Blanca Francia’s Testimony Revisited: STRANGE CONNECTIONS
The previous post about Blanca Francia introduced you to psychologist Mike Craft, who started working with Blanca and her son Jason within a state-run program for molested children even before Jason was first interviewed by the police and recalled the three alleged tickling episodes. You also learned about attorney Terry Cannon, who reached a settlement with Michael Jackson’s lawyers on behalf of the Francia family.
Both Mike Craft and Terry Cannon surprised me by the time they appeared in Blanca Francia’s orbit.
Diane Dimond writes that the state-sponsored therapy program run by Mike Craft was arranged for Jason after his mother’s interview with the police (September 1993) and this means that the program had begun even before Jason complained about anything at all (in March ’94) and even before he first met with the police (on November 3, 1993).
Mike Craft is a marriage and family counselor. He set up his office in 1992. The number of staff is 1 (one).
If Jason Francia’s so-called therapy by Mike Craft indeed started before he recalled any tickling by MJ, it changes our perception of the situation around Michael Jackson in the most dramatic way.
As to attorney Terry Cannon he stunned me by entering the picture already at Jason Francia’s second police interview on March 24, 1994. This date didn’t jibe with the official version either as we were told that the negotiations over a settlement began only in late ’94/early ’95 after all dust in the Chandler case had settled.
These inexplicable shifts in the timeline were a curious twist to the story and demanded attention. What I found was a sensation that was lying almost on the surface.
STRANGE CONNECTIONS
No one pays attention to Mike Craft and Terry Cannon as everyone focuses on the allegations of Blanca Francia and her son Jason, but if you do look, you will learn some details that are no less interesting than the allegations proper. These details will become noticeable if you compare the two days of Jason’s testimony – on April 4 and April 5, 2005.
On April 5 Jason said that he had met Terry Cannon at the office of his counselor, Mike Craft:
Q. BY MR.MESEREAU: Okay. How did you meet Attorney Terry Cannon?
A. I can’t — I think I met them at Mike Craft’s office.
Q. Excuse me, at whose office?
A. Mike Craft’s, my counselor.
And a day earlier, on April 4, 2005 Jason explained that Mike Craft was in direct connection with the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon. The counselor’s office was the place where Jason saw Tom Sneddon for the first time – the latter came to Mike Craft and the 13-year old boy saw them sitting in front of him talking.
There was no counseling that day, so Tom Sneddon’s visit could take place at the very beginning of the “therapy” program and its obvious purpose was to instruct Mike Craft on how to counsel Jason Francia and what was expected of him as a result.
Q.BY MR.MESEREAU [ ] has any representative of the police department been involved in any of your counseling sessions?
A. No, I don’t think so. Well, there was the one time that the — that I first met Mr. Sneddon, I think that’s his name. And it wasn’t a counseling session. But Mike Craft, which was my counselor, was there.
Q. Was there with Mr. Sneddon present?
A. I think he was there, but I was 13.
Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, was Mr. Sneddon talking to your counselor?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Okay. But you don’t know what your counselor or Mr. Sneddon said to each other, right? You wouldn’t know?
A. I wouldn’t know.
Q. Okay. Do you know how long Mr. Sneddon and your counselor met?
THE WITNESS: I don’t even know if they met. I don’t even — well, they had to have met because they were in the same room, if they were in the same room. But I don’t know.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know where they were in the same room?
A. Yeah, when they were in front of me.
Q. Do you know where that room was?
A. Yeah, it was in where I got my counseling. It was my counselor’s office.
Q. So Mr. Sneddon came to your counselor’s office, correct?
A. That’s what it — I’m telling you this, because I think I remember meeting him there.
Now if you put two and two together you will realize that both Mike Craft and Terry Cannon were in connection with the Santa Barbara County DA Tom Sneddon.
This is something we’ve never heard before, and since Tom Sneddon was evidently the one who arranged the “therapy” program by Mike Craft and probably even monitored it, there is every reason to believe that he provided Blanca Francia with an attorney too.
The supposition is not that far-fetched as you may think – Blanca Francia herself gave us the clues that she had not retained the attorney herself. Because each time she was asked a direct question she evaded giving a direct answer and on one occasion even said “no”.
Ron Zonen wasn’t part of the 1993 investigation and apparently wasn’t aware of its undercurrents, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked Blanca Francia that question. And when he did, he thought that she simply didn’t understand it.
But it was Ron Zonen who didn’t understand that it wasn’t Blanca who hired the lawyer.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever hire a lawyer?
A. Oh. Did I personally went to a lawyer and say — no.
Q. Okay. Do you know Terry Cannon?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Kris Kallman?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know them to be lawyers?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did either of those two lawyers represent you?
A. Yes, at one time.
Q. Did they represent Jason?
A. Yes.
Q. How did that happen? How did you come into contact with these two lawyers?
A. Well, since I — I was felt like —
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; 352.
COURT: Sustained.
Unfortunately the unsuspecting Thomas Mesereau objected to her answer. But here is another instance of the same, only now it is Thomas Mesereau who is asking:
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And was it after that deposition that you first spoke to an attorney named Terry Cannon?
A. That was — that was after. After when Mr. Cochran told me that my son was going to be subpoenaed and I would have to bring him.
Q. Okay. And then you went to hire an attorney, correct?
A. Then I — yeah, then I talked to Terry.
Mind you that Blanca Francia found it difficult to say that she hired Terry Cannon and changed it into just ‘talking’ to him.
The reason for these and other vague answers is that she never hired a lawyer and his free services to her were a favor on the part of the generous Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.
And this conviction grows only stronger as we learn about Terry Cannon’s somewhat mysterious status as a lawyer.
MYSTERIOUS LAWYER
Terry Cannon’s partner Kris Kallman who worked together with him on the Francia-MJ settlement agreement testified that he was a sole practitioner who only sometimes associated with other attorneys. These outsiders acted ‘of counsel’ to him on certain cases, and it was in this capacity that Terry Cannon acted for him in Blanca Francia’s case.
It also turned out that the only two times when Terry Cannon cooperated with Kris Kallman each time it was connected with Blanca and Jason Francia. The first was their 1996 settlement agreement and the second came ten years later when the Francias were to testify at the 2005 trial and Terry Cannon rejoined Kallman a couple of months before the trial began.
In between Terry Cannon worked elsewhere and his last place of employment before he joined Kris Kallman again was the District Attorney’s office in San Diego.
So Terry Cannon wasn’t that much of an attorney who works for both sides, but was largely a prosecutor whose job is to conduct the case against a defendant in a criminal court.
Thomas Mesereau knew of Terry Cannon’s background and asked Kris Kallman the following:
Q. [ ] Now, you answered some questions about Terry Cannon.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did — excuse me, you’re currently associated with Mr. Cannon, correct?
A. He is “of counsel” to my law firm.
Q. When did he become “of counsel” to your law firm?
A. He’s been “of counsel” twice. Once about ten years ago, during this period, and then again just recently, within the last two months.
Q. So he wasn’t “of counsel” to your law firm in October, November and December of last year, right?
A. I don’t believe so, but I can’t be sure.
Q. During October, November and December of last year, he was with the District Attorney’s Office in San Diego, wasn’t he?
A. Well, I know he recently retired from the San Diego D.A.’s Office. I don’t know precisely when he retired, but you’re right, it’s been recent.
Now we know that the second time Terry Cannon joined Kris Kallman was at the end of 2004, several months before the Arvizo trial.
Now add to it that same as in March 1994 Terry Cannon was also present at Jason Francia’s police interviews at the end of 2004, though during that period Cannon was still with the San Diego District Attorney’s office and was an official nobody to Jason Francia.
And when Jason Francia testified about it at the trial he surprised us with the news that he “didn’t know” why Terry Cannon was there.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, you gave an interview with Mr. Zonen in December of 2004, correct?
A. Yes. That was the first time I think I met them.
Q. And Terry Cannon was present, correct?
A. You’re right.
Q. And Terry Cannon at that time was working for the District Attorney’s Office in San Diego, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But he still came up to act like your lawyer, didn’t he?
THE COURT: Well, I guess instead of “like,” it might be “as.”
MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.
