Graphic Testimony Turns into a Pile of Garbage on Cross-examination- MJEOL Bullet #257 Part 1 | Part 2 APRIL 11 2005 — What other way to give a full view of the witness’s allegation than to have them cross-examined about those allegations? April 7 was an unbelievable day in which jurors heard graphic allegations; allegations thrown into doubt by the actions of the people alleging them. Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus both testified to either actually witnessing molestation or witnessing “inappropriate behavior” involving Michael Jackson and children. Neither one of these witnesses tried to stop what they claim they witnessed, didn’t call the cops at that time, didn’t quit their jobs and only made these allegations after the 1993 lawsuit was filed against Jackson. That suit was reportedly funded by Jackson’s insurance company, devoid of any admission of guilt whatsoever. The prosecution was obviously hoping to shock the jury so that they would overlook the 1.5 million tons of baggage all of these witnesses so far carry with them. Much has been made by media pundits about the “cumulative effect” of all of these witnesses. Pro-prosecution pundits scream ‘they can’t all be lying!’ Well, yeah, they can all be lying. It’s already happened before. Many of these eye-witnesses-come-lately have been found by independent entities – like another Santa Maria jury – to have defrauded Jackson, stolen from him, and lied under oath in previous depositions. As a matter of fact, another Santa Maria jury has made the powerful statement that sheer numbers, this “cumulative effect”, does NOT equate to truth. That million dollar wrongful termination lawsuit included 5 people. The Santa Maria jury back then found that these witnesses were ALL lying about being wrongfully terminated by Jackson. Their numbers didn’t insolate them from the truth. Not only that, but the jury found more than one of them to have stolen from, defrauded, and acted with malice towards Jackson. Here’s an analogy: If 10 rowboats on the water all have huge holes in the bottom, the mere fact that there are 10 of them isn’t going to keep them all from sinking. I don’t think anyone is suggesting they all sat around a smoke-filled room, rubbing their hands together proclaiming ‘we must get Jackson!’ But every last one of them–either on their own or at someone else’s behest – sought to take advantage of what they thought was a good time to cash-in. You don’t need a conspiracy meeting for each one of these people to get the idea to become a player in the ’93 “Jackson scandal”. Thus, the argument of a “cumulative effect” is wholly ridiculous based on the behavior of these people in and around that scandal. These jurors in this trial right now won’t be as stupid as some media pundits apparently hope they are by overlooking the facts in favor of the prosecution’s backwards theories and speculation. In other words, the jury won’t be quick to overlook ALL of these people selling stories to tabloids, stealing from Jackson, lying under oath before, defrauding Jackson, etc. And while others have admitted to selling stories to tabloids, the maid, Blanca Francia, sold pictures of her son to the tabloids as well as her “story”. With that said, let’s get into some of the information that came out under cross-examination of these people claiming to be eye-witnesses to a crime in progress that they didn’t try to stop nor reported at that moment. __One of Many Completely Devastating Cross-Examinations__ The cross-examination of Chacon begins on page 5202 in the court transcripts with Jackson lawyer Tom Mesereau asking about that million dollar wrongful termination lawsuit Chacon and others – including Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool – filed against Jackson in the 1990s. First, it is ridiculous as hell that one would file a “wrongful termination” lawsuit against someone who they claim is a “child molester”. What? Taking a step back for a moment, did they want to continue to work for someone who they claimed was a “child molester”? Is that what they’re saying? Ridiculous with a capital “R”. But getting further into the cross, one of the main things one finds out while reading the transcripts is that Chacon changed his story. Unlike what was reported in early reports from Court TV, Chacon’s testimony has NOT remained consistent over time. In fact, he had added new things to his recounting of his story when he spoke to police. Mesereau called him on it. From the transcript:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Would you agree that with each interview you do, you add more lurid facts about Mr. Jackson? A. No, sir. Q. You would agree your story about what you claim he did has changed through the years, has it not? A. No, sir. Q. Didn’t you just meet with Mr. Sneddon the other day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Didn’t you tell Mr. Sneddon you had new facts that you forgot in 1993? MR. SNEDDON: Well, wait a minute. I’m going to object to that question. Your Honor, that’s not asked in good faith with regard to the –I can’t do it without a speaking objection, but if we could approach the bench, because this is not right. THE COURT: Overruled. The question was, “Did you tell Mr. Sneddon you had new facts that you had forgot in 1993?” THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You told Mr. Sneddon that you forgot to say certain things in 1993 about Mr. Jackson allegedly molesting young men, true? A. Yes, sir. Q. But now you remembered them in 2005, right? A. Vaguely, yes, sir. Q. And you said the person that remembered them with you is Kassim Abdool, true? A. I haven’t talked to Kassim in years. 5240-5241 (15-28 | 1-18)

