VERITAS project

From archives


Before the summer of 1993, Michael Jackson was   sitting on top of the world of entertainment much like a king sits upon his   throne. Surrounded by dedicated fans and fellow celebrities alike, Jackson   had just been inducted into the Grammy Legends Hall of Fame in February of   the same year. Just a few months later, Jackson sent tongues and ratings   wagging when he did a primetime, sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey that   garnered a larger viewing audience than former President Bill Clinton’s televised   town hall meeting. Then, in June 1993, all hell broke loose as news of child   sex abuse allegations exploded around the world and life for Jackson has   never been the same.So began the saga that continues to drag on unmercifully today, particularly   in the wake of Mr. Jackson’s arrest and indictment on child molestation and   attempted kidnapping. Jackson could spend potentially the next twenty years   in prison if convicted. If one were to judge the merits of both allegations   against Mr. Jackson solely upon the sensationalized “exclusives” from the   likes of Diane Dimond or NBC’s Dateline, one would logically conclude that   the chickens have simply come home to roost for the beleaguered music legend.   Perhaps justice would finally be served after eleven years of innuendo,   accusation, and legal drama. Perhaps Mr. Jackson would finally be exposed for   the cold, calculating child predator that a great deal of the media is   determined to portray him as.There is, however, one minor problem. We believe that based on what we have   discovered after sifting through mounds of documents, articles, and   interviews that the alleged abuse in 1993 and 2003 never happened.Hence, the Veritas Project concerns itself with providing key commentary on   what we perceive to be lies that have, for too long, been allowed to fester   on the personal reputation of Mr. Jackson. In addition, the Veritas Project   is particularly concerned with the unencumbered manner in which people of   questionable character and motive have been allowed to peddle their   fabrications and accusations against Mr. Jackson like crack dealers on a   street corner.

Out of both a concern and quest for ultimate truth concerning the matter, the   Veritas Project attempts to offer a detailed assessment of the “facts”   presented by the tabloid media and by those who do the prosecution’s bidding.

Contributors to this project are not fanatical Jackson worshippers who   blindly follow the whims of their master. On the contrary, we are mothers,   fathers, students, spouses – everyday, ordinary citizens who refuse to drink   from the toxic wells of tabloid media pollution. We invite readers to not   only peruse the findings provided here but also to draw their own conclusion   about the matter.

The Veritas Project
January 2005

Part I: The Anatomy of a Scam

In January 2000,   a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael   Jackson for having allegedly molested her son.1This would have   been the second child molestation lawsuit filed against Jackson, the first   being the result of sexual abuse allegations that were made by a 13-year-old   boy in 1993.The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met   Michael Jackson; neither had her son. In fact, it would still be another   seven months before Jackson would even be introduced to the Arvizo family.Three years after their initial meeting in August 2000, Janet Arvizo’s son   accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; the pop star is currently preparing   to fight these claims in court. During a recent pre-trial hearing, Arvizo’s   plans to sue Michael Jackson before she had even met him were made public by   Jackson’s lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. According to Mesereau,   Arvizo had revealed this information to investigators in June 2003, when she   and her children first made accusations against Jackson.2Did Janet Arvizo set out to meet Michael Jackson with the intention of   eventually filing a child abuse lawsuit against him? And if they were aware   of Arvizo’s potential motives before they arrested and charged Jackson, why   did authorities choose to go forward with the case?

The following report takes an in-depth look at the Arvizo family, their   history of making sexual abuse allegations for personal gain, their attempts   to cash in on their connection to Michael Jackson and, finally, their   involvement with several major players from the 1993 child molestation case   against Jackson.


Prior to accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation, the Arvizo family had   been involved in two other sexual abuse cases. In 1998, Janet Arvizo, her   husband David and their three children Anne*, John* and Rob* accused security   guards from JCPenney and Tower Records of physically assaulting them after   pulling them over for shoplifting.

Two years after filing a $3 million lawsuit against   the companies, Janet Arvizo also accused the security guards of sexually   assaulting her during the altercation, an allegation that had never come up   in her initial deposition. The companies settled out of court for $152,500   without admitting guilt.3

Tom Griffin, the attorney who represented JCPenney in the case, told NBC’s   Mike Taibbi that the Arvizo family had no evidence to substantiate their   claims. “[The mother] just came up with this fairy tale, not a fairy tale,   it’s a horror story, and just ran with it,”4 Griffin said.

A psychiatrist hired by JCPenney during the investigation said that the   children’s testimonies sounded scripted and rehearsed,5 a suspicion   that was confirmed by their father. In an affidavit, David Arvizo admitted   that the children had been coached by their mother to lie. According to   Russell Halpern, an attorney for Mr. Arvizo, “[The mother] wrote all of their   testimony. I actually saw the script.”6

Halpern was hired when a bitter custody battle arose between the Arvizos   following their divorce in 2001. The dispute took an unexpected turn when   Janet Arvizo accused her ex-husband of being abusive, an allegation that was   initially denied by the couple’s three children.

In October 2001, social workers were called to investigate the Arvizo family   following an altercation that had taken place in their home. When questioned   on their own, the children did not allude to any abuse on the father’s part.   “There was no hitting, just yelling, and not a lot of yelling,” the children   told social workers.

When Janet Arvizo returned home and discovered that the Department of   Children and Family Services had interviewed her children without her there,   she immediately got in contact with the agency. Social workers returned to   the family’s apartment and interviewed the Arvizos again. In the presence of   their mother, the children drastically changed their story, alleging that   their father was indeed abusive.

In the follow-up report, David Arvizo is accused of kicking Anne and   allegedly breaking her tailbone, hitting Rob in the head and punching him in   the stomach, slapping one of John’s scars while it was still in the process   of healing and holding Janet Arvizo’s head under water. The children alleged   that their father had threatened to have them killed if they ever told   anybody about the purported abuse.7

Janet Arvizo further claimed that her ex-husband had molested and falsely   imprisoned their daughter 12 years earlier, allegations that only   materialized during the custody battle. According to court documents, Mrs.   Arvizo “could not provide any other pertinent information regarding [the   alleged molestation].”8 Years later,   Janet Arvizo and her children would level similar allegations against Michael   Jackson.

David Arvizo pleaded no-contest to the charges and was barred from seeing his   children as a result. During an interview on Larry King Live, Russell   Halpern, who is currently trying to obtain visitation rights for his client,   discussed court documents that indicate that the abuse allegations against   the father were false.

“[Janet] was specifically asked, ‘did he ever hit you?’ and she said ‘no’ and   then she elaborated by saying he was a wonderful husband, he had never   touched her, he didn’t have it in him to touch a woman and he had never   touched the children, never as far as even spanking the kids.”9

In court papers that were later filed during the   custody proceedings, Janet Arvizo painted a startlingly different picture of   her ex-husband, claiming that her children were terrified of him. “Every   single night, one of my sons barricades the front door by putting two chairs   in front of the door,” she alleged. “He also puts a boogie board and an   archery arrow against the front door… Both boys sleep with baseball bats.”10

How can Janet Arvizo’s conflicting statements regarding her ex-husband be   explained? It should be noted that the allegations against the children’s   father only materialized in October 2001 – exactly one month before the   Arvizos were set to receive a $152,500 settlement from JCPenney.

The above incidents lend credence to the defense theory that Janet Arvizo has   a propensity for telling contradictory stories, coaching her children to lie and   using abuse allegations for her own personal gain.


But just how did Michael Jackson, arguably one of the most famous   entertainers on the planet, get involved with the troubled Arvizo family?

Four years ago, Janet Arvizo’s oldest son John, a recovering cancer patient,   made a request through the Make a Wish Foundation to meet Michael Jackson.   Jackson obliged and eventually formed a friendship with the boy and his   family. Mrs. Arvizo characterized her children’s relationship with the singer   as a “loving father, sons and daughters one,” even crediting Jackson with   helping John overcome his bout with cancer.11

Court documents reveal that this was not the first   time that the Arvizos had used the boy’s cancer as a way to get close to   celebrities. According to a report filed by the Los Angeles County Department   of Children and Family Services: “Mom said that they met the celebrities due   to her son’s illness and that the celebrities are very supportive of her son   and their family.”

Janet Arvizo also told a caseworker that through her son’s cancer, she had   “found ways to get things for her kids,”12 a claim that is   supported by the following stories.

In late 2000, a local newspaper ran an article about the Arvizo family after   Mrs. Arvizo told the editors about her son’s plight with cancer. “She   pleaded her case that her son needed all sorts of medical care and they had   no financial means to provide it,” recalls editor Connie Keenan. At Mrs.   Arvizo’s request, Keenan asked her readers to donate money to help the family   pay for John Arvizo’s cancer treatments. The newspaper managed to raise a   total of $965 for the Arvizo family, money that Mrs. Arvizo wanted to have   “sent to her in her name, at her home address.”

Investigative reporter Harvey Levin later revealed that all of John Arvizo’s   medical bills were covered by insurance. “There were no medical   bills,” Levin reported. “The father of this boy was covered, the   entire family covered, by insurance, one hundred percent. They didn’t have to   pay a cent.” Evidently, Mrs. Arvizo had lied to the newspaper, using her   son’s illness as a means to con readers into giving her money.

When interviewed by Celebrity Justice, Connie Keenan expressed outrage   over Mrs. Arvizo’s actions. “My readers were used. My staff was used.   It’s sickening.”13

A similar incident occured less than a year later. In October 2001, John and   Rob Arvizo were cutting class when two members of the Los Angeles Police   Department approached them. When the officers asked the children why they   were not in school, Rob began to cry and explained that they were on their   way to the hospital to visit their mother who had just undergone surgery. The   officers took pity on the boys and offered to drive them.

On route, John announced to the officers that he had just had a 16-pound   tumour, his spleen and his kidney removed; he then proceeded to show them his   scars.

Coincidentally, the same officers ran into Janet Arvizo several weeks later.   Mrs. Arvizo informed them that she was unemployed and on her way to a job   interview. Deciding that they needed to help the Arvizos, the officers bought   the family Christmas dinner, presents, ornaments for their tree (which had   been donated to them by another group of officers) and school supplies.14

While the officers involved deserve to be commended for their generosity, it   remains to be seen why the Arvizos were accepting money and gifts from   strangers less than a month after receiving a six figure out of court   settlement from JCPenney.

Just like the LAPD officers, Jackson got involved with the Arvizo family   because he “felt bad.” In an interview with journalist Ed Bradley, Jackson   explained that he simply wanted to give John “a chance to have a life… he was   told he was going to die… they told his parents [to] prepare for his funeral,   that’s how bad it was. And I put him on a program. I’ve helped many children   doing this. I put him on a mental program.”15

In February 2003, John Arvizo was featured in Living with Michael Jackson,   a British documentary on Jackson’s life. While journalist Martin Bashir’s   interview with John briefly touched on the positive influence that Jackson   had had on the boy’s recovery, the focus of the interview shifted when John   announced – seemingly out of nowhere – that he had once spent the night in   Jackson’s bedroom.

“There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in   the bedroom and he let me stay in the bedroom,” John told Bashir. Jackson   quickly pointed out that the boy, accompanied by his younger brother, had   slept in Jackson’s bed while Jackson slept in a sleeping bag on the floor.16

Regardless, this scene – along with Jackson’s claim that there is nothing   inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child – led to a firestorm of   controversy.

As the public outcry against Michael Jackson reached a fevered pitch, sexual   abuse allegations that had been made against the singer ten years earlier   would soon come back to haunt him.


The media backlash that accompanied the February 2003 airing of Martin   Bashir’s documentary reached its pinnacle when a past scandal involving   Jackson and child molestation allegations resurfaced. In 1993, a 13-year-old   boy named Jordan Chandler had accused the singer of sexual abuse. Several   days after Living with Michael Jackson aired, the boy’s graphic   deposition from that case was released on the Internet.17 Many felt that   given the nature of those allegations, it was highly inappropriate for   Jackson to be sharing his bedroom with children.

Although Jackson was never criminally charged in 1993, it is a widely known   fact that he settled a civil lawsuit that had been filed against him by   Jordan Chandler and his parents. The boy then refused to testify against   Jackson, leading many to believe that his silence had been bought. Court   documents reveal, however, that the settlement did not prevent the Chandlers   from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial; it was their own   decision not to cooperate with authorities.18

So why did   Michael Jackson opt to settle the civil lawsuit? According to legal secretary   Geraldine Hughes, the civil trial was scheduled to precede the criminal   trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson’s constitutional right to   not self-incriminate. This, Hughes contends, prompted Jackson’s lawyers to   advise him to settle the case.

Consistent with Hughes’ explanation, court documents show that Jackson’s   lawyers filed a motion in 1994 asking for the civil proceedings to be stayed   until after the criminal case was resolved; had their request been granted,   any potential settlement would have been negotiated after the criminal trial   was over. The motion, however, was denied.

Hughes describes the implications that would have resulted from the judge’s   refusal to postpone the civil proceedings. “There was the threat of Michael   Jackson having to face double jeopardy in having to defend himself in the   criminal case as well as the civil case, even though the law is clearly   designed to prevent a defendant from having to be tried twice on the same   issue at the same time.”

Jackson’s lawyers filed another motion in 1994 asking for the District   Attorney to be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings,   a request that was also rejected. Hughes explains, “The District Attorney’s   office was also laying in wait to utilize the information that was going to   be uncovered or revealed in the civil lawsuit for use in their criminal   investigation.”

Had Jackson not settled the civil case, he would have put his defense   strategy in jeopardy by revealing his exculpatory evidence to the prosecution   months before the criminal case went to trial.

Hughes was a legal secretary for Barry Rothman, the divorce lawyer who   represented Jackson’s accuser’s father Evan Chandler. In her book Redemption:   The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations,   Hughes asserts that the allegations were part of an elaborate plan conceived   by Chandler and Rothman to extort money from Jackson,19 an opinion that   is substantiated by an audiotape of Chandler speaking to his son’s stepfather   on the phone.

On the tape, which was recorded before the boy had made any allegations,   Chandler can be heard saying, “I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson.   It’s already set. 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 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.”

He continues, “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   Michael’s career will be over.”

“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find.   All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as   he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s   very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.”

In 1994, journalist Mary Fischer did a five-month   investigation into the allegations and also concluded that Jackson was the   victim of extortion. Her article Was Michael Jackson Framed appeared   in GQ Magazine and explores the case from its inception. Citing a KCBS-TV   newsman (Harvey Levin) as her source, Fischer reported that Jordan Chandler   did not make any allegations against Michael Jackson until he took a trip to   his father’s dental office where he was given a memory-altering drug. “In the   presence of [Evan] Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the   boy was administered the controversial drug sodium amytal… and it was after   this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.”20

In a lengthy rebuttal to Fischer’s article, the boy’s uncle Ray Chandler   claimed that the sodium amytal allegation was false; he even went so far as   to declare that the entire story was a “fairytale” concocted by somebody   within the Jackson camp.21

Surprisingly enough, official documents that are currently for sale on Ray   Chandler’s website corroborate Fischer’s report. A transcript from one of Jordan   Chandler’s therapy sessions describes the circumstances under which the boy   first told his father about the alleged abuse. Jordan Chandler’s account of   what happened is exactly consistent with Fischer’s.

According to the boy: “[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like,   while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said, ‘could you put me to   sleep?’ And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an   anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up… my Dad said, ‘I just want you to   let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’   and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”22

Based on Jordan Chandler’s own recollection of events, he was indeed given a drug   before he came forward with the abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.   While the boy never specified the name of the drug, it is likely that it was   in fact sodium amytal because every other detail from Fischer’s report turned   out to be accurate.

If Jordan Chandler was given sodium amytal before he accused Michael Jackson   of sexual abuse, what implications does this have on the veracity of the   boy’s allegations?

Although sodium amytal was originally believed to be a truth serum,   subsequent experiments found statements made by those under its influence to   be highly unreliable. “Investigations noted that the drug makes patients   vulnerable to either accidental or deliberate suggestions from the   interviewer,” explains August Piper Jr., an expert on false memory   syndrome.23 According to Jordan Chandler, it was only after he   had been drugged that his father began to probe him about his relationship   with Jackson.

In his rebuttal to Fischer’s article, Ray Chandler expressed scepticism about   the drug’s ability to convince the boy that he had been molested but   psychiatrist Peggy Elam insists that sodium amytal can “increase the   patient’s confidence in his or her memory – even when the memory may be   false.”24

After the drug had been administered, Evan Chandler took his son to see a   psychiatrist; while there, the boy came out with the explicit allegations   against Michael Jackson, prompting a police investigation.

The prosecution, led by Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon and Los   Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, was unable to find any credible   corroborating evidence; once the boy refused to testify, the case fell apart.   Fischer sums up the 1993 case by saying, “police and prosecutors spent   millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.”25

Tom Sneddon clearly disagreed with Fischer’s assessment of his case. He   repeatedly implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate the boy’s   story but failed to provide an explanation as to why two grand juries did not   indict the pop star if such evidence actually existed.26 In 1995, he   told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation is in suspension   until somebody comes forward.”27

Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson   documentary, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press   statement released on February 5, 2003, Sneddon said: “After conversations   with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be   taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be   reviewed.” Regarding Jackson’s comments that he had allowed children to sleep   in his bedroom, Sneddon replied by saying that it was, “unusual at best. For   this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking   the matter seriously.”

Elsewhere in the statement, Sneddon stressed the fact that the case could not   go forward without a “cooperative victim.”28 Coincidentally,   the very same boy who appeared in the documentary would later become   Jackson’s second accuser.

Sneddon was not the only principal player from the 1993 case who came out of   the woodwork after the airing of the Bashir documentary. In February 2003,   the Chandlers’ former civil attorney Gloria Allred made numerous television   appearances where she demanded that Jackson’s children be removed from his   custody.29

Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who negotiated the $15 million settlement on   behalf of the Chandlers in 1994, also spoke to the press, vehemently denying   that his office was responsible for leaking Jordan Chandler’s deposition.30

Finally, in a salacious Dateline NBC special entitled Michael Jackson   Unmasked, Bill Dworin, a retired LAPD officer who had worked on the   Jackson case and Ray Chandler, the uncle of Jackson’s accuser, spoke to   correspondent Josh Mankiewicz. Both Dworin and Chandler claimed that there   was strong evidence to prove Jackson’s guilt in the 1993 case.31

According to the defense, it was during this time that the Arvizo family   began to cause problems within the Jackson camp. The family’s alleged   suspicious behaviour coupled with the public relations disaster that ensued after   the airing of Living with Michael Jackson prompted Jackson to hire   criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos.


“I was brought in [in February 2003] when somebody   wisely, in retrospect, felt that there was something wrong here with this   particular family,” Michael Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos   explained during an interview on Larry King Live. “We put a plan into   action in terms of investigating and documenting things because people…   suspected that something was going to happen.”

The “plan” involved getting the Arvizos to sign numerous affidavits where   they swore that nothing inappropriate had ever happened between John Arvizo   and Michael Jackson. Geragos also had his Private Investigator make video and   audio recordings of the Arvizo family defending Jackson.32

The prosecution would later claim that the Arvizos were intimidated into   making these statements33 but testimony   from Janet Arvizo’s husband Jay Jackson seems to contradict this theory.   According to Jay Jackson, the Arvizos were at his house, not Michael   Jackson’s, when Geragos’ Private Investigator interviewed them.34

Jackson’s former videographer Christian Robinson recalls taping another   interview with the Arvizo family where he repeatedly asked them whether or   not Jackson had done anything wrong. “They were very up front and they of   course said absolutely not. All of them… I’d ask them one thing and it’s   almost like they were getting mad at me, [saying] ‘why are you asking us   this? Michael is innocent.’”35

Journalist Ed Bradley had a similar experience with the Arvizo family when he   visited Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in February 2003. “We sat in the kitchen   having coffee and doughnuts and sodas and [Janet Arvizo] and the kids said   they were willing to go on television to say what a great person Michael   Jackson was.”36

In addition to making positive statements about Jackson to his defense team   and to his employees, the Arvizos also denied any wrong doing on Jackson’s   part to social workers throughout February 2003.


Prompted by what was shown on the Living with   Michael Jackson documentary, a school official contacted the Department   of Children and Family Services and requested that they investigate Jackson.   From February 14th to February 27th, 2003, social workers interviewed the   Arvizos, who all maintained that Jackson had never acted inappropriately   around them. Mrs. Arvizo stated that her children had never been left alone   with Jackson and that they had never slept in a bed with him.37

Another investigation was launched when media psychiatrist Carole Lieberman   filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department in   February 2003. She asked for Jackson to be investigated and also demanded   that his children be removed from his custody. “Bubbles the Chimp [Jackson’s   former pet] is reportedly now living in an animal sanctuary. One would wonder   how and why that came about. If Mr. Jackson is unable to take good enough   care of his pet chimpanzee, shouldn’t you be concerned about his children?”

About the boy in the documentary, Lieberman noted: “There was an unmistakable   sense that something sexual had occurred with [the boy], as evidenced by his   body language and his submissive demeanour towards Michael.”38

The SBCSD investigated and closed the case on April 16th with “no further   action required.” The SBCSD report cites interviews with the Arvizos that   were conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged   victim: “Michael is like a father to me, he’s never done anything to me   sexually.” He added that he had “never slept in bed with Michael,” and that   his mother was “always aware of what goes on in Neverland.”

Janet Arvizo told social workers that: “Michael is like a father to my   children, he loves them and I trust my children with him.” Of Jackson, she   said he had “never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt   uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing.” The boy’s older   sister also defended Jackson saying, “Michael is so kind and loving.”39

How did the Arvizo family go from praising Jackson to making such serious   allegations against him?

If we are to believe the prosecution’s version of events, Jackson’s employees   intimidated the Arvizo family into defending Jackson to social workers,   Private Investigators, journalists and virtually every other person who had   come into contact with the family after Living with Michael Jackson aired.   Once Jackson had all of their statements on record, he then molested the boy.

But if Michael Jackson is telling the truth, the family only made accusations   against him when their other attempts to get money from him failed.


After the airing of the Bashir interview, Janet Arvizo and her then-boyfriend   Jay Jackson made several attempts to cash in on their connection to Michael   Jackson. They sold their story to a British tabloid but, at that point, only   had positive things to say about the pop star.40 Janet Arvizo   seemed outraged by people’s reaction to Bashir’s documentary and filed an   official complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Commission.41

Janet Arvizo also planned to file a lawsuit against the company that aired   the documentary and, in February 2003, hired civil lawyer William Dickerman   to represent her in the case. Dickerman told ABC News: “[The boy] had been on   camera, there had been no consent given and when she found out about it, she   was absolutely livid.”42

Michael Jackson seemed equally angered by the tone of the documentary and   began compiling footage for a rebuttal video. To counter the negative   publicity surrounding his relationships with children, Jackson had John   Arvizo and his family film interviews where they made statements in the pop   star’s defense. The footage was supposed to be included in the rebuttal video   but Jay Jackson demanded financial compensation in return for the family’s   participation.

During a pre-trial hearing, Jackson recalled saying   to one of Michael Jackson’s associates: “This family has nothing and you’re   making millions from [the rebuttal video] and what are you going to do for   this little family?” To appease Jay Jackson, the associate offered the family   a house and the children a college education in exchange for their permission   to use the footage. Jackson refused the offer, instead making a demand for   money.

Jay Jackson also testified that in February 2003, he was approached by two   British journalists who were interested in paying for the family’s story.43 According to   one of the journalists who got in contact with the family, “The starting   figure was $500 from myself, and that’s supposedly when [Jackson] consulted   with the mother.” Jackson came back with a demand for $15,000 and was turned   away.44

When their attempts to cash in on the post-Bashir controversy failed, the   Arvizo family filed for emergency help in March 2003. Court documents reveal   that a week later, Janet Arvizo filed for an increase in alimony from her   ex-husband and asked for her child support to be doubled.45

Shortly after, she returned to Dickerman with plans to sue Michael Jackson   for an issue unrelated to child molestation.

Dickerman began writing a series of letters to Mark Geragos, claiming that   Jackson was in possession of some of the family’s belongings including   furniture and passports. Dickerman demanded the return of these items and   also alleged that the family was being “harassed” and “terrorized” by Mark   Geragos’ Private Investigator Bradley Miller.46 It would be   months before the Arvizo family would take these claims to the police.

While the letters were seemingly sent to assist the Arvizos in getting their   furniture and passports back, it appears that Dickerman was more interested   in gaining access to any evidence that could potentially prove Jackson’s   innocence if the family were to later accuse the pop star of child   molestation.

In a letter dated March 26, 2003, Dickerman wrote:   “The Arvizos demand that Jackson immediately provide the originals and all   copies of all tapes, films and audio recordings… that were made by or on   behalf of Jackson… and return to them the papers they have signed including…   documents in connection with the legal action in Britain concerning Living   with Michael Jackson and anything else bearing their signatures.”47

While the relationship between Michael Jackson and the Arvizos had obviously   become contentious after the airing of the Bashir documentary, they   maintained all along that Jackson had never sexually abused the boy. That all   changed in May 2003, when Larry Feldman – the civil lawyer who brokered a $15   million settlement for Jackson’s first accuser – entered the picture.


After meeting with Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who had represented   Michael Jackson’s first accuser, John Arvizo finally came forward with the   sexual abuse allegations against the pop star; his younger brother Rob backed   up his story, claiming to have witnessed the alleged abuse. Feldman sent the   boys to see psychiatrist Stan Katz, who had also been involved in the 1993   case.

According to documents obtained by NBC, Dr. Katz   told John Arvizo, “Look, if you go ahead with this civil lawsuit, your family   will get money if they win.” Suddenly, lurid details about the alleged abuse   began to materialize. John Arvizo claimed that while at Neverland he “drank   alcohol every night and got buzzed.” When he told Jackson that his head hurt,   he was supposedly told to: “keep drinking, it will make it feel better.”

Rob Arvizo alleged that he and his brother “constantly sleep in Michael’s   room with Michael… in Michael’s bed.” He claimed to have witnessed Jackson   touch his brother inappropriately on at least two separate occasions.48

These were the same children who, less than four months earlier, had   vehemently defended Jackson to social workers. For some reason, after all of   their previous denials of abuse on Jackson’s part, the Arvizo children   drastically changed their story after getting involved with Feldman and Katz,   two key players from the 1993 case against Jackson.

Feldman visited   the Department of Children and Family Services and asked them to overturn   their “unfounded” ruling from February 2003. The DCFS refused, saying that   because the boy was not in immediate danger, there was nothing else they   could do.49 Dr. Katz then reported the alleged abuse to the   Santa Barbara Police Department who subsequently launched an investigation in   June 2003.

In addition to having been involved with both Jordan Chandler and John   Arvizo, Dr. Katz had another connection to the Jackson case – his list of   patients also included Bradley Miller, the Private Investigator who had been   hired by Mark Geragos to keep an eye on the Arvizo family throughout February   2003.

Katz told authorities about Miller’s involvement in the case and also   informed them about a tape that Miller had made of the family defending   Jackson in mid-February.50 In what appears   to be a highly unusual move, Santa Barbara authorities then asked the   accuser’s stepfather Jay Jackson to help them investigate Miller. Working as   a “confidential agent,” Jackson was sent to scope out the location   of Miller’s office and report his findings back to the SBPD.51

After five months of investigating, the Santa Barbara Police Department was   ready to go forward with its case. But first, the Arvizo family would have to   agree to put their civil lawsuit on hold and go forward with the criminal   case against Michael Jackson.


