Skip to content

2. Larry Feldman

By David Edwards

We begin Part 2 with Larry Feldman’s analysis of the 1993 case.  As you can imagine, I had some serious fact checking to do!!

Transcript of Frozen in Time: A Riveting Behind-the-Scenes View of the Michael Jackson Cases, Part 2

Larry Feldman:  Good evening, I had the privilege to represent two young boys, both who claimed they were molested by Michael Jackson.  They had some similarities that, even though they were ten years apart, that’s worth pointing out, and some differences about those cases that I think are worth pointing out.  Bearing in mind, they were both civil. In one, the first case, I actually litigated that case and went through the same stuff that Judge Melville talked about, and fought about the same issues, and I’ll get into that when it’s time to talk about that. And in one case, we didn’t really litigate it because the criminal case went first.  But both boys had this in common: they were thirteen years of age, they were pre-pubescent young men.  Both of these boys came from broken homes.  Both of these boys lived with their mothers at the time that the alleged molestations took place.  Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone. Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in. Both of these parents, mothers at least, received things of value from Michael Jackson during the time that they had this relationship with Michael Jackson. Another thing I just thought of that these cases sort of had in common, although ten years apart, none of the lawyers, I guess except Ron Zonen, were the original lawyers in the case.  In the first case, the first young boy’s case that got settled, in that case he was first represented by a lawyer by the name of Rothman, and then Gloria Allred had him for about 24 hours, 36 hours, held her press conference, and that was it (laughter!), and then I had him for the balance of that case.  And originally Michael Jackson in case one was defended by Bert Fields and Howard Wietzman, and then ultimately Bert was substituted out, and Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas became the lawyers primarily for Michael Jackson.  And in the criminal case, originally Michael Jackson was represented by Mark Geragos, as the judge alluded to, and Brothman from New York, and ultimately they were substituted out, and Tom Mesereau came in.  So we all were sort of dealing with matters that some of the cards had already been dealt to us. But they differed in a lot of respects, from at least my perspective as the lawyer.

In the 93 case, by the time I was retained, this case was the lead story in the LA Times. This case was in every local television news cast. It was the lead story.  In this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation.  Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And there was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential.  Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in thisThe young by in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about.  He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation.  And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail. The other boy that wasn’t true.  The other boy had, was a young boy who had at one time in his life he had Stage 4 cancer, and was a boy who had never really disclosed everything about the relationship.  And he came from a family that was all broken, came from a broken home.  But that family, by the time they came to me, had never told any Children’s Services, hadn’t been to therapy, hadn’t called the police, hadn’t called the District Attorney.  So in case one, that case was sort of out there by the time we got involved.  And in the second case, it had not been told to anyone. And so there were totally different issues that were involved in both cases.  In case one, the district attorney at that time, because the primary allegations were in Los Angeles, that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case.

In the second case, it was the reverse.  The district attorney in Santa Barbara, who ultimately got the case, insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat, and they, rightfully so, wanted to control the case, and how it would be tried, and what would be tried, and how it would be dealt with in the press and elsewhere.  And so there were totally different things going on, with that kind of decisions that I made in the first case, I wasn’t making in the second case.  The district attorney was. How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out. Now the reason I asked the judge the question about how he determined what to do, when we took on the first case, it was amazing to me, I mean I had cases before where the media was interested in it, and it typically you file a lawsuit, and the media might report it, and if you tried the case and got a verdict, the media would be interested in the verdict, and you’d talk for 20 seconds.  But nothing was like Michael Jackson one at the time.  There weren’t cases like that.  I remember Johnnie Cochran saying, when we walked out, when we ultimately settled the first case, he had never seen so many press in his entire life, around the Santa Monica courthouse, until the next year when they tried OJ, and all of the sudden the press in Michael Jackson seemed small compared to the press that the OJ case garnered.  But it was amazing to me how you had to deal with this press.  There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case.  Like 65%, 66% of those people believed Michael Jackson was factually innocent, and 12% believed that Michael Jackson did this to the boy. Now, for a trial lawyer, these are real issues that you have to deal with, I mean this isn’t some “Just forget it! We’re gonna have our day in court!”  This is something that you’re confronted with because, no matter what the jurors say, those jurors have read about it, they’re deluged about it, we had our case on a fast track to get tried, it was gonna get tried while all this was in the press.  And so, it’s a real factor that a lawyer has to consider.  And how I would watch on television with my mouth open where people, real prominent lawyers, would be on television, on the Today Show, on ABC, talking about this Michael Jackson case, and they had no idea what the facts were, what they were talking about, except that they were talking, and they were very happy to be talking. (Laughter!) And we had to confront these kinds of problems, and sort of do it in an ethical way.

Whereas in the second case, as the lawyers sort of behind the scenes, that’s really where I was, I was behind the scenes.  I wasn’t controlling the press.  I suspect I probably knew about this order, but it didn’t really impact me, or maybe it did at the time.  You know, I was really not very involved in what was happening. And if, in fact, there was a conviction, then maybe I would have been involved, and maybe I wouldn’t have been involved.  But it was a totally different set of circumstances.  And the reasons it’s all so important, because at least in Michael Jackson two, as we’ll call it for the time being, but in one you had Elizabeth Taylor on television talking about how innocent Michael Jackson was, and what a shame it was.  You had Michael Jackson cancelling a worldwide tour, this is the King of Pop, and he is cancelling a worldwide tour, I think it was the Dangerous Tour at the time, because he was so upset about what this little boy was doing.  And so fragile.  You had Anthony Pellicano, who in those days was not in jail (laughter!), but he was the spokesperson, which I’ll never quite understand, that was chosen by the defendant to talk about this case.  He was someone who in these press conferences was conceding that Michael Jackson slept with children, with little boys, so from a plaintiff’s lawyer, like I was; generally, you know that’s a lot of ammunition that you have.  And the question is “How do you use that effectively?” And on the other hand, they were claiming that there was extortion; that the father of the young boy was trying to extort money, by trying to get money from this.  So that was out there.  In fact there was a criminal investigation about whether there truly was extortion.

Geraldo, remember Geraldo?  This is how old this is. When Geraldo did a mock trial, this was all at the time that I came into this case, in which they’re trying Michal Jackson, and lo and behold he won the case. You can’t vu diar jurors on how to overcome this.  And also, from just a standpoint from all of us who represent individuals get this in spades, and that is, you have a 13 year old boy, and whether it happened or it didn’t happened, their lives are in the balance about this, and it’s not just about money. These kids go to school, these kids have friends, these kids at 13 years old, boys at 13 years old are going through a difficult time in their lives, trying to figure what they are, what their about, their sexual well-being.  What that all means to them.  And here it is, these most sensitive issues are in the press, and it didn’t take long. I don’t know so much about the second case, but in the first case, for sure, every kid on the west side of Los Angeles knew who the plaintiff was, even though the plaintiff’s name at that time remained secret.  So as a lawyer, you have a real burden, besides trying to make the case come out right for the client, to think about the ramifications of this.  Whether you really want to take on the King of Pop, as it says in the program.  Whether you really want to be branded with this, because no matter how it comes out, you are going to have people who believe it to be true no matter what the verdict, and believe it to be untrue no matter what the verdict.  And all you’re going to have at the end of the day on the civil side is perhaps money.

In the first case it was simple, because this boy was being chastised, and couldn’t survive under circumstances that existed.  In the second case, you had a boy that had terminal cancer at one point, and almost died of terminal cancer at least.  He had stage 4 cancer, and here this kid has now have to decide, and his parents have to decide whether or not they should do anything, whether they should go to the police, whether they should go to the district attorney, whether they should go to children’s services, whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement. There are all these kinds of issues out there that these people have to deal with, and you have generally parents making these decisions who, in some form or another, were complicit in, if anything happened, allowing it to happen.  So they’re helping them make decisions that impact these kids for life.  So it’s an awesome responsibility to help them.  And then if you did it just privately, which I had done many times for people that I just had a major case against the school district for a Special Ed teacher who was molesting these Special Ed kids who couldn’t even talk. And we kept it quiet.  We kept these kids out of the press. There wasn’t any of this.  But now there are terrible issues for these kids.  And then you compound it by the press, and the news media that is 24/7, then you have a serious issue if you care about kids and you care about results.

Seth Hufstedler: I think we can move to the next question and maybe you’re back at the podium again.  Because I think that now is the time for you and Carl to tell us what happened in that first case.

Larry Feldman: So ultimately that case settled, and I think everybody knows that.  But what happened?  From my perspective, I thought that it was simple.  Believe it or not, in 1993 there was no state bar rule, there is now, but there wasn’t any state bar rule on what lawyers could say or not say to the press.  And Tom and Carl and Ron will surely corroborate that once you’re in one of these things, you need a special person just to deal with all of the phone calls that are coming in from the press.  And they don’t stop.  It’s not like you could just ignore it.  You get a hundred calls from one reporter hoping that they’re going to get the discussion with you, or if you’ll give them an interview.  So I didn’t even know what the rules were, so I kinda started with “let’s think about how we’re going to do this”, given the backdrop that I gave you with all this publicity. “How are we going to get through all this?” So I looked at the State Bar rules, and California had nothing on it in 1993.  We look at the ABA rules, and they had some general rules that you can’t prejudice the case by any extrajudicial statements, and that seems pretty simple, and even if we don’t have the rule here in California, it sounded like something that would be pretty simple to follow.  And then there’s the United States Supreme Court case that tells lawyers that they really do have a right to protect their client.  It’s a criminal case that you have the right.  You can’t prejudice the case.  But you have a right, like what they did in Michael Jackson two, when the prosecutor gets up and says that I’m charging Michael Jackson with sexual molestation, and all of the charges that they brought, the defense has a right to say something in the press to defend him, so it’s not a one-sided barrage, and obviously that’s what Judge Melville was trying to protect and make sure that with both sides, at least some facts got out there.  So we knew that was the media take on this, and we also were quite aware that at that point in time, there was a big PR machine out there for Michael Jackson.  He had a lot at stake, and a lot of money at stake.  And there were lots of people invested in him coming through this unscathed.  So we had to figure out how to deal with this.  And ultimately, we figured that we would do this in a way in which we litigated the case extremely hard.  That we would not have to talk to the press, we would not have to go on the Today Show, but that we would embark on a strategy that allowed us to say everything that we needed to say in court documents which are public records generally.

One of the things we had that, before Carl and Johnnie got in the case, “If we could get Michael Jackson to answer the complaint before the boy turned 14 years of age, then we would be entitled to a trial in 90 days”.  That was the selling point to the district attorney to give me a chance to see if we could get this under or 120-day speedy trial.  We filed the complaint, they answered the complaint for whatever reasons, and then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial. The defense, with all due respect to them, had to worry about not just defending Michael Jackson in civil court, but more importantly they knew there was a criminal case behind the civil case, and they had to defend him worrying about his Fifth Amendment rights. As he tried to fight back our motions for a speedy trial, we litigated that hard in papers, and we always paid respect to his rights under the Fifth Amendment, but we also made it clear that if he had nothing to hide, and given we had a thirteen year old child, we ought to go and have this litigated, and it’ll be behind both of them.  And the press loved it, and picked it up.  Every time we did depositions, if one of the employees, and we took a lot of depositions in the case of people who had knowledge about Michael at Neverland, and his relationship with this young boy, the minute the lawyers would try to stop him from answering a question, we would be filing documents about that, and what the question was, and why it was relevant, and where it was leading to, and the press would run with it and love it and there would be declarations.  When we wanted to have an exam of Michael Jackson, and take pictures of Michael Jackson because the young boy made allegations about his physical and private parts, we had to describe them in detail in order to show why we were entitled to these pictures.  So we litigated it hard, but clearly within the rules of litigation.  And it almost didn’t matter whether we won or lost, the fact is we were getting even by all these types of things.

There was a motion made by the defense, and I don’t recall if Carl was in it at the time, to try to gag the lawyers, and I took the position that gagging the lawyers doesn’t solve the problem. At least with the lawyers you do have the chance you get an accurate report about what took place.  The problem we had was, as that motion was being litigated, you had people from the Jackson family giving interviews, telling how poor it was that we were suing Michael, and how bad it was for Michael, etc., which you would expect family to do.  So we could control the lawyers, and the clients, but you couldn’t control all of the people that had a view.  So that was the course that we took.  So at some point, Johnnie and Carl came into the case.  Johnnie and I go back a long way.  I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit.  And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.  It didn’t resolve the problem with the district attorney whether they would bring the case.  But it was pretty clear to everyone that once you go through one of these things, whether you’re 13 or 30 or 50, the appetitive to go through it again when you finally get some respite or some peace,  whether it being a criminal case or a civil case, you’re not that hungry to do it again. And for this kid, who had to live his life, and was now financially taken care of, and you have a district attorney who wasn’t really aggressively doing anything, it wasn’t that hard for him to make the decision that he had enough of it, and didn’t want to go forward anymore. So that’s sort of the background of that case, and what happened in that case. Michael Jackson went on to live his life, and this boy went on to live his life.  And that’s pretty much what happened with the civil case in 1993.

Analysis of Larry Feldman’s comments:

Before I start, let me remind everyone to please read my article on MJ’s settlements because Feldman spent a lot of time discussing the settlement, and his legal strategy pertaining to the settlement, and if you already have a knowledge of the settlements, then you will understand my analysis of him more clearly.  Here is part 1, and part 2.

1. “Both of these boys came from homes that their mothers allowed them to spend an inordinate amount of time with Michael Jackson, alone. Both of these mothers allowed their boys to sleepover at Michael Jackson’s house, in the bedroom, in the bed, that Michael Jackson slept in.” That statement by Feldman is only half true.  Yes, MJ did spend an inordinate amount of time with Jordie and bought his mother June expensive gifts, but that is because he considered them friends, while his relationship with the Arvizos was strictly business.  MJ initiated his relationship with the Chandlers by inviting them to Neverland upon his return from the Dangerous tour, while the Arvizos requested their meeting with MJ due to Gavin’s cancer, and if not for that cancer, they would not have met MJ. Period.  MJ invited the Chandlers all over the world with him, while the Arvizos visited Neverland a few times beginning sometime after August 2000 (when MJ first started calling Gavin at the hospital), and didn’t return until September 2002. MJ spent time alone with Jordie on numerous occasions, but was NEVER alone with Gavin, as he was always with his brother, and more importantly MJ always had his security and servants within an arm’s reach at Neverland.  The biggest error in this statement is the implication that “both” boys slept in bed with MJ.  Although he didn’t explicitly say that Gavin slept in the bed with MJ, he certainly insinuated it by not denying it, so let’s make it clear right now: Michael Jackson did not sleep in the bed with Gavin!  He and his bodyguard slept on the floor!

2. “In this case, the young boy, just to refresh some of your recollection, was sent to Children’s Services through a psychiatrist, that he had reported this molestation.  Children’s Services, as most of you probably know, this is a confidential report, when anybody reports molestation, psychiatrists are required under the law to report. And there was supposed to be remained totally, 100% confidential.  Somebody got a hold of it and leaked it to the press, so the press had it by the time there was any lawyers involved in this.” The biggest misconception about the 1993 case is that people think that Evan Chandler called the police himself to report the molestation, when in reality he took Jordie to see psychiatrist Dr. Mathis Abrams so the he could notify authorities!  Please read part 2 of my settlements article to see Evan’s exact quotes from the day that he lost custody of Jordie and decided to make the scandal go public instead of relinquishing custody back to June. Regarding the “confidential” Children’s Services report, it was allegedly leaked to Diane Dimond and cohort Steve Doran, a producer for Hard Copy. Here is her account of how she obtained the report (and of course we should take this with a grain of salt), from page 2 of “Be Careful Who You Love”:

So, why had the LAPD gone into Jackson’s Neverland Valley ranch and an apartment he owned in Los Angeles? What were thy looking for as they lugged out numerous boxes stamped with “evidence” labels?

Naturally, reporters all over the world wanted the answer to those questions but I alone was provided the first clue.  The same day news of the raid hit a confidential source called my Hard Copy producer, Steve Doran, and suggested e meet so we could see some documents that promised to shed a bright light on the story.  We agreed to meet immediately at a tiny Italian restaurant near the beach in Santa Monica.

Those documents revealed that Michael Jackson, an idol to millions of young people worldwide, was being accused f repeatedly molesting a young boy.  It was almost too incredible to believe.  Little did I realize that by being out front on the story then, I would remain in the forefront of the Jackson story for years to come.

3. “The young by in that case, in the 93 case, had given an unbelievably detailed statement about his relationship with Michael Jackson, how that came about, how the sexual part came about.  He detailed in great detail the start of the relationship, how it transgressed into a more physical activity with Michael Jackson, how it became fondling, how it became oral sex, how it became masturbation.  And he gave this whole history in exquisite detail.” Well Larry, just because Jordie’s description was “unbelievably detailed”, it doesn’t meant it’s true! And just because it’s graphic, it doesn’t mean it’s true!  The media usually describes it as “graphic” (as if that has any relevance to it validity!), and I’m surprised Feldman didn’t use that term here! I’m also surprised that he didn’t call his statement a deposition, as it is merely a declaration.  Here is part 1 of a 3 part series attacks the legitimacy and admissibility of that document. (Parts 2 & 3 are coming soon!) As far as it being detailed, sure, I bet it was detailed.  After all, Jordie already had experience in script writing from his work on “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, for which he was nearly given a film credit by Mel Brooks, the executive producer!  It was his idea to write the movie after being inspired by “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (and Evan himself confirmed this in the video below).

And while we’re on the subject of Jordie’s testimony to the police, let’s remember that his description of MJ’s genitals did not match! For more info, read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this 3 part series.

4. “that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, he would have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case.” In part 1 of my article on MJ’s settlements I talked about the fact that Garcetti and Sneddon could have watched MJ’s civil trial like spectators at a football game, making notes of all of the exculpatory evidence, and finding ways to circumvent it.  With Feldman’s admission that Garcetti was “content” so see him take the lead in the civil case so he would have access to all of their discovery, and only then would he decide if he wanted to prosecute the case criminally. (Discovery is “data or materials that a party in a legal proceeding must disclose to another party before or during the proceeding”, i.e. evidence.)  What’s amazing to me is that with his access to all of Feldman’s discovery, that he and Sneddon STILL tried to prosecute MJ after the photos showed that Jordie’s description was the antithesis of MJ’s actual description! That is an indication of their vindictive nature, and they should have immediately dropped the case upon receipt of those photos.  But instead, they stubbornly left the case “open but inactive”, even after two grand juries refused to indict MJ.

5. “The district attorney in Santa Barbara………….insisted that the criminal case take place first, and that there be no civil case, and that the civil side of the case take a backseat,” and “How this case would play out was the district’s attorney’s choice in the second case, while in the first case I had total control of how it would play out.”:  Sneddon was instrumental in passing a law in California that prevented a civil suit from going to court before a criminal case was resolved, either through a trial or otherwise), and this was specifically aimed at preventing another family from getting away with another “hit and run” on MJ.  Janet Arvizo and her first attorney Bill Dickerman clearly had dollar signs in their heads when she met with Feldman in May 2003, with the hopes of snagging another multi-million dollar settlement.  (Dickerman made a deal with Feldman that he would get a percentage of any settlement monies received as a “referral bonus”.) So due to the law, Janet Arvizo was forced to try to get a conviction through a criminal trial before having her shot at a big payday, and we all know how well that worked out for her!  The irony is that Janet still could have filed a civil lawsuit after the trial, but what lawyer in their right mind would represent her?

6. “There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case.  Like 65%, 66% of those people believed Michael Jackson was factually innocent, and 12% believed that Michael Jackson did this to the boy.” Pay attention guys, because the media has very subtle ways of using statistics like this to make MJ appear to be guilty.  Although in Feldman’s example the majority of respondents believed MJ was innocent, that poll was done BEFORE the settlement, and those stats immediately flip flopped after the settlement, and the media has used this “ad populum” argument on MJ ever since.  An ad populum argument is a fallacious argument which concludes that “a proposition must be true because a majority of people believe it.”

Here’s a great example of an ad populum argument:  just imagine if somebody told Christopher Columbus that because the majority of all people believe that the earth is flat, then it really is flat, so there’s no use in going on his little voyage! Obviously Columbus wanted to defy the general consensus and prove the world wrong, and he accomplished his goal!  Here’s an example from Charles Thomson’s recent article which states how the media used ad populum statistics after MJ’s trial to try to undermine his acquittal:

A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision”.

Here is an example of Sneddon using an ad populum argument: during his November 18th, 2003 press conference, @ 19:52 he is asked by a reporter if he thinks that MJ “bought his way out” of the 1993 case, and he replies with “I think there’s a sense in the public that he did that!” By using the words “in the public”, he is implying that since the majority of the public believes that MJ “bought his way out”, that he truly did buy his way out. Way to go, Sneddon! That’s a nice way of ducking an easy question!

For additional examples of some of the tricks that the media uses to bash MJ, such as asking “loaded” questions or using “ad hominem” arguments, read this page here.

7. “And how I would watch on television with my mouth open where people, real prominent lawyers, would be on television, on the Today Show, on ABC, talking about this Michael Jackson case, and they had no idea what the facts were, what they were talking about, except that they were talking, and they were very happy to be talking.” There’s not much that I need to say here, huh?  We know how the media works: they hire pundits to get on TV and talk and entertain their viewers, and that’s exactly what they did with MJ.  There is nothing we can do to stop them from airing their worthless opinions, but there is plenty that we can do to refute the!  In fact, here is an article that repudiates the “analysis” of notorious MJ hater Nancy Grace, and her lesser known protégé Sunny Hostin.  They both are alumni of Court TV, so you can’t expect anything more (or less!) from them!

8. “He was someone who in these press conferences was conceding that Michael Jackson slept with children, with little boys, so from a plaintiff’s lawyer, like I was; generally, you know that’s a lot of ammunition that you have.  And the question is “How do you use that effectively?” In this quote, Feldman is explaining how, as a plaintiff’s lawyer, he should use Pellicano’s admissions against MJ.  Pellicano chose to volunteer the fact that MJ slept in the same bed with unrelated children and use it as a pre-emptive attack to so that Feldman couldn’t take that same info and twist it into something sexual or devious.  But by doing so, Pellicano gave Feldman an opportunity to still convict MJ in the court of public opinion, because Feldman could have (and probably did) twist it anyway, and since the general public did not know at that time that MJ shared his bed, the general reaction was one of suspicion. This is one of the end results of having your lawyer reveal your defense strategy prematurely, as Geragos did in 2003 when he said that MJ had an “iron-clad” alibi, and as a result Sneddon re-arranged the dates that the alleged molestation took place to counter MJ’s alibi.

9. “Geraldo, remember Geraldo?  This is how old this is. When Geraldo did a mock trial, this was all at the time that I came into this case, in which they’re trying Michal Jackson, and lo and behold he won the case.” In the fall of 1993, Geraldo Rivera conducted a “mock trial” of MJ on his television program in which his studio audience was allowed to vote on MJ’s guilt or innocence. .  A mother and her sick daughter were on the witness stand, and were “cross-examined” by the prosecutor.  I don’t have the video of this episode, but Ian Halperin transcribed some of it in “Unmaksed”, on pages 109-112.  I’m not going to type the entire segment, but I’ll point out some key points.  The mother, Carol Nilwicki, and her sick daughter Carol, tried to buy tickets to an MJ concert in 1987, but they sold out. (What a surprise, huh?)  So they made a videotape begging for MJ to send them tickets, and they sent the tape to Neverland, and a few days later MJ called them and offered tickets, and befriended the whole family!  Carol made sure to emphasize that MJ asked for her and her husband’s permission before speaking to their daughter. Later on, the prosecutor asked the mother if she would let any other 35 year old man fraternize with her daughter, and she made a very valuable point, that I definitely need to emphasize here.  She said the following: You must realize something.  We sought Michael Jackson out.  He did not seek my daughter out.” Needless to say, the audience voted to acquit MJ that night!

On a side note, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, here is the February 1993 episode of Geraldo that aired shortly after Oprah’s interview with MJ!  It features J. Randy Taraborrelli, an editor of the National Enquirer, a dermatologist, and people who suffer from Vitiligo. Speaking of vitiligo, Geraldo show’s a clip of Latoya flatly denying that MJ really has it, which is totally consistent with the other lies she told (and would tell!) about MJ during that tumultuous time period!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

10. “whether it happened or it didn’t happened, their lives are in the balance about this, and it’s not just about money.” It’s not about the money, Feldman? BS!!  If it’s not about the money, then why did both Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo seek out your services? It certainly wasn’t about seeking justice, because if that’s what they wanted then they wouldn’t have contacted you or any other civil lawyer!  Let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth to see what took precedence: money or justice.  From page 167 of “All That Glitters”, here is Ray Chandler describing the agonizing decision that June, Evan, and Dave Schwartz had to make when choosing Feldman over Gloria Allred:

“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman.  The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.  Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.

Oh, one more thing Larry: since you say it’s “not about the money”, then why did you refuse to give Dave Schwartz the $4 million dollars from the settlement money that he requested? From page 167:

As the meeting came to a close, all that was left was to sign the retainer agreement with Larry.  Anticipating a huge settlement, Dave assumed that Larry would take less than the standard 25 percent rather than pass up the opportunity, so he began negotiating for a smaller fee.

Larry politely explained that his fee was not out of the ordinary and tired to impart to Dave some idea of the amount of work involved should the case go to trial.  But Dave was intractable.  He became loud and pushy, demanding that Larry negotiate.  Dave was also pissed off at all of the lawyers because they told him that if there was settlement he could not be included.

Larry remained calm.  He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie’s natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie’s complaint.  But Dave became increasing belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible.  He didn’t give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money.  Four million dollars, to be exact.  The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.

How could you be so greedy, Larry? It’s not like you were going to spend that extra  $4 million dollars at one time!  (For more info on Dave Scwartz and Larry Feldman, read this blog post.)

And one last thing Larry: thanks for kinda, sorta providing some exculpatory analysis by stating “whether it happened or didn’t happen”, because I have to admit, you did more to defend MJ than Carl Douglas!  We’ll get to him in the next part of this series.

11. “you are going to have people who believe it to be true no matter what the verdict, and believe it to be untrue no matter what the verdict.  And all you’re going to have at the end of the day on the civil side is perhaps money.” This is why I personally believe that settling the civil suit was the right thing to do, because even though MJ surely would have won the civil trial, the verdict would have been undermined for the very reason that Feldman just stated: people who pre-judged MJ as being guilty (who completely infest the media) would say his celebrity got him off, the prosecution bungled the case, etc.  So of course the easy decision for the Chandlers was to get money through a civil trial, especially since they knew they couldn’t prove something that never happened!

12. “whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement.” In this quote, Feldman is discussing Janet Arvizo’s options when contemplating how to go about dealing with Gavin’s so-called molestation, and of course we all know what choice she made!

It should also be noted that in May 25th, 2004 Feldman and Janet decided to try to sue the Department of Children’s Services after their report that totally exonerated MJ  was leaked shortly after his arrest.  Why did they wait almost 6 months after the leak of that report to threaten legal action? MJ was indicted on April 21st, 2004, and at that point they knew that the criminal case would go to trial, and I’m sure they had such little faith in the their case that they decided to sue the DCFS as a “Plan B” (since losing the criminal case would destroy their chances of winning a civil trial.) Anything for money, right Larry?

13. “if anything happened…..” Gee Larry, you don’t sound too confident in Jordie’s story, do you? But, once again, thanks for at least partially defending MJ, even if you didn’t do it intentionally.  You did more for MJ than Carl Douglas!

14. “then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial.” And “there was a criminal case behind the civil case, and they had to defend him worrying about his Fifth Amendment rights.” This is where Feldman literally won his extortion of MJ.  By doing some fancy–smancy legal maneuvering, he was able to take the unprecedented step of getting Jordie’s civil trial to proceed before the disposition of the criminal case.  And the reason that this is unprecedented is because how often do child molestation cases wind up in civil court BEFORE the criminal trial, or in civil court at all?   I’m glad that Feldman once again defended MJ’s actions here by saying “with all due to respect to them” (MJ’s defense team), and then acknowledging that the criminal case was far more important than the civil case. And he confirms what I wrote about in my settlements article: nobody should be put in a position of having to give testimony in a civil case that can be used against them in a subsequent criminal case! From pages 160-161, here is attorney Robert Shapiro advising Evan Chandler on the benefits of suing MJ first:

“If there’s a hung jury, sure, it could be retried, but time goes on.  The real risk is if there’s an acquittal.  In that case, prevailing at a civil suit afterwards becomes a real uphill battle.

Now the alternative is for you to bring a civil suit first.  And the first thing we would do is schedule a deposition of Michel Jackson, placing him in an extremely uncomfortable position because everything he says could be used against him in a criminal case.  And if he takes the Fifth Amendment to avoid that, it can be used against him in your civil case. So immediately, he’s in a real bad spot.

But there’s a third alternative.  If we went to the other side and said, ‘Listen, a trial for Michael Jackson is a disaster, he can’t win.  Because even if he’s acquitted, when the public hears what this boy has to say, you will have no endorsements, you will have no contracts, you are virtually finished.’  If we say that, it is my belief we have control of the situation, we have power.

However, if this matter is pushed too far and somebody starts screaming there should be a grand jury or the DA is not handling this correctly, then we lose all control. Garcetti will have to go to the Grand Jury, even if he doesn’t want to.  And if the Grand Jury returns and indictment on a case the DA can’t win, especially against a superstar, then you’re all screwed.”

And here is an article that includes  startling comment from Feldman that shows how much “faith” he had in Jordie’s story being credible enough to obtain an indictment for MJ:

Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields dropped a bombshell during the court hearing Tuesday, claiming a Santa Barbara County grand jury had been impaneled and was close to indicting his client.

“A grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and they are about to take evidence,” Fields said. “And that means we should have a charging decision very, very soon.”

But Fields later backpedaled outside the courthouse, saying the district attorney there had only issued subpoenas for two witnesses, and a grand jury had not been sworn in. A hostile exchange between Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s criminal attorney, and reporters ensued when Weitzman said Fields “misspoke” during the hearing.

Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.

Feldman said his client would be pleased with Tuesday’s courtroom developments. “This is the first good news he’s had,” he said.

So Larry, you mean to tell me that despite the fact that Jordie gave such a “graphic” testimony and an “accurate” description of MJ’s penis, that you don’t if there will be an indictment? You’ve got to be kidding me!!

15. “And it almost didn’t matter whether we won or lost, the fact is we were getting even by all these types of things.” You’re right Larry, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, because either way your clients Evan and Jordie Chandler don’t have to worry about going to jail.  Jordie was a minor at the time, and was being used like a puppet to help his father pull of the world’s most infamous extortion, while Evan heeded Barry Rothman’s advice and had a shrink report the molestation to keep himself from being charged with filing a false police report!

16. “Johnnie and I go back a long way.  I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit.  And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.” This is a very scary comment, because it makes you wonder how objective could Johhnie Cochran and Carl Douglas possibly be if they “go back a long way” with Feldman?  And this quote brings to light a very crucial elemant of the settlement negotiations: the fact that those three judges (one of which was the Guardian Ad Litem for Jordie) played such a vital role in the suit.  One of our co-admins will write a post on this subject in the near future, and it will explain the significance of the role that the Guardian Ad Litem played.

17. “you have a district attorney who wasn’t really aggressively doing anything, it wasn’t that hard for him to make the decision that he had enough of it, and didn’t want to go forward anymore.” What the hell do you mean that the DA “wasn’t really aggressively doing anything?” What the hell do you call literally going in front of the California State Legislature and asking them to retroactively amend a law that would allow them to force Jordie to testify against MJ? (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Michael Jackson” article in this forum.) And security certainly wasn’t an issue, as Sneddon and Garcetti would have hired the Secret Service to protect the Chandlers if they wanted it! Feldman is playing the blame game here, just as the Chandlers did, by saying that it was their fault that Jordie wouldn’t testify, when they had no intention of testifying whatsoever!

Coming up next in Part 3, we will listen to Carl Douglas’ defense of MJ, or lack thereof………………

———————————

* For the full version of part 2 complete with the comments see here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/transcript-of-frozen-in-time-a-riveting-behind-the-scenes-view-of-the-michael-jackson-cases-part-2/

51 Comments leave one →
  1. May 16, 2011 7:28 pm

    “The boy, unlike defendant Michael Jackson, does not crave publicity,” Feldman wrote. He “has no experience grabbing his crotch on stage,….” What does this statement have to do with anything except play on people’s negative opinions of Jackson? Its totally irrelevant to anything in the case.- Alison.

    Alison, I fully agree, it IS totally irrelevant to anything in the case – but this is what I suppose is called an “ad hominem” and “appeal to prejudice” propaganda techniques used to win the case with the public before it ever goes to any court (civil or criminal alike):

    “Ad hominem – A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one’s opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments”.

    Instead of stating essential things about the case, like what a civil suit means and why they want it to go first (because they want money, not justice) Larry Feldman throws in catchy but meaningless phrases about Michael’s behavior on stage thus channeling our attention into a totally different direction.

    Appeal to prejudice – Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. Used in biased or misleading ways.”

    Oh, speaking about crotch-grabbing is very emotive of course and has a lot of “moral goodness” in it, so Larry Feldman masterfully uses it as heavy artillery fire against Jackson. Its implication is that Michael is morally bad and such a man is capable of anything, while the boy is innocent as a baby (as he doesn’t do crotch grabbing)…

    The fact that the boy is participating in the extortion of millions instead of going to a criminal trial and stating his case there (if he has any) is irrelevant, so the word extortion is temporarily banished from Larry Feldman’s vocabulary not to taint the image of the boy’s “innocence”.

    Wiki on manipulation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

    Like

  2. Alison permalink
    May 16, 2011 6:09 am

    “The (boy), unlike defendant Michael Jackson, does not crave publicity,” Feldman wrote. He “has no experience grabbing his crotch on stage,….”
    What does this statement have to do with anything except play on people’s negative opinions of Jackson. its totally irrelevant to anything in the case. he is relying on the rumpus that the (recent to this) Black or White video caused to make people think because he grabbed his crotch that therefore he is obsessed with genitals and MUST be a child m..

    and you know i do think that they deliberately chose elements and ideas from some songs and videos to tailor their claims and create links in people’s minds to make them believe it all.
    eg:
    – Thriller – story about exorcist video and the general idea that he could be a monster really. There’s a line in Thriller that says ” Now is the time for you and I to cuddle close together, All through the night I’ll save you from the terrors on the screen” which is exactly what they were saying with the exorcist fairy tale.
    – crotch grabbing and Black or White vid – all the stories about masturbation ( and they never claimed any penetration or anything because that would take so much more imagination to believe and less people would do so but they already had a visual in their head to link it to, and one that had caused a storm only a short time before and some people were still complaining about. )
    – kids people had seen him with in the videos -naming them as “victims”.
    – “keep it in the closet” – that stupid story about keeping something in a box and not telling.
    – open emotionally and known to have cried sometimes – stories about him crying like a baby.
    – known to give gifts generously – stories about gifts as manipulation.
    – known and seen to be affectionate with children – stories of displays of affection with sinister overtones.
    – the Monaco awards, seen by people – the crappy stories about Monaco. But no mention of ANYTHING else Michael did or worked on that year, apart from going on tour, when there was loads they could have “name dropped” about if they had really been so close, but maybe the public hadn’t seen them specifically, such as he’d gone to work on such and such video or record such and such or go to this event or that event, work with this famous person or that one. they just talk as if Michael went out to work on a 9 to 5 job and Jordie went to school.they didn’t actually know him well enough to know what he did or how he lived his life. all they could do was get ideas for their stories from his songs and videos.

    +

    Like

  3. May 15, 2011 8:43 pm

    “It’s really funny to read that article and what he said in September 2010, so he wanted to have the criminal trial first?”

    Yes, Shelly, it is really funny and how swell it is that we have Ray Chandler’s book which says:

    Larry: “Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.

    Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain until now.

    Evan: “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”

    Larry: “Yeah.”

    Evan: “Jesus Christ!”

    Larry: “Right! So we don’t want that.”

    Like

  4. May 15, 2011 8:17 pm

    “Fledman has the nerve to claim that they wanted a criminal trial first. When you can read the total opposite of it in “All that glitters” by Ray Chandler!”

    Ateistanaplo, EXACTLY! You should read what he continually said to the press – it was HYPOCRISY IN ITS ULTIMATE FORM. He won the case in the media where he turned every situation inside out (it seems that no one was concerned about any gag orders then):

    “In a tape-recorded message released Friday, Jackson said he began taking the pain medication after “major reconstructive surgery on my scalp” several months ago for burns suffered during filming of a Pepsi-Cola commercial in 1984. He said he increased his drug intake when the molestation allegations surfaced.

    Larry Feldman, the attorney for the 13-year-old boy suing Jackson, said the singer’s disappearance is irrelevant to the case.
    “Frankly it doesn’t matter whether he ever shows up,” Feldman said. “I have enough evidence without him.”
    But Feldman criticized the singer’s attorneys, calling the press conference planned for today a stunt to gain sympathy for the singer.
    “They have done everything in their power not to handle this case in court,” Feldman said. [LIAR, WHY DON’T YOU SAY HE DOESN’T WANT CIVIL COURT ONLY] “Now they’re trying to influence a jury by making these pathetic pleas.

    “But if Michael Jackson claims he’s hurt by these allegations–and he’s used to the press–you can imagine what it’s like for this little kid,” Feldman said. “He can’t even turn on the television without seeing press reports that want to hold him responsible for Michael Jackson’s alleged drug addiction.” [POOR LITTLE KID, HE CAN’T EVEN TURN ON TV – CRY ME A RIVER]
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-15/news/mn-57233_1_michael-jackson

    AND THIS PIECE SIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH IN IT. LARRY FELDMAN IS SUCH A TERRIBLE LIAR THAT I AM LOST FOR WORDS:

    “Feldman has argued that the boy has a right to proceed with the suit so he can put the case behind him. As part of the document he submitted Tuesday, Feldman included a statement from the boy’s therapist, who states that a long delay could hurt the boy’s chances for recovery. [HE WANTS THE CIVIL SUIT GO FIRST BUT MASKS IT BY ALL THIS THERAPY BS]

    “I believe that it would be extremely harmful to the emotional health and well-being of my patient if there is a delay in the legal proceedings in this case,” psychotherapist Nancy Cotterman-Garcia said in a declaration dated Nov. 11. “I further believe that a significant postponement of the court proceedings, such as the six-year delay requested by the defendant, will cause severe emotional distress to this child and interfere with his chances for recovery.” [MICHAEL NEVER REQUESTED IT – HE JUST WANTED THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO GO FIRST, SO THIS STATEMENT IS JUST A PUBLICITY STUNT TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC]

    In his brief, Feldman added that a long delay in the civil case would make it much more difficult to gather evidence.[A CRIMINAL TRIAL WILL NATURALLY POSTPONE THE CIVIL CASE AND FELDMAN DOESN’T WANT IT].

    “Many of the witnesses are not residents of the United States,” he wrote. “It will be difficult, if not impossible, to locate them six years hence. Some may die, some may forget, or at the very least, their memories will have faded.” [THESE WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY IN A CRIMINAL COURT, SO WHY ALL THIS PRETENSE?]

    Along with legal arguments, attorneys for both sides traded accusations about who has most aggressively courted media attention in the case.
    According to Jackson’s lawyers, Feldman “has deliberately sought out publicity as frequently as he possibly could, fueling the publicity fire at every opportunity, conducting a press conference about the case, offering to go on television talk shows to discuss it and even inviting the media to hearings.” [ABSOLUTELY CORRECT – HE DELIBERATELY USED THE MEDIA AND CONTINUOUSLY DISTORTED THE TRUTH THERE]

    For his part, Feldman notes that Jackson’s lawyers called a news conference Monday–an elegant affair at a Century City hotel that was attended by more than 100 journalists from around the world–and used it to repeat the charges that his client’s father tried to extort $20 million from Jackson. Feldman calls that charge a “slanderous allegation.”

    “The (boy), unlike defendant Michael Jackson, does not crave publicity,” Feldman wrote. He “has no experience grabbing his crotch on stage, has no experience dealing with the media and has been made an unwilling object of publicity.”

    The stream of news conferences by Jackson’s camp has subjected the boy to a “constant barrage of false and demeaning publicity while (the boy) is deprived of any opportunity to have the truth of his allegations determined by a court and jury,” Feldman added. [WHY IS HE DEPRIVED OF IT, I WONDER? BECAUSE HE DOESN’T WANT TO GO TO COURT?]

    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-17/local/me-57719_1_michael-jackson

    Like

  5. lynande51 permalink
    May 13, 2011 2:28 pm

    @ Shelley.
    they answered the complaint for whatever reasons, and then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial.”

    Yes they wanted toget it over with, Funny thing about all of their discovery being given to the police at the time isn’t it. It seems the only other thing they discovered was Jason Francia. The lovely youth pastor that couldn’t remember anything about it or getting money. Another 14 year old boy that said what his mother told him to say after Victor Gutierrez helped her.
    As for the cross complaint I guess he forgot to say that was for extortion by slander.That part of the settlement was that Michael had to publicly drop those charges it says so right in the settlement. That was actually the only thing that Michael gave the Chandlers because his insurance company settled the suit and they had to drop the first 6 charges. How quickly they all forget .

    Like

  6. shelly permalink
    May 13, 2011 11:05 am

    It’s really funny to read that article and what he said in September 2010, so he wanted to have the criminal trial first?

    Then why did he said that

    “that district attorney, at the time Gil Garcetti, was very content to see us take the lead in that case on the civil side, and he was happy to watch us go forward, take the lead, see what the case was about, have access to all of our discovery, and then decide whether he wanted to prosecute the case”

    “whether they should ask for money from Michael Jackson, or do nothing except try to get a quick settlement”

    “That was the selling point to the district attorney to give me a chance to see if we could get this under or 120-day speedy trial. We filed the complaint, they answered the complaint for whatever reasons, and then we filed a motion right away to get a speedy trial.”

    I think, in 1994, he had to say that because he knew what he did was wrong and he had to defend the Chandlers.

    Like

  7. May 13, 2011 7:32 am

    @ateistanaplo We can see the total opposite by their legal actions at the time

    Like

  8. May 13, 2011 6:58 am

    These people have no problem lying, do they?

    Fledman has the nerve to claim that they wanted a criminal trial first. When you can read the total opposite of it in “All that glitters” by Ray Chandler!

    Thanks, Shelly!

    Like

  9. shelly permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:24 pm

    From the article I just posted, Larry Feldman lies

    “It was their own delays, Feldman said, that crippled the prosecutors’ efforts.

    “I think that if we were writing a script we would have wanted this case to go through the criminal system first and immediately, like any other child molestation,” Feldman said. “That would have been our preference. We’re not the district attorney. We could not force that to occur, so we did the best we could to take things in our own hands and get this over with.”

    Another proof of Sneddon lies

    “In the wake of that settlement, many legal observers predicted that the boy would refuse to testify in the criminal case, and Feldman said his client was eager to get on with his life. But it was not until July 6, according to Feldman and Weiss, that the boy finally decided he could not take the stand against Jackson.

    On that day, according to Feldman, the boy met with prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in Feldman’s Santa Monica office. The boy cited a number of reasons for not wanting to testify-none of them, according to Feldman and prosecutors, related to the settlement of the civil case.”

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    May 12, 2011 9:21 pm

    I found that article, there are a bunch of liars

    Jackson Not Charged but Not Absolved
    [Home Edition]

    Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) – Los Angeles, Calif.
    Author: JIM NEWTON
    Date: Sep 22, 1994
    Start Page: 1
    Section: PART-A; Metro Desk
    Text Word Count: 2667

    Document Text

    Ending months of speculation, prosecutors announced Wednesday that they have closed their child molestation investigation of entertainer Michael Jackson, but said the inquiry uncovered two more possible victims and stressed that authorities are prepared to reopen the case if any of the children decide they are willing to testify.

    They conceded that the chances of that appear remote, however, and said their efforts to prosecute Jackson ultimately were stymied when the boy who made the initial complaint against the singer decided he did not want to testify.

    “We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution (of) Mr. Jackson,” Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles County district attorney, said.

    The announcement Wednesday effectively ended the criminal investigation of the world-renowned entertainer, who weathered a storm of negative publicity and battled drug addiction in the wake of allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy over a period of several months in 1993. Jackson faced simultaneous criminal investigation and civil action because of those allegations; he settled the civil case for millions of dollars earlier this year but only Wednesday saw the criminal case finally come to a close.

    In a statement, Jackson said: “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion. I’ve continually maintained my innocence.”

    Joining Garcetti at the morning news conference were Santa Barbara Dist. Atty. Thomas Sneddon and Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Lauren Weiss, the lead prosecutor in the case.

    Even as they announced that no charges would be filed, however, prosecutors pointedly declined to clear Jackson of any wrongdoing. They stressed that their decision to end the investigation did not reflect any lack of faith in the credibility of the alleged victims, and they said they could revisit the charging decision anytime during the next five years, when the statute of limitations expires.

    In addition, they said their investigation-an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people-had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand.

    One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.

    The other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall, Sneddon said.

    “After conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the child’s attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forward and be a participant in a situation where charges were filed and the child was the sole witness against Mr. Jackson,” Sneddon said. “I am honoring that request on the part of that particular child victim.”

    Under California law, victims of sexual abuse cannot be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify against their alleged attackers. That means that even if prosecutors wanted to proceed without the consent of the alleged victims, they could not force them to testify.

    Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of Jackson’s attorneys, said he was disappointed that prosecutors did not definitively clear his client of all wrongdoing, but added that the action Wednesday effectively ends the case and that Jackson was relieved finally to have the matter behind him. Jackson has always maintained his innocence and has said he was the victim of a failed extortion attempt by the father of the boy who made the initial allegations.

    “He’s extremely elated,” said Cochran, who spoke to reporters during a break in the O.J. Simpson case, where he also is a lead lawyer. “He’s very, very thankful and grateful that this investigation is over. He wants to get on with his life. He plans to do that.”

    Launched Aug. 17, 1993, when a 13-year-old friend and companion of Jackson first consulted with a therapist and told of the alleged sexual molestation, the probe triggered an avalanche of international attention.

    In his account, the boy said the relationship started with friendly overtures and gifts, and progressed over a period of about four months to cuddling, masturbation and oral sex.

    Jackson was out of the country when the details first became public and for a time tried to continue with his “Dangerous” world tour.

    By November, however, Jackson was forced to cancel the tour, announcing in a tape-recorded message that he had become addicted to painkillers partly because of the stress created by the investigation. One of his then-attorneys, Bertram Fields, told a packed news conference that Jackson was so addled by drugs that he was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.”

    Jackson dropped out of sight to enter a drug rehabilitation program in Europe, and quietly re-entered the country six weeks later. On Dec. 22, Jackson spoke publicly about the case for the first time, addressing the world from his Neverland ranch and proclaiming his innocence.

    “I am not guilty of these allegations, but if I am guilty of anything it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world,” Jackson said. “It is of loving children of all ages and races. It is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces. It is of enjoying through them the childhood that I missed myself.”

    After making that statement, Jackson spent several months largely out of public view. Recently, however, he has appeared in public more often. In May, he married Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of the late Elvis Presley.

    Cochran predicted that with the criminal investigation closed, Jackson and his new wife will set out to raise a family, and Jackson will reignite his career.

    “I think you’ll see a new album coming out,” Cochran said. “I think you’ll see Michael Jackson go on to bigger and better heights. I think the fans who stood by him always expected that this day would come.”

    For the boy who launched the investigation, its conclusion also means a chance to move on with his life, said attorney Larry Feldman. Feldman, who represented the boy in his lawsuit against Jackson, added that if prosecutors had moved more quickly with their case, the boy would have been willing to take the stand.

    It was their own delays, Feldman said, that crippled the prosecutors’ efforts.

    “I think that if we were writing a script we would have wanted this case to go through the criminal system first and immediately, like any other child molestation,” Feldman said. “That would have been our preference. We’re not the district attorney. We could not force that to occur, so we did the best we could to take things in our own hands and get this over with.”

    Feldman filed the civil case in September and pursued it aggressively, demanding an early trial. In January, the two sides announced that they had reached a settlement-sources have placed the amount between $15 million and $24 million, a range that the principals in the case refuse to confirm or deny.

    In the wake of that settlement, many legal observers predicted that the boy would refuse to testify in the criminal case, and Feldman said his client was eager to get on with his life. But it was not until July 6, according to Feldman and Weiss, that the boy finally decided he could not take the stand against Jackson.

    On that day, according to Feldman, the boy met with prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in Feldman’s Santa Monica office. The boy cited a number of reasons for not wanting to testify-none of them, according to Feldman and prosecutors, related to the settlement of the civil case.

    Rather, the boy said he had received death threats and had been pursued by overzealous Jackson fans and tabloid TV crews, problems he worried would only increase if he decided to testify. His family also wanted him to put the matter behind him, sources have said.

    “In the end, he had to make a decision,” Feldman said. “He had to decide where to spend his time-in the classroom or the courtroom.”

    The prolonged investigation made the youngster less willing to cooperate, Feldman added, because it made it harder to move ahead with a normal childhood. For that, Feldman blamed the district attorneys, whom he said treated Jackson differently than other child molestation suspects.

    “I think we have seen treatment different for Mr. Jackson, different for celebrities over the years than we see for other people in similar situations,” Feldman said. When a credible witness accuses someone of child molestation, “those people are generally arrested, placed in jail and the criminal process begins. For whatever reasons, and you’ll have to ask the district attorney and the police, that didn’t happen here.”

    Lupe Ross, first vice president of the Foster Parents of Los Angeles County, an advocacy group that has followed the Jackson case closely, found the prosecutors’ decision infuriating. “Everyone is angry,” she said. “If this was an ordinary person, he would have been charged. This would have gone to trial had it been anyone but him.”

    The district attorney often files a petition against those accused of sexual abuse, even when the child initially does not want to testify, Ross said. “This is unusual,” she said. “Are they going to use the same criteria they used on Michael Jackson with other people now?”

    Garcetti conceded that the investigation had been time-consuming, but he defended his office’s efforts and said his staff had diligently pursued the case.

    “Yes, it took an awful long time for us to go forward, but the information kept coming in on a weekly basis, sometimes on a daily basis,” Garcetti said. “We do not just willy-nilly go and charge someone after you get some initial information.”

    In addition to the complications created by alleged victims reluctant to testify, police and prosecutors complained that they were thwarted by tabloid publications and television shows that paid money to potential witnesses. Such payments, widely made by such television shows as “Hard Copy” and “Inside Edition,” compromised the integrity of several potential witnesses, authorities said.

    Jackson’s representatives, in a rare point of agreement with prosecutors, said the tabloid payments had produced many false stories that had damaged Jackson’s reputation unfairly.

    “That was a real problem as we said all along in this case,” Cochran said.

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

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

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

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

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

    Times staff writers Mathis Chazanov and Sonia Nazario contributed to this report.

    * NO SALE: Jackson should stick to music, not ads, experts say. D1

    A Star Under Scrutiny

    Following is a chronology of events in the Michael Jackson case:

    1993

    * Aug. 17: Jackson becomes subject of a criminal investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department after a 13-year-old boy tells authorities he was sexually abused by the singer over a period of four months.

    * Aug. 23: Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, alleges that the singer is the target of a $20-million extortion plot by the boy’s father.

    * Aug. 24: Jackson opens his worldwide “Dangerous” tour in Bangkok, Thailand, as reports of the police investigation appear in the news media.

    * Aug 25: Jackson postpones second Bangkok concert, complaining of dehydration.

    * Aug. 28: Elizabeth Taylor flies to Jackson’s side to lend support.

    * Aug. 30: Attorney Gloria Allred is hired to represent the boy.

    * Sept. 10: Allred quits, refusing to say why.

    * Sept. 13: Larry R. Feldman, a former Los Angeles County Bar Assn. president, is hired to represent the teen-ager.

    * Sept. 14: The boy files a civil suit against Jackson, accusing him of sexual battery, negligence and fraud.

    * Nov. 12: After being dogged by the allegations and missing several concerts, Jackson abruptly cancels his tour in Mexico City. In a televised statement, Jackson says he is addicted to painkillers and is seeking treatment.

    * Nov. 14: PepsiCo announces that it has terminated its multimillion-dollar, nine-year sponsorship of Jackson because he canceled his tour.

    * Nov. 22: Jackson is sued by five former security guards, who allege that they were fired for knowing too much about the singer’s “nighttime visits” with young boys.

    * Nov. 23: One of Jackson’s attorneys discloses in court that a Santa Barbara grand jury has begun issuing subpoenas and appears to be moving toward an indictment.

    * Dec. 2: Jackson’s chauffeur says in a sworn deposition that he was instructed to take a suitcase and briefcase from Jackson’s apartment on the same day investigators searched the property for evidence of sexual molestation.

    * Dec. 8: Jackson’s sister, LaToya Jackson, accuses her brother of sexually molesting young boys, saying “this has been going on since 1981, and it’s not just one child.” Other members of Jackson’s family rally to his defense and brand LaToya a profiteering liar.

    * Dec. 10: Jackson returns to the United States and his Neverland ranch.

    * Dec. 13: A former maid for Jackson tells The Times that she quit her job after seeing him naked with young boys on several occasions.

    * Dec. 22: Breaking a five-week silence, Jackson says in a televised statement that allegations against him are “disgusting” and “totally false.”

    1994

    * Jan. 24: Prosecutors announce they will not bring extortion charges against the parent of alleged victim.

    * Jan. 25: Jackson, while declaring his innocence, settles the boy’s lawsuit, agreeing to pay him millions of dollars.

    * Feb. 7: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury begins hearing testimony.

    * Mid-March: Los Angeles County Grand Jury begins hearing testimony.

    * May 26: Jackson weds Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of late rock ‘n’ roll legend Elvis Presley, in secret ceremony in the Dominican Republic.

    * Aug. 16: Stepfather of the boy who accused Jackson of molestation files a lawsuit against the entertainer, accusing Jackson of using his wealth and fame to break up their family.

    * Sept. 15: Judge rules Jackson can plead Fifth Amendment in suit filed by his former security guards, enabling him to avoid answering questions under oath about whether he sexually abused children.

    * Sept. 21: Prosecutors say no charges will be filed against Jackson because the boy refused to testify. But they could reconsider at any point until the six-year statute of limitations expires.

    Like

  11. April 21, 2011 9:51 pm

    Dialdancer you make very good points about the extra hygenic care a man must take with a uncircumcized penis and there would have been NO way for Jordan NOT to have noticed MJ’s was different from his. It would have been so different from his own that he would have to have been surprised. Especially as he described in ‘exquisite’ detail every thing ELSE. A boy who was as percocious as Jordan, enough so to be deeply involved in the script of Men In Tights which is nothing but filled with sexual gay innuedos, he was not sexually ignorant. He would have been able to accurately describe MJ’s penis, in DETAIL, only IF he’s actually had been sexually intimate with him. The fact that he described the different stages of sexual contact and the masturbation process without including details about the different way it must have looked and splotches or lack thereof, actually proves that he lied. If this intimacy actually took place, he would have seen MJ’s penis is different stages of arousal… and he WOULD have noticed if he was circumsized or not and he would have INCLUDED in his deposition AND the DRAWING. Another thing that has always been rather disingenuous was the assertion that Jordan only “revealed” the molestation under the influence of the sodium amytal. It is hard to imagine that ALL of this “exquisite” detail came out under a short duration of that dental appointment. It is very obvious to me that all of this detail was given to him by his father and that’s why Jordan did not want to take the stand. For the psychiatrist, he was prepared with his pat and rehearsed answers, because the psychiatrist was not going to cross examine him. If it had gone to criminal trial, he would have not been able to stand up to it and he knew it that’s why he said he was afraid. And jeez, they had their money already, so why go through all that? His refusal to help Sneddon in 05 and him telling the FBI agents.. “I already did my part” speaks volumes. He did is “part” allright, that’s for sure.

    Like

  12. Dialdancer permalink
    April 21, 2011 7:48 am

    The first penis I ever saw was my husband’s, he was not circumcised, it would by many years before I saw a circumcised penis, but I remember thinking it was bald and wondering if it hurt for it to rub up against the fabric of his shorts all day unprotected. My normal was uncircumcised. I did not think of it, because as I said my normal was uncircumcised, but I do remember the care in which my husband took in cleaning. I had observed this when we took showers together. Even when there were spontaneous interludes away from home there was still a cleaning ritual, perhaps not as through, but one nevertheless. The point is ask an uncircumcised male how he insures the entire genital gets cleaned and he will tell you it requires more handling and adjusting the foreskin and why. ( I think I’m blushing here) There is absolutely no way Michael could have bathed/showered, nor had those spontaneous moments with Jordan and he not seen this very natural cleaning ritual which uncircumcised males do. No way or Jordan would have known Michael was uncircumcised… if any of this had taken place. But Jordan could only tell of a circumcised penis, because that was his normal and had not seen anything else to know differently.

    Once Larry Feldman found out about Michael not being circumcised he had to know his client was lying, after that he was not just doing what good civil attorneys do, but became a willing participate in extortion, ruining a man, setting him up for the worst label a man can have. All the legal babble and spurious conjecture is garbage, Larry could not have believed this lie, he spent hours with Jordan listening to and helping him polish up his pornographic story for the Cops and the Courts.

    Like

  13. stacy2 permalink
    April 20, 2011 10:16 pm

    “The case was dropped in 1994 after a grand jury had refused to indict Jackson. Ten years later, the Child molestation charges would came back to haunt the singer when he did a documentary with british journalist Martin Bashir. In the documentary, Bashir reminds viewers of the millions of dollars Jackson had paid to a 1993 accuser, and calls his current relationship with a cancer survivor “The most disturbing moment of the past 8 months”. The documentary with it’s selective editing and innuendo voiceovers launced a witch hunt and police investigation against Jackson. The boy who appeared on the film would later accuse Jackson of sexual abuse and kidnapping, but a jury of 12 men and women found his allegations to be false and acquitted the singer of all counts”–From MJtruthnow

    I will forever hold Martin Bashir accountable for all the hell Michael Jackson had to endure during his last years.

    Like

  14. April 20, 2011 10:13 am

    “The family’ s complaint is in relation to violation of privacy. Some legal experts are absolutely baffled at the family’s claims of violation of privacy in a case dealing with the prosecution of a molestation charge”.

    I think it should be made clear what the Arvizos complained about via Larry Feldman to see how ridiculous the whole situation was.

    After Bashir’s documentary aired the DCFS experts interviewed the Arvizos and the family stated nothing “bad” had ever happened:

    “when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.’s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he “denied any form of sexual abuse” by Jackson and said that he never “slept in the same bed as the entertainer.”

    In November 2003 (the same year) the DCFS issued a Memo about those interviews which reiterated the same. It was this Memo that was leaked to the press:

    “The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother–who also denied sexual abuse–expressed “a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies.” The pair’s sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on “sleepovers at the entertainers home,” but had “never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer.”

    The children’s mother told investigators that Jackson was “like a father to the children and a part of her family.” While acknowledging that her son “has slept in the same room as the entertainer,” the woman claimed “they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor,” according to the November 26 memo.

    The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the “investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department.”

    When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked “substantiated.” A case is termed “not substantiated” when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded “unfounded” when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/early-probe-cleared-michael-jackson

    And it was in connection with the release of THIS Memo that lawyer Larry Feldman filed a suit! He called it ‘Violation of Privacy’ of the Arvizo’s family – while what really outraged him is that someone dared release the information which was contradicting the official story of Gavin Arvizo’s “molestation”.

    Larry Feldman found this release sensitive as it contradicted the story which he had contributed to the police himself. You remember that it was only after his (and Dr. Katz’) involvement with the Arvizos that they started making their allegations. Larry Feldman personally took the case to DCFS (which they rejected) and then to Tom Sneddon (Feldman admitted it in his later testimony at the 2005 trial).

    The situation becomes even more ridiculous when you remember that it was most probably Larry Feldman’s office which released in February 2003 the so-called Declaration of J.Chandler (made in 1993) and Larry Feldman did not utter even a word about that leak! It was a much bigger violation of privacy – of Jordan Chandler this time, even if we forget about Michael Jackson – because the confidentiality agreement did not allow to disclose any documents prior to it to the general public.

    Of course back in 1993 everybody talked about that Declaration but the full text of it was released only ten years later – and just on the day when Bashir’s documentary aired in the US. What a coincidence!

    And what a neglect on the part of Larry Feldman who – back in 1993 – was terribly “concerned” about Jordan Chandler’s well-being and wanted him to “get over” the molestation (which never was) as soon as possible. He was so terribly concerned about Jordan that some ten years later he decided to remind everyone of every little detail of that “molestation”.

    And what is most surprising is that Larry Feldman did not find the fact of that release outrageous! As if Jordan’s privacy wasn’t violated…

    More about it here:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-the-story-of-leaks-part-1/

    Like

  15. shelly permalink
    April 20, 2011 8:31 am

    “There was never a gag order in the 1993. The information from the DCFS in 1993 was leaked prior to hiring Feldman and they wanted to concentrate on suing Michael.”

    Yes, but Feldman himself leaked the declaration in December 1993. The person who leaked it in 2003 has the Declaration and the retainer agreement, maybe Sneddon had a copy of that declaration but I don’t think he had the retainer and I don’t believe the Chandlers had the declaration.

    Like

  16. April 20, 2011 7:06 am

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78351,00.html

    Shelly, this is another interesting article! Larry Feldman says categorically that he didn’t release to the media Jordan Chandler’s complaint? And who else could? The civil suit he filed against Jackson was prepared in his law office and the papers were submitted to a judge – so it is either he (or someone in his office for whom he is also responsible) or the judge who could have disclosed those papers. Who else?

    And they disclosed not only the Chandlers’ complaint but a certain “declaration by Jordan Chandler” made in his law office too, and released it exactly on the day Bashir’s documentary aired in the US!

    Too much negligence on the part of Larry Feldman… He could have reacted to all those releases at least by a furious statement on behalf of Jordan Chandler as he had guaranteed to him and the other side that all those documents would remain confidential….

    Like

  17. Dialdancer permalink
    April 20, 2011 4:11 am

    “There was a poll taken, I’ll never forget, the Gallup Poll did a poll about Michael Jackson, and how many people in their poll had heard about this case, and the allegations, and 98% of the people polled had heard about the case. ”

    Polls are garbage. They are rigged just like loaded dice. They are meant to insure the house wins that the prevailing thought is concurred with. The question should be “how many people read and took part in the Gallup Poll. I have lived and worked in many States and Countries and never has my opinion been solicited on anything and back in early 90’s before the majority knew of, knew how to use what was then the Internet the Poll would have had to come from a magazine, in person or someone calling you.

    I told this story before. Last year my friend who lives in a city of maybe 10,000 where the majority are of the Conservative Party received notification that an ABC online poll was to be ran the following morning; it was on the President’s popularity and how he was doing. They were to bombard it with poor ratings so by the time any others came on their votes would not dramatically change the overall score. She is a Conservation, but found this appalling I wrote to the Editors of ABC and told them what I knew, they claimed they had no control over it as it was being sponsored by a third party.

    Like

  18. Dialdancer permalink
    April 20, 2011 3:20 am

    Off topic.

    Geraldo’s video Michael Jackson VITILIGO 2 shows someone intent to perpetuate the “self-proclaimed” KOP business. Either their MTV or other sources were liars or they were too lazy to check out the facts which would have been easier to find at the of this interview. There would have been more stories around where the Media called Michael The King of Pop. Spreading rumors without checking facts.

    Like

  19. Lynette permalink
    April 20, 2011 3:11 am

    There was never a gag order in the 1993. The information from the DCFS in 1993 was leaked prior to hiring Feldman and they wanted to concentrate on suing Michael.

    Like

  20. shelly permalink
    April 20, 2011 12:37 am

    He didn’t file any lawsuit for invasion of privacy in the Chandler’s leak but did it with the DCFS leaks

    “Accuser’s Family Files Claim against DCFS-MJEOL Bullet #148 Just when you thought the Jackson case couldn’t get any more ridiculous, a piece of news crosses the wires that simply makes you chuckle in disbelief. According to ABCNews the family of the accuser has filed a claim, the first step towards a lawsuit, against the LA Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The document obtained by ABCNews and now available at thesmokinggun.com, was filed on behalf of the accuser and family. And guess who’s behind the filing of the claim? You guessed it, civil attorney Larry Feldman. Feldman was involved in the 1993 case in which he oversaw the settlement, initiated by the 93 accuser’s family. Feldman’s acceptance of the settlement undercut the prosecution, also headed by current district attorney Tom Sneddon then, because once they got the money they refused to cooperate with prosecutors. Well it seems as if Feldman is again trying to either undercut the prosecution or causing more problems than prosecutors already have with this so-called “case”. The family’s complaint is in relation to “violation of privacy.” Some legal experts are absolutely baffled at the family’s claims of violation of privacy in a “case” dealing with the prosecution of a molestation charge. But the story gets more convoluted: they are also seeking unspecified “damages” because of it. The media by far thrives on leaks. Some observers say that had the DCFS investigation concluded that Jackson was guilty of something, and still was leaked, the family wouldn’t care at all that their privacy was allegedly invaded. As a matter of fact, a thesmokinggun.com representative has previously stated that the memo is backed by a substantial case file, with other information found during the DCFS’s investigation. Could this claim being filed at this time be a way to scare anyone else from leaking any more incredibly damning information about that investigation? Or could this simply be Feldman preparing for a round of future lawsuits? Appearing on the Today Show this morning (May 27 2004), Feldman appeared dodgy with his answers at to why the family made this claim at this time. Matt Lauer seemed skeptical at the reasons why the claim was filed. He questioned the motives, the reason for the claim, and how it could be playing right in the defense’s hands. Feldman says that one of the reasons why the accuser’s family filed this claim that they didn’t want this—the leaking of information—to happen to any other family. Quick! How many families have had their DCFS documents leaked to a worldwide audience?…….Can you name one other family, other than the ones involved around the Michael Jackson “case”? I didn’t think so. What is also important to note is that Feldman says he went to the DCFS after someone allegedly leaked the 1993 accuser’s affidavit. Well, I guess he wasn’t worried about that leak invading anyone’s privacy because he didn’t file a lawsuit for invasion of privacy then. It is unclear if he even so much as filed a claim. Why not? Maybe it was because the 93 accuser’s unfounded, unchallenged, and unproven affidavit was damaging to Michael Jackson and may have intimidated him into making the decision to settle the case. Or maybe Feldman isn’t being truthful about where that 93 leak came from.”

    Why?

    Like

  21. shelly permalink
    April 20, 2011 12:26 am

    I just read that

    “On Monday I spoke to Larry Feldman, the lawyer who represented the boy’s family and cut the $20 million deal with Jackson. Feldman’s name is on the court papers, but he is adamant that he had nothing to do with their release.

    “You can say that categorically we did not release the complaint,” he said.

    Is he angry about it?

    “I don’t want to categorize my emotions,” he replied. Oh, lawyers!

    Feldman, by the way, says he has not spoken to the family in years”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78351,00.html

    Like

  22. February 20, 2011 11:28 am

    “I have heard people report 30 even 60 millions. The settlement spoke about 15,000,000 and Dave Schwartz was left out.”

    Visitor, the original civil suit filed by Larry Feldman was for $30 mln. The settlement was for $15,3 mln. with David Schwartz not included.

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 10:19 am

    “Howard Mann gave back to Katherine that the tabloid wanted so bad”

    Do you have a link for that story?

    If it’s true I don’t believe it’s related to the pictures.

    Like

  24. February 20, 2011 9:53 am

    Lynette all this time I thought you got it so I am sorry to hear that. I didn’t sent the link back then, I e-mailed you the agreement in an attachment

    Like

  25. Lynette permalink
    February 20, 2011 4:22 am

    @Teva You have to remember that the settlement was paid by an insurance company. So the Settlement agreement would have had to spell that out if extra monies were paid. Look up how a structured settlement work in the case of a juvenile and it will tell you how it gets divided. What was wrong with the leaked redacted version of the Settlement put out by DD and Court TV was that a very important 8 pages were left out. That was the paragraph 3 that is referred to throughout the agreement. That is where if you read the rest of the agreement it says ” as specified in paragraph 3″. Why would she hold back that part if it showed that he paid more money than the 15.3 and the original court TV version says that they removed that for ease of reading for the rest of us?I have a copy of Rothmans Appeal. At first he lost but then he Appealed it and won against Pellicano and Fields I think.
    Here is a link to the LA Times article where Dave sues Michael for breaking up his family. And another link to the original Court TV redacted version of the settlement. Diane Dimond is the one that got it for them and I know where she got it. I was looking for photos of the Neverland raid and came across an article with Photos of the Vaccaro items auctioned it was confiscated in 1998-1999 along with a bunch of other things that belonged to everyone in the family from Havenhurst. I wonder everyone knows that Michael had his own photographer at the Body Search but nobody ever asks where those photos have been. I bet he kept them there 2 and that is what Howard Mann gave back to Katherine that the tabloid wanted so bad. If I had been Michaels Mom I would have gotten them back too and then done just what she did. Burn em.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-17/local/me-28064_1_michael-jackson
    https://acrobat.com/#d=Bf7T8XTv2-J*CBx7H*vfgA

    Like

  26. lcpledwards permalink
    February 20, 2011 2:39 am

    @ Ja
    I’m not sure what happened to that lawsuit, but I think it was thrown out. After the settlement, there were lawsuits flying all over the place between Schwartz and Chandler, and between Schwartz and MJ, and Rothman and MJ, and whoever else was sued! We need to make a flowchart of all of those lawsuits to help us keep track of them!

    Like

  27. lcpledwards permalink
    February 20, 2011 2:36 am

    @ Teva

    Dave Schwartz wasn’t included in the lawsuit, although he certainly asked! According to Ray Chandler, Dave wanted to get $4 million dollars out of that settlement, since MJ refused to loan it to him (and that’s IF June Chandler ever asked him!) Ray claims that Dave asked June to ask MJ for the $4 million, so since Dave ended up asking Larry Feldman for the money, we have to assume that either June never asked MJ (as she claimed on the witness stand in 2005), or she really did and he declined. Personally, I think she did!

    Here is a comment that I wrote in another post that includes the passages from “ATG”:

    Here is some dirt on Dave Schwartz and Major Jay Jackson:

    Dave Scwartz allegedly tried to borrow $4 million dollars from MJ, depending on who you ask. In “ATG”, Ray and Evan said that he needed the money to pay back his creditors, so he asked June to ask MJ for the money.

    From Page 75-76:

    Dave Schwartz had become a wealthy man since founding the world’s first discount car rental agency. Wealthy enough to be featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But by July of 1993 he was heavily leveraged in a depressed Los Angeles real estate market and his fortune was precarious.

    A day or so before Evan went to Dave’s office to seek his help, Dave approached June with a request. One of his creditors was demanding payment of a five million dollar note but was willing to settle for a lump sum of four million. Dave asked June to present a proposition to Michael in which the star would loan him four million as part of a business deal. June agreed to pass the request on to Michael.

    Survival Mode. Dave was starved for cash and waiting for Michael Jackson to feed him. According to his own testimony, Dave already suspected that the relationship between Jordie and Michael was sexual. But rather than help Evan get rid of Michael, he helped Michael get rid of Evan.

    Follow the money. June was living the life of a fairy princess and did not want the dream to end. Dave was waiting for Michael’s word on the four million. And Fields and Pellicano were being paid huge sums, pail and shovel in hand, to trail behind the circus elephant that was Michael Jackson.

    In her testimony at the 2005 trial, June Chandler not only denied asking MJ for the $4 million, but she said she didn’t even know that Dave needed the money in the first place! Dave never got the money from MJ (regardless of whether or not June asked him), so Dave tried to get the money out of the settlement from Larry Feldman.

    From Pages 167-168
    “By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.

    As the meeting came to a close, all that was left was to sign the retainer agreement with Larry. Anticipating a huge settlement, Dave assumed that Larry would take less than the standard 25 percent rather than pass up the opportunity, so he began negotiating for a smaller fee.

    Larry politely explained that his fee was not out of the ordinary and tried to impart to Dave some idea of the amount of work involved should the case go to trial. But Dave was intractable. He became loud and pushy, demanding that Larry negotiate. Dave was also pissed off at all of the lawyers because they told him that if there was settlement he could not be included.

    Larry remained calm. He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie’s natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie’s complaint. But Dave became increasing belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible. He didn’t give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money. Four million dollars, to be exact. The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.

    Seems like Dave, June, and Evan all wanted MJ to be their cash cow!!

    Same thing applies to Major Jay Jackson! When he asked MJ’s associates about Janet and her family getting compensated for shooting the rebuttal video for MJ’s “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See”, he was offered a new house and a free college education for all 3 kids, but that wasn’t good enough for Ja! From the Veritias Project, on this blog:

    During a pre-trial hearing, Jackson recalled saying to one of Michael Jackson’s associates: “This family has nothing and you’re making millions from [the rebuttal video] and what are you going to do for this little family?” To appease Jay Jackson, the associate offered the family a house and the children a college education in exchange for their permission to use the footage. Jackson refused the offer, instead making a demand for money.

    Jay Jackson also testified that in February 2003, he was approached by two British journalists who were interested in paying for the family’s story.43 According to one of the journalists who got in contact with the family, “The starting figure was $500 from myself, and that’s supposedly when [Jackson] consulted with the mother.” Jackson came back with a demand for $15,000 and was turned away.

    Man, if someone offered to buy me a house and pay for the college educations of my 3 kids, I would take that offer in a heartbeat! For him to reject that offer just shows what lowlife scum he really is. You would think an Officer in the military would have the integrity and honesty to tell his family to tell the truth, but instead he let his love of money cloud his judgement.

    Like

  28. February 20, 2011 1:25 am

    @ Teva,

    Dave wasn’t included. Mary Fischer mentioned it in her article.

    http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html
    ___
    In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family. Rothman’s lawsuit claims defamation and slander on the part of Jackson, as well as his original defense team—Fields, Pellicano and Weitzman—for the allegations of extortion. “The charge of [extortion],” says Rothman attorney Aitken, “is totally untrue. Mr. Rothman has been held up for public ridicule, was the subject of a criminal investigation and suffered loss of income.” (Presumably, some of Rothman’s lost income is the hefty fee he would have received had he been able to continue as Chandler’s attorney through the settlement phase.)
    ___

    Does anyone know what happened to Barry Rothman’s lawsuit?

    Like

  29. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:54 am

    By the way, the very first report of the settlement said the boy, not the family, got around 5 millions dollars. Those reports came from the AP and Reuters

    Like

  30. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:53 am

    @teva

    Yes, he sued MJ after that and he asked for 4 millions dollars. Why would he do that if he was included and his name is nowhere in the settlement document. All the people covered by that settlement have their name on the last page.

    Like

  31. visitor permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:49 am

    I wouldn’t trust so much the media about the amount of the settle. They do tend to exagerate when it comes to Michel.I have heard people report 30 even 60 millions. The settlement spoke about 15,000,000 and Dave Schwartz was left out.

    Like

  32. February 20, 2011 12:46 am

    @Shelly

    Are you sure Dave Shwartz was not included?

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:38 am

    @teva

    The settlement said the total amount is 15 millions. When the media reported the sum, they didn’t have the documents.

    Dave is not included in the settlement because he is not related to Jordan.

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:35 am

    @lynande

    “Larry Feldman got his pay off the top”

    What do you mean by that?

    Like

  35. February 20, 2011 12:33 am

    Jordan ended up with alot more than 15 million. The money was not paid in one fell swoop. The money was paid in installments; therefore, not being spent and earning interest over the years until Jordan collected.

    Like

  36. February 20, 2011 12:28 am

    I have a question: Did the Chandlers pay the lawyer fees, or was there a claus for Michael to pay the legal fees for his lawyer and the Chandlers’? I ask because sometimes in big money cases the party that pays is asked to pay both legal bills.

    I don’t think the other claimants settlements came out of Jordan’s 15 million. The media has always reported 20 million was paid. If you do the math: 15+1.5+1.5+1.5=19.5 million.
    15 Jordan
    1.5 Evan
    1.5 June
    1.5 Dave

    Like

  37. lynande51 permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:18 am

    1. I don’t remember who asked what. Jordan gave Evan and June their 1.5 mil out of his. Larry Feldman got his pay off the top. Thetis I remember trying that link last time and it din’t work for me but thank you so much . Like I said I have never gotten a link to that document to open unitl now. Maybe it was my computer.
    What gets me about June Chandler’s answers is” That was Jordan Chandler’s family.” Sounds like she disowned him. What makes a mother that mad to do that?
    She can’t remember any of the pertinent facts like do you remember suing him or when did you sue him or did you ask him for money nope can’t remember any of that better yet he sued you for extortion didn’t he?”” I don’t remember” Now come on people I know I would remember being accused of extortion and countersued more than I would remember this one. She remembers meeting the Cascio’s on more than one occasion.
    Tom Mesereau
    Do you remember the name of their restaurant
    June Chandler.
    Aldos
    Give me a break I can’t remember being accused of extortion but I remember what gifts I got and the name of his friends restauraunt.
    Something was seriously wrong with that lady.

    Like

  38. Suzy permalink
    February 19, 2011 3:30 pm

    . Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to 5700

    1 go into the bedroom.

    So much about MJ isolating children from their parents and taking them in his room to do sinister things with them.

    Like

  39. February 19, 2011 3:12 pm

    “@Shelly That was a great find! Thanks! It refutes what June Chandler said about not suing MJ while being cross examined by Mesereau. Her signature is on both the retainer and the lawsuit! What a liar!”

    Yes, the find is great. I’ve told you before that June Chandler at the 2005 trial produces the impression of a top calculating lady and an absolutely expert liar whose lies are very difficult to disprove as she is fully in control of the situation. What she doesn’t want to say she will never say because she just “doesn’t recall”. Her testimony will probably be the last thing we will analyze in the blog as prior to that we need to collect all the information possible about this incredible lady.

    When I was first reading her testimony what surprised me most was that though she showed all signs of amnesia when it came to basic things of their suit against Michael, she remembered perfectly well the name of the person who provided a private plane for their trips abroad and that Michael had a lucrative contract with Sony, Pepsico, etc.

    It is absolutely no chance occurrence that Thomas Mesereau is asking his questions (see below) in one context – what he is trying to say this way is that you cannot believe this person as a witness if she remembers about the Beatles catalog (though she never discussed it with Michael) better than the extortion suit filed by Michael against Evan, her request to Michael for 4 mln for her husband David Schwartz or the date when she was awarded millions under a civil suit (she says it was in 1995):

    7 Q. Do you recall asking Michael Jackson if he

    8 would loan David Schwartz four million dollars?

    9 A. Never.

    10 Q. You say you never did that?

    11 A. Never did that.

    12 Q. Okay. Do you recall your ex-husband David

    13 Schwartz asking you to do that?

    14 A. Never.

    15 Q. Do you recall him being five million dollars

    16 in debt around the time you were associating with

    17 Michael Jackson?

    18 A. No.

    19 Q. Don’t recall that at all?

    20 A. Not at all.

    21 Q. Okay. When you sued Michael Jackson, you

    22 sued through Larry Feldman, true?

    23 A. I did not sue Michael Jackson. Jordan

    24 Chandler and his family were — that was his family.

    25 We did not sue Michael Jackson.

    26 Q. Okay. So you never sued him yourself,

    27 you’re saying?

    28 A. I don’t believe that’s how it was worded.

    2 Q. At one point, David Schwartz sued Michael

    3 Jackson, correct?

    4 A. I don’t recall.

    1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You sued Michael Jackson,

    2 right?

    3 A. Jordan Chandler sued Michael Jackson.

    4 Q. Were you listed as a plaintiff?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. And in response to your suit, Mr. Jackson

    7 sued for extortion, true?

    8 A. I don’t recall.

    9 Q. Okay. Were you and Evan and Jordie all

    10 represented by Larry Feldman?

    11 A. Yes, we were.

    12 Q. Do you know approximately when that suit

    13 settled?

    14 A. I guess in ‘95.

    15 Q. Do you recall Evan suing Mr. Jackson a

    16 second time?

    17 A. No.

    18 Q. Don’t know anything about that?

    19 A. Nothing.

    20 Q. Never heard about it?

    21 A. No.

    22 Q. Do you know who Attorney Barry Rothman is?

    23 A. Yes.

    24 Q. Who is Attorney Barry Rothman?

    25 A. He was Evan Chandler’s attorney.

    26 Q. Do you recall Attorney Barry Rothman also

    27 suing Michael Jackson?

    28 A. No, I don’t. 5665

    1 Q. Okay. Now, during your trips with Michael

    2 Jackson, do you recall the name “Sony” ever being

    3 mentioned?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. And in what context was Sony mentioned?

    6 A. The gifts that Michael Jackson gave were

    7 from Sony. Sony recorders. We flew on the Sony

    8 jet. That’s what I remember.

    9 Q. And do you recall, around the time you were

    10 associating with Michael Jackson, that Michael

    11 Jackson had an endorsement deal with PepsiCo?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. And to your knowledge, that was the most

    14 lucrative endorsement deal anyone in the music

    15 business had ever entered into with PepsiCo,

    16 correct?

    17 A. I didn’t know that.

    18 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, that’s immaterial

    19 and irrelevant.

    20 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

    21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall learning

    22 from Michael Jackson that he owned an interest in

    23 The Beatles’ catalog?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Jackson?

    26 A. Never.

    11 Q. When did you go to Las Vegas with Michael

    12 Jackson?

    13 A. Around the end of March.

    14 Q. And what was the purpose of that trip?

    15 A. I guess Steve Wynn, the owner of the Mirage

    16 Hotel, invited Michael to come and stay and vacation

    17 in Las Vegas for a few days.

    18 Q. And did you meet Mr. Wynn while you were

    19 there?

    20 A. Yes, I did.

    21 Q. How long were you in Las Vegas for that

    22 trip?

    23 A. Two or three nights.

    24 Q. And again, how did you get there?

    25 A. Steve Wynn’s jet.

    26 Q. And did his jet take you back home

    27 afterwards?

    28 A. Yes. 5683

    The fact that June Chandler is a calculated liar is not the only thing important about her.

    If she is so well in command of everything even at a cross-examination it is impossible even to imagine her to have allowed the situation with her son Jordan to ever get out of control. She is absolutely no Janet Arvizo – she is a complete opposite of her – so if something was “going on there” between her son and Michael then we will also have to assume that it was with full June Chandler’s knowledge. But this is impossible too, because she also produces the impression of a very good and very strict mother (Jordan speaks about it himself).

    So the only conclusion we can make here is that June Chandler was playing a much bigger role in that “relationship” than we are led to believe and at a certain point in time she just shifted her own role in it onto the shoulders of her son.

    Thomas Mesereau is several times pointing to the real role June Chandler was playing there:

    MR. MESEREAU:
    12 Q. When was the conversation where Michael got

    13 upset because he didn’t think you trusted him?

    14 A. In Las Vegas in the hotel room.

    15 Q. Okay. You said to Michael, “I’ve had males

    16 in my life that, you know, have disappointed me.

    17 How can I have you in my life and you’re saying that

    18 you’re going to take care of us, that you’re so

    19 wonderful, everything’s going to be okay, how am I

    20 going to do that?”

    21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

    22 object to counsel reading from the document.

    ….
    22 Q. And did you go into Michael Jackson’s

    23 bedroom?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. How many times do you think you went into

    26 Michael Jackson’s bedroom at Neverland?

    27 A. It stopped after maybe the tenth time.

    ….
    26 Q. And why were you in the bedroom those ten

    27 times?

    28 A. Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to 5700

    1 go into the bedroom.

    2 Q. Were you dropping clothes off?

    3 A. Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.

    4 Q. Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or

    5 anything in there?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. How often did you do that?

    8 A. A few times.

    9 Q. Did you ever have food delivered to you in

    10 Michael Jackson’s bedroom?

    11 A. I don’t recall.

    12 Q. Okay. Did David Schwartz, to your

    13 knowledge, ever visit Neverland?

    14 A. No. No.

    P.S. The impression I have is that June Chandler did order food delivered to Michael Jackson’s bedroom (probably in the morning too)….

    Like

  40. ares permalink
    February 19, 2011 1:39 pm

    Man, i find those Chandler’s actions so cold. How is it possible to make agreements and sue someone who you accuse of having molested you son instead of beating him up and then turn him to the police? How is it possible to put money over your kid’s rights? How is it possible to stand in the same room or ask for money and make deals with the man that allegedly touched your kid? It’s amazing to me.

    Like

  41. shelly permalink
    February 19, 2011 11:56 am

    I don’t know if it was already posted, it’s the civil suit filed by Feldman

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/chandler-v-jackson?page=0

    Like

  42. shelly permalink
    February 19, 2011 9:32 am

    @JA

    If you read the settlement there are 4 people included in the settlement

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff?page=0

    The total amount is 15 million

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff?page=0

    Like

  43. February 19, 2011 7:26 am

    Lynette, I e-mailed you the retainer agreement when you did your paragraph 3 post and I thought you had received it!

    Like

  44. lcpledwards permalink
    February 19, 2011 6:40 am

    @ Ja
    I believe that they received their amount from the $15.3 million settlement.

    Lynette, if I’m wrong about this can you correct me?

    Like

  45. February 19, 2011 5:42 am

    I have a question. Did the money Evan and June received from the settlement come out of the 15 mil or was it an additional amount of money?

    Like

  46. February 19, 2011 5:15 am

    I agree that is a great find Shelly. I’ve saved a pdf copy of that website page on my computer as well just in case.

    Like

  47. lcpledwards permalink
    February 19, 2011 4:07 am

    @Shelly
    That was a great find! Thanks! It refutes what June Chandler said about not suing MJ while being cross examined by Mesereau. Her signature is on both the retainer and the lawsuit! What a liar!

    21 Q. Okay. When you sued Michael Jackson, you

    22 sued through Larry Feldman, true?

    23 A. I did not sue Michael Jackson. Jordan

    24 Chandler and his family were — that was his family.25 We did not sue Michael Jackson.

    26 Q. Okay. So you never sued him yourself,

    27 you’re saying?

    28 A. I don’t believe that’s how it was worded. 5662

    1 Q. Okay. Do you recall meetings with your

    2 attorney about that lawsuit?

    3 A. Yes, I do.

    I have saved that link to my hard drive!

    Like

  48. lynande51 permalink
    February 19, 2011 3:56 am

    @Shelly
    Bless your heart you got it. Have I told you I love you. Save that link because on most sites it won’t come up anymore they removed it about a year and half ago. It is identical to the one in MJWML and if you do the math with the retainer agreement and the settlement amount Jordan ended up with 7 mil and change. The one that got rich was Feldman so of course he has to believe in his client. What a crook. That link is priceless don’t lose it.

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    February 19, 2011 1:47 am

    I don’t know where to post that, it’s the agreement between the Chandler and Feldman

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/1993-michael-jackson-accusers-family-lawyer-retainer?page=0

    Like

  50. lynande51 permalink
    January 11, 2011 4:54 am

    Judge David Rothman.

    Like

  51. visitor permalink
    January 11, 2011 2:24 am

    A bit off topic here but does anyone knows the name of the judge that denied the 1993 notion of Michael’s lawyers to postpone the civil trial until the criminal one had been resolved.?

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: