M.O.N.E.Y: The Extortion of Michael Jackson Pt. 3

Part three of M.O.N.E.Y., once again brought to you by Reflections on the Dance, begins with Coming Out of the Woodwork and ends at The Body Search.

 

Michael Jackson at Neverland

Coming Out of the Woodwork
 
 
 

 

In an effort to feed the media’s insatiable appetite for a story, the Quindoys and LeMarques, former domestic workers at Neverland, came forward.

“Just three days after the Jackson story broke, ABC’s Primetime sent a freelance producer to Manila to talk to the Quindoys . . . But the network was offering only star power; a chat with Diane Sawyer . . . For this kind of story, money talks.”[i]  According to Diane Dimond, the “Quindoys at first wanted $900,000.  Where they got that figure I have no idea.  It came down to half a million [dollars].”  The Quindoys accepted an offer from the News of the World and sat down for an interview with Stuart White.  However, after a few days with the Quindoys, News of the World pulled Mr. White from the story and told him to return to his London office.  News of the World did not pay the Quindoys, but their story headlined the paper’s cover.  As it turned out, just three years before the Chandler story broke, the Quindoys and The Sun had entered into a contractual agreement where, for $25,000, the Quindoys would provides exclusives about Michael’s life at Neverland.  The Sun and News of the World were both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Story [e.a.]. 

According to Allan Hall of the Sun, the original interviewer:

The Sun drew up a contract for $25,000 and I spent some time with them in Los Angeles doing the Life and Times with Michael Jackson . . .  [They] didn’t have a bad word to say about the guy, not one bad thing . . .  Nothing, absolutely nothing.  That he was just a kind man with children.    They had signed a contract to say they would tell the full and frank account of their lives and clearly, from what later transpired they didn’t, if what they are telling right now is the truth [e.a.]. 

 

They are two people that I would not trust at all.   And I think that they have really gone to town to do Michael Jackson down for the mighty dollar.   Now, they see money being offered around again and they want some more [e.a.]. 

According to Stuart White, “the Quindoys were not, unfortunately, acting totally in good faith.”  In fact, the Quindoys appeared on Geraldo on July 24, 1992 praising him

Another couple, Phillippe and Stella LeMarques also came forward.  They had worked for Michael for ten months but ceased that relationship in 1991.[ii]  However, rather than going directly to media outlets with their tales of abuse to Macaulay Culkin, they retained former porn star, Paul Barresi to act as an agent or go-between to sell their story.  Mr. Barresi’s only interest was in the percentage he would recover for the sale of the story.[iii] 

Mr. Barresi eventually recorded the LeMarques and sold their story for $15,000.  He turned the tape over to the District Attorney while cameras from the Globe rolled.  He later said, “[t]he first time I heard the story about Jackson, his hand was outside of the kid’s pants.  They were asking $100,000.  As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants, so c’mon” [e.a.].[iv] 

On September 21, 1993, officers from the LAPD and Santa Barbara sheriff’s office went to Manila, Philippines to interview former domestic workers Mariano Quindoy and his wife Faye Quindoy regarding claims of child molestation.  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) files related to Michael Jackson, the FBI acted as a liaison during this meeting.  The police interviewed the Quindoys on September 22nd and 23rd.   Although originally scheduled to leave on Saturday September 25, 1993, they returned to Los Angeles on the morning of September 24, 1993.[v] 

The Quindoys left Neverland due to disagreements with co-workers and a pay dispute.[vi]  They claimed that Michael owed them over $283,000 in “overtime” and had tried to get the money from Michael.  When he would not pay, they claimed to have seen acts of fondling [e.a.].  Naturally, they failed to report any of this to the police at any time prior to the Chandler story breaking the news.  The Quindoys sold their story to the tabloids and never gave sworn testimony [e.a.].

The FBI files include an inquiry about an alleged prior report that Michael had molested two Mexican boys.  However, that inquiry came from an unnamed source and, after a search by the FBI, reports or documents related to the alleged investigation could not be located.[vii]  Lending to the dubious nature of the report, the unnamed source was writing a book about the allegations and could have been on a fishing expedition to determine what type of information the FBI had.   

There was also a report by a passenger who claimed to have observed Michael being overly protective of a young cousin in the FBI files.  This is significant because as of the time of this particular report, 1992, the FBI was investigating threats against Mr. Jackson by a Janet Jackson fan/stalker.[viii]  The ‘witness’ claimed to have heard strange sounds coming from an adjacent room.  While it is highly unlikely that she would have been able to hear anything, or for that matter identify the actual parties involved, the fact is, the FBI looked into this claim and determined that it had no merit [e.a.].

Despite assisting the District Attorney, as early as September 8, 1993, the FBI declined to pursue federal claims against Michael Jackson under the Mann Act.[ix] 

Congress, as a means to address prostitution and immorality in general, enacted the Mann Act.  It has been used to punish the transportation of women across state lines for sexual purposes.  Since Jordie had traveled across state lines with Michael, prosecution under the Mann Act would have been viable, had there been any immoral conduct.  The authorities may have suggested that the FBI prosecute under the Mann Act due to allegations in the Abrams letter.  According to Mathis Abrams’ letter, “the minor is in danger whether the relationship continues or ends…These circumstances create the possibility that there exists negligence towards the child…even as far as prostitution.”[x]  In fact, Jordie Chandler claimed that acts of molestation occurred in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Monaco.  Yet none of the authorities in any of those jurisdictions investigated or prosecuted him and the FBI declined to prosecute under the Mann Act [e.a.].

This is particularly relevant when Hard Copy paid Michael Jackson’s former security guards $100,000 for their televised story that they “smuggled” boys for Michael Jackson.[xi]  Certainly child trafficking is a federal and state offense and the security guards would have been prosecuted as criminals [e.a.].

Police also traveled on taxpayer dollars to Australia to question Michael’s friend Brett Barnes for a second time.  Although Barnes said he had slept in the same bed as Michael, he denied that anything untoward occurred.[xii]  

The FBI also assisted the London Bureau office in looking into tabloid reports of disc jockey, Terry George, who purportedly had several long distance telephone conversations with Michael Jackson in 1983.  During one such telephone conversation, he claimed that Michael masturbated while on the phone.  Neither the FBI, under authority of the 1984 Telecommunications Act, or authorities in England pursued the claim.[xiii]  After their son made several long distance phone calls to Michael Jackson, Mr. George’s parents disconnected their phone.  While Mr. George stands by his tabloid story, he is an avowed fan and never considered himself a “victim.”  He did not report the story until 1993 after the Chandler story broke.

Meanwhile, Michael remained on tour promoting the Dangerous album.  His final performance was on November 11, 1993, in Mexico City; at that time, Elizabeth Taylor and her husband Larry Fortensky joined him.  On November 12, 1993, Michael announced that he was seeking treatment for an addiction to painkillers.  Pepsi Co. severed its relationship with Michael on November 14, 1993; Pepsi claimed that the relationship was severed because Michael’s tour had ended.[xiv]  Disney continued its support of Michael, noting that he was still a hot commodity in November 1993.[xv]

Michael’s fans continued their support.  Biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli was quoted saying, “[c]ertainly if the worst-case scenario happens and he’s found guilty of any of these ridiculous charges, it would be the end of his recording career.  But, if it’s not true, I have a sense that his fans, who are such an incredibly loyal bunch of people, will still support him.  I also have a feeling that this may even bring a new artistic depth to his music that would command respect from critics that he has hoped for.”[xvi]

The Body Search

As early as October 1993, there was talk of obtaining a warrant for a strip search.[xvii]  According to USA Today, on November 24, 1993 Larry Feldman said he wanted a doctor “to examine [Michael Jackson],” presumably to corroborate the boy’s descriptions of Jackson’s genitalia.[xviii]  Since no acts of penetration were alleged, this was the only way to substantiate the boy’s claims. 

In October 1993, while the Jacksons were in Arizona attending the funeral of Joseph Jackson’s father, the police raided the Hayvenhurst home located in Encino.[xix]  They seized a videotape labeled “Chicks” and were certain that this was evidence of child pornography.  Upon returning to their office, the police confirmed that the video contained chicks, as in fowl.[xx]

In November, the District Attorney was able to obtain a search warrant allowing Michael Jackson to be photographed in the nude to determine whether descriptions of Michael’s penis and buttocks area matched descriptions provided by Jordie.  The Smoking Gun claimed that it had an affidavit by a police officer describing Jordie’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis.[xxi]  There are extensive legal technicalities of that form of double hearsay, but suffice it to say that the affidavit indicated that Jordie’s description included that Michael was circumcised.  Jordie also provided details about discolorations on Michael’s penis and buttocks area, presumably the result of his vitiligo.  In addition to the affidavit, Jordie drew a picture of what he claimed to be Michael’s genitalia.[xxii]  The drawing expressly stated, “Michael is circumcised” [e.a.].[xxiii]  

The body search took place on December 20, 1993.  Prior to the body search, Jackson’s attorneys were not given a copy of the affidavit indicating the reason for “probable cause.”  At the time of the search, Michael’s attorney Howard Weitzman requested a copy of the affidavit.  It has been reported that in response to the request, Detective Russ Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, stated, “I don’t think so.”[xxiv]  Weitzman laughed and said, “[i]t never hurts to try.”[xxv]

Michael Jackson requested that everyone leave the room except his physician, Dr. Arnold Klein; his personal photographer, Louis Swayne; Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s office photographer; and the DA’s dermatologist, Dr. Richard Strick.

