Skip to content

How Many Boys Did Tom Sneddon REALLY Accuse Michael Jackson Of Molesting?

May 14, 2013

There have been rumors spreading amongst the tabloid media that there will be additional accusers who will soon come forward and claim that they were “victims” of Michael Jackson, and are now preparing to file lawsuits against his Estate. Here is where the story originated:

TWO MORE ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS OF MICHAEL JACKSON ARE TO COME FORWARD

TWO more alleged child abuse victims of Michael Jackson are preparing to file lawsuits against the late King of Pop’s estate, it was revealed yesterday. 

A legal source close to the singer’s family confirmed: “One is in the public eye, the other is not.

 

“They are both telling the same story of regular and repeated molestations.”

 

The bombshell claims come ten days after top Hollywood choreographer Wade Robson launched his claim for compensation from Jackson’s estate.

 

Australian Robson, 30, alleges he was “systematically” molested for seven years during his childhood at Neverland Ranch, where he was a regular guest of the Thriller singer.

 

Both the other victims waiting in the wings claim they too were subjected to “years of abuse,” according to the legal source, who added: “They are waiting to see what happens in the first action.”

 

Robson was a key defence witness in Jackson’s 2005 trial, at which the star was acquitted by a jury of seven counts of child molestation and two of administering “intoxicating agents” to a 13-year-old boy.

 

His U-turn was slammed by Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the Jackson estate who described his lawsuit as “outrageous and pathetic”.

But Robson’s lawyer Henry Gradstein hit back: “Jackson was a monster and in their hearts every normal person knows it.

 

“My client has lived with the brainwashing of a sexual predator until the stress and burden of it crushed him.”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/314102/Two-more-alleged-child-abuse-victims-of-Michael-Jackson-are-to-come-forward/

 

Ever since the story was published, I’ve been asked by many fans about who I think the other two accusers may be. I’ll try my best to answer that question, and use the process of elimination to make an educated guess. Keep in mind, there is no way to know if there is any validity to this story, or to know exactly who the other two accusers may be. To be honest with you, the fact that the two other alleged accuser are “waiting to see what happens in the first action” just shows how incredible (in a legal sense) their cases really are!

There is a misconception among not only the general public, but many less knowledgeable fans, that the prosecution alleged during his trial that Jackson had “dozens”, or even “hundreds” of victims, but that’s not true at all! Sneddon and his cronies alleged that Jackson only had 7 prior victims from the early 90’s (in addition to Gavin Arvizo): Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Jonathan Spence, and Jimmy Safechuck.

Jimmy Safechuck met Jackson in 1987, when he was cast to star alongside him in a Pepsi commercial:

MJ and Jimmy Safechuck

Here is a photo of them together on the set of Jackson’s “HIStory” album trailor, which was shot in late 1994. So much for the notion of Jackson “dumping” his young friends after they hit puberty!

MJ and Jimmy Safechuck in 1994

Jonathan Spence met Jackson during the filming of Captain EO in 1986, and they remained close friends for several years:

MJ and Jonathan Spence

I will briefly describe their “evidence” against Safechuck and Spence in this post. I’m sure everyone here is already familiar with the other boys, but if not, you can read this legal document from the prosecution, which was submitted to the court in December 2004, for more information on why the prosecution felt that the other boys were “victims”: “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSON OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES

Jonathan Spence was a close friend of Jackson for 2 years. Jackson’s former maid, Blanca Francia (who Mesereau thoroughly discredited under cross examination; read this post for more info) claimed that Jackson made Spence refer to him as “daddy”, and that she would often find his dirty underwear on the floor while cleaning Jackson’s room at Hayvenhurst. (Read page 22 of that document for more info on what Blanca observed between Jackson and Spence.)

Mark Quindoy was a former Neverland employee who sold lies to the tabloids in 1993, a few years after he and his wife quit and sued Jackson over $500k in unpaid overtime! In 1992, one year after quitting Neverland, he and his wife praised Jackson on the Geraldo Rivera show, as well as on the tabloid TV show Hard Copy. You can see their Hard Copy interview here:

They claimed that Jackson lied to them and told them that Jimmy Safechuck was sleeping in another room, when in fact he was sleeping in Jackson’s two story bedroom suite. He also claimed that he saw Safechuck’s dirty underwear on the floor, and that Jackson put his hand down Safechuck’s underpants and masturbated him while they were both in the Jacuzzi. (Read pages 19-20 for more info.)

Blanca Francia stated that she saw Jackson and Safechuck in bed in Jackson’s movie theater, and their upper bodies were unclothed (i.e. they weren’t wearing shirts), but she couldn’t tell if they were naked from the waist down because they were both under the blanket. Oh, the horror! (Read page 22 for more info.)

On March 28th, 2005, Judge Melville allowed both Sneddon and Mesereau to make their cases for and against, respectively, the inclusion of the “Prior Bad Acts” evidence. Here is what Mesereau had to say regarding Safechuck and Spence being named as “victims” by Sneddon, as well as the other boys: (Please read this WORD FOR WORD!!!)

13 I submit to this Court that the introduction

 

14 of 1108 evidence is very problematic, given the weak

 

15 nature and the contradictory nature of their case.

 

16 I submit that the introduction of 1108 evidence

 

17 could easily reduce the burden of proof the

 

18 prosecutors have, could easily jeopardize the

 

19 presumption of innocence in this case and could

 

20 render an unfair trial.

 

21 Again, I understand what the cases say and

 

22 what they cite, but this Court has very honorably

 

23 suggested its concern for fairness, as it was in

 

24 another case, and that’s why the Court waited to see

 

25 what some of their witnesses looked like. I wish we

 

26 would defer it, because every time they put a

 

27 witness on, it gets worse. But nevertheless, here’s

 

28 where we are. 3755

 

1 Now, what is 1108 evidence essentially?

 

2 Essentially it’s character evidence. And when the

 

3 debate was going on in legislature about whether or

 

4 not to create an exception, tremendous concerns were

 

5 raised about allowing the prosecution to simply

 

6 introduce evidence of — what appears to be evidence

 

7 of bad character.

 

8 Now, they can phrase it in any terminology

 

9 they want, they can say it’s evidence of modus

 

10 operandi, intent, blah blah. But the reality is,

 

11 they’re trying to bring in character evidence to

 

12 bolster a separate charge. And any time you do

 

13 that, the Court has to be concerned with the

 

14 possibility of prejudice.

 

15 Now, I don’t need to recite the cases to the

 

16 Court on prejudice. I know the Court’s familiar

 

17 with them. But every time they define prejudice,

 

18 they define it in terms of emotion. Will it have an

 

19 emotional effect on the jury that is improper? Will

 

20 it have an emotional effect on the jury that results

 

21 in unfair prejudice to the defendant? And if, in

 

22 fact, that emotional effect is there, will it also

 

23 spill over into the other factors like confusion of

 

24 issues, et cetera?

 

25 The evidence they’re trying to introduce is

 

26 evidence of a highly inflammatory and emotional

 

27 nature. There’s no question about that. But I

 

28 think the Court also has to look at the substantive 3756

 

1 part of the evidence that they want to introduce,

 

2 because from what we can see in the cases that we’ve

 

3 looked at, every time they’ve introduced 1108

 

4 evidence in a case like this, they have had a

 

5 separate alleged victim describe something similar.

 

6 Nowhere can we find they are just

 

7 willy-nilly bringing in third-party witnesses to say

 

8 they saw something without bringing the alleged

 

9 victim in. Yet that is exactly what 99 percent of

 

10 the evidence they plan to bring in is. And I submit

 

11 the potential for prejudice there is overwhelming.

 

12 They probably couldn’t win a civil case if they were

 

13 pursuing a civil case based on nothing but third

 

14 parties. Yet they want to do it in a criminal case

 

15 without any of these alleged victims coming in, with

 

16 the exception of one, who is problematic, and I will

 

17 explain that to the Court.

 

18 So I submit the very substance of what

 

19 they’re trying to do is wrong, and it’s potentially

 

20 very prejudicial to Mr. Jackson particularly given

 

21 the weak nature of the case.

 

22 Now, let’s look at what they’re trying to

 

23 do. They have an alleged prior victim named Brett

 

24 Barnes who tells us he never was touched improperly.

 

25 They want to bring in four witnesses to talk about

 

26 Brett Barnes. They don’t want to bring him in.

 

27 Because the moment they bring him in, they’re done.

 

28 So they want to bring in allegedly four honest 3757

 

1 witnesses – I guess they’re vouching for their

 

2 credibility – to testify that Mr. Barnes was

 

3 improperly touched.

 

4 Who are their main witnesses? Their main

 

5 witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ‘90s, and for

 

6 the first time Mr. Jackson decided, “I’m tired of

 

7 settling these stupid cases, I’m actually going to

 

8 defend this one.” It resulted in the longest civil

 

9 trial in the history of this courthouse. And the

 

10 Court, I’m sure, knows a lot more about that case

 

11 than I do. At numerous times during that six-month

 

12 trial, the trial Judge made findings that the

 

13 plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing

 

14 their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of

 

15 occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury

 

16 returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr.

 

17 Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole

 

18 from him. The Judge then awarded not only costs,

 

19 but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained

 

20 a judgment for over a million dollars against these

 

21 lying plaintiffs.

 

22 They want the Court to allow these lying

 

23 plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify

 

24 to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim

 

25 they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And

 

26 if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to

 

27 litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look

 

28 at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s 3758

 

1 not true, because they sold stories to tabloids,

 

2 they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment

 

3 against them.

 

4 Then we have Jordie Chandler, who everyone

 

5 tells us, and apparently was announced on television

 

6 this morning, is not going to testify. So who do

 

7 they want to bring in to testify to that? First of

 

8 all, Your Honor, I would note that in their motion,

 

9 they mention someone named Bob Jones. And in very

 

10 graphic — in a very graphic manner they told the

 

11 Court that Mr. Jones had worked for Mr. Jackson for

 

12 years, had traveled internationally with him, and

 

13 would testify to all sorts of improprieties with

 

14 children. We just were produced a police report by

 

15 the prosecution where Mr. Jones flat out denies

 

16 virtually everything they said in their motion. He

 

17 has told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, with counsel,

 

18 that he never saw anything inappropriate happen when

 

19 Mr. Jackson was in the company of any of these

 

20 children.

 

21 They haven’t told that to the Court in any

 

22 of their papers, to my knowledge, but they just gave

 

23 us that report.

 

24 Now, what happens if you allow third-party

 

25 testimony about Mr. Chandler without allowing Mr. —

 

26 forcing them, or ordering them, or requiring them to

 

27 have Mr. Chandler, the alleged victim, testify? You

 

28 then have people come in to say what they saw 3759

 

1 without any victim to confirm it.

 

2 And what happened back in those days? In

 

3 summary, this is what happened: Chandler’s parents

 

4 had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up

 

5 custody of the child. When these alleged events

 

6 happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and

 

7 wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled

 

8 litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the

 

9 parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had — the mother’s

 

10 new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for

 

11 allegedly interfering with his business. He had an

 

12 auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had

 

13 interfered with his business. He wanted millions.

 

14 After the settlement, the father then filed a new

 

15 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more

 

16 dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have

 

17 all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually

 

18 Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking

 

19 legal emancipation from his parents.

 

20 Where is the justice in this case of

 

21 allowing parents to come in who collected lots of

22 money because Mr. Jackson wanted to get this case

 

23 behind him and pursue his music career? And indeed,

 

24 all kinds of advisors were telling him to do that.

 

25 You have parents playing each other off with the

 

26 child and pursuing collateral litigation, all of

 

27 that will obviously have to be explored, because the

 

28 potential for financial interest, financial bias in 3760

 

1 a situation like that, is enormous, the motives for

 

2 financial gain were enormous, and indeed, there was

 

3 never any criminal prosecution despite Mr. Sneddon’s

 

4 noble efforts to try and do one.

 

5 So there’s no alleged victim with Brett

 

6 Barnes. There’s no alleged victim with Jordie

 

7 Chandler. Then we come to Macaulay Culkin, who has

 

8 repeatedly made statements that he’s a friend of Mr.

 

9 Jackson and has never been molested. But they want

 

10 to bring in evidence that he was molested. And they

 

11 want to bring in witnesses who also were part of the

 

12 gang that sued Mr. Jackson, and lost, with findings

 

13 that they had lied and with enormous damages awarded

 

14 against them.

 

15 Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason

 

16 Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were

 

17 interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the

 

18 mother was taken. Money was paid to settle that

 

19 case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the

 

20 press, didn’t want his family going through it, and

 

21 wanted to pursue his music career. There never was

 

22 a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged

 

23 victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District

 

24 Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney

 

25 together. And after their interview with Jason

 

26 Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what

 

27 happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal

 

28 case, because there wasn’t one. We have that taped 3761

 

1 interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the

 

2 Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw

 

3 something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And

 

4 indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was

 

5 paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged

 

6 victim they want to bring in.