In June 2003, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon began to personally   investigate the Arvizo family’s claims against Michael Jackson. In a police   interview, Janet Arvizo alleged that Jackson’s employees had relentlessly   victimized her and her family. In one instance, Jackson’s representatives allegedly   showed up at the Arvizos’ apartment and demanded that the family move to   Brazil. “One of the reasons was because there was [sic] people that were   gonna kill the children and me… mostly my children,” Mrs. Arvizo told   investigators.

Janet Arvizo believed that the true motive behind the alleged proposed trip   was to prevent the family from speaking to investigators.

She further claimed that Jackson had begun to spy on her when he felt that   she was asking too many questions about his alleged relationship with her   son. “One time I remember the kids telling me that up on the top of the hill,   there’s like a little… like, a thing. And Michael had taken up the kids up   there to look in my bedroom. Like a telescope thing and I thought they were   kidding. Michael wanted to see what I was doing in there.”

When Mrs. Arvizo eventually tried to put an end to her son’s alleged   relationship with Michael Jackson, the boy supposedly shot her in her pinkie   toe with a BB gun.

During the interview, Janet Arvizo assured investigators that she was not   after Michael Jackson’s money. “God handpicked me and the kids because he   knew that we weren’t going to fall for any of their money. That it was going   to be justice more than anything.”52 On the   contrary, notes from the boy’s therapist reveal that at the time, the Arvizos   were planning to file a lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil   attorney Larry Feldman.53

Their plans to sue the pop star, however, would have to wait; after 1993,   Sneddon amended California law so that if civil and criminal proceedings   arose over the same allegation, the civil proceedings would be stayed until   after the criminal case was resolved.54 Consequently,   if the family had chosen to go forward with their lawsuit, the proceedings   would have remained inactive until the statute of limitations in the criminal   case expired.

While it would be years before the Arvizo family could seek monetary damages   from Jackson in court, Sneddon informed them of a state victim’s fund that   would provide them with financial compensation if they persisted with the   allegations. In November, Sneddon met with Janet Arvizo in an empty parking   lot to provide her with the necessary paperwork to apply for the fund.55 Less than a   month later, the case went forward.

John Arvizo and his family provided authorities with   a fifty-page affidavit detailing their allegations. In addition to the child   molestation accusations, the Arvizos also claimed that they had been held   hostage at Jackson’s Neverland ranch for several weeks in February 2003, the   same month throughout which the family had made numerous attempts to cash in   on their connection to Jackson.56 Using the   affidavit to show probable cause, Sneddon obtained a warrant for Michael   Jackson’s arrest as well as a warrant to search Neverland Ranch.

After raiding Neverland on November 18th, 2003, authorities also searched the   office of Mark Geragos’ Private Investigator Bradley Miller and the home of Jackson’s   former videographer Hamid Moslehi. During the raid of Moslehi’s home, Sneddon   confiscated a tape that featured footage of the accusing family praising   Jackson.

The contents of the tape would present a problem for the prosecution: the   interview with the family was conducted in February 2003 but according to the   family’s affidavit, Jackson had molested the boy and kidnapped the family   that very same month.57 Having access   to this tape gave Sneddon an opportunity to familiarize himself with   Jackson’s defense strategy, which would most likely centre on the Arvizo   family’s inconsistent statements.

In spite of this evidence, Sneddon continued with the case. On November 19,   he held a press conference where his behaviour led many to believe that he   had a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 case. Despite the   serious nature of the allegations, Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson created a   jovial atmosphere by making several jokes at Jackson’s expense.58

After Jackson was arrested, Sneddon gave an exclusive interview to tabloid   reporter Diane Dimond where he referred to the pop star as “Jacko Wacko” but   strongly denied having a vendetta against him.59 He later   apologized for his comments, saying, “If my mom was still alive she would   take me to task for not being a good person.”60

On December 18th, 2003, Jackson was charged with 7 counts of lewd and   lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 and 2 counts of   administering an intoxicating agent. These alleged acts took place on or   between February 7th and March 10th.61

As soon as the charges against Jackson were filed, many inconsistencies in   the prosecution’s case were revealed. The Arvizo family’s litigious past, for   example, immediately became the focus of much media attention. The general   public learned about the accusations that Janet Arvizo had levelled against   JCPenney and her ex-husband, as well as her alleged history of coaching her   children to lie under oath.

Many also began to question the timing of the supposed abuse. According to   the charges, the alleged molestation began on February 7th – the day after   Martin Bashir’s Living with Michael Jackson documentary aired in the United   States. Many found it implausible that Jackson would have started to molest   the boy while in the midst of a huge scandal involving him and past   accusations of child abuse.

Furthermore, both the Department of Children and Family Services and the Santa   Barbara County Sheriff’s Department had investigated Jackson in February 2003   and concluded based on their interviews with the Arvizos that no abuse had   taken place. It seems unlikely that Jackson could have molested the boy while   being investigated for suspected child abuse by two separate government   agencies.

But perhaps the most damning blow to the prosecution’s case was Mark Geragos’   claim that Jackson had an alibi. “The timeline is ridiculous. Michael has a   concrete, ironclad alibi for the dates they are saying this abuse took place.   The fact of the matter is, no abuse ever happened.”62

To overcome these inconsistencies, Tom Sneddon made several changes to the   charges against Jackson.


Although Tom Sneddon had officially filed a criminal complaint against   Michael Jackson in December 2003, he later brought his case in front of a   grand jury, which resulted in a new 10-count indictment. The new charges   indicate that either the Arvizos drastically changed their story or Tom   Sneddon intentionally made alterations to his case in order to make the   accusations appear more logical.

On April 30th, 2004, Jackson was indicted by a grand   jury on four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, four counts   of administering an intoxicating agent, one count of attempted child   molestation and one count of conspiracy. These alleged acts took place on or   between February 20th and March 12th 2003.63

According to the original complaint, the sexual abuse timeline began on   February 7th. A memo from the Department of Children and Family Services,   however, reveals that on February 20th, the entire family defended Jackson to   social workers and maintained that he had never even been alone with the boy.   Based on these statements, it seems highly unlikely that any abuse occurred   between February 7th and February 20th. In the new set of charges, these   three weeks have disappeared from the timeline. The abuse is now alleged to   have begun after February 20th, rendering the family’s initial statements to   social workers irrelevant.

Another notable difference in the accuser’s story – besides the shift in the   timeline and the change in the amount of times he was allegedly abused – is   that the charges in the complaint state that John Arvizo was only given   alcohol twice, indicating that he was sober throughout most of the   occurrences of alleged abuse. The charges in the indictment, however, suggest   that the boy was intoxicated throughout every incidence of alleged abuse.

The most questionable change, however, is that the conspiracy allegation was   not included in the original charges. In the indictment, Jackson is accused   of 28 overt acts of conspiracy including child abduction, false imprisonment   and extortion.64 The prosecution alleges that Jackson conspired with   five unnamed employees to kidnap the Arvizo family and force them into making   positive statements on his behalf. According to prosecutor Gordon   Auchincloss, Jackson did this to improve his public image after the airing of   the Living with Michael Jackson documentary.65 He then   allegedly molested the boy.

As a result of the conspiracy charge, the prosecution can now attempt to   discredit all of Jackson’s exculpatory evidence. The Arvizo family’s previous   denials of abuse, for example, can be justified by the allegation that the   family was forced to defend him.

Secondly, testimony from potential defense witnesses who may have observed   erratic or suspicious behaviour on the part of the Arvizos can now be   discredited by the charge that Jackson’s associates were involved in a   criminal conspiracy against the family.

Finally, if Jackson does have an alibi for all of the dates of the purported   abuse, the prosecution can simply claim that the alibi was also involved in   the supposed conspiracy.

To the average observer, the allegations against Michael Jackson might now   appear consistent but to those who have followed the case closely, the   question remains why the charges only took their current form after Jackson’s   defense strategy was revealed to the prosecution.

Although the major discrepancies in Sneddon’s case have been eradicated,   there are still several problems with the charges against Jackson,   particularly with the allegation that he held the Arvizo family hostage at   Neverland throughout February and March 2003.

According to Janet Arvizo’s divorce attorney Michael Manning, his client was   still praising Michael Jackson as late as May 2003. “‘He was really good to   us’ – that’s what she said at the time,” Manning recalled. “If it turned   sour, I don’t know how.”66

Another problem with the conspiracy allegation is that although five of   Jackson’s associates were allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the family,   Jackson is the only one who has been charged with a crime. The five alleged   co-conspirators remain un-indicted and have all been offered immunity if they   agree to testify against Jackson.

Joe Tacopina, an attorney for one of the accused co-conspirators, insists   that his client has rejected Sneddon’s offer of immunity and maintains that   the Arvizo family’s claims are ludicrous.

“If [Mrs. Arvizo] were being held hostage, then I guess during one of her   shopping sprees on Rodeo Drive she could have told a store manager while she   was buying a thousand-dollar dress,” Tacopina told the Santa Barbara News   Press.67 In another interview, Tacopina claimed that the   kidnapping allegations “are going to fall by the wayside when tested, when   challenged, when examined under cross examination… there are documents out   there that will absolutely shred these allegations.”68

An attorney for another alleged co-conspirator had a similar story to tell.   “From what [my client] saw, [the Arvizos] were certainly in no way under any   type of duress,” Michael Bachner told a reporter. “They freely went around to   speak to whomever they wanted. They went shopping. They made phone calls.   They did everything free people do.”69

Ron Konitzer, a former employee of Jackson’s who is now accused of conspiring   against the Arvizos, insists that innocent facts have been twisted to fit the   prosecution’s version of events. “It was a very natural development of events   and a normal professional move that has been taken out of context,” Konitzer   said of the measures that were taken to restore Jackson’s image after Living   with Michael Jackson aired, measures that are now being used by the   prosecution as evidence of a conspiracy.

“There was no cover-up,” Konitzer continued. “We were working around the   clock at the ranch for 10 days in a row – with my family even there – and I   can tell you the one thing I remember is a bunch of kids running around and   having fun. There was nothing I saw that even resembled anything near   imprisonment.”70

Even testimony from Janet Arvizo’s husband seems to contradict the family’s   claims of kidnapping. Jay Jackson testified that Janet Arvizo and her   children had returned to Neverland several times in April 2003 – one month   after the conspiracy timeline ended. “She somehow or another got back there,”   Jackson told the court.71

If Michael Jackson had kidnapped the family in February 2003, why was Janet   Arvizo still praising the pop star in May 2003? Why did she return to   Neverland after allegedly being held hostage there? Why did it take her three   months to contact the police? Why did she contact a civil lawyer first?

Another aspect of the case that has come into   question is the behaviour of the authorities involved. Recently, Jackson’s   defense team challenged the indictment, alleging that the prosecution engaged   in excessive misconduct throughout the grand jury proceedings. In a 126-page   motion filed by the defense, Sneddon is accused of bullying witnesses,   failing to properly present exculpatory evidence, refusing to let the jurors   question the prosecution witnesses and providing the jurors with a false   legal definition of the term ‘conspiracy.’

According to the motion: “There is simply no evidence that Mr. Jackson had   the specific intent to agree or conspire with anyone about anything.”

To support this contention, the defense pointed out that a key witness to the   alleged conspiracy had never even met Jackson. Transcripts reveal that when   she testified, the witness, who was employed by Jackson for ten days in   February 2003, answered questions with responses such as “I’m not sure,” “I   guess,” “I assume,” “I don’t know exactly” and “I think.” 72

It was also revealed that Sneddon used Jackson’s predilection for a clean   household to support the conspiracy allegation. The motion reads: “It is   simply not reasonable to infer that Mr. Jackson’s preference for a well run   household demonstrates the specific intent to commit crimes. Evidence that   Mr. Jackson would complain to his staff when household chores were not done   properly is not evidence that he was directing a criminal conspiracy.”73

In another motion, the defense charged that because Private Investigator   Bradley Miller worked for Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos, the   evidence taken from his office during the November 18th raid is protected by   attorney-client privilege. Although Sneddon admittedly told Jackson’s defense   team that he was aware of Miller’s professional relationship with Geragos at   the time of the raid, he later retracted his confession, claiming it was a   “mistake borne out of being upset and angry.”74 Judge Rodney   Melville ruled in favour of the prosecution, deeming the raid on Miller’s   office legal despite the fact that Jackson’s attorney-client privileges had   been violated.75

According to the defense team: “There is no case in the history of the state   of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated   in this grand jury proceeding.”76

The question still remains, however, why a veteran prosecutor would risk his   reputation by filing such dubious charges, especially when the case in   question has garnered unprecedented media attention. Does Sneddon truly   believe that Michael Jackson is guilty of the crimes of which he has been   accused or are there other motives involved in his relentless pursuit of the   pop star? A careful examination of these questions reveals a sordid pattern   of greed, corruption and blackmail within the Santa Barbara District   Attorney’s office.

Menu Part II


1“Ms. Doe testifies that she hired a lawyer before meeting Michael.”   Online posting. 18 Sept. 2004. MJJForum.   (

2Team MJJSource. “Mesereau Calls Prosecution ‘Vindictive.'” MJJSource.   29 Dec.   2004.(

3Murr, Andrew and Jennifer Ordonez. “King of the Tabloid Case.” Newsweek.   15 Dec. 2003. (

4“Is the Michael Jackson Case a Shakedown?” Today Show. NBC. 4 Mar.   2004. (

5“Is the Michael Jackson Case a Shakedown?” Today Show. NBC. 4 Mar.   2004. (

6Deutsch, Linda. “Mother Coached Children to Lie in Court Before?” Associated   Press. 25 Dec. 2003.

7 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report.   Oct 2001.   (

8 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson’s Accuser’s Mom Made Similar Claims in 2001.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 12 Oct. 2004.   (

9 Interview with Russell Halpern. Larry King Live. CNN. 13 Feb.   2004. (

10 “Jackson Accuser ‘Afraid’ of His Estranged Father?” Celebrity Justice.   17 Mar. 2004. TTC West Coast Inc.   (

11“Take 2: The Interview They Wouldn’t Show You.” Fox. 20 Feb. 2003.

12 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report.   Oct 2001.   (

13“Jackson Accuser’s Mom Falsely Solicited Charity for Son.” Celebrity   Justice. 3 Jan. 2005. TTC West Coast Inc.   (

14 Heard, Bill. “Chance Encounters with Cops Lead to Merry Christmas for LA   Family.” MTA Report. 21 Dec. 2001.   (

15Interview with Michael Jackson. Sixty Minutes. CBS. 28 Dec. 2003.   (

16 “Living with Michael Jackson.” ITV. 3 Feb. 2003.

17Steepleton, Scott. “Explicit Story of Jackson ‘Old News’ to Sneddon.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 12 Feb. 2003.

18“Michael Jackson’s Big Payoff.” The Smoking Gun. 16 Jun 2004.   Courtroom Television Network.   (

19Hughes, Geraldine. Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson   Child Molestation Allegations. Radford: Branch and Vine Publishers, LLC.   2004.

20 Fischer, Mary A. “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” GQ Magazine.   Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.

21Chandler, Ray. “GQ Article.” Media Analysis.   (

22“Psychiatric Interview with Jackson’s First Accuser.” Michael   Jackson Molestation Case. Court TV Online, pp. 30-31. 10 Jan. 2005.   (

23Piper, August. “Truth Serum and What Really Happened.” Selected   Columns of August Piper, Jr., M.D.   (

24 Elam, Peggy. “Dissociative Disorders and Sodium Amytal   Interview.” Ivillage Health.   (,,234280_1280-1,00.html)

25Fischer, Mary A. “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” GQ Magazine.   Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.

26“Grand Jury Disbanded in Michael Jackson Case.” Showbiz   Today. CNN. 2 May 1994.

27 “The DA in the Michael Jackson Case.” TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime.   19 Nov. 2003. CrimeLynx.   (

28“Current Events and Press Releases.” Michael Jackson Case   Information. 5 Feb. 2003. County of Santa Barbara.   (

29Steepleton, Scott. “Explicit Story of Jackson ‘Old News’ to Sneddon.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 12 Feb. 2003.

30Friedman, Roger. “Jacko’s Got Dubious Character Witnesses.” Fox 411.   Fox News. 12 Feb. 2003. (,2933,78351,00.html)

31Mankiewicz, Josh. “Michael Jackson Unmasked.” Dateline NBC. NBC.   17 Feb. 2003. (

32Interview with Mark Geragos. Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Dec. 2003.   (

33 Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at   Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

34 Deutsch, Linda. ” Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael   Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

35 “Did Jackson’s Accuser Declare Star as Innocent?” Good Morning   America. ABC News. 26 Feb. 2004.   (

36Interview with Ed Bradley. Larry King Live. CNN. 4 Feb. 2004.   (

37“Michael Jackson Bombshell.” The Smoking Gun. 9 Dec. 2003.   Courtroom Television Network.   (

38 “Latest News.” The Official Website of Carole Lieberman, M.D. 11   Feb. 2003. (

39“New Revelations in Michael Jackson Case.” The Today Show. NBC   News. 16 Mar. 2004. (

40“Michael is My Children’s Angel.” Sunday Telegraph. 8 Feb. 2003.   (

41 “Take 2: The Interview They Wouldn’t Show You.” Fox. 20 Feb.   2003.

42 “Former Lawyer for Jackson Accuser Speaks.” Primetime Live. ABC   News. 29 Jan. 2004. (

43 Deutsch,   Linda. ” Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael   Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

44 The Abrams Report.   MSNBC. 20 Aug. 2004. (

45 Friedman, Roger. “Jacko Accuser’s Mom Was in Mental Hospital.”   Fox 411. 5 Feb. 2004. Fox News. 20 Jul. 2004.   (,2933,110526,00.html)

46 “Former Lawyer for Jackson Accuser Speaks.” Primetime Live. ABC   News. 29 Jan. 2004.   (

47 Order for Release of Redacted Documents. [Exhibits 2-18 from Pen. C.   §1538.5 Hearings (Parts 1 and 2)] 12 Nov. 2004.   (

48“Civil Suit Brought up by Therapist.” The Today Show. 19 Mar.   2004.   (

49Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. “Leak of Jackson Memo Criticized.”   LA Times. 8 Jan. 2004.

50 Deutsch, Linda. “Lawyer: Psychologist’s patients on both sides of   Jackson case.” Associated Press. 17 Aug. 2004.

51Deutsch, Linda. “Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael Jackson   Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

52“Accuser’s Mother Police Videotape.” The Insider. 15 Sept. 2004.   (

53 “Civil Suit Brought up by Therapist.” The Today Show. 19 Mar.   2004.   (

54Deutsch, Linda and Tim Molloy. “Prosecutor Says Law Won’t Allow Jackson   to Pay Off Accuser Before Trial.” Associated Press. 19 Nov. 2003.

55“Does Memo Suggest DA Vendetta Against Jackson?” Good Morning America.   ABC News. 29 Apr. 2004.   (

56Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at   Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

57Hobbs, Dawn. “Tape Called Evidence of Jackson Conspiracy.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 11 Aug. 2004.   (

58 Press Conference. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon. 19   Nov. 2003.

59Bean, Matt. “Court TV Exclusive: D.A. discusses case against Michael   Jackson.” Court TV. 20 Nov. 2003.   (

60“DA Apologizes for Joking at Jackson News Conference.” CNN. 5 Dec.   2003. (

61Hobbs, Dawn. “Sneddon Comes Out Swinging.” Santa Barbara News-Press.   19 Dec. 2003.   (

62Brown, Stacey. “Geragos says he’s in charge of Jackson Defense.” MSNBC.   6 Jan. 2004. (

63Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Pleads Not Guilty.” Santa Barbara News-Press.   1 May 2004. (

64Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Pleads Not Guilty.” Santa Barbara News-Press.   1 May 2004. (

65Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at   Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

66Molloy, Tim. “Accuser’s Mother Said to Praise Jackson.” Associated   Press. 25 Nov. 2003.

67Hobbs, Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa Barbara   News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004. (

68The Abrams Report. MSNBC. 22 Apr.   2004. (

69Hobbs, Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa Barbara   News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004.   (

70Hobbs,   Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004. (

71Deutsch,   Linda. “Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael   Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

72Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code §995)   6 Jul. 2004.   (

73Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the   Indictment. (Pen. Code §995) 23 Jul. 2004. Page 12   (

74Hadly, Scott and Dawn Hobbs. “Jackson Team Goes on Offense.” Santa   Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004.   (

75Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Case Judge Rules in Favor of DA.” Santa Barbara   News-Press. 15 Oct. 2004.   (

76Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code §995)   6 Jul. 2004.   (

Some of Documents included in this part:

archival purposes.

Jackson Accuser ‘Afraid’ of His Estranged Father
March 17, 2004

He’s the dad waging a tearful court battle against his estranged wife to see his son, the 14 year-old boy accusing Michael Jackson of molesting him. Now comes a stunning letter from the boy, obtained exclusively by “Celebrity Justice” from court files.

The obtained documents include a declaration by the mother of Jackson’s young accuser, as well as written declarations from the boy himself and a sibling describing their fear of their father. “CJ” has also obtained letters from two Santa Barbara Sheriff’s investigators.

The boys’ handwritten letter says, “Due to the situation and events that have occurred in my life, I do not want to see my father right now.”

H. Russell Halpern, the father’s attorney, says his client is crushed. “He has once again gone into a state of depression,” Halpern tells us. “It’s been very, very difficult for him.”

The second letter, from the boy’s younger brother, is even more devastating. It says, “I do not want to see my father because he was never a father to me. My step dad was more of a father in two years then he was in my 13 years on earth.”

“Well, they’ve been without their father because of court orders for two years now,” Halpern notes. “We can only speculate what may have been said about the dad during this time.”

In court papers, the mother claims her boys are “afraid” of their father. The documents go on to say, “Every single night, one of my sons barricades the front door by putting two chairs in front of the door… He also puts a boogie board and an archery arrow against the front door… Both boys sleep with baseball bats.”

Additional letters from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and D.A.’s office both say it would not be in the “best interests of this child” to see his father.

And there is more bad news for the dad. Sources say a judge just warned him that he could be sent to jail by late April if he fails to complete the terms of his probation after pleading no contest to spousal and child abuse.

The obtained D.A. and Sheriff’s letters also say the boy appears to be very healthy, despite his prior battle with cancer. The City Attorney’s office would not comment except to say they take child abuse and domestic violence cases very seriously.


Part II: Tom Sneddon – A Strange Obsession

“Sneddon is a   very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove   something which he feels needs proving.”

– Attorney Michael Cooney


When it comes to political corruption in Santa   Barbara, anyone familiar with the workings of this county knows that nothing   happens without the tacit approval of the good District Attorney Tom Sneddon.   Often referred to as “the single most powerful person in all of Santa Barbara   County,”1 his admirers point to the fact that he has run unopposed for the last   six terms as evidence of his beloved status. Butterball sidekick Jim Thomas,   former sheriff of Santa Barbara, defends him, insisting: “Tom Sneddon is and   has always been an aggressive prosecutor, which is why he’s been re-elected   so many times unopposed.”2 To understand the method of Tom Sneddon and how he operates, one only   needs to consider the testimony of several persons who have borne the wrath   of his prosecutorial obsession.


One of the worst examples of such behavior is Sneddon’s attack on Santa Maria   attorney Gary Dunlap. Sneddon had charged Dunlap with a slew of charges   including perjury and witness tampering. After being acquitted of all   charges, Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Sneddon and his hood of   bandits for violating his civil rights during the investigation.3 In an interview with the highly respected MJJForum, Dunlap leveled a   number of serious charges against Sneddon and those in his office. This   gentleman has been a practicing attorney in the Santa Maria and Santa Barbara   area for nearly forty years and is not pulling stories of horrific   prosecutorial misconduct out of his behind. In fact, a number of persons who   do not even know each other are claiming the exact same thing with   tangible proof of said misconduct. Among the many charges   that Dunlap levelled against Sneddon:

§ Sneddon     and the law enforcement officials assigned to Dunlap’s investigation     performed illegal searches and seizures. “Well, they engaged in a sting     operation, which they manufactured and allowed to get out of hand, and it     essentially became just a real witch hunt. There were a number of     violations of my rights in the investigatory stage as well as during the     prosecution stage.”§ Stacking charges against defendants. “…I don’t know if you realize     how difficult it is when they throw the kitchen sink at you, I mean, when     they throw seven felonies against you, how difficult it is to get an     acquittal on all charges. You know, I mean it’s one thing to be charged     with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the District     Attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges     against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.” Sneddon’s     kitchen sink manufacturer must be working overtime, tossing sinks at the     Michael Jackson case like friends toss Krispy Kreme donuts at Rosie     O’Donnell.§ Intimidation of officials whom they cannot control. “…but in one     instance there is a gentleman in Santa Maria who had announced his     candidacy for a public office and shortly thereafter he was illegally     detained by sheriff’s deputies on what were pretty clearly bogus charges,     and instead of the District Attorney acknowledging that, the District     Attorney attempted to cover up the police officers’ excessive force by     filing charges against him and attempted to prosecute him on those charges     and essentially ruined his opportunity to run for public office. He     ultimately sued the District Attorney as well as the law enforcement     officers and won a judgment in the federal court for several thousand     dollars and several hundred thousand dollars in attorney’s fees.”4 This particular story from Dunlap sounds remarkably similar to Bill Wegener’s experiences. Is it any wonder that Dunlap     is suing Sneddon and his cronies?

Intimidating foes he can no longer control     is a particular talent for Sneddon. Just ask Judge Diana Hall. When the     judge “ran” for the bench (more on that later), she was actually seen as an     ally to the Sneddon regime but for whatever reason, that changed and so did     Sneddon’s approach to dealing with her. In September 2003, Hall was     convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving but was cleared of the more serious     charges that had been brought against her such as brandishing a weapon and     battery. While Hall’s legal troubles had seemingly come to an end with the     resolution of the trial, her contentious relationship with the Santa     Barbara District Attorney’s office would only intesify when she was later     accused of election funding fraud.

During the 2002 re-election bid, Hall’s ex-lover Deidre Dykeman had donated     an unreported $20,000 to Hall’s campaign, a donation that eventually led to     eight new misdemeaner charges being brought against Hall in 2004. Her     attorney Mike Scott is none too pleased. “The District Attorney knew     about this gift from her former roommate in December 2002,” he said.     “They did nothing with it until the DA failed to secure a felony     conviction against Judge Hall last August. It was well known prior to the     trial and should have been included in the original charges.”5

To say that Sneddon and his people were not thrilled that the felony     charges did not stick the first time they prosecuted Hall is no doubt an     understatement according to unnamed sources. Despite the prosecution’s     stance that they were merely punishing a judge who had violated state     campaign funding laws, someone with a brain and glasses not fogged by     corruption thought differently and prevented the Santa Barbara District     Attorney’s office from prosecuting Hall. Perhaps the most important reason for     removing the DA’s office from the case is the fact that Hall is slated to     serve as a witness for Gary Dunlap in his civil lawsuit against Tom     Sneddon.6 Can you say conflict of interest?

Now, if I was a District Attorney who was being targeted for violating the     civil rights of some local attorney and I knew that one of the judges on my     watch was testifying for the plaintiff (Dunlap, in this case), I would do     my best to make sure that by the time she testified, her reputation would     be so soiled with political and criminal scandal that she would not be     considered credible. If making Hall look bad meant stacking a bunch of     ridiculous charges against her or prosecuting her for essentially covering     up a gay relationship, so be it. Of course, this is merely the hypothetical     meanderings of a curious observer.

We doubt that Ms. Hall, once she has hopefully been freed from the vengeful     clutches of a twisted legal scene in Santa Barbara, will allow Sneddon to     rest much. We see him being sued big time for his illegal and unethical     antics. Not shockingly, Hall is not the only public official Sneddon has it     in for.


Just when you thought that massage parlor lovin’ had given way to chat room     sex, two sisters in Santa Maria set out to prove that there is still a     market for this hands-on service to the male segment of the community, even     law enforcement officials (allegedly). Two sisters, April and Irene     Cummings, were accused of running a prostitution ring through the guise of     a massage parlor. Art Montandon, the Santa Maria city lawyer at the time,     was conducting his own investigation in an attempt to get information on     one of the persons alleged to have been serviced at the parlor – the Santa     Maria police Chief John Sterling. A number of rumors swirled as names were     floated as possible customers of the Cummings sisters, the biggest being     one very important person: Tom Sneddon.

As one could imagine, Sneddon vehemently denied the allegations, even     threatening to sue the sisters if they did not recant. “It’s     outrageous…”I’ve never had a massage in my life,” Sneddon     claimed. After meeting with Sneddon about the allegation, the Cummings’     sisters attorney Michael Clayton said that “the sisters likely confused the     District Attorney with a man named ‘Tom’ who looked similar to Sneddon and     allegedly visited their business on that day” and that he thought “(April)     was genuinely mistaken… I don’t believe (Sneddon) was a client of either     of them.”7

Making matters even more interesting was the rumor that Bill Wegener (yes,     that Bill Wegener), had caught Chief Sterling on tape but none of the     parties – Wegener, Montandon, or even the members of Sneddon’s office –     have ever claimed to have seen such a tape.8

Enter Tom Sneddon and the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office whose     job it was to prosecute the case. And this is where the trouble truly     begins. As it turns out, Montandon had evidence that would prove beneficial     not for the prosecution but for the defense. Upon learning about the     existence of this evidence, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office     accused Montandon of bribery and interfering with their case. Although the     DA’s office attempted to prevent Montandon from providing the evidence to     defense attorneys, a judge would ruled that Sneddon’s office did not have     the authority to stop Montandon from doing his own investigation. Montandon     later promised that he would provide “the full and complete story of not     only the District Attorney’s unprofessional conduct, but the inappropriate     conduct and motives of others working behind the scenes to cause community conflict.”

Montandon also fired back his own assaults on Sneddon and his office,     accusing them of “prosecutorial misconduct in pursuing a local     attorney.” Just who was Montandon referring to? That’s right – Gary     Dunlap. In addition, Montandon even found time to chide his enemies:     “Unlike (Assistant District Attorney Christie) Stanley and current and     former members of her office, I have never had my license to practice law     suspended by the State Bar, have never been convicted of a crime, and have     never been terminated from any attorney job.”9

After “retiring” after 19 years of service, Montandon filed an official     complaint against Sneddon and his office, citing that Sneddon and his     employees had engaged in “discriminatory, abusive, defamatory (and)     negligent” tactics against him.10 After it was revealed that the California Bar Association was     investigating Sneddon and others for misconduct Montandon added that:     “We’re geared up to file a federal court lawsuit in the next two     months.”11

We in no way necessarily endorse the actions of any of the parties who have     accused Sneddon nor do we support coddling criminals in such a way that     they have carte blanche to whatever they please. We believe in law and     order. We also happen to believe in due process. But it only gets more     interesting when we consider another often overlooked and often threatened     person who had the courage to speak up about what really goes on in Santa     Barbara and Santa Maria: Dr. Thambiah Sundaram.

Thambiah Sundaram

In an interview with Online Legal Review’s Ron Sweet, Thambiah Sundaram     claimed that he was arrested and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District     Attorney’s office for, among other things, grand theft, malicious mischief,     and impersonating a doctor.

The case was later dismissed by then Judge Barbara Beck, who called the     allegations against Sundaram “ridiculous.” The seriousness of Beck’s charge     is quite obvious and adds proverbial fuel to speculation that Sneddon has a     predilection to misuse his prosecutorial authority. It is little wonder     that Sundaram sued Sneddon and his office for malicious prosecution, false     imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of power, and conspiracy and was awarded     over $300,000 for his trouble. But Sundaram also had a great deal to say about     Tom Sneddon and his subordinates in the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s     office in regards to the way they operate in other ways.

Sundaram alleges that in late 1994 or early 1995, he heard racist comments     being made by the likes of now Senior Deputy District Attorney Mag Nicola     as well as Tim Rooney – all in the glorious presence of Tom Sneddon – at a     private fundraising function. For instance, a man named Rajan Ayyar was     referred to as a “nigger” by Nicola as he and other government officials     allegedly plotted about how they were going to “go after” him. Apparently,     the fact that Ayyar was a Black man who claimed to be a Stanford alum was     simply too much for these respectable white folks. Moreover, they were     alleged to have believed that they could get whatever they wanted since     they had just put a judge on the bench whom they were blackmailing at the     time with some “dirt” on her personal life. That judge? Diana Hall.12

It would take ten years and would come without Hall’s involvement but their     plotting paid off and Ayyar was convicted last year of “10 counts of grand     theft, four of forgery and one each of securities fraud and commission of a     fraudulent securities scheme.” And take a guess who Rajan Ayyar’s attorney     was? Gary Dunlap.13 Ayyar was not the only “nigger” against whom they were purportedly     plotting. Sundaram also maintains that the group discussed what to do with Michael     Jackson. Among the things that authorities allegedly said about     Jackson:

– Some of Sneddon’s friends wanted Jackson’s property to convert it into a     thriving vineyard. Consistent with Sundaram’s claims, wine-making is the     leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara where Jackson owns 2,700     acres of prime real estate.

– Authorities laughed and bragged about passing around pictures of     Jackson’s genitalia, pictures that were taken during the 1993-94     investigation. This was done to embarrass Jackson. (These pictures were     supposed to be sealed but are not. Even Geraldo Rivera admits that he has     seen them)

– Nicola lamented that they had done everything they could to get “that     nigger” out of town but had failed. Apparently, authorities did not like     the fact that Jackson was the richest resident in Santa Barbara, that he     had married a white woman (Lisa Marie Presley) and that he owned all of     that property. They promised they would not fail to get rid of him the next     time around.

– Sneddon allegedly stated that his goal was to get “some dirt to get him     to leave” and that he wanted to “run him out of town.”14

These tidbits of information have been challenged by Sneddon supporters and     Jackson haters alike as unsubstantiated gossip. However, if this     information has any kernel of truth to it (and we believe it does), then it     makes the events of November 2003 a mere fulfillment of an alleged     obsession with Jackson on Sneddon’s part.


Not too long after the now-infamous November     2003 press conference in which Tom Sneddon joked about Michael Jackson with     Sheriff Jim Anderson, Sneddon was quick to point out that he did not have a     vendetta against the superstar.15 In light of the aforementioned accusations from others in the Santa     Barbara area along the same lines, one should at least be willing to     consider the possibility. Sneddon went so far as to state that he had not     even thought about the singer or the allegations during the ten-year     interval between the cases. However, a plethora of articles from news     outlets from 1994-2003 reveal something altogether different. The following     quotes, courtesy of, are evidence of Sneddon’s lack of     attention to Jackson:

The Independent (London), August 20, 1994 :
A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness,       Thomas Sneddon is not burdened by a litany of heavily publicised previous       blunders. Nor is he willing to accept that his case is hopeless without       the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler. ”The Santa       Barbara office is still quite involved in investigation of the Jackson       allegations,” says Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well.       ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than       almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he       decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”The New York Times, September 22, 1994:Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, where Mr. Jackson       owns an estate, said more than 400 witnesses had been interviewed in the       case and that two other possible victims had been identified. But he said       one of these, who is now in therapy, had asked not to be involved in the       case and the other was out of the country and had made a “general       denial” of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994:

GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded       that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation       has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any       criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline       prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.

VERCAMMEN: Prosecutors said their investigation also turned up two other       children allegedly molested by Michael Jackson. But the district       attorneys added one boy is out of the country and denies wrongdoing by       Jackson, and the third alleged victim is reluctant to testify.       Prosecutors said they will reopen the case should any witnesses have a       change of heart.

TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances       change, should other evidence become available within this period of the       statute of limitations, like Los Angeles County, we would re-evaluate the       situation based upon what information is available to us at that       particular point in time.

The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995:

Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif.,       District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother,       Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.

The New York Beacon August 23, 1995

Magazine: Michael Jackson Lied To Interviewer Diane Sawyer. Michael       Jackson lied to Diane Sawyer about his relationship with young boys and       withheld information about a pending civil action, Vanity Fair reported.       Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that       Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two       boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime       Time Live.”

“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody       comes forward,” Sneddon said. The magazine also reported, quoting       unidentified sources, that there is a third boy whose lawyer is working       on a settlement with Jackson. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told       Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could       connect me to these charges” of child molestation. But Sneddon told       the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s       genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not       consistent with the evidence in the case.” Others familiar with the       evidence told Vanity Fair that the photos match descriptions given by a       young boy to investigators.

The Advertiser January 27, 1996:

“But the reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the       fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy       from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara       District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson       had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch. Charges against Jackson were       dropped when the boy refused to testify. But Mr Sneddon says, contrary to       popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was       cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in       suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.

Daily News (New York) February 14, 2001:

Michael Jackson is not out of the woods. So says Santa Barbara District       Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges       against the singer in 1993. Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech       tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative.       Although Sneddon can’t be there in person, he’s definitely arching an       eyebrow from 3,000 miles away. “The case against Michael Jackson was       never closed, and he was never exonerated,” Sneddon says. “It’s       in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.” 16

Clearly, Mr.       Sneddon had been doing a great deal of thinking about Jackson and the       1993 case that he did not get to prosecute. Furthermore, either Sneddon       had the gift of prophecy or he was smelling pay dirt in February 2003       when, in an interview with Court TV investigative reporter Diane Dimond       (we’ll get to her later), Sneddon once again stated that all he needed       was “one more victim” to re-open his case against Mr. Jackson.17


Despite the protests of Sneddon and his supporters, the tactics that the       defense allege he has engaged in throughout the investigation support the       idea that a vendetta is indeed the driving force behind this entire       “case”. There are so many egregious acts on the district attorney’s part,       that a list might be more practical:

§ Excessive number of search warrants (over 105 at the present writing),       the majority of which came after Jackson was indicted by a grand jury.18

§ Bullying witnesses at the grand jury hearing.19

§ Lying to the media and the general public about the actual nature of       the two grand juries that were called in 1993-94. While Sneddon insisted       that neither were asked to indict Jackson, blaming collapse of the case       on the fact that Jackson had settled with the Chandler family, both grand       juries could have returned indictments. Based on the flimsy evidence, however,       both grand juries wisely decided not to do so.20 Sneddon once again proves himself to be       something else besides “Mad Dog”: A liar.

§ Harassment of persons close to Jackson with the express attempt to get       them to turn on Jackson.21

§ Tossing in a conspiracy charge while not indicting the other five       alleged co-conspirators (how can there be a conspiracy with only one person       being charge?)22

§ Intentionally violating Jackson’s attorney-client privilege by (1)       breaking in to the office of private investigator Bradley Miller, who       worked for then-Jackson defense attorney Mark Geragos;23 (2) seizing material from the home of       Jackson’s personal assistant Evelyn Tavvasci, material clearly marked       “Mesereau” (the surname of Jackson’s current defense attorney)24

§ Allegedly leaking damaging information through Diane Dimond (isn’t it       obvious?)

§ Searching Neverland with 60 officers over a year after Jackson’s       arrest, all to allegedly “take pictures” and “get measurements” of some       of the rooms in Jackson’s home.25

§ Seizing records that clearly have nothing to do with child       molestation: financial, bank, land, rental car records.

§ Attempting to harass Jackson supporters, particularly online fan       communities such as MJJForum. Sneddon actually went so far as to accuse       MJJForum of being Jackson’s official site and, therefore, violating the       gag order by showing public support for Jackson.26

§ Inappropriately joking and laughing at the now-infamous press       conference announcing Jackon’s arrest in November 2003 27

§ Inappropriately interjecting himself into the case as a witness during       grand jury testimony. He made himself a witness and was summarily       examined by Tom Mesereau at a later hearing.28

The list literally could go on and on but we have decided to end it here.       The sad fact is that Sneddon, based upon the documented cases of so many       others, has used the courts as his own little playground to       metaphorically assassinate if not convict his enemies. And it does not       help when the judge (who has already sat as trial judge over other       questionable Sneddon cases) overseeing the Michael Jackson case has a       history of reversing himself on certain key motions and also being       checked by higher courts. Now that both Melville and the Attorney General       of California have blocked any chance of Sneddon and his office from       being recused, Sneddon may appear to have the upper hand. But do not bet       it on for a minute.

Even as this is project is being written, there are other investigative       bodies who have fleshed out a number of other documented cases where       Sneddon and his office have been cited for prosecutorial misconduct.29 Egregious judicial and government       malfeasance of this kind cannot and will not last forever. The chickens       will, in the words of Malcolm X, come home to roost. The kingdom of       Sneddon is a ticking time bomb.

Menu Part III


1“Prosecutor       Profile.” National District Attorney’s Association. 2004.

2Hobbs, Dawn.       “DA has locked Horns with Defense Lawyers in Past.” Santa       Barbara News-Press. 2 Nov. 2004.

3Abramsam,       Mark. “Dunlap Sues Over Arrest.” The Lompoc Record. 5       Dec. 2003.

4Brown,       Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. MJJForum Talk       Radio. 2 Jan. 2004.

5Hobbs, Dawn.       “Judge’s Lawyer Accuses DA of Unfair Retaliation.” Santa       Barbara News-Press. 13 Jul. 2004.

6Cushner,       Quintin. “D.A’s Office Recused from Case.” The Santa Maria       Times. 31 Aug. 2004.

7Cushner,       Quintin. “Sneddon rejects masseuse’s allegations.” The Santa Maria       Times. 28 Dec. 2003.

8Cushner,       Quintin. “City, D.A. office clash.” The Santa Maria Times. 3 Dec.       2003.

9Cushner,       Quintin. “City attorney fires back at D.A.” The Santa Maria Times.       13 Feb. 2004.

10Cushner, Quintin. “Montandon Files Claim Against D.A.” The       Santa Maria Times. 1 Jul. 2004.

11Cushner, Quintin. “State Bar Looks into Complaint Against       D.A.” The Santa Maria Times. 17 Jul. 2004.

12Arceneaux, K.C. “New Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael       Jackson.” The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004.       (

13“Rajan Ayyar Sentencing Set for Thursday.” News and       Articles on Gary Real Estate. Real Estate News. 2004.       (

14Arceneaux, K.C. “New Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael       Jackson.” The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004.       (

15Bean, Matt. “Court TV Exclusive: D.A. discusses case against Michael       Jackson.” Court TV. 20 Nov. 2003.       (

16“The DA in the Michael Jackson Case.” TalkLeft: The Politics of       Crime. 19 Nov. 2003. CrimeLynx.       (

17Friedman, Roger. “Jacko: A Valentine From the District       Attorney.” Fox 411. 14 Feb. 2003. Fox News. 25 Jun. 2004.       (,2933,78599,00.html)

18Hobbs, Dawn. “Pop star’s legal battles began year ago       today.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 18 Nov. 2004.       (

19Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code       §995) 6 Jul. 2004.       (

20 Hobbes, Dawn. “Pop Superstar Can’t Shake 1993 Allegations.”       Santa Barbara News-press. 5 Apr. 2004.       (

21Spilbor, Jonna M. “The Michael Jackson Case.” Find Law       Commentary. Find Law. 4 May 2004.       (

22 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson defense blasts attempt to use evidence       from ’93.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 8 Jan. 2005.       (

23 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson team goes on offense.” Santa       Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004. (

24 Hobbs, Dawn. “Authorities searched home of Jackson’s       assistant.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 23 Sept. 2004.       (

25 Hobbs, Dawn. “Authorities conduct raid on Neverland.” Santa       Barbara News-Press. 4 Dec.       2004.(

26Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification Re: Court’s Protective Order.       2004 Jun. 25.       (

27Press Conference. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon.       19 Nov. 2003.

28 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson team goes on offense.” Santa       Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004.       (

28“Prosecutorial Misconduct Investigation.” MJJF       Investigates. MJJForum. (

For more examples of prosecutorial misconduct on Sneddon’s part, see the       following websites:

Archived by – The Michael   Jackson Repository

Part III – Diane Dimond: Paragon of Deceit

“During all the   coverage of Michael Jackson’s supposed molestation of this teenage boy, I   turned on ‘CBS This Morning’ and saw Diane Dimond being interviewed by Paula   Zahn. And I remember thinking, ‘This is a seminal moment in the regression of   TV journalism.'”1

– Los Angeles times TV critic Howard   Rosenberg


The moment Michael Jackson was arrested and charged   with child molestation, Diane Dimond insisted that she did not go looking for   this story but rather it came looking for her. Of course, she must have   forgotten ever making such a statement when, during another interview, she   asserted, “I’ve been working this story for 10 years.”2 We would, however, prefer to call her work “jury tainting” in light of   several absolutely unprofessional and unethical activities that have caused   observers to question her “journalistic” inclinations and sensibilities.

Dimond, like her good buddy Tom Sneddon has often decried any assertion that   she has a vendetta against Jackson or that she is obsessed with the child   molestation allegations. In her own words, she is just a determined   investigative journalist who is determined to get to the bottom of a huge   story. To her credit, Dimond did offer some sound advice concerning how to   evaluate a story: “You have to listen carefully to the reporters. If they’re   giving their opinion, that’s not necessarily the truth. You have to, as a   listener or viewer, think logically for yourself. What is true and what is   false?”3 Following these wise words, we invite readers to assess the veracity of   several stories Ms. Dimond has reported.

For instance, Dimond stated confidently, “I am 99.9% sure that Jordan   Chandler will testify during the grand jury.”4 The only problem was that it never happened. Dimond did her best to make   it appear as if the prosecution had scored a windfall. Of course, one has to   ask logically: If Jordan Chandler was so eager to testify as Dimond was   reporting, why did the prosecution (or sources close to them) whine about not   being able to serve him a subpoena? If Chandler was eager to see justice done   for the alleged injustice done to him, one would logically assume that no   writ or court order would have even been necessary to get him to the stand.   Score one for logic and against Dimond’s “objective” and truth-centered   reporting.

Dimond was also one of the first to report the erroneous story that the   prosecution had seized love letters allegedly written by Jackson to the   latest accuser. On a November 24, 2003 edition of Larry King Live,5Dimond, along with famed attorney Johnnie Cochran, Chris Pixley and   Court TV’s Nancy Grace, did not hesitate much when discussing them:

KING: Do we — hold it! Does anyone here — does anyone   here — anyone — know of the existence of these letters?

DIMOND: I absolutely know of their existence!

KING: Diane, have you read them?

DIMOND: No, I have not read them, but I absolutely know that that was   tops on the list of the DA and sheriff’s department, things to look for   inside Neverland. Listen, Larry, these are letters that are written in   Michael Jackson’s hand. They are said to be — no, I’ve not read them, but   they — they went after them because they’re said to be so sensational and so   salacious in nature that this could be a key to the prosecution.

When pressed   about her certainty of the letters Dimond got very defensive. Consider this entertaining exchange between her and Pixley :
PIXLEY: I think it’s inevitable that they’re going to   report the story in one way, though, Larry, and that’s to say that Michael   Jackson is guilty of these charges…


PIXLEY: … before there are even charges. I’m sorry, Diane…

DIMOND: Baloney!

PIXLEY:… have you entertained for a moment the idea that these love   letters that you know nothing about may be just that, nothing?

DIMOND: First of all, Chris, I do know about them, and I know about   them from high law enforcement sources. But I have always said, I don’t know   if Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge should go to court.

PIXLEY: You said they play it close to the chest, you think this is a   good DA’s office that doesn’t leak stories, that play it close to the chest.   But you know from high-ranking officials exactly what these letters say, or   at least…

DIMOND: I didn’t say I know what they say!

PIXLEY: … what they are likely to say…

DIMOND: If you’re going to…

PIXLEY:… that they’re salacious.

DIMOND: And you know what, Chris? Get it right! I get it right when I   quote somebody! You get it right when you quote me!

PIXLEY:Who are you quoting about the letters, then, Diane, so we can   get it right? Who is it that you’re quoting?

DIMOND: I’m not going to…

PIXLEY: You don’t have anyone to quote.

DIMOND: … give you my sources! I’m not giving you my sources!

PIXLEY:Then why are we talking about this as though it’s a fact?

Of course,   Dimond did not “get it right” at all concerning this story and her merely   quoting a source did not make the story right either. As Pixley hinted, the   story was as phony as a three dollar bill,6 adding fuel to the notion that   Dimond has little intention of reporting the truth but rather reporting what   she knows to be false and potentially damaging to Jackson and his defense   team. We will not even bother to speculate as to who her “source” was (the   person’s identity should be quite obvious). It suffices to say that this   person appears to have had little intention of disseminating truth and used   whatever willing vessel he (or she) could find. Dimond fit the bill. Yet we   are supposed to trust this king of reporting to provide “unbiased”   information concerning the case.


Perhaps the most egregious transgression Dimond committed revolved around the   now-not-so-confidential settlement Jackson reached with his 1993 accuser’s   family. Note the following excerpts from her “reports” on the matter:

‘The Abrams     Report’ for June 15

“Right here on the top of page 14, the amount of the trust fund     Jackson agrees to set up is not redacted — $15,331,250. His mom and dad     both got $1.5 million each upon signing the settlement, and sources say     that Michael Jackson also agreed to pay the family‘s attorney, Larry     Feldman, at least $5 million plus expenses.

This is the civil suit that the boy‘s family filed way back in 1993. Check     out the complaints here. They charge sexual battery, battery, seduction,     willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud     and negligence. In the end, in the final settlement agreement, Jackson     agrees to pay only for alleged negligence. But look at what was alleged in     the original lawsuit. It‘s on page 44 and 45.

‘Defendant, Michael Jackson, negligently had offensive contacts with     plaintiff, which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise. As a direct     result of the negligence, the plaintiff has suffered injury to his health,     strength, and activity, injury to his body and shock and injury to his     nervous system.’ We do need to point out, though, that in the final     settlement, Michael Jackson specifically says that this agreement shall not     be construed, this is a quote, shall not be construed as an admission by     Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the minor.7

June 16, 2004 (Court TV)

Diane Dimond: In that settlement, there was no definition of negligence,     just that Jackson agreed to the allegation of negligence from the civil     suit. If you’ll look at the civil suit posted on our website, and that is     case # SC026226, and look at page 15, paragraphs 44-45, that’s the     allegation Michael Jackson agreed to pay for. As you can see, it mentions     that “Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which     were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.” My reaction to this is:     I can’t figure out how someone can be negligently explicitly sexual with a     child and still deny sexual molestation occurred.8

              Dimond leaked information about the     confidential (that means confidential, folks) 1994 settlement agreement     between Jackson and the Chandlers. Please note the highlighted portions.     One day she is at least halfway clear that she is discussing two separate     documents: Evan Chandler’s lawsuit that accuses Jackson of horrific deeds     with his son; and another document where Jackson settles with the Chandler     family over claims of “negligence.” The next day, Dimond goes out of her     way to somehow tie negligence to sexual abuse, something that the     settlement does not support. In fact, it is clear from the wording of the     settlement document that the negligence claim had nothing to do with sexual     abuse. According to the document: “The Parties recognize that the     Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of     claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged     compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of     negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual     molestation.” Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of     “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document     intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no     misunderstanding.

While she was intent on pointing out that Jackson’s settlement was not     meant to be construed as an admission of guilt, she conveniently forgot to     acknowledge the fact that the Chandler family agreed to all of the terms     that Jackson’s lawyers outlined – namely, that Jackson did not molest the     boy.9 Dimond combined information from a lawsuit Evan Chandler filed against     Jackson, a suit wracked with defamatory accusations of Jackson being a     sexual predator, with Jackson’s actual settlement. To make matters even     more ridiculous, she blamed Jackson’s ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley for being     responsible for the leaking of the documents.10


There is, perhaps, a psychological reason for Dimond’s treatment of     Jackson. Cognitive dissonance refers to the “psychological phenomenon which     refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already     know or believe, and new information or interpretation.”11 Such a description could easily call to mind the Court TV     investigative correspondent, who clearly has turned covering Michael     Jackson into a one-woman industry.

Cognitive dissonance rears its head in Dimond’s psyche in her own inability     to recognize her assumptions about Jackson. For instance, she comments that     “I’ve learned a lot that I’ve put on the air and learned a lot that I     could never put on the air because I couldn’t substantiate it,” she     said. “But I’m going to keep my opinion to myself.” The funny     thing is, Ms. Dimond would go on to state just a few lines later in the     same interview: “Look at him. Look at what he’s done to himself. He     must be so full of self-loathing to carve off the tip of his nose and plant     things in his cheeks. My overwhelming feeling for him is pity.”12 One could almost believe that Dimond indeed feels sorry for Jackson if     not for her unceasingly biased negative reporting on him. In addition, if     one looks closely at her statement, she contends that Jackson has had     things done to his face (i.e. cheek implants) that he has repeatedly denied     having done. Even worse, her slanted comments about Jackson on the air and     in print (too numerous to list here) are proof positive that she feels     anything but sorry for him but loathes him as much as she claims he loathes     himself.

Dimond drowns in a Jeffersonian-like cognitive dissonance that blinds her     to her own queasy obsession with a figure she claims she is not obsessed     with. Of course, much of the media has the same problem, for in one breath     they proclaim the “death” of everything Jackson while simultaneously     dropping his name everywhere in order to garner attention and ratings.     Dimond’s slapdash and downright unethical coverage of both Jackson and the     child molestation allegations against him, not surprisingly, stay true to     form.

Lately, the tabloid reporter has been mysteriously silent. Perhaps her     silence is connected to speculation that her close ties to the prosecution     have in fact made her a potential witness in the case should it go to     trial. In addition, the very fact that Dimond was dropping hints in June     2003 that Jackson would soon go “splat” is all the more amazing considering     that this is the exact same month that Sneddon jumpstarted his     “investigation” into the allegations. Her obsession with inserting herself     into this poorly scripted flim-flam job may find her on the hot seat before     a jury and the glare of her own network’s (Court TV) cameras.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon appears to have the same problem.     Professional help will be provided once the cases against Mr. Jackson are     dealt with and debunked. One has the feeling that neither Sneddon nor     Dimond will be psychologically prepared for Jackson’s innocence or for the     ramifications of perpetuating what they may have known was a blatant lie in     the first place.

Menu Part IV


1Schone, Mark.     “Tabloid TV.” Salon.Com Archived Articles. Apr. 9, 1997.     (

2Wallenstein,     Andrew. “Court TV Coup: Diane Dimond Lands Another Scoop.” The     Hollywood Reporter. 20 Nov. 2003.     (

3Court TV     Online – Michael Jackson Accused. Transcripts. 15 Jan. 2004.     (

4“The Big     Story Weekend with Rita Cosby.” 27 Mar. 2004.     (

5“Analysis     of Michael Jackson Arrest.” Larry King Live. CNN. 24 Nov. 2003.

