Pt 2: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254 Reports written at the time state that the description given of Jackson’s body by the ’93 accuser did not match photos take of him. This while evidence of ’93 extortion/conspiracy plot is revealed out of the mouth of the accuser’s father Part 2 | Part 1 MARCH 22 2005 — Part 1 ended by talking a bit about how the 1993 settlement seems as if it was funded by an insurance company instead of money directly out of Jackson’s pocket. The media is intent on spinning the entrance of this ’93 information into the stratosphere. They also seemingly spend more time talking about Jackson’s back problem than whether or not the prosecution’s allegation makes sense. Despite pundits’ dooms-day scenarios, this is not a make or break issue in this trial. And some would be shocked if Judge Rodney Melville doesn’t allow it in. And as mentioned in Part 1, the judge initially said he wanted to hear from witnesses from the prosecution before he allowed in the 1993 allegation. Reportedly the defense also requested that they be allowed to call witnesses of their own at this 1108 hearing scheduled for March 28 2005. The judge then changed his mind and said he only wanted to hear arguments from each side and after, he would immediately rule on the admissibility of the allegation. Some have actually called the 1993 settlement a “pay off”. There are others, however, that couldn’t disagree with this terminology more. __’Pay off’, my a$$__ A settlement agreement was finalized in late Jan. 1994, some 5 months after the prosecution/police started investigating Jackson. The nonsensical argument some desperate pundits have given to take the blame off of the prosecution in 1993 is that Jackson “paid his way out of” or “paid off” the ’93 accuser in the civil lawsuit. Because of comments from one of the authors of the Prior Bad Acts law, James Rogan, we know that regardless of what Jackson would have done – whether he settled or not – it would NOT have prevented a criminal case if prosecutors had evidence. This point was always maintained by Jackson’s defense team at the time because it has always been the situation. It was also confirmed by the very fact that the two grand juries back then — one in Los Angeles County and the other in Santa Barbara County — were still meeting and hearing testimony well into 1994. One article by Variety Magazine titled “D.A Garcetti denies Jackson probe ended” dated April 12 1994 confirmed that the grand jury was still hearing testimony in 1994:

The two grand juries continue to hear testimony into allegations the pop star molested a 13-year-old boy. Sneddon said the boy is scheduled to meet with prosecutors this week. Although prosecution sources admit to being frustrated in their grand jury probe, failing to get direct evidence linking the singer to the molestation charges, privately they concede that their case would be stronger if the boy would agree to testify. (see D.A. Garcetti denies Jackson probe ended (Apr 12 1994) – Variety)

Let’s read that again: “Although prosecution sources admit to being frustrated in their grand jury probe, failing to get direct evidence linking the singer to the molestation charges, privately they concede that their case would be stronger if the boy would agree to testify.” So, where was all of this “evidence” prosecutors now claim they had back then? Obviously, none of this was shown to either grand jury, but why? Could it be because it didn’t exist? Geraldine Hughes, the author of Redemption, also spoke about this point in her book. She says that former Los Angeles County DA Garcetti and current Santa Barbara County DA Sneddon filed a court document in opposition (Opposition…) to one of the court documents filed by the defense (Motion for a Protective Order). She writes that in one of these documents, called a motion, both DAs confirmed that the civil “case” was not connected to the (failed) criminal proceedings back in 1993. From the book:

…In Mr. Garcetti and Mr. Sneddon’s opposition to Michael Jackson’s attorney’s Motion for a Protective Order in December of 1993, they asserted that they wanted to ensure the Court that, “the progress of the child molestation investigation of Michael Jackson was not connected to or dictated by the discovery process in the civil case.” (see 5.2 The Criminal Investigation)

If you remember, the convenient excuse as to why they didn’t have a case or couldn’t pursue a case against Jackson back then was because of the civil settlement. Hughes also goes on to talk about the DAs’ intentions to use a civil trial to their advantage:

They openly and publicly declared that the civil case had nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal case. It was their intention to take full advantage of the information obtained in the civil proceedings to assist their efforts in the criminal prosecution, however, even with that assurance they were still unable to collectively indict Michael Jackson on child molestation allegations. …Mr. Garcetti announced that the investigation would remain open pending any witnesses coming forward until the six year statue of limitation had expired. Had Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Garcetti found anything credible to indict Michael Jackson on, he would have been indicted and tried on the criminal charges. The settlement of the civil proceedings did not interfere with the criminal prosecution case nor did Michael Jackson buy his way out of being indicted. (see 5.2 The Criminal Investigation)

Further, if those history revisionists claim Jackson “paid off” the accuser, why were the authorities still convening a grand jury months after the ’93 settlement? Why were they continuing to try to make a criminal “case” against Jackson? They were doing it because they could. There is no “pay off” of criminal charges if there is actual evidence. The reason why they didn’t pursue the ’93 allegation was because they didn’t have a case. Period. So it’s safe to say that this excuse is bunk. And there were prosecution sources who told the media of this fact back in April 1994. Because of this, prosecutors have been trying for the past 11 years to find evidence against Jackson or find any accusing family greedy enough to ride with them long enough to get a “case” to trial…..hum….kinda like this current one. Sources say the grand jurors weren’t presented with any damaging information against Jackson, nor did either hand down an indictment. As a matter of fact, an old show on CNN tracked down one of the grand jury members who preferred to be unnamed. Showbiz Today broadcast a story on the Jackson investigation May 2 1994 which cited the comment from the juror. From the transcript:

JIM MORET, ANCHOR: One juror told CNN he did not hear any damaging testimony during the hearings. CNN has previously reported the panel was never asked to render an indictment, and that no vote was taken to do so. (see Jackson Grand Jury Disbanded – 1994)

Where was all this “incriminating evidence”? It doesn’t make any sense to be huffing and puffing about “evidence” and not present any of it to a criminal grand jury. The Santa Barbara grand jury was dismissed without Sneddon so much as even asking for an indictment. Say what? Their pro-prosecution media pundits have been saying that there was “so much evidence” back in 1993, but he didn’t ask for an indictment? What seems more likely is that there wasn’t even enough evidence to so much as ask for an indictment. __Matching or non-matching?__ As mentioned earlier, photos of Jackson’s nude body were taken in that 1993 investigation. What some history revisionists can’t seem to remember is that, according to reports written at the time, the description the accuser gave didn’t match the photos of Jackson’s body. This non-matching description info was reported by various news sources at the time; something the main-stream press and pundits are loathed to report. The false/vague description may have been one of the many reasons why prosecutors simply couldn’t go forward with a criminal “case” in ’93. From the USA Today archives comes the article entitled “Photos May Contradict Michael’s Accuser” dated Jan 28 1994. The article states:

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. (see Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser)

This was also reported by The Herald (Glasgow) in an article titled “Police Photographs May Save Jackson” and thanks to a Lexis Nexis search:

January 28, 1994 Police photographs may save Jackson New York, Thursday – POLICE photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals may be his salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child abuse, according to a source close to the pop star’s camp. The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year-old boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of sexually abusing him. The source said this was one reason why the star agreed this week to settle the suit with the boy and his parents. According to the source, the boy was paid $ 5m (£3.3m) to withdraw his suit. The source said the description the youth gave of Jackson’s genitalia turned out to be at variance with photographs a Judge ordered police to have taken. “The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description,” said the source. (see Police photographs may save Jackson (Jan 28 94) – The Herald)

One main point would be just why would Jackson allow such photographs to be taken in the first place if he was guilty and planning to settle anything anyway? That’s a question not one prosecution-sympathizer has given a credible answer to. And again the main point is that these people have made all sorts of unconfirmed claims of having a matching description. Yet, a 5 month investigation before the settlement, no charge, no arrest; and no indictment from 2 different grand juries in 2 different counties, the one in Santa Barbara county going long after a settlement was reached. And just use your common sense. This was a time, before law changes, where prosecutors had to have actual evidence of a crime, unlike now where the accusation alone can suffice. Remember, there was at least 5 months of investigation before a settlement agreement. If they had matching photos, Jackson would have been arrested, charged or indicted at that time because a matching description would have been real evidence. __Why Settle?__ Why settle the civil suit, then? There were a number of reasons for this including everything from advisers’ “advice” to pressure from Jackson’s record label to asinine decisions from the court judge at the time. One of the most obvious reasons is the lousy decisions handed down against the defense from the judge overseeing the pre-trial motions back in 1993. The defense filed a motion to halt the civil case until whatever criminal proceedings were done. This is written into law now, but back then the defense had to ask the judge’s permission. He denied it. In other words, the prosecution was going to be allowed to essentially sit in on the civil case, get all of the defense’s exonerating information, then build a criminal case AROUND the facts presented. Hum….kinda like they’re trying to do now by changing the timeline….the number of counts….and the allegation to fit around facts of this “case”. This is what the defense did not want to happen back in 1993. They didn’t want to give the DA the strategic advantage of getting all of their information. And article on thesmokinggun (tsg) brought out some obvious points that initial reports conveniently left out. From the report:

As with most confidential deals, Jackson admitted no wrongdoing, noting that the cash was to settle claims for “damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence” and not for “claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.” The agreement also states that Jackson elected to settle “in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.” (see article)

And now we know that this is what legal experts call “insurance language” so that the insurance could fund the settlement. There was no “negligence”, admitted or implied. __Evidence of Extortion__ From a variety of sources come details that show not only was Jackson’s first set of 1993 attorneys and private investigator prepared to go to trial if necessary, but that they had ample amounts of extremely damaging proof the ’93 allegation began as a result of a failed extortion attempt. An October 1994 GQ article titled “Was Michael Jackson Frame? The Untold Story”, states that the ’93 allegation blew up after Evan Chandler became “increasingly volatile” and “making threats that alienated Jackson”. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Jackson apparently wasn’t the only one he alienated. He also isolated the ’93 accuser’s stepfather (David Schwartz). It was Schwartz who tape recorded that infamous interview where Chandler is caught making threats against Jackson. Michael Freeman, the attorney who represented the 1993 accuser’s mother, June Chandler, was quoted in that article as saying that E. Chandler had become jealous of Jackson and felt left out. During that taped conversation, E. Chandler claimed he had “good communication with Michael” and seemed angry that Jackson stopped calling him. Hum….kinda like the current accuser, Gavin Arvizo, complaining about Jackson giving him phone numbers that were disconnected. From that GQ article:

“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.” Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)

And here’s where it gets quite interesting. Chandler admits that there were people in place who have been “paid to do it”. From that devastating report:

Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: “It’s already set,” Chandler told Schwartz. “There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.” Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.” “Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked. “That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.” (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)

If this isn’t evidence of extortion, it damn sure is hard evidence of a conspiracy against Jackson to bring about that ’93 allegation. Fat chance of Sneddon filing conspiracy charges against those who were “paid” to help Chandler bring about that allegation according to that “plan”. Portions of the tape have been played and replayed in public since. Another of those sources talking about the extortion plot, Geraldine Hughes, cites the following in her book:

Anthony Pellicano stated repeatedly to the news media that the entire child molestation allegation was an elaborate extortion scheme by Mr. Rothman [the 93 accuser’s first attorney] and Dr. Chandler [the 93 accuser’s father] to extort money from Michael Jackson. Throughout the entire ordeal Mr. Pellicano never changed his opinion. In a declaration filed by Mr. Pellicano in opposition to a Motion for Trial Preference and in support of Michael Jackson’s Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial, he stated that Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman demanded twenty million dollars in the form of four—five million dollar payments for writing deals for Dr. Chandler’s services. Mr. Pellicano further stated that Dr. Chandler said he would ruin Michael Jackson if he didn’t get what he wanted and that he believed Dr. Chandler, directly or indirectly, found a way to make his claims public in retaliation for Michael Jackson not meeting his demand. (see Redemption Excerpt : The Extortion Investigation )

The result of Jackson changing attorneys, says Hughes, was the adverse affect of the ’93 “case” not going to trial and thus, all of the info/proof dug up on the ’93 family didn’t get to see the light of day at that time:

…The unfortunate aspect of changing attorneys and not going to trial was that all the initial investigation work that Mr. Fields and Mr. Pellicano had dug up never made its way into the courtroom. Mr. Pellicano had gathered incriminating evidence against Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman which could have won Michael Jackson a victorious outcome in court. However, Michael Jackson was not willing to endure the public scrutiny of his private life and affairs. It was my contention that had Michael Jackson gone to trial, he would have won. Mr. Fields and Mr. Pellicano had the ammunition to win. page 106 (see Redemption Excerpt : Important Information from ‘Redemption’)

The details of the father’s threats have already been written about; one tape of him threatening Jackson has already been made public. From the book Redemption by Geraldine Hughes:

In a declaration filed by Mr. Pellicano in opposition to a Motion for Trial Preference and in support of Michael Jackson’s Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial, he stated that Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman demanded twenty million dollars in the form of four—five million dollar payments for writing deals for Dr. Chandler’s services. Mr. Pellicano further stated that Dr. Chandler said he would ruin Michael Jackson if he didn’t get what he wanted and that he believed Dr. Chandler, directly or indirectly, found a way to make his claims public in retaliation for Michael Jackson not meeting his demand. Michael Jackson’s attorneys filed extortion charges against Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman. Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman took the extortion charges seriously; each hired criminal defense attorneys. The extortion investigation made both of them very nervous. (pg 102-103) (see The Extortion Investigation)

Specifically, those taped phone conversations between the ’93 accuser’s stepfather (David Schwartz) and biological father (Evan Chandler) showed a desperate and threatening Chandler who admitted that he paid people to “move against Michael Jackson.” I wonder who? And more importantly, does Jackson’s defense know who got was paid to “move against Michael Jackson”? This was also detailed by Hughes. From Section 2.3:

…In a secretly recorded telephone conversation between Dave Schwartz, the 13 year old boy’s step father, and Dr. Chandler; Dr. Chandler admitted that he had been advised on what to say: and also admitted that he had paid people to move against Michael Jackson. In addition, he stated that everything was going according to a plan. The details of this conversation were not falsely trumped up. This was an actual tape recording between Dr. Chandler and Dave Schwartz, in which Dr. Chandler admitted he had a plan to destroy Michael Jackson if he didn’t get what he wanted. …Dr. Chandler admitted, in his own words, that he had been “rehearsed about what to say,” – “paid people to move against Michael” and that, “there was a plan.” This was, in my opinion, a confession of guilt. …Dr. Chandler further stated, “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.” (see 93 Accuser’s Father’s Plan to ‘Ruin’ Michael Jackson)

There could be a number of tapes and other information the ’93 accuser, his mother, stepfather or whoever, would have to answer to in a court of law. Fat chance getting these cry-baby media pundits to discuss this damning issue in detail. Those involved in what can only be called a scam from 1993 will have to answer to this information, and probably other evidence which Jackson’s attorneys may be sitting on. There is a possible second scenario that would send shockwaves through the entire world. As of now, the public has no idea whether or not the 1993 accuser is still sticking by those allegations. At the risk of appearing cryptic, we’ll leave the issue at that…….for now. The ’93 accuser didn’t cooperate with prosecutors in 1993; reportedly refusing to testify in front of either grand juries (one in Los Angeles county and the other in Santa Barbar county) even before a settlement. Some say there was absolutely no intention of the 1993 accuser’s father actually taking that “case” to court. He wanted the money, and got it. And the 1993 investigation turned into a practice of humiliating Jackson and walking away with millions of dollars in the process. But Jackson didn’t go quietly into oblivion. He has always maintained his innocence; regardless of the comments from know-nothing TV-lawyer and the like with a short-sighted and one-sided view of the reason why Jackson settled the 1993 civil suit in preparation for a possible criminal “case”. Prosecutors will try their hardest to make a civil suit become an illustration of guilt. But their hurdle will most definitely be attempting to explain away both their own actions (or lack thereof) and the actions of the accuser’s family. Personally, there is no amount of money on the face of this Earth I would take if anybody molested any kid of mine. Period. I don’t care if the offer was $20 Trillion or if there were threats. Apparently, not everyone is as staunch. In Part 3, information about Sneddon’s desperate search for accusers will be discussed including the second accuser’s family sneaking in under the radar and on the eve of a very expensive and lucrative Jackson album (HIStory) being released. Stay tuned. –MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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