In addition to the two protagonists involved in the tape, the reporters also found their wives - Ivan Chandler's ex-wife, David Schwartz's current wife, to be precise, and the plaintiff's biological mother and legal guardian, Joan Schwartz. Pen × fun × Pavilion www. ｂｉｑｕｇｅ。 ｉｎｆｏ

When Chandler first filed the accusation, she, like her current husband David Schwartz, sided with Jackson, believing that he could not do that terrible thing to his children, and when the children were deceived and controlled by Chandler from the home, she acquiesced to her ex-husband's use of the children for profit, and began to turn around and accuse Jackson of "suspicious behavior" , thus indirectly becoming one of Chandler's accomplices.

At this point, seeing that the situation began to turn against Chandler's side, Join Schwartz changed his tune again, revealing to reporters that the reason why he had supported her ex-husband's accusation against Jackson was because she was induced by the police: "They [the officers] told me: 'We are sure that Michael Jackson ****** your child because he behaved in a way that perfectly matches the typical pedophiles. It wasn't until I consulted with a professional psychiatrist that I realized they were lying. ”

Although the two police officers who were responsible for investigating and collecting evidence from her, Signa and Ferrafino, immediately came forward to refute that their investigation procedures were in full compliance with the law and the internal regulations of the police department, this kind of defense seemed so pale to the media and the public who were already familiar with the nature of the police's handling of cases.

Seeing that the wind began to reverse in an unfavorable direction, Chandler's defense team had no choice but to deny the authenticity of the tape, so they had to make a fuss from the perspective of evidence collection in the trial, saying that the defense camp did this without the permission of the court, which is very likely to affect the personal tendencies of the grand jury members who are about to be formed, and then affect the fairness and objectivity of the trial results, so this move seriously violates the principle of confidentiality in the trial and is a blasphemy and ruthless trampling on the law. In this regard, the courts of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara were requested to severely punish him for obstruction of justice.

In this regard, Pelikano said-for-tat: since the defense has vigorously denied the legitimacy of the tape in the previous pre-trial and cross-examination process, it can no longer be used as evidence in this case, and the disclosure of this established fact to the media and the public is his constitutional right to freedom of speech, and no one has the right to interfere with it.

Just as the two sides were fighting over this, another bombshell -- it should be said that it was a nuclear bomb -- once again detonated the attention and enthusiasm of the media and the public: on the evening of the 24th, the Los Angeles KCBC television station released a news release in prime time, saying that the station's reporters, after an intense and tireless investigation, had obtained conclusive testimony from an employee in Chandler's dentist's office, showing that Chandler and dental anesthesiologist Mark Tobin had indeed given the little boy an amiturate sodium -- a misinterpreted " The time was July 16 last year, that is, the day the child gave Jackson's indecent and ****** confession!

Shocked at the same time, everyone realized that the tape thrown by Michael Jackson's side was just a smoke bomb in order to confuse Chandler's side and induce him to invoke the principle of confidentiality in the trial, so that if they tried to prevent the defense from listing the employee as an eyewitness on the same grounds, it would be unconvincing, as for KCBC's so-called "journalist investigation...... Many people are willing to bet their wallets that this news must have been revealed to the media by the Pericano, who has the reputation of "Hollywood Eye"!

The next morning, almost all newspapers and magazines reprinted the news in a prominent position, no matter which side they supported before, they all rushed to attack Ivan Chandler who was suspected of child abuse, and of course, all of them jumped out to make a mouth, they listed a lot of obscure professional terms, and analyzed the medical and anesthetic effects of amiital sodium for the public in great detail. and the possible negative impact on the user's mental state and ability to be self-conscious...... The point of contention is nothing more than whether it can be safely and legally applied to minors, and whether the testimony given under the influence of the drug has legal effect.

To put it simply, it is actually a sentence, is the so-called amiturate sodium a true agent or a hallucinogen?

In addition to this overly professional topic that has not yet been certified by an authoritative medical institution, everyone is more concerned about whether the employee's words will be adopted by the court, and the opinions of the media, experts and the public are once again divided into two factions, with the previous support of Ivan Chandler arguing that the court should not accept the testimony of the witness, after all, this incident can only show that Chandler misbehaved, whether he himself committed a crime, and whether Jackson molested the child is not directly related. And Chandler's legal team will do everything possible to prevent the witness from going to trial, as they have previously tried to deny the legitimacy of the tape.

The pro-Jackson side argues that the court will not ignore this crucial piece of evidence that could determine the success or failure of the entire case, because it determines the only condition for the case to be filed, which is whether the child's complaint is legitimate and credible, and it also shows that Ivan Chandler did have a motive to blackmail Jackson.

At the same time, there is another thing that everyone must not ignore, that is, will the prosecution and defense reach an out-of-court settlement today, as Xiao Yang predicted?

The difference between before and after is less than 24 hours, and when the results of this year's Golden Globe Awards came out, everyone praised and admired the performance, this time, no one dared to unswervingly affirm Xiao Yang's prophetic ability again, because as far as the judicial system and procedures in the United States are concerned, whether the prosecution and defense are fighting or peace, it is destined to be a rather long and difficult process, and judging from the current performance of both sides, it will not be surprising to drag on for a few months or even years.

All in all, no one thought they would reach an out-of-court settlement on January 25, that is, today, as Xiao Yang had predicted, and even his uncle and lawyer Lin Yuanhang and economist Brian believed that the prediction would be his Waterloo.