Michael Jackson Case: WHAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT HEAR

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.

My list includes the facts never heard by the public, and this is why it is much longer than the one made by CNN. 

And the facts not heard by the jury are practically none, while what the public did not hear is a lot.

The CNN headline is misleading because most of those salacious stories were presented to the jury in court as I myself read about them in the transcripts.

So the idea to republish them on the eve of 2008 – several years after Michael’s full acquittal and soon after his return 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 certainly drew its inspiration from the book written by Victor Gutierrez where this Diane Dimond’s informant 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 not even familiar with Michael Jackson in the 1992 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 later disappeared for some reason.

Many of them are already well-known to the readers of this blog while some are relatively new as they were previously mentioned only in the comments. 

1. THERE WAS NO 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, 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 they found a huge contrast between the headline and the body of the article and the way they told the same news.

The headline said that the photos may contradict the accuser’s story, while the text itself said that they did contradict it:

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 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 media objectiveness, at least in respect of Michael Jackson.

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 is a glaring proof of the mismatch. 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 as evidence from the civil trial.

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 it was actually a threat:

• “Michael Jackson, either you give us the photos, we see your genitalia and correctly describe them to the police (while you undergo another strip search) or I’ll arrange for the photos clearing you of suspicion to be barred, understand?”

It is no wonder that Feldman’s request is found only in one short article in the Los Angeles Times. To their credit up till now this article is freely available to all, for which I am immensely grateful to the LA Times – they look like an island of credible information in the sea of lies and suppressed truth practised by almost everyone else around MJ.

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 Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100914080337/http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

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 people’s logic and explained that if he wasn’t arrested then and there, and no criminal charges were brought against him, and he and his wife Lisa-Marie Presley were now sitting in an interview with Diane Sawyer on PrimeTime TV, it should be enough for the public to realize that there was no evidence to match the boy’s false charges.

Here is an excerpt from the June 14, 1995 PrimeTime interview where they discussed 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 Presley: When they concluded there was no match-up it was printed this big

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 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” 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”.

In general the New York Times seems to be especially unkind to Michael Jackson.

A month after Reuters informed the public that there was no match between the photos and the accuser’s description, the NY Times lamented over the corrupt state of affairs in this world where the ‘gilded hand of the offence (the alleged molestation) shoved the justice’ and the ‘wicked prize (the settlement) buys out the law’.

This quote from Shakespeare was placed in a letter to the NYTimes editor as a sad reflection over the society morals where these poor intellectuals are forced to live. It is indeed deplorable that these respectable people 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 made, and though the prize was indeed wicked it was the Chandlers who got it.

And it is equally deplorable that the NY Times editors didn’t care to give a proper and correct answer to those lamentations. The paper still keeps this piece among 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

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

The 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, Gil Garcetti said a number of things which sound somewhat fresh to my ear. We learn the following from Garcetti’s statement made upon closing the investigation:

• the criminal investigation lasted for about 13 or 14 months
• more than 400 witnesses were interviewed
• Jordan Chandler didn’t want to testify.  Jason Francia (Blanca Francia’s son) also refused to be involved, and a boy who was out of the country denied any wrongdoing on the part of Jackson
• the case may be reevaluated if new evidence depeloped
• but until then Michael was to be regarded innocent

Gil Garcetti even stressed that Michael Jackson was presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room. This is what the law really says about the 1993 case.

Here is the 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 Primetime 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer, Michael Jackson simply repeated the same, but instead of listening to what the law says, the media and public broke into a roar of indignation 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. This time the lawsuit was for $60 mln.

Michael Jackson was simply not allowed to 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 information about Jordan Chandler’s wrong description, and even 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.

This grave mistake was described in minute detail in various earlier posts, so let us not go into that again. Instead we need to focus on another more sinister process taking place now  – the artificially incited amnesia about the fact that Jordan Chandler called Michael Jackson circumcised.

6. CIRCUMCISION AMNESIA

This Jordan’s mistake is much more difficult to correct by Michael’s haters 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 made.

We know from the autopsy report that Michael Jackson was the way Mother Nature made him – he was not circumcised. And Jordan Chandler said that he was. Why he said it is clear enough. The majority of males in the US, at least in the 60s were circumcised. Jordan was also half Jew, so neither he nor his father who invented the fake story could imagine that MJ would turn out not circumcised in contrast to all others.