 

7 Five, Wade Robeson, who tells us nothing

 

8 ever happened to him. And they don’t propose to

 

9 bring him in as an alleged victim. They want to

 

10 bring in the gang that basically has tried to accuse

 

11 Mr. Jackson and get money from him for years,

 

12 generally unsuccessfully, with the exception of

 

13 Miss — Mr. Francia’s mother, and I’ve just talked

 

14 about the problems in her sworn statement in

 

15 discovery. The deposition is clear, she begins by

 

16 saying, “I think I saw something.” She ends by

 

17 saying, “I didn’t see anything.”

 

18 Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed

 

19 says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call

 

20 him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the

 

21 same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize

 

22 on the case, people who have been adjudged to be

 

23 liars, and they are. People who asked for money

 

24 from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr.

 

25 Jackson, et cetera.

 

26 Seven, Jonathan Spence, who we are informed

 

27 says nothing happened and doesn’t intend to come in

 

28 to support them at all. What do they want to do? 3762

 

1 Bring in the same crew again. Third-party witnesses

 

2 with an axe to grind, all of whom have wanted money

 

3 in the past, none of whom can substantiate that

 

4 anything happened because the alleged victim says

 

5 nothing happened.

 

6 The bulk of their 1108 evidence, Your Honor,

 

7 are third parties with axes to grind, and who have

 

8 tried to get money, and gotten money, and had the

 

9 problems I just identified. Where is the fairness

 

10 in allowing that kind of testimony, that kind of

 

11 evidence, when their underlying case looks so weak

 

12 and so problematic?

Mesereau also refuted those former Neverland employees in this document titled “SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DISTRIC ATTORNEY’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF ALLEGED PRIOR OFFENSES” In the end, Judge Melville ruled that he would allow evidence supporting the prosecution’s assertions that Jason Francia, Jordan Chandler, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and Macaulay Culkin were victims to be admitted in court. However, he ruled that any evidence pertaining to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence would be inadmissible because there wasn’t anyone who claimed to have witnessed actual physical conduct between them and Jackson:

15 THE COURT: The arguments presented by both

 

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

 

17 arguments bringing up the law and the factors that

 

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

 

19 this matter, which is of such great importance in

 

20 this case for both sides.

 

21 The arguments didn’t really bring up new

 

22 material, but they definitely emphasized the

 

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

 

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

 

25 alleged charges that would come under 1108.

 

26 But ultimately the decision I’ve reached,

 

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

 

28 permit the testimony with regard to the sexual 3783

 

1 offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming

 

2 activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to

 

3 the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade

 

4 Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett

 

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.

 

I bet you guys are asking yourselves the following question:

If Judge Melville would only admitted evidence from people who claimed to have seen physical contact between Jackson and young boys, then why wasn’t Mark Quindoy allowed to testify against Jackson?

The answer to that is simple; according to Diane Dimond, Quindoy died sometime before the trial. She didn’t specify where, when, or how he died, but only had the following to say about his death in her trash book “Be Careful Who You Love”, pages 75-77 (notice how she deliberately lowered the amount of money the Quindoys sued Jackson for from $500k to $283k!):

Mark and Faye Quindoy were living in the Philippines when the allegations against Michael Jackson hit the headlines in late August 1993. They were not surprised, and they called a news conference in Manila in late September to tell the world as much.

Holding what he said was his personal diary in his outstretched hand, Mark Quindoy announced that when he and his wife had served as the estate mangers at the rambling Neverland Valley Ranch from 1987 to 1991, they had seen and heard so many disturbing things with regard to Michael Jackson and his “special friends” that he had decided to write them all down. It begged the question: Why hadn’t he and his wife gone to the police with their claims? Their answer was that they didn’t think they’d be believed and they feared they’d lose their jobs if they came forward.

This diary was later given to California law enforcement. At the news conference, Mark Quindoy, a stately looking older Filipino man, alleged that he believed his former employer was a “gay pedophile.” He said most of the children the couple saw at the ranch were between seven and twelve years old, but some were infants.

Whatever a gay man does to his partner during sex, Michael does to a child,” said Quindoy. He related a story about one particular child and told the gathered reporters, “I swear I saw Michael Jackson fondling the little kid, his hands traveling on the kid’s thighs, legs, around his body. And during all this, the kid was playing with his toys.”

During another instance, Quindoy said, Michael Jackson asked him to drive him and a seven-year-old companion into the neighboring town of Solvang. The trip was so Jackson could see a huge dollhouse that he was thinking of duplicating at the ranch. Driving back to Neverland at dusk, Quindoy said he caught sight of a shocking scene in the backseat of the Chevrolet Blazer. His employer was acting “like a lover,” kissing the boy passionately.

