After Jason Francia turned out to be the only boy they were able to pressure into making allegations against Jackson, the prosecution had to rely on third party witnesses during the 2005 trial instead of any alleged victims. They called former Jackson employees on the stand who had an axe to grind against Jackson and tried to withdraw from the Bank of Michael Jackson.\r\n\r\nIn June of 1994, Thomas Sneddon, Lauren Weiss and two detectives (one from the Santa Barbara Sherrif\u2019s Department and the other from the Los Angeles Police Department) flew to Melbourne Australia with the intent of interviewing Brett\u00a0Barnes. The law enforcement officials claimed that according to their informants there was new evidence that Brett had been molested by Jackson.\r\n\r\nAccording to court documents and testimony in the 2005 trial, this information originated with former security guards\u00a0Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool\u00a0and former maid Adrian McManus. These three, along with two others called Melanie Bagnall and Sandy Domz, would become known as the\u00a0Neverland Five.\r\n\r\nThe Neverland Five were a group of former employees of Jackson that sued him for sixteen million dollars, alleging that they were wrongfully terminated because of what they knew about Jackson and young boys. Other charges were alleged threats by Jackson\u2019s personal security officers, and even an allegation of sexual harassment against one of the personal security officers.\r\n\r\nAbdool, Chacon and McManus testified at the 2005 trial when the prosecution introduced their so called \u201cprior bad acts\u201d evidence. They claimed that during their employment at Neverland Ranch between 1990 and 1994, they had witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately towards children.\r\n\r\nNone of these people ever reported the alleged improprieties and molestations to the police, nor did they mentioned any of this at the time it supposedly occurred. Their stories first surfaced in the spring of 1994, more than six months after the Chandler allegations became public.\r\n\r\nBefore filing a civil lawsuit against Jackson, the Neverland 5 contacted a tabloid broker named Gary Morgan from the Splash News and Picture Agency to sell slanderous stories about Jackson with children, and about Jackson and his then wife Lisa Marie Presley.\r\n\r\nMorgan arranged interviews with magazines such as The Star,\u00a0and TV programs such as Inside Edition. According to McManus\u2019 2005 testimony, they received over $32,000 for their stories and nearly all of it went to their attorney Michael Ring to finance their civil lawsuit, in which they had hoped to be awarded millions of dollars.\r\n\r\nOn the stand, Abdool claimed that Chacon, McManus and himself did not discuss and harmonize in advance which stories they were selling to the tabloids. However, this was contradicted by Chacon\u2019s own testimony in which he admitted they made drafts about their stories in Ring\u2019s office.\r\n\r\nBesides the monetary award, another purpose for these tabloid interviews and the Neverland 5\u2019s claims of having witnessed Jackson in improper situations with children, was to pressure Jackson into settling the case. And although Chacon claimed at the trial not to have known anything about such tactics, he admitted that it would not surprise him if that were the case.\r\n\r\nUnlike Chacon, who claimed to have witness Jackson molesting Jordan Chandler first hand, Abdool, who worked with Chacon on the same shift and described himself his friend, did not claim to have witnessed any sexual abuse. Nevertheless, he did support\u00a0 Chacon\u2019s allegations by claiming that he witnessed similar improprieties to those Chacon claimed he had witnessed.\r\n\r\nChacon and Abdool were served a subpoena by detective Russell Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff\u2019s Department on April 29, 1994 to appear in front of the Los Angeles Grand Jury on May 9th, 1994, which were convened to examine the allegations against Jackson.\r\n\r\nBirchim gave his business card to each of the guards and asked them to call him if they had any \u2018observations\u2019 to share with the police. And five days later,\u00a0on May 4<sup>th<\/sup>,\u00a0Abdool indeed called him and asked him for a meeting, though setting the condition that it should take place in a secluded place because allegedly they were afraid that someone from Jackson\u2019s defence team would see them talking to law-enforcement.\r\n\r\nAbdool\u2019s request was granted, Birchim accompanied by detective Monk, met the two at a rest stop on a road halfway between Santa Maria and Santa Barbara on May 5th.\r\n\r\nAbdool, who did all the talking, informed the detectives that on May 3rd the defence had contacted the guards and offered them a free lawyer to accompany them to the Los Angeles Grand Jury hearings.\r\n\r\nThat lawyer could not be present in the Grand Jury room, but he could stay outside the room and answer questions in case they needed his consultation. However, Abdool and Chacon declined the offer saying that they would tell only \u2018<em>the truth<\/em>\u2019 and \u2018<em>for that they didn<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t need a lawyer<\/em>\u2019.\r\n\r\nOn that same day,\u00a0May 3<sup>rd<\/sup>,\u00a0Abdool and Chacon were also contacted by Eric Mason, the investigator working for Jackson\u2019s team both in 1994 and 2005 and whose findings for the trial proved invaluable. This was evidently the reason why they told the sheriffs that <em>\u201c<\/em><em>they could be in danger from Mr. Jackson<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>s people if they told what they knew<\/em><em>\u201d<\/em><em>.<\/em>\r\n\r\nBirchim\u2019s testimony contains no details of the guards\u2019 conversation with Mason and all we know is that it was a phone call from Mason, and Abdool and Chacon indicated to him that they would tell \u2018the truth\u2019 at the Los Angeles Grand Jury hearings.\r\n\r\nAt their second meeting with the detectives, Abdool and Chacon didn\u2019t share any information with them, their message focused solely on the idea that they might be in \u2018danger\u2019. This had nothing to do with reality of course, because they went to the tabloids not much later and no such thing bothered them in the least.\r\n\r\nEvidently at the pretext of needing protection, Abdool requested a meeting with District Attorney Tom Sneddon which was promptly arranged for the following day;\u00a0May 6th. Besides Sneddon and the two guards, Birchim and Monk were also present at this meeting.\r\n\r\nNow this was their third meeting with the prosecution team, yet once more they didn\u2019t tell them anything<em>\u00a0<\/em>and were speaking in riddles, dangling a carrot in front of the detectives.\r\n\r\nAccording to Birchim, Chacon and Abdool described their \u2018knowledge\u2019 in hypothetical terms and didn\u2019t indicate that they were the ones who had the information. It was more a \u2018what if?\u2019 kind of conversation,\u00a0which most probably had a side meaning to it \u2013 what good would it do to them if they shared it?.\r\n\r\nAll these prolonged negotiations look more like they were bargaining a deal and this suspicion grows only stronger when Birchim shares the details of that conversation. It turns out that Abdool and Chacon asked about the government witness program and its\u00a0conditions.<em>\u00a0<\/em>Birchim said that they were \u2018not specific about what they would receive\u2019, but it seems that the terms of the deal\u00a0were\u00a0discussed.\r\n\r\nIn addition to that, Chacon mentioned that he owed child support and that tabloids were interested in paying them for their information as well, yet they were highly moral people and could offer it only to the police.\r\n\r\nSo the third meeting brought the prosecution team nowhere. However, the conversation turned out to be a constructive one for Chacon because some time after their third meeting Chacon received\u00a0money<em>\u00a0<\/em>from Detective Birchim.\r\n\r\nDuring Chacon\u2019s testimony he initially was completely forgetful of that fact, but in the process of cross-examination seemed to recover his memory to a point where he even recalled the reason why he needed that money. Apparently his wife\u2019s sister-in-law had passed away and we would have heard the whole story if it wasn\u2019t for Sneddon, who stopped him right there and said it was not important.\r\n\r\nIt is also noteworthy that the money was not the only benefit of that meeting - Birchim and Sneddon provided Chacon with a gun permit which he desired and carried for two years after that.\r\n\r\nSince we know for a fact that as a result of the third meeting on\u00a0May 6<sup>th<\/sup>, 1994 Sneddon still knew\u00a0nothing\u00a0of the essence of Chacon\u2019s allegations and heard only some vague stories in their hypothetical form, it seems that this meeting was not really a mutually beneficial cooperation. At least not if we take these testimonies at face value.\r\n\r\nThree days later\u00a0Abdool appeared before the Los Angeles Grand Jury as he was supposed to. However Chacon didn\u2019t go. Instead of appearing before the jury, he made a statement, supposedly under oath, to Sneddon and Birchim on May 10<sup>th<\/sup>. This is when his revelation about Jackson molesting Chandler finally surfaced.