A Witness to Extortion: Exclusive Interview with Geraldine Hughes, author of "Redemption"

[Triana]

An Exclusive, In-Depth Interview with author Geraldine Hughes, sharing the truth behind the Michael Jackson 1993 Child Molestation Allegations
By Deborah L. Kunesh

If you’ve ever wondered, why did Michael Jackson pay his accusor’s father a settlement if he was innocent? What really happened? This interview is for you!

• • •

DK: Deborah Kunesh
GH: Geraldine Hughes

DK: You were the legal secretary for the accuser’s father in the 1993 allegations, correct?

GH: Right.

DK: How did you come to work for him? How long had you been working for him?

GH: Not long actually. I had only worked for him for total time of about maybe 8 months, but I was with him 2 months before the allegations.

DK: Barry Rothman, he had a fairly bad reputation for being pretty mean?

GH: To call him mean would be a compliment (laughter). He just really had a horrible demeanor, personality, just his whole everything. His presence, how he treats people. He just really had a bad character.

My best description of an encounter with Mr. Rothman is a real-life encounter with a real life demon straight out of the pits of hell…..Mr. Rothman ran his office like a concentration camp. His goal was always to inflict pain, humiliate and render you worthless so he could feel more superior. In his eyes, there were only two classes of people, boss and employees. Even his associate attorneys fell under the employee classification because he treated them no differently. He would rant and rave and humiliate them publicly just like the clerical staff. We were all equally abused.” Geraldine Hughes in “Redemption”

“According to an article written by Mary Fisher of GQ in 1994, “Rothman has a reputation for stiffing people.” He was considered a professional deadbeat who pays no one. Professionally, he has received repeated disciplinary actions by the State Bar.” Geraldine Hughes in “Redemption.”

DK: When you started working for him, did it take you long to notice that?

GH: I noticed it kind of instantly. We had a receptionist and it was like he needed someone to badger on a daily basis and he used to beat up on her pretty badly on a daily basis. He kind of left me alone because he couldn’t afford for me to just up and walk out on him. He could lose a receptionist.

DK: That had to be hard to work for someone like that.

GH: I became friends with the receptionist and part of the reason I hung in there was to keep her encouraged. Under normal circumstances, I would have bailed out from that environment long past.

DK: It’s good in a way that you didn’t though because of what you were able to witness. You actually witnessed the extortion? What did you see and hear?

GH: Well, they started out negotiating. When I say they, Chandler, Evan Chandler, and Barry Rothman who was representing him, they started out negotiating with Michael’s representative, who was Anthony Pellicano, who was the private investigator. What they did was they went to him, he (Evan Chandler) wanted him to fund a $20 million movie deal, he wanted to make another movie and he needed the money for it, so he first went to Michael’s team, not saying anything about, you know, seeing him molesting his child. He went to him asking for a $20 million movie deal, for him (Michael) to fund it and he had a hypothetical letter that he obtained from a psychiatrist saying well, you know, “my son is hanging out with this male guy and they’re doing sleepovers and, what do you think? You think something wrong is going on?” (The psychiatrist) sent a letter back telling him that minus talking to the boy, he can’t say conclusively, and “just hypothetically speaking, I would have a concern about impropriety,” that was it. So he (Evan Chandler) took that hypothetical letter that he got from the doctor after posing a hypothetical question and he used that letter as a bargaining tool to Michael’s team that if he (Michael) didn’t pay the money, that they were going to use that letter to ruin him.

• • •

DK: Michael’s insurance company paid the settlement, not Michael himself?

GH: Right. They paid it not on negligence, they paid on there being a liability. They didn’t pay on negligence, because insurance companies will not pay on negligence. The fact that they paid the settlement, shows that he wasn’t negligent. If he was negligent…it’s just like if you get into a car accident. If you were the negligent party, they won’t pay. At least you won’t get anything out of it. You’ve got the insurance to cover the other person. But you can’t collect from an insurance company based on negligence.

DK: What does it mean that they paid on a liability?

GH: Just like if you go to a mall, you said you slipped and fell, and then you went to the doctor. Now, we don’t know if you really did or not, but there’s a liability in that you got a doctor, you got charges, it’s like you’re claiming you’ve created a situation, it hasn’t been proven, so therefore, they’ll pay it. You’re going to court to prove it. So the insurance company is like, :look, rather than pay all of this money on court costs, we’ll negotiate a settlement based on there being a liability." It doesn’t get proven unless you go to court. But they’re not willing to pay the money to go to court. They’re just saying, "well, look, you’ve created a situation, you’ve made a claim, let’s settle this thing, let’s negotiate for a settlement amount. We’re not saying right or wrong, good or bad, we just want to get rid of this."

• • • 


GH: Settlement is the most desirable way of handling any kind of dispute. They would rather... the court requires mandatory settlement conferences. They’ll give you a trial date, but before that trial date hits, they make sure that these parties come together, negotiate, try and settle this thing, try and keep this thing out of court. That is mandatory. Oh absolutely. They don’t have enough judges. They don’t have enough man dollars to handle every dispute or claim that comes knocking at their door. So they try and settle it. If they can’t settle it, they’ll mandatorily send it for arbitration, send it for mediation, anything, but let’s keep this out of court.

DK: You had come forth to investigators with your information in 1993?

GH: Yes, Anthony Pellicano. That was Michael Jackson’s private investigator.

DK: When you found out what was going on, then you went to Mr. Pellicano?

GH: Yes. That was at the very onset. I think my meetings with Pellicano, it wasn’t longer than 2 weeks after the story broke that they were alleging child molestation for Michael the first time.

DK: You had witnessed Jordie Chandler coming in to your office and then the tape, that recorded phone conversation, etc. Do you know how long after that that these charges were brought against Michael?

GH: They launched the charges against Michael on the date that they had an Ex Parte hearing. They had a hearing, the father took the custody of the boy from his mom and it was during this time that I believe that all of the planning was going on, when I saw him in the office, negotiating with Michael, and he had the boy in his custody. Well, it was without the mother’s approval and permission because he was supposed to return him back to the Mom. So the mother filed an emergency custody hearing, an OSC (Order to Show Cause). We call it an Ex Parte hearing for custody, regarding custody, and Ex Parte means that you have to show up in court the very next day. You only get a one day notice on that. The real damaging piece of information against the Chandlers is that they went to court, in front of the judge (at this hearing, with no mention of child molestation concerns). They had been negotiating with Michael for a month, trying to get money out of him, claiming to use the allegation of inpropriety as their leverage, but then they go to court before a judge on the issue of custody and they didn’t say 2 words to the judge that there was a concern about the boy’s welfare, about him being molested, about any improriety. They didn’t say anything that there was a concern or any problem in that regard. The judge ordered that he return Jordie back to his mom.

Now, I’m in the office like, "Lord, what are they going to do next?" I was thinking, ha, she won. They’ve got to return the boy. Well, that’s the day they launched the allegation of child molestation. On the same day that they were ordered to return the boy back to the mother. On the same day!

DK: Yet, they didn’t mention any of this in the court?

GH: Didn’t mention it in the court. Because if they had, the judge would have ordered an investigation. When you really think about it, that’s the proper forum. If you’re going through a custody situation, that’s where you express your concerns about the welfare of a child. But they went to court, they didn’t say two words. The way I explained it in the book, well first of all, she threw them with a curve ball with that hearing. That wasn’t their plan. They didn’t know how to deal with it and they only had one day to show up in court. They didn’t have time to (alter their plan). They just had to show up and they were just at the mercy of the court pretty much. and when they saw that the court ordered to return the boy, they decided, let’s go on and launch the plan because without the boy’s custody, they could not really do this thing, or sending him back to the mom, whatever they did, she could have undone it. He could have confided in the mom and they didn’t want that. At that point, they could not afford to send him back into her custody. They had done too much.

It’s just that there whole technique, their whole thing was planned. Even the plan was planned. All the issues were planned. Then when the father in the conversation, he said, “We’re moving according to a plan.” He said it wasn’t his plan, but he said “We’re moving according to a plan. “It’s not mine, but I’ve hired someone that’s mean, devious, nasty to move against Michael and he’s just waiting on my phone call.

Geraldine Hughes

MUCH more of this interview:

http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html

[Triana]

1. Something I didn't know ...

...they were coming after him and February was the month that the investigator Sneddon met with the Mom and found out that at that point, the kids hadn’t slept with Michael in his room. They went back to the ranch. They had to go back a third time just to say “Oh, we want to sleep with you now. We want to sleep in your bed.” That was planned. That was calculated. That was in February when the investigator talked to them and they found out that, as of that time, they hadn’t slept in Michael’s room or in his bed. So they went back. That was their third trip to the ranch.

DK: Sneddon talked to Janet Arvizo ahead of time, and then the kids started sleeping in his room?

GH: The whole conspiracy, all of the conspiracy theories are in my second book. What happened was, the investigator, after the airing of that documentary, the investigator Sneddon, who has been after Michael forever, trying to prove him a child molester. He went and personally talked with Janet Arvizo, they talked in a parking lot, in a car, and that’s not proper for a prosecutor to turn into an investigator. Because now, you’re supposed to be a witness, and you’re not supposed to be able to witness as a prosector. At that point, when he went and met with Janet, he turned into a witness. So that move on his part was very improper and so it’s very suspicious to a lot of people as to him having a hand in this in the very beginning. Considering that when he talked with her initially, they had been to the ranch several times. A lot of the times they were there, Michael wasn’t there.

He found out that they had not slept in his room, so they went back the third time, their only reason for going back was to accomplish the goal of sleeping in his room and they bugged him like “Michael, we want to sleep in your room, in your bed. Oh, we want to sleep with you Michael,” you know.

Galvin Arvizo stated in the Martin Bashir documentary that he did in fact sleep in Michael Jackson's bed, and that Michael Jackson slept on the floor with his body guard. Tom Sneddon met privately with Janet Arvizo in the parking lot and after said meeting changed her allegation that Michael Jackson was exploiting her children, to Michael Jackson had molested her children.

Michael was so cautious. Michael has been cautious with letting kids sleep in his room. As a matter of fact, there has been no children that has slept in his room or his bed since ’93. Everybody seemed to think that’s something he’d been doing. No, he hasn’t. And he hired, he had an employee that he had hired, and this guy’s only job was, when children was at Michael’s house, was to supervise and to be a supervisor and keep an eye on the kids. So when they came back wanting to sleep in his room and in his bed, Michael told them, “Well, I’ll let you sleep in my bed, but I’m going to sleep on the floor," and him and his supervisor, they bedded up on the floor and let the kids sleep in his bed. Those kids never slept with Michael, ever, never, and when they finally did get an opportunity to sleep in his room and in his bed, Michael, along with his hired supervisor, was on the floor. He had somebody there, witnessing, and let me tell you what the prosecutor did. This was one of the guys that he labeled an unnamed, you remember there were about 3 or 4 people that were unnamed. What he did, it was like a threat. "If you come forward, if you do anything, we’re going to prosecute you too." That’s what it was. It was to keep them out of the limelight, out of the media. To keep them from saying anything because you’re a potential perpetrator here, so you can’t say nothing to nobody. But he was really one of the best witnesses that Michael had.

DK: This was the guy that was hired as Michael’s supervisor?

GH: Yes, yes. That’s why the Michaelgate book is very, very important. I’m giving you a little sneak preview. The book will have a lot of additional information just like this.

MORE...


http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html


(am I surprised? NOPE. This whole thing was a a put-up job to destroy MJ and get his money.)

[Whisp]

2. thanks, Triana.

dispicable people, these.
and pox on all the assholes that still make Michael Jackson jokes.

This recount sounds more logical and factual than anything idiots like Jay Leno spew from their gobs, or the ones fresh from Dumbfuckistan idiots that can't even read and pretend to be investigators and criminologists.

Michael was set up and used. Shame on the world for letting that happen. but hey, sensational shit sells.

[Triana]

5. He WAS set up and used. Deliberately destroyed and I am ASHAMED of what was done

to this innocent man. Ashamed of humanity, society, and our country. It's DISGUSTING. And some foulmouth beyotch like this Tanya Gold woman (a Diane Dimond clone) can get on TeeVee or in a paper and spew and perpetuate the LIES about it but Hughes can't get anyone to listen to the TRUTH.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/guardian-columnist-insinuates-that.html

[shadowknows69]

8. Don't forget ashamed of his own looks. Or are you in the "he didn't have plastic surgery" camp too?

[blonndee]

3. I recently read the transcripts of the June Chandler (Mom from 1993) testimony

in the 2005 (Arvizo) case and it makes it more obvious than ever that it was a fucking put-up job from the beginning as well. Also, the whole testimony makes it clear that her complaints about Michael never went beyond her belief that Jordie's spending so much time with Michael was a detriment to the family relationship, that he was missing out on family time, NOT that there was any abuse going on. That was NEVER alleged in the civil suit or by her in court, ever. The testimony also implies that the reason she got on board with her scary ex's extortion scheme MAY have been that Michael had cut off financial support to the family, which she had come to expect. She testifies herself that she continued to allow Jordie to visit (and go herself) Michael at his ranch and his condo, to go on tour appearances and vacation, and to allow Michael to come and stay at their house for days on end well AFTER she claims that she was bothered by their relationship.

http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/June-Chandler-Testimony.txt

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear will realize what happened. All it takes is a desire to know the truth.

Mac Culkin's testimony is also really enlightening in terms of Michael's character and reasons for caring for children so much.

http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Macaulay-Culkin-Testimony.txt

There are also links to transcripts of the testimony from Brett Barnes and Wade Robson (and every other person who testified) at the main web page above. I haven't read all of it word for word yet, that's why I haven't posted links or what the gist of the transcripts are.

It makes me sick that case ever went to trial. God DAMN that Tom Sneddon. He's sick.

[Triana]

4. Tom Sneddon = psychopath

I really think this guy was as disordered and rageful and freaky as the Arvizos (the parents) and the Chandlers (esp Evan). All these people are batshit crazy. Meanwhile, they and the media tried to define MICHEAL as the crazy one. Crazy is making your kids LIE about someone to get money from them and destroying the life of an innocent man to do that. THAT is crazy!

THANK YOU for those links! I'll definitely be passing them on!

Meanwhile, I found this:

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=931

Nevermind the religious bent, it goes along with what I've said about abusers - that they find something that's really important to a person or meaningful to them and THAT is where they choose to attack or ridicule or criticize or LIE about the person they're trying to destroy (whose SPIRIT they're trying to destroy) - it's ABUSE. Michael loved and was ALWAYS trying to help children all over the world - kids on their death beds, kids who needed life-saving operations - all of them. He LIVED for helping them - he SAID that. A person who does this - quietly and asking nothing in return and no fanfare - is NOT a child molester.

Anwyay, whether couched in religious or scientific/logical terms, the M.O. of these psychopaths/abusers is the same - to destroy another person via destroying their spirit - by attacking them about something that means MOST to them.


Here's another part of her interview that explains Michael's mindset about 'sleepovers':


DK: Your ministry children who are girls will come over and take over your bed (on soulpatrol.com) and you were responding to what people were saying about kids sleeping in his bed, things like that. “Maybe it was the children insisting on the sleepovers and treating Michael like one of the boys and not vice versa.” My husband’s friend was a camp counselor and my husband had gone with his friend once, and the camp counselors slept in the same room as the kids, and he saw it as the same thing. Kids want to feel a sense of comfort, of being around another adult, especially when they’re in a place that’s not home. People seem to automatically translate, if you say, sleeping or bed, they automatically translate it into sex. I don’t think Michael saw it that way at all.

GH: He didn’t, and you know, we don’t either because if we look into our own little lives. Like I said, for about 3-4 years, my ministry children came to my house on a weekly, weekend basis for sleepovers. The only thing I did, and I can relate this to Michael. I was very careful about when I had the boys over, because I’m a female. I didn’t play with the boys. I didn’t, you know, the boys didn’t come to my room, they didn’t get in my bed, not one boy can tell you that they slept in my bed because I’m being careful and cautious. The girls, because we’re all girls. They came to my room. You're basically being a supervisor and I can see this part where Michael said the most intimate thing you can do with a person is share your bed. Sitting around on a person’s bed and you’re watching TV and you’re eating popcorn, if those kids have any kind of problem, you’re right there and you’ve got their ear. I mean, I did more ministry with my kids when they were sitting around watching TV in my bed. They’re comfortable, they’re relaxed. You see their little issues, you know how to work with them now. You’re just letting them be natural and you’re trying to be one of them so that they can trust you and open up. It’s therapeutic. I had little girls, one of the cutest little girls in my whole ministry, the most beautiful little girl, she thought she was a boy. It was in settings like that that I found out why she thought like that and why she was the baddest one out of all of them and that little girl ended up being the sweetest little kid I had. I was able to turn her head from that direction and she turned out to be the sweetest because I spent that kind of time with her where we were just laughing and playing and having fun and they're all just thinking of me as one of the kids and really, I’m an adult in hiding. I’m really a counselor in hiding, you know?

DK: Sometimes you have to come down to their level in that way.

GH: You have to come down to their level, to reach them.

[Bethany Rockafella]

12. I've heard some rumors about that June Chandler woman

I hate to spread rumors but it was believed that June and Mike were sexing it up which is why Evan Chandler wanted to destroy MJ so bad.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Once again, thank you Triana

I was a fan but not a die hard fan back when all of this was happening and I didn't need to attend court or read up on the transcripts that MJ would do none of what they accuse him of. Still, years later I researched and read some of the evidence out there proving his innocence to prove to myself that I'm not the type to blindly support someone without proof. I haven't read all the transcripts but I've read enough. Michael Jackson was set up from the get go.

[Triana]

10. Same here. I've read them all - didn't need to because I always felt the charges

and accusations were bogus (TOTALLY out of character for MJ) - but I wanted to know more - all the details/facts. And it turns out - yep. They were as bogus as a plug nickel.

[shadowknows69]

7. Still dead. Was still a pedophile. Sorry.

[shadowknows69]

9. Your sources for this bullshit alone is completely laughable.

[blonndee]

11. Kicked on behalf of Ignored.

:)