Hannibal Lecter: I will listen now. After your father’s murder, you were orphaned. You were ten years old. You went to live with cousins on a sheep and horse ranch in Montana. And…?
Clarice Starling: [tears begin forming in her eyes] And one morning, I just ran away.
Hannibal Lecter: No “just”, Clarice. What set you off? You started at what time?
Clarice Starling: Early, still dark.
Hannibal Lecter: Then something woke you, didn’t it? Was it a dream? What was it?
Clarice Starling: I heard a strange noise.
Hannibal Lecter: What was it?
Clarice Starling: It was… screaming. Some kind of screaming, like a child’s voice.
Hannibal Lecter: What did you do?
Clarice Starling: I went downstairs, outside. I crept up into the barn. I was so scared to look inside, but I had to.
Hannibal Lecter: And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see?
Clarice Starling: Lambs. The lambs were screaming.
Hannibal Lecter: They were slaughtering the spring lambs?
Clarice Starling: And they were screaming.
Hannibal Lecter: And you ran away?
Clarice Starling: No. First I tried to free them. I… I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn’t run. They just stood there, confused. They wouldn’t run.
Hannibal Lecter: But you could and you did, didn’t you?
Clarice Starling: Yes. I took one lamb, and I ran away as fast as I could.
Hannibal Lecter: Where were you going, Clarice?
Clarice Starling: I don’t know. I didn’t have any food, any water and it was very cold, very cold. I thought, I thought if I could save just one, but… he was so heavy. So heavy. I didn’t get more than a few miles when the sheriff’s car picked me up. The rancher was so angry he sent me to live at the Lutheran orphanage in Bozeman. I never saw the ranch again.
Hannibal Lecter: What became of your lamb, Clarice?
Clarice Starling: They killed him.
FAN BACK TALK: Edited for reading.
The book Victor Gutierez wrote has been commission by WOW report to be made in to a movie (I doubt they mean feature film probably television movie or documentary type thing),WOW did the “camp Michael Jackson” documentary after the trial.
There is no way this movie will ever be created because there are laws against defamation of character. If this isn’t reason enough why Jackson would want to settle this, then I don’t know what is. I could never ever in a million years handle something so humiliating and degrading.
Gutierez would have two problems; he would be sued by both Michael Jackson and Jordan and Evan Chandler would also sue him. There is no way he can claim he’s just writing “fiction” about the 1993 incident despite “similarities” — that would not pass anywhere. First off, he owes Jackson money 2.7 Million, his book was banned in the US as well, so if they do anything based on that book its not being shown in the US any time soon. From comments on WOW and Google the book was very graphic again that can’t go to any movie theater or TV screen anywhere. As I remember it, Gail sent this information to Ms. Bain, I’m sure they’ll be following it up and sending a C&D letter to WOW soon. He’s a dreamer, there’s no way he’s coming up with a movie.
For anyone who doesn’t know Victor Gutierez here’s the story:
Who is Victor Gutierrez and why did Michael sue him?
Victor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who appeared on the U.S. tabloid television show “Hard Copy” to claim that there was a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Some background on his story can be found in the book Jackson Family Values, by Jermaine Jackson’s ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. She writes that in early 1995,
“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 the L.A. radio station KABC-AM, 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.”
After the “Hard Copy” story aired, the LAPD told the Los Angeles Times that they had seen no such videotape, they were not looking for it, and there was no renewed investigation into molestation allegations. Michael Jackson subsequently filed a $100 million slander lawsuit against Gutierrez, “Hard Copy”, and KABC-AM for perpetuating the story. None of these parties ever produced the videotape or any evidence it existed. Because Jackson’s lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source. Gutierrez did not, instead claiming that a host of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape (none of these people in fact supported him). Consequently, on October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false and that he had acted with malice, and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages (the amount of which would be determined at a later date.) The writer then fled to Mexico.
In October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of “presumed and punitive damages” to be paid to Jackson by Victor Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Jackson’s lawyers stated that the assessment of such damages would be determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.
On April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against free-lance writer Victor Gutierrez. A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Jackson $2.7 million for failing to prove the existence of a videotape that allegedly showed Michael in an inappropriate conduct with a young boy.
“We talked to the jurors afterwards,” Michael’s lawyer Mr. Modabber said. “They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this.”
Sources: Jackson Family Values, Jet, LA Times, Reuters, AP, Hollywood Reporter
I think its really sick of one who nay-says Jackson’s innocence to be okay with an uncle that wants to profit off a possible criminal’s action. Makes me question your stance on pedophilia to begin with. I wonder if Jordan knows about this attempted film, and how he feels about it — someone putting a manipulated version of his “life” up on screen for all his friends (and associates) to see and all the attention he would get from it. As long as his dad stops hitting him over the head long enough to talk to his lawyers.