“It was just like a boy kissing a girl in the backseat,” Quindoy said. At a stoplight Quindoy said he noticed “the boy wasn’t protesting— he just sat there stiffly, without moving, while Michael kissed him on the lips.” Then, with the headlights of passing cars illuminating the inside of the vehicle, he saw Michael begin to kiss the youngster everywhere— his neck, head, arms, shoulders, and body. “I was utterly stunned— appalled that he could do that to a seven-year-old boy.”

 Mark and Faye Quindoy said they quit working at the ranch in 1991, thinking that Jackson’s activities with young boys would certainly catch up with him. Now that the allegations of Jordie Chandler had made worldwide headlines, they said they felt it safe to tell the public what they knew. Michael Jackson “would be one of the nicest persons you will ever meet,” the Quindoys said, but he has a serious “illness.”

The problem with the Quindoys’ story was their ongoing battle to get Jackson to pay them the $ 283,000 they claimed he owned them in “unpaid overtime wages.” They didn’t try to hide that fact; they openly spoke about how they had been forced to be on call around the clock, even on scheduled days off, during their tenure with Jackson. They had added up all those extra hours and come up with the $ 283,000 figure. As they told their stunning story to the media, they were still actively engaged in trying to get the money they felt they were owed.

Their legal battle gave the Jackson camp all the ammunition they needed. They were immediately labeled as “disgruntled former employees” and “failed extortionists” in a public statement delivered by Anthony Pellicano.

Mark Quindoy would not live to testify to his claims at Jackson’s criminal trial in Santa Maria in 2005.

Had Quindoy been alive in 2005, Judge Melville would have allowed him to testify against Jackson, and Mesereau would have shredded him under cross examination (just as he did the other 1108 witnesses), and Safechuck would have denied any and all abuse as well (just as Robson, Barnes, and Culkin did).

It should be noted that Santa Barbara detectives Federico Sicard and Deborah Linden flew to Manila, Phillipines in 1993 to interview them, but found their story to be utterly worthless. Here’s an excerpt from pages 48-50 of “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” by Lisa Campbell:

Meanwhile, the tabloids and talk shows couldn’t get enough of the “Michael Jackson Scandal”. Soon former employees of Michael’s would begin crawling out of the woodwork with inside information on Michael’s personal life. This “information” was for sale to the highest bidder, and the tabloid magazines and tabloid TV shows were climbing over each other at the chance to land “the exclusive interview”. Whether or not the information was true was not an issue, as long as they had someone to say it was true. First up was Mark and Faye Quindoy, a Filipino husband and wife who had worked as a housekeeper and cook at Neverland from 1989 to 1991. He was a former lawyer. They left their employment at Neverland claiming they were owed $500,000 in overtime pay. If this is an indication of their pay scale, it certainly explains why he stopped practicing law to become a housekeeper! The Quindoys had filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for their overdue pay. Later, they claimed they quit because they couldn’t stand what they were observing at the ranch. They weren’t concerned enough to mention any of it to the authorities though.

The season premiere of Geraldo was the first of a several shows devoted to the story. This one even included a year old interview with the Quindoys which at the time only offered slight insights into the personal life of Michael Jackson, but now was being analyzed in a new light by Geraldo Rivera to see if anything said then could now be construed differently. A year earlier, the Quindoys described Michael Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. Other things disclosed in the earlier interview included their observation that each member of Michael’s family had visited the ranch with one notable exception, LaToya. They also said Michael had young friends visit him and that they stayed in the “Shirley Temple” room, a separate, enclosed bedroom inside Michael’s bedroom. In an effort to get him to eat better, Mrs. Quindoy developed meals named after Michael’s zoo animals and Disney characters.

 By this time Mark and Faye Quindoy had drastically changed their story. While one year earlier they described Michael to Geraldo’s audience as a very nice man, they had now suddenly obtained a diary which they held at a press conference which they claimed they had kept while working at the ranch in which they described various questionable acts by “MJ”. A very important thing to point out here is that, like so many others in this media fiasco, the Quindoys first told, and sold, their story to A Current Affair and did not take anything to the police. And then the police went to them, they did not take their “information” to any authorities. In response to the Quindoy’s media blitz with their “diary”, two detectives, Federico Sicard and Deborah Linden, flew to Manila to question them. They were found to be worthless as witnesses.