The first aspect of the body examination that contradicted Jordie’s descriptive affidavit and drawing was the issue of whether Michael Jackson was circumcised.  Evan Chandler was Jewish and his son was 13 years old when the affidavit and drawing were created.  It is possible that with both Evan and Jordie having been circumcised themselves, Evan had not thought of the possibility that a poor, black child born in Indiana in 1958 would not have been circumcised.  In either case, it is simply not possible that someone who provided a detailed affidavit and drawing in which circumcision is expressly identified, would have missed so critical a fact if he had actually seen Michael Jackson’s penis.  However, as confirmed during the body search and noted by Dr. Strick, Michael Jackson was not circumcised. This detail is also corroborated in the recently released autopsy report on Michael Jackson [e.a.].[xxvi]

In addition, it is claimed that Jordie described a spot present on an area just under Michael’s penis. Sergeant Spiegel was a police photographer who had read the affidavit and was familiar with the descriptions.  Therefore, he asked that Michael re-arrange his anatomy so that he could view the area in question.  Sergeant Spiegel claims that the mark was present.  Interestingly, while the photographer himself claimed that the mark was present, that same photographer neglected to take a single photograph or video of the alleged mark.  Sergeant Spiegel—a police photographer presumably familiar with what would be required when photographing a body search—explained his inability to capture the spot because he did not have assistants to help him hold flash and close-up photography equipment. One wonders why Sergeant Spiegel and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s office would not have had all the resources needed on hand, since all of them had presumably read the affidavit and knew that such a spot would need to be photographed.  However, the affidavit is the only evidence that Jordie’s description was remotely accurate [e.a.].

It is important to rebut the later claims of policemen that Michael Jackson may have bleached his skin in an attempt to remove any conspicuous markings. However, as described above, prior to the viewing, the policemen and District Attorney’s office did not provide Michael Jackson or his attorneys with Jordie Chandler’s affidavit or drawing of what he described to be Michael Jackson’s penis.[xxvii]  In addition, he certainly did not re-grow a foreskin.  Of course, had the discolored spot existed where Jordie said it would be (just under the penis), how could Jordie have seen it, while at the same time missing the very obvious fact of the lack of a circumcision?

It is also significant to note that Jordie claims that the first sexual act occurred in Morocco after he and Michael took a bath together.  Certainly, there was ample opportunity to make an accurate description [e.a.].

The media perpetuated the erroneous belief that Jordie Chandler accurately described Michael’s genitalia by printing and reporting that the examining physicians stated that the description bore “striking similarities” but was not a definitive match.  Of course, there is a gaping hole in that statement [e.a.].

In October 2009, Geraldo Rivera interviewed Dr. Strick who said, “the genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the description and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described.”[xxviii]   There were only two doctors in the room, Dr. Strick and Dr. Arnold Klein; Dr. Strick was there to make the determination on behalf of the sheriff’s office.  The fact that Dr. Strick admitted that he was told that there was a match confirmed that he did not make the determination and contradicted media reports that he had made such a determination.  The question remains: who determined that there was a similarity [e.a.]?

In 2005, the answer to that question was Tom Sneddon.  In an attempt to introduce the photographs taken from the December 20, 1993, body search into the 2005 trial in order to demonstrate that Michael was not shy, Mr. Sneddon signed an attorney affirmation indicating that he observed Jordie Chandler’s affidavit and drawing of Michael’s erect penis, and determined that it was a match with the subsequently taken photographs.[xxix]  It is significant to note that the photographs were to be introduced solely on the issue of whether Michael’s penis was blemished, not whether the original description was accurate.  However, Judge Melville, in an unusual ruling in favor of the defense in this case, denied admission of the photographs, noting that they would be too prejudicial given the defense’s inability to cross-examine Jordie Chandler who refused to testify.[xxx]

In the 1995 Prime Time Live interview with Diane Sawyer Michael denied that the description matched and Lisa Marie said that when the description did not match, the newspapers only printed a tiny article detailing that fact. 

JACKSON: There was nothing that matched me to those charges…Nothing.

SAWYER: So when we heard there was a marking of some kind?

JACKSON: No marking.

SAWYER: No marking?

JACKSON: No. Why am I still here then?

PRESLEY: You’re not going to ask me about that are you? About the markings?

SAWYER: You can volunteer.

PRESLEY: No. The point is when that finally got concluded that there was no matchup, then it was printed this big [she makes the tiny sign with two fingers] as opposed to how big it was, what the matchup was supposed to be. 

Diane Sawyer ignored their statements completely (This theme of “respected” jounalists ignoring the truth and spinning lies is one all to sickening and familiar: Bashir, Dimond, Halperin, Tarraborelli).[xxxi] 

 The link to that USA Today article Lisa is referring to. http://site2.mjeol.com/pdf/important-article/photos-may-contradict-michael-s-accuser-1994.pdf

On December 22, 1993, Michael issued a statement declaring his innocence.  In that statement he advised the public that he had in fact undergone a body search during which photographs were taken of his buttocks and penis.

As of January 2, 1994, the District Attorney’s office had spent two million dollars investigating the child molestation claims,[xxxii] a heretofore unheard of use of state funds. Keep in mind that this money was spent over a five-month period, which means more than $400,000 per month was spent on this investigation alone.  Did the taxpayers of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara county know this was how their tax dollars were being used? (Maybe if they knew, they’d demand an investigation of Sneddon and his team’s evil intentions before trying to demonize Michael again in 2003).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s