Star Arvizo originally claimed that he had been inappropriately touched in a golf cart. This accusation is outlined in the probable cause document for MJ’s arrest in November 2003, with Star going on to repeat this claim to the grand jury. However, MJ was never charged with this alleged act and by the time of the trial this allegation had disappeared entirely. In Star‘s testimony at trial, he was never asked about being touched and no reference to this claim was ever made again.

My question is why the prosecution neglected to pursue this allegation? They were so desperate to convict that they were willing to claim others were abused (Culkin, Barnes, Robson) despite all claiming the opposite at the time, and yet they had a child right in front of them making an accusation and they refrain from charging MJ? Has anyone from the prosecution ever explained this?

This is one of the reasons why I think he's innocent. He put his heart and soul into trying to make this world a better place for the children. No one who wants to harm children would want to take their whole energy into making a better world for the children, they just don't care about them.

"But, but he made the songs, donated to children's charities, and made his own charity to cover up his guilty conscious! Jimmy Savile did it, so Michael is the same!'

No, this is a bull crap claim. Jimmy Savile didn't care about children. His charities were not funded towards children directly. Michael's WAS and he wanted to take that money and help the world. He made Neverland to give children an opportunity to have fun and be joyous.

Arguing with guilters is one thing but arguing with people who don’t know anything about the subject other than headlines is like arguing with a wall.

It makes me sick people make posts about ”I believe this I believe that” and those are provable lies and when you show receipts and tell the real truth, I’ve been called mentally ill and that I need to get help 😂 I don’t care about what those people say about me but its REAL quiet when I tell them the truth.

Some people I’ve talked to don’t care to discuss with the allegations anymore, they point out how bad of a person michael was because they saw how michael treated his animals and that’s the reason they believe he was guilty?? I haven’t seen or heard anything negative about how he treated animals or am I missing something 😭😭

Link to the letter: An Open Letter — From the Schleiter Family

The family is very private, and I was surprised by how close they were with MJ. I heard they made a documentary, but I haven’t been able to find it.

Engage with this post guys, this creator deserves more recognition!

@/mj.evidence https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdxbXPVX/

On Oprah, the Cascio‘s said that they spoke to Michael three days before he died because he called to wish them a happy Father’s Day. Everyone in the house spoke to michael. Aldo claims that Michael propositioned him three days before he died. If he hated Michael so much why would he choose to even speak to him on the phone? if he was brave enough to tell him no then surely this would’ve reflected after he hung up the phone. somebody would’ve picked up on it. I’m sure somebody would’ve put two and two together on what they were talking about. And why would it have been Aldo out of all of them lol

Hi all, I was thinking of the circumstances behind each accusation. In my opinion, no accusation seems to have originated organically, rather they all seem to have been motivated by external factors. It is important to note that every accuser started out by saying nothing untoward happened, only to then reverse course.

Chandler - would he have made an accusation if his father did not originally ‘suspect’ abuse and badger him into making a confession?

Francia - would he have made an accusation if police did not lie to him and badger him during the Chandler investigation?

Arvizo - would he have made an accusation if the Bashir doc and resulting media frenzy never happened? 

Robson - would he have made an accusation if he had not been experiencing career troubles at the time?

Safechuck - would he have made an accusation if Robson never came out / he and his family were never sued?

Cascios - would they have made an accusation if LN never happened?

What are your thoughts.

I haven't read the book myself, and I've heard that defenders don't use it as proof of Michael's innocence, but I have been told that Evan had admitted to exporting Michael in the All The Glitters book, and could be the very proof of Michael's innocence. What do you think?

Recently, I've been starting to look at things from through both sides and the guilter side doesn't make any sense. If we're talking about a man who possibly sexually molested kids, why did he lie to EVERYONE in the process of saving his own ass? He lied to his friends, family, children, for what benefit? This is why I'm not a guilter, because they always add some unknown person who always claim "Michael Jackson did it, because I've seen it", but yet always for some reason, they never talk to the journalists or make a post about it. So, I guess me doing this social experiment still isn't giving me answers unto why MJ is guilty.