Q. Mr. Cannon was present at your interview with Ron Zonen on December 6th, 2004, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At that interview, he was serving as your lawyer, correct?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know why he was there?
A. I didn’t really know. I was asked by — actually, I didn’t even know how I met you guys. I was asked to be there, I think, and he was there.
Then a new version arrived in the course of Jason’s testimony – Jason “probably” asked Terry Cannon to be present at his police interviews but “as a friend” only:
Q. Okay. And you had requested that Mr. Cannon be present at the interview, right?
A. You’re going to have to show me the paper probably.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at the report?
A. I did.
Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you wanted Mr. Cannon present?
A. It does not refresh my recollection.
Q. Let me just try and get this straight. You don’t know why Mr. Cannon was there, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You didn’t ask him to be there, right?
A. I don’t remember whether I asked for him to be there or not. I probably did, only because he was a friend of mine and he knows more legal stuff than I do.
Q. Okay. Did you know he was working for a District Attorney’s Office at the time?
A. I believe I did, because we kept in touch — after I was 18.
The intensity with which the police interviewed Jason Francia is another amazing point about his story – first there were two interviews in ’93 and 94 and ten years later they interviewed him apparently on three occasions – on October 18th, November 19th and December 6th 2004.
The mysterious Terry Cannon was present at least twice:
Q.BY MR. MESEREAU: You would agree that Attorney Terry Cannon was present at both the October interview, 2004, and the November interview, 2004, right?
A. I can’t remember whether he was there on the November one with me and my mom.
Q. How did he end up showing up for any of those interviews, if you know?
A. I think he called me and said I might be subpoenaed for this. I can’t — I think Kris called me and said I might be subpoenaed up here.
Whether invited or not, Terry Connon was still important enough to object to the presence of a defense investigator:
Q. Okay. Now, in your last interview with Prosecutor Zonen – and I’m talking about an interview on November 19th, 2004, okay? – Mr. Cannon was present, right?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Cannon not wanting a defense investigator present?
A. No, I don’t recall.
After learning about Terry Cannon’s overwhelming presence in Jason Francia’s life I made a little dive into Terry’s past and the big discovery made there somehow didn’t surprise me at all as I already saw it coming.
It turned out that before working for the San Diego District Attorney’s office Terry Cannon was with the District Attorney’s office in the Santa Barbara County.
Consequently Terry Cannon worked for Tom Sneddon and at some point in time Sneddon was his boss.
This glorious but totally unsurprising news was found thanks to a legal thriller named “Disappearance” written by J.F. Freedman, the New York Times bestselling author. In his Acknowledgements Mr. Freedman thanked “Terry Cannon from the office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney” for helping him in the areas regarding prosecutorial procedures:
“Disappearance” by J.F.Freedman, 1997
“Terry Cannon, J.D. from the office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney helped in areas regarding prosecutorial procedures.”
Now it remains to be seen at what period of time Terry Cannon worked for Tom Sneddon.
Mr. Freedman’s book was first published in 1997 and certainly took a year or more to write it, so the time when the author consulted the Santa Barbara DA employee Terry Cannon on ‘prosecutorial procedures’ while writing his book must have been around 1996.
And Blanca Francia’s settlement agreement was signed by all those concerned on April 1, 1996, so the period when Terry Cannon worked on the settlement and was with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office coincide.
We don’t know whether Cannon went into temporary retirement from the DA office during that period or combined the work of a prosecutor with the role of an attorney for the Francias.
But we know it for a fact that Terry Cannon was in direct connection with the Santa Barbara District Attorney and was working with Blanca and Jason Francia on Tom Sneddon’s instructions.
So Blanca Francia was telling the truth – she didn’t retain the lawyer herself.
His services to her were arranged by Tom Sneddon, and most probably free of charge too, following the example of Mike Craft.
This required a fact check, so to avoid any mistakes I looked up Mr. Freedman’s other legal thrillers.
The editor’s note to J.F.Freedman’s books says that the author lives in Santa Barbara and is a lawyer himself, same as his brother and father.
He naturally knows everyone in the local professional community, and Terry Cannon must have worked as a prosecutor long enough to consult others on all nuances of prosecutorial work, so no wonder the author turned to Terry Cannon again for his next legal thriller “Above the law” published in 1999.
In the Acknowledgments for this book the author thanked Terry Cannon for reading the manuscript several times and ‘advising him in all the phases of the workings of a D.A.’s office.’
This time he introduced him as being ‘of the San Diego District Attorney’s office’ and ‘formerly with the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office’.
“Above the law” by J.F.Freedman, 1999.
“Terry Cannon, J.D., of the San Diego District Attorney’s office, formerly with the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office, read the manuscript several times and advised me in all the phases of the workings of a D.A.’s office, including the protocols regarding a state special prosecutor.”
So given that the second book also took time to write it, Terry Cannon must have left his work in Santa Maria and moved to San Diego sometime in 1997/98, where he worked at the DA’s office until early 2005, when he retired and returned to his former associate Kris Kallman again – right before the MJ ‘molestation’ trial began.
It seems that the importance of Blanca and Jason Francia’s testimony was so tremendous that it required Terry Cannon’s retirement, undivided attention and personal presence.
In fact it is even amazing how every little detail fits in here and the whole puzzle is coming together now. And you will agree that the whole situation around Michael Jackson is beginning to look decidedly different.
It turns out that not only did the police and Tom Sneddon arrange some “therapy” for Jason Francia at an incredibly early stage – even before the 13-year old made any allegations, but Tom Sneddon’s prosecutor also acted as the Francias’ civil attorney at all stages of their case against Michael Jackson and Sneddon personally took steps to arrange a settlement agreement for Blanca Francia!
Ms. Francia was an illegal immigrant in the US and with a status like that it was highly unlikely of her to challenge Jackson in an open legal battle (it was Bill Bray of MJ’s security who helped her obtain a legal status ten years after she came to the US), so to make money on her fantasy tales about Michael she preferred the usual and well-tested method of selling her stories to the press.
So it could be only the powerful DA Tom Sneddon who could encourage her to raise the stakes and offer his own staff to give her legal support, evidently promising her millions if she agreed to his terms.
And this means that the Santa Barbara District Attorney did something no one ever expected of him – Tom Sneddon helped Blanca Francia to sue Michael Jackson, apparently in return for the family’s services to be provided to the prosecution.
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EVENTS
Now the question is what all of the above means.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that it was a quid pro quo deal. Blanca Francia and her son were to make allegations against Michael Jackson – and in return their efforts were to be rewarded by whatever money could be hammered out of Jackson by Tom Sneddon’s employee Terry Cannon.
This conclusion is supported by the mere presence of prosecutor/attorney Terry Cannon in this ugly story and also by the time when Cannon joined the Francia case. If we are to believe Jason’s testimony the attorney came on stage two months after Jason’s first interview in the sheriff’s office on November 3, 1993, but before his second interview on March 24, 1994 where Terry Cannon was officially present.
So January ’94 was the earliest point and March ’94 was the latest when Tom Sneddon promised to help Blanca Francia to sue Jackson and sent Terry Cannon on his mission, and now we need to find out why the promise to help was made that early if the settlement took place only in 1996.
The answer is obvious – Tom Sneddon needed Blanca’s and Jason’s “correct” testimonies and as soon as possible too, while the criminal investigation was still going on. Their case against Jackson was falling apart as there were no other “victims” and Sneddon was desperate to find at least someone to bolster Jordan Chandler’s false story.
Even after the settlement agreement in January 1994 Jordan was still cooperating with the authorities (he refused to testify only in July that summer), but his allegations were not enough, especially since his description of MJ’s genitalia didn’t match the photos and the prosecution was facing an impasse.
But Blanca Francia most probably didn’t want her 13-year old son to testify at a trial – if it ever came to it. Her interests were more trivial – she wanted to get her money from Hard Copy and the National Enquirer, while the prosecution didn’t want Blanca Francia to compromise herself by her deals with tabloids and reveal the money motive.
So it was evidently to satisfy her zeal for money that Tom Sneddon offered her an attractive bargain – she will not go to the press and will work for the prosecution instead, and after that they will assist her in getting millions from Jackson. This required waiting until the investigation was over and the case possibly going to criminal court, but here there was a problem – Blanca Francia was smart and very distrustful.
