DSSL/MJ Facts: The Evidence Redux
Disclaimer: Adult content link.
The word Redux is often used quasi-humorously to mean that a process has been repeated without being improved. One of our old oppositions has been posting several updates to a “new and improved version” of their site. The most recent contributors is someone that is convinced that Michael was guilty and has submitted a story to MJ Facts once again listing all of the reasons that this person believes the allegations against Michael Jackson are true. Here we are again with the same old tired list of “The Evidence”.
The writer gives us a list that Michael Jackson fans and defenders have heard all too often that led the writer to believe that Michael Jackson was guilty. The contributors list is as follows.
1. Nude books of boys- These are the two books seized by police in 1993.Their titles are Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy: A Photographic Essay- They were entered into evidence on May 5th,2005 just prior to the testimony of Wade Robson.
2. The Semen of two other men was found on the bed
3. Testimony of Blanca Francia.
4. Testimony of Larry Feldman and Stan Katz
5. As Len puts it the nail in the coffin- The description was a match.
So here we are once again refuting all of these nonsensical claims. It isn’t like we haven’t done this before because we have, several times as a matter of fact on VMJ. As a matter of fact there were no less than four entries on VMJ explaining the description alone. There were three on the semen evidence and a summary of Blanca Francia, Larry Feldman and Stan Katz can be found on this blog as well but I guess that wasn’t clear enough.
This time I am writing it and I stopped thinking this was a matter to be handled delicately a long time ago. So the first entry is going to take that proverbial nail out of that proverbial coffin. Here it is for the last time.
”The Description” Redux
Soon after Michael Jackson died I was on The Official Michael Jackson Forum. People that were interested in the allegation against him in 1993 were talking about the body search, photos and that they did not match. Most fans on the site were quoting the one article that was published. It was a small short article that said that the description didn’t match. That was all they had.
I made a statement at the time saying that I thought I knew what the discrepancy was and said that I believed that we would find out that Michael was not circumcised when the official autopsy results were release. I remember when the autopsy came out and it showed that he was uncircumcised. Some fans on there posted their amazement that my prediction was correct and wondered how I could have known that.
How did I know that? Well, it’s simple, I am a nurse and if it’s one thing I do know its anatomy and physiology. All nurses have to go through the same training. That training is like a “boot camp” of sorts where you start at the bottom and work your way up step by step. Because of that have given a multitude of bed baths including pericare and placed an equal multitude of French Foley catheters throughout my career. I know what the male genitalia look like and how they work. I also know that in an autopsy on a male circumcision vs intact is a defining feature of male anatomy. And to all you guys out there that say it is a match or are hesitant when it comes to this question, guess what I know about you.
Then came an article on The Smoking Gun. It was titled . This was put up on The Smoking Gun January 6th of 2005 and Gawker wrote about it as well. It had a brief excerpt talking about a splotch and it said he was circumcised. It also states that the Chandler’s OFFERED the description as proof.
Along come the MJ detractors. They came from far and wide proxy servers, like Topix, MJ Facts and DSSL to tell us that they had found a court document where Tom Sneddon swore that it was a match. They said according to the document sworn by Sneddon the police had asked for a description of Michael’s “erect penis” and that it would look the same as an uncircumcised penis. They have no limitations because I have even had one try to tell me that Judge Melville agreed it was a match and gave me a three line quote from the transcript for evidence. I attempted to correct the error by stating the obvious.
1. A Judge is not allowed to opine about evidence presented.
2. A judge must remain neutral.
3. A judge determines the admissibility of the evidence not the veracity of any evidence presented.
4. Because here in the USA it is THE JURY in a Jury trial that is the finder of the facts.
The judge did not “back up” Sneddon’s claim he can’t and I know this because I have had the dubious honor of being called to jury duty 10 times whether I like it or not. Guess what else I know about Tom Sneddon, besides the fact that he was an overzealous and vindictive prosecutor. He doesn’t know foreskin at all.
They continued to argue this point of circumcision with MJ defenders even using the premise that they say no one has heard what his description was for sure because it was never made public. It was or have you forgotten The Smoking Gun? No? Still don’t see it? Fine, here you go. I will show you what that description should have been by listening to Jordan Chandler.
The first thing that I read was the Psychiatric interview with Dr. Gardner. The interview with Dr. Gardner was on October 6th 1993 in New York. It was detailed account of the activities that Jordan Chandler said occurred between Michael and him in 1993. In this account he says this from page 26:
“I don’t know but I can tell you where.”
“Where did it take place?”
“In my father’s house, his Hideout, my mother’s house, and Neverland.”
“Okay, so these are four different places, so obviously it had to happen at least four times. Right?”
“Oh yeah, of course.”
“But I want you to give me a guess – – ”
“Okay. More than fifteen, that’s safe. But he had me masturbate him.”
“On how many occasions?”
“About ten. And he said that – – he had me – – he got me to twist one of his nipples while I sucked on the other and he masturbated himself.”
Now one would expect under those circumstances that Jordan had seen and felt Michael’s penis a minimum of 11 times.
Now let’s move ahead to Jordan Chandler’s Declaration given on December 28th 1993. When you read through it there is actually nothing that would lead one to think that he could give a description. What happened I thought? What happened to the reciprocal touching that one would expect to see because that is what perpetrators expect is gratification from a “returned” touching.
The other thing that I know about victims is that it is incredibly rare for young male victims to exaggerate or embellish the abuse. They are far more likely to minimize it and not be forthcoming about the full extent of it than they are to add things that did not happen or that could be proven not to have happened.
What happened that made this part disappear? Well, Michael Jackson was presented with a search warrant for an examination and photographs of his nude body including genitalia, that’s what happened.
IF Jordan Chandler had done what he said he did in the Psych interview he would have seen this:
Scroll down to see video on lower right side.
Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words isn’t it? Jordan should have said Michael Jackson was uncircumcised and Michael would have been arrested because it was a match and the evidence they were looking for with the search warrant would have been found. He would have seen and felt what foreskin does under the conditions that were first listed.
You can tell that their side knew that it wasn’t a match because they had Jordan give another statement excluding any incident that might lead to a description. They were the ones that for years focused on a “spot” that would have moved all over the place and they did that to divert attention away from the obvious. Michael Jackson was not circumcised. Jordan was wrong and he had to omit some very crucial points in the first statement so you can rightly question any other statement he makes after that.
I know that some will ask why this post was even necessary and I have asked myself the same thing for a long time. I asked because I am quite aware that the contributor of the piece written on MJ Facts was a frequent commenter on DSSL.
Which has me puzzled because DSSL had the same link to the same video since late 2010. Didn’t the writer for DSSL share the information with her readers? Or was that when the spin started?
To be continued
This is the entire argument and judges ruling in response to the Blemished Penis. As I have stated above the judge overseeing a case does not opinion on the veracity of the evidence presented. His opinion is only on the admissibility of the evidence. The attorney’s are presenting their arguments and using certain laws of evidence that they say apply to the motion to admit the evidence being argued When Judge Melville in this case agreed with the Defense in this case he was agreeing that the argument the defense made about permitting the evidence was in fact correct.
19 THE COURT: All right. The next issue that
20 we have is the motion to admit evidence concerning
21 Jordan Chandler.
22 Do you wish to be heard on that, Mr.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Zonen is going to handle
25 that, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?
27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I think we’ve
28 adequately stated our position in the pleadings. I 12175
1 can tell you that with regard to the relevance of
2 that material, there was quite a bit of testimony
3 that was presented during the course of the defense
4 case about nothing untoward or inappropriate
5 occurring in Michael Jackson’s bedroom and numerous
6 witnesses who have testified to the fact that many
7 children, particularly back in the 1993, ‘94, ‘92
8 period, who spent not just nights, but weeks and
9 even months in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, in Michael
10 Jackson’s bed, and it was a completely nonsexual
12 The fact that this child was able to give a
13 description of a unique feature of his anatomy that
14 could not have been known by him except for a very
15 intimate acquaintance with Mr. Jackson is very good
16 circumstantial evidence of the fact that the
17 relationship between he and at least that child was
18 something more than casual and something more than
20 In that regard, we’ll submit, unless you
21 have questions.
22 THE COURT: Let me hear from the defense.
23 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
24 MR. SANGER: I, once again, tried to keep
25 the brief brief. I hope the Court —
26 THE COURT: I appreciate you keeping your
27 briefs brief.
28 MR. SANGER: Yes. I don’t want a lack of 12176
1 volume to suggest that this didn’t take well into
2 the night to get done here. And I don’t want to
3 repeat everything, but I think because it is such an
4 important issue, we’re right at the end of the case,
5 I feel compelled to speak about it just briefly, if
6 I may.
7 First of all, this seems to come directly
8 within the California Supreme Court’s discussion in
9 the Carter case, which basically says it’s not
10 proper to bring in evidence that magnifies evidence
11 that the opposition has not had a chance to meet
12 squarely during the case-in-chief, which we haven’t,
13 because this was not offered, it was not hinted at.
14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from
15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had
16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.
17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these
18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is
19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the
20 Carter case.
21 And Carter also says that the Court is
22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late
23 in the trial that’s going to have an undue effect.
24 Now, as we pointed out, this was not
25 offered. I mean, this is really a stretch to even
26 come up with any kind of an argument as to why this
27 should — why they could even ask to bring this in.
28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108 12177
1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)
3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in
4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of
5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,
6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up
7 here and argued. I think he shifted the argument a
8 bit, if I’m not mistaken, and talked about things
9 happening in the bedroom.
10 They didn’t offer — I mean, we can’t just
11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer
12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for
13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest
14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of
15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it
16 didn’t happen in this case in the defense.
17 We went through and did a word search on the
18 entire transcript, several different words, “shy,”
19 “modest,” all sorts of things. We found one
20 question that used the word “shy,” not even in this
21 context. It had to do with whether or not a maid
22 saw Mr. Jackson change his shirt. And the objection
23 was sustained to that question. So it was never
24 answered. So it didn’t happen.
25 We also went through and — just to be sure,
26 and read — we read all the testimony from the key
27 witnesses in the defense who might have said
28 something like that if anybody said it. And the 12178
1 only thing we can come up with is an investigative
2 report where the word — I think “shy” — it was
3 either “shy” or “modest,” one of the two was used.
4 We quoted it in there. And it turns out that that
5 was never brought out from that witness on the
7 So it seemed to me that, when I was looking
8 at this, this was a pocket brief the District
9 Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody
10 did this. It didn’t happen. Now they’re trying to
11 bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be
12 absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t
13 rebut anything, okay?
14 What really they’re trying to do, and I
15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is
16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108. And it
17 doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet
18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be
19 somebody directly observing something. So it would
20 have the prejudicial effect of the jury considering
21 it, obviously, for 1108 purposes. Because it would
22 be very shocking to see pictures of — anatomical
23 pictures and all that sort of thing.
24 So just from that standpoint, they’ve made
25 no — show no basis. There’s no foundation to admit
26 this as rebuttal, because there’s — they haven’t
27 shown what they’re rebutting under 1101(b). And
28 obviously, if they did that, the prejudice would be 12179
1 so overwhelming, because it would go to the 1108 and
2 it shouldn’t come in for that reason.
3 And as we said before, 1108 — as the Court
4 is well aware, 1108 is a very delicate kind of an
5 issue. The jury is given tremendously prejudicial
6 evidence, that is, prejudicial in the sense that it
7 is propensity evidence, and that propensity
8 evidence — under this weird law we have in
9 California that doesn’t exist most other places,
10 propensity evidence is allowed to come in, but the
11 Court has to exercise discretion in limiting it, so
12 it doesn’t overwhelm the trial. And the Court made
13 those rulings. And to bring this in at this point
14 and emphasize 1108 in rebuttal with something that
15 isn’t even really 1108 evidence would be
16 tremendously prejudicial.
17 But when you get right down to it, the main
18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates
19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not
20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly
21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that
22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do
23 interviews, and they get information and they write
24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and
25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates
26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.
27 So you would have a violation of a federal
28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180
1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.
2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you
3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,
4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under
5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that
6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and
7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally
8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if
9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral
11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about
12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I
13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?
15 MR. ZONEN: Just briefly with regards to
16 Crawford. This is not hearsay at all. It’s not an
17 exception to hearsay. It’s not hearsay.
18 The issue is whether or not this child had
19 knowledge of the existence of that particular spot.
20 And the evidence of his knowledge, certainly his
21 ability to draw that picture, would be
22 circumstantial evidence that he knew about it. It
23 would be the equivalent of a child being able to say
24 that a room was green. And he would only know that
25 if he had been in the room. It’s not for the truth
26 of the matter that the room is green. We can show
27 that independently with the photograph as can we
28 show the spot with the photograph. But the fact 12181
1 that a child would know that the room was green
2 would only be knowledge that the child would have
3 circumstantially because he was there or because
4 somebody told him.
5 In this particular case, it’s the type of
6 information that was not commonly available at the
7 time, and circumstantially it would be relevant for
8 the fact that he must have seen that particular
9 spot, and therefore it’s not testimonial. It’s not
10 communication in that regard. It would not fit
11 within Crawford. It’s simply not hearsay.
12 MR. SANGER: And if I may make just one
13 comment on that — I know we shouldn’t go back and
14 forth but —
15 THE COURT: I’d really like you not to do
17 MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: I’m going to deny the request to
19 bring in the evidence of the blemished penis. This
20 is the reason: It’s twofold, really. And under a
21 352 analysis, the Court agrees with the defense,
22 that shyness really was not an issue of any
23 proportion. I think you’ve reminded me — I knew
24 there had been some statement somewhere in the trial
25 about shyness, but the — I think you’ve reviewed
26 that with me, and I think I agree with — my
27 recollection now has been refreshed to exactly what
28 that was. But I knew it was only a small thing to 12182
1 start with, if anything. And you’re saying it was
2 actually nothing.
3 But the analysis there would be, even if
4 shyness had been raised as an issue, the prejudicial
5 effect would far outweigh the probative value of the
6 shyness issue. And secondly, I think — even though
7 your analysis is I think correct, I keep going
8 through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still
9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to
10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.
11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,
12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would
13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.
14 Was there anything else we needed to discuss
15 before we brought the jury in?
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 4 of 4
Silva was asked to further clarify the directive from ranch manager Joe Marcus to refer to the Cascio family as “Tyson”:
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 3 of 4
Next, Sneddon repeatedly questioned Silva about Frank Cascio, his professional and personal associations with Jackson, the time period that he started using the alias “Tyson” (insinuating that Frank had a nefarious motive for using the alias), etc.:
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 2 of 4
After returning from recess, Sanger questioned Silva several security scares at Neverland, including an incident where a crazed fan was caught trespassing, and made it past all of the elaborate security measures! This fan was ultimately found on the top floor of the main house!
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 1 of 4
The next defense witness was Francin Contreras, a former Neverland employee who worked at the ranch from 1991 through 1993. She was subpoenaed to testify in order to refute the testimony of Adrian McManus, who claimed to have witnessed Jackson abusing Macaulay Culkin in 1993.
Contreras testified that McManus always spoke good about Jackson, and never confided in her that she witnessed any inappropriate sexual contact by Jackson towards any child. She also testified that she observed several stolen items from Neverland at McManus’s home, including watches, clothes, and toys that were meant for underprivileged children.
May 6th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Joy Robson, Chantal Robson, Marie Lisbeth Barnes, and Karlee Barnes, Part 2 of 2
The next defense witness was Karlee Barnes, Brett’s sister. She began by describing how her family met Jackson for the first time; just imagine if the world’s biggest superstar called you on the phone out of the blue!
But before I get to her testimony, here’s a summary of her interview with Jackson’s private investigator S. Ross on April 30th, 2005:
Karlee described how Jackson and her family sparked a friendship through a series of phone calls over several years, and they gleefully accepted his invitation to spend Christmas at Neverland in 1991. During their first night at Neverland, she and Brett stayed up all night in Jackson’s bedroom suite, watching movies and playing games, while their mother slept in a guest unit. Karlee slept in Jackson’s bedroom suite numerous times throughout the years, although she never shared a bed with Jackson. She denied the possibility that Jackson could have molested Brett because he wouldn’t want to return to Neverland if he had been molested. Overall, she and her family were happy to be friends with Jackson, and were more than willing to defend him in court. (You can read a more detailed summary of her interview in this document, which the prosecution filed in order to prevent her and Chantal Robson from testifying due to their “lack of knowledge” of the alleged molestation of their brothers: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/050505motexcllmttest.pdf)
Here’s the beginning of her direct examination by Mesereau: Read more…
May 6th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Joy Robson, Chantal Robson, Marie Lisbeth Barnes, and Karlee Barnes, Part 1 of 2
Wade Robson’s mother and sister, Joy and Chantal Robson, respectively, testified for Jackson’s defense, and vehemently denied having any suspicions about Jackson’s behavior with Wade, or any other child. A summary and analysis of their testimonies can be found in this post, and this post.
The next defense witness called to the stand was Marie Lisbeth Barnes, the mother of Brett Barnes. Here are her recollections of how and when her family met Jackson, and the nights her children spent in Jackson’s bedroom during their first visit to Neverland. In fact, Lisbeth was invited by Jackson to stay in his bedroom suite, and initially stayed there, but went back to her guest room after a while. Jackson’s invitation to Lisbeth to sleep in his bedroom suite with her children was antithetical to the prosecution’s assertion that he always tried to separate parents from their children: