1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254 Tellingly, the defense wanted to call their own witnesses to testify at this 1108 hearing PART 1| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 MARCH 20 2005 – There will be an 1108 hearing to decide if the 1993 allegation will be allowed to come into this current trial on March 28 2005. While some people are speculating wildly about what this “could mean,” what’s interesting about this entire issue is the fact that the defense wasn’t fighting too hard to keep this 1108 hearing from happening. The flip-flopping Judge Rodney Melville previously claimed he wanted to hear from prosecution witnesses before he decided if he would let in the 1993 allegation. He reportedly told prosecutors that simple affidavits wouldn’t be sufficient. However, on March 18 2005 he apparently changed his mind, coincidentally (or maybe not) after the defense didn’t object to calling witnesses. He still reserved the right to call witnesses for “clarification” if needed. As a matter of fact, the defense said that during this 1108 hearing, they were prepared to call witnesses of their own involved around the 1993 allegation. Well, this came as a surprise to certain observers who expected the defense to be fighting like hell to keep out anything related to the 1993 allegation. But Jackson’s defense seems just as much ready to argue and present evidence as the prosecution is. For months, some commentators have claimed “devastation” to the defense – laughably like they did at the onset of this current so-called “case” – if the 1993 investigation was allowed in. The larger issue here is what makes the media think Michael Jackson or his defense team is scared of the possibility of the 1993 accuser being called to testify in the current “case”? A lot of prosecution pundits love to cite the accuser’s 1993 affidavit as proof of something. But it is not. It is only the unchallenged, unsubstantiated, and un-cross-examined allegation regardless of what the Nancy Graces of the world try to tell you. In a previous article by the Santa Barbara News-Press, Dawn Hobbs cites “sources close to the case” as saying the 1993 accuser has already been contacted in an attempt to obtain testimony from him against Jackson. So if he does not come in as a prosecution witness, I guess we can infer that he is not cooperating with prosecutors. And that has been the rumor for months: that he is not cooperating with the prosecution in this “case” against Jackson. But if he is subpoenaed by the prosecution or the defense, Jackson’s defense team may finally be able to cross-examine and knockdown those allegations as well. Those allegations seemed to be a blueprint for the current “case” against him. If they can show that the current accusing family knew details about this allegation, then it will be “devastating” for the prosecution, not the defense. We already know that Gavin Arvizo, the current accuser, knew about the 1993 accusation because he talked about it with psychologist Stan Katz back in May 2003. We already know that the 1993 accuser’s entire affidavit was leaked by the Court TV-backed website thesmokinggun (tsg) sometime in Feb 2003 for the entire world….or the current accuser….to read. So, some observers have asked three highly provocative questions: (1) Does the defense want to be able to cross-examine the 1993 accuser to clear Jackson of those claims as well? ; (2) What would happen if the 1993 accuser was actually more helpful to the defense than to the prosecution since he is an adult and is no longer under the control of his father? ; (3) Will the defense use the ammunition to hook this barely ramshackle current allegation into the 1993 allegation by way of civil attorney Larry Feldman and psychologist Stan Katz? The mystery around the ’93 investigation causes some normally fair-minded individuals to totally lose all credibility when speaking on things about which they seem to know nothing. A few have publicly said they think this current “case” is a sham, but that the 1993 investigation gives them pause. Well how does one capitalized off of this cloud of suspicion? By keeping the great majority of people in the dark about the real situation in 1993, that’s how. The prosecution wants to kick up enough dust and hope the jury can’t see through it. This is exactly what they have done for the past 11 years and is doing now. __In the beginning…__ This entire situation started when Evan Chandler, the 1993 accuser’s father, failed to get $20 Million out of Jackson after he and his son befriended him. He then filed a lawsuit against Jackson alleging molestation. This plot was furthered by Barry Rothman, Chandler’s very first “shady” attorney. Rothman is the one that first executed the plan of having an accuser see a shrink and having the shrink alert the proper authorities because shrinks are obligated to report things like abuse allegations. Thus, the parent is off the hook for filing a false police report–just incase the allegation is found out to be untrue — and the shrink is off the hook if the scam doesn’t work because he’s/she’s “obligated” to report the allegation regardless of whether it’s truly legitimate or not. Speculation from the mysterious 1993 allegation has run rampant for over a decade. The events revolving around the 1993 allegation have been discussed at length and have been written about in a recent book by Geraldine Hughes entitled Redemption: The Truth about the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. Hughes was the only legal secretary for Barry Rothman during that time. In Hobbs’s article, she states “a family friend” told the paper that the ’93 accuser indicated he wanted to testify once at trial. Most observers say this “family friend” may be none other than the accuser’s estranged Uncle, Ray Chandler (Charmatz). Since it is coming from R. Chandler, this may or may not be true. There’s a question of how he would know this because he claims he hasn’t seen his nephew in years. And Hughes has said he was nowhere around the legal situation that she knows of during that time. But the larger question is what makes these pseudo-soothsayers think the defense is at all worried about testimony from the ’93 accuser? By many indications, if you think the current “case” is weak, the one in 1993 was even weaker. Prosecutors couldn’t so much as get the ’93 accuser to testify in front of either of the grand juries convened at the time; neither before nor after a settlement was reached. Remember, there was no settlement for about 5 months of that ’93 investigation. So it’s not like the allegation was made, and then it was settled before police had a chance to investigate. If the prosecution’s case was “so strong” in 1993 – ironically like they alleged this “case” was before it went to court – they could and would have pursued it. James Rogan, one of the authors of the Prior Bad Acts Law, talked about the fact that prosecutors still could have pursued the 1993 allegation had they had a strong “case”. Rogan isn’t some media pundit or random commentator, so when he says the following, it is highly interesting. He appeared on Crier Live Dec 16 2004. From that show:

JAMES ROGAN, May I add one thing to that, Catherine, if I may? CATHERINE CRIER: Yeah. Go ahead. ROGAN: One other thing that if I were the defense attorney, I’d try to delve into this: just because there was a settlement, it still didn’t preclude a criminal charge from being brought. The prosecution still could have subpoenaed witnesses, could have ordered a judge to have them testify. What does that say about the prosecution back in 1993 looking at that case and making a determination whether there was enough to prove it? And so, there’s gonna be – I think there’s gonna be enough ammunition on both sides and really ultimately it’ll be a question for the jury if it goes to who’s credible and who’s believable. (see Crier Live: James Rogan Authored Prior Bad Acts Bill (Dec 16 2004) | vid)

And he would know better than any hack tabloid reporter or desperate prosecutor. The prosecution better be careful what they wish for because there seems to be a hell of a lot more information that either they aren’t aware of or are completely ignoring involving this decision. But what sparked this suit to begin with? Well, according to Hughes, the people involved were thrown a curveball when the 1993 accuser’s mother went to court to get her kid back from E. Chandler. Hughes writes extensively about how the mother back then filed an emergency Ex-Parte motion through her attorneys. Rothman (the ’93 accuser’s first attorney) was not a litigation attorney but filed a response to this emergency motion. No where in the reply to the mother’s motion did it mention E. Chandler thought his kid was being molested by Jackson. From Hughes’s book:

Because Mr. Rothman was not a litigation attorney, he simply responded to the Ex Parte Motion by filing a declaration on behalf of Dr. Chandler. There were no points and authorities in the declaration giving the Judge legal grounds for their position, nor did it include anything to defend their position. More importantly, there was no mention whatsoever about any suspicion on Dr. Chandler’s part in regards to his 13 year old son having been sexually molested by Michael Jackson. (There was absolutely no mention of child sexual abuse in the response to the motion.) A real case of child molestation would have caused any normal parent to simply pick up the telephone and call the police or the child abuse hotline. Giving Dr. Chandler the benefit of the doubt in not doing what a normal parent would have done, the second course of action would have been to seek an order from the Court for custody that would guarantee the safety of his son. I know of no Judge anywhere who would not have granted Dr. Chandler an order for custody had he made any mention of sexual molestation in his response to June Schwartz’s Ex Parte Motion. (see 3.4 The Surprise Motion)

I mean, if ever there was a time to speak up, one would think THAT would be the perfect time. But this didn’t fit the plan. Remember, there was a specific plan they were going to follow. The court ordered him to return the 93 accuser. But instead of doing so, he took the kid to a psychiatrist and had that psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, report the allegation to the proper authorities. From the book:

After being ordered to return the custody of the 13 year old boy to June Schwartz, instead of obeying the Court’s order, Dr. Chandler took the boy to see the psychiatrist, who then reported the child abuse on the same day of the Ex Parte Motion hearing—August 17 1993. It was only days after Dr. Chandler took his 13 year old son to the psychiatrist that the child molestation allegations were leaked to the news media and became public knowledge. (3.4 The Surprise Motion)

Who’s Mathis Abrams? He’s the reporting shrink who came in under Rothman. Later, when Chandler switched attorneys by bringing in Larry Feldman, Feldman brought in psychologist Stan Katz. Now, there’s some suspicion about just how these allegations came about. One viewpoint is that after the ’93 accuser repeatedly denied it until he was given a hypnotic drug called sodium amytal. Another viewpoint is that there was a secret meeting with the boy and the attorney (Barry Rothman) just days before he made the allegation to the shrink. Did he coach the ’93 accuser about what to say and how to say it? Quite frankly, reading the ’93 accuser’s affidavit, it does read like someone other than him – perhaps the attorney – is making the allegation. The latter was detailed by Hughes. She actually walked in on a meeting the young boy was having in secret with attorney Rothman. She describes that meeting:

I knew he was the Chandler boy because that was the only case, to my knowledge, that Mr. Rothman was working on which involved a child. I was, however, very surprised to see the boy in Mr. Rothman’s office unaccompanied by a parent. The boy, likewise, was surprised when I opened the door. Mr. Rothman snapped at me for entering unannounced. I had not even seen the boy enter Mr. Rothman’s office, nor did Mr. Rothman announce that he was meeting with a child. It appeared as if the meeting between Mr. Rothman and the boy was a secret. I glanced at the boy for a second and pretended as though everything was normal before leaving the office. The boy had a puzzled look on his face when I walked into Mr. Rothman’s office. That made me very suspicious of this meeting between Mr. Rothman and the Chandler boy. I had the most overwhelming feeling that this meeting had some significance to the child molestation allegations and not the custody case that was also going on between the boy’s parents. This meeting between Mr. Rothman and the Chandler boy took place just before the boy was taken to see the psychiatrist who later reported the sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson. (see 2.2 The 13-year old Boy)

He was there for a reason. Now, some may try to explain it away as a innocent meeting, but let’s get real. There would be no need for an unsupervised meeting in this way. And the only two people that know what happened in that room is the accuser and Rothman. __1993 Settlement__ As learned from articles written about the “case” at the time, the 1993 settlement didn’t and wouldn’t stop criminal proceedings from going forward if prosecutors really had any evidence against Jackson. Despite previously way off-base and ridiculous allegations from Diane Dimond and Catherine Crier, Jackson DID NOT admit, or agree, or confess to any “negligent touching” of the 1993 accuser at all. Period. They are simply flat-out wrong…which isn’t too surprising. To top it off, as reported during the time, none of the descriptions the accuser gave of Jackson’s body matched the photos taken of Jackson. More on this later. The prosecution’s ability to proceed with a criminal case if there were real evidence was also confirmed by the ’93 settlement agreement itself. Although Diane Dimond may have obtained it illegally, whoever actually leaked the sealed court docs did so illegally. As discussed in MJEOL Bullet #156: Dimond Negligently Reporting 93 Settlement Details?, written into that settlement agreement is the fact that the ’93 accuser was free to reveal info about the allegations as required by law. In fact it is the accuser’s family who chose not to cooperate with prosecutors back then, after they got their hands on money reportedly paid by Jackson’s insurance companies. The only thing the ’93 accuser’s family had to do was notify Jackson’s defense attorney before they testified at a criminal trial. That’s it. Found in that settlement agreement is the following passage, which doesn’t and didn’t prohibit the ’93 accuser from testifying against Jackson at all:

g. In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually…receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson… they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request…(page 16) (see thesmokinggun.com)

Nowhere in the agreement did it state that Jackson is stopping the accuser from cooperate with prosecutors or anyone who’s prosecuting any claim against him. That’s why the possibility of the ’93 accuser’s testimony is coming up in this current trial. During a pre-trial hearing, Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau said in court that the notion of Jackson admitting to doing anything untoward by settling a complaint is completely false. He also explained how the language in the settlement was as such so insurance companies could fund the settlement:

As the court knows better than I do, civil settlements of this nature are often done where the negligence claim is settled so that insurance companies can fund the settlement. There was never any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did anything negligent or anything wrong at all. There was a public comment in the media, again, about this 11 year old case to the effect that somehow he admitted negligence, which was completely false. It was a technical legal way of settling a case so insurance companies could fund a settlement and he could get on with his personal life and business life. (see transcript)

Add this information to the fact that the defense made prosecutors hand over all of their info from the 1993 investigation, and it is very interesting to see speculation about possible testimony at this time. A report dated Jan 28 1994 in the Hamilton Spectator titled “Jackson photos will clear him, source says; Settlement didn’t end probe” talked more about testimony:

Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation and lawyers for the boy said there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case. (see Jackson photos will clear him, source says; Settlement didn’t end probe (Jan 28 94))

Let’s read that again: “…settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation” AND “…lawyers for the boy said there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case”. Well, the public has learned that there was nothing in the settlement keeping the ’93 accuser from testifying at any trial. This is exactly what a number of observers have said. Former San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst commented on the language in the settlement agreement and how it looks as if the wording was such that an insurance company could foot the bill. He appeared on MSNBC June 15 2005:

PFINGST: …First, it appears as though the settlement was in part paid for by insurance and you can tell that by the wording of the settlement. It seems to show that there was insurance money as part of the settlement. The second is that if you’re Michael Jackson’s team and you’re selling a lot of albums, settling a case for $15M or $20M dollars might actually make money by allowing you to sell albums for $40M, $60M or $100 M dollars. But will this [settlement agreement] at the end of the day get in front of a jury in a criminal trial? No. (see MSNBC: 2 Conversations w/ Paul Pfingst about 93 Settlement June 15 2004 )

Insurance indeed. Further, sources have said that this money wasn’t paid on one lump sum, but rather put into some kind of trust account. In subsequent parts of this special MJEOL Bullet, we’ll discuss the fact that despite history revisionist’s statements, there was no matching description given of Jackson’s body according to numerous reports written at the time. We’ll delve into why Jackson may have settled the civil suit as well as the behavior of Sneddon in looking for “other victims” that don’t exist between 1993 and 2003. Also, we’ll discuss what these “former employees” really told the grand jury as reported by authors who documented their statements back in 1993. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *