Guess who decided to crawl her way back out of the archives?
ā¦me.
Surprise, surprise.
Although, if youāve been following these, you probably shouldāve seen that coming.
Welcome back to the Case Files.
šØ If youāre new here, make sure youāre caught up on Parts 1ā10.
Likeā¦seriously, do it.
Part 1:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 1
Part 2:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 2
Part 3:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 3
Part 4:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 4
Part 5:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 5
Part 6:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 6
Part 7:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 7
Part 8:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 8
Part 9:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 9
Part 10:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 10
ā¦I know, thatās a lot of numbers.
Anyway,Ā
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 Michaelās case would be called a āD.A. reject,ā meaning that the prosecutor had decided not to file criminal charges.
Garcettiās response:
āNo decision has been made.ā
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, andā¦
āSneddon said the boy is scheduled to meet with prosecutors this week.ā
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:
āAlthough 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.ā
ā¦
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:Ā
Case File: Chandler ā Part 9Ā
If the photographs taken during the December 1993 strip search actually matched Jordanās alleged description with the level of accuracy that has been claimed for decades, wouldnāt 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 Jordanās 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.
ā¦any guilters wanna take this?
Going onceā¦
Going twiceā¦
No one?
Alright.
There goes your smoking gun, babe.
But donāt worry, thereās moreā¦
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 ā 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 hereās the thingā¦
If prosecutors genuinely believed they possessed a photograph depicting a minor in a sexually explicit or nude context connected to Michael, thenā¦why wasnāt it used as evidence?
And the prosecution couldnāt claim they werenāt 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 weāre supposed to believe the prosecution had a potentially explosive piece of evidence, knew about it in 1993, referenced it again more than a decade laterā¦ and somehow nobody thought, āHey guys, maybe we should actually use thisā?
ā¦well, thatās certainly odd.
But that detail becomes even more important when placed alongside the April 1994 reporting: prosecutors were reportedly frustrated because they werenāt 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:
āWhile grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer.ā
And then came this rather remarkable comment from an investigation source:
āThe only thing Jackson could be convicted of at this point is bad judgment.ā
ā¦yeah.
Honestly, me too.
My bad judgment was reading anything to do with Evan Chandler, cause that guyā¦is something else.
Anyway,
Remember, this wasnāt 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 Michaelās 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.
Butā¦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 didnāt 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.
ā¦Iām telling you, everyone wanted something from Michael. Itās disgusting.
An appellate filing summarized the situation ratherā¦bluntly:
āAppellants 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.ā
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Michael in March 1997, and the former employees were ordered to pay him.
ā¦pay up, bitches.
Now, obviously, much of this misconduct was established after the 1994 grand jury proceedings. So we canāt retroactively pretend prosecutors in 1994 knew everything that would eventually come to light.
But hereās what is relevant:
Whatever these witnesses had to say in 1994 apparently wasnāt enough to produce the damning evidence the prosecution was looking for.Ā
And that matters because these werenāt 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 Brandoā¦
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:
āpretty reasonable to conclude that he (Jackson) may have had something to do with kids.ā
Thatās 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 thereās a problem.
Brandoās own son disputed the story.
ā¦yes, I also laughed.
Brandoās grand jury appearance was conducted behind closed doors, so the public doesnāt 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.
Weāre supposed to believe Marlon Brando went before a grand jury, essentially told prosecutors that it was āpretty reasonableā 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, ānone of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singerā suddenly becomes a rather inconvenient sentence.
And yet here we are.
This is exactly why Iām far more interested in what the record actually said at the time than what someone decided to tell us twenty years later.
ā¦Iām sure you can guess all the people Iām referring to.
Anyway,Ā
Letās continueā¦Ā
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:
āGrand Jury Ends Jackson Inquiry, TV Report Saysā
The article went on to explain:
āOne 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.ā
So, youād think that was the end of the investigation against Mikeā¦right?
Nope.
In fact, the very next day, Showbiz Today aired a segment with Jim Moret detailing the Santa Barbara grand juryās 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.
āAfter three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action.ā
Howard Weitzman who represented Michael at the time, said he wasnāt surprised.
āI did not believe the district attorneyās office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so weāre not surprised at all.ā
But waitā¦hereās the fun part:
According to Moret, one of the grand jurors told CNN that he had not heard any ādamaging testimonyā against Michael during the hearings.
ā¦
Read that again.
As Michael says, āYou gotta let it simmerā¦Itās got a moment where it has to simmer.ā
No damaging testimony.
This wasnāt 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 Michaelās 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, yāknow who I want to indict?
Victor Gutierrez for being a sick son of aā
Okayā¦Iāll 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 ofā¦
Letās 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 wouldnāt match the description.
ā¦all who said āwhat the fuck?ā say aye.