6“‘Love     Letters’ Story from London Tabloid?” MJEOL Bullets. MJEOL. 24     Nov. 2003. (

7The Abrams     Report. MSNBC. 15 Jun. 2004. (

8Court TV     Online – Michael Jackson Accused. Transcripts. 16 Jun. 2004.     (

9“Michael     Jackson’s Big Payoff.” The Smoking Gun. 16 Jun. 2004. Courtroom     Television Network. 21 Jun. 2004.     (

10“Catherine     Crier Live.” Court TV. 17 Jul. 2004.     (

11 Atherton,     J.S. “Learning and Teaching: Cognitive Dissonance.” 2003.     (

12Bauder, David. “Diane Dimond’s reporting has put Court     TV at forefront of Jackson story.” The Standard Times. 5 Jan. 2004: Pg.     B1

Archived by – The Michael   Jackson Repository

Part IV – Jury Pool Tainting, Gag Order Style

One of the   customary acts of a judge who presides over a high-profile case such as the   Michael Jackson case is to issue a gag order, binding all parties pertinent   to the case to silence in order to prevent leaks and to maintain fairness for   both sides. Not surprisingly, the minute Michael Jackson was arrested, his   former defense attorney Mark Geragos called a press conference declaring the   innocence of his client and labelling the latest accuser’s mother a scam   artist. Shortly after, there a gag order was issued and press conferences   became a thing of the past. This was supposed to prevent public   grandstanding, jury tainting, and leaking of prejudicial information that   could prevent Mr. Jackson from receiving a fair trial. Despite these   limitations, however, Tom Sneddon has creatively found several viable and   willing avenues by which to sidestep that trite and flimsy thing known as a   gag order:


Ask anyone in the public relations business (other   than Susan Tellem, of course) whether or not there is any issue with a public   relations firm representing a District Attorney’s office and you might get   more than your share of stares and questions. Yet, Sneddon and Ms. Tellem   insist that Tellem International is merely handling media requests and   concerns for the sake of efficiency. In addition, Ms. Tellem offered her   services for free. Wow! Score one point for benevolence! Not.

Tellem, via its prime connections to Sneddon’s Girl Friday Diane Dimond and   other major media outlets like Fox, has been instrumental in spreading   poisonous and venomous stories about Jackson. Even worse, the firm also   managed to sponsor jury tainting stories that have been carried by such   illustrious news programs as the Dan Abrams show and Catherine Crier Live.   There are far too many examples of these shady jury pool tainting tactics.   Consider this crass comment from their website concerning the case and their   standing in it:

“The first thing you learn in Journalism School is to check sources. Some   media have relied on third-tier sources like Brian Oxman, a self-appointed   Jackson family spokesman, to do their fact checking for them. This has   resulted in inaccurate information. We request that media give us call if   they need to check facts.”1

It simply makes little sense to us that a public relations firm with no bias   concerning Jackson’s guilt or innocence would be accusing a Jackson defense   attorney of lying. This statement is an obvious attempt to discredit any   source that provides information that contradicts what their client would   like to surface. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of reliable sources   are the ones providing information favorable to the defense.

In addition, Tellem should be the very last place for one to “check facts”   considering that they only know how to tell one side of a story. We do   understand that they are faithfully representing their client; however, they   would do well to take others to task for merely saying things their “client”   would agree with.

When Tellem is not taking personal swipes at Jackson attorneys and   supporters, they are pushing the envelope of professional ethics. Consider   one of their prime acts as representatives for the prosecution: “In addition,   Tellem used AP as a breaking news tool since the DA’s office had no budget   for BusinessWire or other fast acting national distribution service. When a   story needed telling, Tellem contacted AP, and they put it on the wire   immediately.” But Tellem gets even bolder concerning their   “mission” when they remind us that “On January 8, 2004, the DA   requested a gag order, which remains in place. While this has reduced the   number of calls, each time there is a court appearance, they begin again. An   unexpected consequence of working with the DA were death threats from Jackson   fans (these were turned over to the FBI).”2

We are simply floored by the blurring of professional and ethical lines in   the media. How are we to receive objective news from AP when Tellem uses it   as its own little mouthpiece to spread the gospel of Sneddon? One would think   that Tellem had the “budget” to use BusinessWire to accommodate their client.   We are not simply arguing that they do not have the right but merely pointing   out the blurring of ethical lines that could jeopardize news on any case or   issue being reported objectively.

Equally troubling to us are the claims that Jackson fans have threatened   Tellem. We do not under any circumstance condone any so-called fan   threatening the life of anyone regardless of what side of this case they   happen to be on. Such behavior is not only illegal and abominable but morally   repugnant. We do, however, believe that it is absolutely necessary that such   claims be followed up and reported on in order to remove the specter or stain   of guilt upon anyone who supports Jackson or may happen to be a fan.


For someone who has not been sheriff of Santa Barbara since 2003, Jim Thomas   sure has gotten a great deal of mileage out of tossing his status around on   television in order to cop TV time. Thomas of course has been a mouthpiece   for Sneddon over the last eleven years. Eager for face time and free drinks   (please Dimond segment), Thomas has done nothing but lie on national   television, repeating his mantra that he knows of numerous “other victims”   who are too afraid to come forward and accuse Jackson.

Thomas, from the time this nonsensical railroad job began, has made a big   issue that Jackson’s settling of the 1993 allegations should be a strong   indication that the pop legend is guilty and clearly has something to hide.

One has to wonder, however, if Thomas really believes this since he was a   part of a settlement in February 2001 involving the Santa Barbara County   Libertarian Party (SBLP). The SBLP had accused the good former sheriff of   misappropriation of tax payer dollars after he apparently used $10,000 to   produce an endorsement video of a measure he was supporting. Thomas insisted   that the $15,000 settlement that Santa Barbara County officials procured   “doesn’t assign blame. It is an agreement between sides not to go any   further.” Of course, Bill Hansult, the attorney representing the SBLP in the   case, had another take. “In essence, the sheriff stole taxpayer money,   defended himself with taxpayer money, and the fine was paid with taxpayer   money.”3

This is not the first time actions attributed to Thomas or his department has   cost Santa Barbara big money. Thomas and his merry band of deputies also cost   Santa Barbara County taxpayers a cool $1 million after some of his   subordinates allegedly beat up two men at a bar in Lompoc in 2001.4 If we follow Thomas’ line of reasoning that a settlement on Jackson’s   part is a clear sign of guilt, then what are we to make of the settlements he   was involved in?

We are not surprised that Thomas is involved in the current case against Mr.   Jackson. After all, according to one source, he was spotted having drinks   after a court hearing with Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, two tabloid writers   who are anything but objective when it comes to reporting on Jackson. From   what we understand, the loquacious Thomas appeared to be mighty chummy with   Dimond and Orth.


Ray Chandler is the kind of uncle anyone would want to have. He spends   countless years selling his “story” of sordid tales of the sexual abuse of his   “victimized” nephew Jordan Chandler. Furthermore, he continues to show his   love for his nephew by writing a book about the boy’s alleged ordeal,   questioning the young man’s sexuality, and continuing to profit off of an   alleged childhood incidence of sexual abuse at the hands of a living music   legend. Of course, there is no mention as to whether Chandler’s troubled   nephew will receive any of the proceeds from All That Glitters, a book   that tells the story of a poorly written sham with as much flatness and banal   imagery as one would find in a Bill O’Reilly novel (Yes, he wrote one and it   is a flaming hot mess).

To put it succinctly, Ray Chandler is a liar. Hence,   it should not be shocking that, in an attempt to perpetuate a distorted and   felonious image of Jackson, Dateline NBC used this man as a source for a   number of their damaging exposes concerning the case. But do not think for a   minute that Chandler suddenly stumbled upon the idea to use an alleged   devastating incident to his own economic gain. Chandler has been hocking his   version of the events surrounding the 1993 allegations for several years. In   1998, Chandler claimed to have already had what we now call All That   Glitters completed and even threatened to release dozens of pages of the   project onto the Internet.5

Even more ridiculous was a 1995 interview he conducted with Entertainment   Weekly in which he claimed that despite Jackson’s alleged victimization of   his nephew, “It’s too bad to see his career take the hit it did and we all   hope he gets it back.”6 Does this care and concern for Jackson and his career square with the   care and concern one would have for a predator who preys on innocent   children? This simply does not make sense.

The contradictions did not stop with this nearly ten year old interview. In   his book All That Glitters, Chandler makes a number of bumbling and   utterly ridiculous contradictory statements about the 1993 case.

First, he admits that the main reason media whore lawyer Gloria Allred was   dismissed as the leading attorney for Evan Chandler and his son was because   she was too insistent on seeking media attention. He maintains that the last   thing his brother Evan and his brother’s attorney Barry Rothman wanted was   too much media attention since they wanted to settle the case quietly and get   the money as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Enter crooked tort lawyer   and crooked toothed Larry Feldman.

Such an admission is utterly amazing. Ray Chandler rants throughout the book   about how irate and disturbed Evan Chandler was over the possibility that Mr.   Jackson had molested his son. It is highly unlikely that the average father   would have taken great pains to protect the privacy of the man who victimized   his young son unless of course there was no molestation, just a merciless   scam to get money from the unsuspecting Jackson. Clearly Evan Chandler was   more concerned with getting his multi-million dollar settlement than he was   with his son. In a phrase, it was “all about the benjamins.”

Another ridiculous and contradictory element of Chandler’s book was the   documentation he provided to support his claims. Contrary to his claim that   his documents provide the hard facts of Jackson’s guilt, they actually point   to something altogether different. For instance, the authenticity of several   documents has been called into question by Barry Rothman’s former secretary   Geraldine Hughes. On, Ms. Hughes insisted that she is certain that a   number of the documents purported to be typed by her are actual forgeries   since she did not type them.7 Her accusation is also supported by clear evidence of the forgery of   Barry Rothman’s signature. Compare the following signatures:

Though none   involved with the Veritas Project are, as far as we know, handwriting   experts, the Three Blind Mice could see that the “Rothman” signatures do not   match. Even more remarkable is the fact that one of the documents is not even   signed by “Rothman.” It is one thing to use authentic legal documents to   substantiate your point. It is quite another thing, however, to use falsified   papers to attempt to do the same. One could wonder how Ray Chandler, a lawyer   since 2001, could commit such an act of fraud in a book not even worth the   paper it is written on. However, considering that Chandler got his “law”   degree from the very college where Tom Sneddon “teaches” law students every   unethical thing he knows, one has to assume that Chandler took notes well   from his master.

Some of Chandler’s “proof” supplied at the end of his book actually support   the claims of Hughes and Mary Fischer, the investigative reporter who wrote   the GQ Magazine article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” The documents   concerning the custody issues as well the negotiations between then-Jackson   investigator Anthony Pellicano and Barry Rothman only support what Hughes and   Fischer wrote, not what Chandler is trying to put over on us.

Perhaps the most despicable element about Chandler’s book is its dogged   portrayal of Michael Jackson’s sexuality. The loving uncle spends essentially   the entire book trying to get readers to believe one thing: Michael Jackson   is a closet homosexual. Chandler even tries to cite psychological studies to   prove that Jackson is a gay pedophile. Consider this quote: “Whatever   the nature of his son’s relationship with Michael, Evan believed the singer   truly loved Jordie and would not put either of their lives in jeopardy just   to conceal his homosexuality.”8 Chandler makes this comment after a discussion about Evan Chandler’s   concerns that Jackson may have been exposed to the AIDS virus due to being   treated by a dentist who was allegedly infected with the deadly virus.

Chandler’s assumption that Jackson is gay is also supposed to be supported by   a “love letter” Jackson allegedly wrote to Jordan:

“[Boy’s name], you’re not only my cousin but also my best friend. I   can’t stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of   you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have   such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are   my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon.   Love, doo doo. Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.”9

The substance of the letter is not convincing. In fact, one would be better   served inferring Jackson’s fondness for Jordan’s mother June rather than for   the boy. Anyone who can detect the slightest sexual tension or innuendo   between Jackson and the boy needs as much counseling as Jackson critics claim   he needs. If nothing else, the letter he leaked to prove Jackson’s proclivity   for Jordan actually shows Jackson having a loving relationship with Jordie’s   entire family, particularly Jordan’s mother June as well as his sister. It is   not the least bit shocking that Chandler may have been a source for Victor   Gutierrez’s horrific book Michael Jackson Was My Lover (more on that   nonsense later).

Shamefully, Ray Chandler’s book has garnered more attention than Ms. Hughes’   Redemption, a book whose documentation is far more reliable than the former.   Even worse, NBC has placed a great deal of faith in Chandler’s lies, giving   him a place on another Jackson-bashing Dateline exclusive in September 2004.   But the media feeds on sensational lies and innuendos to grab big ratings and   advertising dollars. There is, however, one silver lining in this dark cloud   of a sham: Ray Chandler did get the attention of someone with his stories –   Jackson’s defense attorneys, who promptly subpoenaed him as a “custodian of   documents.” Now, the caring uncle will get to tell an eager audience of his   “peers” whether or not the documents he has been shopping around to the media   are actually authentic. In addition, he will have to explain how he, not even   a part of this 1993 settlement, has possession of those records. Ray   Chandler, you’re going to be a STAR!


As damaging as Diane Dimond’s and Ray Chandler’s respective smear campaigns   have been against Jackson, none of their activities could have been possible   without the help of Victor Gutierrez. In 1997, Victor Gutierrez released Michael   Jackson was my Lover, a tell-all book that describes in detail the   alleged relationship that took place between Michael Jackson and his accuser.   Included in Gutierrez’s supposed expose are exclusive documents from the   case, never before seen photographs of Jordan Chandler and excerpts from a   “secret diary” that was allegedly kept by the boy. Because this information   could have only been provided to Gutierrez by somebody close to the case,   many began to speculate that the accuser’s father Evan Chandler might have   assisted Gutierrez in writing the book.

In addition, this sophomoric, pornographic, C-Level   farce of a book claimed that Jackson had given the boy a venereal disease.   One book reviewer described Michael Jackson was my Lover as a   “pedophiliac opus” and recounted some of the salacious details contained in   the book: “…the photo section alone includes sketches of the [Jackson’s]   genitalia, photos of the ‘actual bathroom’ where alleged sexual transgression   took place, as well as snapshots of one of the reputed victim’s ‘shit and urine   stain[ed]’ underwear… results of [the boy’s] VD test, explicit transcripts   detailing [Jackson’s] seduction techniques… [and] the identities of several   other child stars who reportedly had sex with Jackson.”10 Needless to say, the book was banned from the United States due to its   explicit content.

Shortly after releasing Michael Jackson was my Lover, Gutierrez began   making the TV rounds. During an appearance on the tabloid television show Hard   Copy, Gutierrez told reporter Diane Dimond that he had seen a videotape   of Michael Jackson molesting his nephew Jeremy. According to Gutierrez, the   alleged tape had been captured by one of Jackson’s security cameras and given   to the boy’s mother by an unknown source. Upon viewing the tape’s contents,   Gutierrez says, the mother contacted the Los Angeles Police Department only   to have her claims ignored by investigators. Unsure of what to do, she got in   contact with Gutierrez, arranged a meeting with him in a hotel room and   showed him the alleged tape.

“And now she is scared,” Gutierrez told Dimond. “The District Attorney is   trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources, they already (sic)   been in contact with the mother. So, it’s up to the mother now to make the   final decision.”11


In response to the allegations, Jackson filed a defamation of character   lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and Hard Copy. During the civil   proceedings, the boy’s mother Margaret Maldonado testified that, contrary to   what Gutierrez had reported, neither of her two sons had been molested by   Jackson, she had not received any money from Jackson and she had never met   Victor Gutierrez.12

Maldonado later discussed the case in her book Jackson Family Values:

“I received a     telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for     quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me     all the more difficult to hear. ‘I wanted to warn you, Margaret,’ she said.     ‘There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael     molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.’ If anyone else had     said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long     relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a     response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the     story stopped in its tracks. She had been in contact with someone who     worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being     written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I     vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I     would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were     finished.

To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece. Hard Copy,     however, decided it would. Hard Copy correspondent Diane Dimond had     reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against     Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on     a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s     claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez.     The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met     the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”13

In court,     Gutierrez could not produce the videotape that he claimed to have viewed     and he refused to reveal his source. According to Jackson’s attorney Zia     Modabber, “Gutierrez told a D.A. Investigator and two witnesses who     testified at the trial that the boy’s mother was his source. He told anyone     who would listen. The only people he would not tell were the ladies and     gentlemen of his jury – that’s when he became ethical. Now he’s getting on     his high horse saying he’s protecting his source.”

Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false     and the jury subsequently awarded Jackson $2.7 million in damages.     “[Gutierrez] made the whole thing up, and we sued him for it,”     Modabber said.14

According to Ruben Rasso, a member of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s     office, Gutierrez then fled from the United States and moved to Chile in     order to avoid paying Jackson the money.15

In November 2003, when Jackson was accused of child molestation for a     second time, Gutierrez began giving interviews about the case to Chilean     newspapers. He claimed that the new set of allegations validated the     contents of his book and as a result, Jackson had defamed his character and     now owed him money. Gutierrez even went so far as to say that Jackson’s     2,700-acre ranch would soon be his.16

During an interview with La Cuarta, Gutierrez alleged that Santa Barbara     District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential     witness in the current case against Jackson. A week later, a member of the     District Attorney’s office contacted La Cuarta to refute those claims.17

In early 2004, Gutierrez was offered $25, 000 a month from Dateline NBC to     cover the Jackson case. He accepted the offer and is now a consulting     producer for the news program. Given the fact that Gutierrez has     irrefutably fabricated stories about Jackson in the past, one must question     NBC’s decision to hire Gutierrez to cover the case.18

Recently, Dateline NBC aired a report entitled Inside the Michael     Jackson Case; the credits reveal that Gutierrez was the consulting     producer for the program. Not surprisingly, Inside the Michael Jackson     Case was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution’s version of     events and was laced with numerous falsehoods, half-truths and innuendos.     Again, Gutierrez is a proven liar, particularly when it comes to Michael     Jackson. Is NBC intentionally trying to taint the jury pool by hiring a man     who clearly has an axe to grind with Jackson to produce a program about his     case?

So far, NBC     has not commented on Gutierrez’s involvement with Inside the Michael     Jackson Case. How this man has enough credibility to have a job with ANY     network is beyond belief. Whether due to hypnotic stupidity or     mean-spirited revenge against Jackson, Gutierrez and Dateline have turned     trashing Jackson into an Olympic sport. But rest assured, we see Gutierrez     involved in another Olympic sport once Jackson’s good name has been     cleared: dodging a subpoena.

Menu Epilogue


1“Tried by     the Media.” Spin of the Day. PR Watch Forums. 26 Dec. 2003.     (

2“Santa     Barbara District Attorney’s Office – Michael Jackson Case.” Case     Histories. Tellem Worldwide. 2004.     (

3Moeeziai, Ladan.     “SB Board of Supervisors Pays SB Libertarian Party Settlement.” Daily     Nexus Online. 7 Feb. 2001.     (

4White, Karen.     “Man files suit against 8 officers.” The Santa Maria Times. 5 Mar.     2002.

5South China     Morning Post (Hong Kong), October 31, 1998.

6Diana Kennedy     et al, “Can He Beat It?” Entertainment Weekly. 16 Jun. 1995.

7Hughes,     Geraldine. “Redemption vs. All that Glitters.” Online Posting.     MJJForum. 13 Sept. 2004. (

8Chandler, Ray.     All That Glitters. Las Vegas: Windsong Press LTD, 2004, 51.

9Friedman,     Roger. “MJ First Accuser: Parents Thought he was Gay.” Fox 411.     Fox News.(,2933,131860,00.html)

10Book Review –     Victor Gutierrez

11MICHAEL     JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION et al.,     Defendants and Respondents.

12Ryan, Joal.     “Michael Jackson’s Victory.” Latest News. E! Online News.     (,1,2828,00.html)

13Maldonado,     Margaret. Jackson Family Values. 1998. California: Dove Books.

14Robb, David.     “$2.7 million to Jackson for free-lancer’s sex-tape lie.” The Hollywood     Reporter. 13 Apr. 1998.

15“Jackson     arriesga más que la cárcel: Podría perder hasta a sus tres hijos.” La Cuarta. 24 Nov. 2003.     (

16“Víctor     Gutiérrez prepara revancha: ‘El rancho de Jackson será mío…'” La Cuarta. 22 Nov. 2003.     (


18“Jackson     arriesga más que la cárcel: Podría perder hasta a sus tres hijos.” La     Cuarta. 24 Nov. 2003.     (

19“Víctor     Gutiérrez firmó millonario contrato.” El Diario Austral de Valdivia.     4 Jan. 2004.     (

20Mankiewicz,     Josh. “New Details About 1993 Jackson Case.” Dateline NBC.     MSNBC. 3 Sept. 2004. (

Archived by – The Michael   Jackson Repository


To say that all   of Michael Jackson’s enemies have converged in Santa Barbara might be an   understatement. Contrary to the flimsy observations of the likes of paperboy   Dan Abrams of “The Dan Abrams Show” as well as those of media ho Diane   Dimond, this is a setup, folks. Just take a look at our chart below. One   would have to suffer from cataracts not to see the “pattern” of conspiracy   perpetrated against Jackson, not by him.

From the very beginning, the 2003 case against Michael Jackson looked like a   bad rerun of 1993 with essentially the same cast of ridiculous characters:

Click on the   image to view how the following people are connected to one another.

When persons involved with this project first resolved to do it, we took   it on with the sole purpose of reporting what mainstreaming media appears to   be afraid to report. For reasons still not clear (alright we think we know   why), few if any news/media outlets have even touched on the subject of the   suspicious involvement of virtually the same players from the 1993   allegations in the latest case against Mr. Jackson. It is our hope that   persons reading this report will take the time to ponder what we have found,   process the information, and decide for themselves. We are particularly   hopeful that journalists interested in reporting the story as objectively as   possible will consider this modest offering and perhaps decide to investigate   both sides of the case for themselves. All we can do is hope.

The Veritas Project

Archived by – The Michael Jackson     Repository

The Main Players in the Michael Jackson Case

Sneddon and     the Chandlers

(1) District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who attempted to bring charges against     Michael Jackson in 1993 and who is now prosecuting the current case against     Jackson, is on the faculty at the Santa Barbara College of Law. Ray     Chandler, (2-3) the uncle of the boy who accused Jackson of sexual abuse in     1993, studied law at the Santa Barbara College of Law and is currently a     real estate lawyer.

(4) Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson’s first accuser, is the     founder of Rent-a-Wreck, a car rental agency that is represented by the     public relations firm Tellem. After Jackson was arrested in 2003, Tellem     offered Tom Sneddon their services – for free.

The Chandlers’ Former Attorneys and their Ability to Find “Victims”

(5) Civil lawyer Larry Feldman represented Jordan Chandler, the boy who     accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. (6) Feldman sent Jordan     Chandler to see psychiatrist Stan Katz for an evaluation.

(7) In 1993, Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia was deposed by civil     lawyer Larry Feldman for the Chandlers’ lawsuit. In the deposition, Francia     claimed to have seen Jackson act inappropriately with other children,     including her own son. She later recanted these statements but members of     the District Attorney’s office often refer to Francia’s son as an alleged     victim of Jackson’s.

(8) After getting in contact with Larry Feldman, John Arvizo accused     Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; the boy was then sent to see Dr. Katz (9).     Note that less than four months earlier John Arvizo and his family had     vehemently defended Jackson on numerous occasions.

Feldman is not the only former attorney for the Chandlers who can’t seem to     stay away from the Jackson case. (10) The Chandlers’ first attorney Gloria     Allred has also made it her life mission to seek out other accusers. We’re     sure her efforts are solely motivated by justice and have nothing to do     with the cut of the settlement that she would inevitably receive if one of     her clients were to successfully sue Jackson.

(11) In February 2003, after seeing a documentary that put a sinister spin     on Jackson’s relationship with John Arvizo, Gloria Allred contacted Tom     Sneddon and demanded that he investigate Jackson. At the same time, “media     psychiatrist” Carole Lieberman also filed a complaint against Jackson.     Sneddon responded to Allred and Lieberman’s complaints by stating that     although he would take the matter seriously, he could not reopen the     Jackson case without a cooperative victim.

Months later, John Arvizo told Larry Feldman that Michael Jackson sexually     abused him. Once again, Allred missed out on the opportunity to represent a     Jackson accuser. As for Lieberman, she made sure to advertise on her     website that she was the first psychiatrist to demand that Jackson be     investigated.

(12) Not to be one upped by Feldman and Katz, Allred and Lieberman teamed     up on another collaboration – an accuser named Daniel Kapone. After being     treated by Dr. Lieberman, Kapone suddenly remembered having been abused by     Jackson when he was just three years old. Once Lieberman helped him recover     his “repressed memories,” Allred signed on as his attorney. Unfortunately     for Allred and Lieberman, it was later determined that Kapone had never     even met Michael Jackson.

1993: The Media

(13) During the 1993 case, many of Jackson’s former employees cashed in on     the allegations by selling salacious stories to the media. The most visible     opportunist from the 1993 case was the aforementioned Blanca Francia,     Jackson’s former maid. She first sold her story to Diane Dimond during an     interview on Hard Copy and later collaborated with Chilean journalist     Victor Gutierrez on his book Michael Jackson was my Lover.

(14) Aside from providing Blanca Francia with a platform for her     sensational stories, Gutierrez and Dimond had something else in common;     they were both were sued by Jackson for spreading a false story about him     in the mid-90s. During an interview on Hard Copy, Gutierrez claimed to have     seen a videotape of Jackson molesting one of his nephews; Dimond later     repeated his story on a local radio station. It was eventually proven that     no such tape existed and Jackson filed a lawsuit against Gutierrez and     Dimond for defamation of character.

2003: The Media

While the mainstream media has been collectively irresponsible in their     coverage of the Jackson case, NBC seems particularly intent on ruining     Jackson’s reputation by hiring several well-known Jackson detractors to     cover the case. The following people either have an axe to grind with     Jackson, have spread false rumours about him in the past or have     connections to the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office. Take a look:

(15) Despite the fact that Jackson sued her for spreading an irrefutably     false story about him, NBC hired Diane Dimond to cover the Jackson case in     2003. (16) Dimond also admittedly receives information from the District     Attorney’s office and there has been much speculation regarding the nature     of her relationship with Tom Sneddon.

(17) Tim Russert, the senior vice president of NBC News, is married to     Maureen Orth, a journalist who has written three slanderous articles about     Jackson for Vanity Fair magazine. Two of these articles were written about     the case and were full of half-truths and rumours.

(18) NBC hired Jim Thomas as a special analyst; Jim Thomas is admittedly     good friends with Tom Sneddon.

(19) NBC produced two salacious Dateline NBC specials about the Jackson     case. The most recent one featured interviews with Jim Thomas and Ray     Chandler and was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution’s version of     events. (20) The special was produced by none other than Victor Gutierrez,     who was hired by NBC to cover the Jackson case even though he still owes     Jackson $2.7 million dollars from a defamation of character lawsuit that     Jackson filed and won against him. Conflict of interest anyone?

Gutierrez and the Chandlers

(21) Many have speculated that Victor Gutierrez collaborated with Evan     Chandler, the father of Jackson’s first accuser, to write Michael Jackson     was my Lover. The book contains personal photographs of Jordan Chandler and     court documents that only somebody directly involved in the case could     possibly have access to.

(15) Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler recently worked together on the     Dateline NBC special, which Gutierrez produced.

Conclusion Is it merely a coincidence that all of the people who     have accused Michael Jackson of acting inappropriately with a child are     connected to one another? Every accuser, every professional who has worked     with each accuser, every tabloid hack who has reported negative stories     about Jackson – literally all of the players involved in both the 1993 case     and the 2003 case are related to one another.

Is it a conspiracy?



2 Responses to VERITAS project

  1. You have a great blog here! I appreciate all the research that you have put into this. Much love. ♥

    • thelasttear7 says:

      Hi and thank you for your comment. The Veritas project is not our work. It was written by some great fans of 2004-05. We just copied and pasted it in Nonlocal blog to preserve the document. But we follow it as an example.♥

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s