Skip to content

WHAT THE MAID SAW. Adrian McManus tells her full story about Michael Jackson in its four variations

March 2, 2019

On February 24th the Australian 60 min TV program aired an interview with Adrian McManus who reemerged again on the wave of a new craze over the revised stories of Robson and Safechuck.

Following the latest fashion each time a certain detractor from Michael’s past reappears, it is usually with a much graver story than before and Ms. McManus is no exception here.

You can watch the Australian video and read its transcript at the end of this post, but before you hear the latest from McManus, it is an absolute must to know her previous saga and see her memory in its evolvement during the past two and a half decades.

The saga is huge, so prepare yourself for a long read. However I feel that it isn’t only Dan Reed who is entitled to a four-hour narration, especially since his story is solely about fake emotions, while mine is solely about facts and it isn’t my fault that McManus changed her story four times.  

ADRIAN MCMANUS’S STORY #1

Adrian McManus’s initial views on Jackson were first recorded in her deposition that took place on December 7th, 1993.

The testimony was given under oath during Jordan Chandler’s civil case and was in the presence of lawyers for both sides including Larry Feldman, the attorney retained by the Chandlers.

McManus says that she began working at Neverland on August 29th of 1990 and left her job on July 31st of 1994.

For the first nine months she was a regular housekeeper who did the cleaning job everywhere at the ranch – except Michael Jackson’s quarters. When Michael’s first personal maid Blanca Francia left at about June 1991, McManus took over her job.

Curious to know which periods of McManus’s employment overlapped with Michael’s stay in his home country I looked up the dates of his world tours and singled out the following periods when McManus could be together with Michael at Neverland:

  • June 1991- June 1992 (after that MJ went on the Dangerous tour)
  • October-November 1992 (during the two-months break between the two legs of the tour)
  • January- August 1993 (after which Michael left on the last leg of the Dangerous tour)
  • And another half a year from the point when Michael returned to the US (just prior to his strip search on December 20) until July 31, 1994 when McManus left her job.

The above makes it clear that Adrian McManus’s deposition on December 7th 1993 came two weeks before Michael Jackson’s return to the US from his rehabilitation abroad after cancelling the Dangerous tour. At the time he was inaccessible to anyone at all and the overwhelming majority of people didn’t even know where he was.

The text of McManus’s 1993 deposition is not available to us, but the main points she made then can be restored by her much more hostile testimony at the 2005 trial where parts of her earlier deposition were refreshed in her memory by Thomas Mesereau – much to her dislike. The transcripts of her testimony are here and here.  

So what did Adrian McManus testify to in 1993?

Speaking under oath she said that she had never seen Michael Jackson in bed, neither alone, nor with anyone else.

Q. Do you remember testifying that you have never seen Mr. Jackson in bed?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Might it refresh your recollection if I show you your deposition?

A. Sure.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you said –

A. Yes.

Q. What did you say?

A. That I didn’t see him in his bed.

Q. You’d never seen Mr. Jackson in bed, right?

Q. Right.

McManus knew that children were always around Michael Jackson, but she didn’t see them sleeping in Michael’s room, not to mention his bed. At that time she said that she didn’t even know where Brett Barnes or the other children slept:

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you said under oath about whether you knew where Mr.Barnes slept?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what did you say?

A. I believe I said, “I don’t know.”

Q. Okay. Now, you knew you were under oath in this deposition, right?

A. Yes.

Back in 1993 Larry Feldman was mostly interested in Jordan Chandler, and McManus told him that she had never seen Jordan Chandler being ready to go to bed in Michael’s room or getting up in the morning there:

Q. And what did you say about Mr. Chandler on that issue?

A. That I didn’t see him ready to go to bed.

Q. And you also said you’d never seen him get up in the morning, right?

A. Correct.

The same was repeated in 2005:

Q. Had you seen the two of them together in the bedroom?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you ever seen them in bed together?

A. Not in bed, no.

Everything Adrian McManus said in her deposition made it clear that in 1993 she was incredibly supportive of Jackson. She even said that she trusted him so much that she would leave her son all alone with Michael. It looks like it was a spontaneous remark on her part and certainly made of her own free will:

Q. Do you remember you said under oath that you trust Mr. Jackson and you would leave your son alone with him?

A. I don’t recall any of that. I don’t recall — I don’t know what I said, because I have not looked at that.

Q. Might it refresh your recollection if I just show you that page?

A. Sure.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you said in that deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. You said words to the effect, “I trust Mr. Jackson,” and you would leave your son alone with him, right?

A. I believe so.

Her son was around 10 years old at the time and he sometimes played at Neverland with no other but Wade Robson who was the same age:

Q. Who was Wade Robeson?

A. He was a little boy that used to go to the ranch, and he was from Australia.

Q. How old was he when you saw him at the ranch?

A. I don’t know exact. Maybe 10, 11.

Q. And your son at that time was approximately how old?

A. Maybe ten.

Q. Did they, on occasion, play together?

A. Off and on.

The matter of chimes in the corridor was also raised in 1993, and this makes it clear to us that some time within the 5-year period after the ranch was purchased in 1988 the chimes were installed there (though it does not mean that they were there when Safechuck was around, as he is telling us now).

In her deposition Adrian McManus defended Michael saying that the chimes were the necessary security measure for a celebrity like him, and surprisingly, even in 2005 she was still of the same opinion. She said that she hadn’t lied when she spoke of the need for Michael to be careful and the little chime benefitting his life.

Q. Ms. McManus, this is what you said under oath: “But you have to understand now, when you’re a celebrity, you live a different life than regular people.  I mean, people like to kill celebrities, so, you know, he has to be careful, you know, with his life, and that little sensor benefits him for his life.” Remember saying that?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay. Now, you weren’t lying when you said that, were you?

A. No.

The matter of boys’ underwear is now a big thing on Australian TV, so it’s interesting to find what McManus said about it in 1993.

And she said that Brett Barnes didn’t leave any of his clothes in Michael’s room – it was Brett’s mother who gave her his clothes to wash.

Macaulay Culkin never left his clothes in the room either, which is also true as Macaulay testified at the same trial that it was usual for him to sleep fully dressed when hanging out at Neverland, because for him it wasn’t so much sleeping in bed as rather crashing dead tired wherever it happened – at the theater or other places at the ranch.

Here is Adrian McManus speaking in 1993 about the boys’ clothes (including their underwear of course):

Q. You were asked if you had ever seen Brett Barnes’clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?

A. If it’s there. Like I said, I have not gone over that.

Q. And your response was sometimes his mother would give you his clothes to wash, right?

A. Yeah, probably.

Q. You didn’t see his clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You said that you had never seen the Culkin boys’clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?

A. Yes.

Robson and Safechuck were not even mentioned by McManus.

In fact the only one who according to McManus had his clothes in Michael’s room was Jordan Chandler. His suitcase was brought into Michael’s room by his mother twice, after which she sat on the floor, took the clothes out and folded them. The clothes were not put into a drawer, but were left anywhere in the room (please remember it as it is important).

Q. Do you remember being asked under oath in that deposition if you ever saw Jordie Chandler’s clothes at the ranch?

A. I believe that I do recall that.

Q. Do you remember saying that you saw his mother bring them into Mr. Jackson’s room in a suitcase?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a dresser or a drawer set up for Jordie’s clothing?

A. No. The clothes would just get put anywhere in the room.

The deposition took a surprising turn when for some reason Adrian McManus said that she never saw June Chandler and Michael Jackson in any romantic relationship and she wasn’t aware of her sleeping with Michael Jackson. It is interesting why those questions were asked at all.

Q. You said you had never seen Mr. Jackson and June Chandler in any romantic relationship, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You weren’t aware of her sleeping with Mr. Jackson, right?

A. No.

Needless to say, in 1993 McManus said she had never seen anything inappropriate in Michael’s behavior with children and didn’t even see him holding hands with any child:

Q. You said you’d never seen Michael Jackson hold hands with anybody at the ranch, right?

A. Correct.

The above must be an exaggeration because even we saw Michael holding hands with children in numerous places outside Neverland, so why should it be different at the ranch? However if this was an exaggeration on McManus’s part it is quite telling too – it means that she was keen on defending Michael Jackson, was speaking of her free will and definitely didn’t experience any pressure from Michael, who was away, or his lawyers. We know that the lawyers never exerted any influence on her because she never complained about it – not even once throughout all four versions of her story.

So how come Adrian McManus changed her story a year later when she filed her lawsuit against Michael Jackson in December 1994?

ADRIAN’S LAWSUIT STORY #2

She says she made a complaint because the new bodyguards harassed and intimidated her.  When the Chandler scandal broke out a new team of bodyguards was employed at Neverland – they were armed with guns and came from a company called OSS (Office of Security Services). Previously no one at Neverland held any weapons, not even the guards and this – besides a higher payment to the new team – sparked immediate animosity between regular Neverland guards like Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool and the new arrivals.

