Another parasite has emerged from the woodwork surrounding Michael Jackson. A certain Geraldine Hughes has popped up claiming that the Chandler case 10 years ago was an extortion attempt and that MJ was “framed”.

Hughes — who was fired by Rothman after about six months — claimed the plan to involve Jackson in the Chandlers’ divorce was an “elaborate” one. “You’ve got to see the whole plan,” she said. She claimed, for example, that almost none of the Chandler case was recorded, that very little correspondence exists and that most everything transpired behind closed doors with no secretary present to take notes.

Mind you, she was a low-level flunky working for the prosecuting attorney’s office — a legal secretary who was only peripherally involved in the case itself. The fact that she was fired after 6 months tells you something, as does the fact that she apparently kept a “daily annotated calendar”. How convenient. Rothman, however, has a different viewpoint:

Rothman, in a telephone call, confirmed for me that Hughes did work for him at one time, but that “she was privy to nothing in our office. She may also be in violation of attorney-client privilege,” he said, adding that he would read her book when it came out in January and that he wished her luck with it. As for the closed-door meetings, he agreed that the Chandler case did have little correspondence in the file. “It was mostly meetings,” he said. “And I take my own notes, I never have a secretary do it.”

I don’t have to be a fly on the wall to conclude that Hughes is full of shit.

Oh, and she has a book coming out in January, 2004, about the entire thing. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

73 Responses to “Geraldine’s 15 Minutes”
  1. Geraldine Hughes says:

    The Bible clearly says, “every man will give account for the words that comes out of his mouth.” I also need to remind you that it is embedded in the 10 Commandments that “Thou shall not bear false witnesses.” The facts that I present in my book, “Redemption,” are facts that will prove itself. Facts that were available to anyone seeking the real truth concerning this case. I believe you too will eat your words and be held accountable for them before God when you find out what really happened in this case. God bless you and I will pray for your redemption too.

  2. Anne Haight says:

    1. She noticed this blog entry, which I think proves at least a modicum of self-aggrandizement since this blog is not exactly CNN in terms of mainstream visibility.

    2. Book plug.

    3. Attempt to claim moral superiority by alluding to religion.

    4. Failure to introduce any additional evidence that might bolster her original claims.

    I rest my case. 🙂

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’m very sorry that you fail to understand that there really is a God and He is not going to let anyone touch those that does his bid. It’s not religious superiority, it is simply the commandment of love that we are all commended to obey. You too will eat your words, when you see what really happened in this case. Everything I have to say about this case is in my book “Redemption.” I hope you too can find it in your heart to buy and read. God bless you once again.

  4. Anne Haight says:

    1. Book plug

    2. Continued failure to introduce any additional information.

    3. A desire to see me “eat my words” in spite of the aforementioned commandment of love.

    4. More religious condescension.

    Find it in my heart to buy and read your book? Oh man. I can’t make this stuff up.

    So God has spoken to you personally, Geraldine? Or do you consider His commands to be whatever you pick and choose out of the Bible? Or is there a particular clergyman to whom you look for guidance on such weighty matters as exposing the guilt of Michael Jackson?

    Your “evidence” such as it may be, is hardly going to be significant next to the investigation of, oh, professional law enforcement. I’m sure if you have anything useful to say, you will be subpoenaed.

    I’ll see if I can pencil you in for an afternoon to review this book of yours (which I intend to borrow from the public library rather than enriching you), but frankly I have other things I’d rather do, such as play Jedi Knight II: Outcast, install GFCI outlets in my kitchen, and read books that actually matter, such as those by Thomas Sowell.

    You are, no doubt, eagerly awaiting either the vast proceeds from the sale of your book, or an offer of money from somebody discussed in it to keep your mouth shut.

    The observant reader may detect a hint of sarcasm in my words here. I merely have little patience with people who tell me (sometimes in so many words) that they are invulnerable to harm because they are doing God’s will, and that I’m going to go to Hell for disagreeing with them.

    As to my own beliefs, I think it would be evil of me to allow people like Geraldine to perpetrate such crass trash in the world without standing up and calling them on it. Humanity does not need more egotistical, self-important busybodies trying to make themselves feel good by pointing out the failings of others.

    And Geraldine, if what you claim in your book is indeed true, you’d better have something better to back it up with than just your word. Because if your word is all you have, you’d better hope your God is merciful when He judges you.

  5. Geraldine says:

    I often wondered what kind of people that when Christ came in the name of love, they found enough false charges against him to crucify him. Then I wondered what type of people (or person) could kill Dr. Martin Lurther King who came in the name of peace. There seems to be a Spirit in this universe that detests anyone that comes in the name of peace and love. If you want to speak facts and not Spiritually, its a fact that there were four police agencies; Santa Barbara Sheriff, Santa Barbara L.A.P.D.; Los Angeles Sheriff; Los Angeles L.A.P.D. that sought after one piece of evidence to corroborate the 13 year old’s accusation of molestation, and none could be found. Its a fact that 400 witnesses were interviewed, TWO Grand Juries were impaneled, and millions of dollars were spent to find one piece of corroborating evidence to indict Michael Jackson of the 1993 child molestation allegation. It is also a fact that child molesters do not strike just one child in their lifetime by the age 35. It is a sickness, disease that has a string of victims by this age. It is also a fact, according to California law, that a settlement does not erase a criminal investigation. These all are not allegations. These are all facts. Maybe when my book comes out, you need to buy your own copy to brush up on these facts and not your fictions.

  6. Anne Haight says:

    Annnnnddddd… *drum roll*

    …yes, we have another book plug!

    So you think I should use your book as the source for my facts on this matter? I’m trying to think of a witty response to that, but frankly I’m too amazed.

    Would you care to cite a source on any of these “facts”?

    Let’s see, you’ve compared me to Pontius Pilate and Sirhan Sirhan in the same paragraph. Why don’t you just include Judas, Hitler, and Pol Pot and we can be done?

    It is also a fact that child molesters do not strike just one child in their lifetime by the age 35.

    I think that’s an over-generalization, although you are correct that pedophilia is incurable and has a high recidivism rate. I’m not defending Michael Jackson by any means. I simply doubt that your motives are altruistic.

  7. Geraldine Hughes says:

    Since you did not address the other facts that I mentioned, let me bring this home and make it personal to you. How would you feel if you loved children all your life, helping hundreds of thousands financially, spent millions on charities, schools, books, toys, while touring went to hospitals to visit dying children, and someone trying to get money to make a movie charged you with molesting a child after their attempt to blackmail you didn’t work? How would you feel if you never hurt a fly, let alone a child and someone like yourself comes along just talking off the top of their head? If you do read my book, please go to the chapter titled “A Ram In The Bush.” In that chapter I try to explain why I was placed in the right place, at the right time, to witness the crime that was perpetrated against Michael Jackson. I don’t know what your belief is in God, but if you know Him like I do, God does not let anyone do this to his, without vindicating them. The Bible says, “…it is better to tie a milestone around someone’s neck and throw it into the bottom of the sea, than for someone to offend one who believes in me.” You seem like an intelligent person. Stop ignoring the facts surrounding this case. The truth speaks for itself.

  8. Anne Haight says:

    The word you’re looking for is “millstone”, not “milestone”.

    “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believed in me, it were better for him that millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

    You are also misinterpreting the passage. The crime in question is causing a Christian to sin. That is, offering enticements, deceptions, quitting the Church, etc. “Offending” a Christian (i.e. hurting their feelings) is not what is being discussed here.

    Also, I think it is ridiculously obvious that even God’s “favored” people are subject to great injustice, cruelty, and unpunished barbarity in the world.

    I am not interested in God’s wrath, or any supposed punishment in this life or the next one. It is human justice we must be concerned about.

    The facts that you cite, while I have not currently verified them, do not in themselves prove guilt or innocence. You say that the accusers are trying to get money to make a movie. How do you know that? Do you have any evidence of it? The accusers are, as far as public record shows, not interested in a monetary settlement and intend to pursue the complaint through the court system.

    Now, I would be one of the first people to believe that Michael Jackson has been the target of extortion. I certainly accept the idea that someone could try to get money from him by threatening to ruin his career.

    Perhaps Michael Jackson is innocent. If so, he has not behaved very intelligently. After being accused 10 years ago, he should have shown more diligence in distancing himself from any possibility of such accusations. Instead he continued to invite children to his ranch, and to show in public what is frankly a disturbing level of non-parental interest in kids.

    In other words, he isn’t acting like someone who actually has children’s best interests at heart. He’s continuing to do whatever he wants, like he always has.

    I like to play Devil’s advocate, for the sake of discussion. You seem very sure that Michael is innocent of the charges against him. But I would ask you to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Are you willing to retain an open mind regarding this case? Are you able to accept that he might, in fact, be a child molester?

    I think you must also be aware that you merely look like a money-grubbing opportunist yourself, by publishing a tell-all book about this. If justice was all you really cared about, you could release your information for free on the Internet.

  9. Geraldine Hughes says:

    Satan, Lucifer, was also able to quote scripture for the sake of thrawting God’s purpose for man. Have you had an opportunity to interview, or talk to any child throughout the world whose life has been changed because of Michael Jackson’s influence, nurture and care. I don’t think Michael is trying to do whatever he wants, I think he himself is a servant and doing the will of God. The Bible says, “…when I was hungry, you fed me. When I was naked, you clothed me.” The servant said “when did I do these things.” God said, “when you did them to the least, you did them to me.” Michael Jackson, to me, is acting like any normal innocent person would act like, under his circumstances (not yours) because you must remember, he’s not able to go to a grocery store or movie theater, like you are able to do. He hasn’t done anything to harm a child, just the opposite, he has only helped them, so why should he change anything just because of your twisted malicious views of him. The children that he has helped, are not suffering. I personally got an email from one of Michael’s fans thanking me for writing the book and expressed to me how Michael’s music of positive messages not only helped him to survive suicidal tendencies, but that he is now helping children likewise. Now, I just have one question to ask you. Who are you helping. What will you say to God about your deeds here on this earth? I think you should be worrying about your accountability before God, and let Michael worry about his. Its not your place to judge him, because you too will be judged with the same judgment you judge others. Nor is it your place to bear false witnesses.

  10. Ewart Archer says:

    Anne:

    You are a poisonous viper–a malicious, bigoted moron with an insuffrable attitude of self-importance, and a predictable habit of projecting your evil on others. While smearing Michael Jackson before you can know whether he is guilty or innocent, and announcing Geraldine as a self-promoting parasite before you can know whether her statements are true or false, you have the nerve to accuse others of making unsupported statements, and acting “unintelligently”.

    Look in the mirror, bitch.

  11. Anne Haight says:

    I find it fascinating that people who disagree always resort to 3 main accusations: 1) that I’m intentionally malicious, 2) that I’m a bigot, and 3) that I’m stupid. Plus, of course, the standard issue namecalling.

    Some people even feel the need to say it repeatedly, perhaps hoping it will thus become true.

    I do not see what I’m doing as “smearing” Michael Jackson. I take the available evidence and public impressions, evaluate the credibility of the sources, and speculate accordingly. If you would like to elaborate, I’m certainly willing to consider your argument with an open mind.

    Plus, if you think my habits are “predictable”, that at least suggests you read my blog regularly. Hey, no such thing as bad publicity, right?

    Even if Geraldine’s claims are true (and I reiterate the need for her claims to be backed up by something more solid than her mere testimony), she’s still a self-promoting parasite, which I think is patently obvious. She also seems to enjoy making not-so-subtle implications that she’s superior to everyone else because God will judge her enemies in her favor. There’s also the curious implication that the truth will be revealed to me by God when I die, and then by golly I’ll be eating some crow.

    One, it’s presumptuous to “know” God’s will in that way (assuming on believes in God), and two, it’s a fairly clumsy effort to avoid actually having a fact-based, rational discussion about anything.

    In this particular blog entry, I’m discussing Geraldine’s credibility, not Michael Jackson. Frankly, her attitude in her comments here does not bolster her image. Her repeated exhortations for me to “buy” her book even make me wonder if the person writing those comments is her marketing agent or something.

  12. Geraldine Hughes says:

    My comment about buying my book has nothing to do with book plugs. I can tell from your comments that you too are not knowledgeable about a lot of facts surrounding this case, yet you are judging Michael Jackson without having all the facts. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. Just the opposite, the book is only for those who really want to know the truth concerning the 1993 case. I realize that some people feed on perpetrating viscious gossip, crucifying innocent people and bearing false witnesses. It is my full intention to let you know that according to God’s laws, it brings serious consequences to anyone guilty of these spiritual crimes. This in no way implies that I am trying to be superior to anyone. It’s called “caring about the soul” of someone that will call a person a parasite without any knowledge of that person whatsoever.

  13. Anne Haight says:

    I realize that some people feed on perpetrating viscious gossip,

    Usually when I see this word misspelled, it’s “viscous”, which merely conjures up mental images of molasses and motor oil, but “viscious” is a whole new level of word crime. 🙂

    It is my full intention to let you know that according to God’s laws, it brings serious consequences to anyone guilty of these spiritual crimes.

    Heard you the first time. You don’t need to keep saying it over and over. That just makes you look like a crank. Plenty of people have informed me of God’s will, sometimes rather vehemently, perhaps under the impression that I will change my ways if only I understand.

    Let me assure you, I do understand. But I don’t agree and I don’t care.

    It’s called “caring about the soul” of someone that will call a person a parasite without any knowledge of that person whatsoever.

    I think you’ve more than demonstrated the nature of your character here far better than the original news article ever could have.

    And you need not worry for my soul. The state of my soul is between me and the Almighty, so you can butt out, thank you. 😉

  14. Anonymous says:

    Anne, before you decide that someone is “full of shit”, do you not think it would be useful to at least read the book?? That’s what we used to do at school when we had to write book reviews; we just read the spiel somewhere and cooked up a review as if we actually read the book!! I understand that you like to play devil’s advocate in order to promote debate, but surely that debate would be improved if you actually knew what you were talking about. Personally I have not read the book, which is why I found this site in order to find out more. It may be full of shit, it may be full of fact but I’m not going to condemn or praise it until I have at least read it. Oh, and one final thing, I have read at other sites that this book has been 3 years in the making (Ms Hughes is not a professional author so is not that fast) and was being scheduled for imminent release before these latest charges surfaced. If this is true, maybe she isn’t simply the “money-grubbing opportunist” you say she is. By the way, what the hell is “money-grubbing”??? You seem eager to pounce on other peoples’ typos but you have plenty of your own!!! I hope for the sake of everyone involved that MJ is innocent, and I hope that you start reading books before you review them!!!

  15. Anne Haight says:

    I was not reviewing Geraldine’s book, which I think it quite obvious. I was stating an opinion based on statements she made to the press that were published in a news article.

    Since Geraldine responded to my blog post, I tried engaging her in discussion to get a better sense of the context in which her book appears, and the work she did that allegedly exposed her to the information she presents.

    I also hoped to get a better idea of her personality, character, credibility, and the general thrust of her argument. I consider myself reasonably enlightened on the first 3 of these.

    I do understand that it’s impossible to summarize a book in a few sentences in a comment on a blog, but I had hoped for something more concrete and verifiable than what Geraldine presented. Her attitude does not predispose me to considering her a credible and objective source of analysis.

    Really, it’s not all that important, any of it. I’ll see what other reviewers have to say about the book before wasting my own time on it.

    Also, I wonder if Geraldine might be violating her confidentiality agreement and attorney-client privilege by publishing this information.

  16. cadco says:

    Rotham told you that she is a phoney! Well that settles it then.

    Hmmm…Relgion is irrelavent? – I agree; but it proves ZERO one way or the other – just because someone appeals to religion, it is not actually proof of them being phoney.

    It proves they are religous – nothing more – if you want to argue about logic then you must not be distrated by anything except proving your case with hard objective evidence.

    People do kill people for money – every day it’s in the papers – and some of these people can live with it without remorse! It’s a sad thing but it is reality – so nothing is far feached about MJ being extorted. In fact he is ideal. Fragile, rich, troubled and vulnerable – I know it can cut both ways, and he can be the one inverting this – but I am not peddling opinion for fact.

    You are.

    Millions of dollars and vast resources will be diverted from the cause of kids and sadly hundreds of victims will never get to see hope as a result. No divine justice is going to change this – limited resources are finite.

    This is the cost of being blind and self rightous. A very sliperry slope – and certainly beyond either you or me knowing much more than that.

    The greater good – may be the over riding moral imperative – imagine that! Let MJ go – save 1,000 other kids! I do not know anything for sure except you don’t know anything for sure.

  17. Anne Haight says:

    It proves they are religous – nothing more – if you want to argue about logic then you must not be distrated by anything except proving your case with hard objective evidence.

    Good advice. That’s what I’ve been asking Geraldine to do, and instead she sees fit to toss religious soapboxing out at me.

    but I am not peddling opinion for fact.

    You are.

    No, I’m not. I do not claim to know the truth. I have never claimed to know what really goes on in Michael Jackson’s head, or in his private life. I have an opinion and I speculate, but that’s what this blog is for; my opinions and speculation.