 A Current Affair, in their ever objective reporting technique, referred to the Quindoys’ press conference as “The press conference that could bring down Michael Jackson forever.” Actually the statements made the Quindoys only weakened the case against Michael Jackson, proving people will do and say anything if they think they will profit from it.

 The Quindoys were further discredited by their very own nephew. Glen Veneracion, a law student and nephew to the Quindoys, told interviewers his aunt and uncle were opportunists and they were an embarrassment, “I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.” He described the Quindoys antics as a desperate attempt to make money, “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.”

 Veneracion went to Pellicano with his statement and established the lack of credibility of the Quindoys. He answered questions concerning the diary the Quindoys claimed to have kept, “I’m quite sure they wrote that diary to fit in with these allegations. He was gonna get it at any cost. And that’s what’s coming out now.” Veneracion was willing to testify in any court proceedings, “I’d be willing to step forward in a court of law and make these allegations.”

 Pellicano called the Quindoys “cockroaches and failed extortionist”. To prove him wrong, the Quindoys filed another lawsuit, this one suing Pellicano for slander.

The only two accusers left out of the original eight that the prosecution named are Safechuck and Spence. Just as Mesereau asserted during his passionate defense of Jackson during the trial, if they were truly “victims” of Jackson, then why didn’t they show up to testify against him?

For the sake of argument (and ONLY for that sake!), let assume Jackson really did molest Safechuck, Spence, and Robson, but not any of the others (as has already been proven in court). Jackson must be the luckiest pedophile in the history of the world because he would have not one, not two, but THREE “victims” who each suffered from “repressed memories”, or Stockholm’s Syndrome, or whatever other junk science psychological excuse anyone wants to use! (Just for the record, I’m not trying to say that there are no legitimate cases of repressed memories or Stockholm’s Syndrome, because there are some out there. But those symptoms DO NOT APPLY to Wade Robson or anyone else who posthumously accuses Jackson of abuse!)

Personally, I do not believe that Spence or Safechuck are the other two alleged accusers of Jackson who may or may not come forward very soon. Although they have never spoken publicly about Jackson, whether to defend him or to talk in general about their relationship with him, I don’t believe that they would backstab Jackson and his family in the same manner that Wade Robson has. (You can read about Robson’s betrayal, as well as my summaries and analyses of his family’s testimonies, in this series of posts.)

I also think it’s highly probable that there truly AREN’T any “additional” accusers coming forward, and that the “source” close to Jackson’s family that told the Daily Star tabloid about the upcoming lawsuits is none other than discredited “journalist” Stacy Brown, who has been a vocal detractor of Jackson for many years, and co-wrote the trash book “The Man Behind The Mask” with Jackson’s ex-manager Bob Jones. (I analyzed their testimonies and fact-checked their book in a 3-part series; here’s Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.)

Stacy Brown predicts another molestation story against Jackson

The fact that The Daily Star stated that it was a “legal” source close to the singer’s family is irrelevant; they could have said that to throw people off from suspecting that it could be Brown or some other hack journalist. Brown very well may be doing this in order to further tarnish Jackson’s legacy, and dirty him up more as the AEG trial drags along. Look at what he tweeted about a slanderous and sloppily researched LA Times article about Wade Robson’s allegations against Jackson:

Stacy Brown approves of a trashy LA Times article about MJ

 

Well, at least Brown is honest enough to admit that he feels that Robson is lying now; it’s too bad that he’ll never admit publicly that, deep down inside, he knows that Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo were lying as well!

Stacy Brown doesn't believe Wade Robson

Obviously, I don’t know for sure who their source could be, and it’s only speculation on my part that it could be Brown. We’ll see……

That’s all for now, but I’ll add more to this post as the story develops…………

UPDATE! November 25, 2013

Apparently, there was an EIGHTH child that the prosecution asserted that Jackson molested; his name was Alex Montagu, and he was 5 years old at the time that the prosecution alleges that he may have been a victim of Jackson. His father, who was diagnosed with “psychotic tendencies”, concocted a story that the prosecution was oh so eager to believe, but Judge Melville did not allow him to testify because he didn’t witness the alleged abuse, and had he testified, his wife Wendy would have been ready and willing to thoroughly contradict his lies for the defense! You can read more about Alex Montagu in this post:  https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/april-25th-2005-trial-analysis-kassim-abdool-jeff-klapakis-craig-bonner-victor-alvarez-part-1-of-4/

 

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. patricia permalink
    August 14, 2015 12:24 am

    Can someone tell me about the naked photo found in MJ’s home in Encino that was believed to be of Jonathan Spence? I was on Twitter today and I was following this person that goes by the name of “realmjfacts”. I just found out today that this person is a hater and posted a link about the naked photo in MJ’s home. I thought this person was a fan because of the name. I now blocked and unfollwed this person. Anyway, I want to know about the naked photo found in MJ’s Encino home found by the police. Is this true. Please give me an answer because I have to be honest this is bothering me a little. Thank you, and I appreciate it.

