Pt 2: Testimony Turns into a Pile of Garbage on Cross-examination – MB#257 APRIL 22 2005 — In part one of this MJEOL Bullet on Ralph Chacon, his testimony under cross-examination was discussed. Chacon is one of the unbelievable witnesses who claimed to have seen a child getting molested and didn’t do any thing to stop it, nor did he call the police at that moment. When he was thrown from the Neverland gravy train, he sued for “wrongful termination”, lost, and lost a countersuit filed against him by Jackson. Chacon may have also bragged to various people that he was going to make $2-3 Million dollars and would be a “star witness” in the trial. He and his cohorts like Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool sold stories to the tabloids and were found by a previous Santa Maria jury to have defrauded, stolen from, and acted with malice against Jackson. They were each ordered to pay over a $1.5 million dollars to Jackson in legal fees according to later testimony from Adrian McManus. On top of Chacon’s judgment, he was ordered to pay Jackson another $25,000 for the property he stole from Jackson. Chacon testified April 7 2005. We pick up with Mesereau asking Chacon about his reasons for going to the tabloids and whether or not he knew other people had started selling stories to the tabs. There was one exchange where Mesereau clearly thought Chacon was B.S.-ing when talking about his actions. He asked Chacon, “you knew people were making money [selling stories to the tabloids], right?” Chacon replied, “No sir.” To which Mesereau replied, “Thought they were doing it all for free, right, Mr. Chacon?” (p 5242). Of course Sneddon objected and the objection was sustained. During a deposition as part of that wrongful termination lawsuit the 5 employees lost, Chacon accused Jackson of staring at him (Chacon) “all the time.” And for that, Chacon stays he was entitled to damages as well. I kid you not. From the transcript:

Q. Remember you said Mr. Jackson stared, and you didn’t know how to take it? A. No, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you your deposition? A. Yes, sir. MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. I remember. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: As part of your damage claim, do you remember saying that Mr. Jackson stared at you continuously? A. Not continuously, sir. Q. Well, you said “all the time,” right? A. No, sir. Q. You said no one else saw him staring at you, right? A. No, sir. Q. But it bothered you, right? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Why did you say it? A. I guess just to say it. 5243 (2-23)

“I guess just to say it?” Huh?? So, he lied in that sworn deposition and he tacked on more false information – Jackson staring at him – in hopes of getting more money. Ridiculous. Make no mistake about it, and despite the downplaying done by prosecution pundits, all of these problems will be taken into consideration by this jury. Through Chacon’s cross-examination, Mesereau also appeared to offer a reason why new security was hired at Neverland much to Chacon’s chagrin. There were a number of intruders getting onto the property that the first set of security – which included Chacon – had to turn them over to the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department. Mesereau says Jackson was getting nervous about the number of people that were getting into Neverland and, at times during Chacon’s employment, he was concerned that “his security personnel there didn’t have any weapon to protect him” (p 5245). Mesereau really tried to nail down when Chacon spoke to the sheriff’s department in comparison to his alleged “eye witness” allegation. But Chacon appears to feign forgetfulness much to Mesereau’s seemingly annoyance. From the transcript:

Q. When was your first meeting with any representative of the sheriff’s department regarding what you claim you saw at Neverland? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Do you know approximately when it was? A. No, sir, I don’t. Q. Was it after you saw the events you described today? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Well, you’ve given the jury a detailed description of the events you claim you saw at Neverland, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. But you’ve forgotten when you talked to the sheriffs, correct? A. Well, I know I talked to them, but I just don’t recall exactly when it was at, sir. Q. Do you know approximately when it was at? A. It was in ’94, I believe, sometime. 5247-5248 (13-3)

The defense may be trying to nail down this information because it has already become public that the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department both recruited and attempted to recruit people around Jackson to be informants for them. For example, former Neverland guard and Guadalupe police officer, Brian Barron, testified that he was approached to be an informant, but refused. Two grand juries – one in Los Angeles county and one in Santa Barbara county – were convened around the 1993 investigation. Chacon reportedly testified in front of the Santa Barbara county grand jury in 1994. He was subpoenaed to testify in front of the Los Angeles grand jury, but says he didn’t go. But a considerable amount of time passed between the time he claimed he “witnessed” a crime and when he told what he claims he saw. And through these times, he’s suing Jackson, selling stories to tabloids, owing back child support, etc. More questions were asked about what transpired between Chacon and a meeting with Sneddon on April 6 2005. Mesereau, again, appears to have caught Chacon in a lie about what he told Sneddon. He asked Chacon the first time if he’d told Sneddon what he was going to say. Chacon said no. Then a few minutes later, he asks Chacon again and Chacon said yes. From the transcript:

Q. Did Mr. Sneddon tell you what questions he was going to ask you today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him what answers you were going to give to those questions? A. No, sir. Q. Did you tell him anything about how you were going to respond? A. I just told him that I would speak the truth. Q. That’s it? 10 A. Yes, sir. … Q. Okay. He told you what questions he was going to ask you, correct? A. I believe so, yes, sir. Q. You told him what your responses were going to be, right? A. Yes, sir. 5254-5255 (27-10, 18-23)

Ok. This is why you sometimes ask a question more than once. Mesereau asked Chacon if he had ever complained that Kassim Abdool, one of Chacon’s cohorts and parties to that “wrongful termination” lawsuit, got a raise when he didn’t. This appears to be one of those questions setting the witness up for further investigation during the defense’s case. Chacon testified that when he left Neverland ranch, he just stopped showing up to work. This was after he had already met with an attorney named Mr. Ring. Coincidence? Not likely, say some observers. Apparently Chacon complained to certain people about not getting enough money from tabloids as well. He couldn’t even remember the year he claimed to have seen Jackson “molest” a kid. From the transcript:

Q. The first incident you claim you saw Mr. Jackson improperly touch a young man was when? A. I don’t recall. Between ’92 and ’93, I believe. I’m not for certain. Q. Do you recall ever telling any representative of law enforcement the month or the year? A. No, sir. I don’t — no. 5258 (14-21)

Ok, uh, why in the world wouldn’t he have remembered this information? This is ridiculous. He remembers what he claimed he saw, but can’t remember the year when he saw it?? He isn’t the only prosecution witness who can’t nail down specific dates. But to even forget the year and month of something so crucial is highly suspicious. Mesereau then asks Chacon a series of questions about what Chacon knew about other former employees selling their “stories” for thousands of dollars. Chacon knew Blanca Francia sold her story and he was unemployed at the time, according to him. And get this: Chacon – the man who claimed he saw a kid get molested and didn’t do anything – was a substitute teacher of junior high and high school students in “ ’96, ‘7, ‘8”. In that “wrongful termination” lawsuit that Chacon and the others lost against Jackson, Chacon claimed he was “emotionally distressed” because he thought someone was listening in on his phone conversations at Neverland. Sound familiar? There’s a convoluted story Chacon is trying to tell. First he says he was “emotionally distressed” in that lawsuit, about his phone conversations allegedly being tapped. But then he claimed he knew they were being tapped and had knowledge of electronic surveillance at the time. From the transcript:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You claim you had been emotionally damaged because someone listened in to your calls at Neverland, right? A. Emotionally damaged. Well, I probably — probably didn’t say that, but I was upset because they were listening to my personal phone calls, sir. Q. Okay. And your basis for saying that was that somebody had told you that was going on, right? A. No, sir, I knew it was going on. Q. You had no knowledge of electronic surveillance at the time, did you? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you have a check done on the phones? A. No, sir. 5264-5265 (18-28 | 1-3)

So why was he complaining about what he claims he knew was happening at the time? What’s worse, Chacon testified under oath in a previous deposition that he thought Jackson should compensate him for life. Seriously. Chacon’s testimony got more ridiculous by the minute. From the transcript:

Q. Do you remember saying you thought Mr. Jackson should compensate you for the rest of your life? A. No, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show you your deposition transcript? A. Yes, sir. MR. MESEREAU: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: Where is the beginning? Oh, I must have, sir. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page in your deposition? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you testified under oath that you thought Mr. Jackson should compensate you for the rest of your life? A. I must have said that, yes, sir, because it’s on there. 5266 (10-28)

Now the defense has, in front of the jury, a witness who already said under oath that Jackson should have to compensate him for life. For what? Talk about a motive to lie! It appears that Chacon has had his hand out for over 10 years. On re-cross examination, Mesereau brought out the fact that Chacon accused a then new member of Jackson’s security team, Mr. Coleman, of threatening him. And he claimed he should get more money from Jackson for that, too. This claim as well as the “wrongful termination” claim was rejected by that previous Santa Maria jury. From the transcript:

Q. You sued also claiming you should get money because of what Mr. Coleman did on that day, correct? A. He threatened me, yes, sir. Q. And that was rejected by a Santa Maria jury as well, correct? A. Yes, sir. 5281-5282 (25-28 | 1-3)

Chacon’s testimony has been completely compromised by his motives, his actions and his story. Not only does he want the jury to believe that he would watch a grown man molesting a child and not try to stop it, but that he would not call the police at that very moment or that same night/day. He also wants them to buy that once he got tossed from Neverland, he and his cohorts were “wrongfully terminated”. I guess they WANTED to continue to work for someone who he claimed molested a child. Ridiculous. Is the jury just supposed to take his word for it? That he can be this problematic and be believed? Apparently Chacon’s story wasn’t believable to the grand jury back in 1994 or else they certainly would have handed down an indictment for this had it been. And this is all before the defense’s case! Through questions asked of Chacon under cross-examination, it’s pretty safe to assume that Chacon and his other cohorts will be addressed during the defense’s case with whatever else the defense has been sitting on for the past 12 years. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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