This article was originally posted on Desiree speaks...so listen. The blog is no longer available online. Full credit goes to the original author.
This article will be archived on this site so people can read and freely make up their own minds without interference from Jackson's misinformation troll factory.
According to an August 27, 1993 news article in the British newspaper, The Independent, then eleven-year-old Brett Barnes said the following during the Anthony Pellicano-orchestrated media blitz put together to 'defend' Michael Jackson after the leakage of his being investigated for the abuse of Jordie Chandler:
Matters appeared to worsen for Jackson yesterday when an 11-year-old boy appeared on NBC television in California and admitted sharing a bed with him. Brett Barnes, an Australian from Melbourne, said Jackson had kissed him 'like you kiss your mother', but insisted nothing untoward had occurred.
The boy, who was interviewed with his mother and sister, met Jackson 18 months ago and recently accompanied him on a visit to London.
He described how he was questioned by detectives, who have confirmed that they are conducting a criminal investigation into the entertainer. 'They were asking questions like, 'Do you sleep in the same bed? Do you think he buys the toys to make you not tell things?'
'But it's not true,' the boy continued. 'He didn't do anything like that. He didn't touch people in a different way than he should . . . He kisses? Yeah, like you kiss your mother. We slept in the same bed? Yes, I was on one side of the bed and he was on the other. It's not unusual for him to hug, kiss and nuzzle up to you? Yeah, just the fun stuff.'
Brett's media appearance--ten-year-old Wade Robson also made a statement--coincided with the accidental broadcasting of Jackson's propensity to share his bed with young boys. To note, no one in the media knew of Jackson's sleepovers until Brett mentioned them on national television.
Stranger still is that a key Jackson player, Pellicano, thought it would be advantageous to 'refute' Jordie Chandler's allegations of having been sexually abused by bringing out unrelated young boys who merely corroborated the fact of 35-year-old Jackson's inexplicably 'touchy-feely' behavior with his 'special friends'.
It is not hard to imagine that, in accordance to the evidence in this entry, that the 'nuzzling', kissing, and hugging in bed that Brett experienced with Jackson led to the boy's own sexual abuse.
As already known, during the discussion of Michael Jackson's pedophilia issues, only his detractors and accusers are examined and/or raked through the proverbial coals. Michael Jackson's actions, behaviors, decisions, and/or rationales are never looked into. It is like the debate is in a court-of-law where he is given a presumption of innocence, though we are not in a courtroom. Even though this way of framing the debate is neither logical nor accurate and very convenient for Michael Jackson fans, it is currently the way it is.
As such, this is an additional note about the people on the train, an additional boost to their already solid credibility.
According to a story published in the March 7, 1992 Sunday edition of The Gazette newspaper, via The Washington Post, Michael Jackson was in attendance of an award event in Washington DC on Thursday, March 5, 1992. If we take note of the couple on the train's statement taken by police, the woman stated she had heard "questionable noises" between Michael Jackson and a darker-skinned male juvenile on Saturday, March 7, 1992. This train was leaving from Chicago, Illinois, eventually continuing on to California.
Because of the closeness in dates, some may question the legitimacy of their statement to police. But this is faulty.
Washington DC is about 12 hours away from Chicago. If Michael Jackson left following the event, or even the next day, Friday, he would have more than an ample amount of time to catch a train with 'cousin' Brett Barnes, his staff, and buy up a total of four compartments departing from Chicago.
After all, this is exactly the type of thing celebrities do, either while on tour or jet-setting for both publicity functions or simply for pleasure.
Like Jolie Levine, these witnesses to Michael Jackson's pedophilic behaviors are unimpeachable. Unfortunately, if they did not know Brett's identity, their statement was essentially dead on arrival.
This will not be the first time I have written about Brett Christopher Barnes, an Australian-born mixed-race man who ostensibly fell into the category of Michael Jackson 'special friend'. It was in my previous blog entry about him that I delineated why I believe there exists more than enough reasonable suspicion his 'special friend' status coincided with him being yet another of Michael's sexual abuse victims.
This will merely build upon that earlier entry, as we wade through the fruit of additional research and evidence.
At the first whiff of my claiming Brett was a victim of Michael's, my detractors will, of course, point out that Brett Christopher Barnes articulated a defense for Michael Jackson, denying that any sexual molestation by Michael against his person had ever occurred. He did this on not one, but two occasions, the second of which was delivered under penalty of perjury from the witness box during Michael Jackson's child molestation and conspiracy case in 2005.
So much did Brett Barnes care about Michael, they contend, that he went so far as to quit his job as a casino roulette dealer just to 'be there' for his friend.
I agree that Brett Barnes' display of altruism was, indeed, an expression of the love he had for Michael. But one question obviously rises from his actions: what kind of 'love' was it really? The fans will, naturally, claim that it was platonic, even familial or brotherly, but I doubt this explanation.
Brett Christopher Barnes was in love with Michael Jackson.
That 'altruism' was sacrificial in nature—of course, not that abandoning his post as 'casino roulette dealer' for Michael Jackson's well-being was akin to dropping out of a university but the sentiment was the same. His selflessness can only be adequately explained in that it was based upon intense romantic feelings for Michael Jackson, ones undoubtedly fostered by a decade of sexual contact.
I imagine this declaration of mine seems salacious, maybe even slanderous. I disagree. All one must do is look at the breadth of evidence in support of it.
In late 2009 following Michael Jackson's predictable death, the United States FBI, under FOIA, released a fraction of the documents the Bureau had pertaining to Michael and his 'woes'.
Like many Jackson skeptics, I have repeatedly been instructed by the fans to read these documents, which they erroneously believe prove Michael Jackson was innocent. Like any good researcher, I have read them. It should be noted that these documents were so heavily redacted that they were mostly indecipherable insofar as it would be haphazard to simply guess about whom the document discussed in some cases.
One document was not unreadable.
A lone witness statement given to the Juvenile Division on August 24, 1993 was included in this file of FBI documents, and it raises more than an eyebrow.
Recorded at 1:30 PM via telephone, the officer notes:
P/R called from Toronto Canada. She & husband works (sic) in Children's Services.
On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand Canyon. Train continued to CA (California). They had a compartment on car that Jackson had four compartments.
Jackson had a M/B juv (male black juvenile) 12/13 with him along with adult staff. Boy ID'd as Michael's "cousin". Jackson was very possessive of boy at night. P/R heard questionable noises through wall.
She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.
"Questionable noises" at night with a boy to whom Michael referred as his "cousin"?
This statement often gets lost in the fray when Michael's fans discuss these so-called 'exonerating' FBI files. This woman found the 'noises' Michael made with this boy with whom he was so 'touchy-feely' so disconcerting that she felt compelled, as any good social worker would, to alert someone in authority.
Understandably, one may ask, "how do we know what kind of noises this woman heard?" It is worth remembering that she worked in Children's Services. That she saw an adult male and a young boy; that the adult male was possessive of this young boy; and that she heard disturbing noises coming from a compartment only occupied by this adult male and his young boy companion can only mean a few things to a social worker who deals with child welfare:
1. She overheard verbal abuse;
2. She overheard physical abuse; or
3. She overheard sexual abuse.
It is then significant that she reported this incident to the FBI only when Michael Jackson had been accused of sexually molesting a young boy. The probability of the 'noises' being anything but sexual is very low.
This document at the very least verifies in black-and-white that someone besides the so-called 'Neverland Five' of ill-repute, or anyone else labeled 'disgruntled staff', witnessed Michael Jackson's strangely affectionate behavior with young boys. The statement of this witness is unimpeachable, as unimpeachable as Jolie Levine's statements about Michael Jackson being a veritable 'chicken hawk'.
I must repeat this: if the biggest criteria for believability with regard to a Jackson detractor is not selling a story to the tabloids and/or going to the police, this Canadian couple absolutely passes that smell test! Not only did she originally alert the conductor but she also notified authorities of what she'd seen when Michael's child abuse scandal broke out into the media.
Another boost to her credibility, it should be noted, is that she asserted this boy had been called 'cousin' by Michael Jackson. I must admit I had not been a Jackson follower for years and years but I did not know it was public information that Michael Jackson referred to his boys as 'cousins', at least until well after the scandal broke in the media. This report was at the dawn of the 1993 molestation circus, when there was little information about Michael and his 'special friends'.
What this woman had witnessed on the train is clearly tangential to what Michael was being accused of doing to Jordie Chandler: she believed she was, without a doubt, a spectator to child sexual abuse that evening on the train, and the 'noises' the couple heard were sexual in nature.
But who was the boy making 'music' with Michael Jackson?
In March 1992, the only boy fitting the description of a 'male black juvenile', aged '12/13', and called 'cousin' would be Brett Christopher Barnes, a Michael Jackson 'special friend'. Throughout 1992, Brett accompanied Michael Jackson on his Dangerous Tour, as well as on his trip to Africa (according to Bob Jones, the staff was ordered to 'conceal' Brett Barnes from the news media documenting this trip).
According to the photo credits in Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson: Unauthorized, the following picture of Brett and Michael is dated to March 1992 as they arrived in London:
The caption in Andersen's book reads: Michael arrived in London in March 1992 with ten-year-old Brett Barnes, one of the special friends he introduced as his "cousin".
This is also verified by a British news report; notice that the reporter refers to Brett as a "nine-year-old cousin":
It seems that we have an obvious match: the boy these upstanding and totally believable Canadian social workers saw (and heard) with Michael Jackson on a train in March of 1992 was Brett Barnes.
To me, it is important to establish Brett's identity in relation to these unintentionally conspicuous, vocalized sexual crescendos. It's part of the good proof that Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes engaged in sex.
If that sounds crude, the evidence supporting this only gets more graphic!
It should be noted that in my last entry on Brett Barnes--where I begged the question as to whether he, too, had been a victim of Michael's obvious sexual proclivities for pubescent boys--a lot of my reasonable suspicion was based upon Jordie Chandler's evaluation with noted false sexual abuse claims expert, the late psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner.
It was in that interview that he repeatedly brought Brett into the equation, mentioning how Michael Jackson would frequently use Brett Barnes' alleged sexual adventurousness, for lack of a better term, as a gauge of how open-minded Jordie was.
Because I believe Jordie Chandler (as the eight-figure payout also supports his claims), I believe what he'd stated about Brett Barnes to Dr. Gardner. Although it can be argued that perhaps Michael Jackson could have lied about Brett just to get Jordie to go along with his sexual 'games', I doubt this, again, based on the evidence available and use of common sense.
The Jordie Chandler scandal helpfully revealed many of Michael Jackson's sexual explorations with Brett. This also included an interesting mention in a drawn description about how Michael Jackson explained that Brett Barnes masturbated differently because he was uncircumcised; from the picture:
"Brett -- not circumcised. Brett masturbates by twisting skin different way. Brett pulled head out & say look, look but not all way because it hurts."
But one 'exploration' that deserves special mention is one I will refer to as the 'Vaseline story'.
A few months back, when I had first decided to write a follow-up to my original Brett Barnes entry, I was fixated on several sentences recorded in the famed chronology of the 1993 scandal created by Evan and Jordie Chandler for their attorneys. Evan included this strange anecdote as a 'note'.
As you can read in that chronology snapshot (taken from Victor Gutierrez's Michael Jackson Was My Lover, who scanned the actual document for the world to see), Michael Jackson told Jordie Chandler (and Jordie related it to his father) that he would bend Brett Barnes over and apply Vaseline to his anus because Brett's feces tore him, causing bleeding. It is only when Jordie asked Michael why Brett bled, Michael claimed it was because he 'ate too much', the result of that being feces so large only a lubricant applied by a 'friend' could soothe Brett's bathroom battle.