    This is the cost of being blind and self rightous. A very sliperry slope – and certainly beyond either you or me knowing much more than that.

    More good advice. Oh, you were talking to me, weren’t you? This is why I go to great pains to see and be open-minded.

  18. Geraldine Hughes says:

    Just for clarity sake, I started writing the book Redemption in 1997. I completed the book in 2000, but because of a ministry call starting in 2001, I put the book on the shelf (didn’t want it to compete with ministry work). In July of 2004, I decided to seek a publisher, which I located in Aug of 2004. When the second charge of child molestation hit the media, we were already scheduled for a January 2004 release date. Many people have tried to engage me in conversation to divulge pertinent information in the book. I decided to write the book because it allows me to lay out all the facts from beginning to end and I see no reason to breach the integrity of the book before release date. I am not trying to change anyone’s mind concerning this case. Just presenting the facts to those in search of the real truth. I would only hope that if someone falsely accused you of such a senister crime as this, that someone would have the courage to come forward with the truth to clear your name. I hope you never find yourself in Michael’s position.

  19. Anne Haight says:

    Okay, that’s fair. It takes a long time to write a book like that, so the release date is a general coincidence.

    I think all of us would hope that justice would be applied fairly, and protect the innocent in cases of false accusation. If that is the case with Michael Jackson, then may truth prevail.

    Thank you for responding in a reasoned manner. 🙂

  20. Spike says:

    I think that Hughes is one of those people who pronounce innocence based on skin color.

    I wonder if Hughes remembers this statement to the New York Daily News:

    “That’s why I stopped the writing there [at Chapter 13],” she says. “If I go any further [before landing a deal], I may as well give the information away.”

    From:
    MITCHELL FINK WITH LAUREN RUBIN. New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: Jul 26, 2000. pg. 19

    Furthermore, Hughes was fired by Rothman after working for him for six months. Her job was nothing more than a flunky secretary. She claimed that almost none of the Chandler case was recorded; that very little correspondence existed and that most everything transpired behind closed doors with no secretary present to take notes. Rothman states that he always takes his own notes. Hughes also said that even though she was working closely with Rothman, she didn’t know Jackson was being accused of child molestation until she heard it on TV during an office lunch break.

    Well, there is such a thing as attorney-client privilege. While she was still working for Rothman, she and her mother contacted and subsequently visited private investigator Anthony Pellicano, and told him what was going on between Rothman and Chandler. (Pellicano is currently in prison for possessing explosives and is under investigation for illegal wire-tapping.)We will have to see if she is charged with a violation of
    attorney-client privilege.

    From her book’s old website: “Investigators intimidated children they contacted from Jackson’s personal phone book by claiming to have photos of them with Jackson in order to get them to admit to events that never happened.”

    How did she get that info?

  21. Spike says:

    Hughes states on here that the book was finished in the year 2000 however, in the New York Daily News article (Jul 26, 2000) she stated it was only on chapter 13 as she was waiting on a contract for the book. Did she finish the book in the remaining 4 months and 5 days?

    Either which way, it was not published until Jackson got pinched again. It is obvious that this is about money.

  22. Sharon says:

    i think its just a coinsidence that this book has been released now. I look forward to reading it I have ordered the book through Amazon.com. I prefer to read the truth about Michael Jackson then the lies in the papers and on TV. If only the rest of the public read the truth about the 1993 case then they would understand whats going on now. Its all about MONEY and when Michael didnt give them anymore they went to the media.

  23. Spike says:

    I see, he gave them 20 million dollars because he was innocent.

    You must be one of those people that believe his arm was dislocated by the police because he said it was. Even though numerous films showed him lifting both of his arms above his head after the arrest. Then he stayed out for an additional 3 hours shaking hands with fans from Vegas.

    The so called “extortion” was investigated and the case was determined to be unfounded.

    Here is some info about pedophile characteristics taken from crimelibrary.com:

    A pedophile will usually exhibit a series of personality characteristics that are common in this type of offender. It is important to understand that these characteristics alone do not conclusively determine that a person is a pedophile. But if these indicators, combined with a pattern of behavior that arouses suspicion, are present then there may be enough probable cause to believe that the person is a pedophile.

    He carries on what can be termed “a special relationship” with a wife. Often pedophiles have failed marriages due to their sexual interests but remain in the marriage to mask their true intentions. Sadly, the wife sometimes knows about her husband’s preference, but prefers to keep quiet to avoid social stigma and disgrace.
    He displays a fascination or unusual interest in children. If an adult has an inordinate amount of interest in pre-pubescent children, it doesn’t confirm he is a pedophile, but it should at least arouse suspicion.
    He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as “pure,” “innocent,” ”God sent,” “blissful” and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. Remember that a pedophile cannot help the way he behaves and therefore will inadvertently reveal aspects about himself during speech.
    He has hobbies or interests that commonly belong in the realm of a child’s world such as toy collecting, building models of cars or planes. His home or room is decorated in a child’s theme. And often, that theme will reflect the age bracket of his preferred victim.
    He is over 30 years of age, single and has few or no friends his own age. He may also have frequent and unexplained changes of residence. He may be unable or unwilling to discuss why he lost his last job. He may have a military discharge that he cannot explain and a past that he can not easily talk about.
    He has systematic and prolonged access to children. Pedophiles, because of the wide age disparity between themselves and their victims, cannot just hang around children. The pedophile has to find a way to legitimize his contact with kids. He usually accomplishes this by obtaining employment in a field where he is forced to deal with children on a daily basis. Jobs like schoolteachers, bus drivers, camp counselors, photographers and sports coaching serve their needs perfectly. They will always volunteer for activities in which they are left alone with children with no parental supervision (Lanning, p. 19).

  24. Anne Haight says:

    The fact that MJ paid a large monetary settlement to his first accusers in 1993 doesn’t automatically mean he was guilty.

    Innocent people settle out of court all the time because they do not want the extended publicity of an investigation, or because they forsee that it would be ultimately cheaper than paying attorney fees to defend themselves.

    As to MJ’s obsession with childhood, I think I have already covered in other posts how this can be readily explained by his search for his own lost childhood, and it doesn’t necessarily represent pedophilia.

    You may also underestimate how many geeks there are who collect toys. I’m 33 and I have a considerable collection of diecast cars, as well as a number of Legos, Zoids, and stuffed animals. I also have one of those huge Matchbox Voltrons they made back in the 80’s. It stands guard on our TV. I also own a Gameboy Advance SP and am currently addicted to Harvest Moon: The Friends of Mineral Town. 🙂

  25. Spike says:

    Part 1

    The 20 million dollar payoff is just yet another part of many inconsistencies that point the finger at guilt. Yes, people settle lawsuits out of court all the time but that is a very excessive amount.

    I know adults who also have a toy collection however, they do not own their own amusement park nor do they have children (of one specific sex almost exclusively) spending the night.

    When Jackson settled out of court, it was from necessity rather than trying to stop bad publicity. The extortion charges had been proven unfounded. At the basis of these extortion accusations was Jackson’s former P.I., Anthony Pellicano. The whole case of extortion rested on tapes that he produced months after the allegations of molestation surfaced. According to articles, the tapes were heavily edited and did not prove extortion.

    Here are some newspaper clippings from that time period that tell you what was going on in the “extortion case”:

    {[Michael Jackson]’s representatives have offered few details of the alleged extortion attempt. Nor have they taken the alleged extortion to police, according to Los Angeles police Capt. William O. Gartland, as quoted in the Times. Gartland’s division handles extortion cases, and “nobody’s brought anything to us,” he told the paper.}
    David Von Drehle, Jessica Crosby. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 27, 1993. pg. A.01

    {Officially, the Los Angeles Police Department was silent about the extortion charge and all other aspects of the case. “I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any investigation,” said Lt. John M. Dunkin, a spokesman for the department. Weitzman, however, said he was told that an extortion investigation is under way and that it was opened after he met with police late Thursday. “That’s my understanding, based on our meeting with them,” he said.}
    CHARLES P. WALLACE, JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 28, 1993. pg. 1

    {Michael Jackson’s security consultant, Anthony Pellicano, says he delayed telling police about an alleged extortion attempt on the singing star for more than two months in order to “buy time” and “discredit” those making allegations against the entertainer.}
    Ian Katz. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 30, 1993. pg. B.01

    {Even the first sketchy media accounts of the investigation, which surfaced a few days later, contained Pellicano’s spin on the case. Initial reports contained no reference to molestation, but quoted the investigator saying police were acting on “an extortion attempt gone awry.” While sifting through the interview requests, Pellicano and Weitzman began dealing privately with the Los Angeles Police Department, providing
    information that led the LAPD to open an investigation into the alleged extortion attempt. Amid the confusion, some other private investigators raised questions about Pellicano’s approach. Why, they wondered, did Pellicano tell the media that he had not tape-recorded the alleged extortion demands? Under California law, the secret taping of phone calls is allowed if there is reasonable fear of extortion. That would have been a sure-fire way to document the allegation.}
    DAVID FERRELL, CHUCK PHILIPS. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 3, 1993. pg. 1

    {Pellicano said the pop star gets 25 to 30 extortion attempts a year.}
    Jessica Crosby. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 25, 1993. pg.
    D.01

    {Pellicano, meanwhile, was a high-profile spokesman for Jackson in the first
    weeks after news of the criminal investigation broke. Pellicano, a private
    investigator with a reputation for aggressive tactics, challenged the
    allegations with ferocity, accusing the boy’s father of attempting to extort
    $20 million out of Jackson and of resorting to the child molestation
    accusations only after Jackson’s representatives rebuffed his extortion
    attempts.
    But he too drew fire for his work on Jackson’s behalf. In an effort to
    bolster the extortion claim, for instance, Pellicano released a tape
    recording of what he said was evidence of the extortion attempt, but the
    tape was HEAVILY edited.
    A trial date in the lawsuit has been set for March 21, and Jackson is
    scheduled to be deposed on Jan. 18.}
    JIM NEWTON, SONIA NAZARIO. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec
    22, 1993. pg. 1

    {Then, on Jan. 24, the day before the settlement was disclosed, the L.A. prosecutor’s office announced that they had found no credible evidence that the 14-year-old’s father, a Beverly Hills dentist and aspiring screenwriter, had tried to extort $20 million from Jackson in return for his son’s silence, as the Jackson camp had claimed when the molestation charges were brought}
    DODGING THE BULLET , By: Hewitt, Bill, Stambler, Lyndon, People, 00937673, 2/7/94, Vol. 41, Issue 5

    {“We’ve declined to file today criminal charges of attempted extortion,” said Michael J. Montagna, a deputy Los Angeles County district attorney who heads that office’s organized crime unit. “The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed.” Immediately after the sexual abuse allegations surfaced last summer, private investigator Anthony Pellicano, then employed by Jackson, publicly accused the boy’s father and the father’s lawyer of trying to extort $20 million from the singer. According to Pellicano, the boy’s father went public with the allegations of abuse only after the extortion attempt failed. Pellicano released two tape recordings to bolster the extortion claim, and Jackson later repeated the accusations. Jackson’s advisers lodged a complaint with the Police Department, however, only after The Times reported that one had not been filed. Montagna cited the Jackson camp’s slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy’s father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case. Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson’s representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy’s father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.}
    JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 25, 1994. pg. 1

    {Jan. 24, 1994: Prosecutors announce they will not bring extortion charges against the 13-year-old boy’s father. The next day, Jackson agrees to pay millions of dollars to settle the civil suit.}
    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/139288p-123692c.html

  26. Spike says:

    Part 2

    The actions of Jackson’s attorneys were very questionable. They tried to delay the case until the statue of limitations would overtake the crime. Not only that, but they tried to put a gag on Chandler’s attorney so he could not share information with the criminal investigation team.

    Here are more clippings to attest to that:

    {The entertainer’s attorneys have filed a motion asking for a six-year delay in the sexual-abuse suit leveled against the singer by the parents of a 13-year-old boy.}
    SEEN & HEARD , By: Bellafante, Ginia, Time, 0040781X, 11/15/93, Vol. 142,
    Issue 20

    {Pop superstar Michael Jackson is seeking a six-year delay in the child molestation lawsuit brought against him by a 13-year-old boy, but the boy’s attorney, stepping up his efforts to expedite the civil case, asked the court Monday to order the singer to return from his international tour to give a deposition.
    Citing the continuing criminal investigation touched off this summer by the boy’s allegations that Jackson repeatedly sexually molested him, Bertram Fields, an attorney Jackson has hired in response to the lawsuit, asked for the delay late last week.
    Fields’ petition seeks to have the court put a hold on the trial and all so-called discovery activities-attorney interviews of principals and potential witnesses-until the statute of limitations for the alleged crimes has expired.}
    JEAN MERL. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 2, 1993. pg. 3

    {…Legal analysts give that suggestion little weight, especially because Jackson is seeking to block lawyers for the boy from interviewing witnesses in the case. Although Jackson could refuse to answer questions by exercising his constitutional right not to be forced to incriminate himself, legal experts say it would be highly unusual for a judge to agree to block lawyers from interviewing other witnesses.}
    JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 17, 1993. pg.
    1

    {Meanwhile, Jackson’s lawyers took steps to seek a gag order in the case, which has attracted international publicity. The lawyer for a 13-year-old boy who says that Jackson molested him said Jackson’s attorneys notified him late Friday that they want to prevent him from sharing information with the media and with law enforcement officials.
    “I received a letter from his lawyers saying that they’re seeking an order to prevent me from talking to any person . . . in order that Jackson’s constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment not be violated,” attorney Larry R. Feldman said. The letter, he added, informed him that Jackson’s lawyers will make that request Monday and may ask the court to delay further action in the civil case until the judge rules on their request for a gag order.}
    JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.:
    Dec 11, 1993. pg. 1

    {Superior Court judge cleared the way Friday for lawyers in the Michael Jackson sexual abuse case to share information with prosecutors, a move that Jackson’s attorneys aggressively contested.
    In addition, Judge David M. Rothman declined to approve a sweeping order that would have prevented lawyers from discussing with the media any information gleaned during the discovery process in a lawsuit brought against Jackson by a 13-year-old boy who says the entertainer sexually molested him.
    The judge’s refusal to grant the order means the lawyers can openly discuss the case, although attorneys on both sides said they would use discretion, and they agreed to steer clear of certain topics, such as identifying children or releasing medical records.
    Rothman ruled that prosecutors should be allowed to review that material, but declined to rule on the question of whether Jackson’s deposition, scheduled for Jan. 18, should be shared with authorities.}
    JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.:
    Dec 18, 1993. pg. 1

  27. Spike says:

    Part 3

    The icing on the cake, at that time, was LaToya going to the press. Eventually she recanted her statements (after much family pressure I’m sure).

    Yes, Jackson is PRESUMED innocent until evidence in a court of law proves his guilt. However, a writer who does not have all the facts will not judge him innocent to the world. Child molestation is a hideous crime that steals a child’s soul. What kind of 45 year-old man sleeps with children?

    Clippings of LaToya interview:

    {In a statement quickly branded as full of lies by the rest of the Jackson family, Michael Jackson’s sister La Toya today said the pop superstar has molested children for years and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
    At a news conference called on short notice at a Tel Aviv hotel, Jackson said she could no longer “be a silent collaborator of his crimes against small innocent children.
    “If I remain silent, then that means that I feel the guilt and humiliation that these children are feeling and I think it’s very wrong.”
    Her voice breaking, La Toya Jackson said: “I love Michael very dearly, but I feel even more sorry for these children because they don’t have a life
    anymore.”
    Other members of the family spoke with KCBS-TV tonight from outside their Encino, Calif., home.
    “La Toya is lying and I’ll tell her to her face she’s lying. And she knows,it,” Katherine Jackson said, accusing her daughter of “trying to make money off of {Michael’s} downfall.”
    Brother Tito told KCBS-TV that Michael “would never, ever hurt a kid. This is ludicrous.”
    Jackson faces a civil lawsuit in Los Angeles from a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by the superstar singer. Police are investigating the
    allegations, but no criminal charges have been filed.
    Michael Jackson’s lawyer, Bert Fields, told Vanity Fair magazine that Jackson “lives the life of a 12-year-old.” He said Jackson shared a bed with the boy but did not abuse him.
    The 35-year-old singer canceled a world tour last month and disappeared, saying he needed treatment for an addiction to painkillers brought on by his
    anguish over the allegations. Fields said Jackson will return to the United States to testify in his defense.
    “It’s always been little boys,” La Toya Jackson said today. “I hope he gets help.”
    Jackson, who is estranged from her family, said she has seen checks made out to her brothers’ alleged victims. She said her family was backing Michael because they were afraid he would cut them off financially.
    Her relations with her family have been strained for several years. In 1991 she alleged that her father, Joseph, had sexually and physically abused her when she was a child, a claim denied by the family.
    “I have been hurt by {abuse} too,” La Toya said at the news conference. “My father molested me sexually and I don’t like it. I don’t like the way it feels to this day. … I will not have a relationship with him because of that. I love him dearly but I cannot.
    “… That’s what I don’t want to see happen to these little kids because I know what it feels like in the heart.”
    La Toya’s husband and manager, Jack Gordon, asked if he feared for his and his wife’s lives, said he had alerted both a private investigator and a
    lawyer. “There have been two major kidnap attempts on La Toya. They were paid and financed by Michael Jackson.”
    La Toya said: “We travel with a bodyguard with us.”
    Jackson is also a singer, but without the drawing power of her famous brother. She recently canceled the remainder of her South Africa tour after a Cape Town concert drew fewer than 700 people. Earlier concerts had attracted even smaller audiences.
    Jermaine Jackson told KCBS-TV that La Toya and Gordon were trying to revive interest among tabloid newspapers and tabloid television shows that would pay them for their story.}
    The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 9, 1993. pg. D.02

