That story was in one of the tabloids about two years ago. They claimed they visited Pellicano in jail. The "he did worse to those kidse than molest them" was never put into a context and that's always suspicious, knowing how manipulative the media is. Especially because the same publication (I think it was the Daily Beast) the same day also published another article about Pellicano in which it was stated that he had incriminating evidence against MJ's accusers. And he does.
Pellicano was basically Bert Fields' man (Michael's lawyer at the time). When Howard Weitzman started to take things into the direction of a settlement and when Johnnie Cochran got on board and they headed towards a settlement Fields was fired and Pellicano followed him. It was because neither Fields or Pellicano agreed with the settlement. When Pellicano resigned he stated he firmly believed in Michael's innocence and his resignation was no indication of anything different.
Fields was fired on December 3, 1993, so that conversation that was quoted in these so called FBI files between Pellicano and Mitteager on December 10, 1993 is a convo that happened around or shortly after the time Pellicano stopped working for Michael. And still, what does he say?
"There is no other kid. Now that's the thing that nobody is paying attention to. They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There's no other kid." It goes fully against what they claim in the article.
There is another conversation on those Mitteager tapes between Pellicano and Mitteager which the Sunday People conveniently did not publish. That was recorded on September, 1994. Here it is:
Pellicano also talked about it in interviews how he interviewed Jordan back in 1993 and the kid told him nothing ever happened and that his dad only wanted money. Everything on those tapes actually exonerates Michael. That's why it's so shocking that this paper so manipulatively twisted it totally around.
Pellicano was also one of the main sources for Mary Fischer's "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" article. Month after he stopped working for Michael.
In Ray Chandler's book Pellicano is a major subject of their hate. They hate and bash him more than Michael. That's because he exposed them. There is no proof, because Dave Schwartz said he acted alone, but I'd think we have Pellicano to thank for those Evan-Schwartz phono convo tapes. Pellicano also recorded convos betwen him and Barry Rothman (Chandler's lawyers) which indicate it was all about the money for the Chandlers. From Ray Chandler's book I also have the impression Pellicano hated the Evan Chandler. Here is an article about how the Chandlers tried to extort Michael and how Pellicano dealt with them:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inst-Michael?p=3857944&viewfull=1#post3857944
If anything, Pellicano has incriminating evidence against the Chandlers, not Michael. Like it was also stated in that other Daily Beast article the same day.
IMO there is some manipulative editing and twisting of words and taking it out of context going on with that Pellicano quote. He might have as well as meant the settlement and expressed himself in a bit exaggerated fashion - since he was so dead against the settlement.
Mind you, these people are not trustable. Pellicano could turn on Michael if the money is right IMO. He, Barresi and their ilk made a living of digging up dirt on celebrities, or creating dirt on celebrities and then threatening them with selling the info or claims to the tabloid media if they do not pay them money. That's another reason not to think Pellicano has anything on Michael. If he did he had he would have sold it to the media long, long time ago.
That's not to say we should not be distrustful of him in the future. All of these people are not to be trusted. Pellicano is in jail and if he comes out he will need money and we all know what kind of claims the media pays for... I hope he won't turn on Michael but I would not be surprised if he does because everyone does that for money. But I'm not willing to accept yet that he turned based on that out of context quote in the Daily Beast. It could as well as be the manipulation of the publication.
