[Discussion] Michael Jackson Slandered By The Mirror / New assult Pg 38

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I mean these people didn't even testify!


Philip LeMarque did testify and he was not found credible. He was the guy who claimed he saw MJ put his hand in the pants of Macaulay Culkin (he's "Boy A" in this tabloid story). Which Mac refuted on the stand. The PI who interviewed the LeMarques was Paul Barresi and I'm pretty sure he is the one behind this. He is an opportunistic tabloid broker. According to LeMarque's testimony in 2005 it was actually Barresi who suggested to them that they could get $500,000 for their story if they said MJ's hands were in Michael's pants.

On the stand he never said anything about witnessing anything about any other boys.
 
agibaba;3857900 said:
where can i read more of this transcripts?

Which transcript? The Mitteager tapes? There is no full transcript. There are extracts. As for the Newt story. Friedman talked about it in 2005:

Former Protégé Vouches for *****

By Roger Friedman
Published April 07, 2005
FoxNews.com


No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson's alleged "prior acts" of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a "Holy Grail" for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

The tabloid offered the Newts' father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

Newt, a San Francisco "character" and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote "No good sucker" where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

"Maybe there aren't any other kids," a current Enquirer editor conceded.

I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he's a good-looking kid. He's half black and half Chinese.

Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland "victims." But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

"He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'" Newt said. "He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'"


Prior to Bobby's meeting with Mitteager, Bobby's father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being "hooked up" to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

"My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, 'Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on 'Oprah' in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we'll give you money,'" Newt said.

Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts' story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

The contract, written as a letter, says it's an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding "your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson's sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others."

Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

"Exactly! And he didn't care! He was like, 'Just say it and we'll give you the money.' And I was like, 'He [Jackson] never touched me!" Newt said. "He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, 'We'll give you this money,' even [if it's not true]. And they'd take it."

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer's reporter:

"He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said 'You know, it's going to be a huge scandal. You'll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You're going to be famous!' But to me, you'd be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn't do anything even close to trying to molest us."

Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts' story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

"I said all that," he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

Back in the mid-'80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.

After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.

Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.

"We would see Michael in passing. We didn't see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him," he said.

The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit "I Want You Back" at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson's house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

"I don't know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks," he said. "And he didn't try anything."

As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson "victim" Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday's testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

"Wade is straight as they come. He's getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either," Newt said.

He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

"You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming," he said.

And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn't bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

"They probably didn't like it. And this is their way of getting back at him," he said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Excellent points. Please make sure to re-post them below these articles so that more people see them.

I posted it so that people can use the info if they comment articles. Also check out the article I put in the resources thread about the LaMarques and Barresi.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I saw a post asking if we can send Estate information against Wade's claims. If you start an information only thread and post the information you want to send (and others check and make corrections) we can send it to the Online team. Make sure everything is sourced.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I saw a post asking if we can send Estate information against Wade's claims. If you start an information only thread and post the information you want to send (and others check and make corrections) we can send it to the Online team. Make sure everything is sourced.

I already started a resources thread here with information to questions raised by people during these conversations: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...aterial-about-the-allegations-against-Michael

I have much more that I can post there. It's not just Wade info, but the Estate can maybe use them too as they may have to challenge the other allegations as well if it goes to court. I will post more articles.

I think there may be some info though that should not be made public, but sent directly to the Estate to see if they can do something with it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Philip LeMarque did testify and he was not found credible. He was the guy who claimed he saw MJ put his hand in the pants of Macaulay Culkin (he's "Boy A" in this tabloid story). Which Mac refuted on the stand. The PI who interviewed the LeMarques was Paul Barresi and I'm pretty sure he is the one behind this. He is an opportunistic tabloid broker. According to LeMarque's testimony in 2005 it was actually Barresi who suggested to them that they could get $500,000 for their story if they said MJ's hands were in Michael's pants.

On the stand he never said anything about witnessing anything about any other boys.
Ah okay ur right I remember now! But I don't think the women testified?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ah okay ur right I remember now! But I don't think the women testified?

No, the wife did not. Just Philip LeMarque.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Since it was claimed in this tabloid article that Michael paid off boys and their families left and right to not to go to authorities or public, let's see what the Chandlers themselves say about it. I put an article in the Resources thread that is mainly based on what they wrote in their own book, so no one can say it's made up by fans or people biased for MJ! It's in their own book! They tell about how they wanted to get a pay-off from Michael from the beginning to not to go public. At one point they were prepared not to go public for $1 million. Michael REFUSED! That was the Chandlers' problem! That's why they went public! So how does it jive with this narrative of MJ routinely paying off boys and families and that's why they do not go public?

You can read the article here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inst-Michael?p=3857944&viewfull=1#post3857944
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If I were a lawyer for the estate and this went to court everyone would be testifying. Jordan Chandler, Lily Chandler, there mom the Arvizos all of them
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Someone tweeted about it to Brandon Adams:

Hey, there's a British tabloid today claiming again that MJ paid you off in 1992, can you deny it once again? @BrandonAdams22
Expand

Brandon Q Adams ?@BrandonAdams2 2 1m
@ smh... Lol.. Not me!

Brandon Q Adams ?@BrandonAdams2 2 46s @caramelicedtea they luv 2 tell lies about people... I guess it just comes with the territory.. #MJ #Greatness

https://twitter.com/BrandonAdams22

Though the tabloid did not mention Adams' name per se, but that $600,000 pay-off story is about him as revealed in Friedman's 2005 article. They also do not name the other boys by name ("Boy A" is clearly Macaulay) and they do that because then those boys could come out and refute them.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

TBH, I don't think the Estate could sue the tabloid because they're slandering a dead man, not the Estate itself. However, the FBI might be able to sue.

They're really trying hard aren't they? :doh: I hope one day people will grow tired and bored of reading the BS whether they believe it or not.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They name Howard Weitzman as the lawyer who arranged the deals he can sue
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

According to published reports, the couple actually first reached out to a supermarket tabloid in 1991 with their Jackson molestation tales, though no story was ever published. While this contact came before the 1993 tabloid feeding frenzy, Lemarque was peddling a Jackson story at the same time he was enmeshed in a personal bankruptcy proceeding. According to court records, Lemarque reported debts of $455,000, which he amassed through his operation of Bourbon Street, an Encino restaurant. His Chapter 7 action, filed in June 1987, would not be closed until November 1992, just months before Lemarque again put his story out to bid (the Lemarques were reportedly fired from their Neverland posts by Jackson aide Norma Staikos).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-das-sleazy-witness

Well at least we know what motivated the Lemarque's, money, they filed for bankruptcy and found a new venture capital, selling sordid stories about Michael Jackson!
 
I wish the media weren't so one-dimensional in their zeal to paint MJ a pedo. Maybe then they could see the real story in this, which is actually much bigger than what they desperately try to prove in vain for 20 years. It's the story of how the tabloid media corrupted these cases. How a lot of those allegations only exist because they paid for them (ie. Francias, other ex-employees). But of course the media won't expose itself.

I'm reading the document about Blanca Francia. To anyone who knows the story it's clear it's her:

Michael-Jackson-FBI-files-2011682.jpg




They say the detectives escorted someone to Blanca's house on March 2nd to help with English translation. You know who it was? A National Enquirer reporter!

During her testimony in 2005, Blanca Francia also admitted that in 1993, besides Hard Copy, she contemplated selling her story to the National Enquirer. One of the reporters who used to work for the Enquirer, Jim Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. When he died his tapes were inherited by private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi. The Mitteager tapes reportedly include a conversation in which it is claimed that in 1993, Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas befriended Blanca Francia and at the time allegedly helped transcribe Francia’s police interview. On the Mitteager tapes, Enquirer editor, David Perel tells Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: “the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.”

In April 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso claimed to have questioned detective Russ Birchim, who interviewed Francia in 1993, about Encinas' involvement. “Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles”, answered Birchim. "Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim refused to elaborate."

Source: Michael Jackson: The Making Of A Myth - Part 1
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Does anyone know if there's any truth to a rumour circulating that Pellicano's daughter works for AEG?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

According to published reports, the couple actually first reached out to a supermarket tabloid in 1991 with their Jackson molestation tales, though no story was ever published. While this contact came before the 1993 tabloid feeding frenzy, Lemarque was peddling a Jackson story at the same time he was enmeshed in a personal bankruptcy proceeding. According to court records, Lemarque reported debts of $455,000, which he amassed through his operation of Bourbon Street, an Encino restaurant. His Chapter 7 action, filed in June 1987, would not be closed until November 1992, just months before Lemarque again put his story out to bid (the Lemarques were reportedly fired from their Neverland posts by Jackson aide Norma Staikos).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-das-sleazy-witness

Well at least we know what motivated the Lemarque's, money, they filed for bankruptcy and found a new venture capital, selling sordid stories about Michael Jackson!


Even the very pro-prosecution Smoking Gun website doubted them...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

All the names thrown into those documents are just kids investigators and the media speculated about, not about whom anything was proven. Nothing definite, nothing that would prove anything. Yet, the paper acts in the article as if the "FBI" has strong evidence of pay-offs. All they say about pay-offs is that detectives believed people were paid off, just because no one would say they were molested. People must have the cognitive abilities of an ant if they read the article and then click on these documents and don't see how they do not prove what is alleged in the article.

As for the $600,000 pay-off claim. Though we know it's a bogus story about Brandon Adams, but even if we did not know that: that document proves nothing. It's someone claiming to have seen an agreement and quoting two alleged paragraphs from it which does not even say what the agreement was about. Just that none of the parties are allowed to talk about each other to the media or harass, intimidate or extort each other. It does not seem like something would be written in a real legal document, so it does seem like made-up to me. Did or does even a company exist with the name Michael Jackson Organization?

On the other hand it's reassuring that after 20 years of digging and digging and digging these are the only type of things they can come up with. The sad thing is though that people will believe it, just because they read it.
 
Last edited:
Michael Jackson Slimed By British Press: Here’s the REAL Story from 2005

I’ve been alerted to a story in the British press about Michael Jackson paying off 24 families of children he supposedly molested. Readers of this column must know that I have almost a PhD in Michael Jackson. The story is not true. It’s based on files left behind by a National Enquirer reporter, now dead, called Jim Mitteager. In 2005 I went through tons of Mitteager’s files, re-reporting them. A lot of it was just poppycock. Read this whole column I published back then. I did a lot of work on it. As devil’s advocate, I tried to find someone who would say they were molested by Michael Jackson. No one would because, I think, no one had been.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

u think in a hundred years the bastards will still be doing this to mj and his kids grandkids great grandkids. probably. such easily provern B.S. if the jackson gave a dam they would be sueing on behalf of the kids every arsehole that does this.makes u wonder if the press are doing this to keep pushing paris. they need a story and wipping boy/girl.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The actual content of the files they attach:

Document 1:

Someone faxing to Pellicano claiming there is an agreement in which MJ paid off a boy in 1992. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead this person just tells about it. According to Friedman's 2005 article the person telling this story was a woman by the name of Taylea Shea, some tabloid whore. According to Friedman's article she read this document to Mitteager (I'm guessing on phone?). So I guess this document is some kind of note of that conversation. Maybe something that Mitteager sent about it to Pellicano.

The document says that the writer (Mitteager?) was unable to obtain a copy of the alleged agreement. It seems like everything is just based on Shea's words, no one ever saw this alleged agreement.

The text does not seem like a legit agreement. Someone was trying hard to sound like a real legal document, but it's very much off compared to how such documents are usually constructed. Compare it to the settlement with the Chandlers in language and length and content! This one doesn't even say what the agreement is about! I don't think either Fields or Weitzman would produce such a sloppy settlement agreement. And how come no one ever saw this agreement if it's out there somewhere?

From Friedman's article we know the name blocked out is Brandon P. Richmond. No one knows about a Brandon Richmond in Michael's life ever and apparently tabloids at the time did not find anyone by this name in his life either, so they started to suggest it might be Brandon Adams, the boy who played in Moonwalker. Also because he's described as a actor/dancer. However, Brandon Adams denied he and his family have ever been paid off by MJ or that MJ ever molested him. And someone even tweeted him today to ask him and he still denies it. He always remembered MJ fondly.

At the end of the the document the writer says: "In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims" and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that. This is basically someone informing Pellicano about rumors about whom MJ allegedly paid off. And the Mirror acts in their article like it's FBI proven fact that he paid off these people?

The document is dated July 26, 1993. About a month before the Chandler allegations went public, but the Chandlers already tried to extort Michael behind the scenes and Pellicano was already hired to work on the case. Pellicano is an opportunist, so I can imagine he really did look into all these rumours and if he had found them to be true he would have tried to blackmail him with that info. He didn't find anything so he ended up in Michael's team at the time.

Document 2:

It is about Blanca Francia's claims. We have talked enough about them. Just because they are printed on one more paper it does not make them true. Also it's some info about her that I actually found interesting. Like:

"[She] told her friend that when the Jackson criminal case is over, she will sue Jackson for molesting her son."

So she was not eager to turn to police (the police contacted them, not the other way around) but she was already planning a lawsuit before the criminal was over?

"She got $20,000 from Hard Copy and supposedly regrets doing it because after her segment aired the cops put her undert wraps."

At the trial she admitted she also considered selling her story to the Enquirer, but she then did not. I wonder if this was the reason. And the reason why she regretted it because the Enquirer probably could have paid her more.

And then the part about detectives bringing someone to her interrogation - and we know from other sources that the person was a National Enquirer reporter!

The document also states: "Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to."

This is funny, because what it actually proves is that detectives did not find any other alleged victim. And that they were so biased that they refused to entertain the idea that this means that maybe there aren't other alleged victims. No it had to be because MJ paid them off. But this assumption is just based on belief, nothing else.

Document 3:

A conversation between Pellicano and Jim Mitteager. Again, what does it prove? Pellicano says in it that there is no other kid than Jordan: "They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid." So what does it prove about dozens of kids being paid off and silenced?

Document 4:

Paul Barresi's interview with the LeMarques. Again, what does it prove? Philip LeMarque was on the stand in 2005 and was utterly discredited. But this tabloid acts as if this story is some new revelation. The boy in their story is Macaulay Culkin, who refuted the LeMarques on the stand. About other boys he did not even testify.

And there are two notes about some tapes.

None of these proves anything.

Actually it's always reassuring to see that after 20 years of desperate digging and digging and digging this is all the media and investigators can come up with. No doubt they try to sensationalize and twist them and they try to claim they are something else then what they really are, but all people have to do is click on the actual documents and see if they really contain what the article claims they contain. Because they do not.

The article talks about how they contain proof that 24 (or 17 - depending which part of the article you read) boys have been paid-off by MJ. Where? There are a number of names blocked out, but I haven't seen any proof that boys have been paid off. Just names thrown in in the context that "sources" claim them to be victims and "sources" allege that they had been paid off.

We know a lot of those names, even if they are blocked out and we know that they said that they weren't molested. I strongly suspect that the "source" mentioned in the Blanca Francia document and that document about the alleged $600,000 agreement is Victor Gutierrez. He was the one throwing about all the boys names whom he has ever seen around MJ.
 
Last edited:
Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Mr. Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Mr. Jackson and others by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes.

This release consists of seven separate files, as described below:

62D-LA-162715: September 16, 1993 to August 8, 1994, 56 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/jackson_michael/62d-la-162715.PDF

This file involves a Los Angeles field office investigation opened to assist local authorities with a child molestation case in 1993. The case never went to trial.

Ninety-five pages were withheld to prevent duplication of material already released or to protect personal privacy, the identity of sources that provided information to the FBI in confidence, and internal rules and practices.

62D-L0-11779: September 2, 1993 to October 22, 1993, 9 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=jackson_michael/62d-lo-11779.PDF

This file was opened by the FBI’s legal attaché office in London when it assisted local authorities with a child molestation investigation in 1993.

Thirteen pages were withheld to protect personal privacy and the identity of sources that provided information to the FBI in confidence.

95A-HQ-1148159: October 30, 1995 to January 24, 1997, 8 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=jackson_michael/95a-hq-1148159.PDF

This file details a request made to the FBI to analyze a VHS videotape provided by the U.S. Customs Service as part of a child pornography investigation.

Some information was redacted to protect personal privacy. Four pages were referred to U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement for a release determination.

62D-LA-236081: January 15, 2004 to April 27, 2004, 41 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=jackson_michael/62d-la-236081.PDF

Our Los Angeles field office opened this file when it was asked by local authorities to provide forensic computer analysis assistance in a child molestation investigation in 2004. The examination of evidence in this case was conducted by the FBI’s Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART). Mr. Jackson was ultimately acquitted of these charges in a California court.

One hundred and twenty-three pages were withheld to protect personal privacy, the identity of sources that provided information to the FBI in confidence, and internal rules and practices or to prevent the disclosure of techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.

305B-LA-239205: September 14, 2004 to December 9, 2004, 5 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=jackson_michael/305b-la-239204.PDF

This Los Angeles field office file was opened in 2004 to investigate child molestation allegations. Due to lack of witness cooperation, the case was closed.

252B-IR-6808: March 1, 2004 to June 29, 2005, 18 pages
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=jackson_michael/252b-ir-6808.PDF

This file involves a request made of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group to provide advice and assistance to local authorities concerning a child molestation investigation in 2004.
Some information was redacted to protect personal privacy and internal rules and practices.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I even remember Sneddon begging publicly for more victims to come forward and never appeared. That's why that article is a complete bullshit.
Exactly! Not only did he set up a HOTLINE, he looked under every nook and cranny trying to find some dirt on MJ.

Then there was Diane Dimond conducting her own search for dirt and all she could come up with was some dirty drawers MJ wore while touring with his brothers back in the day.

Remember that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why is the media so determined in destroying MJ's legacy? A lot of people say that the media will lie/twist stories to make a story seem more ''juicy'' so that way more people will pay attention and then they'll make more money but when it comes to MJ i think this goes beyond making money. I really do believe that the media has a very strong hatred for MJ and they will do anything to bring him down.

and the media as been against MJ since the Bad era. He was called a freak and W*** J*** back in those days. Many people think that the media turned on MJ after the false allegations in 93 but that's not true. Those false allegations was just the icing on the cake for them
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Sunday, 30 June 2013

The Mirror, the People, and the settlement that never was...



It's a funny thing. Ever since the high-profile Michael Jackson death trial started going pear-shaped for promoter AEG Live, a lot of newspapers which carry prominent and lucrative advertising for its events have become more intent on smearing Michael Jackson than ever.

Leading the way has been The Mirror in the UK. A few weeks ago, contemporaneous emails presented at trial showed that AEG boss Randy Phillips had 'slapped' Michael Jackson because he was scared about attending a press conference. Slapped him and screamed at him 'so loud the walls shook'.

The shocking revelation was widely ignored by the press. Several days after the evidence was heard in open court, only one outlet had summoned the courage to publish the evidence. AP did not include the testimony in its daily missive from the courtroom. The wire's reporter claimed on twitter he had been out of the courtroom sending emails when the testimony occurred.

It was only when fans started making noise about the 'cover-up' on sites like Twitter that other media companies grudgingly published the comments. AEG-sponsored newspapers like the Mirror, though, bizarrely tried to paint Michael Jackson as the bad guy. According to the first line of the Mirror's story, Jackson 'needed to be slapped'. Interestingly, the Mirror was a lot faster to publish a story last year accusing Janet Jackson of slapping a minor. A story which turned out to be a lie.

This weekend - days after Jackson's son took the stand and testified that he saw Phillips in his home while his father was not there, behaving 'aggressively' towards Jackson's doctor - the Mirror's Sunday edition, called the People, is at it again. It has published a highly misleading story about some 'FBI files' which allegedly show Michael Jackson was witnessed molesting children by multiple Neverland employees. The 'FBI files' also detail a supposed settlement with a young accuser in 1992 - before the Jordy Chandler case.

In reality, the story is a nonsense; a birds nest of mangled and misstated accusations which are neither 'new' nor 'exclusive', despite the People's repeated claims that they are. In fact, the documents are not 'FBI files' at all. This is a flat-out lie. Moreover, the claims have all been in the public domain for a very long time, some having been discredited two decades ago.

Of course, most readers won't bother to fact-check the story. Why would they? The newspaper is supposed to do that before publishing it. Sadly, it seems other media outlets can't be bothered either. Britain's Mail newspaper has already rehashed the story, evidently making no attempt to investigate its veracity before doing so.

I could go into a whole lot of detail about the claims made by the People - and the various lazy journalists who will copy and paste its story hundreds, or perhaps thousands of times onto their own websites and into their own newspapers in the coming days. But what is the point? The info is already in the public domain.

Those who hate Jackson will adopt the People's story as evidence for their case. Those with an interest in hearing both sides of Jackson's case will already know that these claims were debunked a long time ago. Nobody else will even bother to research the story. The People's readers buy the newspaper because they like and trust it. They, as intended, will believe this story and will not question it.

Briefly, however, for the record:

1) The 'FBI files' are not FBI files. They are transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist who paid his sources - including one who turned out not to exist.They were acquired by a PI who worked for Jackson's defence team. A decade later, he was prosecuted for tapping phones. The FBI seized all of his files, of which these tabloid interviews formed a miniscule part.

2) The allegations of Jackson being caught by multiple employees do not, as the People infers, come from a host of different documents. They all come from one document - a transcript of an interview with a couple called the LeMarques, who worked at Neverland in the late 80s and early 90s. The People intentionally does not state that all of these uncorroborated accusations come from just one of the documents, instead purposely misleading readers and suggesting that they're taken from a cache of evidence.

The LeMarques never contacted police about the abuse they claimed to have witnessed, instead opting to negotiate deals with tabloid newspapers - including the Mirror. Their claims were investigated by cops probing Jackson, who found the couple had agreed to add increasingly graphic details to their interviews for more and more money. Investigators concluded in the 90s that the pair had no credibility and possessed no evidence of any genuine abuse. They were called on out of desperation to testify in Jackson's 2005 trial after prosecutors watched their case begin to disintegrate, but were destroyed under cross-examination. Jurors rejected their testimony and acquitted Jackson, unanimously.

3) The supposed 'settlement' in 1992 was detailed to a tabloid reporter, for money, by a female source who claimed to work for Jordan Chandler's legal firm. She never showed the reporter a document - she simply 'read it out' over the phone. A police investigation into the claim found that the boy named in the settlement did not exist, there was no record of any settlement ever being paid, and the female source had never worked for the legal firm and in fact did not exist. She was never heard of again.

This leaves one element of the People's story standing; that Jackson 'allegedly' - what a convenient little word that is - paid $35million to two-dozen young accusers. The newspaper presents no evidence to corroborate this claim. Just a note in the tabloid reporter's documents, which the People intentionally misrepresents as an 'FBI file'.

Contrary to the People's claim, investigators knew about and investigated these tapes as part of their probe into Jackson in 2003/4, in which they were assisted by the FBI. Despite all of their resources, neither the Californian police nor the FBI was ever able to locate any evidence that any child besides Jordan Chandler or Jason Francia ever received a settlement.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-mirror-people-and-settlement-that.html
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The actual content of the files they attach:

Document 1:

Someone faxing to Pellicano claiming there is an agreement in which MJ paid off a boy in 1992. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead this person just tells about it. According to Friedman's 2005 article the person telling this story was a woman by the name of Taylea Shea, some tabloid whore. According to Friedman's article she read this document to Mitteager (I'm guessing on phone?). So I guess this document is some kind of note of that conversation. Maybe something that Mitteager sent about it to Pellicano.

The document says that the writer (Mitteager?) was unable to obtain a copy of the alleged agreement. It seems like everything is just based on Shea's words, no one ever saw this alleged agreement.

The text does not seem like a legit agreement. Someone was trying hard to sound like a real legal document, but it's very much off compared to how such documents are usually constructed. Compare it to the settlement with the Chandlers in language and length and content! This one doesn't even say what the agreement is about! I don't think either Fields or Weitzman would produce such a sloppy settlement agreement. And how come no one ever saw this agreement if it's out there somewhere?

From Friedman's article we know the name blocked out is Brandon P. Richmond. No one knows about a Brandon Richmond in Michael's life ever and apparently tabloids at the time did not find anyone by this name in his life either, so they started to suggest it might be Brandon Adams, the boy who played in Moonwalker. Also because he's described as a actor/dancer. However, Brandon Adams denied he and his family have ever been paid off by MJ or that MJ ever molested him. And someone even tweeted him today to ask him and he still denies it. He always remembered MJ fondly.

At the end of the the document the writer says: "In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims" and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that. This is basically someone informing Pellicano about rumors about whom MJ allegedly paid off. And the Mirror acts in their article like it's FBI proven fact that he paid off these people?

The document is dated July 26, 1993. About a month before the Chandler allegations went public, but the Chandlers already tried to extort Michael behind the scenes and Pellicano was already hired to work on the case. Pellicano is an opportunist, so I can imagine he really did look into all these rumours and if he had found them to be true he would have tried to blackmail him with that info. He didn't find anything so he ended up in Michael's team at the time.

Document 2:

It is about Blanca Francia's claims. We have talked enough about them. Just because they are printed on one more paper it does not make them true. Also it's some info about her that I actually found interesting. Like:



So she was not eager to turn to police (the police contacted them, not the other way around) but she was already planning a lawsuit before the criminal was over?



At the trial she admitted she also considered selling her story to the Enquirer, but she then did not. I wonder if this was the reason. And the reason why she regretted it because the Enquirer probably could have paid her more.

And then the part about detectives bringing someone to her interrogation - and we know from other sources that the person was a National Enquirer reporter!

The document also states: "Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to."

This is funny, because what it actually proves is that detectives did not find any other alleged victim. And that they were so biased that they refused to entertain the idea that this means that maybe there aren't other alleged victims. No it had to be because MJ paid them off. But this assumption is just based on belief, nothing else.

Document 3:

A conversation between Pellicano and Jim Mitteager. Again, what does it prove? Pellicano says in it that there is no other kid than Jordan: "They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid." So what does it prove about dozens of kids being paid off and silenced?

Document 4:

Paul Barresi's interview with the LeMarques. Again, what does it prove? Philip LeMarque was on the stand in 2005 and was utterly discredited. But this tabloid acts as if this story is some new revelation. The boy in their story is Macaulay Culkin, who refuted the LeMarques on the stand. About other boys he did not even testify.

And there are two notes about some tapes.

None of these proves anything.

Actually it's always reassuring to see that after 20 years of desperate digging and digging and digging this is all the media and investigators can come up with. No doubt they try to sensationalize and twist them and they try to claim they are something else then what they really are, but all people have to do is click on the actual documents and see if they really contain what the article claims they contain. Because they do not.

The article talks about how they contain proof that 24 (or 17 - depending which part of the article you read) boys have been paid-off by MJ. Where? There are a number of names blocked out, but I haven't seen any proof that boys have been paid off. Just names thrown in in the context that "sources" claim them to be victims and "sources" allege that they had been paid off.

We know a lot of those names, even if they are blocked out and we know that they said that they weren't molested. I strongly suspect that the "source" mentioned in the Blanca Francia document and that document about the alleged $600,000 agreement is Victor Gutierrez. He was the one throwing about all the boys names whom he has ever seen around MJ.

Friedman on doc 2 in 2005

http://site2.mjeol.com/mj-news/did-jacksons-maid-meet-cops-with-a-reporter-fox.html
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why is the media so determined in destroying MJ's legacy? A lot of people say that the media will lie/twist stories to make a story seem more ''juicy'' so that way more people will pay attention and then they'll make more money but when it comes to MJ i think this goes beyond making money. I really do believe that the media has a very strong hatred for MJ and they will do anything to bring him down.

and the media as been against MJ since the Bad era. He was called a freak and W*** J*** back in those days. Many people think that the media turned on MJ after the false allegations in 93 but that's not true. Those false allegations was just the icing on the cake for them

There certainly seems to be a deliberate and despicable agenda going on right now. But there are some in the media who are debunking this right now. Namely, Roger Friedman. We will see how the mainstream media (like CNN) treat this story. I really hope they have enough sense not to cut and paste.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This sucks. Are these actually FBI files or pelicano files? Just curious. I thought the FBI release the files 6 months after MJ passed away. The headlines are disturbing for sure and that is what everyone will see. The claim that MJ did worse things than abuse what could that actually be murder? I think abuse to a child is the worst possible crime in the world
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The fbi files were released after mj died and they show there was no evidence. the media are blatently lieing.

i agree with the above poster. this is more than typical media reporting. they will never stop. there is a huge agenda to destroy mj his kids etc
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The claim that MJ did worse things than abuse what could that actually be murder?

Anthony Pellican is in jail since 2002. About two years ago a tabloid supposedly contacted him in jail (was it the Daily Mail?) and they were the ones who quoted him saying that "MJ did worse to those kids than molest them". No context was given and I actually have some doubts it was even said at all or that putting in context it would sound that bad as it seems to sound this way. My doubts stem from the fact that on the same day the same website published another article about Pellicano in which it was stated that Pellicano has incriminating evidence about MJ's accusers!

Pellicano was very much against the settlement. He was convinced of Michael's innocence and wanted the whole thing to go to court and beat the Chandlers there. He seemed to despise the Chandlers with passion. So I wonder if this sentence, if he said it at all, was said in some context where he expressed his disagreement about the settlement and said (with a bit of exaggeration) that it's the worst MJ could do to those kids - ie. letting their parents get away with extortion. Really I always find it suspicious when there is no context given to something. Pellicano sure did not say that just out of the blue. And we all know how manipulative the media is.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

All sorts of people are sending out tweets believing that story. It's awful.
 
Back
Top