuckle and express sympathy for Michael. Legal pundits and show business managers discuss which way it will be better for Michael (and his career) – to agree to this kind of a trial or refuse and settle instead.

    People divide into those who advise him to do it and those who advise him against it.

    Michael decides to settle. Women are disappointed, men chuckle in understanding and make jokes about it. Legal pundits and show business managers comment again, but public opinion polls show that the general public thinks the decision to be correct under the circumstances.

    Now the public demands further investigation of the extortion theme – if the photos did not coincide with the description it means that the family lied, and should be prosecuted.

    The criminal investigation of Michael closes, while the one of Evan Chandler goes on and ends in a trial.

    End of story.

    This course of events would have been no less thrilling for the public (and media), but it would have been normal. But it was possible only if the media had reported the truth and hadn’t supported lies.

    Like

  70. February 19, 2013 1:55 pm

    “I wonder if all these confidential materials – the photos, the reports, the videotaped interviews will be disclosed one day.”

    Morinen, but all these materials are not confidential – they are in public access, only a very limited one. The truth was reported just once and was never reproduced by hundreds of other media sources as they do it with lies. Lisa Marie Presley was speaking about it in that 1995 Prime Time Interview (about a tiny piece reporting the truth). So at the time it was like that too and nothing has changed since then, except that this precious news is now available for money only.

    This is what is most disgusting about it – lies are multiplied by a hundred and are readily spread, while the truth is formally announced and then reduced to almost a zero and is blocked. This isn’t freedom of the press which is supposed to report the truth, it is freedom to tell lies.

    “the picture of Michael dreading to see his intimate photos on TV instantly reminded me of the Murray trial, and how Michael’s naked lifeless body was paraded on TMZ”

    Yes, and an even worse thing would have happened if Michael’s photos (proving his innocence) had been shown. The shock of them would have been so terrible that it is due to those photos alone that Michael would have never stepped on stage again or gone out in public.

    Considering a very specific way how Michael had to prove his innocence even without TV the civil trial would have been dreadful, but with TV it was simply out of the question. This should be understood by each and everybody.

    And it would not have been the defense’s fault if they had had to show the photos to release Michael of suspicion – this was the only way to prove his innocence. It was unavoidable and the only difference between a ‘simple’ trial and a televised one was in the number of people who would have seen those photos. In any case it was an extreme humiliation for Michael and a terrible blow to his self-esteem. This is actually why he decided to settle.

    The public should have understood it, but they didn’t.

    P.S. I’m sorry for making so many spelling and other mistakes in the post (now some have been corrected). As usual it was the middle of the night for me, and frankly, the several years of all this strain are having their toll on me.

    Like

  71. February 19, 2013 10:06 am

    @ Morinen,

    I too become ill and angry each time I see a copy of Michael’s death photo all over the internet. I would feel the same no mater who it was. There are just some things which should not have happened; it was unnecessary. It was negligent and disrespectful, and diminished us the living for taking part in it.

    @ Helena,

    Sent you an email. I really want to discuss this topic. So much more is known from the first time many of these topics were brought up. The title is one I saw recently, but in reverse. It was a copy of a post from Dimond. “What the jury did not get to see”. She was speaking of what is believed to be JC’s drawing. The article title was so beyond false there is no word for it. The jury was able to go home, watch TV, look at the Internet and see every weapon used to taint them. They surely some saw this and knew more than most or followed the judges instructions so it made no difference in their deliberations and final verdict.

    Like

  72. February 19, 2013 4:34 am

    I wonder if all these confidential materials – the photos, the reports, the videotaped interviews will be disclosed one day. Are they forever privileged, or is there a certain time period after which such information becomes open for public inquiries?

    You know, the picture of Michael dreading to see his intimate photos on TV instantly reminded me of the Murray trial, and how Michael’s naked lifeless body was paraded on TMZ. And it was done basically for the same reason – in his “defense”. From the moment I saw that image I felt sick thinking how horrible it would have been for Michael to know that something like that would ever happen. Neither the trial, nor Murray’s sentence justified it for me. I still hate Walgren for doing that to Michael.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: