Skip to content

Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 2 of 3

August 17, 2011

Here is part 2 of my 3 part transcript of Matt Drudge’s analysis of the Michael Jackson trial in 2005. Here is the link to part 1, for your convenience.

The Matt Drudge Show: April 10th, 2005

Matt Drudge, Sunday night, it is the Drudge Report. We are learning details on why exactly Michael Jackson’s mother left the courtroom. If we believed Nancy Grace and all of the other aggressive women that appear to be out to get Michael Jackson on the cable news shows. (Drudge then begins to imitate Nancy Grace):  “The testimony was so graphic and horrifying the mother had to excuse herself from the courtroom because she didn’t want to hear this….”.  Well, the mother has said through a press release that she left the courtroom during the molestation trial last week to use the restroom!1 How about that! She said that “accusing me of leaving due to graphic testimony when I simply went to the restroom is not fair and not accurate.” Do you hear that, Nancy Grace? Do you hear that, Diane Dimond, and all the multitudes………if I had to hear it one more time on Friday “Oh, the mother raced out because the testimony was so graphic from all these witnesses.” She said “no, I was just using the bathroom”. You know, that’s what humans do from time to time. Well, a guy who has not really been working with the pack, because if you follow the press pack, you would think Michael Jackson already has ordered the sheets next to his cell with Marilyn Manson out there at the hardcore prison cell, which he will spend if he’s found guilty of this for probably the rest of his life.  A gentleman who has been operating from more of a “let’s see what the testimony is in the courtroom, including the cross examination”, which is getting left out of a lot of coverage. When a lot of talk hosts and cable hosts are doing is reading the first A.P. story, which has the D.A. and the prosecutors, and their questioning of the witness, but they are leaving out the cross examination until later in the day, and the hosts don’t bother to actually the write through on the A.P., so you’re not hearing how witness after witness are disintegrating on the stand! There has not been one witness, at least lately, who has not admitted to perjuring themselves in previous proceedings, either in this case or some other case. Horrifying! Because what is the consequence of lying in court? Or perjuring yourself with police? What’s the consequence in Sneddon’s world there in Santa Barbara? Nothing! Anyone can lie, anybody can………..I’m getting ahead of myself. Roger Friedman, thanks for joining us tonight.

Roger Friedman: You’re welcome. I’m actually driving, and I’m almost back in Santa Maria for tomorrow morning’s testimony.

Matt Drudge: Now who are they going to drag out of the closet tomorrow? Do we know?

Roger Friedman: Well, tomorrow morning, I think that we’re going to have Bob Jones, who was Michael’s PR person for about 20 years, and who has a long history at Motown, but on Friday, you’re right, we had Phillip LeMargue, he and his wife had worked at Neverland from 1990 to 1991, for about 10 months, and a lot left out from their testimony that I’m gonna have in my column tomorrow on Foxnews.com, a lot of it comes from, most of it comes from a very interesting tape recordings that were made in the early 90’s by a National Enquirer writer, who has since deceased, his name was Jim Vettieager, and he went through a lot of different pitches with people like the LeMarques, and a lot of the other witnesses who’ve come on to testify for the prosecution2.

Matt Drudge: So Sneddon’s case so far, at least going back to the past, has been a trial of tabloid rejects, or tabloid sources?

Roger Friedman:  Yeah, his case is largely based on the National Enquirer reporting, and we wouldn’t know about this except for these extraordinary tapes. We were lucky they were left to a guy named Paul Baressi, who is an investigator in Hollywood, who came to me, and I don’t even think I was the first person he came to, but I was the only one who would listen to him, and he said “Listen to these tapes! They will tell you about how the National Enquirer dangled hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of everyone to get them to say that Michael Jackson molested a kid or did anything inappropriate.3  And in all the time that they tried to do it, the National Enquirer never came up with another kid besides Jordie Chandler, the kid who we call the $20 million dollar kid……….

Matt Drudge:  Who is not willing to testify? Which Sneddon never brought charges based on that case, which he could have. I don’t buy the theory that because he settled out of court that he couldn’t bring charges . Bogus! That’s just bogus!4

Roger Friedman: Actually, they tried to bring charges, they had a grand jury that met in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, trying to bring charges on the Chandler case with Michael Jackson, and the grand jury concluded that there was no case!5

Matt Drudge: Wow!

Roger Friedman: That was adjudicated, to the best it could be.

Matt Drudge: Will the jury be told that? Will Mesereau, in his defense, say “Listen, they tried to bring this into a legal system, not a National Enquirer system, and they couldn’t because there wasn’t the evidence required to meet the standard.”

Roger Friedman: I don’t know if the jury will be able to hear that. But what they have heard, and what’s not reported, and you’re right, is that the cross examination of the witnesses is usually fatal to them. And you have one witness who said “Alright. I lied about everything!”  So the cross examination has been withering in most of the cases.6

Matt Drudge: Hold on a second! Freeze it right there! You have someone in a court of law, saying they lied about everything previously under oath? What is the consequence for someone who does that out there in Sneddon’s world?

Roger Friedman: None.

Matt Drudge: None? So you can march into the courthouse now and lie, or say you’ve lied in previous depositions, because you were scared, or whatever excuse you were using, the generic excuse. And there’s no consequence?

Roger Friedman: Well, former employees get up on the stand, and they say, the things that were said on Thursday and Friday were the most salacious……..Thursday was a very bad day. When Thursday started, that first hour was with this guy Ralph Chacon, who had worked at the ranch as a security guard. He told the most outrageous story, it was so graphic, and of course everyone went running outside to report on it, but there was 10 minutes right before the break, the first break on Thursday, when Tom Mesereau got up and cross examined this guy, and obliterated him.

Matt Drudge: We didn’t hear that, Roger. We didn’t hear how he was obliterated, they don’t tell us that. Out here, where Michael Jackson is being literally crucified, the nails have gone into both hands at this point, and the crowd is on. This is serious business, the smearing of the reputation. We’re just sticking to what’s actually happening in the courtroom at this point. So this guy was obliterated how by Mesereau?

Roger Friedman: When he was asked, he suddenly could not remember when anything happened, where it happened, how it happened, I mean, it was funny, and it wasn’t so funny because we knew that you only have a short time to present your case to the jury and convince them. And we had 10 minutes, from 9:35 to 9:45 am on Thursday morning. I wrote in my column that it was the most crucial 10 minutes maybe in Michael Jackson’s entire life, because Mesereau had those 10 minutes to convince the jury that this man was lying, that he had been in bankruptcy, that he had done all of this for money, that he sold his story to the tabloids, and he couldn’t remember the fact that he had been one of five people who sued Michael Jackson in 1995 and lost, and owed him now $1.6 million dollars!7 So when Mesereau said to him…………..

Matt Drudge: So hold on a second here, hold on a second. Sneddon is calling witnesses who owe Michael Jackson money?

Roger Friedman:  Well four witnesses, five people unsuccessfully sued Michael Jackson in 1995 for wrongful termination and sexual harassment. They lost their case, the judge threw the case out, and said that they owed Michael Jackson all of his legal fees, they each owe him $1.6 million dollars, it drove four of the five of them into bankruptcy.

Matt Drudge: And this is the guy who said he saw Michael Jackson performing oral, excuse me, on one of the kids?

Roger Friedman: Yes.

Matt Drudge: This was the bombshell that bombshell that shook the earth, and talk radio went crazy, “this is it! this is the last straw!”

Roger Friedman: It was incredible. It was shocking to hear him say, to have him actually describe it, but then, when Mesereau stood up and said “Well how much money do you owe Michael Jackson from that case?” and he said “I don’t remember!”, and Mesereau said to him “You don’t remember owing somebody $1.6 million dollars?” He didn’t remember anything! He couldn’t actually remember anything! And it was pathetic! And you looked at these people, and you say that “Well, you know, they were all dismissed for various reasons, this was a long time ago….”, and I watched one of the jurors literally lean forward, he came forward in his seat, with a grin, looking at this, and I thought he was going to start shaking his head, saying out loud “Why are we here?”

Matt Drudge: What is happening is that the reporters, the anchorwomen like Nancy Grace are not conveying this. They’re doing quite a disservice; they’re not reporting what is happening there. We have Laurie Ingle of KFI, locally in Los Angeles, report that jurors were laughing and snickering8, the judge finally had to say that there was no investigation in this, people were talking mistrial, they were hoping for a mistrial, and Sneddon could do it all over again and not call the airline stewardess, not call the sister, and not even call Gavin this time, if he had to do it. Stay right there, Roger Friedman.  He is in the courtroom, he has had a front or second or third row seat in there. He is looking at this from a different point of view. If you just bear with us, because you are hearing a lot of this “Michael Jackson is finished, this is devastating, how could all these people be lying….” The question is, “Maybe they are all lying?” Why isn’t that a possibility? Especially under the revelation that five of these witnesses have owed Michael Jackson money for disgruntled, and lawsuits that have gone down the toilet, and all the other things.  But you see what’s going on. This started as a very compelling case, and I want to know why Sneddon is not charging people with perjury up there?  What is going on? To have any kind of credibility at all, you have to have in that courtroom that if you lie under oath, you are going to be in serious trouble. Oh, that’s the Clinton oath? Don’t get me started on that. That’s last century. We’re dealing with 2005 here. This is Drudge.

Matt Drudge: Sunday night, this is the Drudge Report. And he’s travelling up I guess Route 5 or the 101, somewhere there on the coast. Going back to the courthouse for another day………

Roger Friedman: This is the most beautiful part of California, and it’s hard to believe this is going on here, because it’s an extraordinary place.

Matt Drudge: Well, the world’s biggest pop star is about to be sent next to a jail cell of Charlie Manson, if in fact they find him guilty.

Roger Friedman: I doubt it.

Matt Drudge: Can you imagine verdict day on this when you have an entire media establishment that has convicted Michael Jackson already, and the jury finds him “not guilty”, they’re gonna say “Well, he’s a superstar, you can’t convict a superstar…”, and all the rest. I already see Diane Dimond, et al, spinning that up. But you are saying it’s based on the testimony, and the witnesses, and what you are seeing there with your own eyes.

Roger Friedman: There’s certainly reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson could be acquitted here. And what we’re faced with is, a lot of people have come on the stand and said “Look, there are a lot of 12 year old boys roaming around Neverland, they spend time in Michael Jackson’s room, but that’s all!” That’s all anybody really knows. They sleep there. Whether anything else has happened beyond that, has been sort of disproved in every cross examination.

Matt Drudge: Why isn’t Macaulay Culkin willing to come defend Michael Jackson in this case?

Roger Friedman: There’s no upside for Macaulay Culkin here. He’s already said it! He said it on Larry King. He said nothing happened. His father gave me an exclusive interview, thank you Daphne Barack  who ripped me off subsequently9, but father Kit Culkin gave me an exclusive interview last week and said absolutely nothing happened! “I was there with Macaulay, I was there with all my kids, they were fine with Michael Jackson!” So we sit in the courtroom and listen to the maligning of Macaulay Culkin, wondering what his request is I think the public imagination now is that he definitely was abused by Michael Jackson.

Matt Drudge: I think if you did a pulse poll, of people listening to these local talk shows, they would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!10 If, in fact, they knew, for instance you’re reporting tomorrow that you’ve listened to tapes that are in conflict with what a witness testified under oath, just on Friday. This to me, and I don’t know if Mesereau is exhausted, and is not following all the details on this, he better have gotten some rest this weekend, why isn’t this being used as testimony to debunk the witnesses?

Roger Friedman:  That’s a good question, because the guy who has the tapes, this man Paul Baressi, has offered it. He’s offered it to both sides. He said “Here, listen to this. Listen to what these people said 10 years ago.” And we’re the only ones who bothered to print what these people said 10 years ago.  And now we know, for the first time, for example, that this man who testified on Friday (Phillip LeMargue), about trying to sell his story in 1993, it turned out, unbeknownst to anyone, he didn’t mention this on the stand on Friday, that he tried to sell his story first in 1991, and no one wanted it! He also, listen to this, he also, after his was fired from working at Neverland, tried to come back and infiltrate Neverland for the National Enquirer, for Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding to Larry Fortesnki in 1991!

Matt Drudge: That was that “Course of Miracles” wedding. Right.

Roger Friedman: Yeah, but what you have is, you like a bunch of people who worked at Neverland…………..Neverland must have like the worst personnel manual in any business! It’s a bunch of thieves who’ve come and gone, sold stories about Michael, they’ve been mistreated, granted, it’s not been a great personnel policy at Neverland, but I’ve never seen a group of employees with so much venom, all just coming to work there, simply to see if they can break their confidentiality agreement later!

Matt Drudge: But the pedestrian is left thinking “something is going on there, too many people are saying all this, we have Michael admitting to sleeping with the kids”, even though he’s not being charged with that as a crime, sexual molestation is the crime, and that should be denoted11, so you can understand why there is so much momentum against Michael Jackson at this hour, because the coverage has not been as detailed as you’ve been offering.

Roger Friedman: I’m tired of hearing the expression “where there’s smoke, there’s fire12”, because if that were the case, there’d be a lot of convictions in this country.  I’m not sure what Michael Jackson did, but if I were the jury, and I’m listening to this, I’d say that there’s reasonable doubt.

Matt Drudge: Also, there is a gap of 10 years when Sneddon doesn’t have anything doing anything, the recent 10 years, up to Gavin, and I wonder what happened in those 10 years? Why didn’t anyone come forward? Why

is it just there this sort of cluster activity around these employees who, as you’ve said, now owe Michael Jackson money, where is 10 years in the life of Neverland Ranch where nobody, NOBODY, where’s that?

Roger Friedman: In fact, the real test of these extraordinary National Enquirer tape recordings that Baressi has, I said to someone at the National Enquirer just the other day, I said “Listen, in 12 years you’ve dangled millions of dollars in front of anyone who will come forward, and no one came forward13, and they said “We agree, finally”. And even the tabloids……… you notice the National Enquirer has not written a word about this case so far, they’ve stayed away from it completely….

Matt Drudge: Because they know these witnesses are damaged goods, that’s what they’re really doing.

Roger Friedman: The witnesses are damaged goods, and they know there’s nothing there, and there were no other kids!

Matt Drudge: Alright, we’ve just got a short time left, Roger Friedman from Fox News, you’re sitting there in the courtroom, why isn’t the mother testifying? Why isn’t the mother calling this “Janet Jackson” to get nasty on the stand? She’s a key witness. Where is she?

Roger Friedman: Well, that’s a good question. Presumably, she’s the last witness….

He’ll finish it off with a cherry on top!

Roger Friedman: She’s an unreliable witness, and if she starts to tell a story about being kidnapped, the defense is ready, to show receipts from her “kidnapping” , and you and I would like to be kidnapped just nicely!

Matt Drudge: OK! Let’s go get kidnapped! Roger Friedman, hate to cut you off there, we’ll see you in your column tomorrow, thanks a lot!

There he is, an eyewitness in the court who is taking a little bit of a different approach from some of these other, shall we say, “women”, anchor women who have already convicted Michael Jackson, judge and jury.  It’s Drudge on Sunday night.

Analysis

1. “Well, the mother has said through a press release that she left the courtroom during the molestation trial last week to use the restroom!” This is one of the biggest lies that was perpetuated during the trial, and it shows how desperate the media was to pounce on any tiny, little tidbit of information and sensationalize it for their agenda. Katherine Jackson left the courtroom to merely use the restroom, and didn’t return in time and was prohibited from re-entering, and Grace and her goons lied and reported that she left to avoid hearing the “graphic testimony” of the accusers. What a joke! This is how bottom-feeders operate; this is the M.O.!  This is undeniable proof of their deliberate and malicious intent to slant the coverage in favor of the prosecution and convict MJ in the so-called “court of public opinion”.

Here is the text of Katherine Jackson’s statement regarding her leaving the courtroom:

2. “He went through a lot of different pitches with people like the LeMarques, and a lot of the other witnesses who’ve come on to testify for the prosecution.” Here’s a little background history on Phillip and Stella Lemarque, taken from the “HIStory vs. EVANstory” post:

After the Filipino couple, Philippe and Stella Lemarque (ex-Neverland employees who were fired in 1991) crawled out and contacted former porn star Paul Baressi to help them sell their stories and make the negotiations for them. Stella was dating Baressi prior to her marriage, and knew his connections to tabloids. They sold their story (describing Culkin’s fondling by Jackson) to a British tabloid for $100,000, and when the price became $500,000 the story changed. At the time the Lemarques had a $455,000 debt. The child star would discredit them and would later defend Michael Jackson in his 2005 trial. He is the godfather of Prince and Paris Jackson, and he spoke in Michael’s defense on Larry King Live on May 24, 2004. Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit Culkin called the Lemarques a “predator pair”. Mr. Culkin not only discredited them, like his son, but he also said something that was corroborated by all the other parents and Neverland staff: that there were always parents present having access everywhere in the house and also the staff was looking after the kids.  Baressi was recording the couple as they were making up stories according to the price. He would later explain in detail how he manipulated the media by involving the authorities so he could sound more credible and ask for a better price. He admitted that he didn’t care if the story was true, as long as he had a good percentage from the deal, and he was giving different versions of the fictional story to tabloids to decide which fairy-tale they liked more. The Lemarques had a long history of cashing in on Michael Jackson, and they were negotiating with the National Enquirer in 1991 to sell stories for Jackson, such as Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding at Neverland. They even asked the tabloid to cover their expenses if Jackson sued them. Philippe Lemarque later ran a porn site called Virtual Sin.

Let’s look at what Macauley Culkin’s father Kit had to say about the Lemarque’s in his 2005 book “Lost Boy”. From pages 55-57:

As to the scavenger fish: A word (a personal word) if I may. Some years back (in fact, nearly a dozen years ago), a magazine article was handed me that purported to be an expose on how tabloids often get their stories (those tabloids who actually do “get” their stories; which is to say, actually do have a source, named or unnamed). I didn’t read the whole piece, just that section (pointed out to me) that had to do with my son Mack. In it the article noted that there was a married couple, once employed at Neverland as chefs, who were busy peddling a story to the tabloids that had to do with their eye-witnessing an encounter of a sexual nature between Michael Jackson and this son of mine; this, not so incidentally, at just the time when the press was all over the 1993 allegations. For $20,000 (or possibly it was $200,000) Michael’s hand would be witnessed by this conspiring couple as on Mack’s knee, while for $50,000 (or possibly it was $500,000) Michael’s hand would be witnessed as in Mack’s pants; and, almost needless to say, for no dollars at all Michael’s hand would be witnessed as clearly nowhere to be seen.

I was by this time, you should know, becoming rather thick-skinned (certainly as thick-skinned as I was able, given my position and the circumstances) about the fourth estate’s reporting on my young son’s “sexual exploits” (“sexual exploits” with everyone-and-anything from Raquel Welch to the next door neighbor’s dog), so I merely tossed the magazine (in disgust) away. I only raise this portion of its contents here to give some first hand and quite just example as to how greed will have its day, and to suggest further that if rapaciousness such as this is not to be considered a lethiferous drink in-and-of-itself (the gin of it), of how it can then most certainly, when mixed with the very possible and even probable element of personal resentment and former employee disgruntlement (the vermouth of it), come to be considered (the ‘shaken or stirred’ of it) a most mortuous potion indeed (the grand martini of it).

Imagine getting paid (and getting paid handsomely) to get even with your former boss!

Have we died and gone to heaven?!

I feel that I need here mention the story of the chefs trying to sell their stories oh-so-many years ago for quite personal reasons because (low and behold) if the male half of this predatory pair didn’t resurface only recently (and after all these years) to give witness for the prosecution in the current court proceedings. Went into that courtroom, he did, and told the $50,000 (or possibly it was the $500,000) account of what it was that he had witnessed so many years past. Yes indeed he did. And not only this, but apparently told the court also that unlike the other eye-witnesses to various things in these proceedings, he had never sold his story to the tabloids (Such was certainly the claim made to the press outside the courtroom immediately following the testimony by the man’s attorney; a rather sleazy-looking fellow who refused to take questions).

Now I haven’t really been following the current case all that closely, but (believe you me) I did look up a television set for this part of the trial. Most of the reporters and other t.v. talking heads seemed to accept this chefs testimony at face value (or, at least, so it seemed to me), but there was one (I couldn’t help but note) who had actually, and quite happily, done some homework; homework which only backed-up what I remembered reading years ago. According to this reporting, after being cashiered at Neverland, and after the original/1993 allegations against Michael had surfaced, this unbashful brace of up-to-no-goods had approached a close friend or relative or theirs with their varying 

stories and their list of varying prices; a friend or relative whom they had had reason to believe had connections with the news media. The good news for the couple was that he did. The bad news was that they were double-crossed. The close friend or relative, instead of acting as the agent for their stories, gave both them and their stories up in the selling of his own story, which was (of course) as to how they had come to him with theirs; hence, what I had read years previously. The reason that the chef had never sold his story to the tabloids is that he had been quite publicly exposed, and no longer had a story to sell; not, that is, until the prosecutor in this current case called him as a state’s witness, and in so doing helped to restore the perception of his credibility. And no doubt just in time, for (according to more homework from this reporter) the chefs had apparently fallen on hard times; hard times that have dogged them ever since their departure from Neverland. Exposed for their press fraud and unable to secure any further work as chefs in private homes, they had gone into the pornography business only to find that their profitability in the bedroom only matched that of their profitability in the kitchen. Now, of course, and courtesy of his association with the district attorney in the present case, the story will (as I must say again) be given new life; a new life that will undoubtedly translate into the tabloid deals that the couple were all these years denied, and which should now carry them over the rough spots to the day of their next seedy scam.

Let me here (if I might) interpose a question: Why did the prosecutor, when he was first told this story by this future witness, not immediately get in touch with Macauiay (even if he need subpoena him to do so) and ask him as to whether or not any of this was true? Was this of no interest to him? After all, as chief officer of the court, wasn’t it first and foremost his sworn duty to get at the truth? As an analogy: Suppose that a witness goes to the police and reports that he has just witnessed a certain person hold up a bank. Before making an arrest, wouldn’t the police first want to go to the bank to see as to whether or not it had in fact actually been held up?!

As to the actual story that the chef told, I found it a bit curious that he should have witnessed the molestation which he said that he witnessed in the process of delivering to Michael some food that Michael had just ordered. Knowing that food is on the way, would this be the time and the place that one chooses to commit such a crime? If one were intent upon committing a rape in one’s hotel room, would one commit that rape just after having ordered room service?! (an inapt comparison perhaps, as in the chefs account there wasn’t even the protection of a hotel room door; this supposed delivery being made to the quite open and very public club house-turned-video arcade).

And before we leave this subject, let me here inquire as to whether or not it is too much to ask as to why, when this “eye-witness” actually witnessed what he said that he witnessed, he didn’t immediately confront Michael; and as to why it was also that (for whatever reason or reasons there may be) he didn’t then immediately call the police and/or contact children’s protective services and/or come to me (for I was most certainly there); and as to why it was also that (over and above this), if he was indeed worried about losing his job with this (by his very own witness) child molester in this den of pedophilia, he didn’t then make any-and-all of these communications clandestinely. Had he witnessed a murder, would he have proved any less diffident?! In some states it is considered a crime (as well it should be) to not come forward with such witness, just as in not a few states ‘Good Samaritan’ laws are being passed to make it a crime to merely turn one’s head and walk away and not want to get involved, for in the name of all that is good, to do otherwise would be nothing more or nothing less than depraved indifference (Let me repeat that word: Depraved). Yes indeed, is it too much to ask why this mountain of moral rectitude only thought to report on that which he only quite subsequently said that he witnessed when he thought there to be a perfect mountain of money on the table?!

3. “They will tell you about how the National Enquirer dangled hundreds of thousands of dollars in front of everyone to get them to say that Michael Jackson molested a kid or did anything inappropriate.” Here is a perfect example of the checkbook journalism that Friedman is talking about:  in 1993, the National Enquirer tracked down a former acquaintance of the Jackson family named Ronald Newt Sr.  He and his twin sons Robert and Ronald Jr. stayed at the Hayvenhurst compound in 1985 for two weeks.  Joe, Katherine, Michael, Janet, and Latoya Jackson were all residing there at that time.

After the scandal hit the airwaves, the National Enquirer essentially had a bounty on finding any other “victims” of MJ, and they actively sought any and everyone who had ever met MJ, hoping to be the first tabloid to break the “bombshell” news that there is another victim.  So to make a long story short, they offered Ronald Newt Sr. a whopping $200k dollars to say that his boys were molested!!  Coming from a poor background, he contemplated the offer (after all, he’s only human!), but then rejected it outright.

If you have any doubts as to the vicious, malicious, and heinous motives of the tabloids, then this quote will remove that doubt! From Robert Newt, who was 18 years old in December 1993 when he was offered the money to lie:

“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told ushe took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.’”

That comment should send chills down your spine, because it exposes the tabloids (and the people who plagiarize them, like Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth) for the ruthless, lying, blood sucking, cold-hearted, demonic people that they are. Instead of offering that $200k to somebody to lie and put an innocent man in prison, why not donate that money to organizations that help survivors of child abuse? Oh, that’s right, it’s because they don’t have a heart, or a conscience, and they couldn’t care less about child abuse survivors!

The good thing that came out of this story, after nobody accepted their blood money, is when the editor of the Enquirer said “maybe there aren’t any other kids”. Gee, you think?

Another piece of good news that I’d like to report here is that the publisher of Enquirer has recently filed for bankruptcy!  They claim that they will still continue to publish this trash rag, but let’s hope for its demise anyway.

4. “I don’t buy the theory that because he settled out of court that he couldn’t bring charges . Bogus! That’s just bogus!” This is certainly one of the biggest myths that has plagued MJ’s legacy since 1993: that he “bought” his way out of jail by settling the Chandler’s civil lawsuit. As Drudge clearly states in this quote, that idea is bogus! Just bogus!

In order to understand exactly the legal ramifications of what happened in 1993, you have to know the basic fundamentals of criminal and civil law. For example, if a math teacher told you that a circle has 375 degrees, would you believe them? No! Because everyone knows that a circle is only 360 degrees, whether you’re a geometry whiz or not! Similarly, if a chemist told you that the chemical composition of water is H1O, you’d laugh in that person’s face because water consists of H2O! That same logic applies to law; if some legal “analyst” tries to tell you that MJ “paid off” the Chandlers and Francia, you should immediately disregard them, despite their educational credentials, because they’re lying!

I included a lengthy but detailed explanation about the difference between civil and criminal law in this post about the media’s lies regarding MJ’s settlements. Please read the “Civil Law vs. Criminal Law” section at the beginning to learn the basic fundamentals of law, and how it is impossible to “buy” your freedom!

5. “The grand jury concluded that there was no case!”  Similar to civil law and criminal law, it is important to realize the difference between a preliminary hearing and a grand jury proceeding, in order to get a complete grasp of how weak Sneddon’s case was, despite his desperate “grasping for straws” strategy that backfired at every angle. Here is the difference between the two hearings:

When a felony case is initiated in court it must first go through a probable cause determination before the matter can be set for trial.  There are two different forms in which this can occur.

The first is called a grand jury; this is where the prosecution presents the case to a group of citizens outside the presence of the defendant and the grand jurors are asked to determine whether probable cause exists based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecution.  If the grand jury finds probable cause they return an indictment which then becomes the charging document in that particular case.

Alternatively a felony charge can be initiated through a preliminary hearing, which is conducted in a manner very similar to that of a trial; however, during a preliminary hearing there is no jury, rather a judge is the fact finder and the burden of proof is much lower than that ordinarily required at a criminal trial.  At a criminal trial when a person could potentially be imprisoned if convicted our constitution requires that the prosecution provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt before that can occur.  During a preliminary hearing however the prosecution is required only to demonstrate that probable cause exists for the case to move forward in the court system.  If a preliminary hearing is held and the judge finds probable cause the state is permitted to file a document called an information which would be used as the charging document throughout the remainder of that case.

Because felony cases involving indictments are initiated through the grand jury, where neither the defendant nor the defense attorney are present, the prosecutor has special obligations to present the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and present evidence that is clearly exculpatory, meaning that it tends to show that the person accused is not guilty.  If the prosecutor fails to present the evidence to the grand jury in this manner the case could be remanded to the grand jury for a re‑determination of probable cause.

If not one, but freakin’ TWO grand juries refused to indict MJ in 1994, what does that say about Sneddon’s and Garcetti’s case?  And let me clear up this misconception that was exploited by our adversary: yes, the grand jurors voted and REFUSED to indict MJ! They were not “investigative” grand jurors, as Sneddon referred to them in 2005!  Please read this post for more information and fact-checking of the grand jury proceedings of 1994.

And did you notice in that last paragraph the part about prosecutors having a special obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jurors? Notice it said it’s an OBLIGATION, not a recommendation! Do you think Sneddon showed the grand jurors in 2004 any exculpatory evidence! Hell no!  For a complete summary of the egregious examples of proscutorial misconduct that took place, please read Mesereau’s NOTICE OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT!  At 212 pages long, it’s practically a book! That should tell you about Sneddon’s unprofessional tactics!

Here is what Mesereau had to say at the November 2005 Harvard Law School seminar about his conversation with a grand juror from 1994:

He had convened a grand jury in the early 90’s to try to get an indictment, and he failed.    The grand jury met for approximately six months, and would not charge Michael Jackson with anything!  And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently, from Los Angeles.  She was on a Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time, and they had real problems with these accusations.  And real problems with a sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges.  So he failed to get an indictment in the early 90s.

6. And you have one witness who said “Alright. I lied about everything!” The witness Friedman is referring to is the one and only Adrian McManus, one of the infamous “Neverland 5”.  She was fired from Neverland for theft prior to the allegations, and then sold lies to the tabloids about witnessing MJ molest young boys, including Macaulay Culkin.  Former employee Francine Contreras testified against McManus’ character by describing the display at McManus’ home of pilfered items from Neverland, including toys that were meant to be given to needy children! Have you no shame, Adrian? How low can you go?

Here is an excerpt from her cross-examination during the 2005 trial, where she is asked specifically about admitting to Prosecutor Ron Zonen about lying in a 1994 deposition. Try to keep a straight face while reading this garbage! I know it’s hard, but give it a try!:

25 Q. Did Prosecutor Zonen discuss with you last

26 night what you were going to say if confronted with

27 this sworn deposition in trial?

28 A. No. 5374

1 Q. Did the issue of what you had said under

2 oath in the Chandler deposition ever come up during

3 the three hours you spent last night with Government

4 Prosecutor Zonen?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Do you remember being asked under

7 oath in that deposition if you ever saw Jordie

8 Chandler‟s clothes at the ranch?

9 A. I believe that I do recall that.

10 Q. Do you remember saying that you saw his

11 mother bring them into Mr. Jackson‟s room in a

12 suitcase?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you remember being asked questions by

15 Mr. Feldman about the alarm system in Mr. Jackson‟s

16 room?

17 A. I don‟t recall that.

18 Q. Remember telling him, “People like to kill

19 celebrities, so you have to be careful with your

20 life”?

21 A. I don‟t recall that.

22 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if

23 I show you that portion of your deposition?

24 A. Sure.

25 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

26 THE WITNESS: Okay.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

28 review that page? 5375

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

3 you said under oath to Mr. Feldman on that subject?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You did say, “When you‟re a celebrity, you

6 live a different life than regular people. I mean,

7 people like to kill celebrities, so, you know, he

8 has to be careful, you know, with his life.” And

9 then —

10 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as to

11 hearsay, reading from a deposition that‟s not

12 inconsistent with current testimony.

13 THE COURT: Sustained.

14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, are you telling the

15 jury that throughout this deposition you committed

16 perjury?

17 MR. ZONEN: Objection; calls for a legal

18 conclusion.

19 MR. MESEREAU: I believe it was raised on

20 direction examination by the prosecutor, Your Honor.

21 MR. ZONEN: Not issues of perjury.

22 THE COURT: I‟ll sustain the objection to

23 the question as phrased.

24 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

25 Q. You told Prosecutor Zonen that you

26 repeatedly lied under oath in that deposition,

27 correct?

28 A. Are you — what are you talking about? 5376

1 Q. When Prosecutor Zonen asked you some

2 questions today in court, remember that?

3 A. Okay, yes.

4 Q. He asked you if you had lied under oath in

5 the Chandler deposition, right?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. You said you did, right?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you know how many times you lied under

10 oath in the Chandler deposition?

11 A. I believe the whole time I did not tell the

12 truth on that.

13 Q. Did you believe you were committing a crime

14 when you did that?

15 A. I really didn‟t. I really didn‟t think of

16 it that way.

17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: So far, you‟ve 

18 admitted you lied under oath in the Chandler

19 deposition for what, a day?

20 A. Well, throughout that — throughout that

21 deposition, yes.

22 Q. And Judge St. John found that you lied in

23 that trial, right?

24 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

25 argumentative.

26 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the jury found you

28 didn‟t tell the truth in your suit against Mr. 5377

1 Jackson, right?

2 MR. ZONEN: Objection. Asked and answered;

3 and argumentative.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 Mr. Mesereau, a few questions back, after

6 you refreshed her recollection with the transcript

7 about “you‟re a celebrity,” I sustained an

8 objection, and I was incorrect.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

10 THE COURT: Do you want to reask that

11 question? I‟ll reverse my ruling on that.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: So what had happened is she‟d

14 refreshed her recollection, and then you wanted

15 to —

16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

17 THE COURT: Go ahead.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember I showed

19 you the page of the deposition about what you said

20 about “people try to kill celebrities”?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did that refresh your recollection about

23 what you said on that issue under oath?

24 A. I believe so.

25 Q. Okay. And as you recall, what did you say

26 under oath on that issue?

27 MR. ZONEN: Objection; irrelevant.

28 THE COURT: Overruled. 5378

1 THE WITNESS: I forgot.

2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would it refresh your

3 recollection if I show it to you again?

4 A. Yes.

5 THE COURT: What I‟m going to do is let you

6 read it to her. That‟s what I stopped you from

7 doing. And I‟ll allow you to do it.

8 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: And he‟s going to ask you if

10 this is —

11 You ask her.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. All right.

14 Q. Ms. McManus, this is what you said under

15 oath: “But you have to understand now, when you‟re

16 a celebrity, you live a different life than regular

17 people. I mean, people like to kill celebrities, 

18 so, you know, he has to be careful, you know, with

19 his life, and that little sensor benefits him for

20 his life.”

21 Remember saying that?

22 A. I believe so.

23 Q. Okay. Now, you weren‟t lying when you said

24 that, were you?

25 A. No.

Notice how she oh so casually admitted to lying throughout the entire deposition, but didn’t think it was a crime? What do you expect from someone who steals toys that were meant for underprivileged children? But fortunately for MJ, she was telling the truth regarding his bedroom alarms, which would help vindicate him against Star Arvizo’s claims of walking in and seeing MJ abuse Gavin.  Larry Nimmer’s incredible documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland” shows the incredible test that he performed on the alarm systems to prove that they worked, and MJ would have heard if someone was approaching his room.

7. “He couldn’t remember the fact that he had been one of five people who sued Michael Jackson in 1995 and lost, and owed him now $1.6 million dollars!”  This is so self-explanatory that I think we should just go straight to the official court transcript!  Here is an excerpt of the cross examination of Neverland 5 member and chronic amnesia sufferer Ralph Chacon! Once again, try to keep your laughter to a minimum!

8 Q. I‟d like to ask you a few questions about

9 that lawsuit you lost. That was the longest civil

10 trial in the history of Santa Maria, right?

11 A. I don‟t know, sir.

12 Q. It went about six months, didn‟t it?

13 A. I believe so, yes, sir.

14 Q. You sued Mr. Jackson and you wanted $16

15 million, right?

16 A. Well, I don‟t know about the 16 million.

17 Q. You wanted millions, true?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Really?

20 A. Well, I don‟t know, sir. Whatever our

21 attorney was — he‟s the one who was speaking for

22 us.

23 Q. Okay. We‟ll get into that.

24 You sued Mr. Jackson claiming you were

25 wrongfully terminated, right?

26 A. That‟s correct, sir.

27 Q. He sued you claiming you had stolen property

28 from him, true? 5202

1 A. That‟s correct, sir.

2 Q. The jury found you were not wrongfully

3 terminated by Mr. Jackson, correct?

4 A. But we were, sir.

5 Q. Answer my question, please. Did the Santa

6 Maria jury find you were not wrongfully terminated

7 by Mr. Jackson?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. And they also found you had stolen property

10 from Mr. Jackson, correct?

11 A. But I didn‟t, sir.

12 Q. Did the Santa Maria jury find you had stolen

13 property from Mr. Jackson?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr.

16 Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had

17 stolen, correct?

18 A. For candy bars, sir?

19 Q. A judgment was entered against you for

20 $25,000, the value of what the Court found you had

21 stolen, correct?

22 A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much,

23 yes, sir.

24 Q. That‟s not all you owe Mr. Jackson

25 currently, is it?

26 A. No, sir. I don‟t owe him.

27 Q. In fact, Judge Zel Canter of this court,

28 entered a judgment against you and your 5203

1 co-defendants for $1,473,117.61, correct?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. He ordered you pay all of Mr. Jackson‟s

4 legal fees and costs, correct?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Have you ever paid any of that judgment, Mr.

7 Chacon?

8 A. No, sir. I filed bankruptcy.

9 Q. Now, the jury found you not only stole from

10 Mr. Jackson, but you acted maliciously, correct?

11 A. No, sir.

12 Q. Did a judge find you had acted with malice?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Is there a judgment against you for acting

15 with fraud against Mr. Jackson?

16 A. That I know of, no, sir.

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look

18 at the judgment?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

21 THE COURT: Yes.

22 THE WITNESS: Okay.

23 Oh, it‟s there, sir. I didn‟t know. Yes,

24 sir.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

26 look at that judgment, Mr. Chacon?

27 A. Do you mean right now?

28 Q. Yes. 5204

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. There is not only a judgment against you in

3 favor of Mr. Jackson —

4 MR. SNEDDON: Wait a minute. I‟m going to

5 object. He asked to refresh his recollection. He

6 should ask him if it did.

7 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.

8 THE COURT: That‟s correct.

9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

10 look at the judgment against you, Mr. Chacon?

11 A. I looked at that, yes, sir. But I don‟t

12 remember it.

13 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that

14 there‟s a judgment against you for fraud and

15 malice —

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. — in favor of Mr. Jackson?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. You never heard of that before?

20 A. Well, probably, but I don‟t remember.

21 Q. After a six-month trial, you don‟t remember?

22 A. Well, it‟s been 12 years also, sir, or so.

23 Q. Do you remember stipulating and agreeing

24 that you had personally acted with fraud, oppression

25 and malice against Mr. Jackson?

26 A. Probably so, sir.

27 Q. You did that, didn‟t you?

28 A. No, sir. 5205

 

1 Q. You didn‟t stipulate that you had acted with

2 fraud, oppression, and malice against Mr. Jackson in

3 that case?

4 A. Well, yes, sir.

5 Q. After a six-month trial, this is a good way

6 to get even with him, isn‟t it?

7 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative. Object, Your

8 Honor. Move to strike.

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you have any motive

11 today, sir, to get even with Mr. Jackson?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Do you remember telling a therapist you‟d

14 rather get a million dollars from Mr. Jackson than

15 work?

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. Do you remember being evaluated by a Ph.D.

18 named Dr. Scott Gorsuch?

19 A. I don‟t recall, sir.

20 Q. Do you recall being evaluated by a therapist

21 in that lawsuit?

22 A. Probably at one point, but I don‟t recall

23 it, sir.

24 Q. Who was your lawyer in that case?

25 A. Mr. Ring from Santa Barbara.

26 Q. Do you remember, in response to being called

27 a malinger, you said, “I‟d like just a million from 

28 Mr. Jackson”? 5206

 

1 A. That‟s not true, sir.

2 Q. Never happened?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Do you recall making statements you didn‟t

5 want to work again?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Okay. After you left Mr. Jackson, you filed

8 for disability, didn‟t you?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You weren‟t disabled, were you?

11 A. I think it was just unemployment, wasn‟t it?

12 Q. Did you file for disability, Mr. Chacon,

13 after you left Mr. Jackson‟s employment?

14 A. It was unemployment, I believe it was.

15 Q. Okay. You had a deposition taken in that

16 case under oath, correct?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And that was not the first time you had ever

19 been deposed, correct?

20 A. I don‟t understand, sir, what you‟re saying.

21 Q. You had had your deposition taken in

22 lawsuits before that one, true?

23 A. No, sir. Not that I recall.

24 Q. That was the first deposition you‟d ever had

25 taken that you recall?

26 A. In my life?

27 Q. Yes.

28 A. Yes, sir. 5207

1 Q. Okay. Do you remember being asked if you

2 were aware that your attorney wanted $16 million for

3 you from Mr. Jackson and you said you understood

4 that?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show

7 you a page from your deposition?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: Where does it say 16 million?

12 Oh, okay, I see that.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

14 look at that page of your deposition?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Remember you said you were aware that your

17 lawyer had asked for 16 million?

18 MR. SNEDDON: I‟m going to ask that counsel

19 be directed to ask whether it refreshes his

20 recollection before he reads.

21 MR. MESEREAU: I‟m sorry. I will withdraw

22 the question.

23 Q. Have you looked at that deposition?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. You were under oath at the time, correct?

26 A. Yes, sir.

27 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

28 admitted you knew your lawyer had asked for $16 5208

 

1 million?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. In fact, you said you didn‟t think 16

4 million was enough, correct?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

7 show you your deposition?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: That‟s on there.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

13 look at that page?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

16 didn‟t think $16 million was enough to you?

17 A. No, sir, I don‟t.

18 Q. You didn‟t say that?

19 A. No, I mean, I don‟t — now I see it‟s

20 written down there, yes, sir.

Absolutely pathetic! Sneddon had the audacity to call this tabloid reject as a witness against Michael Jackson? And to put the icing on the cake, and demonstrate just how sleazy and corrupt not only the Neverland 5 were, but their lawyer Michael Ring as well, take a look at the major offenses he committed, and the punishment that was meted out to him by the court! From the Kentucky New Era newspaper on March 15th, 1997:

Lawyer in Jackson suit fined

A lawyer suing Michael Jackson was fined $28,350 for hiding evidence from the singer’s lawyers during pretrial fact-finding.

The lawyer, Michael Ring, represents five former employees at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in Santa Maria, CA., who claim they were harassed and wrongfully fired. He was fined $10,000 previously for concealing facts.

Superior Court Judge Zel Canter also fined the former workers $1,500 each for colluding with Ring and being evasive when asked about the evidence, which involved interviews they gave to two writers.

The workers claim they lied to a grand jury that investigated child molestation accusations against Jackson after being threatened by his bodyguards.

Prosecutors investigated the allegations against Jackson in 1993, but never brought charges. The accuser refused to cooperate after receiving a reported $15 million settlement from Jackson, who denied the accusations.

Wow! So this scumbag Michael Ring was fined a total of $38,350 dollars for committing the two most common and egregious forms of prosecutorial misconduct: concealing facts and hiding evidence! And they were fined $1,500 each for colluding with him! That shows that they acted with malice and forethought to file a frivolous lawsuit and try to win a huge settlement from MJ.  After reading that article, there should be no doubts in your mind – as if there were any to begin with – that the Neverland 5 lawsuit was a total sham.

One thing that jumped out at me was the fact that they gave interviews to two “writers”. I would bet my life savings that the two “writers” that they granted interviews to were none other than Maureen Orth and Victor Gutierrez! Those two hacks are the only people on earth who would give the time of day to the Neverland 5! They have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get salacious information for their slanderous books and articles, and they have both proven that when it comes to bringing down MJ, they will leave no stone unturned. As a matter of fact, Chacon actually admitted to speaking with Gutierrez in 1994!

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

Read this post for more information about how the Neverland 5 were “inspired” by Victor Gutierrez!!

8.”Jurors were laughing and snickering.”  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s actually true! Some of the jurors literally laughed out loud at the testimony of Jason Francia!  I will briefly discuss his cross-examination here, but for a complete summary of not only his testimony, but that of his mother Blanca and his attorney Kris Kallman, please read this post, where is refuted the notion that they were paid for their “silence”.

13 Q. How old were you when you claim Mr. Jackson

14 first tickled you improperly?

15 A. Seven and a half the first time.

16 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as vague

17 when we‟re referring to the claim or the tickling.

18 MR. MESEREAU: I think I was — I‟ll

19 rephrase it if the Court wants me to. I think I was

20 clear.

21 THE COURT: The objection‟s overruled. The

22 answer was given.

23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you telling the jury

24 that at some point — excuse me. Let me start

25 again.

26 As of today, you‟re telling this jury you‟ve

27 never told your mother what you claim Mr. Jackson

28 did to you, right? 4852

1 A. I believe in counseling. I never told her

2 specifics on — that I was molested, but I did in

3 counseling tell her that I was molested.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. But it was in — shoot. It was a crying

6 time for —

7 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking you about the details.

8 Just answer my questions.

9 A. It was just hard for me to remember because

10 I was crying.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. So — I was young, and I was 14 or 15.

13 Q. So when you told the jury earlier that you

14 never told your mother about this, that wasn‟t true,

15 right?

16 A. I‟m sorry, I probably spoke quickly.

17 Q. So when you told that to the jury, that was

18 not really correct, right?

19 MR. ZONEN: I‟m going to object as vague.

20 What is “not,” or “that”?

21 THE COURT: The objection‟s overruled.

22 I‟ll have the court reporter read the

23 question back to you.

24 THE WITNESS: Okay.

25 (Record read.)

26 THE WITNESS: And when I told “that” being —

27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase it.

28 When you told the jury, in response to the 4853 

1 prosecutor‟s questions, that you had never told your

2 mother you were molested, that wasn‟t true, right?

3 A. I was mistaken.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. Okay. In fact, you had told your mother

7 that you were molested, right?

8 A. Yeah, I must have misunderstood his question

9 with the — with the details of it. I never told my

10 mom that I was molested three times by Michael

11 Jackson. My mom, I don‟t even think to this day,

12 knows that I was molested three times and the

13 specifics of it. If she does, then she does, and

14 that sucks.

15 Q. Your mother went on the T.V. show Hard Copy

16 in the early „90s, right?

17 A. Okay. I —

18 Q. Do you know if that‟s true?

19 A. She was on Hard Copy.

20 Q. She was on Hard Copy in 1993, was she not?

21 A. If you told me „94, I‟d agree. I don‟t

22 know. I don‟t know the exact year. I do not.

23 Q. Are you telling the jury that before your

24 mother went on Hard Copy, you never discussed what

25 you claim Mr. Jackson did to you with your mother?

26 A. Yeah, I‟m pretty sure that I never told my

27 mom that he molested me before Hard Copy.

28 Q. And before sheriffs came to talk to you for 4854

1 the first time, had you told anyone that you had

2 been molested by Michael Jackson?

3 A. I don‟t think so, no.

4 Q. They just kind of came one day and surprised

5 you?

6 (Laughter.)

7 A. Yeah.

8 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.

9 (To the audience) I‟m not going to put up

10 with that.

11 THE WITNESS: Thanks.

12 THE COURT: If there‟s any laughing again,

13 I‟ll remove people from the courtroom.

14 Go ahead, Counsel.

15 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

16 Q. You have — you all right?

17 A. Yeah. I was just a little tense. Sorry.

18 Q. You have reviewed the tape and transcript of

19 your first interview with the sheriffs, correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And when did you review that interview?

22 A. Like when did I listen to the tapes again?

23 Is that what you‟re asking?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Sunday.

26 Q. And how did you get the tape?

27 A. Chris – I don‟t know his last name – gave

28 them to me. 4855

1 Q. Is that the lawyer?

2 A. No. He‟s not a lawyer, I don‟t think.

3 Q. Is he a sheriff?

4 A. It‟s a tall man.

5 Q. Is he a sheriff?

6 A. I don‟t know. I believe so.

7 Q. How did you run into him?

8 A. I met him when I met all these gentlemen.

9 Q. The prosecutors?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. So Chris was with the prosecutors

12 when you met them last, right?

13 A. I‟m sorry?

14 Q. Chris was with the prosecutors when you

15 spoke to the prosecutors, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And Chris gave you a tape of your interview

18 from 1993, correct?

19 A. I believe that‟s the year, yes.

20 Q. And if you remember, who was at that

21 interview in 1993?

22 A. I don‟t remember. Two men. Detectives, I

23 believe.

24 Q. And where did it take place?

25 A. I already answered that to him.

26 Q. Would you please answer it again for me?

27 Where did it take place?

28 A. At the sheriff‟s station, or the probation — 4856

1 I think it was the sheriff‟s.

2 Q. Was that in Santa Maria?

3 A. In Orcutt.

4 Q. In Orcutt, okay.

5 You were given a copy of the tape to listen

6 to, right?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. And you were given a transcript of the tape

9 to read, right?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. And you did that, right?

12 A. Yeah.

13 Q. And a Detective Russell Birchim from the

14 Santa Barbara County Sheriff‟s Department was

15 present for that interview, right?

16 A. I don‟t remember his name.

17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

18 show you a copy of the transcript?

19 MR. ZONEN: I‟ll object as to which

20 interview. Talking about the 1993 one, or the

21 recent one where he reviewed the transcript?

22 MR. MESEREAU: I‟m talking about the 1993

23 one.

24 MR. ZONEN: I‟m sorry.

25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let‟s get back to the 1993

26 interview.

27 A. Okay.

28 Q. You have recently reviewed a transcript of 4857

1 that interview, right? 

2 A. In the „93 interview?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. The tape and the transcript?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Have I reviewed them both?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Didn‟t I answer you that already?

9 Q. Would you please clarify it? Because

10 there‟s been some confusion.

11 A. Yes, I have.

12 Q. You have listened to the tape and you‟ve

13 read the transcript, right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. But as you sit here today, you‟re not sure

16 who was at the interview with you in 1993, right?

17 A. I was 13 years old.

18 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

19 you a copy of the transcript with the names of the

20 people who were with you?

21 A. Sure.

22 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

25 THE WITNESS: Okay.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

27 look at that transcript? Mr. Francia, have you had

28 a chance to look at the transcript I just showed 4858

1 you?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Did it refresh your recollection

4 about who was there for that interview?

5 A. Yeah. I just read it. It said Vince and

6 Russell.

7 Q. Vince Neglia and Russell Birchim, right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, did someone tell you to

10 review that transcript before you testified?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Who told you to review that transcript

13 before you testified?

14 A. I‟m under some pressure. Mark — it‟s not

15 Mark. It‟s Russ. I‟m so bad with names.

16 Q. Is it Prosecutor Zonen, who just asked you

17 questions?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. Okay. Did he tell you you‟d be asked

20 questions about that?

21 A. About —

22 Q. What you said in that interview in 1993?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Did he tell you to study it carefully

25 and make sure you knew what you said and didn‟t say,

26 right?

27 A. Actually, he didn‟t say, “Study it

28 carefully.” 4859

1 Q. Did he tell you to read it?

2 A. He told me to review it.

Let’s summarize that exchange between Mesereau and Francia: 1) you can see in the transcript that there was excessive laughter going on in the court after Mesereau asked if the cops came and surprised him by asking him about the molestations (and this shows the total absurdity of his story), 2) Francia had complete amnesia when it came to remembering the two detectives who interviewed him in 1993, and 3) Francia CONFIRMED that the prosecutors showed him his 1993 interview transcript and told him to “review it”, obviously to make sure he kept his story straight! (Which he didn’t!) If Sneddon and Zonen told Jason Francia to review his past interviews, then they certainly must have told the Arvizos to review their past interviews, right? And the amazing thing is that even with all of their “cramming”, both Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo STILL gave contradictory testimonies!

9. “His father gave me an exclusive interview, thank you Daphne Barack  who ripped me off subsequently” Prior to a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Daphne Barack (although I did see her 2004 interview with Joseph and Katherine Jackson, not knowing who she was or the significance of her access to the Jackson family).  But ever since the younger brother of a member of a now defunct 90’s boy band claimed that he was given alcohol and cocaine by Michael Jackson, Barack’s name has been synonymous with sleazy, yellow journalism to readers of this blog!

As so eloquently stated in this post, in 2005 Barack tricked Kit Culkin into thinking that she would help him get a book deal for his book “Lost Boy”, but instead she copied Culkin’s copyrighted material from his book and printed it in the New York Daily News tabloid, giving readers the impression that this was an actual interview between Barack and Culkin!  This is what bothered Friedman so much, because he actually did conduct an interview with Culkin, but Barack stole his thunder by publisher her “interview” with Culkin.

10. “They would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!”  Aprhodite Jones was the first to shed light on the despicable media coverage, and she articulately described this phenomenon iin this promotional trailer for her documentary and book “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, beginning at 3:25:

11. “We have Michael admitting to sleeping with the kids, even though he’s not being charged with that as a crime”:  Here are what two of MJ’s arch-nemeses Tom Sneddon and Nancy Grace have to say about an adult sleeping with a child:

A) In a press release dated February 6th, 2003, Sneddon quoted the California Penal Code sections 288, 647.6, 314.1, and 803(g):

A review of these sections reveals that the act of an adult sleeping with a child without more is insufficient to warrant a filing or support a conviction. I direct your attention to these sections. If you read them you will notice that in each instance they require affirmative, offensive conduct on the part of the perpetrator and a mental state that accompanies any touching that may occur. The mere act of sleeping in the same bed with a child alone without either a touching and the required mental state would not satisfy the statutory requirements. Furthermore, while Section 803(g) allows prosecution of offenses which occurred beyond the statute of limitations, it requires as a prerequisite that the victim initiate the request to investigate by reporting the allegations to law enforcement.

B) As a guest on Larry King Live on February 21, 2003, here’s what Nancy Grace had to say when asked by Larry King if MJ’s conduct was criminal:

Well, absolutely not. Having a child falling asleep in your bed.”

12. “I’m tired of hearing the expressionwhere there’s smoke, there’s fire”.  Let me take this chance to include another shameless plug of my good friend Sean Chai’s new MJ blog, “Smoke Without Fire”, which is a combination of her two previous MJ blogs “The Smoking Room” and “Smoke and Mirrors”.  As I’ve stated before, Sean Chai is one of the foremost experts in the world when it comes to these false allegations, and her research proves it!

13. “Listen, in 12 years you’ve dangled millions of dollars in front of anyone who will come forward, and no one came forward” What does that say about not only the tabloids, but the people who were offered the money? It shows that the tabloids will stop at nothing to bring down MJ with false charges, and it shows that the people who rejected their blood money have a lot of loyalty to MJ, as well as integrity and self-discipline. In addition to Ronald Newt, whose story I included above in Bullet Point #3, or Alfonso Ribeiro (from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air sitcom), who in 1993 described to Geraldo Rivera how his father was offered $100k from a tabloid to lie about MJ!  From “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, page 79:

Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson.

Lately, the tabloid industry has come under fire in the wake of the hacking scandal that has brought the industry down to its knees! In fact, The News of the World tabloid had to shut down in the aftermath of negative publicity!

As a result of this mess, Rev. Catherine Gross has invited journalist and MJ expert Charles Thomson as a guest on her “A Place in Your Heart” radio program, scheduled to air on Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 3:00pm CST.  Thomson will discuss the state of yellow journalism today, and you won’t want to miss it!

Continue here for part 3


Advertisements
82 Comments leave one →
  1. July 16, 2013 10:59 am

    Hi I am so excited I found your blog page, I really found you by accident, while I was
    searching on Yahoo for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks a
    lot for a incredible post and a all round enjoyable
    blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have
    time to look over it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and
    also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time
    I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the awesome jo.

  2. shellywebstere permalink
    April 16, 2012 8:00 pm

    He doesn’t spoke a lot about the 1993 case, he just did an interview with Geraldine Hugues.

  3. shellywebstere permalink
    April 16, 2012 1:32 am

    From Larry Nimmer

    ” I think Gavin Arvizo is a broken young man now, to the best of my understanding and the mom Janet Arvizo, I hear, is semi-unstable. Apparently not too long ago she contacted the Sheriff’s department and they didn’t want to have much to do with her from what I heard second-hand.”

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Larry-Nimmer-Interview.html

    • April 16, 2012 7:57 pm

      Shelly, thank you for the news from the Reflections on the dance blog. I hear for the first time that Larry Nimmer is handling the 1993 case too! Honest people are finally gathering around Michael and we wish Larry Nimmer every success in what he is doing!

      Here is a quote from http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Larry-Nimmer-Interview.html

      DK: With the DVD, what do you hope to achieve with the people that see this?

      LN: I hope to help vindicate Michael. I hope to show people that aren’t sure whether he was a pedophile or not, to show that he really wasn’t. These people made up stories. Some people say “well, the accuser in 2005 was bogus, but what about the $20 million settlement in 1993?….” I go into that story too and show how that family too were opportunists and how they apparently made up their story too. I hope to create a sympathetic reaction for Michael for those who weren’t sure one way or the other that didn’t really follow the trial closely and even though he was found “not guilty” by all the jurors, a lot of people still don’t know if he was guilty or not because of how the media portrayed it. I wanted to show on the DVD how the media can hurt somebody the way they hurt Michael. They can hurt a celebrity or anybody. The motive of the media really is profit. The more sensationalist they make it, the more outrageous they make it, the more people want to watch, and the more money they make from advertising.

      To order Larry Nimmer’s DVD, “Michael Jackson, The Untold Story of Neverland,” visit http://www.nimmer.net

  4. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 2:46 pm

    As for Chacon did he spoke to Gutierrez or not

    “Q. Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

    individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

    that?

    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

    Gutierrez?

    No, sir. 5277
    Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

    A. No, sir.”

    Under cross examination

    Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

    author named Gutierrez?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

    book author named Gutierrez?

    A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

    and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

    the date or the time.

  5. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 1:58 pm

    ““He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said.

    It’s Mc Manus testimony about Barnes, lol and by the way I really wonder what was the subject of the 3 hours discussion she had with Zonen

    “25 Q. Did Prosecutor Zonen discuss with you last

    26 night what you were going to say if confronted with

    27 this sworn deposition in trial?

    28 A. No. 5374

    1 Q. Did the issue of what you had said under

    2 oath in the Chandler deposition ever come up during

    3 the three hours you spent last night with Government

    4 Prosecutor Zonen?

    5 A. No.”

  6. ares permalink
    September 8, 2011 12:15 am

    Does anyone knows if Drudge gave his thoughts or if he commented on MJ’s acquital in 2005?

  7. Alison permalink
    September 2, 2011 2:30 am

    i only just heard about this campaign and its finished! too late to write a letter i think but i just ‘signed’ the online petition so it must still be active to do that. its a campaign from mjjustice to ask the estate to allow larry nimmer to show his documentary ‘The Untold Story of Neverland’ on the TV.

    if you didn’t know about it here is the link:

    http://mjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/neverland-campaign

  8. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:49 pm

    I wish they would also quote what Jennifer Batten said about Simmon’s words!

  9. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:17 pm

    This is the transcript from Showbiz Tonight regarding Gene Simmons:

    Welcome back to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. It is 30 minutes past the hour. I`m Carlos Diaz, in for A.J. Hammer. And right now, SHOWBIZ TONIGHT is breaking big news – did Gene Simmons just call Michael Jackson a child molester again?

    Gene Simmons and Kiss were just forced to pull out of a big Michael Jackson tribute concert his family is putting together after outraged Michael fans around the world pointed out, hey, isn`t that the same guy who said he believed Michael was a child molester?

    SHOWBIZ TONIGHT caught up with Gene in Hollywood and he`s not backing down. Watch what he revealed exclusively to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.

    SIMMONS: Well, I mean, it had to come to that. I refuse to take back my words. I stand by every word I said. I admire the man and his music, not so much the man in his private life.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    DIAZ: Gene, I admire you but, remember, Michael was never found guilty of a single charge of child abuse. With me tonight in New York is attorney Midwin Charles of Midwin Charles and Associates. And from Hollywood tonight, defense attorney Debra Opri.

    Gene Simmons kicked off this whole controversy when he told a rock magazine there had been too many accusations against Michael Jackson for them not to be true.

    Listen to what Gene said, “Where there`s smoke, there`s fire. There`s no question in my mind he molested those kids. Not a doubt.”

    Midwin, is it time for Gene Simmons to just shut up about this? Or is what he is saying what a lot of people still believe?

    MIDWIN CHARLES, ATTORNEY, MIDWIN CHARLES AND ASSOCIATES: Well, I don`t think he should shut up. What he`s saying is what a lot of people still believe. And remember, there were two separate allegations. One resulted in settlement. The second one resulted in a trial.

    So what he`s saying isn`t unorthodox. It`s not unreasonable, given the facts. And he`s entitled to speak his mind.

    DIAZ: Debra Opri, what do you think? Should Gene Simmons leave this alone?

    DEBRA OPRI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I have a little personal vested interest in this, because I represented Katherine and Joe. I adore the family then. I adore them now.

    I believe, out of context, he can make a statement. It`s First Amendment, but how stupid is he to accept an invitation to play at a celebration of Michael and his music? He can`t have it both ways. And I think the fans –

    DIAZ: But, Debra, in all honesty –

    OPRI: Those fans – no, Carlos. The fans – the fans have been the leading, leading key to the success of the Jackson family. And they still cater to the fans and, well, they should because Michael was a very talented musician. And I feel for the family that this happened.

    DIAZ: But Debra, don`t you see the weirdness in what you just said? It was dumb for him to accept the invitation. Wasn`t it dumber, if you will, for them to extend the invitation?

    OPRI: Well, if they didn`t or weren`t aware of his statements prior, it is an oversight. It is not a good oversight, but it was an oversight. And the fans caught it in seconds and they immediately backpedaled.

    So it just tells you who is surrounding Katharine Jackson in terms of the promoters and what they`re doing. I think should fleshed all of this out prior to. Does he ever have the right to make his comments? Yes. But certainly, don`t participate in an event like this after making these statements. You know it`s two-faced.

    DIAZ: All right. We expect more big Michael Jackson news to break tomorrow. There`s another hearing leading up to the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray on charges he was responsible for Michael`s death.

  10. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 8:11 pm

    @kaarin22 – I agree with you. The media and others make it sound as if Michael took Blanket by one hand and swung him over the crowd. It happened for 1 second and he was back in the hotel room with the baby. I get so sick and tired of hearing that and it being called “dangling,” when it was not dangling.

  11. August 26, 2011 7:51 pm

    The s.c. baby dangling has been greatly exaggerated.Just look carefully,
    Michael has his arm and hand fully around Blanket.He did lot move the
    child around as in dangling.And the episode was brief indeed.

  12. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 6:18 pm

    I think Boteach is right on that

    “BOTEACH: Then talk about those things, but not in the way he raised his children. He sequestered his children from public view. He even went to an extreme for which I criticized him. You can`t wear veils but he certainly never exploited them. Never made a buck off of them. Never shoved them in front of cameras.

    So why have they become

    BOTEACH: And by the way, the family — the family then shoved them in front of the world at the funeral which again, Michael would have gotten up from his coffin and objected to that.

  13. Julie permalink
    August 26, 2011 5:40 pm

    Ok, so last night I watched the Joy Behar show because one of the topics had to do with Michael. It was hosted by Don Lemon and his guests were that Rabbi Schmuley and the head of Los Angeles Child and Social Services (someone who knows absolutely nothing about Michael Jackson).

    Here’s the transcript:

    LEMON: There is just a month to go until the start of the Conrad Murray trial and lots of testimony is expected about Michael Jackson`s erratic behavior and prescription drug use. But what impact will those score of details and the high-profile nature of the case have on the Jackson kids?

    Well, Prince, Paris and Blanket that`s who we`re talking about. And here to talk about this, are Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, former spiritual advisor to Michael Jackson and Dr. Charles Sophy, a psychiatrist and medical director for the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

    Ok so thank you both for joining us. Listen, why do you think — have you — have you been in touch with — with the children? And how are they dealing with this upcoming trial, Rabbi?

    RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, FORMER SPIRITUAL ADVISOR TO MICHAEL JACKSON: I have not been in touch with the children since they were children. And to see that they seem to be a little bit up unsupervised in terms of the debates they`re entering into and with people who are disparaging of Michael or their — their lineage. It`s a little bit disturbing because this is — everything about — concerning Michael`s high-profile. And these are kids who need to retain their innocence, their vulnerability.

    Interestingly, Michael`s raison d`etre was to try to proclaim the innocence of a child. It was something he spoke about so often eloquently in the lyrics of his songs and that`s why he was so careful as a father to monitor his children`s progress.

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: But in your observation just as a casual of observer like many of us. Do you think they`ve adjusted?

    BOTEACH: I don`t know as an outsider. What I do know is that there are — whether or not they`ve adjusted to some of the facts of the case, certain things have to proceed. Number one, someone has to be held accountable for what happened to Michael. Whatever actions he took, he`s responsible for and he`s not around unfortunately, he suffered the ultimate consequence.

    But there were people who facilitated his demise. And we`ve seen so many of these celebrities who inspire us but who have handlers around them —

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: Yes.

    BOTEACH: — who are just feeding at the trough and they never turn off the spigots and its judgment day. Because if not we`ll see more Amy Winehouses and more Michael Jacksons — someone has to be held accountable.

    LEMON: And I think you`re saying that — and that the children are going to be exposed, that it doesn`t get better for them until something gets better when it comes to this situation.

    BOTEACH: I`m saying that — that no matter — whether they`re exposed to the aspects of the trial or not, somebody has to pay the price for why Michael had a mountain of pills around him always.

    LEMON: Got you.

    Dr. Sophy, let`s stick with the kids here. It`s been two years since —

    (CROSSTALK)

    DR. CHARLES SOPHY, PSYCHIATRIST: Right.

    LEMON: — since their father died. Do you think this is going to be a setback emotionally for them? Because you know this is going to be all over the place. You`re going to see it everywhere.

    SOPHY: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, they`re in the process of mourning, yes. But this will set them back. They`re going to hear things, they`re going to see things and they`re going to feel things that they really didn`t expect to do.

    So I think the family has to be really wise. They have to really be aware of the fact that these children cannot be exposed, should not be exposed. Making sure that they know there is TVs on in people`s homes and cars and all that kinds of stuff and when they`re with their friends. So being well aware of protecting them because the wound is not healed yet.

    LEMON: Yes and you know — it`s — you`ve — it`s hard to shield children now especially w. the Internet and I mean, and you go to the airport and the television is on. You go into a restaurant, the television is on. Do you think and I know you said someone should — should answer the — the questions, why Michael Jackson had so many drugs around him.

    But do you think with all of these details coming out in the trial, that the children are going to know about it? And — and how much do they already know about their father`s drug use?

    BOTEACH: It`s impossible to sequester these — the children from the information that`s going to flow through every media avenue. And what really needs to be done is to put that — those facts in context.

    LEMON: You think they know now though?

    BOTEACH: Of course they know.

    SOPHY: Of course.

    BOTEACH: And the — and the fact is that Michael, in the conversations that he related to me that became the book of Michael fame, he wanted the world to know about the lonely aspects of fame. He wanted the world to know the level of pain that he`d lived with. Because you have to understand, everybody wants to be loved and Michael felt so demonized and hated.

    And the kids have only heard all of this stuff and it`s never been put into context. I would not sequester them, I would not shield them. I would say to them you father was a very special man who inspired millions of people.

    But by his own admission, he allowed himself to cross certain lines and — and he lived with a lot of emotional pain and he turned to doctors in order to ameliorate that pain when in reality, what you have to — the three of you have to learn but Blanket is probably is too young, but certainly Prince and Paris you have to learn from his original message which is that people have to be a blessing to others and when you feel purposeful, that`s when the pain goes away.

    LEMON: Ok.

    BOTEACH: And it`s not about fame and money.

    LEMON: Ok. Ok. Listen, the kids as you said, they have to know something. But it`s different coming from Katherine or Janet or whoever is telling them about their father.

    BOTEACH: Right. Right.

    LEMON: To hear about it in a courtroom —

    SOPHY: Right.

    LEMON: It`s going to be pretty tough and hear and on the television, that`s going to be tough to hear.

    SOPHY: Absolutely. It`s painful. It`s going to devastate them, it`s going to create a lot of stuff because at the end of the day, let`s remember, every child loves their parent. No matter how bad we may think they are they love their parent.

    So the bottom line is what they see, what they hear, do your best but they have to have a place to be able to deal with their emotions. They have to be able to be told, it`s ok to feel that way but let`s deal with it this way.

    We see your dad didn`t deal with it necessarily in the right way maybe because he used meds or use whatever. Let`s teach these children better ways to deal with their feelings. Not that they`re bad to have but a better way to deal with it.

    LEMON: And the reason I`ve — I`m going to go on to continue with that question, because as we sit here defense attorneys are predicting that this is going to be the most publicized trial in history, even bigger than Michael and the huge ratings when Michael died. And the children, of course, are going to be party to that and they`re young kids.

    SOPHY: Right.

    BOTEACH: Look Don, a lot of this comes down to media responsibility as well. I mean what —

    (CROSSTALK)

    LEMON: The media is responsible for Michael Jackson`s kids?

    BOTEACH: No, no of what value was there for the media to speculate as to the patrilineal descent of these children. I mean, if anyone person on this network or a sister news network which is to speculate as to the eternity of Barack Obama`s children, Michele Bachmann`s children, it will be seen and shown in the same way.

    Why was it open season on Michael? To the extent that he makes mistakes to the public arena and he was a public figure, he deserved to have been scrutinized.

    But when it came to his kids, I saw whole programs about people going on and saying, I was a sperm donor for these kids. And I saw news anchors interviewing him about this and that was just disgusting. It was loathsome.

    These children have every right to believe that this is their father. Should the family come forward and say something, that`s their business. But I mean, there are areas that still have to remain private. Michael Jackson was not a cartoon character, he was not a caricature, he was a real human being. He died tragically. No one has really dealt with the tragedy —

    LEMON: I understand that but in many ways and even — I think if Michael were around, he might admit it and even some of his family members would admit it now, that he was sort of a cartoon character in the way that he led his life — in the way that he transformed —

    (CROSSTALK)

    BOTEACH: Not in the way he thought —

    LEMON: He transformed his face and what he did in order to stay relevant.

    BOTEACH: Then talk about those things, but not in the way he raised his children. He sequestered his children from public view. He even went to an extreme for which I criticized him. You can`t wear veils but he certainly never exploited them. Never made a buck off of them. Never shoved them in front of cameras.

    So why have they become —

    (CROSSTALK)

    BOTEACH: And by the way, the family — the family then shoved them in front of the world at the funeral which again, Michael would have gotten up from his coffin and objected to that.

    LEMON: Ok. Rabbi, hold that thought. Not never because we all know the balcony thing. The balcony thing was not shielding his children from the press.

    Hold that thought though. We`re going to talk more in just a minute. We`ll be back in a minute.

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    LEMON: I`m back with my panel talking about the upcoming Conrad Murray trial and its potential impact on Michael Jackson`s kids.

    I want you to finish your thought here because I think the sort of general nature of what you`re saying about Michael trying to show these kids was correct. He had his moments where he didn`t always do that but usually he put veils on them. He didn`t want them to be seen.

    BOTEACH: You spoke about the dangling incident. I was not there. I can tell you that on your sister network, CNN in April of 2004, I said that Michael Jackson, God forbid, will not live many more years. The professional handlers around him knew what he was consuming and it was devastating.

    So I don`t know what frame of mind he was in when he took — when he was such an overprotective father and he takes his baby and dangles him. In fact, the people around him should have just gotten him help when that happened. But instead, they booked 100 concerts for him because they needed him to make money.

    But the fact is that Michael was in the right frame of mind he was always an extremely responsible parents. He always gave his children their privacy. And I think Prince and Paris and Blanket deserve that.

    LEMON: You thought that was one of wake-up calls for Michael Jackson, that incident?

    BOTEACH: If that wasn`t a wake-up call, then there was an alarm clock that was bursting his managers` ear drums that they didn`t hear. It is not normal for a father to dangle his baby, even as some sort of prank over a patio.

    LEMON: Let`s talk about this because Michael Jackson is gone. We know that. But these kids will potentially be called as witnesses. It was said, they were in the house, they usually came up at this time. He asked me to call on the telephone. He asked one of the young kids to call on the telephone and to come into the room. So they could be called as witnesses.

    SOPHY: Absolutely. That`s a legal decision but if that does happen, please, I hope someone prepares these kids for this kind of stuff. The ability to be scared is going to overwhelm them. It`s unbelievable.

    Practice with them. Talk with them. Give them something to know so they know what`s coming and they can predict because these are scary times for these kids to open up old wounds and to create new ones.

    LEMON: Paris was a victim of cyber-bullying. You know what surprised me about that is that Paris would even have a Twitter or a Facebook account. When I started to think about it, I said, you know what, maybe Katherine Jackson just wants them to be as normal as possible like their friends.

    SOPHY: Some normalcy.

    BOTEACH: There`s nothing normal about that. All kids need to be supervised on the Internet. Michael would be in shock if he knew his children had that level of access especially to people who could harm them or bully them.

    Michael hated bullies, by the way. He hated bullies in his professional. He hated being bullied in his personal life. He always withdrew from that and that made him even more — he felt bullied whenever he was called “Whacko Jacko”. Whatever errors Michael Jackson made, he was actually in many aspects an exemplary father.

    What the Jackson family now needs to do — because this is a family that in general has been ravished by celebrity. It wasn`t just Michael who had a lot of issues, the family has had issues. They need to regroup. They need to understand that they have to get back to basics and they need to supervise these kids.

    LEMON: And some of the kids are going to be appearing at this controversial Jackson concert. In your estimation, good idea, bad idea for them to be doing this?

    SOPHY: Look, they want to honor their father, I understand. It may be not the best timing but the bottom line is they love their dad, they want to honor their dad. There`s nothing wrong with that.

    BOTEACH: Terrible idea and whoever is doing it, I want to know what money they`re making off. The kids should be allowed to have a private life. Leave them alone, for God`s sake.

  14. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:21 am

    @ BJ

    So now he was molesting little girls as well? This is news to me, I thought MJ was gay according to haters.

  15. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:19 am

    @ Shelly

    I don’t know what happened between Barresi and Schaffel. I didn’t watch Hollywood Interrupted. What was in it?

    I know Schaffel has a shady past and I wish Michael would have never hired him. But reading that article you have linked in, it made me remember that all this happened at the hight of Michael’s feud with Sony and I think Michael’s desperation for support (financial and in terms of management) had to do with the fact he didn’t get rid of him even after they showed him that video. Also I’m wondering if it wasn’t someone from Sony who gave this tape to the police. Or do you think it was Barresi? (If I remember correctly he was a porn actor earlier, so he was in the same business.)

    But you know, the fact Schaffel was working for him and Michael still didn’t have any of the kind of products Schaffel was doing in his past (instead he had hetero porn), speaks for Michael not being interested in that.

  16. August 26, 2011 4:20 am

    The media is doing it again with the headline: “Soleil Moon Frye, aka Punky Brewster: Michael Jackson and I shared Jacuzzi”

    Hair was very tall, music was very synth, and Michael Jackson was at the height of his global reign when Soleil Moon Frye charmed America as the spunky, titular character on the popular kids’ show Punky Brewster.

    When Frye’s path crossed with the late King of Pop, it was before his high profile criminal trial on charges he had engaged in inappropriate acts with minors. Jackson was known for often keeping company with high-profile kid stars back then, spending time with 80′s teen star Corey Feldman and 90′s pop icon Aaron Carter.

    In a new memoir, Frye recounts having visited Neverland and being “babysat” by Jackson:

    “We went outside on his stunning property and began walking over a bridge when a swan jumped out at me… Michael threw me to the ground in an effort to protect me. he explained that the female swan was pregnant and so the male swan was protecting her. Seemed normal, I guess.”

    After the swan incident, Jackson invited Frye “to take a Jacuzzi” with him, and the two spent time “talking about life, love and the secrets of the world” while in the tub. But like many of Jackson’s child-friends who have since grown, Frye recalls a kind and insightful man that treated her with respect and regard:

    “I remember him talking about the fact that he related more to kids than adults and that grown-ups never completely understood him. He sat across from me and we had a dialogue as if we were peers – a true heart-to-heart. He never made me feel like this was a bizarre situation. It just seemed as if he really wanted someone to talk to, someone who would make no judgments about him.”

    In fact, the actress holds the memory fondly, and says:

    “This story is not one I have shared often, but now I realize, if even for only one night, Michael Jackson was my babysitter. As strange as it all sounds – and I know it sounds strange – it was a highlight in my young life.”

    Frye said the encounter was her one and only with the King of Pop

    http://www.inquisitr.com/136377/soleil-moon-frye-says-she-and-michael-jackson-shared-jacuzzi-in-the-80s/

    The haters are really hyping this situation to say he was a pervert.

  17. August 26, 2011 3:59 am

    Nan,

    Thanks! yeah keep us posted I would love to see him over those other people.

    _________

    Btw, DD has been throwing a hissy fit on twitter today. Joe Vogel posted 1 tweet yesterday informing everyone that he wouldn’t be on the scheduled HLN panel, cause he HLN replaced him with DD instead. Well, fans caught wind of what happened and they been tweeting DD and it seems she’s been blaming Joe….smh. That woman is a complete nut. She’s being all melodramatic and spinning like crazy. The woman can dish it out, but she can’t taken it when folks call her out on her crap.

  18. nan permalink
    August 26, 2011 3:08 am

    gigi..cb baxter said he would take a break and do some more in December.He suggested making a list of ones people are interested in and voting on teh most popular ones..I think it is great that he at least did mj with bashir and others and he states unequivically he was showing all the hallmarks of honesty ..
    i am going to keep a lookout for him and try and get him to do sneddon, zonen, gavin and dimond

  19. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 2:25 am

    @suzy,

    I know it wasn’t child porn, but Schaffel has a very shady past. I read the Paul Barresi part about that story in Hollywood Interrupted and I was wondering how was trying to blackmail who? Did Schaffel really wanted to blackmail MJ or was it Barresi who tried to blackmail Schaffel?

  20. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2011 10:41 pm

    I also think it could be part of the PR of the Santa Barbara police and the DA: deliberately making innuendo before the trial. Their PR team in action. This wasn’t child porn and I bet they knew it from the get go. But they were making innuendo by getting the FBI “investigate” it. The man in the video I linked in says “two men”, Michael says “two guys”.

    “The outcome of the FBI probe was unclear” – I’m sure it was clear. I’m sure it was clear before the probe as well. If it had been child porn they would have said so long before. Don’t tell me the outcome of a probe remains “unclear” for three years! So actually I’m pretty sure this article is a part of Sneddon’s PR work before the trial.

Trackbacks

  1. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 5 of 6: Exposing the Lies of the “Youth Minister” Jason Francia « Vindicating Michael

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: