Oh, no I mean the one with Evan. I don't know if Sneddon would have used a tape in court if it exsisted as the prosecution wasn't allowed to use a lot of the evidence from the first investigation. Having said that he probably would have made an attempt to do so anyway, so we would have heard of it. I do think Sneddon was just trying to humiliate Michael, with the porn magazines, attempting to show the photos of Michael's body, etc.
This tape had a few comments that sounded a bit 'what is he talking about?', such as the comment about having evidence to prove it, but he doesn't make any direct reference to Michael molesting Jordan i.e. 'I have evidence to prove Michael sexually assulted my son'. Then there is the fact he quite obviously was out to seek revenge on Michael and stated he didn't care about how it affected Jordan, plus the fact he said he was mad that Michael stopped calling him- well why would he want to keep being friends with Michael if he did something terrible? In some parts it DID sound as though he was talking about sexual abuse, but reading through the whole thing with an unbiased mind it sounds almost like paranoia, he doesn't say Michael DID molest his son, even when directly questioned. It almost sounds like Jordan took to Michael as a father and they stopped talking to Evan, so he got worked up and was out to get Michael for taking his family. He sounded as though he was angry at Michael for cutting contact, he DID sound like he was pissed off and wanted to destroy Michael, but in the sense of 'this man has sexually abused my son' he didn't sound so concerned for it at all. I'm not going to get personal but I know a lot of abusive people can talk like that, totally play the innocent one, that their children are in danger and their other parent is clueless, that so and so is a bad person and they are greatly concerned. I do know of that, and this conversation almost sounds like that, manipulative/pathological liar.
He could be talking about something else, the 'evidence' he had against Michael could be something different- something about him being an addict perhaps (Michael fell into his addiction with the medication from a tooth operation, Michael became addicted around the time he knew the Chandlers, Evan Chandler was a dentist. Put the peices together...). It could have been anything he was talking about.
I just think that although I can never say I know the truth, the fact is they could have taken Michael to court and had him locked up and EASILY still got that $20 million- psychological damages, fame, etc. He could have easily testified against Michael the second time around. He was more than happy to spend 2 years in court to try and get $60 million out of Michael (3 times the original payment settlement), yet he never went to court for the fact his own son apparently got abused because he got millions of dollars. Plus if these people had enough evidence and hate against Michael that they could do what they did, accuse him of these things, and also write entire novels of Michael and Jordans 'relationship' including word-for-word conversations and intimate sexual details, then they should have used all that to get him locked up and put on the sex offenders list. But they didn't. They took the money and ran, they let him get away with it, the let him abuse again and still wouldn't even help get him locked up (remember Jordan threatened legal action against the prosecution if they forced him to testify).
The way I see it, it's easy to look at it both ways depending on what you chose to believe. This is why I try and find the facts, and I lean towards innocence because there is more to prove Michael's innocence than there is to prove guilt. The media focuses on the negativity, plus people lie about the facts (there were people who said that the description matched when it didn't, and if you read the autopsy report it kind of confirmed that- Jordan said Michael was circumsised, it states on his autopsy report that he actually wasn't).
The entire thing is just confusing. I refuse to look at a single side of the story to suit my own beliefs, but the whole thing just does my head in.
Weaver????