New things he remembered in 2005? Why was Sneddon objecting? Probably because he doesn’t want the jury to know that Chacon added things to his alleged “eye witness” testimony over a decade after the fact. Were these things added to make what Chacon claims he saw similar to this current allegation? It turns out that the other Santa Maria jury found that Chacon was not wrongfully terminated, but that he also lied, acted with malice against him and committed conversion. From the transcripts:

Q. …You sued Mr. Jackson claiming you were wrongfully terminated, right? A. That’s correct, sir. Q. He sued you claiming you had stolen property from him, true? A. That’s correct, sir. Q. The jury found you were not wrongfully terminated by Mr. Jackson, correct? A. But we were, sir. Q. Answer my question, please. Did the Santa Maria jury find you were not wrongfully terminated by Mr. Jackson? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they also found you had stolen property from Mr. Jackson, correct? A. But I didn’t, sir. Q. Did the Santa Maria jury find you had stolen property from Mr. Jackson? A. Yes, sir. 5202-5203 (24-14)

Notice that Mesereau is pointing out that another Santa Maria jury found that Chacon wasn’t credible. Not only that, they also ordered Chacon pay Jackson $25,000 which is the value of the material that jury found Chacon to have stolen from Jackson. He couldn’t pay Jackson and had to file for bankruptcy. More from the transcript:

Q. A judgment was entered against you, Mr. Chacon, for $25,000, the value of what you had stolen, correct? A. For candy bars, sir? Q. A judgment was entered against you for $25,000, the value of what the Court found you had stolen, correct? A. Well, if a candy bar is worth that much, yes, sir. Q. That’s not all you owe Mr. Jackson currently, is it? A. No, sir. I don’t owe him. Q. In fact, Judge Zel Canter of this court, entered a judgment against you and your co-defendants for $1,473,117.61, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. He ordered you pay all of Mr. Jackson’s legal fees and costs, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever paid any of that judgment, Mr. Chacon? A. No, sir. I filed bankruptcy. 5203-5204 (15-8)

I doubt that jury found he’d stolen $25,000 worth of “candy bars”, so the flippant and disingenuous comment may not have sat well with this current jury. And the fact that he had to file for bankruptcy as a result of that lawsuit is more motive. That Santa Maria jury also found that Chacon had acted with malice against Jackson and was guilty of fraud. Chacon claimed he didn’t remember that. Here comes that trick memory that all these prosecution witnesses seem to have. From the transcript:

Q. Now, the jury found you not only stole from Mr. Jackson, but you acted maliciously, correct? A. No, sir. Q. Did a judge find you had acted with malice? A. No, sir. Q. Is there a judgment against you for acting with fraud against Mr. Jackson? A. That I know of, no, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look at the judgment? A. Yes, sir. … Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at the judgment against you, Mr. Chacon? A. I looked at that, yes, sir. But I don’t remember it. Q. Does it refresh your recollection that there’s a judgment against you for fraud and malice — A. No, sir. Q. — in favor of Mr. Jackson? A. Yes, sir. Q. You never heard of that before? A. Well, probably, but I don’t remember. Q. After a six-month trial, you don’t remember? A. Well, it’s been 12 years also, sir, or so. 5204-5205 (9-19 | 9-22)

He wasn’t found guilty of fraud “12 years ago”, so that excuse isn’t flying. Further, he remembers details from 1993 with apparent perfect clarity, but has memory problems recalling events that happened just a few years ago? Sounds like Jason Francia and his conveniently spotty memory. One point during the cross-examination, Mesereau asked Chacon some very pointed, and some say foreshadowing, questions about telling other people that Jackson was innocent of the molestation charges in 1993. From the transcripts:

Q. Okay. Mr. Chacon, in late ’93 and early ’94, you told other people that Michael Jackson was innocent of molestation accusations, didn’t you? A. No, sir. Q. Never told that to anyone at the ranch? A. No, sir. 5229 (3-8)

Further along in the cross-examination, Mesereau asks him again point blank if he’d told “various people” that he had never seen Jackson molest anybody. Continued from the transcript:

Q. And before you went to Mr. Ring, you had told various people that you never saw anything inappropriate at Neverland, true? A. No, sir. Q. You told various people you’d never seen Michael Jackson molest anybody, true? A. No, sir. Q. So if anybody comes into court and says that, they’re just not telling the truth, right? A. That’s correct, sir. 5239 (15-24)

Notice he said “various people”. So the defense may call more than one witness – or anyone for that matter – who heard Chacon reveal that he didn’t “witness” anything and that Jackson was really innocent in 1993. Chacon was then asked questions about his former landlady in Lompoc, CA, Linda Allen. Allen was Chacon’s landlady for about a year. Apparently, when he was filed that lawsuit against Jackson Chacon told the landlady that he was going to be a “star witness” against Jackson and that he would be able to pay her the back-rent he owed her at the time. And up pops another TV tabloid show that we’re all familiar with, Hard Copy. From the transcripts:

Q. Do you know someone named Linda Allen, Mr. Chacon? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is Linda Allen? A. She was my landlady in Lompoc. Q. For how long? A. Probably about a year. I’m not for certain of the length of time. Q. When you were suing Mr. Jackson, you told Linda Allen you would soon be able to pay her the back rent you owed, right? A. No, sir. MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that question. The same 403 ruling. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you do that, Mr. Chacon? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever tell Linda Allen, “I’m going to be a star witness against Michael Jackson”? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Ever tell Linda Allen you were going to be on the T.V. show Hard Copy to talk about Mr. Jackson? A. No, sir. 5235 (1-25)

Some observers definitely get the feeling that the defense will call Linda Allen or someone to talk about the bragging Chacon apparently did. And he also supposedly bragged to Allen than he would be driving a Mercedes and was going to make two or three million dollars after he won his suit against Jackson. More from the transcript:

Q. Did you ever tell Linda Allen you had a gun permit because you were a star witness against Michael Jackson? A. No, sir. Q. Ever tell Ms. Allen you were going to make two or three million dollars with your suit against Mr. Jackson? A. No, sir. Q. Ever will tell Linda Allen you were going to be driving a 450 Mercedes after you won your suit against Mr. Jackson? A. No, sir. Q. All right. None of that rings a bell, right? A. No. No. 5235-5236 (26-12)

So on top of everything else already, he was behind in his rent and bragging about the millions of dollars he was going to get from Jackson. He continued flip flopping between what he remembers and what he stipulated to during that damning lawsuit which caused so much turmoil. Mesereau tried to get him to focus on what happened as a result of that lawsuit. More from the transcript:

Q. Do you remember stipulating and agreeing that you had personally acted with fraud, oppression and malice against Mr. Jackson? A. Probably so, sir. Q. You did that, didn’t you? A. No, sir. Q. You didn’t stipulate that you had acted with fraud, oppression, and malice against Mr. Jackson in that case? A. Well, yes, sir. 5205-5206 (23-4)

Apparently Chacon has made statements to various other people over the years, including someone who’s a therapist, about money and Jackson. Mesereau asked him if he had made statements to a therapist that he would rather get a million dollars from Jackson than work. Of course, Chacon denied that. From the transcripts:

Q. Do you remember telling a therapist you’d rather get a million dollars from Mr. Jackson than work? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember being evaluated by a Ph.D. named Dr. Scott Gorsuch? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Do you recall being evaluated by a therapist in that lawsuit? A. Probably at one point, but I don’t recall it, sir. 5206 (13-23)

Oh he doesn’t remember making such a damaging statement? How convenient. If Mesereau brought it up, there must be a transcript or an accounting of his words in regards to that failed lawsuit. Mesereau also pulled info from a previous deposition Chacon gave in that “wrongful termination” lawsuit he lost. He wanted $16 million and he said even that wasn’t enough. Of course, Chacon claimed he didn’t remember. Mesereau had to show him the deposition transcript where he both admitted to knowing his lawyer asked for $16 million for him and said he didn’t even think that was enough money. These people have some nerve, don’t they? From the transcript:

Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you admitted you knew your lawyer had asked for $16 million? A. No, sir. Q. In fact, you said you didn’t think 16 million was enough, correct? A. No, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just show you your deposition? A. Yes, sir. … Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you didn’t think $16 million was enough to you? A. No, sir, I don’t. Q. You didn’t say that? A. No, I mean, I don’t — now I see it’s written down there, yes, sir. Q. Well, how much did you want in the lawsuit, sir? MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. 5208-5209 (27-8 | 13-25)

Mesereau also caught Chacon lying on the witness stand about something as simple as whether or not he had ever been deposed before. Of course, Chacon blamed a faulty memory, as damn near every prosecution witness has done when being asked questions by the defense. He asks Chacon “Do you remember being asked about the beginning of your deposition, ‘Have you ever been deposed before?’ And you said, ‘Yes’? (pg 5210, lines 4-6 ). Chacon didn’t recall that. When shown the information on paper, he stammered an explanation, saying: “I – I don’t remember. But it’s down there, yes, sir,” (pg 5210, lines 19-20). At one point, Mesereau asked him about an allegation made against him as faking an injury/illness to get out of doing something. Mesereau asked the accused malingerer, Chacon:

Q. Do you remember, in response to being called a malinger, you said, “I’d like just a million from Mr. Jackson”? A. That’s not true, sir. Q. Never happened? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall making statements you didn’t want to work again? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. After you left Mr. Jackson, you filed for disability, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir. Q. You weren’t disabled, were you? A. I think it was just unemployment, wasn’t it? Q. Did you file for disability, Mr. Chacon, after you left Mr. Jackson’s employment? A. It was unemployment, I believe it was. 5206-5207 (26-14)

Uh, was it disability or unemployment? It seems as if there was a question about him filing for disability when in fact he wasn’t disabled. Chacon tried to clean it up by saying ‘oh I think it was just unemployment’. He thinks? Doesn’t he know for sure? Did he simply not want to admit to cheating the disability program? Chacon was asked about another one of his cohorts…uh, I mean people involved in that wrongful termination lawsuit that they lost: Kassim Abdool. Sidenote: Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus and Ralph Chacon are said to have contributed to another disgusting and false book written by one time “Consulting Producer” for a Dateline NBC Jackson “special”. That loser, Victor Gutierrez, lost a defamation of character lawsuit against Jackson and was ordered to pay him $2 million. He, too, filed for bankruptcy then fled the country rather than pay Jackson. The reason why Gutierrez got sued is that he fed one hell of a lie to, guess who? Diane Dimond. She ran to the cameras and to a radio station spreading this lie which triggered an enormous defamation suit from Jackson. She got off the hook reportedly with the help of, guess who? Tom Sneddon (see DA helped Dimond out of a ‘Hard’ spot – NYDaily News) See, there is a definite web; a linkage between all these people. That’s how you get a situation where everyone has the motive and opportunity to lie for financial gain or position themselves to spread unfounded stories. Getting back to Kassim Abdool: Chacon claimed he told Abdool about his alleged “eye witness” account. Abdool, being a part of that wrongful termination lawsuit, also owed Jackson his share of that $1.5 million judgment he was ordered to pay. From the transcript:

Q. Kassim Abdool joined you in that lawsuit against Mr. Jackson, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Kassim Abdool also had a judgment against him in favor of Mr. Jackson for $1,473,117.61, correct? A. I believe so, sir, yes. Q. Kassim Abdool joined you in trying to get millions from Mr. Jackson, right? MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Is that correct? A. No, sir. No, sir. Q. Oh, he didn’t? A. No, sir. Q. He wasn’t a plaintiff with you in that case? A. Oh, he was, yes, sir. Q. You’re saying that Mr. Abdool was not looking for millions like you? A. No, sir. Q. How much did he want, Mr. Chacon? A. There wasn’t an amount, sir. Q. After a six-month trial, your lawyer didn’t ask the jury to award an amount for you, sir? A. You’ll have to ask Mr. Ring. 5216-5217 (13-11)

Mr. Ring, the attorney representing Chacon is painted by Chacon to be the master of this entire lawsuit. And what client doesn’t know how much money their attorney is requesting on their behalf? But surely when/if Kassim Abdool testifies, he’ll be subjected to the same type of cross-examination. Chacon was also asked about Adrian McManus, another member of the Neverland Five who sued Jackson, lost and was found to have defrauded and stolen from Jackson. Mesereau asked him when was the last time he spoke with McManus and Chacon replied “probably months; months ago.” He claims they only talked briefly and discussed when they were scheduled to testify. McManus was reportedly ordered to pay Jackson $35,000 on top of her share of that $1.5 million in legal fees she had to pay Jackson. But not only did Chacon owe this money, he has financial motives up the wazoo. Even when he sued Jackson as part of the Neverland 5, his wages were being garnished because he wouldn’t pay child support; something he just didn’t want to admit on the stand. From the transcript:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you sued Mr. Jackson, the wages you were getting from Mr. Jackson were being partially garnished, correct? … Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. They were being garnished because you wouldn’t pay child support, true? A. I was paying child support, sir. Q. Then why were they garnished? A. I assume that’s the procedure they do when they want child support from you. Q. You couldn’t just send a check yourself? 5219-5220 (18-20, 26-28 | 1-6)

Mesereau also brought out under cross-examination that Chacon had asked a Santa Barbara sheriff’s deputy for money at one time. No, I’m not kidding. From the transcript:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At one point, you asked a Santa Barbara sheriff for money, true? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Do you recall ever asking Mr. Birchim for some money? A. No, sir. Q. Are you saying it never happened? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Okay. When did you last talk to Russ Birchim? A. This morning. Q. Where did you talk to him? A. Here at the courthouse. Q. Did you talk about your testimony? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So you’re not denying that you asked him for money and you’re not denying he gave it to you; you just don’t remember, right? A. I don’t recall, sir. 5220 (11-28)

Ok, how many different financial motives has Chacon had since 1993? He’s tried to make money from selling tabloid stories, had his wages garnished for nonpayment of child support, sued Jackson, filed for bankruptcy, apparently admitted to “various” people that Jackson had not molested anyone all while telling people he’d rather have $1 million from Jackson so he’d never have to work again. And he had his had out for money from police too? But it doesn’t stop there. Mesereau also revealed in Court that at the time Chacon was suing Jackson with the other 4 employees, he had another judgment entered against him in a previous case for $2600. More money motive. Remember, he was also having his wages garnished for not paying child support. From the transcripts:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At the time you sued Mr. Jackson for an amount you don’t remember, isn’t it true you had a judgment against you for $2600 by a Ms. Judge Byrd? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you your deposition where you talked about it? A. Yes, sir. … Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that deposition page? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did it refresh your recollection? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know who Judge Byrd is? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Do you know anything about a judgment she ever had against you? A. No, sir. 5221-5222 (25-28 | 1-4, 8-17)

Here’s that old convenient memory loss kicking in. How do you forget a judge ordering you to pay over $2500 for some reason in another case? Jeez. Oh, but it gets worse. Chacon also sued other people at Neverland, a claim that he initially tried to deny until Mesereau went down the list and “refreshed” Chacon’s memory. He sued Jackson and no less than 6 other people trying to get money for that wrongful termination allegation. From the transcript:

Q. Now, when you sued Mr. Jackson in Santa Maria, you also sued other people at Neverland, right? A. No, sir. Q. You sued James Van Norman, didn’t you? A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. You sued Tony Coleman? A. Yes. Q. You sued Marcus Johnson, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you sued Bill Bray, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Betty Bailey, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Andrew Merritt, right? A. I believe so, yes, sir. Q. And you were claiming that they had wrongfully interfered with your employment, correct? A. Yes, sir, they did. Q. And are these some of the people that you described as being bodyguards for Mr. Jackson? A. Yes, sir, the OSS. Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. You didn’t like the OSS being at Neverland,12 did you? A. No, sir. Q. You wanted to handle all of the security yourself, correct? A. Well, there was a time that I was in charge, and I knew what I was doing, sir. Q. And you felt they didn’t, right? A. Well, they shouldn’t have interfered with my job. Q. Okay. And obviously you lost that claim in front of a Santa Maria jury, correct? A. Yes. 5231-5232 (15-28 | 1-23)

Hum…is that a twinge of vengefulness? Being angry because he was no longer in-charge? Suing the people that replaced him and the man who fired him? Chacon also lost the lawsuit against them by the way. Mesereau asked Chacon when was the first time he told Abdool about what he claimed he witnessed and he replied that it was after he had been subpoenaed to testify at one of the 1994 grand juries convened. Mesereau was quick to point out that at the 1994 grand jury, Chacon testified that Bircham did in fact deliver money to him. Oops! And he forgot that too and needed Mesereau to show him the document. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. Now, when did you first tell Kassim Abdool, your co-plaintiff against Mr. Jackson, about this alleged molestation you witnessed? A. Probably when — when we — when we knew that we were going to be subpoenaed to the grand jury. Q. And approximately when was that? A. I believe it was in ’94 sometime. Q. By the way, do you remember testifying that Sheriff Russ Birchim delivered money to you? A. I don’t recall, sir. Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you your deposition? A. Yes, sir. … THE WITNESS: It’s down there, but I don’t recall that, sir, at all. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall saying it? A. No, sir, I don’t. Q. Don’t recall anything about it? A. No, sir. … Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember testifying under oath you asked Mr. Birchim for money? A. I don’t recall, sir. 5222-5223(18-28 | 1-3, 6-12, 18-19)

Why the hell is he asking this police officer for money? Is it proper procedure for police officers to give money to witnesses who are making allegations against someone they’re investigating? Chacon also asked for money so that his wife could relocate (pg 5223, 23-25) and for other bills to be paid (pg 5223, 26-28). He admitted he went to “The Star” tabloid along with Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool and the attorney Mr. Ring to talk about selling a story. They met at Ring’s office, then went to talk money with a reporter from The Star. According to the transcripts:

Q. Okay. Did you ever hear anything about Adrian McManus doing that? A. Well, we went to a tabloid. Q. Which one? A. It was The Star. Q. And who was “we”? A. It was myself, Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool, and I guess that was it. Q. And approximately when did you go to this tabloid? A. We had met at Mr. Ring’s office in Santa Barbara. Q. And after you met with your attorney, who represented you in the lawsuit, you went to a tabloid, correct? A. Right. Yes, sir. Q. And you wanted money for a story, true? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who did you meet with at the tabloid when you requested money? A. Can you rephrase that, sir? Q. Yes, sir. Who did you meet with when you went to a tabloid to request money? A. Oh, there was myself, Kassim, Adrian, and whoever the reporter was, and Mr. Ring. 5225-5226 (15-28 | 1-11)

Chacon was also asked about another tabloid called “Splash” and someone named Peter Burt who worked for the tab (p 5229). Of course, he claimed he didn’t remember. He was asked about a Neverland secretary named Sandy Domz, and whether or not he knew anything about her approaching tabloids. Then he asked Chacon about Victor Gutierrez. There’s that name again. Remember, Gutierrez was also sued by Jackson for defamation. Jackson won that lawsuit and Gutierrez was ordered to pay him over $2 million in damages. Well it does turn out that Chacon and his cohorts were cooperating with Gutierrez for the book that later got Gutierrez sued into bankruptcy by Jackson. Make a note of the web of characters here and how they are linked. He asked Chacon about whether or not he split money with any other former employee for selling information to Bill O’Reilly’s old haunt, Inside Edition:

Q. Okay. Do you remember splitting money from any tabloids with any other employees or former employees of Neverland? A. No, sir. Q. You never split money for giving information to a T.V. show called Inside Edition? A. That I recall, no, sir. Q. So you’re not telling the jury you didn’t do it, you’re just saying, “I don’t recall”? A. Well, I don’t — I don’t think I did it or we did it, no, sir. Q. You don’t know for sure? A. I just don’t recall if we did or not, sir. Q. You might have, but you don’t remember, right? A. I don’t remember. 5230 (13-28)

Mesereau then put forth a theory that a number of observers picked up on in early press reports about Chacon’s cross-examination: they sold negative stories to the tabloids while suing Jackson, in hopes that the negative publicity they created would force Jackson into a settlement with them. Chacon’s lawyer, Mr. Ring, was apparently trying to pressure Jackson into settling that wrongful termination lawsuit as well, as revealed by Mesereau. Chacon claims not to be aware of anything like that, but said he wouldn’t be shocked if Ring did that. From the transcript:

Q. Do you know whether or not your lawyer was trying to pressure Mr. Jackson by threatening bad publicity? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever hear of anything like that going on? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So if that went on, you’d be shocked, true? A. Probably not, sir. Q. Probably not? A. I guess not, no. 5252 (5-16)

He wouldn’t be surprised? Why not? What is Ring’s background and his full involvement? We may find out through the course of this trial. Again, it doesn’t take a full blown conspiracy meeting in a smoke-filled room in order for the actions of these people to culminate in a contrived set of events with a sought after result. Much, much…..much more to come with Ralph Chacon’s cross-examination. I haven’t forgotten the cross-examination of Blanca Francia, Adrian McManus, or big-mouth Louise Palanker. continue >>> [pagebreak]


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. [extend] 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 *