It is noteworthy to mention that my detractors will, no doubt, question the veracity of this Vaseline story because it is of Chandler origins. They will cite that the believability of it is predicated upon whether or not one believes the Jordie Chandler allegations, and if you disbelieve the allegations, how solid, then, is this Brett/Michael Vaseline tale?
This is a legitimate question.
Naturally, if one does not believe Michael Jackson was guilty of molesting Jordie Chandler--that the whole thing was a 'farce', a 'set up' so the Chandler adults could usurp money from Michael, or a 'big lie', as Michael would say--you'd also be more likely to disbelieve anything written by Evan Chandler, especially if the implication was Michael Jackson had been in a sexually ambiguous situation with yet another young boy.
It bears repeating that I believe the Chandler allegations because enough evidence exists to support them, mainly a very handsome multimillion dollar settlement amount which shortly followed Michael's 'humiliating' December 1993 body search and occurred right before he was scheduled to give a court-sworn deposition.
To me, the timing is more than suspicious!
If Evan Chandler was only 'making up' a story to bolster the allegedly fallacious claims of his son's abuse, a question to the detractors must also be asked: if the ultimate goal for the Chandlers was to make money off of Michael Jackson and, again, every detail of the Jordie Chandler allegations was essentially vicious fiction, why risk a proverbial payday by introducing Brett Barnes, an uninvolved party with the power to deny what was written in the chronology?
That would amount to an incredible risk, would it not? (Of course, there would be no risk if what they said about Brett Barnes was true, or Jordie Chandler was only repeating verbatim what Michael Jackson had told him.)
The introduction of Brett Barnes would present an uncontrollable variable. If the whole Jordie Chandler scandal had been predicated upon a 'big lie', alleging that Brett Barnes was also a victim if he was not would be a detriment to the Chandlers' reason for propagating the 'lie' in the first place, which was getting a settlement for their claims.
We should remember that Evan Chandler mentioned many boys in his chronology, and Jordie Chandler mentioned all of the known 'special friends' while being evaluated by Dr. Richard Gardner. They obviously had no qualms about bringing up other boys.
To me, it just does not make sense to implicate other people if your story is a fallacious extortion plot. It would be too much of a risk. And since it goes against all notions of logic and street smarts, I am unlikely to believe the constant mentioning of Brett Barnes by Jordie Chandler was just some fabrication dreamed up by the Chandler adults.
I should mention that even though Jordie implicated other boys--all of whom denied being molested (of course)--he only suggested, such as in the case of Wade Robson, that they merely masturbated in front of Michael; Brett, on the other hand, was at the same, or greater, sexual level as Jordie himself.
So what was really meant by this Vaseline story?
It was this note in the chronology, written as a seeming afterthought, that first pushed me to re-examine this whole Brett Barnes issue. If we take what was written at face value, Michael Jackson lending a 'helping hand', or, rather, a few agile fingertips brandishing a dollop of Vaseline, in order to soothe Brett Barnes' bathroom woes could be mostly innocent, even if inappropriate. Michael, after all, was a self-proclaimed 'lover of children' (not all children, of course) and seeing Brett suffer from painful constipation would, undoubtedly, cause Michael to feel pain.
Although it could be somewhat of a stretch, according to his testimony on the stand, Brett did recall a favorite Neverland pastime of his that could give credence to what Jordie told his father and what Evan went on to write in their chronology of the scandal:
20 Q. And what do you recall doing at Neverland
21 during the times you stayed there?
22 A. Playing arcade games. Going
23 ATV/motorbike-riding around the property. Going on
24 amusement park rides. And watching plenty of
25 movies, plenty of cartoons. Eating very good food.
If Brett specifically remembered his eating of 'good food', it is safe to say he may have had a big appetite, as suggested by Michael to Jordie, and, thus, this big appetite led to the constipation Michael Jackson was trying to 'relieve' with these Vaseline exercises. But the seeming correlation of Brett being a healthy eater does not waive the suspicions dredged up by this story as a whole.
It should be reiterated that in spite of its seeming altruism, Nurse Michael taking it upon himself to apply Vaseline to the anus of an unrelated young boy was out of line. His lack of understanding of societal boundaries when it comes to adult-child interaction is legend, as his constant need for sleepovers with other people's sons has helpfully demonstrated.
However, it is difficult for me to imagine that Michael Jackson--one of the biggest celebrities in the world with a fleet of staff--was unable to locate someone else to assist Brett Barnes in his malady. Surely Michael Jackson did not have to resort to dispensing medical care!
Was it impossible to get a staff member to travel down to a local drugstore to get some kind of stool softener for Brett? By the way Jordie related it to his father, this practice seemed commonplace; was it then impossible to alert Brett's mother that her son's Neverland diet--most likely fizzy drinks, candy, and junk food--was disaffecting his gut so much so that he had a constant war on the toilet? With Mrs. Barnes informed of her son's condition, she could have prescribed that Brett watch his diet or use laxatives while he was away at Neverland.
There seems to exist numerous other alternatives for Michael Jackson to have taken over placing himself in the very sexually ambiguous situation of shellacking Brett Barnes' inner folds with Vaseline!
I believe there is more to this Vaseline story than meets the eye, that it was more than Michael Jackson innocently playing 'Nurse' to this 'special friend'.
I should note that I am not suggesting that what was presented straight away in the chronology is not true; I am suggesting, given Mrs. Barnes' lack of involvement in this Vaseline task, that the purpose of the activity was only on the surface medical.
Is it inconceivable, given the ridiculousness of Michael's explanation to Jordie about why this was done (Brett "eats too much") and the fact he told another 'special friend' at all, that Michael Jackson, knowing the peculiarity of the Vaseline task, was trying to tell Jordie something else as inconspicuously as possible?
It is my view that a boy of Brett Barnes' age could accommodate his own wastes, so much so he needn't involve someone besides his mother, if necessary. Thus, I find Michael's inclusion obtrusive and unnecessary, which is why the question as to whether or not he simply enjoyed the activity should be considered. The very fact his mother was not involved in the Vaseline task, though Michael was, not to mention Michael had told Jordie about he and Brett's 'ritual', makes me feel that this was something that needed to be done when Brett was around Michael, that is, it was only done when Brett and Michael Jackson were together.
But if we do take what was written in the chronology at face value, could it be that Brett Barnes' anus had been traumatized, so much so he could not use the bathroom without the aid of a lubricant (his 'big shits' exacerbating the problem)?
Recall the description* given to the Chandler attorneys.
At the close is the suggestion to get a 'med exam' for Brett Barnes.
But why such a suggestion if the task was so 'mundane', given Michael's seemingly straightforward explanation that he was only helping Brett Barnes because the boy 'ate too much'? (It's noteworthy to mention that suggesting to get a 'med exam' of another boy would be a very bold and brazen move on the part of someone whose extortion plot was predicated upon a 'big lie'.)
We must remember several things.
In Jordie Chandler's evaluation with Dr. Richard Gardner, Jordie mentioned that Michael would often bring up Brett--a boy of similar age and looks, as we will soon see--as a way of getting Jordie to participate in sexual activity when Jordie felt apprehensive, as well as guilting Jordie into this activity (Note: 'Tommy Jones' is Brett Barnes):
DR. RICHARD GARDNER: "So he spoke about his cousin. And what did he say about Tommy Jones?"
JORDIE CHANDLER: "He said that, um, like, if he wanted me to do something with him, he would say that Tommy did that with him, so that I would do it. And, like, if I didn't do it, then I didn't love him as much as Tommy did." [Jordie makes a heavy sigh.]
He then added later on in the evaluation:
JC: "Right. But somewhere on the trip I said, 'I didn't like when you put your tongue in my ear and grabbed my butt.' Once again, he started crying and making me feel guilty, and saying there's nothing wrong with it, and referring to the levitators and Tommy. I think he referred to Tommy and said Tommy wouldn’t care if I did that to him."
We must also note that Evan Chandler mentioned in the chronology that during a conversation he'd had with Michael Jackson, he asked Michael quite pointedly if he was engaging in homosexual intercourse with his son.
Although anal sex was never alleged by the Chandler family, note Michael's conspicuous avoidance of a direct answer. He did not deny that he engaged in anal sex, perhaps with young boys; he merely said he did not use the term 'fucking'.
In Evan Chandler's poorly edited telephone conversations with Dave Schwartz, Evan stated that he still did not know, even after his conversation with Michael as mentioned in the chronology, if Michael was having sex with Jordie:
14 MR. CHANDLER: Dave, Jordy's -- I
15 believe that Jordy's already irreparably harmed.
16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
17 MR. CHANDLER: That's my true belief.
18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think
19 that he's fucking him?
20 MR. CHANDLER: I don't know. I have no
Again, we must keep in mind that Michael Jackson's lack of an answer was an answer in itself. While he may not have been 'fucking Jordie up the ass', his lack of a denial could be seen as confirmation that he did have anal sex, and if the suspicion was that his primary 'sexual partners' were pubescent boys, could it be that the Vaseline story involving Brett Barnes means more than we realize?
Can everyone see where I am going with this?
I believe that this Vaseline task, as mentioned in the chronology, was done for the purpose of relieving Brett Barnes' torn and traumatized anus when he would move his bowels. However, I also believe that there was a sexual component to this task. Coupled with Evan Chandler's questioning of Michael Jackson as to whether he and Jordie were having anal sex and the suggestion of getting a medical examination of Brett Barnes leads me to suspect the purpose of the Vaseline was because Michael Jackson was having anal sex with Brett and the reason for Brett needing Vaseline on his anus when he moved his bowels was due to his anus being traumatized from this penetration.
If this sounds incredible to you, I don't think it is.
Jordie Chandler stated Michael Jackson would often detail his 'encounters' with Brett, usually as a comparison between the two boys: if Jordie did not do something, Jordie did not 'love' Michael as much as Brett did, who was more 'open-minded'. It is reasonable to me that Michael would also, as inconspicuously as possible, allude to he and Brett's sexual relations: Michael tells Jordie that he applies Vaseline to Brett's anus because it bleeds when he 'doo doos'; Jordie is perplexed and asks why; Michael Jackson then comes up with a nonsensical reason, possibly as a way to not alarm a confused Jordie: Brett eats too much.
Since I believe the Vaseline story as mentioned in the chronology--specifically that Michael told Jordie about this activity--it is not an unreasonable question to ask, "Is it possible that Michael Jackson could have just 'innocently' applied Vaseline to Brett?"
It is absolutely possible. It was 'innocent' insofar that Brett Barnes was not an active sexual partner; but for Michael Jackson, it was undoubtedly sexual. One has to wonder why Brett Barnes would even tell his older, 'cooler' friend, the superstar, that he was constipated; one should also wonder why Michael Jackson would take it upon himself to grease the anus of a boy who was old enough to have done it himself.
I can only explain it as being sexual, especially when you take into account that the suggestion Brett Barnes should undergo a medical examination most likely means Evan knew there was enough trauma done to Brett's body and/or anus that it would be visible to a medical professional!
Although much maligned, one of the infamous 'Neverland Five' claimed to have been a witness, or, rather, an accomplice, to the Vaseline task.
I mentioned it very briefly in that last entry but Kassim Abdool, a former Neverland security guard, recalled bringing Vaseline to Michael Jackson sometime in 1993--the year was sketchy for him to remember--and noticing a boy in Michael's bedroom, as related in a prosecution motion regarding additional 1108 (prior bad acts) evidence and testimony.
It should be noted, as I have mentioned before, that the Prosecution team was unsuccessful in getting in this particular Abdool testimony before the 2005 jury. However, the corroboration between what Abdool claims to have seen--an erect Michael Jackson with a boy at the ready and in need of only a tub of Vaseline--and what was stated in the chronology is more than interesting, and more than coincidental.
In black and white, the Chandler chronology mentions the use of Vaseline by Michael with Brett Barnes. Kassim Abdool helpfully recalled that he brought the same product to an aroused Michael Jackson, which would also help to establish the sexual nature of this activity. The only question that remains is who really was this young boy. Abdool suggests that this boy was Jordie Chandler. If his memory is accurate, perhaps an erect Michael could have wanted the Vaseline for masturbation purposes with Jordie.
However, I am not sure it was really Jordie Chandler that Abdool claims to have seen.
We have to remember that Jordie and Brett were sometimes hard to tell apart, especially by members of the Jackson staff, who had little intimate contact with any one of the many fleets of young boys going in and out of Neverland.
Perhaps who the boy was lies in the eyewitness testimony of another former Neverland staff member, Ralph Chacon.
Under the 1108 evidence decision, Ralph Chacon, unlike Kassim Abdool, was permitted to relate his story to the jury during his April 7, 2005 testimony. It was the graphic account of how Michael Jackson, following a jacuzzi dip and showering off, went on to kiss the lips, nipples, and belly of this mystery 'special friend' before performing oral sex on the boy:
10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay. So you went back.
11 When you went back, where did you go to?
12 A. I went back to the same area where the
13 shower was located. There was a window, and I was
14 able to see and they were no longer in the shower.
15 Q. So you looked into the window?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. All right. And what did you see -- where
18 did you see Mr. Jackson and the child at this point?
19 A. I saw them standing in the nude in the
20 middle area, and Jordie was on the right, and he was
21 on the left side. Standing, facing each other.
22 Q. Now, at the time that you saw that, what
23 were the lighting conditions inside of the rest
25 A. Oh, it was litted up, just that area there.
26 Not where the shower’s at, but that area, it was --
27 the lights were on.
28 Q. Did you have any difficulty seeing in there?
1 A. Not at all, sir.
2 Q. Now, from the point outside looking down
3 inside, what did you see go on between the
4 defendant, Mr. Jackson, and Jordan Chandler?
5 A. I saw that Mr. Jackson was caressing the
6 boy’s hair, he was kissing him on his head, and his
7 face, his lips. He started kissing him on the
8 shoulders and started going down to his nipples.
9 Started sucking his nipples. Started going down to
10 his penis and putting it in his mouth. And about
11 that time I just -- I left.
12 Q. Okay. You say you saw him go down and do
14 A. He put the little boy’s penis in his mouth.
Without a doubt, most Jackson fans will find fault with this testimony for the simple reason Ralph Chacon, like Kassim Abdool and the rest of the 'Neverland Five' troop, not only sold Michael Jackson-related stories to the tabloids but also lost a lawsuit against Michael Jackson. The group claimed they had been 'wrongfully terminated' following cooperation with the 1994 investigative grand juries, as well as having been harassed and threatened by the newly-hired OSS security staff. Regardless of the claims, the jury found him liable for stealing from Neverland and that they had all acted with 'malice and fraud' against Michael Jackson. The result was the 'Neverland Five' having to pay over a million dollars to Michael, which included his exorbitant legal fees**.
Because of this, I find that it is at least somewhat reasonable to view Chacon and his fellow 'Neverland Five' workers as suspicious.
After all, they went beyond the simple selling of stories (I think it is erroneous to believe someone is always lying if they sell stories to the tabloids) and had a judgement filed against them. It could even be suggested that following this judgement, perhaps these 'Neverland Five' workers wanted to get back at Michael Jackson by testifying against him in court in 2005.
According to his testimony, however, Ralph Chacon stated that he was subpoenaed to be in court for Michael Jackson's child molestation case and did not want to testify. The same went for his testimony in front of the grand jury in 1994.
5 Q. All right. Let’s go back just for a second.
6 Mr. Chacon, were you subpoenaed to be here
7 this morning?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. You’re under subpoena?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Did you want to come testify?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. When you testified before the grand jury,
14 were you under subpoena?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Did you want to testify?
17 A. No, sir.
Chacon also stated under oath that Michael Jackson's attorneys contacted and met with him prior to his grand jury testimony, hounding him about what he was going to say:
8 Q. At some time prior to appearing before the
9 grand jury, pursuant to subpoena, were you contacted
10 by attorneys representing Mr. Jackson?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. On how many occasions?
13 A. I can remember two occasions that I was
14 called to come before them.
15 Q. And do you recall who those attorneys were?
16 A. Mr. Steve Cochran, I believe, and I remember
17 an Eric Mason. Mr. Sanger.
18 Q. Do you recall where the first meeting
20 A. It happened in Mr. Jackson’s outside office
21 at Neverland.
22 Q. And do you recall when the second meeting
24 A. It happened in Santa Barbara at Mr. Sanger’s
26 Q. And were both of these meetings prior to the
27 time you were to appear before the grand jury, your
28 subpoena date?
1 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Prior to your appearance before the grand
19 jury, you told the ladies and gentlemen that you met
20 with attorneys for Mr. Jackson; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And with regard to that conversation, did
23 they want to know what you were going to say?
24 A. They did.
25 Q. And what did you tell them?
26 A. I said that I got subpoenaed, and if I got
27 subpoenaed, that I would just speak the truth, but I
28 didn’t tell them what I knew, but they wanted to
2 Q. They wanted to know, but you wouldn’t tell
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. But you told them you were going to tell the
6 grand jury the truth?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And did you do that?
9 A. Yes, sir.
Ralph Chacon also added that these attorneys offered him money:
18 Q. After your conversations with Mr. Sanger and
19 Steve Cochran about your grand jury appearance, were
20 you offered a raise?
21 A. Yes, sir, I was.
22 Q. And it was before your testimony actually
23 occurred before the grand jury, correct?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. So it was in between the time they found out
26 you were going and the time that you actually
27 appeared they offered you a raise?
28 A. Yes, sir.
All of this may seem ancillary to the main point--that Ralph Chacon claimed to have been a witness to Michael Jackson fellating a 'special friend'--but it goes well towards his believability. Surely, there would be no point of attorneys 'harrassing' someone if everything that went on at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch was perfectly innocent, not at all suspicious and never sexual.
One has to wonder, then, in light of the conduct of Michael Jackson's attorneys, what kind of 'Neverland behaviors' were potentially on display to the workers there, so much so that Jackson henchmen feared a lowly security guard may spill the beans without financial incentive not to!
But let's return to who Chacon actually saw.
As Chacon stated to the jury, he observed Michael Jackson head to the jacuzzi and then into the pool area showers with a young male visitor to Neverland, where he then witnessed Michael kiss and perform a sex act on this same boy. Again, according to Chacon's recollection, this young boy was Jordie Chandler.
But was it really?
Like Kassim Abdool, we have to realize that Chacon had given an account of an incident occurring twelve to thirteen years before the trial at which he testified; understandably, his memory may have been sketchy. He did not know who the boy was for sure and assumed the boy he saw with Michael Jackson was Jordie. On the stand, Ralph Chacon acknowledged the boys looked similar according to his estimation:
19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, Mr. Chacon, are you
20 familiar with a child by the name -- a young boy by
21 the name of Brett Barnes?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. And have you seen Mr. Barnes before?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Have you seen him at the ranch before?
26 A. Yes, sir.
27 Q. Have you seen him in the company of the
28 defendant before?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. On how many occasions?
3 A. Numerous occasions. I couldn’t give you a
5 Q. When Mr. Barnes was at the ranch, do you
6 recall whether or not his parents were with him?
7 A. At times they were; at other times they
9 Q. Now, with regard to the child you’ve
10 described and identified as Jordan Chandler, and the
11 child that you also saw as Brett Barnes, can you
12 tell us what they look like?
13 A. Well, to me, I always got them confused,
14 because they looked the same, similar. I know one
15 was a little bit shorter than the other. But, you
16 know, I always got them confused, but they looked --
17 they looked alike. Maybe one had hair a little bit
18 shorter than the other.