    {Michael Jackson’s sister LaToya hinted Wednesday that she believes her brother is guilty of sexually molesting young boys and of paying off their families to keep them quiet.
    “I just think Michael needs help,” LaToya Jackson told reporters at a Tel Aviv news conference, according to wire service reports. “This has been
    going on since 1981, and it’s not just one child.”
    LaToya Jackson told reporters that she could no longer “be a silent collaborator of his crimes against small, innocent children,” the Reuters
    news agency reported. “If I remain silent, then that means that I feel the guilt and humiliation that these children are feeling, and I think it’s very wrong.”
    LaToya Jackson’s comments mark the first time that a member of the Jackson family has turned against the entertainer, who has spent months battling allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy over a period of four months earlier this year. Jackson’s parents and other siblings have stood by the entertainer as he has denied wrongdoing and sought treatment for what he says is an addiction to painkillers.
    Michael Jackson’s attorneys did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment about LaToya Jackson’s remarks in Tel Aviv. They have said
    previously that Jackson slept with children but that he never molested any of them, including the boy who is at the center of the civil and criminal
    investigations.
    Other family members strongly rebutted LaToya Jackson during an interview with a local television reporter at the family’s Encino compound Wednesday night.
    LaToya Jackson is estranged from her family and has not made joint appearances with them during the months that Michael Jackson has been under
    international scrutiny. She told reporters that her family has backed Michael Jackson because they are afraid he will cut them off financially.
    In her news conference Wednesday, LaToya Jackson said she had decided to
    speak out against her brother even though she loves him. Her husband and manager, Jack Gordon, alleged at the news conference that Michael Jackson had threatened to kill LaToya to keep her from revealing the child molestation allegations.
    “I love Michael very dearly, but I feel even more sorry for these children because they don’t have a life anymore,” LaToya Jackson said, her voice
    breaking.
    She also said in the news conference that she has seen checks made out to the parents of children who she says were abused by her brother.
    “I have seen these checks and I’ve seen these checks through my mother,” LaToya Jackson said. “She showed me these checks that Michael had written to these children, and it’s for a great amount and I’m not speaking pennies. The sums are very, very large amounts.”
    The allegations by the 13-year-old boy were made in August, and police have launched a criminal investigation of Jackson. In addition, the boy has filed a lawsuit that is scheduled to go to trial in March.
    The boy’s lawyer, Larry R. Feldman, said LaToya Jackson’s comments echoed reports that he has received while pressing forward with the civil case against Jackson.
    “This is very consistent with other evidence that we have developed through our investigation,” Feldman said. He added, however, that the reports have not been confirmed.
    From the earliest stages of the case, Feldman has indicated that he plans to question LaToya Jackson. In fact, she was scheduled to be deposed this week, but her deposition is being rescheduled because she is out of the country.
    In a previous deposition, one of Jackson’s chauffeurs said he had taken the entertainer to the boy’s house at least 30 times, leaving him off at night and picking him up the following day. Although Jackson never has denied spending nights with the boy, Feldman later said the chauffeur’s comments, made under oath, corroborated his client’s story.
    LaToya Jackson appeared to allude to the chauffeur’s statement in her news conference.
    “Now you stop and you think for one second,” she told reporters, “and you tell me what 35-year-old man is going to take a little boy and stay with him for 30 days and take another boy and stay with him for five days in a room and never leave the room?”
    In an interview with KCBS-TV, family members lashed out at LaToya Jackson, saying she was profiteering, “brainwashed” and in the clutches of a greedy husband.
    “The reason why this is said is because (LaToya Jackson and Gordon) know once they say something like this all of the tabloids are going to come back here, they’re going to ask her to come on shows. This is the way this guy (Gordon) makes money,” her brother Jermaine Jackson said.
    Michael Jackson is scheduled to be deposed on Jan. 18, although the date could change if there is a change in the status of the criminal investigation. The entertainer has not been publicly heard from since last month, when he abruptly canceled a world tour after announcing that he had become addicted to painkillers.
    His lawyers say Jackson is being treated in Europe for his addiction.}

    JIM NEWTON. The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 9, 1993. pg. 1

  28. Gary says:

    Check out this article from FoxNews. What a twisted mother: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110125,00.html

  29. Gary says:

    All I have to say about the 1993 allegations is read the 1994 GQ article. You will be shocked about how people will do anything for money. I am suprised that there is aTRUTHFUL article about 1993. Michael would have won that case, but as you will read, it was just too much hassle to go through with. Besides why didn’t the father (then unhappy about being a dentist) prosecute Michael Jackson if Michael molested his child? I would have put Michael in jail for a million years; but, no, the greedy son-of-a-%*$!( took the money and ran so he could fullfill his dream to become a successful screenwriter and not a dentist as his brothers and father has. In fact he co-produced the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights in 1993.

  30. Gary says:

    By the way, where in the world is the mother now? I bet she is saying to herself, “Oops, my plan backfired! I just wanted the money because I was on a fixed income!!! I thought kind and gullable Michael Jackson would just give me what I wanted–money!! Just like JC Penney did! Oops, now people will find out that I was in a mental ward at Kaiser Permanente for a couple of days!!! Oops my ex-husband will tell the media my secret that I rehearse my children on what to say and do to law enforcers! My life is f****** up!!! Oops I realy f****** up this time!! I should have quitted while I was ahead with JC Penney!!! I would have if I knew how to invest it properly!!!!

  31. Spike says:

    Ah…the Fisher article at GQ, which starts with “Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson – another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life.”

    This article by Fisher is a mainstay of the fanatical Jackson fan websites. But of course all articles written in magazines are true. Just look at the article in Vanity Fair…

    Why did Jackson’s attorneys try delaying the case? Why did they try to block Chandler’s attorney from sharing info with the criminal investigation team? If one is innocent, there is no reason to invoke the 5th amendment. Is it normal for a 45 year-old man to sleep with children? The 1993 case ruined Jackson’s career because of the pay-off. If he was innocent he should have taken it to court,proved it, and saved his reputation

    However, there is a difference this time. It is a criminal case rather than a civil case. Jackson can not buy his way out of this.

    I note your attempt at charector assassination in the current case. It is very common for abused woman to undergo psychiatric consoling. If she was so “mentally ill”, how did she retain custody of her children?

    Are you also implying that a mother’s “coaching” of a child will stand up under examination by defense attorney? I think not.

  32. Gary says:

    Of course the GQ article is true. Some of the information comes from Geriadine Hughes herself who eas at the scum lawyer’s office taking down information. She was the one who called the private investigator. Unlike the Vanity Fair “article” she didn’t have any written proof all she says is “my sources say” this and that. How come she can’t say any names. If her case is so truthful she would say who said these latest accusations.

    Don’t worry Michael Jackson will sue her and the magazine for slander and anyone else who slanderizes his name. That will teach them to write articles so that many more people will buy their magazines because it’s has Michael Jackson’s name.

    Michael is not going to buy his way out of this one–nor did he “buy” his way out of the last case. He paid the father because it would have cause Michael much more money than the settlement to pay the lawyers and many different fees. And Michael just wanted the whole ridicoulous situation to go away. It was very stressful to him! It was a MAJOR accusation and I mean accusation to have place on you especially when one didn’t do anything in the first place!!! How would you feel if your co-worker’s son or daughter acuse you of something you didn’t do? You would be shocked and anything else, just like Michael Jackson was!!! MICHAEL IS GOING ALL THE WAY WITH THIS CASE…IF THE CASE GOES TO TRIAL WHICH I DOUBT–NO EVIDENCE!!! I SAID DO YOU HEAR ME…NO EVIDENCE!!!! JUST LIKE THE LAST CASE INWHICH THE CASE WAS DISSMISSED!!!

    “Coaching ” will probably not stand up in this case, but her history of lyeing to authorities will be exploited by the defense team, which will cause her to lose credability to what she says in court!

    All I have to say is “YOU GO, MICHAEL JACKSON!!!”