As to Adrian McManus, she says that at least one of the new bodyguards sexually harassed her – he once called her early in the morning and finding that she was still in bed asked her what underwear she was wearing:

A. He called my home early in the morning, and he said, “Adrian?” And I said, “Yes?”  And he says, “You sound different.”  And I said, “Well, I just woke up”  You know, I hadn’t had coffee. My voice was a little bit rough. And he says something about what kind of underwear I wear, and when was the last time I got “it”; that apparently I needed it.

Q. What did you do when he said that?

A. I changed the subject, because I thought maybe Mr. Jackson needed something and maybe he was just calling to — to get Mr. Jackson to talk to me or something. I didn’t know.

Q. Did he ultimately communicate a message to you from Mr. Jackson?

A. No, he didn’t.

Even during her hostile testimony in 2005 Adrian sounded like at the time it happened in 1994 she knew that Michael Jackson could have restrained those people, but he was away (“he left in February” according to McManus) and therefore she couldn’t complain to him. In her account Michael clearly comes across as a person who would have saved her from those bodyguards if he had been around:

Q. Did you ever talk with Mr. Jackson about what was going on?

A. I don’t believe so, with that.

Q. And why not?

A. I believe he left.  He had left later, maybe in February.  And Marcus Johnson left with him with the bodyguards, but there was still bodyguards around, so Mr. Jackson wasn’t really around where you could tell him, so —

To the readers’ surprise in 2005 Adrian McManus also testified that the sole reason why she left her job and filed her complaint was due to the intimidation by those new guards, and absolutely not what she could or couldn’t see about Michael:

Q. What made you decide to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson?

A. When I realized that I didn’t have to work in a job where I was being sexually harassed, and abused, and having to deal with death threats and —

However the bodyguards were only a pretext. The real reason for McManus’s turn against Jackson – besides greed and money of course – was the fact that in the period between her December 1993 deposition and quitting her job in July 1994 Adrian McManus and several other employees who later sued Michael Jackson met Victor Gutierrez.

Even before Jordan Chandler made his allegations in August 1993 Gutierrez had long been writing his disgusting book about Michael Jackson. He threw his net of lies over the house staff in many homes related to Jackson both inside and outside the Neverland ranch.

He became a friend of Blanca Francia, Michael Jacksons’ first personal maid, and even placed into his book a photo of them together.

Before the Chandler scandal broke out Gutierrez had already begun cooperating with Norma Salinas, a live-in maid in Evan Chandler’s home. Later he would join forces with Evan Chandler and even his son Jordan who didn’t deny meeting Gutierrez (for details go here). The Chandlers provided Gutierrez with photos and some of their personal papers, however later on they had a fall-out with him and named him a “sleazebag” (Ray Chandler’s expression).

But Gutierrez was unperturbed and sometime in 1994 he approached Adrian McManus, Michael’s second personal maid as well as four more employees at Neverland all of whom later sued Michael Jackson – Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Melanie Bagnall and Sandi Domz, who later became known as The Neverland 5.

At the 2005 trial McManus admitted meeting Gutierrez but said that their cooperation was not about his book – he was simply helping them in their lawsuit, which in my opinion was absolutely no better, considering Gutierrez’s lack of morals, pathological lies and his own pedophilia inclinations. You can imagine the way he “helped” them in that lawsuit.

McManus also said that “later” she did give information to Gutierrez which means that she was involved in the book, only it came later, after his “help”. In short Adrian McManus and other ex-employees suing Jackson had a lengthy and mutually beneficial cooperation with Gutierrez.

Look at this scene from the 2005 trial where McManus is struggling with her Gutierrez problem:

Q. Were you interviewed by a book author named Mr. Gutierrez?

A. I never was interviewed, but I did meet with him.

Q. And approximately when did you meet with him?

A. You know, I cannot recall the date.

Q. So when you met with him, you didn’t know he was writing a book?

A. No, when I met with him, he was going to try to help us in our lawsuit.

Q. Did you ever learn he was writing a book about Mr. Jackson?

A. I never — I don’t recall him saying that he was writing a book. I don’t remember that.

Q. Did you give him information about Mr. Jackson?

A. Um, later I did.

A sample of what resulted from that cooperation was already given in the previous post where Gutierrez described a powerful, I mean powerful scene where the day prior to the police raid Adrian was allegedly running about Neverland hiding the “sheets soiled with dried semen and excrements”, while Ralph Chacon was taking away the “Vaseline” lying around, so that the police couldn’t find it when they arrived the next day.

However the reality had nothing to do with the above. In her 2005 testimony Adrian McManus said that the raid came without a warning, no one knew about it in advance (so the police seized everything there was to seize at Neverland, including the alleged “Vaseline” and “sheets”), she herself was absent as she was sick that day and if there was any talk about the raid, it was after the raid and not before it:

Q. And had anybody heard of anything in advance of that search?

A. No.

Q. There had been no talk about that at all?

A. No.

Q. Fair to say there was probably considerable talk thereafter?

A. Yes.

Adrian McManus about the raid at Neverland

If you still don’t know what to think of Gutierrez, here is another sample from his book which is as nauseous as the rest of his narration, but I am not shy to reproduce it here as it was part of the court papers Michael Jackson filed against Victor Gutierrez in his lawsuit in 1996 (see here for details):

“The singer’s continued use of enemas and tampons caused damage to his anus, which to this day causes embarrassing moments. “I was talking with Michael about something not so important,” remembers Adrian, “when he told me that he had to go to the bathroom. He didn’t take two steps when he defecated right there in front of me. It was a diarrhea that ran down to his shoes. It was a shame. The guards that saw it went to another room to have a laugh. Michael slowly hobbled to the bathroom, dirtying the floor along the way. He later brought me his clothes to clean. It made me sick. The other employees were teasing me, laughing and yelling, ‘how does it feel to be Michael Jackson’s personal assistant?’ It was very distressing.”

Unfortunately for Jackson, it wasn’t the last time, according to Kassim Abdul. “The poor guy couldn’t make it to the bathroom, and it got to the point that he didn’t even care. If he had to go, he did it right there, wherever he was. Poor Adrian was the one who suffered, but at times we would help her pick up the dirtied clothes and clean the floor. Michael would put tampons in his ass to stop the diarrhea. Jackson thought that we wouldn’t tell anybody anything, since all employees had to sign a contract indicating that we could not reveal anything we saw or heard on his properties.”

(V.Gutierrez: “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”p.67)

Yes, Gutierrez’s mind is dangerously sick. And if you don’t know if there is any truth to the above story, just keep in mind that according to the same guards’ testimony in 2005 they couldn’t “go to another room” to laugh or “help her clean the floor” for the simple reason that their job was to walk only around the house during their night shift and they were not allowed to enter the house unless there was a breach of security or the doors were accidentally open.

Gutierrez’s masterpiece was published in 1995/96 – its Spanish version was released in 1995 and the English version in 1996. Gutierrez was sued by Michael Jackson, lost the case, never paid the money and found a temporary shelter in his native Chile.

The Neverland 5 gang also sued Michael Jackson – mainly for wrongful termination, also lost the case and never paid the money, but they also filed an appeal.

The appellate court decision is available to us as it was obtained by a MJ supporter (my thanks go to Shelly) long time ago, but it got lost somewhere in the blog comments and was retrieved only now for the purposes of this post.

The Appellants in this paper are the Neverland 5 group, the Respondents are the new bodyguards and Michael Jackson of course, though you remember that according to McManus’s own account Michael didn’t even know that she was allegedly harassed by the newcomers and she never complained.

The Appellate Court decision is unique because it portrays Adrian McManus as an arrogant obstructionist who as a result of her defiant behavior had to be deposed in fits and starts for 8 days at different moments in time. And in general, the appellate court papers are a trove of information with lots of intimate details about the people who sued Jackson and Adrian McManus in particular.

THE APPELLATE COURT DECISION

The first matter the appellate court looked into was the story Adrian McManus told to the Star Magazine telling readers about “kinky sex secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s bedroom”,  though by her own admission at the 2005 trial the most she knew was that they weren’t yet married but were visiting one another, however she didn’t even know in which room Lisa stayed.

An excerpt from the 2005 trial:

Q. Do you recall trying to sell what you called “Mr. Jackson’s sex secrets”? Do you remember that?

A. I know something was written about that, but I know sometimes tabloids write other stuff that they like to put in, so I don’t know.

Q. You were quoted in an issue of Star magazine titled “Five of His Closest Servants Tell All. Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s Bedroom,”right?

A. I don’t believe I said that.

And this is what the 1997 appellate court papers said about the same (excerpts only).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 30, 1996, the Respondents in this case learned that the Star Magazine had published in its February 6, 1996 issue an article entitled “Michael Jackson’s Bizarre Marriage: What Really Went On Behind Closed Doors based on an interview of the five Appellants in this case and featuring their pictures.

On February 7, 1996, the tabloid television magazine “Inside Edition” featured an interview of Sandi Domz covering the same matters as the Star article.  Sandi Domz was interviewed at the Santa Barbara Courthouse and at her counsel’s office.

Respondents conducted discovery relating to the Star article and any other media contacts as soon as practicable. They utilized all available means of discovery out of an abundance of caution. However, Appellants stonewalled every effort to obtain discovery in this area.