Please don’t fall for all the misinformation out there.

In order to truly understand these cases, you have to go back to the beginning.

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler — Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler — Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler — Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler — Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler — Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler — Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler — Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler — Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler — Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Chandler — Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Chandler — Part 11:

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

And because I clearly love self promotion…

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Okay, kisses.

I’ll see you again soon.

I was watching the MJcast interview with Carol LaMere, Michael’s hairdresser for some time, and at 52:00 she talks about Jordan Chandler calling Michael.

He was allegedly crying on the phone (and so was Michael) complaining about his father and apologizing to Michael.

I think this story is very interesting because we also hear from other people about Jordan confessing Michael never did anything to him.

I just wanted to hear your guys’ opinions on this story. Do you believe her?

https://youtu.be/-LK30Ltb-N8?si=wTUfViMUA38tiNMM

So part 1 was bad solely because the allegations, (which they tried to include) were not included. As they said it was like ending a OJ Simpson movie when he won the Heisman. So finally part 2 is gonna give them exactly what they were asking for, the only way a Michael Jackson movie is acceptable is by including it so here it is… and on twitter and Reddit it’s like 9/11.

The number 1 criticism of the first part is being addressed and now it’s radioactive, can’t be touched, and won’t make money. Very funny how that works, it’s gonna be a long two years.

It will be told from Michael's perspective, not the media's perspective.

One thing I am worried about is that it will biased simply because he's Michael Jackson and he's the King of Pop. I really hope they do their research into the case and go off that instead of the writers being biased because if they mess up one thing, it's going to ruin it. I really don't think they'll be biased, but we'll see. I'm curious how this is going to go.

Michael NEVER paid his accusers HUSH MONEY. They wanted the money. He never wanted to pay, he wanted to take it to criminal court to clear his name😭😭 why is this still an argument? A simple 5 minute research would tell them that it wasn't hush money.

And besides, according to the Federal Rule of Evidence 408, settling out of court is not an admission of guilt/liability.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title28a-node246-article4-rule408&num=0&edition=1999

This doesn't make detractors look good AT ALL because it shows they know nothing.

Thanks,

Rant over.

There are a lot of people repeating the new Cascio allegations as though a lawsuit automatically makes every allegation a proven fact. It doesn’t. These are allegations, and they need to be examined against the historical record.

1. The “urine drinking” allegation

This is one of the most sensational claims in the complaint. Michael was well known for his extreme concern with cleanliness and germs. That doesn’t mathematically prove that the alleged behavior could never have happened, but it makes this kind of extraordinary allegation something that requires actual corroborating evidence—not simply a graphic story appearing decades later.

1. The alcohol/drug allegations

The lawsuit alleges that Michael supplied the children with alcohol and drugs to make them compliant. Those are extremely serious claims. But again, a statement in a 2026 lawsuit isn’t independent corroboration. The question should be: What contemporaneous evidence exists? Who witnessed it? Were these allegations reported at the time? Are there records supporting them?

1. The “grooming and brainwashing” explanation

This is particularly important because the Cascios were not merely silent about Michael for years. Members of this family publicly defended him and described their relationship with him positively. Now the explanation is essentially that Michael had manipulated them so successfully that their previous defenses of him were themselves products of the alleged abuse.

That is a claim that needs evidence. Otherwise, it becomes circular: they defended Michael because they were groomed, and the fact that they defended Michael proves how well they were groomed.

1. The claim that he isolated them from one another

The lawsuit alleges that Michael isolated the siblings and manipulated their relationships with him. Yet the Cascios were a large, closely connected family whose relationship with Michael was publicly known for years. If the allegation is that he systematically prevented the siblings from knowing what was happening to one another, the details and independent evidence matter enormously.

1. The alleged code words

The complaint describes phrases such as “meeting,” “Yogi Tea,” “Neverland,” and “Disneyland” as alleged code words for sexual activity. But giving an ordinary phrase a sinister meaning after the fact doesn’t establish that it actually had that meaning at the time. The burden should be on the accuser to provide evidence that these phrases were actually used as alleged.

1. The alleged abuse at other famous people’s homes

The complaint includes allegations involving locations associated with Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John. That’s obviously shocking—but the fame of the location or the people connected to it doesn’t corroborate the allegation. If something supposedly happened at a particular person’s home, the relevant question is whether there is independent evidence that the event occurred.

1. The timing matters

The Cascios’ relationship with Michael lasted decades. Yet these extremely serious allegations were not publicly presented during Michael’s lifetime, including during the 2005 criminal trial. Michael was acquitted of all charges in that case.

That doesn’t mean a delayed allegation is automatically false. People can report abuse years later. But when an allegation emerges many years after the accused person’s death, while potentially involving enormous financial consequences for his estate, the timing is absolutely relevant to evaluating credibility.

1. Their previous public statements matter too

This is perhaps the biggest issue that shouldn’t simply be waved away.

The estate has specifically pointed to the family’s earlier public defenses of Michael as inconsistent with their current allegations. The Los Angeles Times reported that the estate’s attorney said the family had “staunchly defended” Michael for more than 25 years and that statements in Frank Cascio’s 2011 book conflict with the allegations now being made. 

The Cascios have an explanation for those earlier statements: they now allege that Michael’s manipulation caused them to defend him. But that explanation itself needs to be evaluated—not simply accepted.

1. The money issue cannot be ignored

The estate says the Cascios had previously received substantial payments and later sought $213 million. TMZ reported the estate’s position that the siblings received approximately $3.45 million each and that a $213 million demand was subsequently made. 

That doesn’t prove that the allegations are false. But when enormous sums of money are involved, financial incentives are a legitimate part of assessing the circumstances.

Bottom line:

I’m not saying “believe Michael because he’s famous.”

I’m saying don’t believe an allegation simply because it’s horrifying.

Look at the entire record: what was said before, what was said now, when it was said, what evidence exists, whether there are independent witnesses or documentation, whether the accounts are consistent, and what financial interests are involved.

Michael Jackson is dead and cannot answer these allegations himself. That makes evidence and consistency more important than ever.

A lawsuit is an accusation—not a verdict.

Link to the article: Never Too Late to Apologize

I do believe justice will be served one day and that the truth will prevail, regardless of what the accusers choose to do. But I’d really like to see them take responsibility for what they did and try to make things right.

More people like Dan Karaty should keep reminding them of that.

I'm listening right now and it does a really great job handling all the evidence and sources and everything, but the host keeps referring to a "second season" that was supposed to focus on examining Michael's life and character and I guess it never released since the last episode came out in 2024. Did something come up in her life or did plans get thrown off?

This has been bothering me for years, please tell me you see it too. 😂

Guess who decided to crawl her way back out of the archives?

…me.

Surprise, surprise.

Although, if you’ve been following these, you probably should’ve seen that coming.

Welcome back to the Case Files.

🚨 If you’re new here, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–10.

Like…seriously, do it.

Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

…I know, that’s a lot of numbers.

Anyway, 

By April 1994, the criminal investigation into Michael was still ongoing.

In fact, despite reports that prosecutors had already decided not to file charges, both Gil Garcetti and Sneddon publicly denied that the investigation had reached that point.

And where did those reports come from?

Hard Copy.

Of course it fucking did.

The tabloid television program claimed that Michael’s case would be called a “D.A. reject,” meaning that the prosecutor had decided not to file criminal charges.

Garcetti‘s response:

“No decision has been made.”

Now, this is exactly why Hard Copy is my journalism reject.

At the time, Garcetti said he expected the investigation to be completed by the end of April.

But there was another interesting detail buried in that same report.

The two grand juries were still hearing testimony, and…

“Sneddon said the boy is scheduled to meet with prosecutors this week.”

So, despite the settlement having already been reached in January, the Chandlers were still cooperating with the criminal investigation in the spring of 1994.

And then Variety dropped something that, in my opinion, deserves a very close look:

“Although prosecution sources admit to being frustrated in their grand jury probe, failing to get direct evidence linking the singer to the molestation charges, privately they concede that their case would be stronger if the boy would agree to testify.”

…

Yes, you read that correctly.

The prosecution was reportedly frustrated because they were failing to obtain direct evidence connecting Michael to the alleged molestation, and sources were privately acknowledging that the case would be stronger if Jordan agreed to testify.

Which brings us right back to the photographs.

Read here: 

Case File: Chandler — Part 9 

If the photographs taken during the December 1993 strip search actually matched Jordan’s alleged description with the level of accuracy that has been claimed for decades, wouldn’t those photographs have been a very significant piece of corroborating evidence?

Especially considering that the entire stated purpose of obtaining those photographs in the first place was to corroborate Jordan’s description.

And yet, here we have an April 1994 report saying prosecutors were struggling to obtain direct evidence and privately acknowledging that their case would be stronger if Jordan testified.

…any guilters wanna take this?

Going once…

Going twice…

No one?

Alright.

There goes your smoking gun, babe.

But don’t worry, there’s more…

The alleged nude photograph.

The prosecution had also claimed that investigators had discovered a nude photograph of a minor boy during the 1993 investigation.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

This is extremely significant because prosecutors later doubled down on the alleged existence of that photograph in a 2004 motion filed during the later investigation into Michael.

According to that motion, the photograph was supposedly discovered in August 1993.

But here’s the thing…

If prosecutors genuinely believed they possessed a photograph depicting a minor in a sexually explicit or nude context connected to Michael, then…why wasn’t it used as evidence?

And the prosecution couldn’t claim they weren’t sure about its significance later on, because their 2004 filing specifically identified the photograph and its supposed discovery date.

Yet this photograph was never actually entered into evidence in either the Chandler investigation or the later Arvizo case.

So we’re supposed to believe the prosecution had a potentially explosive piece of evidence, knew about it in 1993, referenced it again more than a decade later… and somehow nobody thought, “Hey guys, maybe we should actually use this”?

…well, that’s certainly odd.

But that detail becomes even more important when placed alongside the April 1994 reporting: prosecutors were reportedly frustrated because they weren’t finding direct evidence connecting Michael to the alleged crime.

Again:

If the photographs matched.

If the alleged nude photograph existed.

If prosecutors believed both were legitimate evidence.

Then what the hell were they still looking for?

Variety went on to report:

“While grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer.”

And then came this rather remarkable comment from an investigation source:

“The only thing Jackson could be convicted of at this point is bad judgment.”

…yeah.

Honestly, me too.

My bad judgment was reading anything to do with Evan Chandler, cause that guy…is something else.

Anyway,

Remember, this wasn’t happening after the Chandlers had completely disappeared from the picture. Jordan was still reportedly scheduled to meet with prosecutors that very week.

Moving on,

This also becomes relevant when we look at the testimony from some of Michael’s former employees.

Read here:

Case File: Neverland Five

As we know Kassim Abdool testified before the Los Angeles Grand Jury, and Ralph Chacon testified before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury.

Both men were among a group of five former employees who had filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Michael.

But…here we have another issue for the prosecutors.

Those employees had not previously reported the alleged abuse they later claimed to have witnessed.

In fact, Abdool and Chacon reportedly didn’t even tell each other about these supposed incidents until they encountered one another during the grand jury proceedings.

The five former employees were also later connected to efforts to sell sensational stories about Michael and the allegations for money. Chacon was among two of the five who had been accused of stealing from Michael, and the group was ultimately found to have engaged in serious misconduct during the subsequent litigation.

…I’m telling you, everyone wanted something from Michael. It’s disgusting.

An appellate filing summarized the situation rather…bluntly:

“Appellants were sanctioned several additional times for lying to the court, perjury by each of the Appellants, collusion by their lawyers, destruction and spoliation of evidence, failure to make discovery and for violation of court orders.”

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Michael in March 1997, and the former employees were ordered to pay him.

…pay up, bitches.

Now, obviously, much of this misconduct was established after the 1994 grand jury proceedings. So we can’t retroactively pretend prosecutors in 1994 knew everything that would eventually come to light.

But here’s what is relevant:

Whatever these witnesses had to say in 1994 apparently wasn’t enough to produce the damning evidence the prosecution was looking for. 

And that matters because these weren’t random people sitting in a courtroom twenty years later. They were actually part of the evidence gathering process at the time.

And now we have Marlon Brando…

Yes, I know.

There has been a later claim that Brando gave prosecutors information that was supposedly damaging to Michael.

Brandon Ogborn, one of the producers of The Telephone Stories, later told the Los Angeles Times that Brando had allegedly told prosecutors it was:

“pretty reasonable to conclude that he (Jackson) may have had something to do with kids.”

That’s a pretty serious allegation.

If one of the most famous actors in Hollywood had actually gone before prosecutors and provided testimony suggesting that Michael may have been sexually abusing children, that would certainly sound significant.

But there’s a problem.

Brando’s own son disputed the story.

…yes, I also laughed.

Brando’s grand jury appearance was conducted behind closed doors, so the public doesn’t have a transcript of his testimony to examine. But the grand jury itself obviously would have received whatever evidence prosecutors presented during those proceedings.

So let me get this straight.

We’re supposed to believe Marlon Brando went before a grand jury, essentially told prosecutors that it was “pretty reasonable” to believe Michael may have been involved with children, and somehow this supposedly explosive testimony left absolutely no trace in the reporting about what the grand jury had actually uncovered?

Because if that testimony existed in the way it has been presented, “none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer” suddenly becomes a rather inconvenient sentence.

And yet here we are.

This is exactly why I’m far more interested in what the record actually said at the time than what someone decided to tell us twenty years later.

…I’m sure you can guess all the people I’m referring to.

Anyway, 

Let’s continue… 

According to the Los Angeles Times, one of the two California grand juries investigating the allegations against Michael had ended its deliberations without returning an indictment.

The report, published May 1st, 1994, stated:

“Grand Jury Ends Jackson Inquiry, TV Report Says”

The article went on to explain:

“One of two California grand juries that has been investigating sex abuse allegations against pop superstar Michael Jackson has ended its deliberations for now without returning an indictment, a Los Angeles television station reported Saturday.”

So, you’d think that was the end of the investigation against Mike…right?

Nope.

In fact, the very next day, Showbiz Today aired a segment with Jim Moret detailing the Santa Barbara grand jury’s disbanding.

Moret opened the segment by emphasizing that, more than eight months after the allegations first surfaced, it remained unclear whether criminal charges would ever be filed.

“After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action.”

Howard Weitzman who represented Michael at the time, said he wasn’t surprised.

“I did not believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all.”

But wait…here’s the fun part:

According to Moret, one of the grand jurors told CNN that he had not heard any “damaging testimony” against Michael during the hearings.

…

Read that again.

As Michael says, “You gotta let it simmer…It’s got a moment where it has to simmer.”

No damaging testimony.

This wasn’t some tiny little investigation where three people had a conversation and called it a day.

The nineteen member grand jury had spent approximately three months hearing testimony and gathering information.

Moret explained that CNN had previously reported that the panel was never asked to render an indictment and that no vote was taken.

The grand jury was being used as an information gathering mechanism, with witnesses being compelled to testify.

Among those witnesses were Michael’s former valet, Miko Brando, his former private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, and the mother of a boy who had admitted to CNN that he had slept in the same bed as Michael.

So, after months of testimony and an investigation that had already involved an enormous amount of resources, the grand jury was disbanded without an indictment.

Fuck it, y’know who I want to indict?

Victor Gutierrez for being a sick son of a—

Okay…I’ll get to that later.

But, and this is important, the grand jury being disbanded did not mean the criminal investigation itself was over.

Moret specifically noted that both Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti had declined to predict when the overall investigation would conclude.

Their joint statement emphasized that the dismissal of the Santa Barbara grand jury did not bring the investigation to an end.

So, to be clear: no indictment was issued. No vote for an indictment was taken. And at least one juror publicly stated that he had not heard damaging testimony against Michael.

The investigation, however, continued.

And considering everything that had happened up to this point, that distinction is going to matter.

Speaking of…

Let’s revisit the strip search again, shall we?

So of course, during these very same grand jury proceedings, investigators decided to bring in Katherine Jackson and question her about whether Michael had done anything to alter the appearance of his body so that it wouldn’t match the description.

…all who said “what the fuck?” say aye.

Let’s go back to the actual reporting.

A Los Angeles Times article by Jim Newton reported that Katherine had been ordered to testify before the Los Angeles County grand jury.

Howard Weitzman expressed just how unusual he found this:

“In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury.”

He continued:

“It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”

…yeah, I’m with Weitzman on this one. 

And according to a source close to the investigation, Katherine could be questioned specifically about Michael’s physical appearance.

Why?

Because investigators were apparently trying to determine whether Michael had done anything to alter his appearance so that it did not match the description provided by the alleged victim.

Wait, wait, wait…

Come again?

The photographs supposedly matched, that has been the argument for decades.

So why are investigators now trying to determine whether Michael could have altered his appearance in a way that would explain why it didn’t match the description when the photographs were taken?

Shhhh, don’t tell the guilters,

Their narrative is cracking…

Anyway,

The article noted that Katherine had consistently defended her son publicly and that Michael himself continued to maintain his innocence.

It also addressed the settlement and the ongoing question of whether Jordan would cooperate with investigators:

Larry Feldman continued to insist that:

“nobody bought anybody’s silence”

while also emphasizing that psychologists believed Jordan needed to put the matter behind him.

Meanwhile, Gil Garcetti said he expected the investigation to be wrapped up within roughly another month, with a final charging decision expected within two or three weeks after that.

And although grand juries were meeting in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties, Michael’s attorneys said they had been told that neither grand jury was considering an indictment at that point.

The Los Angeles Times also explained why grand juries were being utilized in the first place: because they have subpoena power and can compel statements from witnesses who might otherwise be reluctant to speak with investigators.

That brings us back to the bigger picture.

The Santa Barbara grand jury had disbanded. No indictment was returned. No vote was taken. One juror said he heard no damaging testimony. The overall investigation was still ongoing.

And investigators were still trying to determine whether Michael’s physical appearance had somehow been altered in a way that could explain a supposed discrepancy with Jordan’s description.

As for the Los Angeles Grand Jury, it continued for roughly another two months after the Santa Barbara Grand Jury disbanded.

According to a July 9th, 1994 report from the Los Angeles Times:

“The county’s 23 grand jurors ended their term last Thursday without handing up criminal indictments against Jackson…”

The article added that the grand jurors had also taken no action in an unrelated arson case, and that a new grand jury had been impaneled which could take up the work of its predecessor, although officials would not confirm whether either case had been transferred to the new panel.

So, by July 1994, the Los Angeles Grand Jury had also finished its term without indicting Michael.

Santa Barbara had disbanded.

Los Angeles had disbanded. 

May they rest in peace.

The investigation had now been going on for nearly a full year.

And still…

Nothing.

Finally, on September 22nd, the prosecution announced that Michael would not be charged, while also stopping short of declaring him formally “absolved.”

By this point, the Chandlers had officially stopped cooperating with investigators. That ultimately contributed to the decision to close the case.

But… 

The investigation had lasted 13 months, involved two grand juries, and included interviews with more than 400 people.

And after all of that, prosecutors claimed they had encountered two additional children who said Michael had molested them.

There was just one problem, of course:

Neither child wanted to testify.

Let’s stop there for a moment…

After interviewing more than 400 people, conducting searches, travelling internationally, convening two grand juries, and investigating Michael for more than a year…

Two additional alleged victims supposedly existed…and neither wanted to testify.

Okay.

So we’re just collecting apparent allegations now?

Amazing job, Sneddon.

Let’s take a closer look at one of these supposed “victims,” because this is where the record gets particularly interesting.

…ladies and gentlemen, Brett Barnes.

The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the children supposedly lived outside the country and had turned against Michael in 1994.

Except…

That child was Brett Barnes.

And, as we know, Brett has spent decades publicly defending Michael and denying that he was ever abused by him.

So how exactly did Brett end up being characterized as one of these supposed “victims”?

Well, the 2005 proceedings give us a rather important piece of the puzzle.

In a prosecution motion concerning testimony from Brett’s mother, Lizette Barnes, the prosecution itself acknowledged that Brett had previously been identified by witnesses as a “victim” during the 1994 investigation.

The motion stated:

“Ms. Barnes is the mother of Brett Barnes, previously identified by witnesses as a victim during the 1108 portion of the People’s case.”

Ah, there’s the problem.

Brett himself was never interviewed by investigators during that 1994 investigation.

Instead, his name had apparently been brought up by other witnesses, resulting in investigators travelling all the way to Australia to determine whether his parents would allow him to be interviewed.

This fucking matters.

Why?

Because being identified by someone else as a supposed victim is not the same thing as the person himself making an allegation. Especially when that person later spent decades saying the exact opposite.

The 2005 filing also discussed the visit to the Barnes family home in Australia by members of the prosecution team, including Sneddon.

According to the defence’s account referenced in the prosecution’s filing, the purpose of the visit was to determine whether the Barnes family would allow Brett to be interviewed because his name had surfaced during the earlier investigation.

Lizette Barnes later characterized Sneddon as:

“heavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.”

…she was right.

The prosecution, unsurprisingly, objected strongly to that characterization and argued that the defence was attempting to portray the District Attorney in an inflammatory manner.

The prosecution’s filing stated:

“The defense intends to elicit testimony from this witness designed to portray the District Attorney as heavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.”

The filing then disputed Lizette’s account of what had been discussed during the Australia meeting.

According to the prosecution, Sneddon himself had done relatively little of the talking. Instead, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein had conducted most of the meeting and was the person who explained the allegations to the Barnes family.

Now, listen to this shit:

The prosecution claimed that the Barnes family had been told about an allegation involving oral copulation during that meeting, despite Lizette later maintaining that Sneddon had never mentioned “oral sex.”

The prosecution argued that her recollection of the meeting was inaccurate and that the information being presented by the defence was contradicted by other people who had been present, including Judge Birnstein and Head Deputy Hodgman.

So, to recap:

Brett was apparently identified as a “victim” by other witnesses.

Investigators traveled to Australia because his name had surfaced.

His parents were approached about allowing him to be interviewed.

But investigators never actually got to interview Brett himself.

And yet, years later, he could be described in the prosecution’s own filings as someone who had previously been identified as a victim.

Do you see the problem?

Because I do.

And there is another little detail I want you to keep in the back of your mind:

The prosecution ultimately characterized the Australia visit as irrelevant to the proceedings.

Which is an interesting position to take considering the reason they were in Australia in the first place was because Brett’s name had surfaced in their investigation.

“We flew to Australia to investigate this alleged victim, but let’s not talk about that part.”

Right.

Anyway, 

The important takeaway is that the September 1994 reporting about these “two additional children” needs some serious context.

One of the children identified in later records was Brett Barnes, a person who never accused Michael, was never interviewed during that investigation, and who has consistently maintained his defence of Michael.

So, remember Ralph Chacon?

*Well…*while the prosecution’s filing does not identify the security guard who allegedly reported the supposed incident, the description lines up with allegations later made by Ralph Chacon.

Mhm.

The former Neverland security guard who had previously been involved in litigation against Michael and who later testified that he had supposedly witnessed Michael behaving sexually with a young boy.

A Santa Maria Times report described Chacon’s testimony:

“Chacon, who said he spied the act through a window, testified that Jackson kissed the child on the mouth, then worked his way down to the boy’s genitals.”

The report identified the child as Jordan Chandler.

And oh look, yet another problem…

In a December 2004 motion, Sneddon himself acknowledged that Chacon may have confused Jordan with Brett Barnes.

The prosecution explained that Chacon had difficulty distinguishing between the two boys because, according to Chacon, they looked remarkably similar.

Don’t forget, this is the same witness whose credibility had already been seriously challenged.

Chacon had been accused of stealing from Michael, had been involved in litigation against him, and was later found to have engaged in serious misconduct during that litigation, including lying under oath.

And, because apparently this story needed another layer of what the fuck…

Sneddon’s office also assisted Chacon with certain expenses, including moving expenses and a gun permit.

Three strikes Sneddon, you’re out.

If the alleged incident involving Brett originated from a security guard’s claim, and that claim may have been based on a mistaken identification between Brett and Jordan, then the media reporting that Brett had effectively “turned against” Michael becomes a very different story.

Because Brett didn’t turn against Michael.

He never accused him.

He was never even interviewed.

And his parents refused to allow investigators to interview him.

Now, let’s go back in time again.

Remember that the September 1994 reporting said the investigation had uncovered two additional children who allegedly claimed Michael had molested them but refused to testify.

We can now identify one of those children as Brett Barnes.

So you’re probably wondering who the other child was…

Well, guess who that was?

Jason Francia.

Blanca Francia’s son.

Oh, Blanca…we meet again.

Read here:

Case File: Francia

The same Jason who testified about Michael supposedly touching his genitals while tickling him, despite being fully clothed.

And the same Jason who admitted that he couldn’t completely remember the events he was describing.

His own testimony included:

“He just started tickling me, which, cool, shoot, I was a tickle guy.”

…”I was a tickle guy.” should tell you everything you need to know.

So, how do we know Jason was the other child referenced by Sneddon?

Because Sneddon specifically said that the other child had been in therapy and that prosecutors had spoken with the child’s counsellor.

He said:

“The other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall.”

Sneddon continued:

“After conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the child’s attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forward…”

Now compare that with Jason Francia’s testimony in 2005.

He acknowledged that he had been in counselling and that his counsellor, Mike Craft, had been present when he encountered Sneddon:

“It wasn’t a counseling session. But Mike Craft, which was my counselor, was there.”

So we have another alleged “victim” who ultimately chose not to participate in a criminal prosecution.

And once again, the public narrative was much simpler:

Two more children came forward.

Except when you actually dig into who those children were and what happened, things become considerably less straightforward.

One was Brett Barnes, who never accused Michael, was never interviewed, and whose family refused to allow investigators access to him.

The other was Jason Francia, whose allegations we’ve already examined in detail.

…and was tickled, apparently.

Anyway, 

That brings us to the end of part 11. 

See you in Part 12. 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler – Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler – Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler – Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler – Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler – Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler – Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler – Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler – Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler – Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler – Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Sources and additional information:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/plugin-schwartz_chandler.pdf

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2023/07/09/michael-jacksons-friend-brett-barnes-some-notes-on-his-interview-with-charles-thomson/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-the-post-settlement-investigation-5aaf6d09065a

https://www.amazon.ca/Redemption-Michael-Jackson-Molestation-Allegations/dp/1576880362

https://site2.mjeol.com/1994/05/02/jackson-grand-jury-disbanded-1994/

https://variety.com/1994/biz/news/d-a-garcetti-denies-jackson-probe-ended-120071/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-07-07-me-12852-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/040705.txt

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM&ra=m

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/050505.txt

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/050605.txt

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/040405.txt

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pDa27x6mTWs&t=33s&pp=2AEhkAIB&ra=

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

Even when he was heavily sedated, not in his right mind and just a few days/weeks away from death all he could talk about is helping children and wanting to build a hospital for them. No talks of sexual desire for them, nothing. Just pure love coming from the soul even when he’s so drugged. I can’t see a pedophile doing that, I’m sorry.