  33. Spike says:

    Nice assumption on no evidence. Are you one of the investigators? I think not. Do you really think that Sneddon would pursue such a high profile case without evidence?

    I would not hold my breath waiting for Jackson to sue Vanity Fair.

    Despite settling out of court, Jackson still had to pay legal fees. When you add 20 million dollars on to that figure, he paid a LOT of money to close this case while not proving his innocence.

    As for Hughes:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103986,00.html

    Hughes — who was fired by Rothman after about six months — claimed the plan to involve Jackson in the Chandlers’ divorce was an “elaborate” one. “You’ve got to see the whole plan,” she said. She claimed, for example, that almost none of the Chandler case was recorded, that very little correspondence exists and that most everything transpired behind closed doors with no secretary present to take notes.

    Nevertheless, a pattern of unusual activities emerged in the case, she said.

    “I was surprised one day to see the boy in a closed-door session with Rothman with no adult present,” she recalled. “That was very unusual too.”

    Hughes also said that even though she was working closely with Rothman, she didn’t know Jackson was being accused of child molestation until she heard it on TV during an office lunch break. Until then, correspondence about Jackson in the Chandler divorce had been limited to June Chandler’s desire to take her kids out of the U.S. with Jackson on tour.

    Rothman, in a telephone call, confirmed for me that Hughes did work for him at one time, but that “she was privy to nothing in our office. She may also be in violation of attorney-client privilege,” he said, adding that he would read her book when it came out in January and that he wished her luck with it. As for the closed-door meetings, he agreed that the Chandler case did have little correspondence in the file. “It was mostly meetings,” he said. “And I take my own notes, I never have a secretary do it.”

  34. Anne Haight says:

    Spike: Congratulations on reposting almost the entirety of the article I originally linked to. *rolls eyes*

    Are either of you guys going to actually present a specific argument or make a point? Or are you just going to waste my bandwidth posting large excerpts from other people’s articles with no context?

  35. Geraldine Hughes says:

    I thought I’d clear up a few of the many inconsistencies. Firstly, it is an attorney’s duty to assess whether a case is going in their favor or out. Once it is determined that the case is not weighing in their favor, it behoves them to initiate settlement discussion. Michael’s attorneys lost four motions (and technically they should have won two which were already established standands). Then, Michael’s attorney requested a “protective order,” not a “gag order” to further protect Michael’s 5th Constitutional right. It was when he lost that request also, that his attorneys advised him to settle. At that point, they realized that the court system was not working for Michael. (I’ll mention, that one of the motions allowed Chanlder to take Michael’s deposition which wasn’t asking for facts concerning the case…it was asking for assets).
    Also, Michael’s attorney DID NOT request a six-year delay. They requested that the civil case be stayed until the criminal case concluded. The mere fact that they allowed the civil case to go before the criminal case, breached Michael’s right to not self-incriminate (because the civil case allows hearsay and circumstantial evidence, wherein the criminal case does not). All the D.A.’s office had to do was sit back on their criminal investigation and obtain information from the civil proceeding that they would not have been entitled to. 85% of why Michael settled was because of what was going on in the court system. It had nothing to do with guilt.
    You tell me, if the court system wasn’t working for you, would you have continued to pour millions of dollars into it, as well as your prescious and valuable time?

  36. Gary says:

    You know I will be glad when this b.s. ends this year! Michael Jackson has been visiting children’s hospitals and helping children all over the world–since his Thriller days! His mother Katherine stated that one day they were watching a “feed the children” program. And she said that Michael stated that he was going to help as many starving, poor and ill children all over the world as he could! He was saying with tears falling down his face!! So that is what Michael is all about!!! It has nothing to do with sex. He want to only help children because he can’t stand to see children suffering!!! Unfortunitely, people take it the wrong way!!! I am so thankful for Geraldine Hughes got this book published–BEFORE THE NEW ALLEGATION CAME OUT…ANNE HAIGHT!!!! (As Miss Haight was “suspicious” of Geradines book coming out…as if Geraldine plan the timing of the book. As Miss Haight said to promote a discussion on her webpage…so fakely stated!!!)

    The past ten years, Michael has created many GREAT songs!!! But because of what happened more than ten years ago, his sales have gone down because of lies!!! People in this world hate to see people keep going upwards!!! I guess it’s just human nature, unfortunately, to bring a man back to earth to make him human!! Michael is greater than a human being–just like the meaning of his name…which means “like or of a god.” He is that. But at the same time he is human who all he wants to do is bring peace and love throughout the world! YOU GO MICHAEL JACKSON, O GREAT GOD OF MUSIC, DANCE, CREATIVITY, LOVE AND PEACE!!! AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU GERALDINE HUGHES FOR SAVING THIS MAN’S NAME!!!

  37. Gary says:

    Geraldine Hughes needs to go to Jet, Ebony, Essence magazines, the Oprah Winfrey Show, Montel Williams, BET and different lacal news stations and talk about the lies of 1993! Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com are not going to sell the book!

    It is a shame how soooo many people are sooooooo jealous of Michael Jackson! It’s a DAMN shame how they hate a man who wants to bring peace, love and entertainment to the world and he only weighs 120 lbs. yet people–who treat him like he’s Godzilla–are sooo afraid of him because they don’t understand him!!!

    It’s the same way when the white man came to Africa and saw all the gentile,beautiful Black people dancing, working, the drums, the different hairstyles, body marking and earrings, etc. But we were labeled savages when we were a people of Nature!!! It’s the same thing Michael is going through!! It’s a SHAME! I am hoping that Geraldine get’s the book into the public’s eye…be it the African-American community or Asia or whatever!!!! She needs to do it for her mother!!!

  38. Anne Haight says:

    For one thing, Godzilla is a lot less weird and has a much cooler scream.

    And these “gentle people of Nature” as you so quaintly describe Africans…need I remind you that African tribes all practiced slavery for centuries before white men came there, sold each other into bondage, and killed each other in nonstop tribal warfare? Why do you think that continent still can’t get its act together? They’re all still hung up on tribal affiliation and “my tribe is good and that guy’s tribe is evil” bullshit.

    Try reading some time, you moron, instead of parroting whatever you hear Farrakkhan or Sharpton or Jesse screeching about.

  39. Anonymous says:

    “Evil men speak evil words and attempt to color good things with bad light” Dae Ahzae

  40. Gary says:

    You got that right, ______!!! Evil men (or women) speak evil words and attempt to color good things with bad light.” As I stated above! The media is definitely speaking evil words about Michael Jackson (as if they are so perfect) and attempts to color good things–that Michael Jackson is doing all the time but doesn’t get the media’s attention–with BAD LIGHT!!!!!! Case closed! I bet A. H. goes to church every Sunday–with pictures of Michaelangelo’s uncle everywhere in the church–and saying “Amen” to things about love, peace; but yet, all that goes out the window come Monday-Saturday!!! Can I get an Amen?!!

  41. Joy bell says:

    Hi,

    Saw your web page interesting.
    I pray for Michael and his family.
    He has a good heart, but I think he’s easily led, I wish him freedom from all this, especially at this difficult time.
    I pray that the truth will come out in the court room, and whether he is guilty or not, I want him to know he has a friend, I do know regardless of all of this, he still needs help, he has helped so many people, and now he needs a shoulder to cry on, and someone to reach out.
    God bless you and your work.

    Yours in Christ.

    Joy Bell

  42. Gary says:

    Michael is definitely NOT GUILTY!!! Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see that Michael is NOT GUILTY!! When Michael was seeing that this mother was causing trouble on Neverland–in January 2003–he called Mark Garegos (spelling). Mark came up with the idea of having a female witness with Michael when he was around the mother’s kids AT ALL TIMES!!! Because Garagoes knew what would more than likely happen–sue Michael Jackson for child molestations and solve her money problems. In fact she went to the California Service organization to ask for emergency assistance on March 3 shortly after she was asked to leave Neverland for suspicious acts and then a week later she went to another California Organization demanding that her ex-husband pay almost double for child support. It’s all on official documents!! When this failed, she had to devise a scheme to get more money! In fact at the end of the second–truthful–Michael Jackson special that was aired in February with host Maury Povich stated at he end of the program that the mother was going to sue Martin Broshers (spelling) for filming and airing that segment without her permission!!! ASK MR. MAURY PAUVICH!!! And then Mr. Bradley from 60 Minutes–who went to Neverland after the Brosheres special aired to interview Michael for a special– later stated that the mother was praising Michael Jackson–even the kids were praising Michael. In fact they wanted to be on the special so that they could say HOW GREAT MICHAEL IS while Michael was getting ready upstairs for the interview!! Unfortunately that interview didn’t go through because Michael’s friend, Marlon Brando called and told Michael that they are making public the contents of the 1993 allegations by the boy!!!! Michael became sad and I am sure he was heart-broken to hear this terrible news. And the interview never went forward!!!!

  43. Kati says:

    Michael Jackson is innocent. I totally believe Geraldine. I would just like to thank Geraldine for helping Mikchael. I am very grateful. I have liked him since I was seven years old. I am now 24. His light of love and hope will never dim despite the hate and lies that some people try to spread. People just can’t accept that someone could be as good and pure as Michael. The greed of others is the only rhing behind these and all allegations against Michael of abuse. I pray that Michael’s accusers get their just desserts.

  44. Gary says:

    You know what makes me so mad about the new allegations, is that Michael Jackson suggested that the boy meditate as does Michael does all the time. And because the boy started to meditate his cancer was completely gone! They even stated it in the documentary with that bastard Martin Baheers (spelling)!!! Anyway, what makes me so mad is that that twisted mother makes her children turn against Michael for MONEY!!!!! After Michael literally saves the boys life!!!! How cold can you get?!!!!!

  45. Lisa says:

    I would like to thank G. hughes for puuting this book out to help Michael Jackson. I am so grateful for that and truly appreciate it. THANK YOU- I will hold you in very high regards- for ever.

  46. Gary says:

    http://www.mjstar.com http://www.mjparadise.com These are excellent websites about MJJ. Check them out!

    This year will be Michael’s turning point just like the Thriller days and the Jackson Five of 1969-70. You go Michael! You can knock him down but he will ALWAYS get back up!

  47. MIMI says:

    I beleive Michael Jackson to be innocent and Gavins mother just wants money like the Chandler’s did! After all Evan Chandler was sued by his patient for neglegence( he was a dentist but not a very good one!) owed his ex $68,000 for back child support-a debt she freely forgave (great father huh?) and didn’t even bother with Jordy until Michael came on the scene (KA-CHING)
    Chandler had his own kid drugged up with a pshcotic drug not even used is dentistry (that aint abuse?) Rotham looks like he is a mobster lawyer and seems to hang out with a very unscrupulous kind of crowd! And Att Feldman whose eyes shifted back and forth ( I thought they were gonna fall out) during a recent interview on televison concerning this new case! By the way according to the Police shifty eyes are one sure sign that a person is lying!
    Why is Gavin going through the same lawyer and therapist as the Chandler’s? MMMMMMMMMMMM

  48. Geraldine Hughes says:

    I find it interesting that all of the characters from 1993 and present all have questionable motives, and that Michael Jackson is the only one that have not harmed anyone. Instead, has spent his entire life helping and doing good for others. I received an email from a 24 year old man in Australia who thanked me for writing the book. He told me that at age 17 he was suicidal. But after listening to Michael’s music of love, peace, heal the world and “make this place a better place” repeatedly for years, he got over his desire to die, and now, as an adult, is helping troubled children, as well as working for several non-profit organizations.

    I’m not trying to sound like a religous nut, but when God is on your side, he always comes to your defense and will never leave you alone and will give you a “ram in the bush.” I hope someone out there has enough spiritual awareness to understand what I am saying. In other words, God gave Michael something that he didn’t give his accuser; a witness!

  49. Anne Haight says:

    He told me that at age 17 he was suicidal. But after listening to Michael’s music of love, peace, heal the world and “make this place a better place” repeatedly for years, he got over his desire to die,

    Or he just grew up and got over his teenage angst. Just a thought.

  50. Anne Haight says:

    when God is on your side, he always comes to your defense and will never leave you alone

    You might try telling that to all the innocent, God-fearing people who have been murdered over the centuries by folks like Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Saddam, etc.

    Or would you argue that those people weren’t really sincere in their love of God and thus He wasn’t on their side?

  51. Dollbaby says:

    I have read Geraldine’s book Redemption. First, I want to thank Ms. Hughes for the sacrifice of time and comfort afforded to write this book. I want her to know I believe the facts that she shares with us. After all, isn’t it better to take her word over the lying, slanderous, Michael bashing media? Redemption is a publication that every MJ fan should read, at least once. I was always convinced of MJ’s innocence, but could never quite put into place the whole picture of that horrific event. I think partly because I have trouble believing that human beings can be so cruel as those involved in the 1993 extortion case. I read the GQ magazine article, and it explained a lot about the case. Still, Geraldine Hughes goes beyond the facts from that enlightening magazine article. The book provides answers to many questions, as she explains the scheme in chronological order. Specifically she helped me understand that the “injustice” system of California was administered according to the desires of the persecutors (no, I don’t mean prosecutor, these law officials are persecutors). I found the book to be intensely informative, and a very worthwhile read. I am glad this author has stepped forward to impart information about MJ’s innocence to all who will listen. I think it is especially important that she help us to understand the settlement in that civil suit was far from substantiation of guilt.

    I could go on, but I’ll not tire you with additional reading. Again, I want Geraldine Hughes to know how much I appreciate this book, and her for writing it. May God shower you with rich blessings from on High.

  52. Gary says:

    Check out this information about the mother:
    http://forum.mjeol.com/index.php?showtopic=14692

  53. Jane Horton says:

    I have read Geraldine’s book ‘Redemption’ and I would like to thank her for taking the time to write it. I have always believed that Michael is innocent, in my mind too many things just do not add up. I also feel that this current case is ’93 part 2.
    Paedophilia is an insatiable disease, that being the case, where are all the other victims? Even though the D.A.’s office appealed for victims to come forward, none have or Michael would surely have more indictments levelled at him.
    The Neverland search could not have thrown up much light either or they wouldnt need to scrape the bottom of the barrel searching other peoples garages and homes for any scrape of evidence.
    However, in Michael Jacksons favour, the overriding factor for me in the ’93 case was if I was the parent of a child who had been sexually abused I would never settle. I would want to see justice done in the courts, and then sue him for all he was worth!!
    I hope that the truth is properly told this time around and that justice is done. I feel sorry for Michael Jackson because I am sure he is innocent, but most of all I feel sorry for the boy and his siblings because they are being used as pawns in a grown-up world.
    Jane

  54. Dae Ahzae says:

    Perfectly put,they are being used as pawns! The world is a big chess game. Michael stands for everything THEY dont want YOU to be. Hes got the whole worlds attention no matter what lies they tell thats one. He doesnt support racism but supports UNITY thats two. Under Michaels magic umbrella there is peace even while theres war everywhere else in the world thats three. He believes in living OUTSIDE the box no matter the repercussion thats another reason. He speaks his mind on what he believes. Michael Jackson is the biggest rebel alive today with the biggest following. If you look closely at our changing world all who are not willing to be yes men or SHEEPLE they are cleverly being erased. Thats either by way of death or by killing your character. “Your either with us are without us.” Do a little research and youll see just who US is. Its all about discrediting and villifying your enemy, that way a cruel attack is accepted by the SHEEPLE. Michael J. Jackson IS INNOCENT. Given his position in life, the intensity of the eyes around him, his past, COME ON PEOPLE do you really think he would attempt what THEY say he did. Do be fooled with the propaganda.

  55. Azalia says:

    I try to keep an objective point of view. I like
    Michael, but I know some people can put on a good
    front. So, I wait to here evidence. I carefully
    weight them.
    After all the evidence I’ve heard I believe Michael is innocent.
    Their are too many inconsistancies wiht this family. They’re changing dates of allege crime.
    Their was a two week gap in the new charges. Also, Their were major organization that were investigating him during the time they allege.
    All said nothing was found. The mother was supposed to be held hostage during this time.
    I try to believe that Michael might be guilty.
    I want to be fair. What I’m hearing about this
    case is making me believe he is innocent.
    It is fact that Sneddon has, and is beening sued
    for malicious prosecution.

  56. Geraldine Hughes says:

    To understand the additional “stacked up” charges against Michael Jackson, you need to visit: http://www.sneddonexposed.com. According to the articles, you will find that Tom Sneddon has a $10,000,000 federal lawsuit pending against him by Gary Dunlap, an attorney who too was the victim of Sneddon filing 8 felony bogus charges against him (because he was representing a lot of people that had charges against his department). Not to mention, a man named Cruz who Tom Sneddon sent to prison and he served 4 years before they discoved that Sneddon withheld a confession letter from the real killer from the very beginning. Not to mention, the Santa Barbara dentist that too found himself being investigated on bogus charges. He testifies overhearing Sneddon and his investigators referring to Michael Jackson as “that f===ing n===ger,” and how he want him out of town.

    Remember, all of the current charges against Michael are coming from a family that has already raised doubt as to their credibility. Please read these articles on http://www.sneddonexposed.com before forming your opionion. You might find that what Sneddon is doing to Michael is a part of his regular M.O.