On February 9, 1996, Respondent Michael Jackson propounded a Demand for Production of Documents on Melanie Bagnall, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus and Sandi Domz asking for the production of certain publications.

It was revealed during depositions that counsel for Appellants were directly involved in setting up the interview for the Star article and Inside Edition. Therefore, on February 15, 1996, Respondents served two subpoenas for the Production of Business Records on the Law Offices of Michael P. Ring & Associates and on the Law Offices of Barber & Gray, respectively. Said subpoenas ordered the two law offices to produce a series of documents pertaining either to the Star article, the Inside Edition interview or any other media contact.

Meanwhile, Respondents attempted to elicit information about the Star Article, the Inside Edition segment and any other contact with the media during the depositions of Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall and Sandi Domz.

Respondents encountered an extraordinary amount of resistance on the part of the deponents.  The testimony of the Appellants was interrupted by countless conferences between Appellants’ counsel and Appellants. In addition, all of the Appellants deposed claimed they could not recall any specifics.

Appellants continued to deny that there were any other documents. […] Appellant Ring even filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents had been produced.

By May 17, 1996, Respondents had obtained concrete evidence that Appellants had lied about possessing additional documents.

The supplemental declaration disclosed evidence that Appellants’ counsel had withheld numerous documents concerning correspondence with members of the tabloid media. Included in these withheld documents was at least one sketch of Elvis Presley by Michael Jackson, which Appellant Adrian McManus had stolen from Mr. Jackson.

A.THE COURT REOPENED THE MCMANUS DEPOSITION

The necessity to reopen McManus’ deposition became apparent during the deposition of tabloid media broker Gary Morgan. Mr. Morgan revealed that Ms. McManus provided him with an original (stolen) sketch of Elvis Presley, drawn by Mr. Jackson, which appeared in a tabloid magazine. In addition, Mr. Morgan testified that the February 6, 1996 Star tabloid magazine article contains quotes from McManus that were not obtained by him.

Peter Burt wrote the February 6, 1996 article and based upon Morgan’s testimony, spoke directly with McManus or completely made up certain quotes attributed to McManus in the article.

In any case, the need to question both Appellant McManus and Burt became evident.

Pursuant to the Court’s order, Appellant McManus’ continued deposition occurred on Monday, June 24, 1996 at 10:00 am in Santa Barbara. Before that date Respondents learned about other tabloid media contacts by the Appellants. Appellant McManus (as well as Appellants Abdool, Bagnall and Chacon) had extensive conversations with Victor Gutierrez, a so-called journalist who intended to self-publish a book full of “gossip” about Michael Jackson.

Mr. Gutierrez’s book, which was published in Spanish before the McManus deposition, was replete with verbatim quotes attributed to the Appellants. Appellant McManus, herself, is quoted on the dust jacket of the book.

Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Ring and Mr. Francis, obstructed the deposition and attempted to limit the questioning to two questions: (1) Did McManus have any contact with Peter Burt; and (2) How did McManus obtain the one sketch that was already discovered?

B. THE MORNING SESSION

Kelly Francis represented McManus during the morning session of her deposition on June 24, 1997. He began the morning session by claiming that the deposition was limited to two issues: (1) the Elvis Presley sketch, and (2) her contacts with Peter Burt. To no avail, Respondents attempted several times to meet and confer with Mr. Francis to resolve the dispute.

Appellant McManus refused upon instruction of counsel to answer approximately 78 questions during the morning session of her deposition.

McManus testified that she had no contact with Peter Burt. Mr. Francis then effectively shut down the questioning, refusing to allow questions regarding her denial of contact with Peter Burt, her recollection of other quotes and of the existence of the Morgan-interview transcript, that her counsel claimed he destroyed. Several times, Mr. Francis stated that the Peter Burt issue was over, and if Respondents wanted to question Ms. McManus about the sketch, to go ahead. Tellingly, this is what happened when defense counsel attempted to question McManus about the stolen sketch:

“Q. BY MR. [STEVE] COCHRAN: Where is the sketch you took from the ranch?
MR. FRANCIS: Are you referring to the sketch given to Mr. Morgan? Is that what you are referring to?
MR. COCHRAN: If there are others, I want to know about them, too.
MR. FRANCIS: I don’t know. Which one are you referring to when you say “the sketch”?
MR. COCHRAN: How many sketches do you have?
MR. FRANCIS: What was your question?
MR. SANGER: Mr. Francis, you are incredibly obstructionist here. You just told us that this was — you told us that this was limited to finding out about the sketch. Mr. Cochran just asked about the sketch. Would you like us to go back to Judge Canter and ask him to tell us what sketch we are talking about?
MR. FRANCIS: Do you know which sketch they’re talking about?
MR. COCHRAN: Sure she does, man. She was in court that day.
Q. You know what sketch we’re talking about, right?
MR. FRANCIS: The sketch purportedly of Elvis, purportedly drawn by Mr. Jackson? Yes or no?
Q. BY MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what sketch we’re talking about?
A. The sketch I found in the trash.
Q. Is that the only sketch there is?
A. That’s what I found in the trash.
Q. Do you have any other sketches?*
MR. FRANCIS: Objection; exceeds the scope of permissible discovery as allowed by the Court. Instruct the witness not to answer.”

Shortly before noon, Mr. Francis asked to break for lunch early.

*The point about other sketches requires a short remark. It emerges from this discussion that the sketch of Elvis Presley by Michael Jackson was most probably not the only one stolen by Adrian McManus. There were others as Kelly Francis, another of her attorneys, unwittingly revealed.

The same is clear from one more point in the Appellate Court papers which said: “…it was well known by the time of the filing of the brief that they had been caught at withholding the Michael Jackson sketches and notes and the nineteen page single-spaced transcripts by the media broker and handwritten notes by Appellants thereon.”

So not only were there several sketches and notes from MJ, but also multiple pages of typed and handwritten lies from these people intended to be told to the media via their media broker.

The idea behind it was to sell those tales to pay their attorneys, in the hope to get in return the $16 million they wanted in their lawsuit against Jackson. But one more much more covert goal was to also subtly threaten Jackson with changing their earlier 1993 testimony about Michael in case he didn’t give in and didn’t pay them the required $16 million.

Thomas Mesereau saw through their plan and asked Adrian McManus in 2005:

Q. Now, in that lawsuit, you were suing Mr. Jackson for a number of different claims, and one of the claims talked about you having appeared at a deposition taken by Larry Feldman, and the claim said that you were a potential material witness against Jackson in both the civil suit and a criminal investigation, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And what that really meant was, by filing that Complaint with that language, you were essentially threatening Mr. Jackson that you would change your testimony unless you were paid, right?

A. I’m not familiar with a lot of attorney language, so I really don’t know how to answer that.

Since the Neverland-5 lawsuit went to a jury trial Michael Jackson was afraid that the media lies about him could affect the jury verdict and insisted they told him everything about their media contacts including Gutierrez, of course.

The Appellate Court papers continue on the subject:

C. THE AFTERNOON SESSION

During the afternoon session, Appellant Ring appeared for the deposition. Mr. Francis did not return for the remainder of the deposition. Appellant Ring said at first that he was altering Mr. Francis’ position in the morning session, and that McManus could respond to some of the 78 questions she previously refused to answer.

Despite the purported offer to cooperate, Appellant Ring instructed Appellant McManus to refuse to answer at least sixteen more questions including questions about Appellants’ contacts with Victor Gutierrez of which Respondents had just learned.

Then, after being prompted by Appellant Ring, McManus ended the deposition early (before 4:00 pm) stating that “Enough’s enough. Time to go home,” and “I’m tired and I’m hungry. I want to go home. My back hurts, too.”

Thus, Mr. Ring and his client, McManus shut down her deposition without resolving the issues.

THE HEARING
On July 12, 1996, the parties appeared in court to discuss the conduct of the McManus deposition, among other issues. The Court viewed a videotape of two brief portions of the deposition (quoted above). After viewing the first segment, the Court exclaimed in exasperation, “I don’t need to hear any more. Done.”

The Court viewed the second clip, and stated, “I’ve heard enough. This is — I’m going to tell you now this is clearly obstructionist. I don’t even want to hear argument. I’m going to impose sanctions on you.”.

On July 23, 1996, the Court held a hearing on the amount of sanctions. Appellants’ counsel, Michael Ring, apologized to the Court for the conduct of his associate, Mr. Francis, at the McManus deposition, stating “He’s got a lot to learn.” Even though Appellant Ring did not accept responsibility or and blamed Mr. Francis, the trial court accepted Mr. Ring’s statement as an apology. At the conclusion of the argument, the Court stated:

“…Mr. Kelly Francis is just going to have to learn. This isn’t the first time that he’s blocked the proceedings and caused a great deal of commotion.”
The Court addressed each element of fees and costs in the cost bill, refused to award some of the requested costs, and ultimately awarded sanction in the amount of $8,970.50.

SANCTIONS FOR THE MCMANUS’S DEPOSITION WERE JUST AND PROPER.