This mistake became the biggest stumbling block for the police.  However nothing is impossible for the media and prosecutors like Sneddon. If you browse the internet for that point now you will be greatly amazed that all mention of Jordan’s words was erased and that Michael’s detractors are now claiming 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 words in 1993 (though it is not available online). Never mind the quotes from the report 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 all that the information about this crucial issue was effectively erased from the web – except for the books, of course. Fortunately the “circumcision” point was recorded in the heinous books by Victor Gutierrez and Stacy Brown, as well as several editions of Randy Taraborrelli’s book where Jordan’s 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 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 fixed by truthful Michael’s reporters so that these liars never forget what they lied about Jackson!

Gutierrez wrote:

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

Victor Gutierrez alleged that he had access to the so-called Jordan’s drawing, which he included into his book, and over there the words “circumcised” and “short pubic hair” were written on the very top of the drawing.  The piece looked like it was made in Evan Chandler’s handwriting and had words like “my theory” which point to Evan just making suppositions about MJ. Here is a fragment of it:

Can anyone tell me why the media is so set on with slandering Michael Jackson 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

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 a murder scene 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 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 this nonsense from a person who was actually leading the investigation!

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 is 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 in view 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 exhibit – 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), how can he talk about the color marks described by Jordan? He saw only the photos and didn’t see the description, and if he was just told that it was a match it means that he heard the description from someone else and is just repeating this person’s words.

The further we go the funnier it gets. Let’s go over the full list of those who could have access to those photos and drawings, could make the determination about the so-called “match” and inform others about it.

We learn about all the parties involved in this process from Sneddon’s declaration submitted at 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 sort out this mess for you:

• The criminal investigation was started by the Los Angeles police department [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 Rosibel 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 Santa Barbara District Attorney.
• On December 13, 1993 Deborah Linden interviewed Jordan Chandler and made a so-called Linden affidavit which no one ever saw but everyone heard about, 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 Santa Barbara 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 was present and represented the authorities].

Now let us review this list of candidates in search for the one who made the wrong comparison of the two 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 there was 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 deputy Deborah Linden – I doubt that she was more informed than her boss.

So 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 the 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 does not even hide the fact that was he who compared the two exhibits and had the final say. He speaks about it in his declaration.

And the big difference between the declaration and what the media confidently reported as “an absolute match” is that nothing can be more vague and uncertain than the wording of 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 the prosecutors are allowed to do it, the defense attorneys may follow the example and also make determinations concerning some evidence, imposing on the jury their own evaluations and denying access to it to experts or the oppositing party who want to fact-check 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, without any fact checking. But 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).

And the next Sneddon’s statement is the apotheosis of twisting the truth and saying things 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.

A simple comparison of  Jordan’s exact words with the photos is replaced here with verbal acrobatics. And the ending of the declaration is the quintessence of uncertainty in which the only clear point is that Sneddon is absolutely not sure of what he says and confuses everyone in order 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 cry or laugh.  And this mess was presented to all of us as an “absolute match” and for two decades too!

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 5^th 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. The prosecution would know everything about him and he would know nothing about whatever “evidence” they collected.

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 turning over the evidence obtained during the discovery process in a civil case to criminal investigators.

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

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 case and this evidence included the worst he had – Jordan Chandler’s declaration as well as the 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 none of it had any evidence against him and that Dr. Richard Gardner most probably made a negative conclusion as to the veracity of Jordan Chandler’s words. We have another indirect indication of it as Larry Feldman was forced to take that video interview to another doctor, Dr. Katz and have it evaluated by him too.

Apparently, Dr. Katz’s opinion was also available to Laureen Weis, and both of those psychiatrists’ conclusions must be somewhere there, in Laureen Wies’s files.

And after the prosecutors examined all the evidence and took it to two Grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, Michael Jackson was nevertheless not indicted, criminal charges were not brought against him and the LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti declared him 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 always remember.

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 saw the contradiction between the two exhibits.

In case Sneddon did not do it, so much the worse for him, as it will mean that he suppressed 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 the transcript of Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner doesn’t show any such suffering.  On the contrary, already in October 1993 when his “therapy” had been far from over, our good 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 deposition, which is the next best thing to a cross-examination in court.

It turns out that in civil lawsuits the Plaintiff  (Jordan Chandler) is to be deposed  by all means.

10. JORDAN WAS OBLIGED TO BE DEPOSED

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 in court.

Let me repeat, Michael Jackson’s right to make Jordan deposed was practically unlimited.

We know about it from an article which actually argues that the same system which exists in civil cases should be used in criminal investigations too (over there it is practiced less often).

So during a criminal investigation Jordan was less likely to be deposed, while in a civil case it was mandatory.

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 focuses on Michael’s unwillingness to be deposed (perfectly understandable to me), 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 5^th Amendment right, while Jordan Chandler didn’t have this chance, so what was possible for Michael Jackson as a defendant was impossible for Jordan as a plaintiff – Jordan had to face Michael Jackson and his lawyers and answer their questions by all means.

Bert Fields, Michael’s first attorney was indeed 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 emphatic way:

• “You got to be kidding me. Mr. Fields is going to depose this young man at the appropriate time.. Period”.

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.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20031130192227/http://buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Michael’s detractors will probably say that Michael was “afraid” to listen to what Jordan would disclose at a deposition, but 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 around it.

The only party that could be afraid of that deposition was Jordan Chandler as his fictional version was to be challenged by Michael’s lawyers, and his wrong description of MJ’s genitalia was to be surely examined there too.

And what could Jordan say there if he was confronted with the huge discrepancies between his description and the photos of Michael Jackson’s real 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 leave room for the bargaining.

But what’s clear here is that the true sum demanded by the Chandlers has never been disclosed by the media.

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 settlement agreement. For some reason not a single mass media outlet chose to repeat those true words.

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20031130192227/http://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 root of it is in the stark contrast between what the Chandlers asked ($30 mln) and what they got ($15,3mln).

What I mean is asking for 30 and getting 15,3 may look like a step back and as 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 mismatch between the description and the photos surely affected the sum of the settlement once the Chandlers realized that their extortion plan was on the road to a complete ruin starting a panic among their 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 last 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 hiding this information. The gist of it is that even if it was ‘only’ a civil trial there was a big chance that it would go on TV.

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 made their recent archive of the most ‘interesting’ articles about Michael Jackson they forgot to mention their own role in trying to have the civil trial televised?

It is also interesting that the idea of a TV coverage arose 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 tearful 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 that decided it all.

The prospect of seeing the photos of his genitals on the screen showed to the company its gigantic potential. For Court TV it 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 a lifetime.

The first time we hear the news about Court TV planning to televise the trial is 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

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. So over here we have nothing to worry about – they would have arranged that TV coverage all right.

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

The problem is that in order to prove his complete innocence Michael Jackson had to 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 courtroom. Then 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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101005063024/http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

Following this news coming on December 26, 1993 a certain silence fell over this subject and no one spoke of it 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 a 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 civil trial was televised his strip search would be witnessed by the whole world.

Michael Jackson was completely innocent as the photos proved it, but imagine the enlarged photos of his genitalia on the TV screen and you will realize that the situation was a total impasse for 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 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 feign surprise as to why Michael Jackson settled the suit with that little angel Jordan Chandler they should 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.

We also know that Michael was mortally afraid of that situation because when Martin Bashir asked him about the 1993 case, Michael named a possible TV coverage as the main reason for the settlement.

Before 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) 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 the 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 danger of a televised civil trial 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 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 trying to hide the prospect of a televised trial in 1993 and have cut out all mention of it on the web. We know that they are doing it deliberately from the clipped way the same Michael’s words 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 their 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 omission of what makes the essence of the story screams the truth better than any words – the media does not want us to know about this particular fact in the 1993 civil case same as they don’t want us to know the truth about Jackson in general.

Televised trials are not a bad thing and may be very helpful as Conrad Murray’s trial showed it, but if Michael Jackson refused the dubious honor of participating in a trial where his intimate photos were to be used for proving his innocence, his decision should be understood and respected.

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.

And no one should be allowed to ridicule a man who was declared innocent even by the prosecutor who investigated the case and said that he was no worse than any of us.

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 duty is to report real facts and not make money, fame or ratings at the expense of lies about an innocent man and his immense suffering.

The fact that the media do not tell the truth about MJ makes me think that they know about the disastrous role they played in ruining Jackson’s life. 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:

• NO MORE Groundhog Days for Michael Jackson
• Was it a MATCH or a total MISMATCH?
• The story of “The Telltale Splotch” missing from the Smoking Gun
• Did Jordan Chandler make a DEPOSITION?