  57. Tom says:

    Hello, I am from SneddonExposed.com.

    There is just too much evidence to show that Tom Sneddon is a racist who will do anything to get Michael Jackson out of SB County.

    *Just because* he is DA, it does NOT mean he is fair.

    THE BELOW IS TAKEN FROM SNEDDONEXPOSED.COM’s article archive:

    – Tom Sneddon was involved in the 1993 child abuse case against Michael Jackson. Sneddon had spent millions on the case, but failed to get an indictment from two grand juries. Was Tom Sneddon angry at his failure? He was of course referred to as the ‘most powerful man in Santa Barbara County.’

    – A Santa Barbara dental surgeon claims that one of Sneddon’s colleagues did not want the richest man in Santa Ynez to be black (referring to Michael Jackson). There is no need to put the race card away at this point.

    – After the 1993 allegations, Michael Jackson released the angry song ‘D.S.’ on his double album HIStory (1995). Allegedly, the song is about Tom Sneddon, although the title refers to the name Dom Sheldon which sounds very much like ‘Tom Sneddon’ on the track. The lyrics include the verse:

    “You think he brother with the KKK?
    I bet his mother never taught him right anyway
    He want your vote just to remain TA.
    He don’t do half what he say.”

    Surely Sneddon would be angry at this especially as it is one of the world’s biggest selling albums. Is Tom Sneddon jealous of Michael Jackson making money out of his name?

    – Despite saying he never gave Jackson a thought post the investigation, he has still been on numerous news programs and talk shows over the past ten years discussing the case.

    – Tabloid journalist Diane Diamond and Tom Sneddon seem to have a close working relationship. She was the first to receive the news on the case, and claimed she had it very early on. Who leaked Jordan Chandlers affidavit from 1993? Surely this was supposed to be under lock and key, no?

    – Why did Sneddon announce the arrest warrant on the same day that Michael Jackson’s greatest hits album was released? And why, when asked about it did he say “Like me and the sheriff listen to that kind of music?” That is totally irrelevant – you don’t have to like someones music to ruin their career.

    – The accusing family apparently went to a CIVIL LAWYER first, however Sneddon claimed that the family were out for justice. It has been widely reported that the DA went to find the family to force them to make a criminal complaint first.

    – Why was the DA smiling and showing glee and satisfaction at the press conference? Why did he call Michael Jackson ‘Jacko Wacko’ on a TV show? This is very unprofessional and points to a personal achievement rather than one by the entire department.

    – The department said that Michael’s ’60 Minutes’ interview about alleged physical abuse at the police station was considered a formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the law. What else is Sneddon doing that is not in accordance with the law?

    Why was the bail amount set at $3 million? This is 3 times the amount for a murderer. – The young accuser’s parents are or were engaged in a custody and divorce battle. Why did Sneddon ask the case judge to disallow the father from seeing his son? Was he afraid that the boy may tell his father the truth once his mother was not around to manipulate him?

    Whatever you believe, its hard to deny that all of the factors above point to a highly obvious vendetta.

  58. Geraldine Hughes says:

    You forget that Jesus was murdered and suffered a horrible death. Are you saying that God wasn’t on his side. Just because you are murdered don’t mean God is not on your side. If God is on your side, He said he will avenge your wrongdoers. In other words, your perpitrator will not get away with their deed. I haven’t found anyone to escape the wrath of God.

  59. Anne Haight says:

    To start with, I don’t believe that Jesus was the literal son of God. I believe he was a real person, but an enlightened teacher rather than an actually divine being. He was willing to die rather than renounce his beliefs and his teachings, which makes him a man of honor and principle.

    There is a difference between defense and revenge. God did not defend Jesus. He arguably did not avenge him either.

    If God never allows anyone to escape His retribution, then wouldn’t the first boy who originally accused MJ in 1993 have been punished? As far as I can tell, he is now rich and living off the out-of-court settlement Jackson paid him to drop the lawsuit.

    Or would you assert he is merely going to go to Hell when he dies?

    And if God allows evil to befall us due to man’s free will, why would He then avenge us? Why not simply prevent the evil in the first place? Free will must be total or it is not free will. For God to step in after the fact is both cruel and dishonest.

  60. Geraldine Hughes says:

    Sorry you don’t believe Jesus was the son of God. Only those that do reaps the benefit that goes along with it (heaven). You’ve got to remember that God is the ultimate Judge. Therefore, yours, and all of our, deeds will be judged by God.

    As far as the 1993 accuser, my reports are that he is at the verge of confessing. I’m sure the guilt that he has been enduring is eating him alive. He may be rich because of what his father did to him as a child, but he is now an adult and has to take responsibility for his own actions now. The Bible clearly says, “What profits a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul.” That’s word to all….

  61. Pipi says:

    Look, Geraldines story is far more credible than you could ever make it. I understand you were there, Mrs. Hughes, so you have that right to voice your thoughts and place what you have found as fact onto paper. I find it amazing how people like Anne would rubbish your work when she wasn’t there herself. I realise that there is likely so much more information that we are not privey and we must respect that. The information in your book I have found re-enforces my beliefs all along. That Michael Jackson is undeniably innocent of the allegations of 93, and the allegations of 2003.

  62. Jennifer Kemp says:

    Mrs Hughes, I live your book. I think you’re great. I know Michael is innocent & your book is packed with so much evidence to prove that! Thank you. 🙂

  63. Jennifer Kemp says:

    *love

  64. Ashley says:

    geraldine’s book is great, she did an excellent job of telling unknown facts and not being biased.great job

  65. donna says:

    I too loved the book, Ms. Hughes. Thank you for being willing to put your neck out for this man who is being so wrongly accused. Its all a money scam and I’m sick of it. Michael WILL be vindicated, and THEN what will you people that have jumped on the WE BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE HEAR AND READ BANDWAGON do? Will you come back in here and apologize? Will the media print front page retractions for their slander? I dont think so. And Ms. Hughes, I also believe that God is behind this and we will see justice. I’m so glad to have found you here speaking out the truth. I’m behind you and Michael Jackson all the way.

  66. Sylvia says:

    Excellent book, Ms. Hughes. I commend you for standing on the side of right and justice. I am sure far more money will be made by those who continue to spin lies, but rest assured your reward will be far greater for standing on the side of truth and justice than the liars will ever see.
    God Bless You.

  67. Truth says:

    Beside court documents and all, what other evidence do you need besides the legal secretary of the lawyer who represented the accuser’s father? She was there and witnessed most of what went in the case. The facts are there waiting to be read but some people are too lazy, or they don’t want read, or they just don’t want to know the truth

  68. Althalus says:

    Michael has always shown his love and affection for the children of the world and his ongoing humanitarian efferts are what makes Michael Jackson who he really is. I noted in your book, Mrs. Hughes that Anthony Pellicano interviewed the boy that accused Michael and he straight out denied any wrong doing. He interviewed many others too and they all had nothing to say against the singer.

    Even in this current case you have to look at how the family was praising Michael before they decided to accuse him of molestation. Now there are revelations that the mother went shopping for 6 attorneys. One of them was the civil attorney, Larry Feldman, the same civil attornay from the 93 case. Now is this a coincidence? That she just happens to hire the same civil attorney as the one from 93?

  69. Althalus says:

    I believe in the holy spirit and that justice will prevail in the end. No one can cheat the true justice of God. Those who disobay his authority will be punished unless they ask for forgivness. Thankfully, God is very forgiving. I was at a youth church the other day and I was touched by God. It was such an amazing feeling! I’ll never forget it. I could feel his power and it was the power of God’s own hand touching me. That sense of warmth and joy was God’s love. I thank God for letting me into his heart.

  70. Boo boo says:

    Yes Geraldine keep fighting we all know MJ is innocent but I will sure love to rip off Anne Haight’s head and spit down her throat..will get you!!

  71. Childsmile says:

    Where did the LaToya Jackson comments come from? Is there an original document or news story on the net that I can access with these same quotes? I’m being told the quotes are false, but I don’t believe that to be true. Any response is appreciated. Thanks!

  72. Kate says:

    I know this blog argument took place years ago, but I’m looking to speak one-on-one with Geraldine Hughes and combing the web trying to find a way to get in touch with her. It’s incredibly important. Does anybody know her email, or where I could reach her? If so, please reply to this or email me at kate.holupka@gmail.com. Thank you!

  73. Elliot says:

    Just for the record Anne Haight – a non-belief in something is still a belief.

    That you support the gross injustice and overstepping of power that Tom Sneddon’s clearly biased prosecution of Jackson represents, reveals both your intellect and personal ethics to be sadly lacking.