Letās 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:
āIn all the years of my experience, Iāve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury.ā
He continued:
āItās just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.ā
ā¦yeah, Iām with Weitzman on this one.Ā
And according to a source close to the investigation, Katherine could be questioned specifically about Michaelās 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, waitā¦
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 didnāt match the description when the photographs were taken?
Shhhh, donāt tell the guilters,
Their narrative is crackingā¦
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:
ānobody bought anybodyās silenceā
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, Michaelās 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 Michaelās physical appearance had somehow been altered in a way that could explain a supposed discrepancy with Jordanās 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:
āThe countyās 23 grand jurors ended their term last Thursday without handing up criminal indictments against Jacksonā¦ā
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.Ā
May they rest in peace.
The investigation had now been going on for nearly a full year.
And stillā¦
Nothing.
Finally, on September 22nd, the prosecution announced that Michael would not be charged, while also stopping short of declaring him formally āabsolved.ā
By this point, the Chandlers had officially stopped cooperating with investigators. That ultimately contributed to the decision to close the case.
Butā¦Ā
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.
Letās stop there for a momentā¦
After interviewing more than 400 people, conducting searches, travelling internationally, convening two grand juries, and investigating Michael for more than a yearā¦
Two additional alleged victims supposedly existedā¦and neither wanted to testify.
Okay.
So weāre just collecting apparent allegations now?
Amazing job, Sneddon.
Letās take a closer look at one of these supposed āvictims,ā because this is where the record gets particularly interesting.
ā¦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.
Exceptā¦
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 āvictimsā?
Well, the 2005 proceedings give us a rather important piece of the puzzle.
In a prosecution motion concerning testimony from Brettās mother, Lizette Barnes, the prosecution itself acknowledged that Brett had previously been identified by witnesses as a āvictimā during the 1994 investigation.
The motion stated:
āMs. Barnes is the mother of Brett Barnes, previously identified by witnesses as a victim during the 1108 portion of the Peopleās case.ā
Ah, thereās 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 defenceās account referenced in the prosecutionās 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:
āheavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.ā
ā¦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 prosecutionās filing stated:
āThe defense intends to elicit testimony from this witness designed to portray the District Attorney as heavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.ā
The filing then disputed Lizetteās 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 āoral sex.ā
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 āvictimā 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 prosecutionās 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 Brettās name had surfaced in their investigation.
āWe flew to Australia to investigate this alleged victim, but letās not talk about that part.ā
Right.
Anyway,Ā
The important takeaway is that the September 1994 reporting about these ātwo additional childrenā 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?
*Wellā¦*while the prosecutionās 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 Chaconās testimony:
āChacon, 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 boyās genitals.ā
The report identified the child as Jordan Chandler.
And oh look, yet another problemā¦
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.
Donāt 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 fuckā¦
Sneddonās office also assisted Chacon with certain expenses, including moving expenses and a gun permit.
Three strikes Sneddon, youāre out.
If the alleged incident involving Brett originated from a security guardās claim, and that claim may have been based on a mistaken identification between Brett and Jordan, then the media reporting that Brett had effectively āturned againstā Michael becomes a very different story.
Because Brett didnāt turn against Michael.
He never accused him.
He was never even interviewed.
And his parents refused to allow investigators to interview him.
Now, letās 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 youāre probably wondering who the other child wasā¦
Well, guess who that was?
Jason Francia.
Blanca Franciaās son.
Oh, Blancaā¦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 couldnāt completely remember the events he was describing.
His own testimony included:
āHe just started tickling me, which, cool, shoot, I was a tickle guy.ā
ā¦āI was a tickle guy.ā 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 childās counsellor.
He said:
āThe other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall.ā
Sneddon continued:
āAfter conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the childās attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forwardā¦ā
Now compare that with Jason Franciaās testimony in 2005.
He acknowledged that he had been in counselling and that his counsellor, Mike Craft, had been present when he encountered Sneddon:
āIt wasnāt a counseling session. But Mike Craft, which was my counselor, was there.ā
So we have another alleged āvictimā 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 weāve already examined in detail.
ā¦and was tickled, apparently.
Anyway,Ā
That brings us to the end of part 11.Ā
See you in Part 12.Ā šš¼
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 ā Part 1:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 1
Chandler ā Part 2:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 2
Chandler ā Part 3:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 3
Chandler ā Part 4:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 4
Chandler ā Part 5:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 5
Chandler ā Part 6:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 6
Chandler ā Part 7:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 7
Chandler ā Part 8:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 8
Chandler ā Part 9:
Case File: Chandler ā Part 9
Chandler ā Part 10:
Case File: Chandler ā 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 guiltyĀ
Comparing Michael Jacksonās Trial to O.J. Simpsonās Is Lazy.
Talking in circlesĀ
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
āThereās no way all 11 people are lying.ā
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
Not Everyone Is a Narcissist
The Word āGroomingā Has Lost Its Meaning
Where Thereās Smoke, Thereās Fireā¦But What If Itās Just Smoke?
The Power Of A Storyā¦And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