Surely if anyone had a picture like that it would already been seen most likely by the police years ago. Come on! After the DA [Tom] Sneddon wasted over 10 years of looking and questioninghundreds of people and had over a 100 search warrants, yet couldn’t find any proof Jackson molested any children. But some guy in California has got “proof” Jackson is a pedophile, but it waiting to “sell” the picture. I think someone is getting their leg pulled. Wasn’t it the Watch Tower magazine that Sneddon wanted to use as evidence was it? If it is proof he should have sent it to the police, so he will be aiding and abetting a criminal.
Where does the logic begin? The GQ article said it was a “fictionalized” portrayal of the events. Well the book is a “fictionalized” portrayal of the events, so it don’t really make much difference. Something cant be a “fictionalized portrayal of the events”. Either you are copying the events in the book, or you are doing something totally on its own. But then the book wouldn’t even be mentioned cause its ‘fiction’. There are laws to protecting people from that sort of foul trash. So there’s no way the makers wont be able to prove the story has ‘nothing’ to do with Michael Jackson when the whole film is based on the book. Of course they could make a ‘fictional’ pop star, change the names and shazzam! You got yourself a blockbuster #1 box office movie.
Planning to ‘sell’ evidence. Isn’t out society fucked? We have to have posters advertising REWARDS of X amount of $$$ to turn in criminals; no moral in motive (or possibly worse, we have to phone in anonymously because ‘snitching’ is looked down upon; you know, doing the right thing). Worse, for one to offer evidence but only in exchange for reward themselves is probably worse. Say if, for whatever reason, the money can’t be given; are you going keep said criminal from going to jail?
The very same unit Sneddon went rifling through in search of soiled under pants and Watch Tower magazines? The very same unit which produced “molestation warnings” written by Jackson to warn his sister-in-laws to watch his nephews closely. The same storage unit that has been the subject of article after article and every last bit of it has basically been hashed overrepeatedly by the media during the trial?
The book is banned nearly everywhere, however its still being sold over seas. Though I suspect the only people who buy it are pedophiles. Hey, do you wanna BUY IT?
Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler (Paperback)
by Victor M. Gutierrez
(17 customer reviews)
Availability: Available from these sellers. 12 used & new available from$118.95
The book is fiction. As there are no such thing as the “DIARIES of Jordan Chandler”. If he went by what Chandler said in his taped “confession” to his shrink or what? But any rate, the book is mumbo jumbo fodder. It is a sick idea, and only attracts perverts. Not someone who seeks “the truth” (as many of the Amazon.com reviewers have repeatedly maintained). The price alone should be somewhat suspicious to the common, well functioning brain. As would any movie made. Maybe Evan Chandler can direct it himself? He did after all, wanting to get his in the movie producing field. Fortunately, all we got from him was ‘Robin Hood: Men In Tights’.
I know someone who was unfortunate enough to read an excerpt of it awhile ago, and it came across as a revolting, wholly fictional fantasy written BY a pedophile FOR pedophiles. There’s a chance that Victor did work with a source close to the Chandlers as he wrote the book, presumably either Evan Chandler, Ray Chandler or Diane Dimond herself (which is a strong possibility for multiple reasons).
Why? I say this because the book has several photocopies of ‘confidential’ documents in it such as a letter from the LA district attorney’s office to the Chandlers (which was verified as authentic in an independent interview by the sex crimes department individual who wrote it initially – though she also said she remained hugely skeptical of the book’s contents and accuracy, and was outraged over the whole thing).
At least a portion of these documents and Victor’s writings have since appeared in Ray Chandler’s book (though you had to pay him extra to get them, hehe) as well as Diane Dimond’s. Of all whom have read and researched, the actual written portions of the book seem about 5-10% accurate (based on Jordan’s ‘sworn declaration’) and 90-95% fictitious. It is certainly NOT something that Jordan Chandler or any other (real) molestation victim would had ever written in aforementioned diaries if there were any such. I doubt that ANY SIDE of the case, nor ANY party of the case, would had been happy with what was written.
Gutierez who ‘plays’ Jordan Chandler, makes it out as though Michael is in fact a masterful “lover” and that he and Jordan actually had “consensual sex”. He makes Evan and June (his parents) out as evil crooks for using the criminal trial to pressure Michael into settling and letting Michael get away. And from the portions that some have read and reported, Victor goes on to describe each of the sex acts in such lurid detail that it likely rivals most published “adult” sex fiction stories out there, except here we are dealing with a minor and an adult and it is being passed off as ‘non-fiction’. In one part, Jackson supposedly wanted Jordan to ‘penetrate him’.
It bothers me to no end when articles say “kiddie sex charges against Jackson” or “raped little boys” because they’re implying penetration. They are also implying penetration with small toddler age children, which is absolutely disgusting. Ironically, if Michael had accused of such, it can be medically disproven and no one could dispute this. But it is one of the worse crimes to be accused of, even if it would have shown his innonence to be substancial. This is exactly the reason why Evan Chandler didn’t make the accuasations to be rape.
Ridiculous. Penetration is different from “Michael tickled me and I think maybe he might have touched my balls,” It didn’t fly for a lot of reasons, but mainly no one ever said anything about penetration. People inaccurately say he “rapes little boys” as if molest is synonymous. You know, you ought to broaden your horizons, I’ve across so many with limited vocabulary range. Try picking up Webster sometime, not urbandictionary.com
They weren’t “little boys” because when someone says “little boys” children between the age of 5-9 years spring to mind, not teenagers. Gavin’s testimony and all the alleged accusers were xerox copies of the Chandler case. And I just can’t see someone who is 13 or 14 yrs old laying there and not try and fight back. They are not naive, they are not vulnerable as a child, who is far more likely to be unaware whats going on, the inappropriate activity in and out itself, etc.
Kasim Abdool — Did he or did he not try and suggest that was the case? I think he was the one who was barred from saying at the trial that Michael opened a door with a blatant erection with Jordan on the bed and asked for some Vaseline? To be accused of penetration would be easily proved wrong. I think in the book “Michael Jackson was my lover” penetration was said. That was in the book, that was NEVER filed in any report. I remember Gutierez said on Spanish television that Michael “violently anally raped” Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler. ¿Yo no puedo decir que en la televisión Americana, no? It also had something to with Sneddon supposedly wanting pictures of his buttocks taken.
I have read so may vile stories about the case it’s hard to keep up. And to think, so many people take that prick, or this whole ordeal entirely, seriously. But no, its only crazy Michael Jackson fans who believe in his innocence remember.
Taking photos of someone’s buttocks who was not accused of penetration seems a bit odd to me. I was under the impression that Sneddon wanted to see if MJ was gay for their own sick reasons. There were no allegation by Evan or Jordan of penetrative sex. Oh, but books and fired ex-employees have made the insinuations of such an act. If you’re going to try and pull that one, at least keep it consistent. I do think that Gutierez needs checking out badly, to even write a book about such things, and say its fact when it clearly isn’t, and then have the nerve to try and make a film out of it. That’s pedophilia in my mind. Of course I’m just a delusional MJ fan, remember hehe.
Geraldo discussed the video footage taken from the body search in 1993, he spoke about it (he whom actually saw the tape, yes they taped it, they were not just photographs) and that you could hear Michael crying. He was told to spread his legs, toes, and the aforementioned buttocks. They were lifting up his penis with a ruler and other sick, unnecessary tomfoolery. The video was being passed round SBDA’s office like it was a good popcorn movie. And the manner in which they were doing it? What the hell has his toes got to do with it? And his asshole? If no allegation of penetrative sex was made either to Jackson or by Jackson by Jordan or his father, what that they did to Jackson was cruel and even somewhat sadistic.
Something Johnnie Cochran had said — may he rest in peace — Michael cried and locked himself in his bathroom for a whole day. And not even his mother could coax him out. I cant imagine how much he scrubbed himself. So about spreading your cheeks, I guess they were interested to see if Michael Jackson was gay, being penetrated by anyone (or anything). Cause remember, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand! But since penetration was never an allegation in 1993 from Jordie or Evan, it was just a nosy search to see if the rumors of Jackson being gay were true.
If anyone remembers when the Osbournes had that Godforsaken reality show on MTV,‘Michael Jackson was my lover’ was casually laid down somewhere. That book is definitely not a coffee table book, and judging by the photos in the book, Evan had to have worked with Gutierrez. As soon as that book was published, DCFS, Gloria Allred, and every other alleged children’s advocate should have been screaming, demanding that whoever gave Gutierrez photos of a semi-naked Jordan (looking drugged) to put in his book, and worked with him, be prosecuted for child abuse.
But nobody screamed.
Instead, they salivated because it was a book about Jackson Chandler, and it didn’t matter that the book was equal to child abuse, on a child that they all claimed had already been abused; so much for children’s rights and advocacy.
Vitiligo spots “marks” can move, and thus Jordan could claim there were marks, and if marks were on other places Sneddon still can claim there was “match”. Even though the only actual match could be that Michael indeed has genitals.
“Coincidentally” Gutierez has accused politicians in the past in his own country of being pedophiles as well. Think he got in trouble for making bullshit accusations. He should be looked at. Why do people say they matched again? “The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised,” . Um yeah, the only problem with this whole statement is that Michael is NOT circumcised. Being Jewish may be a reason why Evan assumed he was.Someone explain to me how you mistake an uncircumcised penis for a circumcised one.
The photos were pretty much passed around the police station, where most of the officers said they couldn’t see a match. Also the two grand juries probably were given the description and they didn’t agree either. Also at the time, there was articles in the press saying the Jordan’s description didn’t match. Just over the years the story gone from no match to match, curtsy to people like Diane Dimond, Thomas Sneddon, etc. It was also reported back in ’93 that Sneddon wanted another set of pictures of Jackson naked be done. If true, it’s obvious he didn’t get what he was ‘looking’ for in the first set. Post trial verdict, in a brief interview, he admitted that he still has the photographs, and I quote, just in case more victims show up. Right.
Had Jordan’s description matched surely that would have been enough to at least arrest Jackson. I think anyone can agree that the Jordan/Evan’s description was very vague. Anyone could come up with a description that’s a vague match to Jackson’s penis too. (Ironically, those who are firm believers in Jackson’s pedophilia do not think he has vitiligo, but that he “bleaches his skin”. Isn’t that a contradiction?) Even I would make a semi accurate description even though I’ve never seen it. As long as you know about Vitiligo you know he’s patched, it easy to come to conclusions that he is patched even around his private areas, because the rest of his body is that way. He didn’t have to be that accurate, as long as he said he had patches here and there the rest can be filled in. Oh, and they also included that he had short pubic hair, didn’t they? He’s a black man, black men have short pubic hair. Again, anyone could have guessed that. I know Dave Chappelle agrees with me as well. Any guy with a penis will describe it right. Just add the patches here and there then Bingo….Tom is your uncle.
Remember this con was being done by people who took time to plan it. They investigated everything, I’m sure vitiligo and how it affects the pigment in your skin was one of them. Besides June and Jordan (even Evan) had been close to Jackson prior to that, they must have seen that his skin was spotted, most likely through his sleeves cuffs; many times when they’re open, you can get a good glimpse of his spotting. So just because its claimed that he identified Jackson’s skin complexion accurately doesn’t mean he had to have seen it, or that something improper happened. Anyone who knows that Michael Jackson has vitiligo (which is not many, although we still believe he molested Jordan! HEHE) can confirm. The second grand jury saw that image and didn’t believe it — but just because this others on the prosecution side (namely Dimond and Sneddon) say it does matched it must be true. We do always, in fact, tend to believe that side subconsciously.
“Not Guilty” does not equal innocent to most. Nothing was PROVEN by the trial and that’s why a lot of people still think he’s guilty, and just ‘got off’. Now, if he was accused of penetration it could be indisputable, absolute, medically proven NO. There wouldn’t be this uncertainty that there is with molestation because it’s so hard to disprove. The trick is accusing someone of something you can not physically prove didn’t happen, i.e accuse someone of penetration, you can prove it happened because of physical evidence.
I believe some man in Canada made allegations that his son was abused by Jackson, they had all these details of Michael’s bedroom. Dimond went out there to Canada to interview the boy, turns out the father of the boy, or the man who was setting up these allegations was a pedophile himself.
Summary: It was sometime around 1995, Dimond went to Canada and took kids to the police because she was THAT desperate. Not sure if he was off the streets or somewhere really poor, and they told them to get lost. The father of the kid used to go on the very first MJ fan sites, and he used to talk negatively about Jackson. Turned out he got done for abusing loads of kids himself. The Canadian had never even met Jackson, don’t think he had even ever been out of Canada. Just desperation by Jackson obsessed Diane Dimond and her friend the real pedophile (the boy’s father).
*** *** ***
Any discussion of the drawing and description matching is a lie perpetrated by the LAPD/SB Sheriff’s office and Tom Sneddon to give credence or a reason to stripping Jackson naked and photographing him. Just think, the reason they stripped Michael was based on a drawing that was [allegedly from Jordan] that was handed to the LAPD/SB Sheriff’s authorities. From that drawing they decided to strip him down like an African slave. Do you honestly believe they would say it didn’t match? They have to justify stripping him down and humiliating him, and this is the reason I believe they are lying about the match. And remember, saying the drawing was “accurate” is subjective. How can anyone say a drawing from a 13 year old is accurate? A 13 year old can’t even draw an accurate picture of his own penis so how the hell can he draw someone else’s?
WHY would the SB Sheriff’s office even want him to draw a picture of Michael’s penis is the bigger question? This is where you can pick the lie apart if anyone is THINKING.AUTHORITIES would NOT have the child draw the picture anyway, to compare to Jackson’s penis. That’s absurd. You have a criminal sketch artist draw the composite because that’s how it’s handled. Imagine a child seeing a person rob a bank. Do you think that child would draw the picture and give it to authorities? NO! The criminal sketch artist provides a composite based on what’s described. That’s why this entire “match” issue is a JOKE based on this “Jordy drew an accurate description,”. This is the part where you can tear that lie apart.
Could the SB Sheriff’s may have assisted the Chandler’s in their lie? Sneddon recently said that he showed pictures of Jackson’s penis to Jordy back than and he identified them as his penis. WHY would you show pictures to those accusing? I would think the pictures were to match to their description, NOT FOR THEM TO SEE. If you claim a drawing “matches” then your proof would be putting that drawing next to the pictures you took to show the similarities not to allow the person to see them. That’s giving away evidence that they may never have had in the first place. I believe it’s rather corrupt to allow Jordy to view the pictures then come back and say he identified them.
Also, why would you then trust a DA like Tom Sneddon to not tamper with the evidence to allow Jordy then to make a description later? Something stinks if Jordy can really describe Michael’s penis when it was obvious from the drawing, that Evan Chandler claimed Jordy gave him, that he had no clue and was really grasping for straws based on Michael Jackson having vitiligo. And that’s obvious from drawing that was claimed to have been given to Evan Chandler provided in that book called ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’, where he claimed Jordy drew and gave to him on October 24, 1993 at 11:45 pm.
This discussion of a match is Sneddon’s saving face for a fake case. He didn’t want to tell citizens of Santa Barbara that he was on a witch hunt and had wasted their tax money so instead he continued to parade this case as some “he got away with it” and “the boy gave an accurate description.” This was their only way to dignify stripping Michael Jackson completely naked and photographing his genitals, which would have been met with more outrage if the public really knew it didn’t match. So Tom Sneddon and the SB Sherrif’s office is using this “match” for PR. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Jordy now knows the description — IT’S BECAUSE HE WAS PROVIDED WITH THE PICTURES TO CORROBORATE WHAT HE DIDN’T KNOW AT FIRST.
Also, that former LA Policeman who parades around to the network (that old KKK looking man is about as credible as Mark Furhman finding the glove. NO black person living in LA TRUST A LAPD back in 1993 as they were the epitome of corruption, tampering and planting [refresh your memory if need be] SO, WHY WOULD HE THINK PEOPLE BELIEVE HIM? Well, besides the obvious, lol. That picture claimed to have been drawn by Jordy is a HOAX. I wouldn’t even be surprised he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The picture was the safest picture in the world because there is NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE IN IT LIKE SIZE, LENGTH. That drawing could have been ANYTHING, a house, mushroon, a hut. That’s how “specific” the drawing was.
That’s why I believe the person who drew it is the same person who put the rambling writing on the side — EVAN CHANDLER. If you look at the words below the picture, it says the drawing that Jordy gave his father on October 24, 1993 AT 11:45 PM. So, Jordy was up until close to midnight drawing a picture? By the way, the date of the picture also coincides with the SAME MONTH EVAN CHANDLER FILED HIS LAWSUIT. And it’s obvious they had NO CLUE how Michael really looked when you read that RAMBLING STATEMENT “MY THEORY.” That’s what the entire bullshit was a THEORY BASED ON MICHAEL HAVING VITILIGO.
Than there’s. Jason Francia yes, the tickling games. PLEASE, tickling games DO NOT require 5 years of therapy with a DA present to get over about of tickling. He has a MySpace you know, won’t don’t you add him as a friend?
In regards to Evan Chandler’s taped phone conversation “paid the right people” was in reference to his con lawyer that he had used to put the con together, and the other cons the lawyer had gathered to make the plan. That con lawyers organized all the information and gathered the crew the psychologist, Katz, Fieldman lined up all the ducks so that Evan couldn’t be found to be negligent, so that they could push for a civil trial and squash a criminal trial which would guarantee them a settlement. Evan had this plan for awhile before they decided to put it in effect — they had gathered all the information they needed including talking to people who had been close to and knew Jackson’s body/person and his vitiligo [sic] to ensure it would go smooth, when he took his son and kept him away from everyone — then eventually feeding him that “memory” they implanted stuff and he regurgitated for everyone else.
What parts specifically matched that have been proven as fact? In court? Because if they did Michael Jackson would be in jail with or without JC’s incorporation (oh no I forgot, hes a celebrity so he wouldn’t have been put in jail! You know, despite every American citizens are granted a juror of their peers, hand picked for unbiased testimony, who make that decision).
Fact: 1993 was presented to 2 differnt juries, twice they didn’t buy the accusations or anything Sneddon pushed to them…. those are the facts, those 2 juries were given everything Sneddon had ++++.
Fact: Jordan has said to his friends repeatedly that MJ didn’t do a thing to him, that his parents made him lie. Now that is a fact, his friends were ready to testify to this in court.
Fact: Evan was on tape admitting to a plan, a con as proved and written about by Mary Fisher.
Finally, look at the people implying guilt of any sort and look at their motives, how can you take a single word they say as truth? Oh no, MJ fans think everything is some conspiracy to our idol, don’t consider a word they say…
I’m disappointed. Our uneducated friend Gavin (or was it Star?) Arvizo who said Jackson was totally white when the they supposedly seen Jackson naked. I was surprised Thomas Mesereau didn’t bring that up. AND Gavin said “I thought he was all white,” but he said “thought”. God, I wanted Mesereau to go “Well if you actually saw him naked then shouldn’t you KNOW?” because then Gavin can say 1) ‘I don’t know’, which kills his story or 2) He can confirm that he KNOWS Michael is all white, and then Thomas Mesereau can throw the vitiligo back in his face. But alas, he didn’t.
But he most likely didn’t bring it up in reference to the 1993 case because all that evidence was blocked by judge Melville at the defense’s request. He only allowed the 1108 hearsay from the maids and June [Chandler] without direct accusations against Jackson with reference to Jordan. All the maids/former employees and June talked about what they thought they saw that was “inappropriate” but none of them could outright say yes he molested Jordan. In which case then Mesereau couldn’t bring up that point.
Still, it would of been kick ass and another laugh (and oh, there were many) laughs from the jurors. These people really ought to be on Saturday Night Live. As for Gavin, he had already tied a noose around himself with his testimony and the tape. Mesereau had already done a good job impeaching him and his family that he didn’t need to add more, really. But when push came to shove he got a very very important detail wrong. Yeah one could make the argument that if a person is aroused you can’t tell if they are circumcised or not.
However, Jordan described very very intimate moments with MJ. Most men do not stay fully aroused at all times during a sexual exchange. Jordan talked a lot of getting ‘oral sex’ from Michael. Its very hard for me to believe that – if you buy Jordan’s story – Michael was ALWAYS FULLY aroused when sexual or physical exchanges were going on. You mean to tell me that Jordan never saw Jackson’s penis when it wasn’t erect? That is why that detail is very important, especially since this wasn’t something he said happened ONCE or twice. It was a ‘very intimate relationship’ according to the Chandlers.
If Jordan saw Jackson at such a range where he could SEE Jacksons patches and short pubic hair he should have seen Michael at least ONCE with OUT an erection. Why did he say he was circumcised? Because he is himself his father probably is, and that’s ALL he ever knew. THEY assumed. And they assumed INCORRECTLY. People who have vitiligo patches are ever changing; repigment. That is why sometimes you see blotches on his arms (whenever the rare times he his long sleeve sleeves reveal them).
Anything the Chandler sources or DA sources give is to try to prove they had something but they didn’t — the truth of the matter is if they had something, Michael Jackson would have had to go through a criminal trial than. Remember a judge refused to grant Jackson a criminal trial before the civil trial that the Chandlers had pressed. If they really wanted Michael Jackson to face the consequences of what they claimed he had done to their child, why were they insisting on a civil trial before a criminal trial? They knew that if the criminal trial took place first and MJ was found innocent with everyone on the defense believed would be the case, they would get nothing. So they tried to bypass that by going to a civil trial which requires way less evidence, and allows for hearsay essentially guaranteeing them getting money. YAY 15 MILLION! (OR WAS IT 20 MILLION?)
In my humble opinion, Diane Dimond’s book seemed to confirm in the first chapter that there was NO picture ever taken of Michael which matched Jordan’s description. She describes in excruciating detail every single moment of the body search (based on testimony given by Sneddon’s people doing this body search back in 1993/94) right down to the specific type of camera used, the emotions and words spoken during the session, and so-forth. Supposedly, they were looking for one specific mark on the “lower left side” of his ‘anatomy’ to compare to Jordan’s description. The photographer took all sorts of random pictures from every angle possible, and Michael complied with their every request including lifting his penis up to simulate sexual arousal when they were looking for this one particular spot. The seargeant CLAIMS to have seen this mark, yet, after all of this, Dimond then comments that “it’s unclear whether Sergeant Spiegel actually had time to snap a photograph of the mark he saw.”
Give me a break! There is absolutely no way that this “Smoking Gun” evidence wouldn’t have been snapped right away if such evidence matched with what Jordan described. Likewise, I highly doubt Dimond would say that it’s ‘unclear’ if such a picture exists unless it most certainly does not, since she obviously had very close contacts with Sneddon and company, and was so vivid about all other details about the body search and what pictures were taken. So, if you believe these “Sneddon law enforcement sources” and/or “Chandler family sources”, the patch on Michael’s body matched what Chandler described. However, when Dimond (who seems to be pretty much Sneddon’s left-arm) then says that it’s unclear if any picture to confirm the details was ever taken, it becomes highly suspicious now doesn’t it?
There were also a number of articles published back in ’93 claiming that the description and photos did not match, amongst other interesting tidbits, such as the one below:
Photos May Help Jackson
A Source Says Pictures Don’t Match a Description of the Singer’s Genitalia, Which May Mean No Criminal Charges.
January 28, 1994
Police photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals, which the pop superstar said deeply embarrassed him, may end up being his salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestation, a source close to the pop star said Thursday.
The source, who asked not to be identified, said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year-old boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of sexually abusing him.
The source said this was one reason the star, who wants to get the six-month-old matter behind him, agreed this week to settle the suit with the boy and his parents. According to the source, the boy was paid $5 million to withdraw his suit and his parents received unspecified cash settlements.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation and lawyers for the boy said there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case.
Lawyers both for Jackson and the boy also said they wanted to get the case behind them; many outside legal experts took that as a sign that the boy would not testify in any future criminal proceeding. Under California law, the decision as to whether to testify would be up to the boy.
The source said the description the youth gave of Jackson’s genitalia turned out to be at variance with photographs taken by police on orders of a California judge.
“The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description,” the source said.
Jackson, in a tearful four-minute message televised from his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County, Calif., late last month, called the photographic session “the most humiliating ordeal” of his life.
He said the search warrant “allowed them to view and photograph my body, including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs and any other areas that they wanted.”
The source said the teenager had implicated other boys whom he alleged Jackson sexually molested. But the source said that when police questioned these boys, they denied being molested.
The source said the suit would have been settled earlier except for a disagreement between the boy’s parents.
“What held up the settlement was the father’s insistence that his ex-wife not get any money because he claimed she had allowed the relationship between the boy and superstar,” the source said.
I’ll post the complete transcript of the investigative report that Dimond aired back in 1995 when she followed another totally false complaint, when found. It’s worth noting that it wasn’t just one Canadian kid who was instructed to make up such false complaints against Michael, but a group of them. And, the man telling them to say all of this stuff was of no relation to the kids nor to Michael. He was just someone fixated on the Jackson case and he himself had once also claimed that he was molested by a Jackson family member (after the Chandler case broke, of course) – obviously there was no evidence to support the claim.
I’d say that if there was ever a genuine-looking and genuine-sounding case, it was most-definitely the one discussed in this report. This kid came off as a much more professional liar than the Arvizos, Chandlers and Francias combined.
Diane Dimond (04/27/1995)
Female Host: Now, the plot to destroy Michael Jackson. Another young boy coming forward with allegations he was molested by the superstar. But when our Diane Dimond began to investigate, she uncovered a trail of lies. Diane?
Dimond: Terry, ever since the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal broke, we’ve gotten a constant stream of calls and letters from people making dubious claims about the singer. Frankly, we ignore most of them. But when I heard the facts of this story, I just had to go to Canada and check it out myself.
(Begin Tape Segment)
Accuser: And I’d like to make a confession about something that happened between me and Michael Jackson.
(End Tape Segment)
Dimond: He is only 15-years old so we can’t show you his face or let you hear his real name. But the eleven-minute home video he sent Hard Copy several weeks ago, could’ve become Michael Jackson’s worst nightmare. Looking straight into the camera, using no notes, this boy proceeded to tell us in graphic detail how he and another teen were allegedly molested by the superstar.
(Begin Tape Segment)
Accuser: He started just, touching like our stomach and things. Like, he’d rub our stomach and then he’d get lower and then that’s when I started saying like, “what are you doing?” He said, “it’s okay. Don’t worry, your bodies are meant to be touched.”
(End Tape Segment)
Dimond: But the boy wasn’t acting on his own, he had help. A man who identified himself as John Templeton of Mississauga, Canada. That’s a suburb of Toronto. He sent us the boy’s videotaped statement and even called several times to make sure we looked at it. Then, I got a call from the boy himself.
Dimond: Diane Dimond. (Answering the phone)
Dimond: Over the next few days, I spoke with the boy for hours and he never wavered. His story stayed consistent. The boy said he met Michael Jackson at a Canadian video arcade. He said he was supposed to spend the weekend with a friend, but when Jackson invited him to visit Neverland instead, off they flew in a private jet.
Dimond: This 15-year old described in detail the people in Jackson’s entourage; the layout of the ranch; and even Jackson’s family home at Encino. Later, he would draw us incredibly detailed maps of both Jackson homes. It was clear; either the boy was telling the truth, or he had been well-coached. To get to the bottom of it, I agreed to meet the boy and John Templeton in Toronto.
Dimond: The plan was to meet the pair in the lobby of a airport hotel. But when I arrived, the only one to greet me was the young boy. He came with me into town and told me that he lived on the streets of Toronto – in a section called “Boy’s Town” where the street kids gather. He explained that his mother had kicked him out of the house, and that John Templeton was just a man he’d met on the streets.
Accuser: He kind of helps street kids, like just talks to them and things. Sort of like a guided counselor of the street. That’s what it seemed like.
Dimond: The boy appeared to be on his own. There was no sign of John Templeton. And frankly, that seemed suspicious. But over the next few days, a “Hard Copy” team conducted hours of interviews with the boy. Standing by were police officials in both California, and Toronto. They were waiting to conduct their own investigation of the boy’s charges.
Grimes: (On the phone) Hi, my name is Frank Grimes. I work for the TV show, “Hard Copy.”
Dimond: Producer Frank Grimes and I worked to check out countless pieces of information the boy gave us. While sources were able to confirm much of what he said, there were some troubling inconsistencies. Still, the boy stubbornly stuck by his story and he had an incredible knowledge of Michael Jackson’s lifestyle.
(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)
Accuser: He showed me this place, like a saddle shop, where he said he gets stuff for his animals there. I don’t what he got, but…
Dimond: Like a saddle shop. I see that on your map here.
Dimond: People are going to think, that you’re out for his money.
Accuser: I don’t care about his money.
Dimond: They’re going to think you’re making it up.
Accuser: I know. You know, I know. But I don’t care about his money. He can keep it.
Dimond: You’re telling the absolute truth?
Grimes: He talked for hours, and he knew so much. So much in fact, that we thought,”well, let’s give him a test.” You know, to see if we could trip him up.
Dimond: We showed the boy several photographs, some of them were of Neverland employees. And he was able to identify each and every one of them.
Accuser: (Confirming pictures) Yeah, that’s him. That’s him.
Dimond: If this was a scam, this boy had really done his homework. He even went so far as to draw us a picture of what he said Michael Jackson looked like during the alleged molestation. Always, he came back to his claims of molestation.
Accuser: His eyes are big. They’re, they’re dark. They cavern in. Like, the sockets go right in, you know?
Dimond: But there was one thing I didn’t tell the boy. I didn’t tell him that for the last year I’d been getting Michael Jackson related letters from his same small suburb in Canada. The letters were supposedly from other young boys who also claimed that they had been molested by Jackson. Two of the letters even included pictures of the boys. Well, someone was behind all of this, but still there was no sign of the man who had sent us the original video statement of the boy. No sign of John Templeton.
(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)
Dimond: There’s a detective Campbell down town. He doesn’t know your name. He doesn’t know anything yet. But he’s waiting to see us. Want to go?
Dimond: From the very beginning the boy never asked us for money. And he repeatedly said he didn’t want any money from Michael Jackson either. So what was his motivation? Well, he said it was simple. He said he wanted justice. And now, he was about to give a sworn statement to the police.
(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)
Dimond: I want you to remember one thing. Tell the truth.
Accuser: Oh yeah.
Dimond: We delivered the boy to the Toronto Metro Police Headquarters, where detectives from the sexual assault unit had been waiting for us.
(Conversation between Campbell and Accuser)
Detective Campbell: I understand you want to speak to me. And that’s okay, we’re going to go upstairs and you can talk to me. Okay?
Dimond: For six solid hours, police questioned the boy. Took his sworn statement. He told them just what he had told us. That superstar Michael Jackson had molested him.
Detective Campbell: I found him fairly believable.
Dimond: While the boy talked with police, we continued our investigation. We had to find this, John Templeton. So we drove out to the Toronto suburbs to check out the return address from the video tape he had sent us. That’s when we ran into somebody we knew.
(Conversation between Dimond and Allen)
Dimond: What the h*ll is going on?
Allen: Okay, Diane. Let me explain something to you.
Dimond: Say hello to John Templeton. Only his real name is Rodney Allen. We’ve known about Rodney for a long time. Right after the Michael Jackson scandal first broke, he was on the phone to us claiming that another Jackson family member had molested him years ago. Rodney has never offered any solid proof of this claim, he appeared to be a man bent on revenge. And Rodney admitted he was the one who had been writing me all those letters.
(Conversation between Dimond and Allen)
Dimond: I care about this one kid, who gave me all sorts of information about Neverland, about Havenhurst, about Disneyland, about Michael Jackson’s body, where did he get all of that information?
Allen: He got it from me.
Dimond: You planted all this stuff in that kid’s head?
Allen: I didn’t plant it in his head. He was asking questions. I answered them the best I can. I told him what I could tell him about the place because I want Michael to face it.
Dimond: So this kid is an A-one, number one liar?
Dimond: The whole story, was a scam. A Toronto street kid meets a man obsessed with the Michael Jackson case, and the results could have been an international scandal. Meanwhile back at the police station, the boy finally broke down. He admitted that he and Rodney Allen had made up the whole story.
(Conversation between Dimond and Campbell)
Dimond: The young boy was lying?
Detective Campbell: That’s my belief. And as a result of that, he was charged. Yes.
Dimond: Can you tell us what he was charged with?
Detective Campbell: Public mischief.
Dimond: Well, the boy is still in custody tonight and police continue their investigation of Mr. Rodney Allen.
Male Host: Thanks Diane.
Female Host: What an incredible scheme.
4 years later Rodney Allen was arrested for molesting multiple boys.
That goes along way to show that anyone can make up anything out of greed. This kid had never even met Michael Jackson but was able to try to pull this off just from information given to him by someone obsessed with MJ. The other two families on the other hand had spend time traveling and being with Jackson; they had way more information to pull of the con that they did. The Arvizo’s tried it knowing the Chandler family had succeeded, but this time the scheme failed spectacularly.
*** *** ***
This was just various ramblings from Michael Jackson fans who doesn’t think he is guilty because he made ‘Thriller’ and we like ‘Beat It’. The real truth is that he paid money to silence little boys, he molested said boys, thus he is gay, he bought the Elephant Man’s bones, he bleaches his skin, and according to rival Prince fans, he doesn’t play 1082394829348 instruments so he sucks.
*** *** ***
I’m still hopeful, the truth always comes out — however long it takes it, it does come out. Unfortunately, morbidly, it will most likely come when Michael Joseph Jackson passes.
Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women…
Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir…
Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just…
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don’t you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don’t your eyes seek out the things you want?
2007 NOVEMBER 22
by the floacist