We know about her distrust for the police from Jim Mitteager’s tapes which say that on the eve of Jason Francia’s second interview (on March 24, 1994) the police went to her home and Lydia Encinas of the National Enquirer who had a “pretty good relationship” with Blanca, talked to her in Spanish.
Ian Halperin writes about it:
On a tape, dated March 23, 1994, Enquirer editor David Perel is heard telling Mitteager: “The reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a pretty good relationship going with Blanca. The cops took Lydia yesterday to Blanca’s house. (Blanca has] only got a sixth-grade education, so there is a problem there. Blanca is very distrustful … The cops are looking for copies of agreements between Jackson and parents.”
The last sentence suggests that for some reason the police expected Blanca Francia to have copies of any agreements with parents if they had existed of course – but they didn’t.
And their conversation was certainly not only about those copies. There were also some arrangements made and this is probably why Lydia Encinas of the National Enquirer was also present.
This is how I see those arrangements:
- Lydia Encinas was not to publish Blanca’s story and the latter would not get any money from the National Enquirer.
- Instead the prosecution would start proceedings for a civil suit against Jackson in search for a much bigger award.
- This explains Terry Cannon’s presence at Jason’s police interview the very next day.
- The deal with the prosecution was to be a secret as no one was to know that Blanca Francia was asking for money while the criminal investigation was going on.
- And the deal certainly contained a point that Blanca Francia would testify against Jackson and Jason Francia would help the authorities to put MJ behind bars. This explains Jason’s revelations the very next day, though they did not come easy and were made only after much pushing from the police.
All the above conditions were meticulously kept – the National Enquirer didn’t publish Blanca’s story, there was no word about the settlement until the media first mentioned settlement negotations in 1995, and Tom Sneddon made sure that his envoy Terry Cannon would do his best to hammer out millions for Blanca Francia.
The deal went into effect the very next day, on March 24, 1994 during Jason Francia’s second interview with the police, where Terry Cannon was present for the first time, though the settlement agreement proper was signed only two years later, on April 1, 1996.
The official timeline created the impression that all was clean and honest – Blanca Francia and her son “were ready to testify against Jackson”, but when the main accuser refused to cooperate and the investigation closed as the case couldn’t be built on their testimony alone, the “poor woman didn’t get justice” and wanted MJ “at least to pay”.
But the real picture is different – it was a quid pro quo deal, based on a highly inflated story initially meant by Blanca Francia for tabloids only and obtained from the boy under very much pressure.
The deal was to be forever secret and this is evidently why Jason Francia stayed under Mike Craft’s ‘therapy’ program for 5 years thereafter and Terry Cannon kept Jason under his wing at least until 2005.
They had to keep an eye on that family.
A BIGGER PICTURE
The above doesn’t mean that Tom Sneddon didn’t have other reasons for helping Blanca to sue Jackson. If my supposition about the person who masterminded the whole project against Michael Jackson is correct, the big idea was not only to drag him through the mud and end his career, but to also make him go bankrupt – hence the more lawsuits the better, and the bigger settlement sums the better too.
You will remember that on January 11, 1994 Larry Feldman, the lawyer for Jordan Chandler, made a motion to force Michael Jackson to disclose his financial standing to learn how much money they could grab from him. If the motion had been granted they could have asked for everything MJ had – same as Wade Robson asked for everything the MJ Estate had at the time he filed his complaint.
This approach betrays the same modus operandi and the same hand pulling the strings, so though Tom Sneddon was the main actor there, he wasn’t the main driving force behind the project – otherwise the scam would have stopped with his death, but it didn’t.
Popular myth has it that Tom Sneddon was overzealous in going after Michael Jackson because he had a vendetta against him, presumably for Michael’s “D.S.” song released in 1995 and portraying Sneddon as “a cold man”.
But it wasn’t a vendetta. It was a cold plan of doing away with Michael Jackson by all means possible from the very beginning of the 1993 investigation, even before Michael heard about the Santa Barbara County D.A. anything at all.
In theory Tom Sneddon could display his zeal in dogging Jackson only when/if he made sure that the allegations against him had any substance and were no mere extortion. But at the initial stage Sneddon was supposed to be unbiased and professional, impartial and fair, and seeking justice and not conviction.
However this was not the case.
The correct timeline and strange maneuvers around all those “witnesses” show that Tom Sneddon was dragging out of them the required testimonies even at a stage when people did not complain about anything and thus abused his power from the very beginning of his case against Jackson. And this points to a certain plan harbored well in advance.
Thus each new step in this story brings us more and more proof that Evan Chandler was right when he said in a private conversation with Dave Schwartz:
-
“Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved –“
Vindicating Michael 
mjinnocent1
The Diane Sawyer interview (PrimeTime) was June 14, 1995.
The Settlement with Blanca Francia was April 1, 1996.
It was 9 month after the interview, so Michael wasn’t aware of Francias yet.
From Kriss Kallman testimony at 2005 trial:
Q. (Mesereau) The settlement agreement with Blanca Francia was entered into approximately April 1st, 1996, right?
THE WITNESS(Kriss Kallman): That’s what it says.
LikeLike
Hey Helena, I have a question. During the PrimeTime interview in 1995, Michael said there were no other settlement besides Chandler up until that interview. Did he lie because there was another settlement with Francia? I’m not so clear with the settlement so I may be wrong when it happened.
LikeLike
Helena, I have a question. I need clarification on the Jason Francia settlement. Michael Jackson in his PrimeTime interview when asked if there was any more settlements to that point said no, as per his lawyers. Does that mean he lied because their was also a Francia settlement?
LikeLike
Well, I’ve read the recent comments about luv4hutch’s friend and am very thankful to everyone for the very interesting discussion.
My impression is that the ‘friend’ is a real person, but I would certainly not waste any time on trying to convince him of anything.
Pressing the truth on people like that is useless – they have too many preconceived notions and I don’t yet understand why it is so difficult for them to jump out of their old shells. Is it laziness or lack of desire to know the truth? They may be very nice people in everyday life, but if they don’t appreciate the truth and are not ready to work for it, for me – and I am sorry to say that – they sort of don’t exist.
It is like having a scientist among your colleagues who doesn’t care if the results of his research are true or not. Are there scientists who prefer to believe fake dogmas they created themselves and persist in their fallacies? Yes, a lot of them. But are they interesting to real scientists? Absolutely not.
So my interest in what the ‘friend’ says is purely practical – it is a way to double-check the results of our own research and see whether we have missed anything and have not overlooked any detail. And with this in view I will try to make a post to cover the ‘friend’s’ other points – not to convince him of anything, but just to gather everything in one place and use it as an opportunity to pick some loose ends if there are any.
But I won’t even care if the ‘friend’ reads it or not – the post will be solely for those who want to know the truth. As to all others, let the past bury the past.
LikeLike
I’ve more or less sorted out the technical problems with my internet and see that I have a lot to catch up with. It seems that I will have to answer the friend of luv4hutch though the mere idea of having to go over all of it again makes me sick.
As to cleaning up the comment section, if no one broke the rules there is no need to. Tomorrow I will read all the comments and will try to answer them or will make a new post. Now it is the middle of the night here 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I certainly tried all that with him, especially pointing out the parts where they lied. But, obviously the problem was that he wasn’t willing the listen. Especially when I point out their lies, and he just said “jumbled memories”, saying it was exactly the same as Michael Egan’s case, or the women who just now testified against Harvey Weinstein. But he wouldn’t listen. So that’s why I gave up, no more, no less.
LikeLike
To prove Michael’s innocence you do not need to discuss “Geffen”, “drug use” or “women from Toronto” — it’s hater’s tactic to discuss side matters.
You only need two things:
1. A person who is WILLING TO LISTEN.
2. Examples of the instances where the accusers obviously lied (like the description that didn’t match, or the trainstation that wasn’t built).