\r\n\r\nNo one bothered to explain why Chacon didn\u2019t appear before the Los Angeles Grand Jury and instead made a statement. All he said was that he was afraid that his job would be jeopardized. This makes no sense at all. Whether his statement was read out to the Grand Jury or he made his personal appearance there didn\u2019t make a difference for Jackson\u2019s defence because they wouldn\u2019t know about it\u00a0either way because they wouldn\u2019t be present there to hear any of it.\r\n\r\nWhat Chacon was really afraid of were the questions from the Grand Jury like, for example why he kept silent about those alleged incidents for so long, why he never informed the police, and why he shared this information with his immediate boss and friend Abdool only when he received a subpoena to appear before the Grand Jury.\r\n\r\nChacon was so lost on what to reply that even a simple question at the 2005 trial about the first time he shared his story with Abdool made him stammer in confusion. When asked to specify when exactly he told his story to the sheriffs it almost made him panic.\r\n\r\nDuring his 2005 testimony,\u00a0Chacon claimed to have seen through a rest room window how Jackson sexually molested Jordan Chandler on one occasion in 1993, going in graphic details about the alleged abuse. He claimed he saw Jackson caressing Chandler\u2019s hair, kissing him on the head, face, lips and shoulders before sucking his nipples and eventually going down to Chandler's genital area, giving Chandler some lip service.\r\n\r\nA claim so graphic and detailed that you would expect any decent human being to not only go straight to the police, but even to speak up and stop such abuse immediately. But Chacon said that he just left and went back to the barbecue area, which the security position he was assigned.\r\n\r\nChacon made this statement after<em>\u00a0<\/em>his appearance before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury (not to be confused with the Los Angeles Grand Jury) and\u00a0not during\u00a0it as Sneddon wanted everyone to think when Chacon was on the stand in 2005. Sneddon repeatedly stated the lie that Chacon told his full story to the 1994 Grand Jury and deliberately muddied the waters as to which grand jury that was.\r\n\r\nChacon did not appear before the Los Angeles Grand Jury but did appear before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury earlier, yet didn\u2019t say a single bad word about Jackson. Grand Jury testimonies are not available after it is decided not to indict, but there is another way to find out that he indeed said nothing incriminating about Jackson.\r\n\r\nOn Monday, May 2<sup>nd<\/sup>\u00a0 1994, The Independent reported that a local television station announced on Saturday that the Santa Barbara Grand Jury had ended its deliberations without returning an indictment.\r\n<blockquote><em>Monday 2 May 1994. <\/em><em>\u201c<\/em><em>The Santa Barbara County grand jury, one of two California grand juries investigating sex-abuse allegations against Michael Jackson, has ended its deliberations without returning an indictment,<\/em><em>\u00a0a local television station reported on Saturday<\/em><em>, Reuter reports from Los Angeles.<\/em><em>\u201d<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThat means that would have been Saturday April 30<sup>th<\/sup>, 1994.\r\n\r\nA CNN news report, also dated May 2nd, reports that the Grand Jury was disbanded without announcing any action on Friday.\r\n<blockquote><em>\u201c<\/em><em>After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury\u00a0disbanded Friday\u00a0without announcing any action.\u201d<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThat means that the Santa Barbara Grand Jury was disbanded on April 29<sup>th<\/sup>, 1994 and one of the jurors told CNN that he had not heard any damaging testimony during the hearings.\r\n\r\nApril 29<sup>th<\/sup> is the day that detective Birchim served Chacon and Abdool with their subpoenas to the Los Angeles Grand Jury, and Chacon\u2019s \u2018molestation\u2019 story did not even surface until nearly two weeks after that, on May 10<sup>th<\/sup>. This is when Sneddon and Birchim first heard about it.\r\n\r\nSo the correct sequence of events shows that it was impossible for Chacon to testify about the alleged \u2018molestation\u2019 in front of the Santa Barbara Grand Jury simply because by the time he revealed his story, the Santa Barbara\u00a0Grand Jury had already been\u00a0disbanded.\r\n\r\nThis means that he said something contrary to what he claimed in his statement on May 10<sup>th<\/sup> and evidently testified to Jackson\u2019s innocence before the Santa Barbara hearings otherwise there would have been no need for Sneddon to make such a complicated scam around the issue.