Respondents requested that McManus’ deposition be reopened because she had talked of people from the tabloid press. She had made reckless statements about Michael Jackson’s personal life and about the Neverland Valley Ranch, according to the press.

The Court indicated that it was concerned about the effect these media contacts will have on Respondents’ ability to have a fair trial, i.e., the effect on the jury pool.

Mr. Francis’ tactic of unilaterally limiting the scope of the deposition, and instructing his client not to answer 78 questions, resulted in an enormous waste of time and money and violates the letter and spirit of the Discovery Act.

Appellants and their counsel will properly be held to bear the cost of the court reporter, the videographer, the original transcript for the wasted day of deposition on May 24, 1996, as well as for all additional sessions of Appellant McManus’ deposition now required as a result of her improper refusal to answer nearly one hundred questions.

The sanctions were for “obstructionist” behavior, which is just what sanctions are designed to deter.

APPELLATE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPEAL IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT AND IS PROSECUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT AND DELAY AND IS, THEREFORE, FRIVOLOUS.

(you will find the full text of the Appellate Court Decision here)

The Appellants and their lawyers were not only to pay the sanctions imposed on them for their obstructionist behavior, but the jury awarded the Neverland 5 group to cover Michael Jackson’s attorney expenses in their incredibly long litigation process. The sum amounted to $1,47 million and was to be divided between the five complainants.

Punitive damages were also awarded, but Michael Jackson felt sorry for the rascals and waived the right to them for a symbolic $1. The only thing Michael wanted for himself was justice and return of the money spent on his defense, however he didn’t receive a single cent as none of the group paid.

What they did instead was going to the 2005 trial (all five of them) and taking their revenge on Michael Jackson there. Most of them were vague about any particular “molestation” incidents, except Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus who had greatly revised their stories.

MCMANUS’S STORY #3 AT THE 2005 TRIAL

Adrian McManus was furious. She still remembered that she had gone through eight days of deposition in 1995-96, and though all of it was actually a fault of her own, she spilled her anger at Thomas Mesereau:

Q. How many volumes was your deposition in your suit against Mr. Jackson?

A. You know what? I’m thinking I was deposed for eight days. That’s what I think.

She hadn’t paid to Michael Jackson the money due to him and thought that her debt was $1.6 million. Thomas Mesereau corrected her and explained that it was $1,47 for the five of them. She said she didn’t know.

Q. So that debt still exists today?

A. Yes.

Q. You owe Mr. Jackson $1.6 million?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that for all the attorney’s fees and the court costs?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you paid any part of that?

A. A lien was put on my paycheck when I was working at Sears and there was money taken out, but I don’t recall how much.

Q. Okay.  Is there a lien currently on your paycheck where you currently work?

A. No.

Q. At the end of the case, there was a judgment signed by Judge Zel Canter of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara in Santa Maria against you and Mr. Chacon and Mr. Abdool and Melanie Bagnall and Sandie Domz for $1,473,117.61, right?

A. I believe it was more.  I — I thought it was 1.6 million each person.

We can imagine the hate Adrian McManus had for Michael Jackson – she made a complaint in the hope to get a portion of those $16 million and ended up with what she thought to be a $1.6 million personal debt.

Same as with the four others her spite against him must have been boundless, so it’s no surprise that Adrian McManus made a U-turn in her testimony and defiantly declared that during her deposition on December 7th, 1993 “she didn’t tell the truth”.

Q. You told Prosecutor Zonen that you repeatedly lied under oath in that deposition, correct?

A. Are you — what are you talking about?

Q. He asked you if you had lied under oath in the Chandler deposition, right?

A. Right.

Q. You said you did, right?

A. Right.

Q. Do you know how many times you lied under oath in the Chandler deposition?

A. I believe the whole time I did not tell the truth on that.

Q. Did you believe you were committing a crime when you did that?

A. I really didn’t. I really didn’t think of it that way.

Now Adrian McManus was saying that she had seen some MJ’s behavior that “concerned” her. The boys she was concerned about were three out of those four who came to Neverland  – Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Jordan Chandler. 

Wade Robson was not included, and Safechuck was never even mentioned in her entire testimony.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: During the period of time that you were working as Mr. Jackson’s personal maid, did you ever see behavior by Mr. Jackson toward any of these boys that concerned you?

A. Yes.

Q. And which of the four boys are we talking about?

A. Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Jordie Chandler.

Q. All right. Let’s begin with Macaulay Culkin. What is it that you saw that concerned you?

A. I was coming out of the bathroom by his bedroom, by Mr. Jackson’s bedroom. I was cleaning that bathroom. And when I came out, I saw Mr. Jackson and Macaulay in the library, and Mr. Jackson was kissing him on his cheek, and he had his hand kind of by his leg, kind of on his rear end.

Q. Where did he kiss him?

A. On the cheek.

Q. And where did he touch him?

A. Kind of like by his leg, and it went to his rear end.

Q. Was that the first thing that you had seen in terms of behavior toward a child that caused you concern?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any other incidents that caused you concern in terms of Mr. Macaulay Culkin?

A. No.

The second boy McManus was allegedly concerned about was Brett Barnes:

Q. What was the next thing that you saw that caused you concern?

A. Brett Barnes.

Q. And what did you see?

A. They were walking back down the stairs, and they went down through the hall by his bedroom, and I kind of followed because it was very hot up there in that room. And I was on the landing after you get on the stairs, and I kind of looked over the landing, and he was walking away with Brett to his room, and I saw him put his hand on Brett’s rear end, and he gave Brett a kiss on the cheek.

Q. In like fashion to what you described you had seen with Macaulay Culkin?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Is that the only incident that you saw with Brett Barnes?

A. Yes.

Both incidents were rather vague in description and when Macaulay and Brett denied all of it at the same trial, she didn’t have to worry about the perjury – her lie about them could easily be explained by her poor eyesight (at the trial she couldn’t see at a distance without her glasses).

But a much graver story was told about Jordan Chandler. I suspect that it was due to Jordan’s refusal to testify at the trial and in his absence Adrian McManus felt much more freedom to fantasize. The only incident with Jordan Chandler she allegedly saw was as follows:

A. I was dusting [upstairs]. I kind of looked down from the stairs, from the stairs up there a little, and I saw Mr. Jackson with Jordie, and they were changing their clothes. Like — I figured they were at the water fort. And  I looked down and I saw Mr. Jackson kissing on —  on Jordie.

Q. What part?

A. His cheek, and then his mouth, and his hand was on his crotch.

Q. What was Jordie wearing at the time?

A. He had pants on.

Q. How long did that last?

A. I — when I saw that, I was quiet, and I can’t even say how long that lasted.

Q. What did you do?

A. I was kind of shocked, flushed, and I stood quiet where I was at. […]I stayed up there very quietly, I didn’t say anything. I stood very quietly. And I waited for them to leave the room.

Q. And did they leave the room?

A. Yes.

Q. How was Jordie Chandler dressed at the time?

A. I just remember he had pants on, and they were changing shirts. He had pants on and so did Mr. Jackson.

Q. And when you said his hand was on Jordie Chandler’s crotch, on the outside of the pants or on the inside of the pants?

A. On the outside.

Q. How long after this happened did you leave your employment with Michael Jackson?

A. Well, I left July. I don’t know, like, the months. I know I left July 31st of ‘94.

Q. Did you ever see any incidents involving Wade Robeson? You told us about Brett Barnes, and Jordan Chandler, and Macaulay Culkin. Did you ever see an incident involving Wade Robeson?

A. No.

In the context of today’s Robson’s lies about his “daily abuse” by MJ how very interesting it is that Adrian McManus never saw anything inappropriate between them and during the entire time she worked at Neverland! Not a single instance of it!

And how very interesting it is that Safechuck was not even mentioned by Adrian McManus in her entire testimony. Not even once.

And how telling it is that in comparison with these two guys’ new horrific tales even the revised and hostile story told by McManus in 2005 sounds almost like innocent grumbling.

From what they claim now we could expect McManus to say something about loads of “sheets with semen on them”, “boys’ underwear stained with yellow stains” found “in the bed” and “bottles of Vaseline” spread all over Neverland.

However she said nothing even remotely close to it, though as a personal maid she could have seen all of it – of course only in case it had been true.

But it wasn’t true, and this is why even as a witness hostile to Jackson at the 2005 trial she never mentioned anything of the kind.

In other words Michael’s personal maid Adrian McManus saw absolutely no traces of any sexual activity Robson and Safechuck are claiming now.  

The most she afforded herself to say about the boys’ clothes is that sometimes she found MJ’s and boy’s underwear in the Jacuzzi and sometimes on the floor near it. She said she just took them and washed, making no comment on their condition or whatever.

A.…there’s another area where there’s another rest room, and there’s a Jacuzzi.

Q. How large?

A. Oh, God, it’s big. It’s big.

Q. Would it hold more than one person?

A. Yes.

Q. Comfortably?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And were there things in the Jacuzzi on occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. Like what?

A. Like Mr. Jackson’s undershorts, and a little boy’s undershorts.

Q. You wouldn’t know which boy’s it was, the undershorts?

A. Brett — it could — Brett. Jordie. Macaulay. That happened frequently.

Q. They’d actually be in the Jacuzzi in the water?

A. They’d be in the water, or sometimes they’dbe on the floor by the Jacuzzi.

Q. And these were underpants?

A. Yes.

Q. You’d pick it up and wash it?

A. Yes.

If you managed to go this far with me, here comes the final part of it at last. It is time we saw Adrian McManus’s latest version, the one she voiced in the 60 min program recently aired on Australian TV.

ADRIAN MCMANUS’S STORY #4

The full video of that program is here:

Leif Bjorling from Sweden (a fan from the MJJCommunity forum) made a rush transcript of it so that we needn’t go to Youtube and click on it. I’ve added some passages that were missing and don’t rule out that after you learn all the details you might be tempted to go to Youtube and leave a comment there.

The video starts with Adrian McManus speaking about Michael’s call to her on Mother’s day (in 1993 it was May 8th) and Michael’s repeated requests to tell her about “what she knows”. She doesn’t say what Michael was asking about and to an average viewer it sounds really sinister, especially after she adds that she was “scared to hell”.

But the truth is that Michael was asking whether she knew anything about the intentions of her two friends – Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool.  The problem with them was that they were to testify before the LA Grand Jury the next day, on May 9th, but three days prior to that both went to Tom Sneddon and no one on Michael’s side knew what they were up to.

To Michael’s lawyers they said they would only “tell the truth” before the Grand Jury and Michael had nothing to worry about, but the fact that they refused to cooperate with Michael’s lawyers looked to them like trouble was on the way.

We have a whole post about that notable moment in May 1994, so for details please go here.

As to Adrian McManus, there was absolutely nothing for her to be “scared about” because she had already been deposed in December 1993 and Michael had no reason to doubt her. He called her to seek her help and find out if she knew anything about the two guys’ intentions.

And help he did need, because though Kassim Abdool did testify before the Grand Jury on May 9th and said nothing special, Ralph Chacon missed the date and on May 10th went to Sneddon instead where he made a declaration about him being a witness to MJ molesting Jordan Chandler. However this did not happen until Chacon received a certain sum of money from Detective Birchim (he said it was “for child support”) and obtained a two-year permit for carrying a gun he asked from the police during his preliminary visit there on May 6th.

Now that you know what stands behind that Michael’s call to McManus on Mother’s day please read the whole transcript and regard it as an excellent case study on how easy it is to make fake news and innuendoes, even with a minimal effort to tell a lie.

TRANSCRIPT OF THE 60 MIN PROGRAM ON AUSTRALIAN TV  Feb. 24, 2019

Host: She knows the life of the star too well, after cleaning up for him, for 4 years. And tonight for the first time, tells us what the maid saw.

Adrian: I think he was starting to realize maybe I was catching on, because I got a call from him, he called me on Mothers day, it was a Sunday morning at my home. He said I want to ask you something and I said yeah OK. I kid you not, he asked me about 8 times, what do you know? – Mr. Jackson, I do not know what you want me to tell you. – What do you know, Adrian?

Host: That was the question, what do you know Adrian?

Adrian:  What do you know? I was starting to get really really frightened. I was scared to hell, I was terrified of him.

Host: Adrian was once a trusted member of Michael Jacksons inner circle. Now she is his accuser. From 1990 to 1994, she was his housemaid, with intimate access to the inner sanctum of the most famous person on earth.

[she was his personal maid from mid-1991 to mid July-1994]

Host: It’s often said that he could be a very generous man when he wanted to be, did you find that?

Adrian: There was some different sides to him, there was a kind side, and there was a dark side, and I feel that he was manipulator and I feel that anybody that come in contact with him, he destroyed them! I’ve been destroyed!

Host: And these accusations are not being made by Adrian alone. New explosive allegations by two men, who were once very close and very loyal to the singer, claims they were abused as children, and their families exploited in the worst possible way. So now why, what’s driving these claims. Was Michael Jackson really a harmless troubled genius, or a cold calculating predator?

Host: Adrian is nervous, during the drive through Santa Ines valley to her old place of work. She has not been back to Michael Jacksons Neverland ranch in 20 years.

Host: Just coming up this road gives you anxiety?

Adrian: It’s kind of like facing your nightmare, you know.

Host: The singer’s fans still flock here for a glimpse of their idol’s refugee. But for Adrian, it’s far from a happy place. Up for sale the 67 million dollar, Neverland remains empty and off limits to visitors. A place frozen in times from when Michael Jackson ruled the world. From child prodigy to moonwalking megastar. There was no artist like him before, or since.

Host: When you started working at Neverland, what was it like?

Adrain: There were rules, a lot of rules you had to follow! You don’t stare at him, you don’t ask him for an autograph, you do what he tells you to do, you don’t question him.

Host: Within 3 months of becoming a member of the team, she begun cleaning Michael Jacksons bedroom.

[correction: within 9 months]

Host: Michael Jackson must have trusted you?

Adrian: Yeah, he did. He told me I was excellent. I did tell him, maybe I am not the right person for you. And he said, “No Adrian you’re excellent, loyalty means a lot to me, you could be with me forever.”

The first time I cleaned his bedroom, I did not even know where to start.

Host: Was he the kind of rock star that would just drop everything behind him and let you pick up?

Adrian: Yeah, it was like that.

Host: Home videos from the time captured the singer relaxing at Neverland. It was a place to live out his fantasies. And he shared the fun with the children he surrounded himself with.

What was the first thing for you, what made you first suspect that Michael Jackson had an unhealthy interest in children?

A: I noticed there were a lot of little boys, that all would hang around there, you would not see little girls, and I eeh knew the little boys were there. When they would arrive, they would put their clothes in a suitcase in his room. I started realizing, thinking, wondering, when was taking baths with them or sleeping in his bed.

Host: With sleepings its sleeping?

A: Yeah.

Host: You are talking about the WORST KIND OF SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN?

A: Yeah, I know the truth, I was there. And when I would go in the next day, there was little boys underwear, either on the floor with Michaels or they were in the Jacuzzi.

Host: So you were suspicious as soon as you saw that?

A: Yeah, I got suspicious and then I would also find underwear in his bed. I did find underwear that were men’s briefs in the walking closet, and they were, I don’t like saying this, they were like cringy hard with yellow stains all over them. I do not know who they belonged too, because the little boys started wearing Michael’s briefs. And they would leave their underwear inside his drawer.

[Mind you that underwear in bed and cringy hard man’s underwear “she didn’t know who belonged to” were never in her previous stories and are akin to Gutierrez’s tales]

Host: The more Adrian saw, the more convinced she that he was a predator. A feeling she says were shared by other staff at Neverland. There was a lot of Vaseline at Neverland, sometimes it was found in the golf carts, when Michael Jackson would take off with the boys.

Host: Vaseline?

A: Yeah, vaseline. And there was a lot of Vaseline in Michael’s bedroom. It was actually all over the ranch.

Host: Is there possible an innocent explanation for that?

A: I don’t think so.

              [Another story never told before and coming direct from Gutierrez. Incidentally if so much Vaseline had been found and if it had been used for non-innocent purposes, it should have carried the DNA of all the users. But the police never found any physical evidence whatsoever, neither in 1993, nor in 2005 ]

Host: What disturbed Adrian the most was the way the pop star would be physical with the kids who were entrusted to his care.

A: They were sitting on his lap, the kids, I just saw a lot of maybe fondling, him rubbing his  hands in the kids hair. Eeeh, kissing them.

Host: When you say fondling?

A. Hugging, kind of patting them…

Host: Patting them where?

A: Kind of by their rear end. I don’t think it was appropriate because it was not his children you know. I just did not think it was right.

Host: Did you ever talk to anyone about it?

A: You know, I signed up confidentiality agreements, and I was already conditioned and programmed, you don’t question it. We were told, stay away from the family. You are just a maid, you do your job.

Wade Robson: Every time we were together, it happened. There was no night that went by that I was with him when he didn’t sexually abuse me.

Host: Adrian is not the only one to be speaking out on the tenth anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death.

Robson: I am seven years old. Michael asked, “do you and the family want to come to Neverland?”

Michael Jackson: Hello, Wade. Today is your birthday. So congratulations. I love you. Bye.

Host: A striking choreographer, Wade Robson, has claimed he was molested by the singer when he was a boy.

Robson: He told me, “if they ever found out what we were doing, he and I would go to jail for the rest of our lives”.

Host: Now a former child actor James Safechuck have gone much further, accusing Jackson of the most despicable depravity. In a controversial documentary “Leaving Neverland” that was recently unveiled at the Sundance film festival.

Question at the press-conference: “There are fans of Mr. Jackson who don’t believe your story or perhaps don’t want to believe it. Is there anything  you feel you can say to them?”

Robson: Not long ago I was in the same position as they were. Even knowing it happened to me I still couldn’t believe it. I still couldn’t believe that what Michael did was a bad thing.

Host: Would you have thought 14 years later this would all be regurgitated?

Thomas Mesereau: I would never have imagined such a thing would happen. I just still have trouble comprehending it.

Host: For lawyer Tom Mesereau the latest allegations are claims of opportunists, out to make a buck.

Thomas Mesereau: I can’t get over it. I just don’t put any credibility to it to any of this, I just don’t.

Clip from 2005:
Thomas Mesereau: Justice was done, the man is innocent, he always was.”

Host: in 2005, he helped clear Jackson of child molestation charges. And defends the singer to this day.

Thomas Mesereau: I am 100% convinced, Michael never abused a child, never harmed a child, certainly never molested a child, I think this is hogwash.

Host: Are you on any sort of retainer from the Jackson estate?

Thomas Mesereau: No I am not a retainer at all (looks disgusted by the question)

Host: So no one is paying you money to say nice things about Michael Jackson?

Thomas Mesereau: No, I will always say he was a nice person, he was, he was one of the nicest people I ever met.

Host: But you of all people know the smoke and fire argument? Is there any fire?

Thomas Mesereau: There no fire here whatsoever.

Jeanne Wolf: He was enormous, it shouldn’t have been king of pop, it should have been god of pop, emperor of pop. Charisma is not even word he had on people, I was caught up, everything around him was a fantasy.

Host: Jeanne Wolf is an old school entertainment reporter, who followed Michael Jackson’s career from the start. She regarded Jackson as the ultimate creating genius. But also saw a dark side.

Jeanne:  I could not help but observe, what a spoiled king of pop he was. How he used his fame and power, in very loving and very childish, and mean ways.

Host: Jeanne remembers at the height of Jackson’s fame, it was easy for star-struck families and their kids to be drawn into the singer’s magical world.

Host: Surrounding himself with children, did not you find that unusual?

Jeanne: We did not find that unusual, he tried to be the piper, when I was around him, there was groups, some in costume, some just regular kids, following him. And it just seemed like a comfort for him, his explanation was he did not have a childhood. Yes, did it seems strange, did it seem eccentric, yes. But that eccentricity allowed him to get away with a lot, because it’s Michael.

Host: In the 1990s busloads of children would be invited to Neverland to enjoy the theme park and the zoo. But Jackson’s maid Adrian McManus, says there was always a lucky few who seemed to receive special attention. Young boys like child actor Macaulay Culkin who she claims she saw being touched inappropriately by the singer.

Host: You are on record, you are on public record, court record talking about Macaulay Culkin. Do you stand by that story?

Adrian: I stand by what I said in my deposition, yeah. I think it’s best to you just leave it at that.

Host: Because Macaulay Culkin is saying it’s preposterous, doesn’t he?

A: Yeah.

Host: He denies it to this day.

A: He does.

Host: But you say it did happen?

A: I say, I saw what I saw.

[She stands by what she said in her deposition? But in her deposition she didn’t say a single bad word about Michael! However the viewers are completely in the dark about what she said there]

Host: Macaulay Culkin has always supported Michael Jackson, and denies the singer ever molested him. But back in 1993 another of Jackson’s young male friends turned against him. 13 year old Jordan Chandler accused Jackson of sexually abusing him during sleepovers at Neverland.

Host: Did you ever see Michael Jackson molest Jordan Chandler?

A: I saw some stuff that I did not think was appropriate between Mr. Jackson and Jordy.

Host: What sort of things did you see with Jordan Chandler?

A: Michael kissing on him, Michaels hands very close Jordan’s crouch. It was terrible to see.

Host: Police launched an investigation into the abuse allegations as Jordan Chandler’s family accounted they were preparing a civil case, but despite her strong suspicions to the contrary, in a sworn deposition said she had never seen Jackson molested children.

A: I was scared to say anything bad about Mr. Jackson. And then uuuh, after that, after I did the deposition, probably 30 days after, Michael called me at my home.

Host: She claims Michael demanded to know what his private maid had told investigators about his behavior. Adrian found herself in a hard position.

A: I did not think I was supposed to do that, I was worried about that, but then I thought you better do it, so I did it. And then one day in the afternoon, he came up to me and said Adrian, this is for you, he handed me a little index card, that was like staples on the side, and it said, thanks for everything!

A: I opened the envelope and it was 300$. I covered for him, he paid me 300$.

Host: He was buying your silence for 300$

A: Yeah.

[If you buy someone’s silence you need to do it in advance and not post-factum. It was an innocent little present which Adrian McManus initially vehemently refused but Michael persuaded her to take it to buy something for her son]

Host: Michael Jackson fired back at his accusers, in a live televised announcement from Neverland.

Michael Jackson: “There have been many disgusting statements recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements are totally false. Don’t treat me like a criminal, because I am innocent.”

Adrian: I remember that, I was working there the day that video was shot.

Host: It was 1993. “Don’t treat me like a criminal, because I am innocent.” Does that bring back strong memories?

A: It takes me back to that day, it makes me mad that I had to be involved in something like that. Why me?

Host: So you don’t believe that statement from Michael Jackson one tiny bit?

A: I don’t.

Host: Jackson was never charged with molesting Jordan Chandler, but the young boy and his family received a 20$ mln settlement from the singer. It led to intense criticism that Jackson was buying the silence of his accuser of his victims.

CLIP from Diane Sawyer interview:

Diane: Did you ever sexually engage, fondle, have sexual contact with this child or any other child?

Michael: No, never, I could never harm a child or anyone. It’s not in my heart, its not who I am, I am not even interested in that.

Jim Moret of CNN in 1993:

This is Joy Robson. You’ve known Michael Jackson. How do you describe your relationship with Michael?

Joey Robson: Michael is like a family to us….

Host: At the time many came to Jackson’s defense including Wade Robson and his family. Wade was the ten-year old Australian boy who developed an extremely tight bond with the singer. And was still having sleepovers at the Neverland ranch.

Jim Moret (in 1993): Wade, would you describe your relationship with Michael?

Wade Robson (in 1993): It’s a close relationship. It is both friendly and business. We love each other, we are just good friends.

Jim Moret (in 1993): How did you feel when you heard that a boy was alleging that Michael had abused him?

Wade Robson (in 1993):  I was shocked. I think he is sick. I know Michael well enough, he wouldn’t do ANYTHING like that. I know it for a FACT.

Host: After Jackson paid millions to settle the case against Jordan Chandler, things changed for the worse for the workers at Neverland. Adrian claims she and other staff were victimized by Michael Jackson’s security guards, because they knew too much.

Adrian: I was threatened, his bodyguards, told me that if ever came up on TV they could hire someone and take me out. Slice my neck and they would never find me body.

Host: And you believed him?

A: Yeah, I did. I lived in fear for many many years.

[A powerful story. She was victimized because “she knew too much” while all that bodyguard did to her was asking about her underwear? It wasn’t nice of course, but calling it a threat to “slice her neck” is really too much. A powerful story indeed]

Host: Adrian lived with the fear, and Michael Jackson lived with the rumors. But in 2003 he made a monumental mistake. By inviting Martin Bashir, to show his life at Neverland. In the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” Jackson gave an insight of the madness that engulfed the singer’s every move. Michael Jackson hoped it would turn his reputation around. Instead it destroyed him.

Thomas Mesereau: I think the Martin Bashir documentary was a disaster for Michael Jackson. I think he should have never trusted Martin Bashir to do an objective, professional documentary.

Host: Jackson’s lawyer believes it was a turning point.

Host: Why do you think that? You think the result was slanted against him?

Thomas Mesereau: I think Mr. Bashir turned it all against him, tried to create sensationalism documentary, for his own game. That’s my opinion. And it was cut together in my opinion designed to make Michael look bad.

Host: What looked particularly bad was this twelve year old Gavin Arvizo who had been recovering from cancer, when Jackson met and befriended him. In the documentary, Martin Bashir asked the young boy about the sleeping arrangements at Neverland.

After the broadcast, Michael Jackson accused Bashir of betraying his trust, and manipulating the interview. But the fuse was lit, and police raided Neverland.

Thomas Mesereau: Approximately 70 sheriffs raided Neverland, searched every building, every room, for computers, for documentary evidence, anything they could find. They were relentless in their efforts to find evidence to convict Michael Jackson.

Host: And the size of that raid, what did they find?

Thomas Mesereau: Nothing in my opinion.

Host: Michael Jackson was arrested and charged. It was a humiliating downfall. That would see Jackson’s dirty laundry aired before the world.

Adrian claims she has been left penniless from working four years for Michael Jackson as his house maid. When she left in 1994, she and four other employees sued the singer for wrongful termination and lost.

Host: Do you still owe the Jackson estate money?

A: Uuuum, uuuum, I probably do but you know, Michael is dead now.

Host: You must know that?

A: I know that, I can’t remember, it might have been, oh god it was a lot of money.

Host: You were ordered to pay legal fees initially.

A: Yeah, for breach of contract, for suing Michael Jackson

Host: Which was 1.6$ million.  [correction: $1,47 for the five of them]

A. It was probably that.

Host: Just to refresh your memory.

A. Yeah.

Host: The sheriff hasn’t come knocking on the door?

A: No.

Host: And you hope they don’t?

A: Well, if they do they do.

Host: In a counter suit Jackson’s estate accused her of stealing belongings of Michael Jackson from Neverland to sell to the media.

A: There was a sketch that I found in thrash.

[correction: several sketches and notes]

Host: You sold that sketch of Elvis you found?

A. I figured that if it was in thrash it did not mean anything to me, uh, I should not have done that, but I did.

Host: And the jury in the case said that you owed Michael Jackson 32 000$ for stealing and selling that.

A: Yeah.

Host. Did you pay that?

A. No, I did not.

Host: Did not pay back that either?

Adrian: No.

Host: The credibility of Adrian has again been questioned, because of her changing account of what she saw at Neverland. Sworn evidence she gave in 1993, that she never saw any inappropriate behavior by Jackson towards any child.

Host: At Michael Jacksons trial, you were found to have lied under oath.

A: OK, uum, let me explain that. When Michael threatened me, I was scared of what was going to happen to me, my family, my son.

Host: So admit not telling the truth?

A: Yeah because he threatened me.

[When did MJ threaten her?]

Host: How do we know you are telling the truth now?

A: Well, let’s put it this way, I know the truth, I did not sleep very good at night. Eeehm, I am happy that I did the right thing by trying to stand up.

Thomas Mesereau: You got to look very careful at people’s motives, and you got to look very carefully at the facts, you got the most famous person in the world, one of the wealthiest people in the world, perceived as very vulnerable. Okay, and people constantly exploited him throughout his life.

Host: For Thomas Mesereau so much of what was aimed at Michael Jackson, was about cash.

Thomas Mesereau: People wanted to make so much money on watching the great Michael Jackson rise high, and then splatter. They wanted the story to have a miserable ending for him, they hope they would see him in the court room in chains, in jail clothes, without make up, without his hair fixed, without the clothing he liked to wear, they were looking forward to the final chapter were Michael Jackson gets destroyed. And it was very disheartening to observe.

Host: So you think it all ties into money?

Thomas Mesereau: Yes, money, fame and publicity.

Host: Including what he views as the latest trumped up charges of child abuse.

Host: Some of these accusers have not just changed their story slightly, they have done a U-TURN. Is there a possible explanation in the #metoo movement, where people are now more comfortable to say “look I was abused, can we please do something about?”

Thomas Mesereau: Right now if you were accused of this worst type of thing, you would almost be found guilty before you can defend yourself. I think right now we are going a little too far. And a lot of people that are not honest, were trying to capitalize on this particular movement, are raising accusations that needs to be challenged.

Host: You don’t think the freedom of the #metoo movement can explain why the recent two accusers have come forward and are saying Michael Jackson abused them?

Thomas Mesereau: I think the freedom of the #metoo movement has allowed false accusations as well as real accusations. And we got to be really careful to make sure what’s real and what’s false.

Host: By agreeing to participate in the Martin Bashir documentary, with the innocent assistance of his 12 year old friend Gaving Arvizo had given the police all they need to investigate. America, or the world had never seen anything like it. In 2005 Jackson’s case came to court. And so the stage was set for what would be one of the biggest trials of the century. It was a showdown of a decade in making, covered by twice as many media as turned up for the OJ Simpson trial. Jackson faced 14 counts, from child molestation, to conspiring to imprison the accuser and his family at the Neverland ranch. If found guilty he would face at least 20 years in prison.

Thomas Mesereau: These are horrific charges, these are ugly nasty charges, I think it’s worse to be charged with something like this than homicide. I really do. The 14-week trial was a circus.

Thomas Mesereau in 2005:

“This case is about one thing only, it’s about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honor, the charity, the innocence and the complete vindication of a wonderful human being named Michael Jackson.”

Host: Hollywood journalist Jeanne saw things very differently:

Jeanne: I saw people that were out to get Michael Jackson, I saw people who were angry at Michael Jackson, I also saw people who adored him, then I saw a bunch of people who I felt very deeply was lying, were getting paid, getting influence, and I found the whole thing frightening.

Host: On which side do you think people were lying?

Jeanne: Oh, they were lying in favor of Michael Jackson, in his defense saying nothing ever happened.

Host: Adrian took the stand against her former employer.

Adrian: It was pretty crazy. I was not shocked it was happening again, because I knew it was going to happen again. Do you know what I am saying?

Host: You thought a trial was going to happen sooner or later?

A. Yes, I did. Sad to say it, but I did.

Host: Wade Robson who is now accusing Jackson of abusing him, was the star witness for the defense.

Thomas Mesereau: He was very very strong in his defense of Michael Jackson. And he told me in no uncertain terms that he had not been molested, he had not been abused and that these claims were ridiculous. I mean this man was so strongly supportive of Michael Jackson, so powerful in his defense of Michael Jackson that is just shocks me that he has changed his story, in recent years, I just can’t get over it.

Host: As the trial reached the conclusion, the strain on Michael Jackson was starting to show.

Thomas Mesereau: I watched him deteriorate physically and emotionally during the trial, he lost weight, his cheeks became more sunken in, by verdict day he looked like just a shallow of his former self.

Host: After 8 days of deliberations, the jury reached its verdict. A unanimous decision of not guilty on all charges.

Host: That moment in the court room, then they said not guilty, how many times?

Thomas Mesereau: 14 times.

Host: 14 times. What was that like?

Thomas Mesereau: It was one of the most unique, powerful, unusual experiences in my lifetime.

Host: What did Michael Jackson say to you?

Thomas Mesereau: He said thank you, thank you, thank you! I will never forget it.

Host: For Michael Jackson it was vindication, but the damage was done. And life at Neverland would never be the same again.

Host: Were you surprised by the outcome?

Adrian: No I was not surprised because, I think in today’s world, a lot of jurors, they don’t like to say that a celebrity is guilty.

Host: Why not?

A: Because they think they are above everybody else, they look up to them and right away think, everybody wants money, so celebrities can do no wrong in today’s world, that’s what I think.

Host: Michael Jackson may have been found guilty in the trial, but the trial and the headlines it made, damaged his reputation irreversibly. Never again would he hit the heights of the musical stardom, he had once known.

But for Thomas Mesereau, the man who defended him, Michael Jackson was the victim, not the boys who ended up in his bed at Neverland.

Host: You don’t think Michael Jackson has molested one single person?

Thomas Mesereau: Michael was a creative spirit, he danced to his own drummer, he saw things we do not see, he heard things we do no hear, he was a creative genius, he was eccentric, he was different and he was an artist. I don’t believe he was a molester for five seconds.

Host: But what about the history? The number of accusers? Chandler, Arvizo, Robson, Safechuck. Are they all making it up?

Thomas Mesereau: Let’s look at them individually: Safechuck swore under penalty of perjury he was never abused, Robson swore under penalty of perjury he was not abused, Arizo was not believed by the jury, 2 other people were paid off to end litigation so he could get on with his career. If you look at everyone under a microscope, what do you really come up with, not much.

Host: A lot more than most humans face in their lifetime…

Thomas Mesereau: He is the biggest target on the planet, he was the most famous on the planet, he was immensely wealthy, he was perceived as immensely vulnerable, this made him a target throughout his life. And he’s being attacked even in death by people that want money.

At Neverland:

Adrian. I can’t believe I am coming back here.

Host: Adrian is insisting she is telling the truth about Michael Jackson and Neverland, a place she would rather forget.

Host: when you see these gates again, what’s the memory?

A: Anxiety, misery, I would never go through these gates again ever.

Host: That’s how you think about all those years?

A: Misery, a bad choice that I made.

Host: If Michael Jackson was alive do you think you would speak out like this?

A. If he was alive, I would say it, I would say it to his face, I really would. You know I was 28 when I started working for him, these boys were young, if it was hard for me at that age, can you imagine how it was for them? There is another side to him and I saw it. I don’t feel sorry for that, I feel sorry for the children.

~

You have looked Adrian McManus in the eye and saw her sincere emotions, but before you marvel at her remarkable care and sympathy for the children please read the last piece of her testimony from the 2005 trial.

It will tell you how Adrian McManus and her husband dissipated tens of thousands of dollars held in trust for their two little nephews left in their care and how indifferent she sounded when she had to admit that she defrauded them and never paid back.

Q. The prosecutor for the government mentioned a case you were involved in where you were sued by Rosalie Hill, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were sued by Rosalie Hill as the guardian ad litem for two children, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The children were Shane McManus and Megan McManus, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And after you told Judge St. John your position under oath, he found that you and your husband willfully and maliciously defrauded these children out of the money in the estate, true?

A. I believe so.

Q. Judge St. John found that that money was to be held in trust for the benefit of those two children, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He found that you and your husband dissipated those funds, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. He found that you and your husband violated that trust, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. He entered a judgment against you and your husband for $30,000 — excuse me, $30,584.89, correct?

A. I believe so,

Q. And after he entered that judgment, Judge St. John also awarded the plaintiffs attorney’s fees, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. He signed a separate judgment awarding the people who sued you and your husband $5,085.27 in attorney’s fees and costs, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. ..the lawsuit was before you sued Michael Jackson, correct?

A. I believe so

Q. Did you pay that?

A. I made payments, and I don’t even recall how much I made payments for. And then I couldn’t do it no longer.

If you think that Adrian McManus was jobless and was unable to return to the children their dissipated money you will be wrong. When she was testifying in 2005 she did have work and was selling jewelry in a department store.

What scum of the earth these Michael Jackson accusers are! They will tell you their powerful stories about MJ looking you in the eye and seeming emotional, and they will strike you as nice and credible people, however when you scratch them on the surface just a little bit, the only thing you will find there is cold manipulation, lies and utter lack of morals.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. March 2, 2019 2:25 pm

    To all MJ supporters: I am sorry for being out of touch for the past week or so. Besides writing this post I had problems with my computer again.
    Just stay calm, dear friends, no matter what storms are raging around us. We know that the Earth is round even if they tell us that it is flat, so I see no point in worrying even if they get completely crazy.

    Also here is a little note to those who have started coming here to make threats to us and wish us all sorts of ugly things: Your comments will be deleted without hesitation and any dispute whatsoever.

    We don’t talk to those who are not only ignoramuses, but also sound like some brutal thugs. Please behave yourselves. You could also try to educate yourselves on the most elementary facts about MJ. I wish you success on this path.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. March 2, 2019 3:27 pm

    The Australian 60 min TV program about Adrian McManus used some shots from Dan Reed’s trailer where Michael Jackson allegedly congratulated Wade on his birthday in a super sweet voice. It seemed to me that something was not quite right about episode – the voice sounded unnatural and the whole thing looked a bit strange. And now I know why.

    Marie Rousseau found it to be a fake and this is what Samar @TheMJAP‏ wrote about it:

    Oh my God!!!

    No wonder the footage didn’t seem to match the audio!

    Michael Jackson was honoured at the Regent hotel on the 20th February 1990 and apparently recorded a message for Wade Robson “on his birthday”.

    Wade’s birthday is on the 7th of September!

    WOW! WOW! WOW!

    Marie Rousseau:

    I think that I get now why I had a weird feeling while watching that specific part of the trailer. It looks like the sound doesn’t even match with the movement of his lips. He barely moves them btw. Plus it looks like the video has been cut but they didn’t cover the skips well.

    Like

  3. March 2, 2019 3:28 pm

    Helena, it is awful, that documentary I mean.. just told something that makes him an absolute liar. He claimed MJ abused him anally.I had to care for a mother who had fled from her husband with her son, about 6yo to the big city as she had noticed blood on the boys underpants. So what about Joy and other mothers. Anal abuse is brutal and cannot be forgotten.I have had problems with my computer for a while, but hope contact can still be maitained.

    Like

  4. March 3, 2019 11:47 am

    Great article. Sharing!

    Like

  5. March 3, 2019 4:15 pm

    Kerry, thank you. This post is of course not for the present hectic times, but the important thing I myself begin to realize now is that at the 2005 trial she said absolutely nothing which could corroborate Robson’s and Safechuck’s current stories.

    First of all, she didn’t see a single thing that would “concern” her about MJ and Robson.

    Secondly, Safechuck wasn’t even mentioned, though at the time McManus started working at Neverland in 1990 he was 12 and could still visit the ranch. By the way, another maid, Kiki Fournier if I remember it right, saw him at Neverland on a couple of occasions (only).

    And thirdly, and this is the most important point in today’s context, McManus as Michael’s personal maid did not see a single physical proof of what Robson and Safechuck are claiming now. Personal maids handle people’s underwear and bed linen, so it is they who should know it all. But her own testimony at the 2005 trial proves that she saw nothing of that kind. NOTHING.

    And if she saw no traces of any sexual activity, how could it take place at all? Or were all of them washing their underwear themselves? And if they did why didn’t anyone notice it?

    Even in her recent interview – if you really look into it – she doesn’t say anything definite, all of it is just wink-wink hints and meaningful sighs. And this is exactly how fakes are usually made.

    This is what McManus said about that “underwear” thing at the 2005 trial (I’ve now added it to the post, long as it was):

    A. …there’s another area where there’s another rest room, and there’s a Jacuzzi.
    Q. How large?
    A. Oh, God, it’s big. It’s big.
    Q. Would it hold more than one person?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Comfortably?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. And were there things in the Jacuzzi on occasion?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Like what?
    A. Like Mr. Jackson’s undershorts, and a little boy’s undershorts.
    Q. You wouldn’t know which boy’s it was, the undershorts?
    A. Brett — it could — Brett. Jordie. Macaulay. That happened frequently.
    Q. They’d actually be in the Jacuzzi in the water?
    A. They’d be in the water, or sometimes they’d be on the floor by the Jacuzzi.
    Q. And these were underpants?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You’d pick it up and wash it?
    A. Yes.

    To prosecutor Zonen she said some clothes could be found in the bedroom, but she still said no word about seeing anything suspicious about them:

    3 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You testified in the deposition that Brett
    4 Barnes’mother would bring you his clothes to wash.
    5 Was that, in fact, true?
    6 A. At times that was true.
    7 Q. Was that always the manner in which you
    8 washed his clothes?
    9 A. No.
    10 Q. In what other ways would you be washing his
    11 clothes?
    12 A. If they were left in Mr. Jackson’s room, I
    13 would take them and wash them along with Mr.
    14 Jackson’s clothes.

    Another piece from her testimony about washing the boy’s clothes and characters of the boys:

    12 Q. And Jordie Chandler, describe his behavior
    13 for us during the time that he was there.
    14 A. He was rude.
    15 Q. In what way?
    16 A. Very demanding.
    17 Q. In what way demanding?
    18 A. Like if I was in the laundry room washing
    19 clothes, he’d come and say, “Where’s my shirt?”You
    20 know, “I want my shirt.”Just not nice to where you
    21 ask, “Do you have my shirt?”Just kind of “Give it
    22 to me now,”like that.
    23 Q. Was his behavior like that fairly
    24 consistently during the entire time that you were
    25 exposed to him?
    26 A. Yes.
    27 Q. Brett Barnes, how did he behave?
    28 A. That little boy, I — he was not a rude
    1 little boy. He was pretty well-behaved.
    2 Q. The entire time?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. Wade Robeson, how did he behave?
    5 A. He was kind of wild, too. Not as much as
    6 Macaulay. Just wild, tear everything up. Leave
    7 messes all over, you know. Just –

    Still one more piece from her testimony about the boys’ clothes:

    2 Q. You were asked if you had ever seen Brett
    3 Barnes’clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?
    4 A. If it’s there. Like I said, I have not gone
    5 over that.
    6 Q. And your response was sometimes his mother
    7 would give you his clothes to wash, right?
    8 A. Yeah, probably.

    23 Q. And you said that his mother would give you
    24 his clothes, correct?
    25 A. Correct.
    26 Q. You didn’t see his clothes in Mr. Jackson’s
    27 bedroom, right?
    28 A. Um —
    1 Q. Excuse me, at that point in time, you said
    2 you didn’t see his clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom,
    3 his mother would give you his clothes, correct?
    4 A. Correct.
    26 Q. You said that you had never seen the Culkin
    27 boys’clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?
    28 A. Yes.

    You see that the matter of the boys’ clothes was discussed again and again, but she didn’t see a single thing that could suggest any sexual activity. There was simply none.

    Like

  6. David Invenio permalink
    March 10, 2019 6:36 pm

    First, excellent article. Worth every minute to read.
    I want to mention that I am not a big MJ fan, or “believer”. I don’t dislike him, I just wasn’t into his music. So when asked for my view, when it was all happening, I said “WHY?!”. Nobody could be more disconnected/disinterested! But even I couldn’t believe what was going on, things just did NOT add up to me. I felt sorry for the guy really, all those people attacking him and all for money. But I forgot about it until Youtube threw this 60 Minutes up in front of me, and I gotta say, it was the worst garbage I’ve ever seen from 60 Minutes. I knew in the first three minutes that this woman must have some absurd history going on, her claims of threats and harassment and abuse – all sounded like poorly rehearsed garbage. I spent 5 minutes with Google and found some bits of the truth, which was exactly what I expected. Of the results of my search THIS ARTICLE was by far (FAR) the most comprehensive and informative. The court proceedings and other quoted material – very well done!
    And again, my interest has been minimal and only from the perspective of yet-another horrible injustice in this country that devastated a fellow human being – the fact that he was a musical genius was not germane to my interest or views.

    Regards,
    David Invenio

    Like

  7. March 11, 2019 2:12 pm

    “Of the results of my search THIS ARTICLE was by far (FAR) the most comprehensive and informative. The court proceedings and other quoted material – very well done!” – David Invenio

    David, thank you for your kind words to me. And for being fair and just to Michael, and for your appreciation of the truth. These days not everyone wants to learn the truth as it may be uncomfortable to know it and requires time for research. You obviously did yours, so over here you find yourself among the like-minded people.

    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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: