After an endless conversation about the passports, birth certificates, and other documents that were needed for the trip to Brazil, Zonen questioned Janet about her interactions with Marc Schaffel, whom she claimed coerced her into doing the rebuttal video with “the Germans”. She and Vinnie went to Schaffel’s house to pick up passports, and then returned to Neverland, and stayed there until February 25th, 2003, when she and her family were taken to the Calabasas Hotel to stay at as they did more shopping for the trip to Brazil.
19 Q. Now, at some later time, you retained an
20 attorney by the name of Bill Dickerman?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. All right. And did he request, by way of
23 letter that was shown to you, to have these
24 passports returned?
25 A. Yes, he did.
26 Q. Were they, in fact, ever returned to you?
27 A. No, they were never returned to me.
28 Q. Prior to today? 6240
1 A. Prior to today.
2 Q. Have you ever seen them?
3 A. I haven’t seen them.
4 Q. Where did you stay after you left on the
5 21st? Where did you go after the 21st of February;
6 do you recall?
7 A. Neverland. After Marc Schaffel’s
8 application, I went to Neverland.
9 Q. Let me ask you about Marc Schaffel. Who is
10 Marc Schaffel? Who do you understand Marc Schaffel
11 to be?
12 A. They just — I know now per the
13 investigation, it’s different.
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
15 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Hold on. At the time, did
16 you know the name “Marc Schaffel”?
17 A. No, I didn’t. But I had spoken to a Marc
18 when the Germans were there.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. Marc –
21 Q. In person –
22 A. Marc Schaffel.
23 Q. All right. In person or over the telephone?
24 A. Over the telephone.
25 Q. Did this person identify himself to you?
26 A. Yes. He said he was Marc Schaffel.
27 Q. He said he was Marc Schaffel?
28 A. Yeah, and then that’s the one that I told 6241
1 about the audio you can hear. And I said he was
2 very unkind, because he was saying I had to do the
3 video, and I thought he was one of the Germans.
4 Q. This was a person you spoke to prior to
5 doing the rebuttal video?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And he was talking to you about the video?
8 A. No. He said I had to do the video. And
9 this is before Jesus.
10 Q. All right. Now, at some point on the 21st
11 you were taken to a home?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did somebody tell you that was Marc
14 Schaffel’s home?
15 A. Yes, Vinnie did.
16 Q. Did you meet Marc Schaffel?
17 A. No, I didn’t.
18 Q. To this day, have you ever seen a picture of
20 A. To this day I’ve never met him.
21 Q. All right. What were you doing at Marc
22 Schaffel’s house?
23 A. Picking up the applications for passports.
24 Q. Were you with your kids or by yourself?
25 A. No, I was by myself.
26 Q. With Vinnie?
27 A. With Vinnie and the people that would –
28 Q. You’re saying there was another car of 6242
2 A. There was always someone following us.
3 Q. Did you know who those people were?
4 A. I didn’t know at the time.
5 Q. Could you tell how many people were in that
7 A. Yes, sometimes there was two. And sometimes
8 there was three. And sometimes there was one.
9 Q. Did you recognize any of them at any time?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You already knew Asaf’s appearance.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you know if Asaf was ever one of them?
14 A. No, I just happened to see Asaf one other
15 time, and – I think so – that was during that
16 Calabasas period.
17 Q. All right. Where did you go on the 21st?
18 Where did you stay after that?
19 A. On the 21st, I stood at Neverland.
20 Q. And for how long were you at Neverland?
21 A. Until the 25th.
22 Q. And on the 25th, you went where?
23 A. To the hotel. I don’t know if it’s hotel,
24 motel, in Calabasas.
25 Q. All right. Do you remember the name of it?
26 A. I think it’s Country Inn & Suites.
27 Q. In Calabasas?
28 A. Yes. 6243
Zonen decided to focus on Janet’s stay at Neverland in between the rebuttal video and the Calabasas trip, and he questioned her on the sleeping arrangements of her children. Star and Gavin slept in the main house, and Janet claimed to have never left her guest unit during that entire period, except for two separate occasions. Read more…
There have been rumors spreading amongst the tabloid media that there will be additional accusers who will soon come forward and claim that they were “victims” of Michael Jackson, and are now preparing to file lawsuits against his Estate. Here is where the story originated:
TWO MORE ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS OF MICHAEL JACKSON ARE TO COME FORWARD
TWO more alleged child abuse victims of Michael Jackson are preparing to file lawsuits against the late King of Pop’s estate, it was revealed yesterday.
A legal source close to the singer’s family confirmed: “One is in the public eye, the other is not.
“They are both telling the same story of regular and repeated molestations.”
The bombshell claims come ten days after top Hollywood choreographer Wade Robson launched his claim for compensation from Jackson’s estate.
Australian Robson, 30, alleges he was “systematically” molested for seven years during his childhood at Neverland Ranch, where he was a regular guest of the Thriller singer.
Both the other victims waiting in the wings claim they too were subjected to “years of abuse,” according to the legal source, who added: “They are waiting to see what happens in the first action.”
Robson was a key defence witness in Jackson’s 2005 trial, at which the star was acquitted by a jury of seven counts of child molestation and two of administering “intoxicating agents” to a 13-year-old boy.
His U-turn was slammed by Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the Jackson estate who described his lawsuit as “outrageous and pathetic”.
But Robson’s lawyer Henry Gradstein hit back: “Jackson was a monster and in their hearts every normal person knows it.
“My client has lived with the brainwashing of a sexual predator until the stress and burden of it crushed him.”
Ever since the story was published, I’ve been asked by many fans about who I think the other two accusers may be. I’ll try my best to answer that question, and use the process of elimination to make an educated guess. Keep in mind, there is no way to know if there is any validity to this story, or to know exactly who the other two accusers may be. To be honest with you, the fact that the two other alleged accuser are “waiting to see what happens in the first action” just shows how incredible (in a legal sense) their cases really are!
There is a misconception among not only the general public, but many less knowledgeable fans, that the prosecution alleged during his trial that Jackson had “dozens”, or even “hundreds” of victims, but that’s not true at all! Sneddon and his cronies alleged that Jackson only had 7 prior victims from the early 90’s (in addition to Gavin Arvizo): Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Jonathan Spence, and Jimmy Safechuck.
Jimmy Safechuck met Jackson in 1987, when he was cast to star alongside him in a Pepsi commercial:
Here is a photo of them together on the set of Jackson’s “HIStory” album trailor, which was shot in late 1994. So much for the notion of Jackson “dumping” his young friends after they hit puberty!
Jonathan Spence met Jackson during the filming of Captain EO in 1986, and they remained close friends for several years:
I will briefly describe their “evidence” against Safechuck and Spence in this post. I’m sure everyone here is already familiar with the other boys, but if not, you can read this legal document from the prosecution, which was submitted to the court in December 2004, for more information on why the prosecution felt that the other boys were “victims”: “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSON OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES”
Jonathan Spence was a close friend of Jackson for 2 years. Jackson’s former maid, Blanca Francia (who Mesereau thoroughly discredited under cross examination; read this post for more info) claimed that Jackson made Spence refer to him as “daddy”, and that she would often find his dirty underwear on the floor while cleaning Jackson’s room at Hayvenhurst. (Read page 22 of that document for more info on what Blanca observed between Jackson and Spence.)
Mark Quindoy was a former Neverland employee who sold lies to the tabloids in 1993, a few years after he and his wife quit and sued Jackson over $500k in unpaid overtime! In 1992, one year after quitting Neverland, he and his wife praised Jackson on the Geraldo Rivera show, as well as on the tabloid TV show Hard Copy. You can see their Hard Copy interview here:
They claimed that Jackson lied to them and told them that Jimmy Safechuck was sleeping in another room, when in fact he was sleeping in Jackson’s two story bedroom suite. He also claimed that he saw Safechuck’s dirty underwear on the floor, and that Jackson put his hand down Safechuck’s underpants and masturbated him while they were both in the Jacuzzi. (Read pages 19-20 for more info.)
Blanca Francia stated that she saw Jackson and Safechuck in bed in Jackson’s movie theater, and their upper bodies were unclothed (i.e. they weren’t wearing shirts), but she couldn’t tell if they were naked from the waist down because they were both under the blanket. Oh, the horror! (Read page 22 for more info.)
On March 28th, 2005, Judge Melville allowed both Sneddon and Mesereau to make their cases for and against, respectively, the inclusion of the “Prior Bad Acts” evidence. Here is what Mesereau had to say regarding Safechuck and Spence being named as “victims” by Sneddon, as well as the other boys: (Please read this WORD FOR WORD!!!)
13 I submit to this Court that the introduction
14 of 1108 evidence is very problematic, given the weak
15 nature and the contradictory nature of their case.
16 I submit that the introduction of 1108 evidence
17 could easily reduce the burden of proof the
18 prosecutors have, could easily jeopardize the
19 presumption of innocence in this case and could
20 render an unfair trial.
21 Again, I understand what the cases say and
22 what they cite, but this Court has very honorably
23 suggested its concern for fairness, as it was in
24 another case, and that’s why the Court waited to see
25 what some of their witnesses looked like. I wish we
26 would defer it, because every time they put a
27 witness on, it gets worse. But nevertheless, here’s
28 where we are. 3755
1 Now, what is 1108 evidence essentially?
2 Essentially it’s character evidence. And when the
3 debate was going on in legislature about whether or
4 not to create an exception, tremendous concerns were
5 raised about allowing the prosecution to simply
6 introduce evidence of — what appears to be evidence
7 of bad character.
8 Now, they can phrase it in any terminology
9 they want, they can say it’s evidence of modus
10 operandi, intent, blah blah. But the reality is,
11 they’re trying to bring in character evidence to
12 bolster a separate charge. And any time you do
13 that, the Court has to be concerned with the
14 possibility of prejudice.
15 Now, I don’t need to recite the cases to the
16 Court on prejudice. I know the Court’s familiar
17 with them. But every time they define prejudice,
18 they define it in terms of emotion. Will it have an
19 emotional effect on the jury that is improper? Will
20 it have an emotional effect on the jury that results
21 in unfair prejudice to the defendant? And if, in
22 fact, that emotional effect is there, will it also
23 spill over into the other factors like confusion of
24 issues, et cetera?
25 The evidence they’re trying to introduce is
26 evidence of a highly inflammatory and emotional
27 nature. There’s no question about that. But I
28 think the Court also has to look at the substantive 3756
1 part of the evidence that they want to introduce,
2 because from what we can see in the cases that we’ve
3 looked at, every time they’ve introduced 1108
4 evidence in a case like this, they have had a
5 separate alleged victim describe something similar.
6 Nowhere can we find they are just
7 willy-nilly bringing in third-party witnesses to say
8 they saw something without bringing the alleged
9 victim in. Yet that is exactly what 99 percent of
10 the evidence they plan to bring in is. And I submit
11 the potential for prejudice there is overwhelming.
12 They probably couldn’t win a civil case if they were
13 pursuing a civil case based on nothing but third
14 parties. Yet they want to do it in a criminal case
15 without any of these alleged victims coming in, with
16 the exception of one, who is problematic, and I will
17 explain that to the Court.
18 So I submit the very substance of what
19 they’re trying to do is wrong, and it’s potentially
20 very prejudicial to Mr. Jackson particularly given
21 the weak nature of the case.
22 Now, let’s look at what they’re trying to
23 do. They have an alleged prior victim named Brett
24 Barnes who tells us he never was touched improperly.
25 They want to bring in four witnesses to talk about
26 Brett Barnes. They don’t want to bring him in.
27 Because the moment they bring him in, they’re done.
28 So they want to bring in allegedly four honest 3757
1 witnesses – I guess they’re vouching for their
2 credibility – to testify that Mr. Barnes was
3 improperly touched.
4 Who are their main witnesses? Their main
5 witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ‘90s, and for
6 the first time Mr. Jackson decided, “I’m tired of
7 settling these stupid cases, I’m actually going to
8 defend this one.” It resulted in the longest civil
9 trial in the history of this courthouse. And the
10 Court, I’m sure, knows a lot more about that case
11 than I do. At numerous times during that six-month
12 trial, the trial Judge made findings that the
13 plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing
14 their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of
15 occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury
16 returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr.
17 Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole
18 from him. The Judge then awarded not only costs,
19 but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained
20 a judgment for over a million dollars against these
21 lying plaintiffs.
22 They want the Court to allow these lying
23 plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify
24 to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim
25 they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And
26 if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to
27 litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look
28 at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s 3758
1 not true, because they sold stories to tabloids,
2 they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment
3 against them.
4 Then we have Jordie Chandler, who everyone
5 tells us, and apparently was announced on television
6 this morning, is not going to testify. So who do
7 they want to bring in to testify to that? First of
8 all, Your Honor, I would note that in their motion,
9 they mention someone named Bob Jones. And in very
10 graphic — in a very graphic manner they told the
11 Court that Mr. Jones had worked for Mr. Jackson for
12 years, had traveled internationally with him, and
13 would testify to all sorts of improprieties with
14 children. We just were produced a police report by
15 the prosecution where Mr. Jones flat out denies
16 virtually everything they said in their motion. He
17 has told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, with counsel,
18 that he never saw anything inappropriate happen when
19 Mr. Jackson was in the company of any of these
21 They haven’t told that to the Court in any
22 of their papers, to my knowledge, but they just gave
23 us that report.
24 Now, what happens if you allow third-party
25 testimony about Mr. Chandler without allowing Mr. –
26 forcing them, or ordering them, or requiring them to
27 have Mr. Chandler, the alleged victim, testify? You
28 then have people come in to say what they saw 3759
1 without any victim to confirm it.
2 And what happened back in those days? In
3 summary, this is what happened: Chandler’s parents
4 had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up
5 custody of the child. When these alleged events
6 happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and
7 wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled
8 litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the
9 parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had — the mother’s
10 new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for
11 allegedly interfering with his business. He had an
12 auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had
13 interfered with his business. He wanted millions.
14 After the settlement, the father then filed a new
15 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more
16 dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have
17 all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually
18 Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking
19 legal emancipation from his parents.
20 Where is the justice in this case of
21 allowing parents to come in who collected lots of
22 money because Mr. Jackson wanted to get this case
23 behind him and pursue his music career? And indeed,
24 all kinds of advisors were telling him to do that.
25 You have parents playing each other off with the
26 child and pursuing collateral litigation, all of
27 that will obviously have to be explored, because the
28 potential for financial interest, financial bias in 3760
1 a situation like that, is enormous, the motives for
2 financial gain were enormous, and indeed, there was
3 never any criminal prosecution despite Mr. Sneddon’s
4 noble efforts to try and do one.
5 So there’s no alleged victim with Brett
6 Barnes. There’s no alleged victim with Jordie
7 Chandler. Then we come to Macaulay Culkin, who has
8 repeatedly made statements that he’s a friend of Mr.
9 Jackson and has never been molested. But they want
10 to bring in evidence that he was molested. And they
11 want to bring in witnesses who also were part of the
12 gang that sued Mr. Jackson, and lost, with findings
13 that they had lied and with enormous damages awarded
14 against them.
15 Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason
16 Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were
17 interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the
18 mother was taken. Money was paid to settle that
19 case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the
20 press, didn’t want his family going through it, and
21 wanted to pursue his music career. There never was
22 a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged
23 victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District
24 Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney
25 together. And after their interview with Jason
26 Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what
27 happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal
28 case, because there wasn’t one. We have that taped 3761
1 interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the
2 Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw
3 something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And
4 indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was
5 paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged
6 victim they want to bring in.
7 Five, Wade Robeson, who tells us nothing
8 ever happened to him. And they don’t propose to
9 bring him in as an alleged victim. They want to
10 bring in the gang that basically has tried to accuse
11 Mr. Jackson and get money from him for years,
12 generally unsuccessfully, with the exception of
13 Miss — Mr. Francia’s mother, and I’ve just talked
14 about the problems in her sworn statement in
15 discovery. The deposition is clear, she begins by
16 saying, “I think I saw something.” She ends by
17 saying, “I didn’t see anything.”
18 Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed
19 says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call
20 him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the
21 same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize
22 on the case, people who have been adjudged to be
23 liars, and they are. People who asked for money
24 from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr.
25 Jackson, et cetera.
26 Seven, Jonathan Spence, who we are informed
27 says nothing happened and doesn’t intend to come in
28 to support them at all. What do they want to do? 3762
1 Bring in the same crew again. Third-party witnesses
2 with an axe to grind, all of whom have wanted money
3 in the past, none of whom can substantiate that
4 anything happened because the alleged victim says
5 nothing happened.
6 The bulk of their 1108 evidence, Your Honor,
7 are third parties with axes to grind, and who have
8 tried to get money, and gotten money, and had the
9 problems I just identified. Where is the fairness
10 in allowing that kind of testimony, that kind of
11 evidence, when their underlying case looks so weak
12 and so problematic?
Mesereau also refuted those former Neverland employees in this document titled “SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DISTRIC ATTORNEY’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF ALLEGED PRIOR OFFENSES” In the end, Judge Melville ruled that he would allow evidence supporting the prosecution’s assertions that Jason Francia, Jordan Chandler, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin were victims to be admitted in court. However, he ruled that any evidence pertaining to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence would be inadmissible because there wasn’t anyone who claimed to have witnessed actual physical conduct between them and Jackson:
15 THE COURT: The arguments presented by both
16 sides here were very good arguments, and they’re
17 arguments bringing up the law and the factors that
18 I’ve been working with trying to reach a decision in
19 this matter, which is of such great importance in
20 this case for both sides.
21 The arguments didn’t really bring up new
22 material, but they definitely emphasized the
23 concerns that I’ve had. You know, the weighing of
24 the case as I’ve heard it, the remoteness of the
25 alleged charges that would come under 1108.
26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached,
27 and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to
28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual 3783
1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming
2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to
3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade
4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett
6 The witnesses that would be permitted to
7 testify under this order would be Jason Francia,
8 Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque,
9 Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob
10 Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of
11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be
12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and
13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted.
14 The witnesses that would be precluded under
15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.
16 And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony
17 that I would consider admissible, that relating to
18 the one physical act that he observed. And some of
19 the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler
20 and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible.
21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve
22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited
23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual
24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That
25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.
26 And just to give you an example, Mr. Jones’
27 observations over a long period of time were
28 conclusionary and opinions that I wouldn’t allow 3784
1 based on what he didn’t see.
I bet you guys are asking yourselves the following question:
“If Judge Melville would only admitted evidence from people who claimed to have seen physical contact between Jackson and young boys, then why wasn’t Mark Quindoy allowed to testify against Jackson?”
The answer to that is simple; according to Diane Dimond, Quindoy died sometime before the trial. She didn’t specify where, when, or how he died, but only had the following to say about his death in her trash book “Be Careful Who You Love”, pages 75-77 (notice how she deliberately lowered the amount of money the Quindoys sued Jackson for from $500k to $283k!):
Mark and Faye Quindoy were living in the Philippines when the allegations against Michael Jackson hit the headlines in late August 1993. They were not surprised, and they called a news conference in Manila in late September to tell the world as much.
Holding what he said was his personal diary in his outstretched hand, Mark Quindoy announced that when he and his wife had served as the estate mangers at the rambling Neverland Valley Ranch from 1987 to 1991, they had seen and heard so many disturbing things with regard to Michael Jackson and his “special friends” that he had decided to write them all down. It begged the question: Why hadn’t he and his wife gone to the police with their claims? Their answer was that they didn’t think they’d be believed and they feared they’d lose their jobs if they came forward.
This diary was later given to California law enforcement. At the news conference, Mark Quindoy, a stately looking older Filipino man, alleged that he believed his former employer was a “gay pedophile.” He said most of the children the couple saw at the ranch were between seven and twelve years old, but some were infants.
“Whatever a gay man does to his partner during sex, Michael does to a child,” said Quindoy. He related a story about one particular child and told the gathered reporters, “I swear I saw Michael Jackson fondling the little kid, his hands traveling on the kid’s thighs, legs, around his body. And during all this, the kid was playing with his toys.”
During another instance, Quindoy said, Michael Jackson asked him to drive him and a seven-year-old companion into the neighboring town of Solvang. The trip was so Jackson could see a huge dollhouse that he was thinking of duplicating at the ranch. Driving back to Neverland at dusk, Quindoy said he caught sight of a shocking scene in the backseat of the Chevrolet Blazer. His employer was acting “like a lover,” kissing the boy passionately.
“It was just like a boy kissing a girl in the backseat,” Quindoy said. At a stoplight Quindoy said he noticed “the boy wasn’t protesting— he just sat there stiffly, without moving, while Michael kissed him on the lips.” Then, with the headlights of passing cars illuminating the inside of the vehicle, he saw Michael begin to kiss the youngster everywhere— his neck, head, arms, shoulders, and body. “I was utterly stunned— appalled that he could do that to a seven-year-old boy.”
Mark and Faye Quindoy said they quit working at the ranch in 1991, thinking that Jackson’s activities with young boys would certainly catch up with him. Now that the allegations of Jordie Chandler had made worldwide headlines, they said they felt it safe to tell the public what they knew. Michael Jackson “would be one of the nicest persons you will ever meet,” the Quindoys said, but he has a serious “illness.”
The problem with the Quindoys’ story was their ongoing battle to get Jackson to pay them the $ 283,000 they claimed he owned them in “unpaid overtime wages.” They didn’t try to hide that fact; they openly spoke about how they had been forced to be on call around the clock, even on scheduled days off, during their tenure with Jackson. They had added up all those extra hours and come up with the $ 283,000 figure. As they told their stunning story to the media, they were still actively engaged in trying to get the money they felt they were owed.
Their legal battle gave the Jackson camp all the ammunition they needed. They were immediately labeled as “disgruntled former employees” and “failed extortionists” in a public statement delivered by Anthony Pellicano.
Mark Quindoy would not live to testify to his claims at Jackson’s criminal trial in Santa Maria in 2005.
Had Quindoy been alive in 2005, Judge Melville would have allowed him to testify against Jackson, and Mesereau would have shredded him under cross examination (just as he did the other 1108 witnesses), and Safechuck would have denied any and all abuse as well (just as Robson, Barnes, and Culkin did).
It should be noted that Santa Barbara detectives Federico Sicard and Deborah Linden flew to Manila, Phillipines in 1993 to interview them, but found their story to be utterly worthless. Here’s an excerpt from pages 48-50 of “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” by Lisa Campbell:
Meanwhile, the tabloids and talk shows couldn’t get enough of the “Michael Jackson Scandal”. Soon former employees of Michael’s would begin crawling out of the woodwork with inside information on Michael’s personal life. This “information” was for sale to the highest bidder, and the tabloid magazines and tabloid TV shows were climbing over each other at the chance to land “the exclusive interview”. Whether or not the information was true was not an issue, as long as they had someone to say it was true. First up was Mark and Faye Quindoy, a Filipino husband and wife who had worked as a housekeeper and cook at Neverland from 1989 to 1991. He was a former lawyer. They left their employment at Neverland claiming they were owed $500,000 in overtime pay. If this is an indication of their pay scale, it certainly explains why he stopped practicing law to become a housekeeper! The Quindoys had filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for their overdue pay. Later, they claimed they quit because they couldn’t stand what they were observing at the ranch. They weren’t concerned enough to mention any of it to the authorities though.
The season premiere of Geraldo was the first of a several shows devoted to the story. This one even included a year old interview with the Quindoys which at the time only offered slight insights into the personal life of Michael Jackson, but now was being analyzed in a new light by Geraldo Rivera to see if anything said then could now be construed differently. A year earlier, the Quindoys described Michael Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. Other things disclosed in the earlier interview included their observation that each member of Michael’s family had visited the ranch with one notable exception, LaToya. They also said Michael had young friends visit him and that they stayed in the “Shirley Temple” room, a separate, enclosed bedroom inside Michael’s bedroom. In an effort to get him to eat better, Mrs. Quindoy developed meals named after Michael’s zoo animals and Disney characters.
By this time Mark and Faye Quindoy had drastically changed their story. While one year earlier they described Michael to Geraldo’s audience as a very nice man, they had now suddenly obtained a diary which they held at a press conference which they claimed they had kept while working at the ranch in which they described various questionable acts by “MJ”. A very important thing to point out here is that, like so many others in this media fiasco, the Quindoys first told, and sold, their story to A Current Affair and did not take anything to the police. And then the police went to them, they did not take their “information” to any authorities. In response to the Quindoy’s media blitz with their “diary”, two detectives, Federico Sicard and Deborah Linden, flew to Manila to question them. They were found to be worthless as witnesses.
A Current Affair, in their ever objective reporting technique, referred to the Quindoys’ press conference as “The press conference that could bring down Michael Jackson forever.” Actually the statements made the Quindoys only weakened the case against Michael Jackson, proving people will do and say anything if they think they will profit from it.
The Quindoys were further discredited by their very own nephew. Glen Veneracion, a law student and nephew to the Quindoys, told interviewers his aunt and uncle were opportunists and they were an embarrassment, “I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.” He described the Quindoys antics as a desperate attempt to make money, “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.”
Veneracion went to Pellicano with his statement and established the lack of credibility of the Quindoys. He answered questions concerning the diary the Quindoys claimed to have kept, “I’m quite sure they wrote that diary to fit in with these allegations. He was gonna get it at any cost. And that’s what’s coming out now.” Veneracion was willing to testify in any court proceedings, “I’d be willing to step forward in a court of law and make these allegations.”
Pellicano called the Quindoys ”cockroaches and failed extortionist”. To prove him wrong, the Quindoys filed another lawsuit, this one suing Pellicano for slander.
The only two accusers left out of the original eight that the prosecution named are Safechuck and Spence. Just as Mesereau asserted during his passionate defense of Jackson during the trial, if they were truly “victims” of Jackson, then why didn’t they show up to testify against him?
For the sake of argument (and ONLY for that sake!), let assume Jackson really did molest Safechuck, Spence, and Robson, but not any of the others (as has already been proven in court). Jackson must be the luckiest pedophile in the history of the world because he would have not one, not two, but THREE “victims” who each suffered from “repressed memories”, or Stockholm’s Syndrome, or whatever other junk science psychological excuse anyone wants to use! (Just for the record, I’m not trying to say that there are no legitimate cases of repressed memories or Stockholm’s Syndrome, because there are some out there. But those symptoms DO NOT APPLY to Wade Robson or anyone else who posthumously accuses Jackson of abuse!)
Personally, I do not believe that Spence or Safechuck are the other two alleged accusers of Jackson who may or may not come forward very soon. Although they have never spoken publicly about Jackson, whether to defend him or to talk in general about their relationship with him, I don’t believe that they would backstab Jackson and his family in the same manner that Wade Robson has. (You can read about Robson’s betrayal, as well as my summaries and analyses of his family’s testimonies, in this series of posts.)
I also think it’s highly probable that there truly AREN’T any “additional” accusers coming forward, and that the “source” close to Jackson’s family that told the Daily Star tabloid about the upcoming lawsuits is none other than discredited “journalist” Stacy Brown, who has been a vocal detractor of Jackson for many years, and co-wrote the trash book “The Man Behind The Mask” with Jackson’s ex-manager Bob Jones. (I analyzed their testimonies and fact-checked their book in a 3-part series; here’s Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.)
The fact that The Daily Star stated that it was a “legal” source close to the singer’s family is irrelevant; they could have said that to throw people off from suspecting that it could be Brown or some other hack journalist. Brown very well may be doing this in order to further tarnish Jackson’s legacy, and dirty him up more as the AEG trial drags along. Look at what he tweeted about a slanderous and sloppily researched LA Times article about Wade Robson’s allegations against Jackson:
Well, at least Brown is honest enough to admit that he feels that Robson is lying now; it’s too bad that he’ll never admit publicly that, deep down inside, he knows that Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo were lying as well!
Obviously, I don’t know for sure who their source could be, and it’s only speculation on my part that it could be Brown. We’ll see……
That’s all for now, but I’ll add more to this post as the story develops…………
What the HELL is wrong with Wade Robson? Part 4 of 4: Summary and Analysis of Joy Robson’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial
So far, Wade’s mother Joy Robson has been completely silent throughout this fiasco, but it doesn’t surprise me because she isn’t active on social media. However, based on her daughter Chantal’s public support for Wade, and the gratitude that she has shown to all of her “supporters” on her FB page, it’s safe to assume that Joy Robson stands behinds her son’s allegations 100%.
Before we get to her testimony, I want to share an interesting tidbit of information from Jermaine Jackson’s book “You Are Not Alone”; on page 155 , he briefly describes how Joy was approached by a “journalist” name Victor Gutierrez in 1992. He was conducting an “investigation” to prove his suspicions that Jackson was a pedophile, and after meeting with Gutierrez, Joy immediately phoned Jackson’s office:
Here’s what Jermaine had to say about Wade’s allegations. As you can see, he was very blunt and to the point!
Gutierrez published the trash book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” overseas, but was unable to get a US publisher to distribute it after he lost a multi-million dollar slander lawsuit against Jackson in 1997. Throughout the book, Gutierrez wrote about his interactions with Joy Robson and other associates of Jackson (including the Chandlers), but fortunately his book was fact checked by using Joy’s testimony in this aptly post titled “Joy Robson vs. Victor Gutierrez: The Truth against Lies”. There are almost two dozen posts that have been written to refute the lies of Victor Gutierrez (that number of posts is indicative of how instrumental he was in Jackson’s downfall), and you can see them all here.
Not only did Joy reject any money that Victor Gutierrez offered her, but she also turned down a six figure bounty from the National Enquirer! Here is an exceprt from page 159 of Jermaine’s book:
It’s really unbelievable that Joy would turn down money from the tabloids and reject Victor Gutierrez’s assertions during Jackson’s darkest hour, yet all of a sudden do a complete 180 degree turnaround and support her son (in my opinion, he silence so far is a sign of support for her son).
So let’s see what she had to say on the witness stand in 2005: Read more…
What the HELL is wrong with Wade Robson? Part 3 of 4: Summary and Analysis of Chantal Robson’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial
When Wade Robson’s false claims of child sexual abuse against Michael Jackson became public earlier this week, I didn’t want to believe that it was true. I didn’t want to believe that Wade could humiliate and impugn Jackson’s already tarnished legacy even further than it already has, but unfortunately once I read his lawyer’s motion to seal his creditor’s claims against Jackson’s estate, I knew that it was true.
My next thought was “How is Wade’s mother and sister going to react to all this? They both testified for Jackson and defended him in 2005!” Well, so far we haven’t heard a peep from Wade’s mother Joy, and but earlier today Wade’s sister Chantal broke her silence on her Facebook page:
Knowledge and truth? Are you freakin’ kidding me?
Unfortunately, that particular status update was limited to only her facebook friends, so the general public cannot see it unless she friends them (and it’s highly unlikely that she’ll be accepting any more friend requests at this point!) Fortunately, someone who is already friends with her snitched and posted that screen shot, and it’s clear that she is supporting her brother 100%.
Here are some of her recent tweets, thanking people for their support, and showing her own support for Wade:
Now, let’s get to her testimony and see what she had to say about Jackson in 2005; I’m sure this will be very interesting, to say the least…………. Read more…
What the HELL is wrong with Wade Robson? Part 2 of 4: Summary and Analysis of Wade Robson’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial
As Mesereau mentioned in the video above, the very first witnesses that he called to the stand were the three young boys that Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool, and Blanca Francia testified to seeing Jackson abuse in the early 1990’s: Wade Robson and Brett Barnes.
Before we get to Wade’s testimony, I want to republish an email that Mesereau sent to a fan last November; it was republished with permission on the Reflections on the Dance Facebook page on November 27th, 2012. In his email, Mesereau described how he was criticized and ridiculed for having Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, and Brett Barnes testify that they slept in Jackson’s bed with him, but were never molested. A perfect example of the ridicule that Mesereau faced can be seen in this video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which aired on May 9th, 2005.
Mesereau was wise enough to realize that he was not dealing with 12 Michael Jackson fans on the jury; he was dealing with 12 everyday citizens, most of whom were, at best, only casual fans, and were very eager to convict Michael Jackson if they felt that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He knew that Jackson’s habit of sharing his bed had been totally misconstrued and blown out of proportion by the media (primarily due to Bashir’s documentary), and if he did not confront this issue head on, he could possibly lose the case.
Mesereau eloquently explained his rationale for allowing the three boys to testify about sleeping in Jackson’s bed in the email below, and I agree with that strategy 100%. It’s interesting to note that the jury foreman told Mesereau that if they had not testified for Jackson, then he may not have been acquitted on all 14 counts. That is a very POWERFUL statement, when you take the time to sit back and comprehend it. Think about this; despite the pure silliness and absurdity of the Arvizo’s story, despite the former Neverland employees getting their credibility shredded under cross examination, despite the jurors literally laughing at Jason Francia during their break, and despite all of the overwhelming exculpatory evidence presented by both the defense AND (unintentionally) the prosecution, the jury was STILL prepared to convict Jackson BASED SOLELY ON WHAT THEY “THOUGHT” MAY HAVE HAPPENED IN 1993!
That really blows my mind each and every time I think about that, and it makes me more thankful that Mesereau was wise enough to call them as his first witnesses, and that they all answered the call and stood up for Jackson when he truly needed it most.
Here’s the email from Mesereau; be sure to pay attention to the excerpts that I highlighted!
Here is Robson’s testimony regarding his background, and how he met Michael Jackson:
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. MESEREAU:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Robson.
4 A. How you doing.
5 Q. How old are you?
6 A. I am 22.
7 Q. And would you please give the — please just
8 summarize your employment history.
9 A. My employment history.
10 I started dancing when I was two,
11 professionally when I was five. In Australia
12 originally. And moved to America when I was eight.
13 Became a professional dancer. Started teaching
14 dance classes when I was 12. I was in a rap duo
15 when I was 11 and 12. Started choreographing for
16 different artists when I was 14, and now I’m
17 directing film.
18 Q. And where do you live at the moment?
19 A. I live in Tarzana, California.
20 Q. Okay. And you say you’re directing films?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. And can you summarize what you’re doing in
23 that regard?
24 A. The main focus right now, I did a short film
25 that I wrote and produced and directed last year,
26 and that’s doing the whole film festival circuit
27 right now. And I have a three-picture deal with
28 Disney as a film director, and we’re developing an 9091
1 original musical.
2 Q. Do you know the fellow seated at counsel
3 table to my right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And who is that?
6 A. That’s Michael Jackson.
7 Q. How do you know him?
8 A. I met him first when I was five years old.
9 I think it was ‘87. And Michael was touring, he was
10 doing the “Bad” tour. And I was imitating him as a
11 dancer at that point. And he was holding these –
12 it was in connection with Target or something like
13 that, holding these dance, like, contests all around
14 wherever he traveled. So I entered one of the dance
15 contests and ended up winning it, went on to the
16 finals and won that, and then the prize was to meet
18 So I met him after one of his concerts in
19 Brisbane, Australia. And it was just like in a
20 meet-and-greet sort of room. And we met, and I was
21 in my whole, you know, “Bad” outfit and everything.
22 He was sort of laughing and tripping out on my
23 outfit and asked if I danced. I said, “Yeah.” And
24 he asked me to perform with him in the show the next
26 So after — it was like the end of the
27 concert, I pulled up, performed in the show with
28 him. The next — the next — I think within the 9092
1 next couple of days, my mother and I went to visit
2 him at his hotel room, and we stayed for a couple of
3 hours. It was in Brisbane, Australia. Just talking
4 about what I want to do. And then that was kind of
5 it at first.
6 And then for the next two years, we didn’t
7 have any contact at all. And I continued pursuing
8 my dance career in Australia. And then the company
9 that I was with, the dance company, was traveling to
10 America to do a performance at Disneyland.
11 So we all went. Came out, did that
12 performance. As I said, we’d had no contact with
13 Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in
14 contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who
15 was Norma Stokes.
16 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I’m going to object
17 to the narrative form of the answer.
18 THE COURT: Sustained.
19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: After your mother got in
20 contact with Norma Stakos, what happened next?
21 A. She talked to Michael about — we wanted to
22 see if we could hook up with him again and meet him
23 again. She talked to Michael. Michael remembered
24 me from when I met him when I was five years old,
25 wanted to meet me again.
26 So I was out there with my mother, sister,
27 my father, and grandparents. We all went to meet
28 him at Record One Recording Studios. And this 9093
1 was — this was ‘89.
2 Q. Where is Record One Recording Studios?
3 A. I don’t remember exactly. It’s somewhere in
4 the valley, yeah. In California. Yeah.
5 Q. And what happened next?
6 A. We met up with him. He was in between, you
7 know, working on music and that sort of thing. He
8 was doing a photo shoot at the time at the studio.
9 We took some photos with him. My family and I all
10 went into his — sort of like the green room, and
11 played him some videotapes of all the dancing stuff
12 that I’ve been doing over the last two years. And,
13 you know, he was just really excited, checking out
14 everything I had done. And then by the end of the
15 time, he invited my family and I up to the ranch
16 that weekend.
17 Q. And did you begin a friendship with Mr.
19 A. Yes.
Robson was a member of the teen rap group Quo, and was signed to Jackson’s MJJ Music label in 1994. Here is their first video “Blowin’ Up”:
And while I’m on the subject of Quo, let me take a moment to post DeWayne Turrentine’s statement about his former groupmate’s accusations against Jackson; personally, I’m very disappointed that he didn’t utterly condemn Robson’s lies. As a result of not doing so, his statement is very, very weak and ineffective. C’mon, you mean to tell me that Wade falsely accuses the man who you credit for giving you your opportunity in showbusiness, and you wish him “the best”?
Give me a damn break!
Here is Robson’s testimony of his first time visiting Neverland, and details about the numerous other times that he and his family stayed there. He estimated that he visited the ranch twenty something times throughout the 90’s, and each visit was mostly over a weekend: Read more…
Guys, there has been an absolute bombshell that has rocked the Michael Jackson fan community. I was utterly stunned and dumbfounded when I first heard about this, and I just couldn’t believe that it could possibly be true.
On May 7th, 2013 TMZ was the first to report that dancer, choreographer, rapper, and former protégé of the late great Michael Jackson, Wade Robson, has filed a creditor’ claim against Jackson’s estate, seeking an unspecified sum of money due to an unfiled complaint for “childhood sexual abuse”. Their story was based on information given to them by their “sources”, and on official legal documents that were filed on May 1st. The main complaint (which specifically outlines Jackson’s alleged abuse) was filed under seal, which means that it’s not available to the public, but Robson’s notice to have the complaint filed under seal is publically available, and if you read bullet point #6 below, you’ll see a description of the claim:
Here is more detail on the claim:
(Here is the complete copy of the motion to seal http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wade-robson-full-doc.pdf Pay attention to Paragraph 4 on Page 8, which states that in order to adequately plead his claims against Does 1, 2, and 3, Wade must keep their identities confidential. Hopefully we’ll soon find out what all of this means……) Read more…
Zonen’s direct examination of Janet Arvizo continued today, and he started by questioning Janet about the telephone conversations she had with Frank Cascio regarding the Brad Miller and DCFS interviews, and how she was tricked into returning to Neverland after her first “escape” by being told that Dieter Weizner and Ronald Konitzer had been fired:
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
18 BY MR. ZONEN:
19 Q. Miss Arvizo, good morning.
20 A. Good morning. How are you?
21 Q. When we left off yesterday, we had been
22 talking about the interview with Brad Miller that
23 took place at your then boyfriend’s house, Major
24 Jackson; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
26 THE BAILIFF: Is your microphone on?
27 MR. ZONEN: Yes. Just need to be closer,
28 okay. 6144
1 Q. When was it that you returned back to
2 Neverland after that interview?
3 A. The next day.
4 Q. And did you return back with your children?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you have an understanding about that
7 with Frank?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When was that conversation? When did that
10 conversation take place?
11 A. Every day, many conversations. Even on that
12 day, the next day.
13 Q. Was there a conversation with Frank after
14 the interview with Brad Miller?
15 A. Yes. Even during.
16 Q. Even during?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did he call during that?
19 A. Yes, he did.
20 Q. And did you speak with him during that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. Tell me about the understanding
23 that you had with Frank about returning to
25 A. That the Germans had been fired, and — and
26 me and the kids were coming back, and we didn’t have
27 to do the video at that point.
28 Q. And that’s when you went back to Neverland; 6145
1 is that correct?
2 A. That’s when I went back.
3 Q. Now, there was going to be a DCFS interview;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that was going to be on the 20th?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tell us about the conversation that you had
9 with Frank about the rebuttal video.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. And specifically in time after you had
12 learned that there was going to be an interview with
13 your children with DCFS.
14 A. First, he had told me, no, that he wasn’t
15 going to bring the two kids back. It evolved and
16 that made me very stressed. And then he says the
17 only way they’ll bring back the kids if I do the
18 video. And then it evolved into that I wouldn’t
19 have to leave out of — leave the country.
20 Q. You were already having conversations with
21 Frank about leaving the country?
22 A. Oh, yeah, that had been since –
23 Q. And had the location of where you were
24 supposed to go already been resolved?
25 A. Yes, Brazil.
26 Q. Brazil? All right. You then went back to
27 Neverland, you’ve already described. And then you
28 then turned around and went back to Los Angeles; is 6146
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
Next, Janet was asked to describe the shooting of the rebuttal video at the home of Hamid Moslehi; it was initially supposed to be shot at Neverland, but Janet refused to return there. When she arrived, she claims that there was a “script” that she and her kids were told to follow: Read more…