Simple mathematics:
Lying accuser = not an accuser
5 lying accusers = 0 real accusers
0 real accusers in MJ’s lifetime and after death = innocence
0 real accusers + two police and FBI investigation with 0 evidence of guilt = an absolute and undoubtfull proof of innocence
LikeLike
I thought some of the things that he brought up were new, and for people to respond to that, especially the whole “Michael’s drug use prevented him from ramping things up” and his comments about pickup shots saying “oh, documentaries do that all the time,” as well as the fact that he refused to answer about Evan and Ray Chandler’s refusal for a criminal trial. I wasn’t giving him the last say, I just knew it was hopeless to continue further. He’d finally responded in a way I’d wanted him to respond, to finally look at a list I’d given him, so I just took what I could get because I’d accomplished what I’d set out to do.
I find it a little insulting that you act like I’m not a supporter of Michael’s innocence, that I’m a troll of some kind, especially when I’ve essentially had to beg Michael’s case in front of a lot of people in the past, mainly my own family. The part about reassurance is because I’d basically been through a mentally exhausting moment with my friend regarding his conversation, so I was in a bit of a rough place mentally. And so far, reactions like this from you haven’t been helping.
What is it you want me to do, exactly? If you ask Helena, she knows of my bona fides as a supporter of Michael, and it was her I really wanted to respond to the post.
LikeLike
Why? Either you are sure of the truth or you are not. So why endlessly discuss it?
You wanted us to respond to his comments in detail point by point. You even suggested to make a blog post on it. If you are sure of the truth and know all the facts, you can do this yourself. We don’t sit here and wait for orders and statements to be disputed and answered. We have a life, professions and a lot of things to do. We cannot repeatedly write extensive explanations about things which are already discussed in the blog, just for an anonymous person who most likely is not willing to change his mind.
Interestingly you let your “friend” refute all the arguments which are pro Michael and not the other way round, giving him the last say. And interestingly you let him have the last word in your comment.
And in your next comments you even defend your “friend” with his own statements. And you didn’t want to ask him further questions because you “wanted it to remain a respectful discussion”.
And now you want us to answer to all of that and set the record straight? This is indeed not credible and it’s not how it works! I call it provocation.
LikeLike
I’ve never believed anything of what my friend has to say, I just wanted to bring up what he says, points that he comes up with, claiming to know a lot as someone with connections in the entertainment industry, because when it comes to other things he’s said, he’s been shown to be right in the past. Now, I never believed anything he said, but I didn’t really have the arguments to use against him, so I thought I’d bring all of this here to get the rebuttal from the professionals among those working to vindicate Michael. I just thought, “there’s a rational explanation to all this, they’ll have the answer.”
I don’t want to reveal my friend’s identity, because I don’t want him to know that I told him about our conversations, especially because he says “I’ll be sued over breaching of NDAs.”And I don’t talk about Michael with him that often, in fact the conversation I posted a few days ago is our official last word on that subject (like I said, w do lots of other things, unrelated to Michael and I enjoy that work with him), but I posted it here because he finally read something related to this site, a synopsis of various points I made in favor of Michael’s innocence, and he gave his official response to them. So, now that I have his official response what I wanted him to see, I wanted the official last word from those who know better, preferably Helena. It’s my way of venting my frustration as well as ascertaining the real truth of the matter. If I crossed some sort of boundary bringing all this here to the site, I apologize. I just wanted the explanations and to be reassured of my beliefs in Michael’s innocence, that we are in the right. Even though I know for sure that what my friend is saying is garbage, I still need to be reassured.
LikeLike
Guys, I think you are right: Actually there is something very strange with luv4hutch and his/her dubious “friend”, and I think Helena will agree.
As a co-admin of this blog, I personally never believed in this friend. Why would you want to overload us with an anonymous person’s opinions over years, which are not really of interest?
luv4hutch: You are presenting us your friend’s opinions again and again when this is not of any use. I’m sure this friend is not existing and you just want to challenge us with your questions and ideas, wasting our precious time. Why should we talk about a figure of which we don’t really know if he exists, instead of talking to him directly?
The fact that you are not stopping with this dubious kind of friend makes you very suspicious, because at some point things are disputed enough and you have to stop. You seem to be obsessed with your “friend” and his statements. I also suggest that you go on with your life and stop spamming us with your “friend’s” remarks. Please note that we are not interested any longer because nothing comes of it. Everything coming from this anonymous person is speculation and of no help.
And if you cannot convince your “friend”, why don’t you just stop discussing Michael Jackson with him? And why are you drawing us into these disputes with your friend? It makes no sense.
Sorry, your latest comments make you very untrustworthy.
LikeLike
“These posts are so fishy you could fry them in batter and serve them with chips”
This is the Guiltist latest tactic. They are so pathetic.
LikeLike
Your friend won’t check out this website, because it supports the belief that MJ is innocent, but he will spend hours trawling through pages and pages of FBI documents that support the belief that MJ is innocent.
For someone with no interest in MJ and who doesn’t want to talk about him, he sure spends a lot of time reading about him and arranging secret meetings with women from Toronto to talk about him.
Too many inconsistencies. Too many contradictions. Too much focus on the same topics that Gutierrez focuses on. Too much of it just doesn’t make any sense.
These posts are so fishy you could fry them in batter and serve them with chips.
LikeLike
I’m here because I’ support the move to vindicate Michael, and to always see every development that spells out the evidence, especially when Helena posts something. I wanted to see if I could get my friend to see the light, but he won’t, and refuses to even check out the website. I thought if I gave him a summary of everything it might work. I emailed the summary to him, then he decided to talk to me through Messenger/Facebook. That’s the reason the conversation seems so strange, is because it was online, not in person, and I reposted it as it occurred above. I posted the disappointing conversation we had above because I wanted to vent and hear what everyone else, especially Helena, had to say about it, sort of to console me after realizing my friend will not be convinced. There is no ulterior motive behind all of this, certainly not to troll people. I also don’t want to reveal my friend’s identity because I don’t want people to go after him, or let him know I revealed our conversation here.
The “creative writing he and I have worked on is this story on Archive of Our Own, regarding Meat Loaf and his collaborator, Jim Steinman, and a Broadway musical Steinman did that failed, and how it could have succeeded. I gave notes to him, he did the actual writing: https://archiveofourown.org/works/17395376/chapters/40942775
We mostly talk about things related to Meat and Jim, then the conversation turned to Michael, and he said “Oh, he’s guilty as sin.” Then I wanted to see if I could show him evidence that would turn him around, but clearly I failed.
LikeLike
In my opinion, this luv4hutch account is either a troll, or mentally disturbed person, and, honestly, I lean toward md version.
The conversations in real life just do not happen the way she (he?) “reprinted” them here. Also “me” and “friend” parts look like written by the same person.
English is not my native language, so I’m not an expert of course, but I have a feeling that it’s not native for luv4hutch either?.. I don’t know, her writing looks strange. She and her “friend” did “creative writing” together? Really?
LikeLike
Well, it was my mistake earlier making it sound like she sought him out directly. That was a misstatement on my part. The truth is that he didn’t say how exactly he came into contact with the woman, or if the MJ story was part of a larger conversation of unrelated topics.
I also want to make clear I’ve never held stock in the claims he brings to me, but it’s clear he believes them, and is easily taken advantage of by shady characters.
LikeLike
Glad I’m not the only one that thinks things are fishy. Way too many inconsistencies and contradictions in these posts about your friend, and it smacks of projection.
“He never said how it happened, whether he approached this woman or she approached him”
Except, earlier you said:
“the woman at the heart of it came to him and confirmed it”
It’s strange how out of all the people in the world, this woman would choose to seek out your friend and just randomly confirm a story that she wouldn’t even validate to the FBI. If you remember, you described her as:
“an anonymous woman in Toronto”
How do I know that this story was never validated? Easy. Firstly, if the FBI had found any substance to it, the gossip website would have included it in their article. The Sun newspaper would have had it on their front page. Every anti-MJ documentary would have made it a major feature. Dan Reed would have printed it on his bedsheets so he could have cuddled up to it at night.
Secondly, it was supposedly happened in 1992 so it pre-dates the Chandler allegations (although it wasn’t reported until 1993, right when the Chandler allegations were worldwide news. Ooh, that’s a bit convenient).
If this story had any truth in it, Tom Sneddon would have moved heaven and Earth to get hold of that witness and that supposed cousin.
So this woman makes a claim to the FBI in 1993 that she won’t validate, and then suddenly years later decides to seek out some random guy that works in video production and doesn’t talk about MJ to say “Hey, you know that story that everyone else read on TMZ but you read directly in the FBI archives, even though you have no interest in documents that disprove claims that MJ sexually abused anyone? Well, I’m the anonymous woman from Toronto! Ta-daaaa!”
She probably said something about being kidnapped in a special hot air balloon and being taken to Brazil just to keep it sounding believable.
Thirdly, and most tellingly, “1108: Prior Bad Acts”. Where was this? This would have been a smoking gun. Where was it?
No further questions, your honour.
LikeLike
Then don’t talk about Michael Jackson and don’t stress your self and go on with your career.For you to go as far as you do by saying that his death certificate it may well be false,you have gone too far,there’s thousands of photos out there that you can see Michael’s vitiligo so clearly and you keep going drugs ,Michael was under proscription drugs ,it’s different ,and as for Tom Meserau he did say in an interview that his understanding is his team at the time convinced him Michael to pay the money and move on,Michael didn’t wanted to settle,you can find the details and facts if you want too .To be honest with you every time you come here you talk about what this friend of yours saying ,something fishy going on here.
LikeLike
He never said how it happened, whether he approached this woman or she approached him, or whether this conversation occurred before or after reading the FBI files. Just “I talked with this woman, she confirmed, she’s very credible.” There was no further elaboration. Partially because, as he said, “If I give too much away, people, especially those like John Branca, will know who I am, say I violated nondisclosure agreements and batter me with the usual blame-the-victim tactics they used on Jordie and Gavin, and I want very much to keep my career, and make the firm I work with actually achieve a meaningful project. I don’t want Michael Jackson’s people to ruin me like they’ve ruined so many others.” But partially because I didn’t pry too hard or question too hard, because I wanted it to remain a respectful discussion and not have him blow up on me or rupture our friendship, because talk about Michael is the only kind of tension we’ve ever actually had.
LikeLike
“That the Canadian train story was in the FBI files, that he personally read it there, and that the woman at the heart of it came to him and confirmed it”
Why?
We know that the train story is in the FBI files because it was reported by TMZ, New York Post, ABC, etc. and as I said earlier, none of these sites link directly to that particular document or state what the outcome was.
These website thrive on dirt, and an FBI report that supports the notion that this claim is true would be like gold to them. But every version of this tale I’ve seen so far avoids saying what the outcome was.
You claim your friend – after reading it in the FBI archives and not from a third party source – was then approached by this woman to confirm it? Why would she do that? How did she even know your friend had read this report? How did she know he existed? As he isn’t involved in law enforcement, why would she even care that he’d read it?
LikeLike
Obviously, that’s what I’m intending and hoping she does as well. I only posted what my friend said to vent and basically see what you all had to say.
LikeLike
Helena when you return I really hope you clean up the comment sections. People shouldn’t be here posting uncorroborated claims, with no proof or evidence to back them up. Especially when many of those claims can be debunked by reading articles right here on this amazing site.
I am so sick of trolls trying to muddy the water with lies and fabricated claims
LikeLike
I’ll clarify a few things about my friend and what he said, and also explain why I’m not identifying him. He is a good person, and we’ve done a lot of things together, especially creative writing projects. However, because of the extent of misbehavior in Hollywood, he is extremely jaded and cynical about everything and thus feels that everyone in the industry is fake and monstrous, so therefore Michael had to be, because “it’s not possible to be so cheery and naive and survive, especially if he truly was as innocent and helpless as he or his fans like to claim.”
He said that he knows for a fact was happening regarding “Hook”/”Project M” and that Michael was crowbarring his way in, not being strung along. That Geffen would never be so petty as to attack Michael for turning down his advances or refusing to sign to Geffen Records (he’s somewhat under the influence of the highly exaggerated and/or invented faults and attacks on the characters of Jon Peters, Peter Guber and Walter Yetnikoff, especially since they did virtually nothing to Geffen, less than what Michael apparently did, but they were destroyed regardless).
That the Canadian train story was in the FBI files, that he personally read it there, and that the woman at the heart of it came to him and confirmed it, especially the potential claim that the boy on the train may or may not have been Michael’s cousin, basically raising the specter of incest as well as rape now. That he personally talked to this Brian Oxman person, and got access to read the actual claims analysis reports from 1993 regarding the Chandler settlement. That he talked to these men who alleged to be gay lovers of Michael’s, and that he somehow got word from Tom Meserau that “the insurance company didn’t pay the settlement, Michael did.” He didn’t specify whether he personally talked to Meserau for his claim, thus it’s quite possible this alleged claim comes from a “friend of a friend”, that sort of deal. That Robson and Safechuck’s inconsistencies are exactly the same as the regularly-occurring jumbled memories of actual rape victims, especially the case of Michael Egan. That Michael would’ve gone as graphically lurid and as insatiable as Robson and Safechuck claim with Jordie and Gavin, but that “the drugs he was under killed his sex drive.”
That he and his production company had a deal for a jukebox musical with Michael in the early 2000s, but that Michael was acting inappropriately, and John Branca and other advisors were telling him, “stop befriending children, get some adult friends.” That a music video project was in the works, but Michael was under the influence of drugs and nodded off during table meetings. That AEG put so many onerous and excessive rehearsals for him for This Is It is because “he’s a junkie, and we got to ensure he can actually work, maybe get his pills and injections under control.” And that he thinks the autopsy report, especially the claims about his vitiligo and lupus, and the state of his hair and nose, are suspect because “the coroner’s seat has been up for grabs since (Thomas) Noguchi was drummed out of business after RFK.” Even though Noguchi did autopsies after that, such as for Janis Joplin and John Belushi, and no reasonable person questions those results.
Simply put, like a lot of very good and decent people (Ellen DeGeneres, Paul McCartney, the staff of “The Simpsons”), he effectively follows the sheep in the herd and doesn’t question, because “it must be true.” But worse, that for someone who proudly proclaims his eternal skepticism, vigilance and cynicism about the industry (saying “the whole place is riddled with vipers, all I can do is sit and wait till they’re flushed out”), easily falls prey to the claims of fantasists and people who may have questionable lives, as long as they conform to his worldview and support his presupposed beliefs about Michael’s guilt.
LikeLike
Pretty sad how trolls are outright fabricating interviews with fake “witnesses” and “industry friends” to slander a dead man. Michael couldn’t stop Evan Chandler from falsely accusing him and destroying his life, but somehow he was able to stop all these men who he allegedly dating from revealing these gay relationships? lol ok.
I really believe these people are pedophiles desperate to turn Michael into their mascot. It’s the only explanation for their bizarre obsession.
And the attempt to slander Tom Meserau is hilarious, but also a very predictable ploy. They really need to get some new tricks.
LikeLike
“there’s an independent witness”
“It was an anonymous woman in Toronto who worked in children’s services with her husband”
“it was duly forwarded to the Feds”
Whoopee. Your friend reads TMZ.
She made an allegation. Did she report it directly to the FBI, or did the FBI just investigate an unfounded allegation that was floating around like they did with all the others?
I could make an allegation here and now. Make it real juicy. Cross reference it with a bit of the Chandler story, a bit of the Arviso story, make it believable. If MJ was still here and the FBI were still investigating him, they would pick up my story, generate a report on it and see if there’s any truth in it. Once they determine it’s a load of fantasist horseshit, they’ll rubber stamp it as closed and that’s that.
There will still be an entry in their archives (possibly more than one as it appears a lot of stuff gets duplicated between different departments), and so long as they don’t mention that it was found to be a load of crap, any half arsed Diane Cubic Zirconia can truthfully and accurately say “MJ was investigated by the Feds for seducing a young Battenburger and doing things that caused him to make QUESTIONABLE NOISES!”
I see plenty of gossip and showbiz news mentioning this story, but none seem to link to the actual FBI document to show the outcome of this investigation. I suspect it’s because it went the same way as the allegations from people like Michael Jacobshagen and Terry George.
Here endeth the lesson on how real-life works.
LikeLike
Sorry to everyone who left their comments here – since I am in the countryside my Internet traffic is limited and has been exhausted again, so I am looking for other possibilities at the moment. I’ll get back to you at the first opportunity.
LikeLike
Well, Helena, my friend in the entertainment industry and I finally had a debate about Michael. He wouldn’t read anything on this blog, but he read a summary I made, and we talked it over in Messenger. I have reprinted here everything we said (I’ve taken his name out to protect his privacy, and I don’t want him to be dogpiled on by someone who might want to dox or harass him). You’ll see everything he said (including basically hinting that Thomas Meserau went “off the party line” off the record to hint he doesn’t actually believe in Michael’s innocence), and what he didn’t say, especially in his responses to my questions. I certainly hope you and/or someone else will respond bit by bit to his comments. It’s so long, you might need to make it a blog post. If so, don’t use the fact that it was a conversation on Messenger, mention his entertainment industry connections, things of that nature.
Friend: Geffen came on to Michael and got turned down? Well, that’s funny, considering before Michael had a taste for more dubious activities, he had a taste for men. I know of several men who can be reliably stated to have dated Michael, Jehovah Witness-ism to the contrary. I mean, Geffen in his dotage is not exactly anyone’s first choice, look at him now compared to when he was younger, but still. That’s it? That’s what they’re saying? That Michael rebuffed him and that’s why? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to make light of David Geffen. You cross that guy at your peril. But if he was behind it, he’d need more justification than that. Especially when he has his pick of any number of guys on SeekingArrangement. Michael not sharing his bed or signing with his label would not be world-shattering for him.
Me: Geffen’s done far worse for people who’ve done less. He’s extremely petty. It wasn’t so much Michael turning him down alone, it was also that Geffen wanted him to leave Epic Records, but he never did. It’s also that Geffen continued to act as his friend, then betrayed him, undermining him, like the Spielberg “Hook” thing.
Friend: Michael was more interested, not very surprisingly, in the world-building eternally youthful part, not the “what if Peter Pan grew up” part. And even at a point when they’d already had serious discussions with Robin Williams, he was trying to convince them to go his direction. They told him to get a script drafted, but the chances of him actually getting his version made were slim to none. He and Spielberg were on two very different pages from the beginning. And it was one of many Peter Pan projects being shopped around at the time. A later business partner of Michael’s was helping develop a rock musical version of the story called Pandemonium (emphasis on the “Pan” – get it?) in that same era. It was to be set in the present, the Lost Boys were homeless kids who Peter sort of took under his wing when society cast them aside; it had a social justice angle that would be really popular today, actually.
Me: Yes, I’m aware of all of that, but apparently Geffen strung Michael along around 1990 to say that “it’s different now” and was offering this as a serious project, and this Darlene Craviotto was a pawn in the game. First to act busy like this was happening, that Spielberg was doing what Michael wanted to do, and Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg were part of it, then leave the news of “Oh, Steven’s left us and gone for a warring project at TriStar and Robin Williams.” Leaving Spielberg as the fall guy, and Geffen to look like Michael’s friend and protector. After all, the meetings Craviotto claims to have been at with Spielberg and Katzenberg appear to have actually been Katzenberg and Geffen, but the story is rewritten to again keep up Geffen’s narrative.
Friend: It wasn’t a warring project. It was the same project. TriStar wanted Robin Williams and Spielberg’s approach, Michael had tentative not-very-strong interest from Disney in his. And it was the only reason they were humoring him. Film financing is hard even when you’re a heavyweight.
Me: Yes, but again that’s part of what Geffen was feeding Michael, with his honeyed words of misinformation. And Disney was part of this scheme, even though Disney didn’t have the rights and the al-Fayed family had firmly snapped them up. The whole thing is discussed more in the WordPress blog, but I know you won’t read it.
Friend: Partly because they don’t know what they’re talking about, and they have to be corrected on obvious falsities that they would gain a lot more respect for if they dispelled them. For example, Michael’s insurance company did not pay that settlement without his consent. It was spin; I know the lawyer who wrote that, Brian Oxman. He’s done work for us as well. That’s not how it works, and anyone with a little bit of legal knowledge would tell you that. He pretty much planted it there to allow other lawyers to say it.
Me: I put it right there: Michael and the insurance company paid to get rid of the civil suit so as not to give away their defense for a criminal case. Michael wanted a criminal trial, the Chandlers didn’t.
Friend: it was well within his control and no insurance company was involved. he paid the settlement
Me: Jordie Chandler was free to testify and criminal proceedings to go; he refused. Two grand juries said there was not enough evidence to indict Michael.
Friend: Any traumatized kid would refuse. Many have. I’ve known a fair few; not specific to Michael’s case.
Me: Why did Evan Chandler say he would destroy Michael “if I go through with, and I will get what I want,” and when asked “how does this affect Jordie” his answer was “that’s not relevant?” Why did he and his brother Ray say about Gloria Allred moving for a criminal trial, and say “we don’t want that?”
Friend: Good question, since the settlement was arrived at pretty much to avoid a criminal trial, as per the lawyers who worked it. Carl Douglas on why a settlement needed to be reached: (repeats Carl Douglas statements from 2010 seminar here)
Me: Douglas has been considered quite unhelpful, even misrepresenting events. There’s a series of posts about this, not that you’ll read them. Simply put, Douglas is persona non grata. Also, the option of a criminal trial was still open in the settlement. It especially said so. It would’ve happened, but two grand juries refused to indict. But they would’ve done so if Jordie worked with Garcetti to agree to testify. Also, researchers have found an insurance company’s name on the documents, Transamerica. They were part and parcel of the process. And Michael did not pay himself.
Friend: would you believe Tom Mesereau, who confirmed an insurance company did not pay? or documents from Michael’s insurance company refusing to pay because they only covered accidental body injury and the settlement was related to negligence? I’ve seen the letters from their claims analyst. his policy only covered accidental body injury, and according to the document it was paid for claims of bodily injury due to negligence, so it would not be covered. they even made a one-time offer on helping with the payment even though he wasn’t covered, and he refused. Johnnie Cochran tried to stiff them with the bill, and that’s what happened. I assure you, the money came from his pocket. the lawyers for both parties negotiated, came to an agreement, and it was paid.
Me: Well, since we’re getting nowhere on that part, how do you square the fact that Robson and Safechuck’s claims are far more graphic than what the Chandlers or Arvizos ever said? This suggests that Michael was voracious in his drive in the ’80s, and then mellowed out. That’s not how anything works in that regard.
Friend: well, they aren’t the only ones who made that claim. there’s an independent witness.
Me: Who? Fucking La Toya? That’s your “family” source, I’m sure.
Friend: No, my family sources are much closer, and I’m surprised you’re disparaging La Toya since she has turned tail on what she said when her ex-husband allegedly forced her to say it.
Me: The family and fans don’t like La Toya because she’s an opportunist on both sides. They sympathize with her and being forced to say it, but she kept saying it after she was cut off from him. And she only switched after Michael died. Not a ringing endorsement when it matter. She was Judas, plain and simple.
Friend: It was an anonymous woman in Toronto who worked in children’s services with her husband. she reported a trip from Chicago to the Grand Canyon in March 1992 on a train that continued to California. they had a compartment in a car where MJ happened to have rented the other four compartments. along with adult staff, he had a boy who appeared to be 12 or 13 with him who was described as his cousin. he was very possessive of the boy, and at night she heard questionable noises through the wall. she was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions, and it was duly forwarded to the Feds. I would assume, in order to be heard through the wall, that it had to be something far more graphic than what the Chandlers or the Arvizos described.
Me: It doesn’t work that way, though. Predators ratchet things up with passing years. They don’t de-escalate.
Friend: Well, then we point to the key component of the poor Michael storyline: his drug use. Certain kinds of drug use, especially what he was regularly using, are known to slow libido and sex drive. And that’s assuming that it wouldn’t have escalated had Jordie or Gavin let him.
Me: That still doesn’t fit. Michael never went back to years’ worth of Demerol usage, and he basically only started that again after the Berlin fall. He also didn’t use Propofol that often, and even begged Conrad Murray to do other treatments, based on a wealth of other witnesses. Furthermore Michael was not “addicted” to plastic surgery. The only cosmetic ones he had were his nose jobs and chin cleft. The rest were reconstructive on his scalp. The autopsy showed he was not bleaching his skin, his nose wasn’t falling off, and he wasn’t bald.
Friend: I should also add that these profiles are not hard and fast rules. Different unsubs, to use the Criminal Minds terminology, have different motivations specific to their particular environment and what created the… we’ll call it “issue.” I also wouldn’t bet the farm on the autopsy being completely correct. He was much sicker than it seems to record, to the point that even fans were saying some of it looked fishy. You can’t say out one side of your mouth that he was in no shape to carry out the This Is It schedule and argue in the same breath that the autopsy proves he was not using to the extent to slow his sex drive. The California coroner, no matter who fills the seat, has been for sale since they put Noguchi out of business after RFK. That’s all I have to say about that. You can read between the lines.
Me: There’s also the fact Berry Gordy and Diana Ross basically let him live with them, even basically did the same sleeping arrangements, so why would he consider it improper? Also, the fans weren’t saying “Michel wasn’t up to the schedule”, is that the 50 dates weren’t preferred. The extent he “wasn’t up to it” was the fact they pushed unnecessary rehearsals and Murray was poisoning him. Pop stars don’t usually rehearse every day. Celine Dion doesn’t rehearse that often at all. But AEG forced Michael to show up every day.
Friend: Because he was known to be “licking the walls” (i.e., drugged out) on the regular. It cost us a deal we got for a video featuring him. He couldn’t get it together in time for it to work. We had a funding commitment on the table and he was zonked out so regularly it was hard to tell when he’d be willing or able to work. They did that as their own insurance policy. Knowing how shitty of shape he was in, maybe it was working him too hard, but it was the only way they could guarantee he would work. Michael and his family only ever played 25% of the dates they booked, historically. They (or their management) were big fans of announcing a huge tour, burying “no refunds” in the fine print, and canceling. The dude gave doctor’s notes that people thought were bullshit so many times he was taken to court over it at one point. Michael was telling fans out of his mouth he didn’t think he could even do the 10, he wasn’t sure how it got bumped up to 50. At least the rehearsals paid off. The report we heard was that he was marking his vocals so much with the prerecorded rehearsal tracks that they weren’t sure if he could actually sing, but he was definitely getting back to dancing shape by the end of the schedule. And that’s not saying he was in tip top shape either, just that he wasn’t sleep walking through the dancing or leaving out more complicated sections. Every report we were getting was more of a “Holy fuck, he might actually be able to pull this off” report. Not what you hear about someone who wasn’t using to an extent that would eventuate that.
Me: I’ll ask about one last thing, then I promise we’ll never bring this up again (because I’m sure you’re as sick of it as I am): Robson and Safechuck’s claims aren’t the simple “jumbled memories” that Michael Egan had with the DEN/Bryan Singer lawsuit, or what’s happening now with Harvey Weinstein. Robson, in particular has told several versions of the same event, with different motivations for himself, and constantly “amending” his account in court, even though Egan never got that chance. They’ve continually gotten details of the Grand Canyon trip wrong, chronologies wrong (Michael at the Grammys, the Neverland train station), continuously lied about contact with each other, both in court and the Leaving Neverland film. The film shows evidence of reshoots, especially when Safechuck piulls out the ring; details show it’s a different time of year based on what’s out the window, Safechuck is missing an item he had in the first one, and so on. There’s also how Meserau and the PI that vetted Robson’s 2005 testimony said this: “if he was hiding something, we would’ve found it. You can’t undergo several days of long withering mock-cross examination, and be not only strong and steadfast, but joking and seeming so relaxed on the stand. He’d have to get through me, several other examiners, then Sneddon. He would’ve cracked. It just doesn’t happen.” And to say nothing of Dan Reed’s insidious explanation of Robson and Safechuck being “in love” with Michael and not knowing what had happened was rape, even though Robson said in 2005 “rape is an awful thing, and I don’t wish it on anyone.” Reed’s arguments sound suspiciously like NAMBLA members.
Friend: Well, to quote retired FBI agent Kenneth Lanning’s behavioral analysis of child molesters…. “The typical adolescent, especially a boy, is easily sexually aroused, sexually curious, sexually inexperienced, and somewhat rebellious. All these traits combine to make the adolescent boy the easiest victim of this seduction. It takes almost nothing to get an adolescent boy sexually aroused. An adolescent boy with emotional and sexual needs is simply no match for an experienced 50-year-old man with an organized plan.” Wade and Jimmy aren’t the only victims of molestation who have ever reported that they came to believe they fell in love with their abuser and didn’t regard what happened as rape. Especially if that’s been drummed into them. As for the documentary, I’m a producer, and I admittedly don’t have much experience in film, but I’ve worked with those who have, and they gave me some insight. I may have mentioned some of this before, but it bears repeating. When any good producer or director is shooting what we call “acquisition footage” – the producer/director is mentally aware of how the product will be edited and presented in its final form. They will be thinking in studio terms: edit points, fade points, FX inserts, cutaways, that sort of thing. Because they are aware of edit points, you’ll see outtakes that look to untrained eyes like someone is being coached. Example: someone starts an answer before the interviewer finishes their question; interviewer stops them and asks them to start over. Or the answer doesn’t reflect the topic of the question, ’cause people ramble or get on a tangent; they might stop the person, start the sentence over, even give them the question topic so it will be clear what their answer is “supposed to be” about. That’s not coaching, that’s a good editor. Footage may be unusable from another time of year, or editing means they may have a different idea of framing a shot, so you’ve gotta reshoot, say, someone pulling out a ring to get the image you want. It’s not just about the story being told, it’s about the visuals, or every documentary would have the same story told three or four times at different times of year with different items in the shot each time. It’s not always seamless, but generally only nitpickers or people determined to find something wrong (sound familiar?) will notice it. MJ fans, whether you believe it’s for good or for ill, have it under a microscope. (Possibly even literally, if they could ever manage it.) They have a vested interest in Michael being innocent, so they’re going to go over it with a fine tooth comb. I doubt even the hypothetical “perfect” witness would make them believe otherwise. And the fact that explanations for jumbled memories from my side of the tracks – one being that it might imply something even worse, that it happened so often all kinds of memories are being conflated in their heads – are equally plausible is telling. You can believe me or disbelieve me if you want. I’m not telling you what to believe and never will. I know what I heard, I know what I observed other people in his own camp saying (including both Mesereau and Oxman, off the record), and I don’t care if people don’t believe me.
LikeLike
Helena, I am not at all to hear that Don Francisco is involved with abuse allegations. I have no doubt that he, like Victor, is a pervert. Is anyone really surprised?
I suspect in due time we will find out that Martin Bashir and Dan Reed are also perverts. Bashir worked with Gutierrez to produce more filth to slander Michael, and we all know Dan Reed is following in his footsteps as well.
LikeLike
Now that I mentioned Don Francisco and his close ties with Victor Gutierrez none of us will be surprised with the news reported last year about the (alleged) abuse of children and women on the set of Don Francisco’s show.
One of the comedians performing on the show was actually imprisoned for possessing child pornography. Here are the details.
LikeLike
Though this is only a theory it sounds very much like Victor Gutierrez’s style – he would always promise some hard evidence but would never produce any.
Gutierrez could certainly introduce himself as one of those experts. It was his hallmark feature to present himself as someone important – as an undercover agent working for the LAPD, for example, or as a reporter carrying out a top-secret investigation of NAMBLA activities.
Add to it that when he approached all those people he came to them with recommendations from a certain television personality Mario Kreutzberger, best known by his stage name Don Francisco who hosted the super-popular Teletón show (in his book Gutierrez thanks Mario Kreutzberger for his help). According to Gutierrez, Don Francisco was “a source of reassurance and confidence” for the people he approached.
Wiki says about the Teleton charity event:
There can’t be any doubt that the Spanish-speaking maids like Norma Salinas (in Evan Chandler’s home) and Blanca Francia (at Neverland) were immensely impressed when Victor Gutierrez approached them with, say, letters of introduction from Mario Kreutzberger. The Mario Kreutzberger who made a name for himself on caring for the disabled children!
Don Francisco is also rumored to have paid for Gutierrez’s costly defense when Michael sued him for a non-existent video-tape and “protect him from the U.S. justice” as one Chilean blog said.
LikeLike
When we talk about characters like Evan Chandler we need to remember that he said one thing, did another and thought something different at that. In the transcript of his conversation with Dave Schwartz you will see a whole variety of his declared motives, but the only thing he did not mention was the $20 mln sum which he asked just a week later.
Given so little time between the two events I will never believe that during that conversation he didn’t think of money at all. Money was his main motive, even if it was buried deep in his mind, and the main reason why he was so enraged by them “not speaking to him” and thinking that they had thrown him overboard.
The reason why I mentioned the gay reason is a very specific one. It once again points to Victor Gutierrez who contacted Evan Chandler immediately after MJ and June, Jordan and Lily Chandlers visited Monaco in early May 1993 and their visit was reported by the National Enquirer if I remember it right. Actually Gutierrez himself said that the media fuss about that Monaco visit gave him a new impetus to renew his “investigation”.
Gutierrez must have infiltrated Evan Chandler’s home in his usual way – through Evan’s Spanish-speaking maid Norma Salinas, and brainwashed Evan into thinking that Jordan was gay besides also feeding him his usual ped-lia fantasies about Michael.
So since approximately mid-May up to July 8th when Dave Schwartz recorded that conversation, we can be sure that Evan Chandler was under a very heavy influence of Gutierrez. In early June 1993 he voiced the gay idea to his ex wife, but June Chandler shrugged her shoulders and said something like “Who cares?”. It was this reaction of hers that Evan complained about in his conversation with Dave (“she is a horrible woman”, “cold-hearted”, etc.)
But in between those complaints about June, women in general and threats of a massacre for Jackson, the most nagging thought was that he was losing contact with Michael and could no longer rely on his friendship and money to be able to drop his dental practice and go to Hollywood instead.
Only imagine his disappointment and rage when he thought that he had become an outsider to the MJ-Chandlers’ alliance and the bright prospects of a great new career drifted away from him. This was the real reason for his rage, though to Dave (and himself) he explained it by his concern for the boy’s well-being.
Actually it is the usual doublethink of those who want to cover up their real motives with some highly moral ideas.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Helena… My impression is that the “evidence” Evan is talking about is not the tapes, or, at least, not ONLY the tapes (the tapes plus something else).
Why do I think so:
1) Evan refuses to tell what the “evidence” is, BUT he speaks of “taping M and J” freely. For me that indicates that “evidence” and “tapes” are two different things.
The same way I know that the reason of Evan’s argument with Jordy (the one he and Dave discuss) had nothing to do with MJ’s alleged “bad behavior” – at least in Dave’s mind. Because Dave has no idea of Evan’s issues with Michael, BUT, at the same time, Dave discusses Evan’s and Jordy’s argument freely (“did you give Jordy any ultimatums? … Because, see, that’s how he feels trapped” and so on).
2) Evan says “you’ll see it on the big f*ing screen … and you’ll hear in on tape recordings”. How the tapes could be SEEN on the screen?
3) Evan says “The evidence is already locked up in a safe place … and it’s gonna come out only…”.
Now, this is may be a stretch from my part, but I feel like the passive mode of the verbs (“is locked up”) indicates that it wasn’t Evan who locked up the evidence. And it wasn’t him who was going to get them unlocked.
4) “It cost me thousands, tens of thousands of dollars” — speaking of money Evan may refer to the private detective he hired, but that detective (I forgot his name) had nothing to do with the taping of M and J in Evan’s house, because that detective said in an interview that it was Evan who told him about that taping.
So, my theory is that someone (Gutierrez?) promised Evan the “evidence”, but never delivered 🙂
That is why I’m always on the look out for the hints of what that non-existent evidence was supposed to be. And if the police started to seek for the “agreements” before Chandler’s settlement was signed, the idea of the agreements didn’t fell from the sky on them, I mean, someone had to feed that idea to them.
(Phew! I hope you can understand my not so great English :))
As to who were Evan’s “experts”:
1) I have no doubt VG was one of them. I mean, not only VG was already present in Evan’s life, but also that VG definitely introduced himself as some kind of an expert.
2) Rodney Allan could be there also, and he too could be introduced as some kind of an expert. I mean, Evan was not so bright…
3) And remember, in his book VG refers to some lady friend of his, who was with him when he met Joy Robson? That lady was obviously privy to VG’s intentions. Who was she?
4) And remember Carrie Fisher in her book speaks of her friend, actual EXPERT in celebrity security, Gavin de Becker, who gave some advices to Evan via her?
5) Carrie Fisher herself expressed her concern re “sleeping arrangements” to Evan, and although she is not an expert, Evan may have added her persona to the group of experts in his mind.
6) And, you know, I think it’s possible, that Evan actually met dr. Abrams (or other psychologist) BEFORE Rothman requested the letter from Abrams. I don’t have the whole ATG book, but if I’m not mistaken, there was a mention of Evan’s meeting with psychologist. It could be that Evan met Abrams personally first, and then on July, 14, Rothman called Abrams and asked him to send them his opinion in writing. VG describes in his book how Evan met with Abrams on July 14, but it may be that VG was told about Evan’s personal consultation with Abrams and the request of the letter from Abrams on July 14, and VG thought it was ONE event, but actually they were TWO separate events?
LikeLike
“Seeing how attached to Michael his son was Evan simply suspected that Jordan was gay.”
I don’t believe for a second that Evan really thought Jordan was gay. He knew that Jordan had replaced him as a father figure. He knew Jordan probably wished he was Michael’s son and not his, and that is what really enraged him
LikeLike
Well, first of all, there were no ‘real agreements made’ unless we are talking about the settlement agreements with the Chandlers and then Blanca Francia. And Evan certainly never spoke about anything of the kind. Evan had no other evidence but the tapes of his son’s telephone conversations with Michael and recordings of MJ’s stay at his house none of which had anything incriminating on them. In that telephone conversation with Dave Evan even admitted that ‘he had no idea’ what was going on.
Seeing how attached to Michael his son was Evan simply suspected that Jordan was gay. And he himself said that it was his imagination that was killing him. The only real fault he found with Michael and the others was that “they didn’t talk to him” and “Michael broke up his family “. Evan’s main message was that it would be turn into a massacre unless they began talking to him.
But I’m grateful to you for reminding me of that conversation. When I looked it up to refresh it in my memory I noticed the things I had overlooked before. One of them is that even before that taped conversation on July 8th, 1993 Evan Chandler consulted some ‘experts’ and it is these experts who convinced Evan that he should take action. At first he disagreed with them, but it took experts to explain to him that he would be a negligent father unless he put a stop to it.
Mind you that those mysterious experts were not Dr. Abrams to whom Evan Chandler spoke and described the situation in a hypothetical way only on July 14th, almost a week after that taped conversation.
Evan mentions the experts he consulted earlier at least three times on that tape. And judging by what he says there were many of them.
I wonder who those shrinks were? Was Victor Gutierrez one of those esteemed experts?
LikeLike
The previous comment was from me. (I was playing with the idea to create a blog here, but it looks like it’s to difficult for me 😀 )
LikeLike
“On a tape, dated March 23, 1994 … “The cops are looking for copies of agreements between Jackson and parents.”
I wonder where the idea of such agreements came, before any real agreements were made?
Must be Guttierez and/or Evan.
For some reason I immediately thought of Evan’s notions of some “evidence” in his phone conversation with Dave “You’ll hear it, and you’ll see it on big screen”…
He didn’t speak of “proof”, but of “evidence”.
Helena what do you think? Could it be it?
LikeLike
This is incredible work, thank you so much for all this info..
These people are so much more Machiavellian , then I ever imagined ..
I wonder if Mesereau knew that man had worked for Sneddon as well as in the other DA office, but didn’t want to go down that road for some reason, but everything, you have pointed out , adds up…
Keeping close to Francia for years, reminds me of ZONEN sticking close to gavin..
Not the mother, just the accuser/plaintiff
Of course they were well aware the Arvizo were looking for millions before they began the 2005 case also..
I wonder who else was connected to sneddon, that was part of this ..
Who wanted MJ completely destroyed and broke
LikeLike