\r\n\r\nAnd although Chacon would not confirm it during his 2005 testimony, Jackson\u2019s lawyers knew it and repeatedly reminded him that initially he told others that Jackson was innocent of the accusations.\r\n\r\nThere can\u2019t be any doubt now that in the period between his appearance before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury and the subpoena for the Los Angeles Grand Jury and eventual sworn statement for Sneddon, Chacon had radically changed his story.\r\n\r\nOn the stand Chacon disclosed that towards the end of his employment by Jackson he had conflicts with Jackson\u2019s personal bodyguards because according to him, they interfered with his work. Chacon admitted that he and Abdool were upset and dissatisfied because they found out that the new security staff for Jackson was paid more than they were.\r\n\r\nDuring his testimony it was also revealed that Chacon was in financial difficulties in 1994, owing money on a lawsuit he had lost. Although documents were shown to prove this, Chacon claimed he did not remember that ruling.\r\n\r\nMesereau also revealed that Chacon owed money on child support and had been missing payments on his rent, but had bragged to his landlady, Linda Allen, that with a lawsuit against Jackson he would win millions and would even be able to drive around in an expensive Mercedes. Chacon denied these claims.\r\n\r\nOn January 13, 1994, Abdool had signed a statement for Jackson\u2019s representatives that stated he had never seen Jackson touch any child in a sexually inappropriate manner or in any way that could be construed as sexual. He also stated that he was father of two children ages 9 and 13, and that he had no problem leaving them alone with Jackson. We can be sure he sticked to that story at the Grand Jury hearings, because there were no damning testimonies heard.\r\n\r\nShortly after the criminal investigation into Jackson was closed on September 22, 1994, Abdool and Chacon turned to civil attorney Michael Ring who on their behalf, on December 2, filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson and employees of Jackson demanding no less than $16 million in damages. McManus, Domz and Bagnall would join later.\r\n\r\nThey claimed that during their employment at Neverland, they were harassed and intimidated which resulted in emotional distress and various medical problems which\u00a0 made them \u201cemotionally disabled\u201d and unable to work. They also claimed that they were wrongfully terminated by Jackson.\r\n\r\nWhile on the stand, Chacon denied he knew anything about the amount of money his lawyer demanded from Jackson at the civil trial. However, documents from a deposition of Chacon at the time showed that not only did he know of the $16 million demand from Jackson, but at one point Chacon even said that $ 16 million was not enough. He also said in a deposition that Jackson should compensate him for the rest of his life.\r\n\r\nLater, on re-cross examination, Chacon had to admit that he did know how much money was demanded in the lawsuit.\r\n\r\nOne of Chacon\u2019s complaints in the lawsuit against Jackson was that Jackson caused him emotional distress because he \u201cstared at him all the time\u201d, therefore he was entitled to damages. When his claim was found to be false, Mesereau asked him why he said that if it wasn\u2019t true. He answered with:\r\n<blockquote><em>\u201c<\/em><em>I guess just to say it<\/em><em>\u201d<\/em><em>.<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nIn the wake of Leaving Neverland, Adrian McManus ascended from the\u00a0bottom-less\u00a0pit and once again turned to the media. She told\u00a060 Minutes\u00a0that she witnessed Jackson\u00a0'kissing and petting' young boys who visited Neverland but claims that she was too afraid to speak out at the time.\r\n<blockquote><em>'There was a kind side to him, and yet there was a dark side,' <\/em>McManus said.\r\n\r\n<em>'They told me if I ever came up on TV that they could hire a hitman to take me out, slice my neck, wouldn't ever find my body.'<\/em><em>\u00a0<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'I knew Michael very, very well, and I was told that what I know you just don<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t say it, and that really concerned me.<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>\u2018<\/em><em>I was threatened by Michael when I took over his bedroom, so I was already scared with that and I was afraid for my family.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'At that point, I was thinking of my life and my family<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>s life; something could happen to me.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'I was told by Michael<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>s bodyguards that they could hire a hit man to take me out, that they could have somebody slice my neck and you<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>d never find my body. So yeah, I was very concerned and it<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>s my life and I cared about my life.'<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'Nobody knew what these bodyguards were, and everybody was afraid of them. They carried guns and they would tell you little things and pet their guns. These guys were wicked and scary.'<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nShe claimed Jackson brought a long line of young boys into his bedroom and that she saw many troubling things while cleaning up after him, fishing Jackson's and children's underwear from the jacuzzi and baths at the home, and witnessing kids walking around barely clothed.\r\n\r\nShe also said she had found Vaseline in nearly every room on the ranch, in drawers, on counters and even on the golf carts that Jackson would take out to drive around. She also claims to have seen books on masturbation in the bedroom and claimed that one time Jackson asked her to laminate photos of naked babies to put in his room for decoration.\r\n\r\nBesides all that, McManus mentions a large collection of VHS cassettes she believes contained 'intimate' footage Jackson filmed with children in the 1990s. She believes Jackson hid the 'damaging' material from police by storing it in a movie projection theatre away from the main house on Neverland ranch.\r\n\r\nAsked about the videos, she said:\r\n<blockquote><em>'I think they were of Michael with boys doing inappropriate things that had to be hidden, or they would have put him in jail. I think they were sex tapes.<\/em>'<\/blockquote>\r\nMcManus admits she never actually saw the contents of the tapes, she says it was Jackson's behaviour and the shroud of secrecy placed on the tapes that had left her convinced of a sinister nature. Here is what she recalls about the alleged tapes and please take note of her use of the word \u2018rumor\u2019 more than once.\r\n<blockquote><em>'I don<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t know where they went, but I did hear that one of the nephews of the man who ran the theatre had got a hold of a lot of the videos and hid them,' she recalls.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'The rumour was the projectionist said that they were very damaging to Michael.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'I had heard that the man who ran the theatre, he had mentioned that his nephew had come over there once in a while. His nephew would run the theatre when the older man wouldn<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t. And rumours were that he packed them up in the trunk and took them off the ranch.'<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nShe says that as details emerged that Jackson could face criminal charges in the Chandler allegation case, the tapes were hidden.\r\n\r\nProducers for Leaving Neverland also claimed they were made aware of potential tapes, but never found them.\r\n\r\nLeaving Neverland producer Dan Reed said James Safechuck was aware of videos Jackson had filmed. Speaking to Rolling Stone, Reed said:\r\n<blockquote><em>'James mentioned to me at one point, "You know, Michael had a video camera and he recorded a sexual act." But he didn<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t go into detail. And then Jackson was like, "Oh, what did I do?" and taped over it.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'I have all the evidence that I need. And there was no video recording that exists of Michael having sex with [these] children.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>'There was no flagrante delicto with these guys. We don<\/em><em>\u2019<\/em><em>t have the tapes.'<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nSupposedly, just like Chacon and Abdool, McManus feared for her life and that of her family and didn\u2019t feel comfortable going to the police. But interestingly enough she felt completely comfortable selling the same story to the media. She also had no problems whatsoever filing a civil lawsuit against Jackson, making her claims that Jackson was threatening her like he was Don Corleone himself look completely absurd.\r\n\r\nThe video tape rumor once again traces back to pedophile apologist and NAMBLA member Victor Gutierrez. Where Safechuck\u2019s abuse claims seem almost a re-enactment of Gutierrez\u2019s book, so did the claims from the Neverland 5, who were in contact with Gutierrez personally around the time of their civil case against Jackson.\r\n\r\nAbdool stated that he met Gutierrez once and they had a two, three hour conversation. McManus testified that Gutierrez was going to try to help them in their lawsuit and Chacon admitted that before they went to the tabloids, they had also spoken with Gutierrez.\r\n\r\nCoincidently, on May 9th and May 10<sup>th<\/sup>, Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy to read from his book of lies about Jackson called \u201cMichael Jackson was my Lover, the secret diary of Jordan Chandler\u201d. Chacon made his sworn statement to Sneddon and Birchim on May 10<sup>th<\/sup>.\r\n\r\nOn January 9<sup>th<\/sup>, 1995, Diane Dimond announced on KABC-AM radio\u2019s morning show that the police had reopened their investigation against Jackson because of an alleged 27-minute video tape, captured by one of Jackson\u2019s security cameras, supposedly depicting acts of molestation. Dimond painted a very vivid picture of what was on the tape, despite the fact that she had not seen it herself, attributing the story to one of her \u201cbest sources\u201d.\r\n\r\nAlthough Gutierrez was not named on that particular show, he was revealed later that day as her source on Dimond\u2019s television show, Hard Copy, where Gutierrez himself made an appearance.\r\n\r\nThe whole story turned out to be a total fabrication. The alleged tape did not exist and as such, was never produced. In fact, the only person who had ever claimed to have seen it was Gutierrez.\r\n\r\nIn August 1997, while being sued by Jackson over this fabrication, Gutierrez filed a motion to modify the scope of discovery to include discovery into the 1993 child molestation allegations against Jackson in a thinly veiled attempt to generate more tabloid stories and publicity. Gutierrez stated that he believed that Evan and Jordan Chandler had knowledge about the subject matter of the following quotes. In particular, Gutierrez sought to take the depositions of Evan and Jordan Chandler for his own case.\r\n\r\nGutierrez argued that the alleged truth of those 1993 allegations, and his reporting of them, tended to negate any inference of malice. Gutierrez stated that his book was based on the diary written by Jordan and Evan Chandler, and upon his own independent investigation about Jordan Chandler\u2019s relationship with Jackson. This was the third time Gutierrez had changed his story about who had actually written the diary.\r\n\r\nBut the four quotes in question were malicious. Gutierrez attributed the following grotesque quotes to Abdool, McManus and Bagnall in his book:\r\n<blockquote><em>Jackson\u2019s personal guards used their pistols and automatic rifles to threaten other employees and guards and at times forced them to have sex. ~ Kassim Abdool<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>This female fan of Jackson\u2019s had crossed the gate of the ranch. When I detained her, I did not have handcuffs to hold her until the police arrived, so I had to tie her hands with a telephone cord. \u00a0~ Melanie Bagnall<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>The poor guy [meaning Jackson] couldn\u2019t make it to the bathroom, and it got to the point that he didn\u2019t even care. If he had to go, he did it right there, wherever he was. Poor Adrian was the one who suffered, but at times we would help her pick up the dirtied clothes and clean the floor. Michael would put tampons in his ass to stop the diarrhea. ~\u00a0Kassim Abdool<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>I was talking with Michael about something not so important when he told me that he had to go to the bathroom. He didn\u2019t take two steps when he defecated right there in front of me. It was diarrhea that ran down to his shoes. It was a shame. The guards that saw it went into another room to have a laugh. ~Adrian McManus<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nEvan and Jordan Chandler did not give depositions in the case. They would both, however, submit declarations to the courts stating that they knew absolutely nothing about either the making of the quotes or their content. Evan stated that he didn\u2019t know or recall ever speaking to Abdool, McManus or Bagnall. Jordan stated the same with the exception of McManus, with whom he only recalled exchanging pleasantries. Most notable about the Chandler\u2019s declaration is what they didn\u2019t say\u2026 They didn\u2019t claim not to know or ever having spoken to Gutierrez.\r\n\r\nJackson sued both Dimond and Gutierrez and while Dimond escaped unscathed, Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages. He never paid and instead fled the country and later filed bankruptcy.\r\n\r\nOn December 7, 1993, McManus testified under oath in a deposition for the Chandler civil case that she never observed any inappropriate behaviour or any form of sexual behaviour by Jackson towards Jordan Chandler or any other child. She even said she trusted Jackson so much that she would have no problem leaving her son alone with Jackson. When Jackson\u2019s attorney Thomas Mesereau confronted her with her 1993 deposition during her testimony at the 2005 trial, McManus simply claimed that she perjured herself in the 1993 deposition.\r\n\r\nAlthough McManus denied ever having spoken to anyone about the Chandler case, several acquaintances of McManus have supported her original claims that she never observed anything inappropriate.\r\n\r\nMcManus told Leslie Gomez, a manager at McFrugal\u2019s, that she had never seen Michael Jackson act inappropriately with children and that, \u201cThe suit by that kid,\u201d meaning Jordan Chandler, \u201cwas a bunch of bull\u201d.\r\n\r\nLudi Trujillo, someone she either worked for or with at Gottschalk\u2019s, had asked McManus specifically if Jackson ever molested children, to which she responded \u201cOf course Michael did not\u201d. She even told her Michael Jackson was a great boss.\r\n\r\nGayle Goforth, a supervisor that worked at Neverland Valley Ranch, asked her if there was anything to rumours about inappropriate conduct by Jackson. In the autumn of 1993, McManus told her there was no truth to those rumours about Mr. Jackson acting inappropriately.\r\n\r\nShe told Jamie Vail, who actually lived across the street from McManus, even though she claimed not to know who it was, that she loved Michael Jackson, and that she loved working at the ranch, and that she never believed any of the charges against him.\r\n\r\nThat was, of course, until she realized she could make millions by changing her story.\r\n\r\nDuring the civil trial in the 1990s, another former employee of Jackson\u2019s, Francine Orosco, testified that McManus asked her to say she witnessed a male employee of Jackson sexually harass McManus. Orosco also testified that she visited McManus at home during their employment and McManus showed her a room filled with watches, posters, clocks, sunglasses, T-shirts and laundry baskets filled with Michael Jackson\u2019s clothes and other items she stole from Neverland. It was also found that McManus stole a drawing Jackson made of Elvis Presley and sold it for $1000 to Gary Morgan from \u2018Splash\u2019.\r\n\r\nIt also emerged that earlier McManus and her husband were ordered to pay $17,000 each in another lawsuit, in which it was ascertained that they stole money from an estate that was set-up for minor relatives of McManus. They wilfully and maliciously defrauded Shane and Megan McManus, a nephew and a niece of Adrian McManus, out of their money. They were sued by Rosalie Hill, the children\u2019s guardian ad litem. Judge Richard A. St. John found that the money was held in the trust for the benefit of those two children and McManus and her husband dissipated those funds.\r\n\r\nAt the civil trial the Neverland 5 and their attorney were sanctioned $66,000 for committing perjury, both in their depositions and on the stand, and for discovery violations after hiding evidence from Jackson\u2019s lawyers. Judge Zel Canter, who presided over the civil trial, left the bench after stating he was disgusted.\r\n\r\nThe jury in the civil trial rejected the wrongful termination lawsuit brought against Jackson by the Neverland Five and awarded Jackson $60,000 in a countersuit. The Bank of Michael Jackson had closed.\r\n\r\nAndrew Merritt, one of the personal security officers, also was found not liable of sexually harassing plaintiff Melanie Bagnall.\r\n\r\nThe court also imposed attorney\u2019s fees and costs of $1.4 million against the plaintiffs.\r\n\r\nJackson\u2019s successful countersuit claimed Chacon and McManus stole sketches, personal notes, hats, toys and candy from the ranch, selling some items to tabloid newspapers.\r\n\r\nThe jury ordered Chacon to pay $25,000 in damages and McManus to pay $35,000. Punitive damages of $1 also were awarded because jurors found that the two acted with malice. According to his testimony, Chacon filed for bankruptcy after the verdict in the civil trial.\r\n\r\nAs of the time of their testimony in 2005, none of them paid the damages to Jackson. McManus had to admit in her 60 minutes interview that by 2019, she still hadn\u2019t paid a dime.