Skip to content

March 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Judge Melville’s Decision on Prior Bad Acts & Settlements Evidence, George Lopez, Ann Serrano Lopez, and Robert Spinner (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 2 of 4

September 8, 2012

Sneddon was offered a chance to issue a rebuttal, and he obviously seized upon the opportunity. First, he argued that the prosecution had successfully proven that the defense’s theory that the Arvizos were a bunch of grifters was incorrect, based on the fact that (in his opinion) they couldn’t directly link Janet to many of the money making scams that the family participated in. Secondly, he stated that Gavin’s fingerprints were found on magazines that were not presented during the grand jury proceedings in 2004, which begs the question: Why wasn’t this inculpatory evidence presented?

8 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I think that what


9 we’ve heard here this morning is something akin to a


10 pattern that we’ve seen in this case, and that is


11 reckless, exaggerated and misleading statements on


12 the part of counsel with regard to what he believes


13 the evidence and the testimony has produced so far


14 in this case, and similar to ones he’s made in


15 opening statement, and I say this for this reason.


16 I’m not going to get into a contest of saying what


17 we believe the evidence has shown or what the


18 credibility of the witnesses are to this Court,


19 because this Court’s been here and you’ve seen it


20 for yourself. But I am going to point out that


21 since Mr. Mesereau stood up in his opening statement


22 and made certain assertions to the jury in this


23 case, we’ve blown massive holes in his theory of


24 this case; the witnesses that he said was — Janet


25 was going to do that and Janet was going to do that.


26 The fact of the matter is they’re now


27 shifting gears from the original hypothesis to say,


28 well, “She wasn’t directly involved,” like I said in 3775


1 my opening statement, but now she’s indirectly


2 involved. Because we’ve proved otherwise.


3 Similarly with the fingerprint evidence, you


4 know, the fingerprints were on there because the


5 kids touched it at the grand jury. Now we have the


6 evidence from the people to show that those


7 fingerprints were on magazines that weren’t even in


8 the grand jury, so they couldn’t have been put on


9 in the grand jury. Those magazines were at the


10 Department of Justice being examined for trace


11 evidence at the very time that the defense alleged


12 somebody put their fingerprints on them.


13 It’s this kind of stuff that bothers me


14 about Mr. Mesereau’s statements to the Court. But


15 rather than get in a point-by-point recitation, I’m


16 going to rely, as I have before, and we will to the


17 end of this case, that the Court can make up its own


18 mind about what the Court feels that the evidence


19 has produced in this case.

Next, Sneddon (of all people!) described Mesereau’s cross examination of Gavin Arvizo as being “as abusive, mean-spirited, and obnoxious as you could be to a child witness in a case”! Unbelievable!

20 I will only say this, and this will be the


21 only thing I will say: Gavin Arvizo sat on that


22 witness stand for almost three days. The first day


23 he was on there for almost 40 minutes, and Mr.


24 Mesereau was as abusive, was as mean-spirited, and


25 was as obnoxious, frankly, as you could be to a


26 child witness in a case. He spent the next two and


27 a half days with binder after binder after binder


28 coming up here and asking things. That kid didn’t 3776


1 have a piece of paper in front of him. Not a single


2 piece of paper. And I think it was a remarkable job


3 that that child did. He was never once tripped up


4 about the fundamental fact that the defendant in


5 this case molested him.


6 We produced evidence that have blown holes


7 in the defendant’s case, from Palanker to Coleman,


8 and we’ll have some this afternoon when the Lopezes


9 testify; that the defense has consistently


10 exaggerated, and misled the jury in this case, and


11 the Court.

Next, he tries to diminish the impact of the non-indictment of the two grand juries in 1994 by stating that they were not asked to indict, but merely to investigate the claims against Jackson:

12 With regard to the second part about the


13 civil case, I think, again, this is a case where


14 many of the things Mr. Mesereau said are completely


15 misleading. The first thing to understand is that


16 the issue in that case had nothing — nothing, zero,


17 zilch, nada, nothing to do with child molestation


18 charges. That evidence was specifically excluded by


19 the Court. The depositions that make reference to


20 that information contain pages of probably less than


21 100 pages in that deposition devoted to that part of


22 it. The deposition mostly, and the trial, was


23 entirely devoted to issues of harassment,


24 intimidation, of illegal surveillance and monitoring


25 of conversations. It had nothing to do with the


26 facts of this case, as we’re attempting to put


27 before the jury the uncharged offenses. Nothing.


28 It lasted six months because the defendant 3777


1 in that case persistently did not show up for long


2 periods of time. And unlike this Court, which took


3 a very firm rein on the defendant’s inability to


4 show up on time, that Court did not. And that’s why


5 that case lasted six months.


6 I think it’s also important for this Court


7 to know that the information that we’re putting


8 before this Court from the witnesses that are going


9 to testify is information that was produced before


10 that case was filed. And in fact, part of the


11 intimidation and the harassment allegations involved


12 in that lawsuit were the product of what happened


13 when these people cooperated with the Santa Barbara


14 District Attorney’s Office and the Santa Barbara


15 Grand Jury. But the fact of the matter is that the


16 statements that were made, were made prior to the


17 time of the lawsuit, and were made at or about the


18 time of the investigation, and to law enforcement


19 officers.


20 I think once and for all, I would like to —


21 because I was the one involved in it, to put to rest


22 the thing that Mr. Mesereau keeps saying over and


23 over and over again, as if he says it enough times


24 that somehow it’s going to become the truth. It


25 isn’t the truth. It isn’t factually correct. And


26 it’s simply false.


27 The grand juries — there weren’t two


28 separate grand juries. They were a grand jury 3778


1 impaneled to hear some witnesses, for the


2 convenience of those witnesses, in Los Angeles, and


3 there were some witnesses that were heard in Santa


4 Barbara County. None of those witnesses, nor were


5 there any indications to either one of those grand


6 juries that an Indictment was being sought. And


7 never was there any request for an Indictment, or


8 any charges, or any information in any smallest


9 scintilla of a way presented to those grand juries.


10 The fact of the matter is, the grand juries


11 never considered it simply because at that point in


12 time, Jordan Chandler decided that he was not going


13 to cooperate any further with the law enforcement


14 agencies. And at that point, the grand jury, with


15 regard to most of those witnesses, was completely


16 shut down.

Sneddon’s assertion that the two grand juries were “investigative only” was refuted in this post.

Also, pay attention to this video report from 1994 when Miko Brando testified for the grand jury; the reporter clearly and conspicuously states that “the grand jury DOES have the right to return an indictment”!

He then tried to prop up Gavin to be some sort of martyr for child abuse victims due to the “bravery” that he showed in testifying against Jackson, and the embarrassment he suffered as a result is exactly why Jackson’s prior “victims” refuse to testify against him. The analogy that he used of the murder victim is totally inapt, as he’s comparing apples and oranges, and it’s very possible to prove a murder case even without the dead victim’s testimony due to the EVIDENCE!

Notice how Sneddon confirmed that Bob Jones recanted his story to police, but that he had two witnesses to use against Jones because Jones told those two witnesses about the “head licking” that Jackson performed on Jordan Chandler:

17 Which brings me to another one of counsel’s


18 points, that somehow we can’t prove a case because


19 we don’t have a victim. Well, then I guess we would


20 never be able to prove a murder case then, would we?

21 Because we sure as heck can’t put the victim on the 

22 stand. And yet on the one hand, the defense 

23 attorney tells me that one of the reasons we have a 

24 real problem here is because we have Gavin Arvizo on 

25 the stand and we have no corroboration and we have 

26 no eyewitnesses. Yet when we have an eyewitness, 

27 it’s no good anymore and we can’t call them. 

28 Well, you can’t have it both ways. You 3779 

1 simply can’t have it both ways. And you simply 

2 can’t ignore the fact that the very things that the 

3 defense attorney’s talking about in this case, 

4 there’s no DNA and there’s no eyewitnesses, are the 

5 very reasons that the legislature says specifically 

6 that 1108 evidence is admissible. 

7 And what would you expect, nine months 

8 later? Of course, they never bother to say that. 

9 Oh, there’s no DNA. Nine months later? There’s no 

10 underpants found nine months later? The very 

11 underpants that the child left there because the 

12 defendant asked him to leave them there. Would you 

13 reasonably believe that nine months later that that 

14 stuff would be there? That they didn’t wash the 

15 sheets for nine months on that bed? That’s 

16 preposterous, and yet this is a reason why this 

17 evidence shouldn’t come in. 

18 Somehow we’re to be penalized because 

19 victims don’t want to show up. They don’t want to 

20 go through what Gavin Arvizo went through. It takes 

21 a lot of courage to do what that young lad did. And 

22 I don’t think — as Urquiza said in his testimony, 

23 most children don’t ever, in their entire life, 

24 disclose. And it’s not a far stretch to believe 

25 that the reason they don’t disclose is for the very 

26 reasons that we’ve seen in this courtroom; that no 

27 family and no child wants to go through what you 

28 have to go through to be vindicated when you’re 3780 

1 molested by an adult, by somebody you trust and 

2 somebody you loved at one point in time, as somebody 

3 you cared for. They put it behind themselves and 

4 they move on with their lives. Their lives aren’t 

5 always the same, but that’s what they do. 

6 With regard to Mr. Jones, counsel is 

7 correct, Mr. Jones has now recanted what he said. 

8 However, Mr. Jones is in the unenviable position of 

9 the fact that we have two witnesses to whom he made 

10 the statement, and more importantly than that, we 

11 have his own writings where he describes the 

12 incident in detail. So it’s true, I don’t know what 

13 he’s going to say when he takes the witness stand, 

14 but the fact of the matter is, he’s pinned down 

15 pretty strongly to what he saw, who the 

16 circumstances were, and who the children and the 

17 family involved were. 

18 I guess I want to just end by saying one 

19 other thing. I’m just not going to get involved in 

20 debating the issue of where we are in this case. I 

21 think as far as we’re concerned, we’re very pleased 

22 with where we are in this case, and pleased with the 

23 way the victims have held up and the family’s held 

24 up. 

25 And I know Mr. Mesereau has made a lot of 

26 allegations about what’s going to come with Janet 

27 Arvizo when she takes the stand, but I hope he does 

28 a better job than he has with the assertions he made 3781 

1 in his opening statement with regard to certain 

2 witnesses who claim she’s running around with her 

3 hand out all the time, because not one single 

4 witness in this case has said that yet.

After Sneddon’s rebuttal, Judge Melville issued his ruling: he decided to allow Sneddon to admit witnesses to testify to the abuse of only five of the seven “victims”; any evidence to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence’s abuse was not permitted because there wasn’t anyone who claimed to have witnessed actual physical sexual conduct between them and Jackson:

15 THE COURT: The arguments presented by both 

16 sides here were very good arguments, and they’re 

17 arguments bringing up the law and the factors that 

18 I’ve been working with trying to reach a decision in 

19 this matter, which is of such great importance in 

20 this case for both sides. 

21 The arguments didn’t really bring up new 

22 material, but they definitely emphasized the 

23 concerns that I’ve had. You know, the weighing of 

24 the case as I’ve heard it, the remoteness of the 

25 alleged charges that would come under 1108. 

26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached, 

27 and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to 

28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual 3783 

1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming 

2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to 

3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade 

4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett 

5 Barnes. 

6 The witnesses that would be permitted to 

7 testify under this order would be Jason Francia, 

8 Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque, 

9 Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob 

10 Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of 

11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be 

12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and 

13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted. 

14 The witnesses that would be precluded under 

15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller. 

16 And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony 

17 that I would consider admissible, that relating to 

18 the one physical act that he observed. And some of 

19 the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler 

20 and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible. 

21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve 

22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited 

23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual 

24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That 

25 really is where I’ve drawn the line. 

26 And just to give you an example, Mr. Jones’ 

27 observations over a long period of time were 

28 conclusionary and opinions that I wouldn’t allow 3784 

1 based on what he didn’t see. 

The second issue that Judge Melville ruled on was the admissibility of Jackson’s two settlements in the 1990’s, one with the Chandlers, and the other with the Francias. 

Before I summarize the various motions that were filed in regard to the admission of Jackson’s settlements as evidence against him by the prosecution, let’s watch an excerpt from Mesereau’s press conference from September 2004, in response to a Dateline NBC report that confirmed that Jackson had a second settlement in 1994:

Mr. Jackson has been a target of frivolous lawsuits throughout his career. To date, well over a thousand ridiculous lawsuits have been filed or threatened against Mr. Jackson for all kinds of reasons by those who sought to obtain money by exploiting his achievements and love for people.

None of these claims involved allegations that he ever harmed a child. However, they involved, for the most part, creative and outrageous attempts to take money from Mr. Jackson. Throughout his career, Mr. Jackson’s desire to create and help our world has been subjected to efforts to exploit, undermine and take advantage of his wonderful human being.

Mr. Jackson has been repeatedly advised by those who stood to make fortunes in his business affairs to pay money, rather than face certain false allegations. As a result, many years ago, he did pay money, rather than litigate, two false allegations that he had harmed children.

People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits.

These two false allegations must be placed in a proper perspective. Mr. Jackson has interacted with millions of children. Many millions of children around the world love Michael Jackson and never alleged that he harmed them in any way.

Those who wanted to profit form his good deeds and vulnerabilities were also threatening to destroy his ability to raise his own children and to champion the welfare, integrity, humanity, and interests of children around the world. Michael Jackson occupies a world where his privacy is continually violated.

Michael Jackson now regrets making these payment. Nevertheless, these efforts to settle are now being used against him, regardless of the merits or the truth behind them. These settlements were entered into with one condition: that condition was that Mr. Jackson never admitted any wrongdoing.

Mr. Jackson always denied doing anything wrong. Mr. Jackson had hoped to buy peace in the process.  He was advised that while these sums of money appeared large, they were actually very small compared to money he could make in music. Mr. Jackson has earned well over one billion dollars in his career. Placed in this perspective, they were very small sums.

Greed begets greed. Mr. Jackson now realizes that the advice he received was wrong. He should have fought these actions to the bitter end and vindicated himself. The recent publicity about these settlements is unfair and damaging to him, his family, and his dedication to the world’s children. The false charges he is facing will be battled in a court of law within our justice system. He is innocent and will be vindicated.

Next, on January 18th, 2005 the defense filed a motion titled “MR. JACKSON’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO CIVIL SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS” in which they argued that any references to the exact amounts of the settlements should be barred because it could prejudice the jurors, and they are irrelevant and inflammatory.

On January 24th, 2005 the prosecution responded by filing “PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO CIVIL SETTLEMENTS AND AMOUNTS”, in which they argued that the settlements are evidence that is relevant as an “admission against interest”, and that they are “an implied admission of criminal liability”. (This insinuation by Sneddon validates why Jackson and the defense requested that the settlements not be mentioned in court due to their prejudicial effect!)   

On January 26th, 2005 the defense filed another motion titled “MR. JACKSON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO CIVIL SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS”, in which he included additional information to support his case for the exclusion of any references to his previous settlements.

On March 22nd, 2005 the defense filed a motion titled “MR. JACKSON’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA TO LARRY FELDMAN FOR SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS”, in which Mesereau asserted that Jackson’s settlement with the Chandler’s was paid by his insurance carrier, and was beyond Jackson’s control. Pay attention to the following quote from page 9:

Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual’s wishes. Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed “thereafter” by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, “no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview”.

In other words, Jordan Chandler’s statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations.

For more information of Jackson’s settlements, you can read this post and this post, as well as this post from MJJ Justice Project.

So here is Judge Melville’s decision on the admission of Jackson’s settlements as evidence in the trial: he would allow the evidence of the settlement to come in, but would exclude the amounts of the settlements.

2 All right. Now, the next item I want to 

3 take up is the settlement issues of whether or not 

4 the settlements are admissible. In the one case, 

5 the Chandler case, I’m going to rule that the 

6 evidence that there was a settlement may come in, 

7 the amount may not. 

8 The second issue on the other child, I’m not 

9 sure — Mr. Sneddon, in your papers, you related to 

10 that. In your points and authorities, you related 

11 to a claim that was settled. Was there a lawsuit or 

12 not a lawsuit in that case? 

13 MR. SNEDDON: There was not a lawsuit. It 

14 was settled prior to the commencement of — it was 

15 settled in lieu of filing of a civil complaint. 

16 THE COURT: It was settled under threat of 

17 lawsuit type of settlement. 

18 MR. SNEDDON: That’s my understanding from 

19 talking to the lawyer, yes, sir. Lawyers. 

20 THE COURT: Well, again, the amount won’t be 

21 admissible except — I say that it’s not admissible 

22 by the prosecution to prove anything. The defense, 

23 if they want to raise the amount to prove 

24 something — it’s not the same side — it’s not two 

25 different sides of the same coin. It’s in the 

26 Court’s opinion, the amount doesn’t prove anything. 

27 The settlement leaves inferences. For the defense, 

28 though, the amount may prove something if they 3785 

1 choose to use it. So I’m making a ruling that 

2 applies one way to this side and the other way to 

3 this side. That doesn’t mean you have to, it just 

4 means I’m not taking that away from you. I’m taking 

5 it away from them. 

6 Now, having said what my intended ruling is, 

7 if anyone wants to address that, you may. 

8 MR. MESEREAU: I think we’re going to submit 

9 at this point, Your Honor. 

10 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 

11 MR. MESEREAU: We may — 

12 THE COURT: They can’t hear you. They’re all 

13 waving. Either they can’t hear or they just want 

14 you to wave to them. 

15 MR. MESEREAU: (Indicating). 

16 I think we’ll submit at this point, Your 

17 Honor. We may ask for leave to revisit the issue in 

18 the future. 

19 THE COURT: Yes, you may. It probably won’t 

20 come up for a while. But sort of a secondary issue 

21 here today, and — okay, I don’t think there’s any 

22 Other issue pending. 

23 If we have nothing else, then we’ll recess 

24 until 11:30 when the jurors will be here. We’ll 

25 start as soon after 11:30 as we can, because we’ll 

26 have already had our break. 

27 (Recess taken.)

To be continued: 

UPDATE! 9-15-2012

I recently found this article from MSNBC that summarizes Judge Melville’s decision on the 1108 evidence, and it blatantly lies by stating that Judge Melville “did not say why” he excluded any evidence that Jackson had molested Jonathan Spence and Jimmy Safechuck!


Prior allegations permissible in Jackson trial

SANTA MARIA, Calif. — In a major setback for Michael Jackson, a judge ruled Monday that the jury can hear allegations that the pop star molested or had designs on five other boys, including actor Macaulay Culkin and two youngsters who reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the singer.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon said Jackson’s inappropriate activities with these boys included kissing, hugging and inserting his hands into their pants. He also said there was a pattern of “grooming,” or preparing the boys for molestation, but did not elaborate.

Jackson, 46, is on trial on charges he molested one boy — then 13 — at his Neverland ranch in 2003. In most criminal cases, evidence of past behavior is not admissible against a defendant. However, the California Legislature changed that in 1995, specifically in cases of child molestation and domestic violence.

Sneddon said the testimony about the five cases will show that Jackson has a consistent pattern of abuse.

The incidents allegedly occurred 12 to 15 years ago, and the prosecutor acknowledged that only one of the five boys has agreed to testify at Jackson’s trial. Some of the other testimony would come from the mothers of the two boys who won settlements.

The Macaulay Culkin factor  Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Judge Rodney Melville to exclude the allegations, saying they were based on third parties, many of whom were after Jackson’s money. The reference was to former Jackson employees who sued the singer in the past and lost, and were then ordered to pay the singer $1 million in damages.

And Mesereau said Culkin, a frequent visitor to Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, “has repeatedly said he was never molested.”

Mesereau told the judge that he would put on a “mini-trial” on each allegation that the jury is allowed to hear. “You can’t stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that,” the defense attorney warned.

Jackson was not present during the arguments but arrived later to cheers from fans.

Culkin’s publicist, Michelle Bega, said Monday that the “Home Alone” star “is presently not involved with the proceedings and we do not expect that to change.”

George Lopez testifies  After the judge’s ruling, comedian George Lopez took the stand and told about helping Jackson’s current accuser as the boy battled cancer. Lopez said he came to believe the boy’s father was more interested in money than helping his son. He testified the father accused the comedian of stealing $300 from the boy’s wallet.

Lopez said he finally cut off the family because of the father’s frequent and aggressive requests for help. When the father asked what he was supposed to tell his son, Lopez testified that he responded: “Tell him his father’s an extortionist.”

The defense contends Lopez, star of the ABC sitcom “George Lopez,” is among celebrities who were targeted by the accuser’s family in schemes to make money. But prosecutors contend that any such schemes were the work of the boy’s father, who is now divorced from the mother.

Sneddon said one boy from the five earlier cases will come forward and his mother also will testify. That case involved a boy who was allegedly involved in a 1990 incident and received a $2.4 million settlement from Jackson in 1994.

The district attorney also promised testimony from the mother of a boy who reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Jackson in 1993.

It was unclear exactly what Jackson was accused of doing with each of the five boys, though the 1993 accuser claimed he was repeatedly molested, and Sneddon said the boy in the 1990 case was touched twice over his clothes and once under his clothes.

The judge excluded two other boys named by the prosecution but did not say why.

In a hearing after jurors left the courtroom, Sneddon said he planned to begin presenting evidence of the past allegations in about two weeks. The judge said he would give jurors special legal instructions on the issue of past acts before that testimony is offered.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Here is Judge Melville’s exact words regarding his reasons for not allowing that evidence:

26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached,


27 and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to


28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual 3783


1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming


2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to


3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade


4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett


5 Barnes.


6 The witnesses that would be permitted to


7 testify under this order would be Jason Francia,


8 Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque,


9 Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob


10 Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of


11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be


12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and


13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted.


14 The witnesses that would be precluded under


15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.


16 And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony


17 that I would consider admissible, that relating to


18 the one physical act that he observed. And some of


19 the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler


20 and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible.


21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve


22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited


23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual


24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That


25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. elizabeth pamela walker permalink
    April 1, 2020 2:46 am

    amen x

  2. sanemjfan permalink
    September 16, 2012 2:39 pm

    I’ve added a new video to the beginning of this post! It’s Dan Abrahms and his guests discussing the impact of the admission of the 1108 witnesses.

  3. sanemjfan permalink
    September 15, 2012 1:44 pm

    I updated this post with an article from that lied and stated that Judge Melville didn’t give a reason for excluding evidence that MJ molested Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence!

  4. September 11, 2012 8:47 am

    “So when they went in there they took every computer, Michael’s porn, some art books ( some of them contained sado masochistic images maybe MJ was into the spanky spanky thing I don’t know)”

    You are probably speaking about the Gynoids, that book it’s just drawings.

  5. lynande51 permalink*
    September 10, 2012 9:41 pm

    Actually the case he was referring to about the harrassment was the Neverland Five case. They claimed that they were threatened and harrassed at work because of what they knew about Michael so I don’t know how Sneddon can say that just because it was not allowed in court that was not the basis of their case. He is so full of crap it in unbelievable.
    ONe of the biggest reason that they were found to be perjurous was their own testimony in the case. One of the women in the case testified to one thing in the morning and then completely contradicted what she said in the afternoon. Then there is the little matter where one of the people they were suing joined their lawsuit. Then just moments before he was supposed to testify in the case someone left a letter at the defense table that essentially was a blackmail note. It said for everyones sake to wire 3 million to an account number and guess what… they DNA tested it and it was tracked to his wife. Yeah that is exactly the kind of people they were.

  6. lynande51 permalink*
    September 10, 2012 9:11 pm

    there’s no DNA and there’s no eyewitnesses, are the

    5 very reasons that the legislature says specifically

    6 that 1108 evidence is admissible.

    7 And what would you expect, nine months

    8 later? Of course, they never bother to say that.

    9 Oh, there’s no DNA. Nine months later? There’s no

    10 underpants found nine months later? The very

    11 underpants that the child left there because the

    12 defendant asked him to leave them there. Would you

    13 reasonably believe that nine months later that that

    14 stuff would be there? That they didn’t wash the

    15 sheets for nine months on that bed? That’s

    16 preposterous, and yet this is a reason why this

    17 evidence shouldn’t come in.

    And this part is in complete contrast to what is written in the Statement of Probable Cause. This goes to the heart of the case just in case no one knows.
    Sneddon wanted Michael bad, really bad. When the Bashir documentary aired he issued a press release saying that they were going to watch the show and even record it.Then he went on to explain the law in the case and this is where some of this comes in.
    It is not illegal for an adult to sleep with a child in California UNLESS that adult gets sexual pleasure just from the act of sleeping with a child. In other words they have to prove he was a pedophile becaue they are the ones that would derive sexual pleasure from that (or so they say).I think he was hoping that if nothing else just the act of sleeping in the same room with a child would convict Michael.

    Click to access PR-Michael%20Jackson.pdf

    Next you have the Statement of Probably Cause for the search warrant. You have Zellis say over and over that they are looking for evidence of not just molestation but that Michael was a pedophile ( someone who would get sexual pleasure from sleeping with a child). So when they went in there they took every computer, Michael’s porn, some art books ( some of them contained sado masochistic images maybe MJ was into the spanky spanky thing I don’t know) and some underwear that belonged to another male found in a closet in the apartment that Frank used as an office that is 75 yards from the house.
    However if you read what the Statement of Probable cause says it says that pedophiles save these images and souvenirs for years to relive the moment with their victims.So if they did not find Gavins Hanes underwear like they expected to now they are back peddeling and saying of course not, not 9 months later.I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways in this case he either was or he wasn’t and what they just said in court proves he wasn’t.
    The funny part is he tried it again or in the beginning I guess when he tries to get the Bashir Documentary introduced as evidence and parts of it as an admission is because of this. The statements that they wanted admitted as evidence was where Mj supposedly says that “he sleeps with boys”.Then when that was not what was said they even went to look for alternative versions of it so that he said what they wanted him to say. He did not. He said he slept in the same room on the floor and Frank was on one side of the floor and he was on the other with the two Arvizo kids in the bed. That was explained in the Bashir hit piece by Michael.

    • nannorris permalink
      September 13, 2012 2:59 pm

      For Tom Sneddon , sometimes Michael is a desperate, near bankrupt, has been ,trying to save his career with this poor cancer victim..
      But when he is looking for bail to be set , Michael turns into a jet setting mega celebrity who can leave the country at the drop of a bail gets set at 3 million , I think…
      When they raid the place after all that time , they take pictures of the bottles ,even thought MJ had been out of town, like he was just in there having a party, and yet they expect the maids to clean his sheets , because they have to tidy up ….But they would leave bottles for weeks..???
      The ripped his mattress apart looking for DNA and swabbed Gavin ,, even though it had been months and there was nothing…

      It is all just BS
      Any lawyer can argue their side..What is so disgusting is that the facts are plain as day and this guy has to know it.
      You can sense it the motions where they say things like “Mr Jackson knows full well what was in that settlement”..It is so personal..
      I dont know how you have all these police working on this case and it doesn’t occur to them , to wonder why it was this kids dream to meet Michael Jackson, when he didnt even know what Neverland was..
      This kid was just a vehicle oi Chandler crap…Im sure that is what they must have been thinking would do MJ in..
      What I see is a bunch of white police and prosecutors who were in a blind rage to get MJ, for years,..Listening to DS is a Cold Man..I think MJ had Sneddon pegged right..
      I just wonder sometimes who else he was connected to that he would go so far out on a limb with his reputation….or maybe he was just stupid and bigoted..Larry Feldman seemed to know exactly how to use him to try and line his own pockets.

  7. lynande51 permalink*
    September 10, 2012 8:41 pm

    Since this was in open court, and I am presuming that the judge knows what the function is of a Grand Jury, and how a Grand Jury operates, I have to question why Melville didn’t stop Sneddon right,in his tracks. Here he is in court to the judge saying that the Grand Jury was investigative only? Well I have news for them and I am sure they know it already. A grand Jury is an independent investigation through witness testimony if a crime has been committed and does the evidence support that crime. Because it is independent they do not have to be asked to indict but have the power to indict on their own, and even go from the case that they are investigating to other connected cases if the evidence indicates that there may be other crimes involved.
    The thing is it is the Grand Jury with the power to indict or not indict. If there is evidence of the crime alledged they are sworn to indict and duty bound to do it so he is basically full of crap when he says this.In other words the Grand Jury heard everything he had to offer and yet they did not indict. My question is why didn’t they subponea Jordan, Evan, June and Dave Schwartz? They subpoened Marlon Brando and Brooke Sheilds for Gods sake, why didn’t they subpoena the Chandlers?

  8. nannorris permalink
    September 8, 2012 9:38 pm

    I am just amazed….given the Arviso siblings testimony , that this judge allowed the 1108 evidence..I can only assume he didnt want to be accused of letting a celebrity get away with something..
    I have the frozen in time seminar , where this judge basically address’s trivial things regarding the trial and he also declined the Harvard seminar..
    My opinion is that the only reason Mesereau considered him to be a fair and impartial judge is because he won and it was in his clients best interest to say so…..Frankly…………I just think some of his rulings are biased….
    And yet , the truth prevailed…Thank heaven

  9. sanemjfan permalink
    September 8, 2012 3:57 pm

    Thanks! I’ve corrected that error, and the Miko Brando grand jury testimony video now plays. The owner of that playlist changed her default settings to where her entire playlist plays from the first video whenever someone links to a video on her page, so I had to turn that feature off.

  10. September 8, 2012 1:54 pm

    I’m confused, they’re claiming the grand juries in 1994 were NOT about child molestation but about people being threatened, harassed, intimidated in relation to those allegations? Or is that about something else? I love his excuse about Jordan refusing to be involved, when the Chandler’s claimed it was Sneddon who told them not to be involved for fear of their lives.

    BTW I think you added the wrong youtube video, this one goes to an interview about Lisa Marie/Priscilla, not Miko Brando.


  1. March 28th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Judge Melville’s Decision on Prior Bad Acts & Settlements Evidence, George Lopez, Ann Serrano Lopez, and Robert Spinner (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 1 of 4 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: