April 11th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, June Chandler, and Dwayne Swingler, Part 4 of 4
The prosecution’s next witness was Dwayne Swingler, a former supervisor at Neverland Ranch who began working there in June 2003. He was asked to whistle on a song for Jackson but declined because he can’t whistle (maybe it could have been “Hollywood Tonight”?), and after meeting Jackson at a recording studio, he was asked to work for Jackson. Here is Swingler’s description of how he met Jackson; pay attention to how Jackson declined to have him travel on the road with him as security once he learned that Swingler was the father of triplets! That’s another example of the loving father that Jackson was; he wanted Swingler to be there for his children!
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Swingler.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. What is your current occupation, sir?
18 A. Right now I do stand-in work, movie sets.
19 Q. Okay. And what kind of — stand-in work,
20 what does that —
21 A. Stand in for stars. It’s called second
22 team. They don’t use the stars to get the lights
23 bright. They use stand-ins.
24 Q. I see. During the year 2003, at some point
25 during that year, did you — were you employed by
26 Michael Jackson?
27 A. Yes, sir.
28 Q. Is he the man seated to my right with the 5736
1 long black hair?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 When did you begin working for Mr. Jackson?
5 A. In June of 2003. Early June of 2003.
6 Q. And what was your — what was your
7 assignment for Mr. Jackson?
8 A. Supervisor of Neverland.
9 Q. How did you come to get that position?
10 A. I met Michael at a studio, Marvin Gaye’s
11 studio in Hollywood.
12 Q. What were you doing at the studio?
13 A. My cousin was engineering Michael’s music
14 session, and Michael needed someone to whistle on a
15 track, so my cousin called me and said, “Would you
16 like to come down and whistle on Michael’s track?”
17 And I said, “I can’t whistle that well, but I would
18 love to come down and meet Michael Jackson.”
19 Q. Okay. Are you yourself a musician?
20 A. Yes, I am.
21 Q. And you met Mr. Jackson on that date?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Can you tell me about — was that in 2003?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 Q. About what month was it, if you recall?
26 A. That was probably early — sometime in
27 April.
28 Q. And how did it come about that you were 5737
1 offered employment?
2 A. I hung out at the studio with Michael and
3 his kids, and Chris Carter, maybe four, five days in
4 a row, three, four days in a row, while they were
5 working on the session.
6 Q. Who did you understand Chris Carter to be?
7 A. Michael’s personal security.
8 Q. And so somebody offered you employment?
9 A. On the last day there, Chris Carter asked me
10 to come outside. So I walked outside with him, and
11 at that time he told me that, you know, “Michael
12 likes you. He would love to bring you aboard. What
13 are you currently doing right now”?
14 Q. Were you available?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did they tell you what type of job they
17 wanted to hire you for?
18 A. Initially they hired me to be security,
19 along with Chris Carter, to travel with Michael.
20 Q. And how did that work out?
21 A. Well, that didn’t work for me because I had
22 triplets. I got three-year-old triplet boys, so….
23 Q. All right. So traveling wasn’t an option?
24 A. No. Actually, Michael was the one who said,
25 “If he has triplet boys, then I don’t want him to be
26 traveling with me all the time.”
27 Q. So you said you became ranch manager?
28 A. Yes. 5738
1 Q. How did that come about?
2 A. I guess Michael suggested to Chris, “If he
3 has triplets, he’ll be away from his kids a lot. So
4 maybe we should offer him another job,” and that’s
5 when supervisor of Neverland came up.
6 Q. So who offered you that position, I guess is
7 my question?
8 A. I guess Michael. But Chris Carter’s the one
9 who told me about the position.
Swingler’s employment at Neverland came to an abrupt halt in August 2003 when he was terminated after 5 or 6 weeks of employment for no specified reason:
10 Q. At some time did you discuss with Mr.
11 Jackson personally your employment?
12 A. I don’t understand the question.
13 Q. Did you ever have a discussion with Mr.
14 Jackson about your employment as ranch manager?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Did he ever discuss with you the terms by
17 which you could be terminated if he was dissatisfied
18 with your work?
19 A. He didn’t discuss with me personally. But
20 Chris Carter and Joe Marcus did.
21 Q. And did you have an understanding about how
22 you could be terminated?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what was that?
25 A. Grounds of giving up information of where
26 Michael Jackson’s whereabouts are, and, you know,
27 there was a rule on the ranch — I don’t know if it
28 came directly from Michael, but, you know, Chris 5739
1 told me and Joe Marcus told me as well, that you can
2 never say no —
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay, let’s just back up a
5 minute.
6 Q. I think what my question is, did you know —
7 did you have some indication from Mr. Jackson as to
8 who had authority to terminate you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And who was that?
11 A. From my understanding, it was only supposed
12 to be Michael Jackson.
13 Q. Okay. At some point during 2003, were you
14 terminated?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Tell me about that. How did that come
17 about?
18 A. I had —
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague as to time.
20 THE COURT: I’ll ask you to clarify the time.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.
22 Q. When were you terminated?
23 A. Early August 2003.
24 Q. And how long had you been working at that
25 point for Mr. Jackson?
26 A. Maybe five, six weeks.
27 Q. When did you start work?
28 A. I was hired in the end of April, early May. 5740
1 But I had to go back to Michigan for a couple of
2 weeks, so the hiring process took awhile. You know,
3 background checks, physicals.
4 Q. When did you start going to Neverland?
5 A. In May.
6 Q. In May?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. And when did you start getting a paycheck?
9 A. In June.
10 Q. Okay. And what were you doing there in May?
11 A. I just came out to the ranch to check things
12 out to see the position that I would be, you know,
13 filling.
14 Q. In May, was it understood that you would be
15 the ranch manager?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did you go up there and receive some
18 instruction from anybody as to what the duties were,
19 in May?
20 A. I received, well, sort of from Joe Marcus,
21 some instruction, but not as much as I did once I
22 started in June.
23 Q. What was Mr. Marcus’s assignment at that
24 time?
25 A. Ranch manager.
26 Q. So he was ranch manager and you were going
27 to take it over?
28 A. No. Ranch manager, you deal with the 5741
1 majority of the workers outside, the garden, the
2 landscapers, things like that. The carnival, the
3 festival, whatever.
4 Q. What was Joe Marcus doing?
5 A. What do you mean?
6 Q. Well, you said Joe Marcus was ranch manager.
7 A. Right, that was his position. Ranch
8 manager, you deal with all the employees basically
9 outside of the house.
10 Q. And your position was going to be?
11 A. Supervisor. Deal with the employees and
12 Michael and the kids in the house.
13 Q. Oh, in the house?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So house manager?
16 A. House manager.
17 Q. All right. Good.
18 So you began work in June, but you went up
19 there for how many weeks to get some training?
20 A. Not really training, just sort of to come
21 check things out, and to see who — you know, what
22 position I would be taking and where the office was,
23 and things like that.
24 Q. And when was it you were terminated?
25 A. In early August.
26 Q. And how did that come about?
27 A. I had had a meeting with Michael about
28 transferring my position. And I liked working for 5742
1 him. I wanted to work for him somewhere in Los
2 Angeles, because my triplets were only one years old
3 at the time. So I was missing them, them being in
4 Los Angeles and me being here, and me staying the
5 night at Neverland often. Wasn’t working for me.
6 So I had a one-on-one meeting with him to be
7 transferred.
8 Q. And how did your termination come about?
9 A. I —
10 Q. Let me ask you this: Were you terminated?
11 A. Yes, I was.
12 Q. And how were you terminated?
13 A. I was terminated by Joe Marcus. He — I
14 arrived at Neverland one morning for work and he
15 told me — he had changed the locks on me. And then
16 I went into — I mean, some — one of the
17 employees — one of my employees in the house told
18 me Joe came to change the locks. And I said, “Why?”
19 And they said, “I don’t know.” And I had already
20 been told by the guard at the gate that Joe —
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So the locks were
24 changed. Did you go talk to Mr. Marcus?
25 A. Yes, I did.
26 Q. What did he tell you?
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
28 THE WITNESS: He told – 5743
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can go back to my last
2 question, I guess. I’ll withdraw that question,
3 Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: All right.
5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And how specifically —
6 I want you to go directly to the answer on this
7 question. How specifically did you learn that you
8 were terminated?
9 A. I —
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
11 answered.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Go ahead.
15 A. I learned directly from Joe Marcus that my
16 services would no longer be needed at Neverland, and
17 that he didn’t have to give me a reason. Because
18 I —
19 Q. You asked him for a reason?
20 A. Yes, I did. I didn’t think I had done
21 anything wrong. Well, I know I hadn’t done anything
22 wrong.
23 Q. Okay. So you’d been at Neverland for a
24 little over a month, and you’d worked there for a
25 few weeks before that time as well?
26 A. Well, not worked. But like — I wasn’t
27 getting paid for that time. That was just to come
28 out there and check the ranch out. 5744
In this section, Auchincloss questioned Swingler about his general duties as ranch manager, his observations of any children who slept in Jackson’s bedroom, and the amount of control and influence that Jackson exerted among the ranch (this ties into the “Mafioso” mobster caricature that the prosecution pigeonholed Jackson with regarding the conspiracy charge; they wanted to show the jury that Jackson had a pattern of calling the shots at Neverland):
1 Q. During the time that you were at Neverland,
2 did you have personal interaction with Michael
3 Jackson?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On how often a basis?
6 A. If he was there. All the time, if he was
7 there.
8 Q. More than once a day?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And who was responsible for handling Mr.
11 Jackson’s appointments while he was on the ranch?
12 A. At Neverland, I would take the — all the
13 phone calls. It didn’t matter who it was calling;
14 mother, father, business person.
15 Q. So if he had an appointment for a day, would
16 you take that — would that be part of your duties?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. To schedule those appointments?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you have occasion to observe visitors of
21 Mr. Jackson that were child visitors?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you see child visitors spend the night
24 at Neverland?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Did you see child visitors spend the night
27 in Mr. Jackson’s room?
28 A. Yes. 5745
1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and
2 violates the Court’s order.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Who did you see visit
5 Mr. Jackson who was a child visitor?
6 MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object.
7 Violates the Court’s order.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: When you were at
10 Neverland, did you interact with Mr. Jackson about
11 issues dealing with activities on the ranch?
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
13 THE COURT: Overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: Issues dealing with activity on
15 the ranch?
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, whatever — let’s
17 back up. What were your duties as house manager?
18 A. To answer all the phone calls. To, you
19 know, schedule the maids. To help the maids out
20 with cleaning rooms and suites. And basically to,
21 you know, take care of whatever Michael and the kids
22 needed.
23 Q. And in terms of the day-to-day issues in
24 terms of running the ranch, can you characterize
25 how — Mr. Jackson’s degree of involvement?
26 A. As far as — I mean —
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; and
28 relevance. 5746
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 You may answer.
3 THE WITNESS: Mr. Jackson is in total charge
4 of the ranch.
5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Why do you say that?
6 A. Well, when I was terminated, because of my
7 previous conversation with Chris Carter that only
8 Michael Jackson could terminate me, I called Evvy,
9 which is Michael’s personal assistant —
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;
11 hearsay.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine.
13 MR. MESEREAU: And relevant as to time.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So when you were on the
16 ranch, did you have occasion to see Mr. Jackson in
17 terms of making orders at the ranch?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he make orders?
20 A. Yes. He made some to me.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Continuing relevance
22 objection, Your Honor, as to time.
23 THE COURT: Time?
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: During the time that
25 you were ranch manager, during that five-week
26 period.
27 A. Yes.
28 MR. MESEREAU: That’s the objection, Your 5747
1 Honor. The time period’s irrelevant.
2 THE COURT: All right. That’s overruled.
3 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Go ahead. You can
4 answer that question.
5 A. Yes, I observed it. He made some to me
6 personally.
7 Q. Did you have occasion to see individuals,
8 his other employees, in terms of their relationship
9 with Mr. Jackson?
10 A. Meaning like Joe Marcus and Grace and those?
11 Q. I mean — let’s talk about your employees.
12 Did you have employees that were working under you
13 as house manager?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Who?
16 A. Cooks?
17 Q. Yeah, just generally speaking.
18 A. Cooks, housekeepers, maids.
19 Q. Okay. And had some of these people been
20 working at the ranch longer than you had?
21 A. Yes. The majority of — all of them.
22 Q. And did you have occasion to see their
23 interaction with Mr. Jackson?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what level of service did Mr. Jackson
26 expect?
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; vague;
28 no foundation. 5748
1 THE COURT: It’s vague; sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Can you characterize
3 the demeanor of the employees around Mr. Jackson
4 when they were in his presence?
5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; relevance.
6 Particularly the time period.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll be specific.
8 Q. During the time you were ranch manager, or
9 house manager.
10 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 THE WITNESS: Can you ask me the question
13 again?
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah. My question is,
15 can you characterize the demeanor — how did these
16 people act, these employees, when they were around
17 Mr. Jackson in his presence?
18 A. I mean, they act like they liked him. Mr.
19 Jackson was nice to people.
20 Q. Did they act like they’d speak their mind
21 around him?
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did they act — did
25 they act comfortable around him?
26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; vague;
27 relevance; and foundation.
28 THE COURT: Sustained. 5749
1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you know if — do
2 you know if Mr. Jackson would fire people at
3 Neverland?
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
5 relevance.
6 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Well, you yourself were
8 fired; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Do you know who fired you?
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
12 answered.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Who — when you were
15 working with Mr. Jackson, did you have occasion to
16 see individuals who were employees of his that were
17 closer than other employees?
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; leading;
19 relevance; foundation.
20 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection, Counsel’s
21 fishing for a reason to object to that question.
22 MR. MESEREAU: I object to the colloquy,
23 move to strike.
24 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the “vague”
25 objection to that question.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you see
27 employees — did you see any employees that spent
28 more time with Mr. Jackson than other employees? 5750
1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; vague;
2 foundation; and relevance.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 You may answer.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you see — well,
7 let’s go ahead and make a list. Who did you see
8 that spent more time with Mr. Jackson than other
9 employees?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
11 foundation; vague.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: Vase — Grace, I’m sorry.
15 Grace, Chris Carter. Those are the two that I think
16 spent most of the time with Mr. Jackson.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you ever see an
18 individual visit the ranch by the name of Dieter
19 Weizner?
20 A. I would have to see a picture to be sure.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Could we approach, Your
22 Honor? We’d like a proffer.
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Be happy to make one.
24 THE COURT: I don’t really need that. I —
25 it’s clear to me where….
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I show you People’s
27 Exhibit No. 17, Mr. Swingler. Can you identify that
28 for me, please? 5751
1 A. I can’t say I’ve seen that gentleman.
2 Q. You haven’t seen him?
3 A. No.
Next, Auchincloss became extremely agitated that Swingler didn’t have a recollection of Dieter Weisner and Rondald Konitzer, even after he was shown photos of them. Auchincloss asked Swingler to try to identify them multiple times, and just gave up and ended his direct examination after Swingler couldn’t identify them.
I must say that out of all of the prosecution witnesses who have testified so far, Swingler’s testimony was the most useless and pointless (thus far! Remember, Janet Arvizo hasn’t testified yet!), because he offered nothing inculpatory against Jackson that would even remotely sway the jury in favor of a conviction!
4 Q. Did you see — did you previously have a
5 conversation with Detective Bonner about the facts
6 of this case?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And in that conversation, did you
9 identify — just a moment, if you would, please.
10 Did you identify a number of individuals
11 that you thought were within Michael Jackson’s inner
12 circle?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and
14 vague.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s impeachment.
16 THE COURT: Sustained.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry?
18 THE COURT: It’s vague.
19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you identify Dieter
20 Weizner as a member of Michael Jackson’s inner
21 circle?
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; and
23 foundation.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 You may answer.
26 THE WITNESS: In my conversation with
27 Detective Bonner?
28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: With Detective Bonner, 5752
1 did you not identify Dieter Weizner specifically as
2 a member of Michael Jackson’s inner circle?
3 A. I can’t — I can’t really recall, because I
4 don’t know the face. I never seen the face before.
5 The name I know. The face I don’t.
6 Q. Do you know the name Dieter Weizner?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you meet a man by the name of Dieter
9 Weizner?
10 A. Looking at the face —
11 Q. I’m not asking you about the face.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. He’s arguing with
13 the witness. Leading and foundation.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you meet a man by
16 the name of Dieter Weizner?
17 A. I can’t remember.
18 Q. Did you meet a man — well —
19 A. Like I say, the name sounds familiar. I
20 know I’ve heard the name. Maybe I spoke with him on
21 the phone a few times there, but the face didn’t —
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for
23 speculation; move to strike; nonresponsive.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you meet a man by
25 the name of Ronald Konitzer?
26 THE COURT: There’s an objection pending.
27 THE BAILIFF: Judge, can you turn the
28 microphone on? 5753
1 THE COURT: All right. The objection is
2 overruled. And you had another question. Go ahead.
3 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you meet a man by
4 the name of Ronald Konitzer?
5 A. I can’t — by the name — I would have to
6 see a picture.
7 Q. Did you meet two German businessmen?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did they meet with Mr. Jackson?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On how many occasions?
12 A. Three or four.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no
14 further questions.
15 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
Under cross examination, Swingler established that he had no idea exactly how many meetings Jackson had with Weisner and Konitzer because he wasn’t in those meetings! Mesereau objected to his Swinger’s answer and tried to have it stricken from the record, but his objection was denied by Judge Melville.
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. MESEREAU:
19 Q. Good afternoon.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. My name’s Tom Mesereau. I speak for Mr.
22 Jackson.
23 A. How you doing, sir?
24 Q. Good. Good. We’ve never spoken before,
25 right?
26 A. No.
27 Q. You worked for a five-week period?
28 A. Four and a half, five weeks, yes, sir. 5754
1 Q. Four and a half, five weeks. How many days
2 a week did you work?
3 A. Six or seven.
4 Q. And the prosecutor asked you about how many
5 meetings Mr. Jackson had with two German
6 individuals, right?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Do you really know how many meetings there
9 were?
10 A. Around, I’m guessing, three to four.
11 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Move to strike the
12 testimony, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Denied.
14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You’re guessing three to
15 four, but you don’t really know, right?
16 A. No, I couldn’t say. I couldn’t pinpoint it.
17 I wasn’t —
18 Q. You weren’t in the meetings, right?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You don’t remember what they looked like,
21 right?
22 A. I do remember what they looked like if I saw
23 a picture of them, yes.
24 Q. Well, the picture the prosecutor showed you,
25 you couldn’t identify, right?
26 A. Yes, sir.
Let’s face it guys, so far Swingler seems like a pretty straightforward, trustworthy, and reputable kind of guy, right? Well, unfortunately, he is about to show his true colors! Like most people who came in Jackson’s life, he tried to profit from his 6 weeks of employment by writing a book! He tried to pretend like he wasn’t trying to write one, but it’s clearly obvious that he was!
The sleazy tabloid News of the World (which thankfully went under in July 2011 after the infamous phone hacking scandal) got their slimy hands on Swingler and put the idea into his head to write a book, and he rationalized it because he had not been paid for some of his work at Neverland. Swingler was so pathetic that he didn’t even type his manuscript on a computer; he merely wrote them down in a notebook!
27 Q. Okay. Now, you wanted to be transferred to
28 Los Angeles; is that correct? 5755
1 A. Yes. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And did you tell — excuse me, who did you
3 talk to about the transfer?
4 A. Mr. Jackson.
5 Q. Okay. And you explained that the commute
6 and the hours were just too much to raise your
7 family?
8 A. I just wasn’t seeing my kids, and they were
9 one years old.
10 Q. And did you ask Mr. Jackson to be
11 transferred somewhere in Los Angeles?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And where was that?
14 A. I just asked him to be transferred to any
15 business in Los Angeles that he had.
16 Q. But you really didn’t even know if there was
17 a job available in Los Angeles, right?
18 A. No, that’s why I was asking.
19 Q. Okay. Right. Okay. And approximately when
20 did you ask him; do you know?
21 A. Maybe three weeks into the job.
22 Q. Okay. And Mr. Jackson was always nice to
23 you, wasn’t he?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And as far as you know, there may not have
26 been a job available in Los Angeles, right?
27 A. He told me there was one.
28 Q. He told you there was one? 5756
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. Where did he say?
3 A. A&R, his record label.
4 Q. Pardon me?
5 A. A&R of his record label.
6 Q. Had you ever worked at a record label
7 before?
8 A. No, I hadn’t.
9 Q. All right. But at some point you learned
10 that you weren’t being hired, right?
11 A. No. As a matter of fact, I saw Michael
12 again at his birthday party in Los Angeles and he
13 told me I was still hired.
14 Q. Okay. But it never came through, right?
15 A. No, I’m still waiting for my paycheck now.
16 Q. Okay. You’re trying to write a book about
17 your experiences at Neverland, correct?
18 A. Well, no, I’m not trying to write a book
19 about my experiences at Neverland.
20 Q. Well, didn’t you — excuse me. Did you say
21 Michael Jackson has a record label?
22 A. He told me he had a record label.
23 Q. Okay. Do you know that he doesn’t have one?
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; assumes facts.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not
27 he really has a record label?
28 A. I was just told by him he had a record 5757
1 label.
2 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you prepared notes
3 for a book called “Entering Neverland, Secrets
4 Behind the Gate,” right?
5 A. Does it have my signature on it? Because I
6 know that within the last month or two, I started
7 jotting down information to myself and somehow my
8 information come up missing out of my house, but
9 whatever.
10 Q. Did you prepare notes for a book titled
11 “Entering Neverland, Secrets Behind the Gate” —
12 A. No.
13 Q. — “By Dwayne Swingler, Head Supervisor of
14 Neverland Ranch, Summer of 2003,” did you prepare
15 that?
16 A. No.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; asked and
18 answered.
19 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is, “No.”
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you aware of anything
21 like that?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You didn’t —
24 A. Am I aware of it? What do you mean?
25 Q. Yeah. Have you written out anything for a
26 book called “Entering Neverland, Secrets Behind the
27 Gate, by Dwayne Swingler”?
28 A. No, I haven’t written anything, or titled 5758
1 anything, or signed anything, or spoke to anybody
2 about, “This is my deal.”
3 Q. Have you talked to a group called News of
4 the World?
5 A. Have I?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Yeah, I spoke with one lady one time, yes.
8 Q. And to your knowledge, who is News of the
9 World?
10 A. To my knowledge, it’s a news media overseas.
11 Q. And why were you speaking to them?
12 A. Because I was interested in maybe possibly
13 writing down some information to — to cash in on
14 something like everybody else was, because Michael
15 wasn’t — I hadn’t received the paycheck from A&R at
16 the time.
17 Q. Okay. Did you enter into a nondisclosure
18 agreement with News of the World?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. Have you ever seen one?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. Did you ever talk to someone named David
23 Han-Schmidt?
24 A. The same time I spoke with the News of the
25 World lady, he’s the one that contacted her and
26 contacted me.
27 Q. And to your knowledge, who is David
28 Han-Schmidt? 5759
1 A. He said that he was a media agent. I don’t
2 even know how he got my phone number.
3 Q. When did you last talk to David Han-Schmidt?
4 A. He — as a matter of fact, he called me
5 today.
6 Q. And to your knowledge, is he with a public
7 relations company?
8 A. I really don’t know what he did. He never
9 clarified that with me. He said he was an agent, he
10 was a producer, he was in public relations. I
11 basically ended the situation.
12 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone ever send you
13 a nondisclosure agreement regarding News of the
14 World?
15 A. No. I haven’t signed any nondisclosure
16 agreements, and I haven’t taken any money from
17 anyone.
18 Q. How many discussions have you had with David
19 Han-Schmidt?
20 A. Three. Four. Can’t remember.
21 Q. And when was the last one with him? Today?
22 A. He called me today, because he said he heard
23 that I was coming to testify.
24 Q. Okay. Have you ever put together any notes
25 for a possible book on the computer?
26 A. Excuse me?
27 Q. Have you ever put any notes for a possible
28 book on your computer? 5760
1 A. No, I haven’t.
2 Q. Have you ever written any notes out for a
3 possible book?
4 A. I told you I jotted down some information on
5 a piece of paper, and that’s all I’ve done.
6 Q. Did you ever ask any public relations person
7 to put together a proposal for you?
8 A. No, I haven’t.
9 Q. But you’re thinking of doing it, right, like
10 everybody else?
11 A. Yes, I was thinking about doing it.
12 Q. Okay. Okay. Have you ever seen — excuse
13 me. Has anyone ever brought to your attention that
14 somebody has prepared notes for a possible book in
15 your name?
16 A. David.
17 Q. David Han-Schmidt?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he prepare them, to your knowledge?
20 A. He just said he received papers. I don’t
21 know — like I told you, I don’t even know how he
22 got my phone number.
23 Q. Okay. If I showed you these papers, might
24 it refresh your recollection about where they came
25 from?
26 A. No, it probably wouldn’t, because I never
27 typed any papers or wrote out — the only thing I
28 did was write down notes, jotted down notes on a 5761
1 piece of paper.
2 Q. Okay. And that was about your experience
3 during the five weeks at Neverland?
4 A. That was about my experience totally, not
5 just the five weeks at Neverland. That was my
6 experience with Michael’s manager and everything.
7 Q. Okay. Did you ever write down on those
8 notes the words “Secrets Behind the Gate”?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. Okay. Did David Han-Schmidt tell you how he
11 got your name?
12 A. No, he did not.
13 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask him, “Why did you
14 call me?”
15 A. Well, actually, he started the conversation
16 off, and he just, whew, went straight to talking
17 about a lot of money, so I was listening to him
18 about a lot of money first.
19 Q. Did he promise you a lot of money?
20 A. That’s what he promised, yes.
21 Q. Okay. How much money did he promise?
22 A. He never said figures. He just said, you
23 know, “You can make a lot of money.” You know, “Why
24 aren’t you telling anyone your story?” That’s what
25 he said to me.
26 Q. It’s your understanding that he’s located in
27 Phoenix, Arizona?
28 A. Yes. That’s where he said he’s from. 5762
1 Q. Okay. Did he ever tell you he was going to
2 prepare a possible manuscript for you?
3 A. He asked me would I like him to, and I said
4 no. Like I told you, I terminated the conversation
5 when he told me what he wanted to do.
Here’s something that will surely give all Michael Jackson fans around the world a hearty laugh: the News of the World journalist David Han-Schmidt told Swingler that he was “pro-Jackson” and wanted to write a positive book about Jackson with Swingler’s help! Give me a damned break!
6 Q. Okay. And did he want some scandal sheet
7 about Michael, something like that?
8 A. Actually, he’s for Michael. He’s pro
9 Michael.
10 Q. Did he want you to write something about
11 Michael?
12 A. He wanted to speak on Michael’s behalf, yes.
13 Q. Okay. And how often — in those three
14 conversations, did you talk about money each time?
15 A. No, I did not.
16 Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken to Miss Carol
17 Maung, M-a-u-n-g, who is the U.S. editor of News of
18 the World?
19 A. I spoke with her. I spoke with her when she
20 was with David when I got there.
21 Q. And did she fax you anything or e-mail you
22 anything?
23 A. Fax me anything or e-mail me anything?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. No, sir.
While at Neverland, Swingler had no contact whatsoever with the Arvizo family because they left Neverland for the last time almost 2 months before Swingler even met Jackson! This makes you wonder what type of inculpatory information did Sneddon expect Swingler to have against Jackson? I’m sure it was the failed book deal that got Sneddon’s attention and whetted his appetite!
26 Q. Okay. All right. When you were at
27 Neverland working —
28 A. Yes. 5763
1 Q. — you had no direct contact with any member
2 of the Arvizo family, right?
3 A. The Arvizo family?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. That means you didn’t have any contact with
7 the Arvizos?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Do you remember meeting Dominick
10 Cascio at Neverland?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And he’s the — did you speak to him?
13 A. Often.
14 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, he’s a father?
15 A. He’s a father?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. I didn’t know he was a father.
18 Q. Okay. Did he ever talk to you about work he
19 did?
20 A. Did Dominick ever talk to me about work he
21 did?
22 Q. Yeah.
23 A. Some work at the restaurant that his family
24 owned.
25 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. I have no further
26 questions, Your Honor.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Counsel?
28 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel 5764
1 table.)
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Maybe we should approach.
3 Your Honor, may we approach?
4 THE COURT: For what?
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Concerning the materials
6 that counsel is using to cross-examine the witness
7 on.
8 THE COURT: All right.
9 (Discussion held off the record at sidebar.)
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I could just have a
11 moment, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I think I can finish with
14 this witness, Your Honor. Just one question.
Auchincloss had one last question for Swingler under redirect-examination: he wanted to establish to the jury that David Schmidt ran a pro-Jackson website, which may lend some credibility to his claim of wanting to write a positive book about Jackson (with Swingler’s help), but then it begs the question of why would Sneddon want anyone who is pro-Jackson testifying against Jackson? Like I said, I truly believe that Swingler was the most useless prosecution victim that was called thus far in the trial!
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
18 Q. Mr. Swingler, do you know if David Schmidt
19 has any affiliation with Michael Jackson?
20 A. I just know that he has a website; that
21 he’s, you know, pro Michael Jackson.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Thank you.
23 I have no further questions.
24 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your
25 Honor.
26 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
27 step down.
28 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 5765
Summary of Dwayne Swingler’s testimony:
1. Dwayne Swingler met Jackson in April 2003 during a studio session. After being around Jackson and his entourage for several days, he was offered a chance to travel with Jackson on the road, but when Jackson learned that Swingler had triplet sons, he suggested that Swingler work at Neverland instead so that he would be able to spend more time with his children.
2. Swingler began work as a ranch supervisor at Neverland in May 2003, but was fired in August 2003 without notice. He requested to be transferred to Los Angeles so that he could be closer to his sons, but instead he was terminated abruptly.
3. Auchincloss questioned Swingler about his general duties as ranch manager, his observations of any children who slept in Jackson’s bedroom, and the amount of control and influence that Jackson exerted among the ranch (this ties into the “Mafioso” mobster caricature that the prosecution pigeonholed Jackson with regarding the conspiracy charge; they wanted to show the jury that Jackson had a pattern of calling the shots at Neverland).
4. Auchincloss became extremely agitated that Swingler didn’t have a recollection of Dieter Weisner and Rondald Konitzer, even after he was shown photos of them. Auchincloss asked Swingler to try to identify them multiple times, and just gave up and ended his direct examination after Swingler couldn’t identify them.
5. Under cross examination, Swingler established that he had no idea exactly how many meetings Jackson had with Weisner and Konitzer because he wasn’t in those meetings! Mesereau objected to his Swinger’s answer and tried to have it stricken from the record, but his objection was denied by Judge Melville.
6. So far Swingler seems like a pretty straightforward, trustworthy, and reputable kind of guy, right? Well, unfortunately, he is about to show his true colors! Like most people who came in Jackson’s life, he tried to profit from his 6 weeks of employment by writing a book! He tried to pretend like he wasn’t trying to write one, but it’s clearly obvious that he was!
The sleazy tabloid News of the World (which thankfully went under in July 2011) got their slimy hands on Swingler and put the idea into his head to write a book, and he rationalized it because he had not been paid for some of his work at Neverland. Swingler was so pathetic that he didn’t even type his manuscript on a computer; he merely wrote them down in a notebook!
7. Here’s something that will surely give all Michael Jackson fans around the world a hearty laugh: the News of the World journalist David Han-Schmidt told Swingler that he was “pro-Jackson” and wanted to write a positive book about Jackson with Swingler’s help! Give me a damned break!
8. While at Neverland, Swingler had no contact whatsoever with the Arvizo family because they left Neverland for the last time almost 2 months before Swingler even met Jackson! This makes you wonder what type of inculpatory information did Sneddon expect Swingler to have against Jackson? I’m sure it was the failed book deal that got Sneddon’s attention and whetted his appetite!
9. Auchincloss had one last question for Swingler under redirect-examination: he wanted to establish to the jury that David Schmidt ran a pro-Jackson website, which may lend some credibility to his claim of wanting to write a positive book about Jackson (with Swingler’s help), but then it begs the question of why would Sneddon want anyone who is pro-Jackson testifying against Jackson? Like I said, I truly believe that Swingler was the most useless prosecution victim that was called thus far in the trial!
After a long day, Sneddon tried to add some levity to the courtroom to help ease the tension and send everyone home on a high note:
1 THE COURT: Do you have another witness?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: (To Mr. Sneddon) Go
3 ahead.
4 MR. SNEDDON: You.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Do you want me to do it?
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. SNEDDON: We’re trying to figure out
8 which one of us should take responsibility for
9 telling you “No.”
10 (Laughter.)
11 MR. SNEDDON: And being the great delegator
12 I am, I’m leaving it up to Gordon.
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: We have no further
14 witnesses, Your Honor. We just anticipated that
15 there would be — it would take a little longer to
16 get through these witnesses today.
17 THE COURT: All right. There’s a couple of
18 items that we can take up. I’ll go ahead and excuse
19 the jury.
20 (To the jury) Remember the admonitions I’ve
21 given you and I’ll see you tomorrow morning at 8:30.
22 But it’s a half day tomorrow, remember. How could
23 you forget, right?
Judge Melville had some issues to discuss with the attorneys outside the presence of the jury.
25 (The following proceedings were held in
26 open court outside the presence and hearing of the
27 jury:)
28 5766
1 THE COURT: All right. First, there was —
2 my understanding is that the special master will
3 have the report available tomorrow morning for you
4 on the computer hard drives.
5 MR. SNEDDON: On both of them, Your Honor?
6 THE COURT: Yes. They’re working on some
7 last-minute details. So it will be available
8 tomorrow morning.
9 MR. SNEDDON: Now, at that point, then, Your
10 Honor, does it need to go to you for final decision,
11 or is that the decision?
12 THE COURT: I don’t know. I haven’t read
13 the report. I was handed a rough draft of one by my
14 research attorney this morning — well, not this
15 morning, a few minutes ago. And I asked him to talk
16 to Mr. Sanger about an issue. So I can’t answer
17 your question.
18 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.
19 THE COURT: I suspect it doesn’t need to go
20 beyond what’s been done by the special master, so —
21 MR. SNEDDON: Okay.
22 THE COURT: But I won’t know till I’ve looked
23 at it.
24 The second thing is that both of you have
25 submitted points and authorities on Janet Arvizo.
26 The District Attorney’s I’ve read.
27 And I just received the defense, so I
28 haven’t had time to read yours. 5767
1 When do you expect to call Janet Arvizo?
2 MR. ZONEN: Either tomorrow or Wednesday.
3 Depending on if we finish the witnesses scheduled
4 before her tomorrow. If not —
5 THE COURT: They can’t hear behind you.
6 (To the audience) He said either tomorrow
7 or Wednesday.
8 MR. ZONEN: As early as tomorrow.
9 THE COURT: As early as tomorrow.
10 Okay. Well, I’m not really prepared to deal
11 with that issue. We’ll have to deal with it before
12 she’s called, but I’ll need to study the material
13 you’ve given me, the defense has given me.
14 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
15 THE COURT: Was there anything else pending?
16 MR. SANGER: On that issue, Your Honor, as I
17 explained to you, as I explained to your clerk, we
18 were served with their papers this morning. We
19 thought they might call Ms. Arvizo today.
20 THE COURT: Right.
21 MR. SANGER: So we put something together
22 very quickly, and I would like to have an
23 opportunity to explain to the Court a little more,
24 in a little more organized fashion, where this goes,
25 now that we’ve had a few more minutes to think about
26 it.
27 THE COURT: I’ll make sure you have that
28 opportunity. 5768
1 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.
2 THE COURT: All right. Then we’ll recess
3 until tomorrow morning.
4 (The proceedings adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/april-12th-2005-trial-analysis-jay-jackson-direct-and-cross-examination-part-1-of-3/
lynande51
sanemjfan
thetis7
Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0 
One more important thing. I came across this interview by David Corbett. He’s an experienced Private Investigator who had THIS to say. Can you guys read it and tell me what you make of him and his statements? He claims Cochran offered 20 million to the Chandlers and Michael and/or people working for him committed obstruction of justice by preventing Jordan from testifying at the grand jury. This was apparently an unwritten part of the settlement agreement, so he says. I find it really weird and I’m not sure about him.
“We worked for the fourteen-year-old boy and his family in the child molestation case, and we tried the best we could to help the police, but we kept finding out from the sergeant who was out liaison at LAPD that they would assemble a witness list from our reports, pass it up the chain of command, and it would inevitably come back with certain key witnesses cross off. The suspicion was that, with Johnny Cochran at the helm of Jackson’s defense, he was pulling strings with old contacts in the DA’s office or with cops he knew. We could never prove this, and it was just a suspicion. But it all became moot when Cochran, fearing his investigators has been taped trying to tamper with witnesses—they’d been instructed by Cochran to go out and find ex-employees, tell them, “Michael loves you,” and offer them their jobs back at salaries they could hardly refuse—Cochran had a high-power conclave with his client and promptly pitched almost $20 million at the kid and his family. *An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know.*”
His assertions are 100% false. NOTHING stopped the Chandler’s from testifying against MJin criminal proceedings (either the grand jury or criminal trial) except their OWN selfish, extortionist motives. If Evan Chandler wanted justice, he would have went straight to the police in August 1993, instead of trying to negotiate a $20 million dollar film deal. He sued MJ in Sept. 1993, and filed a legal motion to have the civil trial go BEFORE a potential criminal trial, and then MJ subsequently filed a legal motion to have the criminal trial precede the civil case, as any innocent person would do.
MJ wanted to prove his innocence in criminal court, but the judge ruled in favor of the Chandler’s due to Jordan Chandler’s young age (alleged child abuse victims get preferential treatment when it comes to a speedy trial, and that’s because they’re young and it’s important to have them testify ASAP while their memories are fresh).
June Chandler testified in the 2005 criminal trial, as well as Blanca Francia and her son Jason (who received a $2.4 million dollar settlement in 1995.) Corbett claimed that MJ was trying to bribe ex-employees; he is serious???!!!! There were numerous employees who defended MJ, and the few that claimed to have seen him molesting kids were thoroughly annihilated under cross-examination. In fact, five of them filed a frivolous wrongful termination lawsuit against MJ, and MJ countersued and won, and the 5 employees were forced to file bankruptcy.
You can read the summaries of Blanca Francia, Jason Francia, Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon, Philip LeMarque, and Kassim Abdool here: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/the-most-important-testimonies-from-the-2005-trial/
Thanks for answering. I’ve been researching the MJ allegations for a year now, checked nearly all of what pro and anti sites have to offer, and though I’m definitely leaning towards his innocence, I have questions and find the people on this site more objective than and not… deluded like certain anti sites I read, so I’m grateful you can clear up these obstacles in my head.
Anyway, thought you guys would be interested in this. I found this story shared by Taymoor Marmarchi, one of MJ’s humanitarian workers. It’s very interesting and sheds new light on Jordan Chandler and June Chandler. Let me know what you think.
“On one of my trips to Neverland, a Mexican worker who took care of the grounds of Michael’s main residence, confided to me in Spanish and shared a fascinating story that both shocked and clarified how people in Michael Jackson’s life take advantage, manipulate, twist the truth and create malicious lies about him, all for the sake of money.
The worker began to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world.
He began telling me that one day back in 92/93 before Michael’s heavy scheduled Dangerous tour, there was a BBQ and swimming pool party that Michael hosted for a group of friends, both youngsters and adults at Neverland.
After a couple of hours, Michael got out of the pool and went to shower and dry off. The worker noticed that a young boy also excused himself from the pool after Michael. He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather shockingly spying and scanning Michael’s naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom. The worker immediately shouted at him and asked, ‘What the hell are you doing up here?’ Michael heard the worker yell, discovered the boy in his bathroom and told him to take the boy back down to the pool, thinking nothing of it.
When the boy returned to the pool he glanced over at his mother, who was present and sunbathing by the pool, and gave her a sign of acknowledgement, as if he had accomplished whatever he set out to do. In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit.
That same boy later claimed in Aug ’93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler.
Chandler infamously told police vivid details of how Michael Jackson’s genitalia appeared, as a certain guarantee to the world, that Michael must have been guilty of these heinous accusations.
Of course he knew how to describe the different skin shades and colour blemishes in Michael’s private parts, he was spying on him in the shower that day to prepare for an incredible extortion attempt for millions of dollars, meticulously and carefully planned by a family of professional con artists and scammers.”
~~
Editor’s Note: Chandler’s description was not 100% accurate. One example is that he described Michael as having been circumcised, when he was not. I do not bring this up to further exploit Michael and I feel horrible even having to mention it, but it does matter because this is very telling about the falseness of Chandler’s description of Michael in this case.
I got this article from a Michael Jackson fansite, so I don’t know how true this story is. I pray one day Jordan finds the courage and tells the truth and finally clear Michael’s name.
Hey, I’m on vacation now, but I saw your comment and I’ll reply as soon as I get back. Just wanted to acknowledge you so you don’t think I’m ignoring you. Thanks!
I want to make sure I’m understanding this right. Wasn’t MJ present during Anthony Pellicano’s interview with Jordan where he denied abuse?
No, he wasn’t. Pellicano wanted to be alone with Jordan so that Jordan couldn’t be influenced by MJ to defend him.
Are you sure? Because in June’s testimony, Sneddon points out towards the end that MJ was present.
I’m sure. MJ was present at the August 4th, 1993 meeting at his condo with Pellicano, Evan, and Jordan Chandler, but he wasn’t present when Pellicano spoke with Jordan Chandler prior to that.
Hey guys, I’m working lots of overtime at work this week, so unfortunately I won’t be able to publish the next post until this weekend.
It’ll be a good one though! The next witness is Jay Jackson, and after that Janet Arvizo! Prepare to literally laugh out loud once you finally read everything she had to say under oath! 🙂
from Wikipedia on David Hans Schmidt–interesting guy (!!!).
“David Hans Schmidt (May 27, 1960 – September 28, 2007) was a broker in celebrity photos and other celebrity related items. His specialization in acquiring celebrity sex videos and nude photos earned him the nickname “The Sultan of Sleaze,” a moniker he was proud to have. In addition to celebrity videos/photos, he marketed other celebrity goods, such as the diaries of Paris Hilton, the nude images of Amber Frey, the mistress of convicted murderer Scott Peterson.
Schmidt, born in Rochester, Minnesota, launched his career by brokering a deal between Playboy and reputed Bill Clinton mistress Gennifer Flowers.”
He was sued by Tom Cruise for extortion.
What is important to me about this guy Swingler’s testimony is that Michael was so incredibly casual about bringing total strangers into his life after just 3 or 4 days of hanging out with them. This is so mindboggling that he would be so casual as to have this guy after such a short acquaintance be the house manager at Neverland. People needed to be vetted so much better. I know they speak of physicals and record checking, but a record check will really not show that much about what kind of person you are–it will only show things like if you have a criminal record or what your fico score is.
We can see how trusting he was with Murray. Murray tape recorded him while out of it, used a condom catheter, had total access to him and his body for hours at a time while MJ was completely reliant on him, and all just because MJ seemed to think he seemed nice.
lacienegasmiles, yes, good point, but he was desperate to get sleep for the tour rehearsals, so there was an added pressure to accept Murray as a nice guy that wasn’t there with Swingler. I can see hiring Swingler (maybe) but NOT for a position where he would have so much access to the main house at NL. Maybe for the grounds crew. People must have put on an incredible ‘nice’ act when around him, otherwise it just seems caution was lacking.Look at Bashir, another ‘nice guy’ actor. Maybe Michael didn’t realize the danger he was in–although he sang about it in Stranger in Moscow–we’re talking danger baby. It’s hard to figure it out–why he would be so trusting, esp. after 1993.
MJ didn’t hire Murray for sleep though, initially. But even as a random doctor, he should have vetted him more thoroughly. Murray’s issues with child support, etc should’ve set off warning alarms for people in his camp. MJ should’ve at least asked one of his BG to be there during the first night he ever did this with Murray… something.
But MJ always seemed far too trusting. It’s the same with him and Bashir, Uri Geller, all these creeps.
Lacienegasmiles, I am thinking he was so focused on his creative work that he let many other more mundane things slide–you know how we do when we are focused on one task and neglect another one. I let my paperwork pile up and never seem to get around to filing stuff and organizing it b/c I am more interested in other activities which seem more important. So I am thinking he focused so much on his art, which he saw as his legacy to the lovers of the world, that he just did not have time to focus on other things–what do you think? This may be part oif the reason he was so trusting?
The whole 1108 evidence thing is topsy turvy from any other case. We have grown men and women saying that they witnessed MJ abusing Brett, Wade Mac and others. The only ones they testify to are in fact Mac (LeMarque, Blanca, Adrain MacManus). Brett ( McManus said she saw MJ grabhis butt) Wade ( Blanca said she saw underwear on the floor in a shower).
Then we have Chacon which said originally it was Brett, which prompted the DA’s from two different counties to spend taxpayers money on four round trip tickets to Australia to question him in June of 1994. They told the Barnes’ that a security guard had seen MJ molesting Brett. Brett’s parents would not allow them to talk to Brett and Brett had already been questioned when they searched Neverland because he was there. That is when he issued the general denial tha Sneddon talked about.
Here is what they were going to do in 1994. They hoped that Jordan would testify against Michael and instead of Brett they were going to use Chacon to tesify that he had seen something. The law allows for a precipieint witness (eye witness) in the case of children that don’t want to testify.
That would have forced Brett to the stand to be cross examined by Sneddon in 1994 at the age of 11. What would they have done to him then? We saw what the police did to jason Francia when they kept on questioning him until he told them whatever he had to to get out of there. It was the police that caused him problems. If he was smart he would have sued the county no MJ becausehe would have gotten alot more money and none of it would have gone to his mother.
Then fast forward to 2003-2005. They originally enlist the aid of the FBI to “question” Jordan and meet with him. What was that about? Then he refuses and threatens legal action against them if they make him come to court. I guess he was no longer a “timid” little boy but savvy enough to know what he had to do to get out of it.
So suddenly Chacon is contacted by the prosecution and just ike every good racist Sneddon says to him “they look alike” which changes Chacon’s testimony to Jordan. The Prosecution knew by that time that Brett was coming to testify FOR Michael not against him. That is just another fraud on the court that he committed when they are still misleading the court in December about the possibility that Jordan would still testify. This in fact is not just unethical it is against the law when a prosecutor helps a witness change their testimony so dramatically that it actually has a different victim. That would be called witness tampering
Sneddon really needs to get indicted..He committed so many crimes in that trial its not even funny. I remember watching a video with William Wagner where he stated that he had seen one of the prosecutors at an event and the guy was upset with William’s pro-Jackson reporting and told him, “don’t you think Jackson was guilty? you’re just like the rest of them”..And William laughed and told him, “Actually, you proved to me that he was innocent with your fake finger print evidence and your lying witnesses that got caught”
According to Ray Chandler June had witnessed MJ kissing Brett Barnes in the backseat of the car at Disney, Brett had supposedly been on MJ’s lap and did this in full view of them as it had happened.
Sneddon tried asking about it and you could tell he seemed really excited to get to it, to ask where Brett had been sitting, and June said he sat next to MJ.
Oh well, Ray/Sneddon.
Wasnt that story from VG book? I remember that too.That wasa supposed to be a big deal and she said nothing..Sneddon is an ass.
Roger Friedman said Ray Chandler said June would have all kinds of stories to tell and he commented on how she said nothing too.
@lynande
yeah these people definietly should have been prosecuted if they really saw these things. I remember when Ralph Chacon testified, one of the legal analysts stated that she was very skeptical of his testimony because she found it hard to believe that a 300lb security guard who’s trained duty was to protect people would just stand there and watch a grown man sexually assaulting a child. She said that’s kind of like saying you saw a kid get hit by a bus and you just stepped right over him.
It was Joana Spillbor. She also said there was an ethical problem. The prosecution knew that Barnes and Robson always denied being molested and were still friends with MJ. Is it ethical to have people, who are perjurer, to testify they were molested.
It is absurd..Nobody ever made an anonymous call to a hot line, either, saying kids were being abused.., that I know of…They just call a tabloid for money.
Roger Friedman says in this article that it got a laugh in the courtroom. when Mr Swigler said he was going to cash in like everybody else..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153158,00.html
I wonder if it is possible for Sneddon to have asked June if Jordan had ever told her he was abused ..I would think if he said that directly to her, she could repeat it, but it wasnt asked.
She is the one that brough him to Dr Gardner, he must have said something to her, supposedly..
The other thing that I also thought of , was about Wade and Brett coming in and Zonen being so abusive to them on the stand..Arent these supposed to be some of the original “victims” he was supposed to care so much about?
Why is he beating them up , if he thinks they are victims of MJ.Where was his compassion for them? nowhere..
This whole thing was stupid..
“She is the one that brough him to Dr Gardner, he must have said something to her, supposedly..”
It’s Feldman who did that.
It was feldman suggestion, but I think in his interview he refers to his mother waiting in the other room for him..
So Chris Carter supposedly sees kids getting drunk at Neverland and does nothing about it? I can’t help but wonder what the jury was thinking hearing all these grown men and women testifying to seeing all kinds of heinous acts at neverland, yet never did a damn thing about it. In my opinion, they too should have been prosecuted.
Stacy in any other case in the world they would have been but Sneddon was only interested in what story they could make up about Michael.
And yes I think he was supposed to tie Michael to letting kids get drunk at Neverland because that is Chris Carter was going to be called to testify about. Chris Carter was one of the worst possible prosecution witnesses and how he got around the security check for being around MJ’s kids I will never know. When he testified in front of the grand jury he had already committed 2 of the 4 armed robberies that he was convicted of and when MJ found him in Vegas he was on the run from Maryland for drug charges. He tried to get parolled in August but is still in prison active just as recently as the 6th of January.
But those charges didn’t mean a thing to Sneddon he was going to call him anyway and it was Carter that refused when he found out that his testimony wasn’t going to get him a break in Nevada. Funny how that works isn’t it?
I actually feel sorry for Dwayne. How did he feel being called to the witness stand? Sneddon’s insistance in calling some of these people was PURE EXPLOITATION in my opinion. He should be ashamed of himself for this mockery of a trial, but, unfortunately he is not. I wonder when he realized that everyone of his witnesses either needed immunity for a crime that they had committed against Michael or had tried to cash in on working for him.
This is just about as bad as Rudy Provencio’s testimony, who, at one point says that he journals to make him a better person? How can they put people like this on the stand and an even better question would be WHY would a tabloid reach out to someone that was there for 3-4 weeks after the Arvizo’s? This just shows how desperate they were to hang MJ for this thing of you ask me.Mike Taibbi’s wrote after the trial about some journalists having a vested interest in Michael being guilty and it sure does ring true when you see people like this paraded into court.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/jacksons-kid-pals-vomited-after-alcohol-binges_1110885
This is a nasty story attributed to Mr Swigler , but later in the comments section , he rebukes this story., with this comment
——-
Dwayne Swingler (1)
Dear Micheal fans, I want to give you some facts.1] I never seeked out a story for money in 2005 or 2009 these people tracked me down.2] I never knew I was doing a story with THE GLOBE!I don’t have ANY contracts with the globe for thatstory…I did a story with a guy who told me he wasan independent writer…I only agreed on the interview, because he said I can make it positive.3] I WOULD NEVER DISRESPECT THE DEAD!!4] This guy lied on 80% of that story to get sales.I NEVER said I was Micheal Jacksons drug runner!!The globe should be a shame for printing a headlinean article like that…the writer Mark is a poparassi devil!He deleted all the good things I said and replaceit with news paper selling lies. For future reference “DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING THE GLOBE PRINTS! If you don’t know it’s a factchances are it’s probally a lie.5]I’m a Micheal Jackson fan too! Did he do some things I wouldn’t have done, yes! Does that makehim a bad man, no! I told Mark not THE GLOBE thatMicheal was a great dad…and that I was impressedwith how smart prince was at age five. I told Markthat Joe Jackson was my favorite Jaskson. And howfamily’s would come from far away to the gates ofneverland with sad stories about thier sons or daughters dying or has some serious illnessand thier only wish is to come to neverland andhang out with Micheal Jasckson. I told Mark I hadto go ask Micheal many times for different family’spremission to let them on the property…and he always said yes. They NEVER printed that.Love an respect to all!Dwayne Swingler
———————–
Sneddon must have heard the salacious title of the supposed book and thought this man was going to say something negative.
Otherwise why would they pick a person who wasnt even there with the Arvizos and only worked there a short time.
Maybe they got his name from Chris Carter,….and he was supposed to tie in something with what Chris was supposed to say.
All I got out of this testimony is that MJ was really nice to work for, and was a considerate person..
Actually, David Han Schmidt was pro Michael. He was the guy behind the website “Hans News” that bought the Glenda tapes from Damion Stein.
http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/glenda-tapes/backstory-glenda-stein-and-family-glenda-tapes/
He stated that the tapes vindicated Michael, as they showed him talking about women with friends and also that he spoke with two children (one boy, one girl) and never said anything remotely untoward. He killed himself after the trial sometime.
So perhaps he was being sincere and was being “pro Michael.”
http://www.hansnews.com
I think they tried asking at the end if the website was pro Michael Jackson because they wanted to suggest the reason there was no interesting info shared was because this guy was being paid to be pro-MJ. Just the usual nonsense they have.
As you can see on his website:
Michael Jackson Innocent!
David Hans Predicted It
David Hans was RIGHT!!!
8 hours of secret audio tape recordings prove it!
The media is spinning over the accusations in the Michael Jackson trial. America’s King of Pop, known around the world for his generosity and dedication to helping those in need, is once again being brought to trial over outrageous charges of molestation. Hans News has the exclusive content that shows that this gentle music giant is the victim of manipulation and deceit. Despite all his hard efforts and contributions, this loving father is ridiculed on a daily basis by news and media. This content is a private conversation that will break anyone’s previous thoughts of wrong doings.
http://www.hansnews.com/
Unfortunately can’t contact him as he’s deceased.
Thanks for that great info! You’re always bringing the knowledge about this miniscule facts concerning MJ! I wasn’t familiar with him, and I laughed at the notion that anyone associated with News of the World would be pro-MJ, for obvious reasons, but I’m glad you cleared it up for me.
I was surprised to read this and see his name come up, I hadn’t realized he’d been mentioned in the trial. Some fans wrongly claim the Glenda tapes were mentioned in the trial or that Mesereau knew about them or something, but they weren’t and he hasn’t.
It looks like he was no longer working for NOTW when he had his website and had moved into trying to have his own gossip site on the web. It’s interesting he was a former NOTW journalist and could be pro-MJ. I wonder how he had met the Steins.
It really does sound like Sneddon had heard he was writing a book and so immediately sought him out, and hadn’t even bothered asking if it would be pro or anti MJ or what, I guess assuming like everyone else that the only reason anyone could write a book would be to trash him.
Then when they heard him say Hans was pro-MJ I imagine their horror LOL so they had to try and make him seem affiliated with MJ in some way (obviously, as the only reason anyone could say anything nice about Michael was if he was paying them), though Hans was most definitely not.
Schmidt was a con artist who tried to blackmail celebrities.