    • SeverinA permalink
      August 15, 2015 1:02 am

      Do you mean this story patricia?

      Give me time to read and analyze it. I will get back to you.

      • lynande51 permalink*
        August 15, 2015 8:44 pm

        I’m sorry SeverinA but I had to remove the link from MJ Facts. I have been blocked and not allowed to read the articles on there. Because I can’t read the article myself to do my own research I wouldn’t want the link here because it is my blog and should be my analysis. I’m sure you understand

    • sanemjfan permalink
      August 15, 2015 1:24 am

      Hello Patricia,
      Sorry for the delay! The prosecution was clearly lying about having possession of that photo, because if they had it they surely would have used it. In 1993, one of MJ’s bodyguards at his family’s Hayvenhurst home lied and said that MJ called him while he was away on tour and asked him to find and destroy the photo, but instead he gave it to police! Here’s an excerpt from “Be Careful Who You Love” by Diane Dimond (and by no means should this be construed as an endorsement of the book or her as a journalist!)

      On November 22, 1993 Morris Williams, Leroy Thomas, Fred Hammond, Aaron White, and Donald Starkes, AKA the “Hayvenhurst 5”, filed a “wrongful termination” suit against MJ, Anthony Pellicano, and Norma Staikos (MJ’s administrative assistant at MJJ Productions.)

      The suit claimed that they’d been fired by Staikos nine months earlier in Feb. 1993 because they “knew too much” about Michael” and his inappropriate behavior with young boys. They also claimed that after their terminations, they were scared into silence by the “questionable” tactics of Anthony Pellicano and his associates.

      The suit charged a “conspiracy to intimidate or dissuade witnesses from testifying”, a conspiracy which included discrediting witness (like them) before they could come forward and tell what they knew about Michael’s fondness for closed-door sleepovers with boys.

      Oddly, the five guards were fired on February 1st, 1993, – months before there was any public hint of the molestation allegations. Nearly a year after they were let go, the guards were alleging their termination had something to do with a scandal that had not even erupted yet.

      Their lawsuit strongly suggested that they had important information about Jackson and his relationships with young boys. The guards estimated that between 1987 and until early 1993 they had seen Michael Jackson bring between thirty and forty boys into Hayvenhurst for sleepovers in his private quarters – some boys arriving in the middle of the night.

      Thomas, whose wife was pregnant and about to give birth when he received his pink skip, also detailed an incident in which Michael Jackson called while out of the country to ask that an incriminating photo be located and destroyed.

      According to Thomas, MJ called on night and asked him to go to his bathroom at Hayvenhurst and remove from a mirror frame a Polaroid photograph of a totally naked prepubescent blond-haired boy with both his genitals and his buttocks showing. MJ then told him to destroy it, and Thomas complied, not thinking that there was any suspicious about the entire incident.

      Does this even make sense? If MJ felt that the photo was that incriminating, wouldn’t he have destroyed it himself? In fact, if it was that incriminating, then why on Earth would he even leave it out in the open where anyone could stumble upon it? The prosecution requested the photo be included in the trial merely as a way to hurt MJ in the press and the court of public opinion. I think that Judge Melville explicitly prohibited them from doing so (I only have access to most of the trial’s legal pleadings, but not all of them), but the prosecution did NOT present this so-called “evidence”, so that speaks volumes about the validity of their claims.

      • lynande51 permalink*
        August 16, 2015 2:18 pm

        David there is also something about this in Lisa Campbell’s book.We also purchased the transcript of the court proceedings from the day that the prosecution was talking about the photos. During those proceedings Auchincloss admitted that the Prosecution did not know who it was and had no confirmation of it.

    • EJM permalink
      April 26, 2016 6:05 pm

      Hi, Patricia, this is EJM. The nude photo of Spence was never established in court.There was one and only one prosecution court motion that claimed to have found the picture of the nude boy who looked like Spence but that was never established in court. I think there were also some claims about Jackson’s DNA being found in the Sexual Study of Man, which wasn’t true as no forensic evidence was ever introduced in this case.
      Furthermore, if the nude photo was truly found and the boy was truly Jonathon Spence, then Judge Melville would have allowed Sneddon to introduce it into the trial like he did the three legal photography books with nude children, since that is clearly suspicious and incriminating.
      Furthermore, to my knowledge, J. Spence has never claimed to have been molested by Jackson and has always denied sexual abuse to this day.

  2. February 20, 2014 2:01 pm

    Rot in Hell Tom Sneddon !!!!!!!

  3. aldebaranredstar permalink
    May 17, 2013 10:35 pm

    Thanks for this, David. T Mez must have been tearing his hair out when the judge rejected his sound reasoning about third-party ‘witnesses’ who had sold stoies, lied in court, and lost a civil suit against MJ and actually allowed them to testify! Melville was too much trying to accommodate Sneddon IMO, probably they knew each other well after all Sneddon’s years as DA of SB. Mez makes an excellent case that 1108 was designed for other victims to testify–and the only other ‘victim’ was Jason.

    Thanks for including all the court docs.

    • nannorris permalink
      May 19, 2013 9:38 am

      I agree, Melville gave Sneddon every opportunity .Even letting Gavins tape be shown”for demeanor” oh please..
      One of my favorite things in A Jones book , is when Mesereau rested before Sneddon could put Gavin back up on the stand and Sneddon was looking at Melville , imploringly to do something , and there was nothing Melvilel could do.

  4. Rodrigo permalink
    May 15, 2013 2:39 pm

    Ah…the Daily Star.

    The exact paper that offered my cousin money and business deals to say sleazy crap about her ex footballer boyfriend.

  5. Lopsided man permalink
    May 14, 2013 5:54 pm

    Daily Star is really a beneath the bottom of the barrel UK tabloid. If they’re the original media source for this story, it’s likely a fabrication.

    Thanks for the 1994 Budapest pic, btw. I knew it was Safechuck!

    Keep up the good work. Michael’s enemies & the mass media are relentless in their campaign destroy Michael’s legacy and reputation. Websites like this are still VERY necessary….

    • lynande51 permalink*
      May 15, 2013 6:50 am

      Thank you lopsided man. There are fans that Tweet with Stacy Brown.He first tweeted that there would be other accusers last Thursday the day after Wade Robsons allegations became public.Then when this story first appeared he was actually believed by this fan when he said he refused to write this story. He might not have written the story but that does not mean that he did not sell that story.That is the way that tabloids work. If they can get one person to confirm a question then they have their story. If they quote a person for a story they have a contract with that person for life that is why you continue to see quotes from Adrain McManus because she in essence sold her name when she signed a contract with Splash News to sell he story.
      I personally think that they were hoping to get people to mistake the Does 1, 2 and 3 as plaintiffs not defendents which is completely common in any lawsuit. The sad part that I saw was that no self respecting Michael Jackson fan puts any credence into anything that Stacy Brown or Diane Dimond say or write.She even defended Diane Dimond when someone critisized her for hanging one of MJ’s hats on her wall. She said that Diane Dimond had a right to hang anything she wants on her wall.Well the thing with that hat is it was purchased from Henry Vaccaro in 2004 when she went there looking for evidence for the Santa Barbara DA. SHe hung it on her wall like hunters hang the heads of their kill,like a trophy. To me and many other Michael Jackson fans it was like she was preparing for the trophy her hunt had produced a 10 year long hunt where she mercilessly hounded Michael with tabloid stories fed to her by Victor Gutierrez. Like I said no self respecting Michael Jackson fan would be caught dead defending Diane Dimond.
      Of course this is the same fan that was against the KJ v. AEG lawsuit and wished that Katherine would die, called her a “limping bitch” thinks the children and any future children in the Jackson family should be put in a bag and thrown off the earth just to mention a few. She says that the Jackson family are accusing Michael of being a drug addict and smearing his name more than AEG. She is a disgrace to the fan community period.And when she supported this story because Stacy Brown tells her I knew this was going to come out she is supporting a tabloid lie. That is not a Michael Jackson fan.

Trackbacks

  1. #MJFAM About MJ Haters… | It's In Our Nature
  2. Counter-Punch Time: This Is An ORCHESTRATED and CALCULATED Plan! | AllForLoveBlog

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: