Stunning Revelations about 1993 Accuser via Mesereau MB #289
DECEMBER 2 2005 There were astonishing revelations from Michael Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau about the 1993 accuser ( Jordan Chandler ). Appearing at a conference at Harvard Universitys Austin Hall to talk about the Jackson trial, Mesereau was asked a question from an audience member about alleged prior bad acts (1108 evidence) and if it was possible to make the first 1993 accuser testify at the past trial.
On the issue of the 1993 accuser who received the settlement, Mesereau said if Chandler came to court, he was prepared to call witnesses who would reveal the fact that Chandler admitted Jackson didnt touch him. Talk about a revelation!
Apparently prosecutors tried to get him to come to court during this past trial and he refused to cooperate. Mesereau didnt use Chandlers name, but you clearly knew who he was talking about.
A previous article in the Santa Barbara News-Press cited sources close to the case who supposedly said the 93 accuser had already been contacted by prosecutors during the trial in an attempt to get him to testify. So what happened? Surely if he was still making the allegation against Jackson, like pro-prosecution commentators assumed, he would have cooperated with them right?
When Jordan Chandler apparently refused to cooperate with the prosecution, the masters of spin came out of the woodwork in an effort to explain-away why he wanted nothing to do with this trial. They claimed he didnt want to be known as the kid who was molested by Jackson. They claimed he just wanted to get on with his life. They claimed a number of things to explain his obvious absence.
Well the main and possibly most accurate reason why he didnt cooperate with prosecutors may be because he is no longer standing by the allegations he might have been forced to make back in 1993. A member of the audience asked him about the accuser. From Mesereaus Harvard University Nov 29 2005 appearance:
MESEREAU: Now the one youre talking about never showed up. Hes the one who got the settlement in the early 90s. And my understanding is prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldnt. If he had, I had witnesses who were going to come in and say he told them it never happened. And that he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say. And it turned out he had gone into court and gotten legal emancipation from his parents. His mother testified that she hadnt talked to him in 11 years. So, you know, there was a problem there as well. (Harvard U. , Nov 29 2005)
Personally, Ive always felt the defense wouldnt have trouble cross-examining Chandlers allegation that is, if he was sticking by it. But I didnt figure in the fact he may have confessed, so to speak, to other people about. And that he was so angry at being forced to make the allegations against Jackson, he filed for legal emancipation as a remedy for it and a number of other possible problems. Could that be a reason why prosecutors didnt subpoena him and force him to testify?
Sources unrelated to the trial or the defense had been saying, during the trial, that Chandler admitted he was never molested. These rumblings evidently turned out to be valid. The issue of Chandler filing for legal emancipation from his parents was completely glossed over in the media. But as far back as the 1108 hearing in Santa Maria, the defense revealed this information.
From Mesereaus March 28 2005 court appearance:
MESEREAU: After the settlement, the father then filed a new lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking legal emancipation from his parents. (see 1993 Accuser, Jordan Chandler, Sued for Emancipation from parents)
One doesnt file for legal emancipation for no reason. Typically children who do file for emancipation do so to keep parents from haphazardly spending their money, having access to their finances, or being in a position to make decisions on behalf of the child. One certainly doesnt file for emancipation because their parents didnt protect them, as some pro-prosecution sympathizers tried to suggest to explain-away Mesereaus bombshell.
__Never have so many been taken advantage of by so few__
During his appearance, Mesereau also talked about the prosecutions stance on their 1108 related allegations. Prosecutors told the Jackson jury that there were 5 victims: Gavin Arvizo, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Mac Culkin, and Jason Francia.
In relation to that, Mesereau said Judge Melville allowed something to happen that he has never seen before. He permitted prosecutors to present 1108 evidence without making them produce the people that were supposed to have been victimized. From his appearance Nov 29 2005:
MESEREAU: To make it even worse, it appeared, the judge did something Ive never seen happen in a case like this. With respect to three of these alleged five victims, he allowed witnesses to come in and say they saw them molested without the prosecution having to bring the actual alleged victims in. (Harvard U. Webcast, Nov 29 2005)
It was left to the defense to actually get these now grown men to come in and talk about what really happened. Some skeptics have speculated prosecutors may have been banking on the defense not being able to get them to come in and testify for Jackson. It certainly blew up in the faces of prosecutors. Culkin, Barnes, and Robson testified that Jackson never touched them. They had never so much as made an allegation of any wrongdoing. They also said the same thing back in 1993.
Apparently the prosecution is hard of hearing. Barnes and Robson particularly were outspoken at the time with their families about what Jackson DIDNT do to them. Culkin has never made an allegation, and has publicly defended Jackson. He is the godfather to Jacksons children.
Did prosecutors really think they would get away with that one? It was a situation best summed up by Brett Barnes whose testimony was quoted in an article from the Santa Maria Times titled Witnesses say nothing improper happened:
“Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in a sexual way?” Mesereau asked him. “No,” Barnes said. “I wouldn’t stand for it.” When asked, Barnes said he was mad that prosecutors had mentioned allegations he was molested. “I’m very mad about that,” Barnes said. “They’re pulling my name through the dirt, and I’m really, really not happy about it.” (see https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1646)
Barnes flew all the way from Australia to testify on Jacksons behalf. MJEOL discussed the possibility of the old allegation becoming a part of the current trial. The public had already learned that the Chandler settlement was funded by an insurance company via a pre-trial hearing.
During the trial, there was further information about the validity, or lack thereof, of those old allegations. In a 4 Part MJEOL Bullet (1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? MB#254), the possibility of this 1108 mess was discussed. We noticed that, from courtroom observers reporting, the defense didnt appear to be fighting too hard to keep this 1108 hearing from happening in the first place.
Mesereau, as mentioned previously, said the judge allowed these 1108 3rd party witnesses Chacon, McManus and Abdool to testify without requiring the prosecution to call the people who were supposed to have been the victims.
Ideally, they would have been required by the judge to testify at the 1108 hearing before a decision would be made whether or not to allow them to get in front of a jury and make allegations, say some legal observers. That didnt happen for whatever reason in the Jackson trial. Had it happened, the prosecution may not have looked so desperate and vindictive in front of the jury; in front of the media and the public, yes, but not in front of the jury.
Months before this trial started, many talking heads were so sure the defense would be devastated if the 93 allegation was allowed to become a part of the current trial. But, as we all witnessed, it definitely helped to reveal prosecution motives and clear Jackson of decade old rumors.
__It all comes back to 1993__
After seeing the travesty of this past trial, most Jackson-hating pundits are clinging desperately to what could ..may might or what they assumed happened back in 1993. As you know, there were two grand juries convened back in 93-94: one in Los Angeles County (D.A. was Gil Garcetti) and another in Santa Barbara County (D.A. was Tom Sneddon).
Mesereau told the audience at Harvard that the grand jury met for approximately 6 months and neither one of them handed down an indictment against Jackson. As a matter of fact, Mesereau said he spoke with a member on the 1993 Los Angeles County grand jury who said grand jury members had real problems with Chandlers accusations. More from his Nov 29 appearance:
MESEREAU: I also learned most people in that community [of Santa Maria] thought the D.A. was on a vendetta to get Michael Jackson. He had convened a grand jury in the early 90s to try to get an indictment and he had failed. The grand jury met for approximately 6 months and would not charge Michael Jackson with anything. And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a Los Angeles Grand Jury that was convened at the same time. And they had real problems with these accusations. And real problems were the sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges. (Harvard U Webcast, Nov 29 2005)
This actually corroborates a report from that time period during an old CNN show called Showbiz Today. In a story broadcast May 2 1994, there was a comment from a male grand juror at that time. From that transcript:
JIM MORET, Host: 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 supposedly incriminating evidence prosecutors claimed they had in 1993? As pointed out in a previous MJEOL Bullet, it did not make sense to proclaim to have strong evidence, and not represent any of it to the criminal grand juries. That simply doesnt make sense.
What does seem to make sense is that they had no incriminating evidence against Jackson. Sneddon has since claimed he didnt even ask for an indictment against Jackson back in 93-94. The obvious question is why in the world he wouldnt have asked for an indictment if he had all this evidence like he claimed? But then again, hes claimed a number of things that have turned out to be false.
Suspicious minds would say he didnt ask for an indictment because he had no evidence then, nor did he have a cooperating accuser; something which brings the issue back to the 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler. The 93 accuser reportedly refused to cooperate with prosecutors back in 1993 as well. Some observers even speculated that the accusers father had no intention of having him testify in court back then either.
__I wanna fly away
.yeah, yeah, yeah__
Geraldine Hughes wrote a book called Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. In it, she talks about that collateral litigation revolving around the 93 accusers parents and stepparent. There definitely appears to have been a meltdown between all of them during and after the 93-94 time period. The 93 accusers father sued the mother and the stepfather, who then countersued.
Evan Chandler (93 accusers biological father) leveled allegations against June Chandler (mother) and David Schwartz (stepfather). He sued the mother and stepfather for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. The mother shot back that they were being sued by Evan Chandler to avoid payment of past due child support, states Hughes. They filed a cross-complaint against Evan Chandler. In that cross-complaint, says Hughes, Schwartz further stated that he did not think Michael Jackson had molested his stepson (see Redemption Excerpt : 93 Accuser’s Family Turn on Each Other ). Oops!
Again, another important point made at the time which the media totally ignored. The stepfather also sued Evan Chandler for brain damage, two counts of assault, and two counts for battery (Redemption Excerpt : 93 Accuser’s Family Turn on Each Other ).
Apparently the two men got into two different fights: one in July 1993 and another in August 1993. Hum that time period seems familiar. It was in August 1993 that the 93 allegation was made and Jacksons Neverland ranch was invaded. On top of this was a second lawsuit filed against Jackson by Evan Chandler after Jackson did an interview with L. Presley. The suit was taken to arbitration and the judge ruled in Jacksons favor (see Jackson Scores Court Win – E!Online ).
Chandler didnt get another dime out of Jackson. Somewhere in between all of this litigation, Jordan Chandler filed for legal emancipation. Some observers say it was clear that each of the adults around him were trying to put themselves in an arrangement to further take advantage of him, and be in a better position to gain access to the insurance-funded settlement he received.
If witnesses who were waiting in the wings to testify for the defense about Jordan Chandlers confession are correct, the now grown man was forced to make the allegations which both touched off a legal firestorm and created a blueprint for other losers and frauds to try to follow.
__Can a mad dog simply let go?__
Unlike Sneddons assertion that he moved on after 1993, the defense apparently uncovered evidence that Sneddon flew to two different countries after 1993 looking for someone to make an allegation. Mesereau touched upon this during the Harvard appearance:
MESEREAU: So he failed to get an indictment in the early 90s. In the mid 90s, the District Attorney flew to Australia and Canada. They are the only countries I know that he went to. He may have gone to others looking for victims of Michael Jackson. He failed. They told him to get lost. He didnt do anything to us. (Harvard U., Nov 29 2005)
A report about court proceedings from the LA Times (of all places) titled Judge Refuses to Dismiss D.A.s office from Jackson Trial, mentions Mesereaus revelation. Mesereau said Sneddon had lost touch with reality, and was obsessed with getting Jackson, according to the LA Times. The larger question is just why the hell would the D.A. of a county fly to another country searching for people to make allegations against Jackson?
Especially after failing to get a case off the ground after the insurance-funded settlement? Usually an unbiased law enforcement official waits until someone comes to him/her with a report of wrongdoing. They do not typically go out searching for recruits in other countries!
Besides the fact that Australia and Canada are waaaaaay outside of his jurisdiction, it looks similar to the actions of a vindictive lunatic, say some observers. I think this kind of behavior is usually reserved for glorified tabloid reporters like Diane Dimond. She too had her own little involvement with someone in Canada who ultimately admitted to authorities that Jackson did not touch him. But not after telling Dimond his sob-story (see Part 2: Tab Reporter Gets the Ax Amidst Criticism of being Unfair and Unbalanced? MB #283).
That person was ultimately charged with public mischief. Can Sneddon let go and move on? Who knows. What I do know is someone who has moved on usually doesnt fly to or authorize people to fly to other countries trolling for someone to make an allegation against Jackson. As for the 1993 accuser, maybe he will find some sort of backbone rules be damned — to either have his allegation challenged or to publicly clear Jackson for something of which he was never guilty.
If I knew the truth, Im not sure I could sit back and do nothing while someone was unnecessarily going through hell. I would submit that Jacksons good name has been sacrificed in the process.
Society is supposedly about forgiveness and second chances. Maybe someone should make sure Chandler knows it.