1 0
post icon

Introduction

Our website deals with the child molestation allegations against pop star Michael Jackson.

Jackson was accused of this crime five times. However, a number does not mean anything in itself if you do not know what is behind it – and our experience is that many people do not really know. Some might have heard soundbites, maybe certain inflammatory claims which were taken out of context, but very few people actually know about the full content and context of these allegations against Michael Jackson. Who were the accusers? What did they actually allege? How did those allegations emerge? How were these five cases and certain players connected to and influenced by each other?

Our mission is to present the full content and context of these allegations against Jackson. To do that we discuss the 1993 (Jordan Chandler) allegations and the 2005 (Gavin Arvizo) allegations in seperate sections. The 1993 section also contains the discussion of Jason Francia’s allegations because their emergence is strongly connected to investigators’ activities in the Chandler case. The fourth and five allegation was made in 2013 and in 2014, four-five years after Jackson’s death, by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck respectively. Robson and Safechuck are represented by the the same lawyer and they both demand money from Michael Jackson’s Estate in a creditor’s claim/civil lawsuit. For over 20 years they both denied they have been ever inapproprietely touched by Jackson, despite of two very public rounds of allegations against the star in 1993 and in 2005 and a criminal trial in 2005. Now, years after Jackson’s death and amidst a monetary demand, they claim they suddenly realized they have been sexually abused by the star. We do have many things to say about these cases as well, but as of now, we would like to wait with that a little bit until they fully unfold.

There is also a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section with answers to questions which cannot specifically be linked to one of these cases but are generally connected to the allegations. That section is available.

If you truly want to understand these allegations you will have to invest a bit of time in reading. We tried to make the articles as short as possible, but even so there are some long reads because the events of the case are complicated. There is no real understanding of these cases in five minutes from media soundbites, out-of-context bits of information, inflammatory tabloid articles or Internet gossip, no matter how tempting it is to jump to conclusions based on such.

Much of the blog was written by people whose first language is not English. So for grammar or stylistic errors please forgive us, we are working on it… Hopefully that will not spoil the content.

Leave a Comment
April 4, 2014
post icon

The Timeline Of The 1993 Allegations Against Michael Jackson

On August 17, 1993 the Los Angeles police department opened an investigation against Michael Jackson based on an allegation that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy called Jordan Chandler.  In this section of our website we will discuss the Chandler case in-depth. We decided to go along a timeline which hopefully will make it easier to follow the events as they unfolded and to put them into a context.

While you go along with the timeline you will find links inserted to longer articles. These articles explain the events listed in the timeline in-depth and they are essential for understanding the Chandler allegations against Michael Jackson – so we highly recommend that you read them. We may cite one article several times if it is deemed relevant in the detailed explanation of several events. Our sources are listed at the end of each article.

The Timeline

May 1992 – Michael Jackson meets his later accuser Jordan Chandler and his family at a car rental agency owned by the boy’s stepfather David Schwartz, after the singer’s car breaks down on Wilshire Boulvard, Los Angeles. Schwartz offers Jackson a deal: he would rent him a car for free if Jackson promises to call Jordan who was a big fan of the star. Jackson accepts the deal and calls Jordan a couple of days later. He and the boy’s family become friends.

For details about this encounter and an introduction to the Chandler family see: Michael Jackson’s first accuser – meet the Chandler family!

May 1992-January 1993 – Jackson keeps a telephone contact with Jordan and the boy’s mother June Chandler. According to the Chandlers’ recollections Jackson called them about 8-10 times during this period, so approximately once a month. According to June Chandler she was present throughout all of the phone calls.

February 1993 – Jordan Chandler, his mother and his younger sister visit Neverland for the first time.

March 1993 – June and Jordan Chandler again visit the ranch in March. According to June, on several occasions Jordan asked her if he could sleep in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, because all the other kids were there. She described Jordan as being very pushy about this on a number of occasions but she did not let him. Jordan did, however, play up in Jackson’s room until 2:00am before returning to his guest room. [Note: Jackson's bedroom at Neverland was a two-storey complex which was a gathering place with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. You can read more about Jackson's much talked about sleepovers in this article.]

March 28-April 1 993 – Jackson invites June, Jordan and Jordan’s sister to Las Vegas where they stay at the Mirage Hotel. From then on the family frequently visits Neverland, Jackson’s Century City condo and goes with him on trips in and outside of the USA. The Chandlers claim Jordan and Jackson began sharing a bedroom at this Las Vegas trip, although they do not claim any abuse right away.

April 2-7 1993 - The Chandlers spend 5 days at Neverland.

April 1993- May 1993 – According to June Chandler’s 2005 testimony during this period Jackson stayed over at her house a number of times and slept in her son’s room.

May 9 1993 – Jackson, June, Jordan and Jordan’s sister go to Monaco where Jackson is awarded at the World Music Awards on May 12, 1993. The family attends the ceremony with Jackson.

May 13 1993 – Jackson and the Chandlers fly to Paris where they spend three days at Eurodisney.

May 16 1993 – Jackson and the Chandlers fly back to Los Angeles.

May 20 1993 – Michael Jackson first meets Jordan’s biological father Evan Chandler at June Chandler’s house.

May 21 1993 – Jackson invites Evan Chandler to his Century City (Los Angeles) condo.

May 22-23, 1993 – Evan Chandler invites Jackson to spend the weekend in his house with Jordan and Evan’s side of the family.

May 25 1993 – The National Enquirer publishes a story about the Chandlers and Jackson entitled “Michael Jackson’s Secret Family”. The story was sold by someone from the Chandler side. Ray Chandler claims in his book, All That Glitters, that the sister of June’s closest friend sold the story to the tabloid.

May 28-30 1993 – Jackson spends Memorial Day Weekend at Evan Chandler’s house with Jordan and Evan’s side of the family. In Ray Chandler’s book it is claimed that by this time Evan started to have “suspicions” that Jackson sexually molested Jordan.

For details about how these “suspicions” emerged, and also details about some of the above mentioned events, please read our article Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”!

June 9 1993 – According to Ray Chandler’s book Evan Chandler shares his concern with June that Jordan might be gay. June says she would not care if that was the case, which Evan interprets in a peculiar way: “In his mind, June was admitting their son might be gay and having sex with Michael, and that it was no big deal.” [All That Glitters; page 55]

June 13, 1993 – According to Ray Chandler’s book Evan reveals his alleged concerns about the relationship between his son and Jackson to a lawyer Barry Rothman, who was a patient of his. According to the book, in exchange of his dental treatment Rothman offers to help him “to end the relationship” by either filing a restraining order against Jackson or a custody lawsuit against June. It has to be noted that in 1992 Rothman represented a client in a custody battle who accused her estranged companion of molesting their child, which the man denied. When Rothman was fired by the woman he went on to represent the man’s company without notifying his former client. For this Rothman was disciplined by the state’s bar.
In a taped phone conversation between Evan and David Schwartz on July 8, 1993, the reasons given as to why Evan hired Rothman and how he hired him are different: “this attorney I found – I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can”, says Evan on the tape.

June 20, 1993 – Jordan Chandler, despite demands from Evan, refuses to call his father on Father’s Day. [Details in our article entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”]

July 7, 1993 – Because his son has repeatedly refuses to return his phone calls Evan Chandler leaves a threatening message on June Chandler’s answering machine. [Details in our article entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”]

July 8, 1993 – Jordan’s stepfather David Schwartz tapes three telephone conversations he had with Evan Chandler in which Chandler threatens to “destroy” Jackson with the help of a plot he carefully prepared and with people who are only waiting for his phone call to set everything in motion if the star refuses to communicate with him and refuses to give him what he wants.

For details see our article about The Schwartz-Chandler telephone conversations!

July 9, 1993 Dave Schwartz and June Chandler plays the tape that Schwartz made of his phone conversations with Evan Chandler to Jackson’s private investigator Anthony Pellicano. Pellicano meets with Jordan in Jackson’s Century City condo the same day. Without Jackson being present he asks the boy very specific questions about whether he has ever been molested or inappropriately touched by the entertainer. The boy’s answer to each and every question is that nothing inappropriate has ever been done to him by Jackson. According to Pellicano, Jordan also said his father only wanted money.

July 11 ,1993 – Jordan is sent to his father for a one-week visitation but at the end of the week Evan Chandler refuses to return the boy to his mother.

July 12, 1993 – Evan Chandler has his ex-wife June sign a document prepared by his lawyer Barry Rothman that prevents her from taking Jordan out of Los Angeles County and to let Jordan meet with Michael Jackson. In the document June also agrees to remit the money ($68,804) that Evan owed her in back child support. June later said she signed the document under duress since Evan threatened that he would never let her see Jordan again if she would not sign it.

July 14, 1993 – Evan Chandler and his lawyer Barry Rothman contact Dr. Mathis Abrams a Beverly Hills psychiatrist and present him with a hypothethical situation about child molestation. In reply, without having met either the child or the accused, just based on Evan’s words, Abrams sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred”. Evan later used this letter as a “negotiation” tool with his ex-wife June and with Michael Jackson. Details in our Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions” article.

July 16, 1993 – According to Ray Chandler’s version of events Jordan “confesses” to his father about his alleged sexual molestation – just one day before Evan was scheduled to return Jordan to June.

For details see our article entitled How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge!

According to some sources the boy was administered the controversial drug Sodium Amytal which can make the human mind suggestible. There is no evidence for this though and we doubt this claim for reasons detailed in an article you can read here: The Use of Sodium Amytal?

July 20, 1993 – June Chandler and David Schwartz meet Evan’s attorney Barry Rothman in his office. During that meeting Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter is shown to them and it is demanded that they sign a document that would transfer custody of Jordan from June to Evan.

July 27, 1993 – According to a book written by a legal secretary of Barry Rothman (Geraldine Hughes – Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations), Rothman writes a letter to Evan Chandler advising him how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.

August 4, 1993 – A meeting takes place between Michael Jackson, his private investigator Anthony Pellicano, Evan Chandler and Jordan Chandler in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Later that day Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman meet Pellicano in Rothman’s office where they make a demand for $20 million to not to turn to authorities and not to go public with allegations of child sexual abuse against the entertainer.

For details see: The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands article!

August 16, 1993 – June Chandler’s attorney Michael Freeman calls Barry Rothman and informs him that they would appear in Court the next day to obtain an Ex Parte order demanding the immediate return of Jordan to his mother. The Court then orders Evan Chandler to return the boy to his mother and also that the document that June signed on July 12 be overturned. In the motion that Evan Chandler files against the order he does not mention any suspicion of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson.

August 17, 1993 – This is the deadline that the Court set for Evan to return Jordan to June. At this point Jordan has been with his father for more than a month – Evan should have returned the boy to his mother on July 16. (Details about what happened during this month are in our article about The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands.) As an answer to the Court order and frustrated by Jackson’s refusal to pay him off, Evan takes Jordan to Dr. Mathis Abrams where the boy makes his detailed allegations against Jackson for the first time. This triggers a criminal investigation against the entertainer. As a result of the allegations Evan does not have to return Jordan to his ex-wife despite the Court’s order a day before. Meanwhile Michael Jackson is out of the US, on tour.

August 19, 1993 – June Chandler’s attorney Michael Freeman meets with Barry Rothman in latter’s office. June has a change of heart and now sides with Evan. “Mother stated that if Jordie had said it, it must be true”, the Department of Children’s Services report of August 19, 1993 stated, although – according to Ray Chandler’s book – she previously said she felt that Evan Chandler had brainwashed their son.

August 19 1993 – Contrary to later reports which suggested Jackson had intentionally left on his tour in order to escape any possible arrest warrant in the US, Jackson in fact requests on this date to pull out or postpone the second leg of his Dangerous World Tour, likely understanding the seriousness of the allegations against him.

August 21, 22 & 30, 1993 – In the absence of Jackson search warrants are carried out on his premises – Neverland, Century City condo – and a hotel room at the Mirage Hotel, Las Vegas where he used to stay with the Chandlers. On August 27, 1993 the Los Angeles Times wrote: “Videotapes seized from homes belonging to Michael Jackson do not incriminate the entertainer, and the lack of physical evidence of alleged sexual molestation has left investigators “scrambling” to get statements from other potential victims, a high-ranking police source said Thursday. “There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence,” the source said. “The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

August 23, 1993 – First reports appear about the allegations in the media.

August 24, 1993 – Evan Chandler, June Chandler, David Schwartz, Michael Freeman met with Barry Rothman for three hours in latter’s office. Rothman’s legal secretary, Geraldine Hughes claims in her book entitled Redemption that she overheard Evan Chandler say “I almost had a twenty million dollar deal”.

August 25, 1993 – Someone illegally leaks a copy of the abuse report to tabloid TV show Hard Copy.

August 25-26  & 30 1993 – Jackson has to cancel two shows in Bankok because of dehydration and a show in Singapore after collapsing backstage.

August 26-27 1993 – Evan and Jordan Chandler spend all day and night in Rothman’s office hiding from the media. Rothman’s secretary, Geraldine Hughes claims in her book that she overheard Evan Chandler say to Rothman: “It’s my ass that’s on the line and in danger of going to prison.”

late August 1993 – Barry Rothman quits representing the Chandlers after Jackson files extortion charges against him and Evan Chandler. According to Geraldine Hughes’ book: “Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman continued to put their heads together as they very carefully planned their next moves. Dr. Chandler continued to call our office at least four to five times per day (on a light day) to speak with Mr. Rothman, and he continued to give Dr. Chandler advice concerning his every move.”

August 30, 1993 – Parts of the secretly taped phone conversations between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz were released to the media by Pellicano. Two days later a secretly taped phone conversation between Barry Rothman and Pellicano was released by the latter as well.

August 30, 1993 – The Chandlers hire attorney attorney Gloria Allred.

September 2, 1993Allred gives a press conference where she states the accuser is willing to testify in a Court. In reaction to that a couple of days later the Chandlers fire Allred and replace her with a civil attorney, Larry Feldman, who was offered to them by Barry Rothman. According to Ray Chandler’s book this was because the Chandler family wanted to steer the case toward “a highly profitable settlement” rather than a Grand Jury indictment and a criminal trial.

September 8, 1993 – Evan Chandler, June Chandler, David Schwartz and their lawyers discuss the prospects of a “highly profitable settlement” in Larry Feldman’s office. Evan and David Schwartz have an argument about the settlement money that they have not even received yet. According to Ray Chandler’s book Schwartz demanded four million dollars while the Chandlers did not want him to be included in Jordan’s complaint. (Earlier Schwartz also asked Michael Jackson to give him a four million dollars loan, which the star refused.) During the argument Evan Chandler punched Schwartz. According to Mary A. Fischer’s article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” (GQ, October 1994) during the argument Schwartz said “this was all about extortion, anyway, at which point Evan stood up, walked over and started hitting Dave”. Ray Chandler’s book admits that “in the heat of this verbal battle [Evan] sprang from his seat and slapped Dave in the face. Several of the lawyers stepped between the two men and separated them”.

September, 1993 – Evan Chandler files a lawsuit against June Chandler and David Schwartz for invasion of privacy, violation of Penal Code section 632, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy. In the lawsuit Chandler complains about David Schwartz recording their telephone conversations and giving them to a third party (Anthony Pellicano) and that some of the recordings found their way to the news media. In a cross-complaint David Schwartz sues Evan Chandler likewise for invasion of privacy, violation of Penal Code 632, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

September 14, 1993 – Larry Feldman, on behalf of the Chandlers, files a $30 million civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson accusing him of sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

September 21, 1993 – The National Enquirer runs a story about Michael Jackson having been seen kissing and cuddling a boy in a disturbing way in a limousine on the way to Disneyland. The paper cites an unnamed “observer” for source. This same story, with some of the exact same expressions, can be found in Ray Chandler’s 2004 book. Ray there reveals that the supposed witness of this scene was June Chandler. From June’s 2005 testimony we know that the boy was supposed to be Brett Barnes (who always stated that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him). In Court June did not describe this scene as a disturbing scene at all – both the Enquirer and Ray Chandler’s book seems to have juiced up the story [details in this article]. This suggests that the Chandlers put out stories in the tabloids during the investigation.

October 6, 1993 – Jordan is taken to a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner who conducts an interview with him. The interview was leaked to the public in February, 2003. This is the most detailed account we have of Jordan’s allegations.

For details see our article about The Chandler Allegations.

October 21, 1993 – Jackson, who is still on tour at this point, cancels a show in Chile, then he cancels several more dates of his Dangerous World Tour due to serious health problems.

October 28, 1993 – Jackson’s attorney Bert Fields writes a letter to LAPD complaining about their tactics of trying to manipulate children into saying incriminating things about Jackson. Police interviewed 40-60 children (according to some sources up to 100) who had ever spent time with Jackson or at his Neverland Ranch. No one corroborated the accuser’s story. All of the children said nothing inappropriate or suspicious had ever been done to them by Jackson.

For details see our article about The Prosecution’s Hunt for Other Victims.

November 4, 1993 -The police interviews Jason Francia for the first time. Having interviewed dozens of children, of whom none corroborated Jordan Chandler’s allegations, they get to the 13-year-old son of a former maid of Jackson, Jason Francia, who is aggressively pressured by investigators into making allegations against the star. He finally comes up with a story about Jackson allegedly improperly touching him during tickling. Jason Francia would be interviewed again in March 1994.

For details about Jason Francia’s allegations see our article about him entitled Jason Francia.

November 8, 1993 – A fourth search warrant carried out – this time at the Hayvenhurst (Encino, California) home of the Jackson Family. Nothing incriminating is found.

November 11, 1993 – Jackson’s last performance on his ongoing world tour in Mexico. The remaining dates of the tour are cancelled because Jackson developed a dependency on painkillers. He seeks treatment in Europe (probably London) with the help of Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John.

November 15, 1993 – Jackson’s attorney Bert Fields holds a press conference confirming that Jackson is undergoing treatment for a painkiller dependency. He said Jackson was “barely able to function on an intellectual level”. He would not disclose his whereabouts. Fields added that Jackson “has no intention of avoiding coming to the US”. The media cast doubt on the dependency claim and make suggestions that Jackson is running and hiding from the law, even though he is not charged with anything, nor is an arrest warrant issued against him at this point (nor at any time later in this case, for that matter).

November 16, 1993 – The Chandler’s lawyer, Larry Feldman files a so called Motion for Trial Preference which is a special request to have the civil trial heard within 120 days after the motion is granted. This request is usually given to children under the age of 14. In other words the accuser’s side was working hard on getting the civil trial ahead of the criminal proceedings.

November 22, 1993 - Dr. Beachamp Colclough, the doctor who treats Jackson for his painkiller dependency, releases a statement confirming the treatment and refutes media rumours about Jackson “hiding out” and also rumours about cosmetic surgery and that he was suicidal: “no other medical, surgical or psychological condition exists”, he said.

November 22, 1993 – Five former bodyguards of the Jackson family (Leroy Thomas, Morris Williams, Donald Starks, Fred Hammond, Aaron White), sometimes dubbed in the media as “The Hayvenhurst 5″, file a civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson claiming they were fired because they “knew too much” about Michael Jackson’s relationship with young boys. The bodyguards, who asked for $10 million in their lawsuit, did not work for Michael Jackson, but for his family in Hayvenhurst. The bodyguards appeared on the tabloid TV show Hard Copy with their story. Later documents revealed negotiations for $100,000 between the show and the bodyguards. The bodyguards never reported to authorities that they saw any inappropriate behavior by Jackson to children. In fact, in depositions given to the police they admitted they never saw anything inappropriate. The bodyguards’ lawsuit was thrown out of court in July, 1995.

For more details see about the media’s role in the allegations against Michael Jackson see this article!

For more details about ex-employees making allegations about Jackson see these articles:

Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus (“The Neverland 5″)

Phillip and Stella LeMarque

Bob Jones and Stacy Brown

November 23, 1993 – A friction in Jackson’s team of attorneys shows when Bert Fields tells reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. The information turned out to be false. Jackson’s other attorney Howard Weitzman told reporters that Fields just “misspoke himself”. Fields zeal to announce that an indictment seemed imminent had to do with the fact that Jackson’s team was fighting to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal proceedings.

On the same day Judge David M. Rothman denied a request by Jackson’s attorneys in which they attempted to postpone the civil lawsuit to allow the criminal proceedings to be held ahead of the civil proceedings. Civil trial court date was set at March 21, 1994.

About the significance of this see our article about the Settlement between the Chandlers and Jackson!

November 26, 1993 – Police raids the offices of Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein and plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin confiscating medical records of the star.

December 3, 1993 – A letter, signed by Jackson is sent to Bert Fields ousting him as chief attorney for the civil case.

December 10, 1993 – Michael Jackson returns to the United States.

December 13, 1993 – Bert Fields officially resigns and leaves the case completely. After Fields’ resignation Jackson is represented by Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran – the latter newly joined the star’s defense team. Private investigator Anthony Pellicano also leaves and publically states upon his resignation that he is convinced of Jackson’s innocence and his leaving the case is no indication of otherwise.

December 15, 1993 – Blanca Francia, who worked for Jackson as a maid between 1986 and 1991 appears on the tabloid TV show Hard Copy claiming she witnessed improprieties toward young boys by Jackson during her employment. Before the Chandler allegations she never mentioned these alleged improprieties to anyone, nor did she report them to authorities.  At Jackson’s 2005 trial Francia admitted that she had been paid $20,000 by Hard Copy for the interview, which was her then yearly salary. On the same day as her interview with Hard Copy aired, Blanca Francia was deposed for the Chandler civil case. A day before, on December 14, Francia also spoke to the Los Angeles Times. The article mentions her upcoming Hard Copy interview so it was recorded before December 14. She insisted on having a National Enquirer reporter sit in her police interviews, claiming that she needed them there to help translate anything for her. We will discuss Blanca Francia’s allegations and 2005 testimony in detail in a separate article later on this website.

December 20, 1993 – Michael Jackson is strip searched. His genitalia and body is photographed and videotaped by authorities to compare them with the description the accuser gave of Jackson’s private parts. Based on the body search no arrest warrant was issued.

For details see our article Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?

December 22, 1993 – Jackson releases a video statement, talking about the strip search and maintaining his innocence. The video statement:

December 28,  1993 – Marcel Avram, owner of the Munich based Mama Concerts company files a lawsuit against Jackson seeking $20 million after the cancellation of Jackson’s tour.

December 28, 1993 – Jordan Chandler gives a declaration about his allegations. This declaration, together with Dr. Richard Gardner’s interview with Jordan on October 6, was leaked to the public in February, 2003 by an unknown source, apparently to further antagonize the public against Jackson in the wake of Martin Bashir’s Living with Michael Jackson documentary.

We discuss Jordan’s detailed allegations in our article entitled The Chandler Allegations.

December 30, 1993 – The Chandlers’ attorney Larry Feldman files a motion to compel Jackson to answer a list of questions for the civil suit. The over a hundred questions asks for information about each person under the age of 18 that Jackson has entertained since January 1, 1983.

December 30, 1993 – Judge David M. Rothman denies Jackson’s motion for a gag order. According to Ray Chandler’s book the Chandlers were worried about the prospect of a gag order and that they would not be able to talk to the media and influence public opinion if a gag order was issued.

ca. January 4-5, 1994 – Larry Feldman files a motion in which he gives Jackson a multiple choice request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs made of his body during the strip search on December 20, submit to a second search or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.

January 10, 1994 – Larry Feldman asks the Court for access to Jackson’s financial records. “He is a millionaire hundreds of times over whose assets are tied up in intangibles. Plaintiff will need the three months remaining before the trial date to be able to track down these assets and come up with an approximation of their worth”, he wrote in his motion. As a part of his motion Feldman also filed Jordan’s December 28 declaration. According to Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman this was a PR move by Feldman because it contained nothing new compared to the allegations that had already been detailed in August, so it only served as a counter punch in reaction to Jackson’s December 22 video statement in which the star maintained his innocence.

January 11, 1994 – Blanca Francia’s second deposition.

January 14, 1994 – Judge David M. Rothman postpones Jackson’s deposition scheduled for January 18 and two hearings on whether Jackson would be compelled to answer the written questions submitted by Feldman and whether Feldman was entitled to the photos of Jackson’s body search. The hearings were rescheduled for January 25 and Jackson was ordered to give his deposition between January 25 and February 1.

January 24, 1994 – The prosecutor’s office announces that they decline to file charges against Evan Chandler for extortion as Jackson’s attorneys retracted the complaint, preparing for the settlement that would be signed the next day. As a part of the settlement agreement Jackson had to agree to withdraw the extortion charges. The investigation of the extortion allegation by Jackson was never given the same attention and effort by the authorities as the child molestation allegations against Jackson. They never subpoenaed any witnesses, no search warrants were issued, and not much at all was done with the extortion charges. [For details about the Chandlers' monetary demands please read our article entitled The Chandlers' Monetary Demands!]

January 25, 1994 – An out of court settlement is reached in the civil case between Jackson and the Chandlers. The settlement was illegally leaked to Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003 and from that document we know the amount paid into a trust for Jordan Chandler was $15,331,250. The criminal investigation, however, was ongoing. Both sides stated, and it is also stated in the settlement itself, that the settlement is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti maintained that the settlement did not affect the criminal investigation. The settlement also did not prevent Jordan  from testifying in any criminal case.

For details see our article about The Settlement!

January, 1994 – Within days of the settlement Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler began shopping a book about the allegations. Publishers turn him down fearing legal complications since the settlement states that none of the parties are allowed to talk to the media about the allegations.  Book publisher Judith Regan: “I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”
Eventually Ray Chandler published his book in 2004 at the height of the media frenzy caused by the Arvizo allegations.

For details about Ray Chandler’s actions in the media and also his refusal to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial see our article entitled Ray Chandler’s Subpoena in 2004!

ca. January 31, 1994 – About one week after the settlement was announced Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti announces that he would sponsor legislation to force sexual assault victims to testify in criminal cases even if they sue their alleged abusers for money. The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually. Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon said in a 2003 interview that this was a  direct result of what happened in the Chandler case.

March 17, 1994 – Michael Jackson’s mother Katherine Jackson is subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in Los Angeles. It is not normal procedure. Michael Jackson’s attorney, Howard Weitzman: “In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury. It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.” Prosecutors sought information from Katherine about whether Michael Jackson changed the appearance of his genitalia, in order that it would not match a description provided to them by Jordan Chandler. [For details about the description see our article Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?]

March 24, 1994 – Jason Francia’s second police interview.

February-April, 1994 – Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Grand Jury hearings in the Jackson investigation. Both Grand Juries disband without indicting Jackson. Despite this investigators refuse to close the case and still try to convince Jordan Chandler to testify.

April 11, 1994 – Michael Jackson requests the return of the photographs taken during his body search. The request is denied.

May 1994 – Evan Chandler closes down his Beverly Hills dental office.

July 6, 1994 – Jordan Chandler informs investigators that he is not willing to testify.

August 8, 1994 – David Schwartz sues Evan Chandler.

August 16, 1994 – David Schwartz sues Michael Jackson claiming he and his daughter were “traumatized” by the allegations. June Chandler and Schwartz divorce in 1994.

September 21, 1994 – Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti make an official statement regarding the status of the Michael Jackson investigation. They inform the public that Jordan Chandler is unwilling to testify therefore they are unable to file charges. Gil Garcetti admits that the 18-month investigation did not lead to anything incriminating. He also states: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crime”.
Tom Sneddon, however, claims that there are two more alleged victims, but they are just unwilling to testify. Later however it becomes clear that one of his two other alleged victims is Jason Francia who was pressured by the prosecution into making allegations against the singer. He eventually testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial and was not found credible (details about him and his allegations and how they emereged here). Based on what Sneddon revealed about the other alleged victim it seems to be Brett Barnes who has always stated firmly that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him and never molested him. Sneddon later at Jackson’s 2005 trial would also use this tactic of calling people “victims” who themselves denied being victims.
Sneddon also states that despite the prosecution’s inability to charge Jackson with any crime the investigation would remain open.

July 4, 1995 – First media reports about Jordan Chandler being in the process of legally emancipating himself from both of his biological parents.

November 12, 1995 – Jordan Chandler’s emancipation from his parents becomes final. He goes on to live with Evan’s second wife (who by this time had divorced Evan) and his two younger siblings from that second marriage of Evan.  [A little more about the Chandlers' family relations in this article.]

May 7, 1996 – Evan Chandler files a civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson, Jackson’s first wife Lisa Marie Presley, ABC Capitol Cities Broadcasting and others for allegedly breaching the Confidentiality Agreement of the 1994 settlement when Jackson maintained his innocence in an interview on the ABC television channel. Evan Chandler this time demands more than $60 million from Jackson and a record deal so that he could release a musical album about the alleged sexual molestation of his son. The lawsuit gets thrown out of Court in 2000.

For details see our article about Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael Jackson!

October 15, 1996 – Verdict in a lawsuit that Michael Jackson filed against journalists Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond. In January of 1995 Gutierrez claimed that an alleged 27 minute video tape captured by one of Jackson’s security cameras showed the star sexually molesting one of his nephews, Jeremy. No such tape ever existed and the boy and his mother firmly denied the story. Dimond repeated Gutierrez’s allegations in a radio show and on TV, despite not having any evidence for its existance outside of Gutierrez’s words and despite a statement by Jackson’s lawyer that there was no such tape. The Court ordered Gutierrez to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages. He never paid and instead fled the country and filed for bankruptcy. Dimond escaped unscathed because no malice could be proven on her part.

Victor Gutierrez was a lot more deeply involved in the allegations against Michael Jackson than this. He seems to have been a catalyst who had been in contact with many of the main players of the case, as well as journalists who used him as a “source”. For details about him and his disturbing agenda please read our article entitled Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson!

February 15, 2001 – The New York Daily News quotes Tom Sneddon saying the child abuse case against Michael Jackson had never been closed and that it can be re-opened at any time (Sneddon has made a few similar remarks to other publications in the ’90s). Sneddon is also quoted saying that the statue of limitations for Jordan Chandler to testify has not run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.

February 3 & 6, 2003 – Martin Bashir’s Living with Michael Jackson documentary airs in the UK (February 3) and then in the USA (February 6). On February 6 someone leaks Jordan Chandler’s 1993 declaration (see December 28, 1993) to the media to further antagonize the public against Jackson.

March 3, 2003 – Ray Chandler gives an interview to the National Enquirer praising the paper’s “accuracy” in their reporting of the 1993 case. Aside from having personally sold a story directly to them in September of 1993, there are reasons to believe that some of their other stories at the time were also sourced to the Chandler’s (see September 21, 1993, May 25, 1993).

June 16, 2004 – The 1994 settlement agreement between the Chandlers and Michael Jackson is illegally leaked to Diane Dimond. It is not known who leaked the confidential settlement to Dimond, however, Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, calls Dimond Evan Chandler’s “closest ally”.

September 12, 2004 – At the height of the media frenzy about the Arvizo allegations and the upcoming trial, Ray Chandler self publishes the book he had been shopping since the 1994 settlement (Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up).

September 19, 2004 – Jackson’s defense tries to subpoena Ray Chandler who was making his rounds in the media, promoting his book. In interviews Chandler claims to have documents which “prove” Jackson’s guilt. Jackson’s defense team challenges him to come and show his documents in Court, under oath in order to be cross-examined. Ray Chandler successfully fights off the subpoena citing the Shield Law that protects him as a journalist.

For details see our article about Ray Chandler’s Subpoena in 2004!

September 28, 2004 – Prosecutors for the Arvizo trial visit the 24-year-old Jordan Chandler in New York to ask him to testify against Jackson in the upcoming trial. According to Jackson’s FBI files those were released after the singer’s death, Jordan refused and advised the prosecutors that “he would legally fight any attempt” to make him testify against Jackson. Later Jackson’s lawyer Thomas Mesereau revealed that he had witnesses for the trial who said Jordan privately admitted to them that Jackson did not molest him and had Jordan come to testify he would have presented those witnesses.

April 11, 2005 – June Chandler appears in court at Jackson’s trial as one of the prosecution’s witnesses. She admits she has not spoken to Jordan for 11 years. She testifies about her son and Michael Jackson spending time together in 1993 but she does not claim to have witnessed molestation. She is the only member of the Chandler family who ever testified in a Court and subjected herself to cross-examination.

June 13, 2005 – Michael Jackson is acquitted on all counts at his trial.

August 5, 2005 – Jordan Chandler obtains a temporary restraining order against his father, claiming that while theywere living in the same household Evan “struck him on the head from behind with a twelve and one-half pound weight and then sprayed his eyes with mace or pepper spray and tried to choke him. The judge also found that the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death.”

For details about the Chandlers’ family relations see our article Michael Jackson’s first accuser – meet the Chandler family!

June 25, 2009 – Michael Jackson dies.

June 26, 2009 – A false story is circulated on the Internet about Jordan Chandler recanting his allegations. Jordan has never publicly recanted his allegations. A little more detail here.

November 5, 2009 – Just four months after Michael Jackson’s death Evan Chandler, living alone and estranged from his family commits suicide by shooting himself in the head in his New Jersey home. He did not leave a suicide note. None of his children, ex-wives or any friends attended his funeral.

Leave a Comment
post icon

The 2005 (Gavin Arvizo) Allegations

On November 18, 2003 an arrest warrant was issued for Michael Jackson based on a 13-year-old boy Gavin Arvizo’s allegations that the entertainer had sexually molested him in February-March, 2003. In this section of our website we discuss these allegations. This section of our website is still under construction, so some links are not yet active.

We decided to present the case in four articles. These are:

A general outline of the events leading up to the Arvizo allegations

The Changing Content of the Allegations and Contradictions

The Conspiracy charge [coming soon]

General credibility problems with the accuser’s family  [coming soon]

Leave a Comment
post icon

A general outline of the events leading up to the Arvizo allegations

In this section we give a general outline of the Arvizo case and mainly about the events leading up to the allegations and how and when the allegations emerged. The exact content of the Arvizo family’s allegations, the contradictions and changes in them, the timeline and its changes and the credibility issues with the Arvizo family and other issues of the case will be discussed in detail in separate articles.

Click on the title to read the articles below:

Michael Jackson first met his later accuser, Gavin Arvizo and the boy’s family in the summer of 2000. At the time the then 10-year-old Gavin was in hospital with a rare type of cancer that affected his kidney and spleen. His doctors removed one of his kidneys and his spleen and began chemotherapy.

Gavin was a big fan of comedians and before his illness he went to comedy classes at the Laugh Factory which is a comedy club in Hollywood owned by the comedian, Jamie Masada. In the club Gavin and his family made friends with several comedians such as Masada, George Lopez, Louise Palanker and Chris Tucker. When Gavin became ill Masada visited him in the hospital several times. Gavin asked him to help him meet certain celebrities, and one day he asked to meet Michael Jackson.

Masada testified at Jackson’s trial that he did not personally know Michael Jackson, but he somehow managed to contact his people and tell them about Gavin’s request. Jackson called the boy in the hospital and they talked for about five minutes, according to Gavin’s testimony in 2005. During the conversation Jackson invited Gavin and his family to his Neverland Ranch. According to Gavin’s 2005 testimony Jackson called him about 20 other times during his illness – sometimes in the hospital, sometimes in his grandmother’s home where Gavin lived at the time in a sterile room.

After the first round of Gavin’s chemotherapy the Arvizo family went to Neverland in August 2000. The family at the time consisted of Gavin, his older sister Davellin, his one year younger brother Star, their mother Janet Arvizo and their father David Arvizo. They all went on that Neverland visit.

On that first visit Gavin and Star slept in Jackson’s bedroom. This is the night that is referenced in the 2003 Bashir documentary that caused big public uproar, even though both Gavin and Jackson made it clear that while the kids slept on the bed, Jackson slept on the floor:

“Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.

Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?

Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.” [1]

(Emphasis added.)

What is not mentioned in the documentary is the fact that not only Jackson did not sleep in the same bed as Gavin and Star, but he also insisted on his personal assistant, Frank Cascio (also called Frank Tyson sometimes) to sleep in the room as well. Jackson’s own children, 3-year-old Prince and 2-year old Paris (Blanket was not yet born), were there as well and slept on the bed with the Arvizo kids, while the two adult men, Jackson and Cascio, slept on the floor.

Cascio recalled the situation in his 2011 book, My Friend Michael:

“Then came the night when Gavin and his brother Star pleaded with Michael to allow them to sleep with him. “Can we sleep in your room tonight? Can we sleep in your bed tonight?” the boys begged. “My mother said it’s okay, if it’s okay with you,” Gavin added. Michael, who always had a hard time saying no to kids, replied, “Sure, no problem.” But then he came to me. “She’s pushing her kids onto me,” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange, uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.”

I went to the kids and said, “Michael has to sleep. I’m sorry, you can’t stay in his room.” Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo - the mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.” I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.” [2]

The fact that Cascio and Jackson’s children were in the room as well was not disputed by the Arvizos in Court, nor did they claim any molestation or attempt at molestation occurring that night. They claimed the acts of molestation happened almost three years later, in February-March 2003, AFTER the Bashir documentary aired and WHILE Santa Barbara authorities and child protective services were investigating Jackson because of the Bashir documentary. We will discuss this timeline later in this article and in a separate article.

There was one disputed element of this night, though. In Court in 2005 the Arvizos accused Jackson and Cascio of showing them adult heterosexual pornography on a laptop computer that Jackson gave to Gavin as a gift that day. Both Jackson and Cascio denied showing any such material to the children. We address this allegation in our article entitled The Changing Content of the Allegations and Contradictions.

According to Gavin’s own testimony, after this one occasion at Neverland he and his family did not have much contact with Jackson until the fall of 2002, when they were called back for the Bashir documentary. They were allowed to go to Neverland, and they did at least 7-10 times during that period, but most of the time Jackson was not even there and when he was, he actively avoided the Arvizos. From Gavin’s direct examination at Jackson’s 2005 trial:

Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was on the ranch, did you have any contact with him ?

A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean, like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he would say that he ‘s not there, and then he would be there .

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don‘t know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle of my cancer. And, like, I would go up there, and I would see, like, Prince and Paris playing there, and I would think that Michael was there, and they would tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like, I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.

Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident ?

A. Yeah.

Q. Tell the jury about that.

A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was . And then we were walking into the — into the main house . And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes. And then I walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And then we walked into the house and there I saw Michael walking, like, toward me. But I guess he didn’t see me turn the corner. And then he acted as if , “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw me. And then — then he just played it off and , like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know, at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like, he ‘s my –

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a narrative and non responsive.

THE COURT : Sustained .

Q. BY MR . SNEDDON : Okay.

A. And then , like –

Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question. So in any case , you bumped into him ?

A. Yeah. And I was — because of –

Q. That’s okay . How much more contact did you have with him on that time when you bumped into him? How much time did the contact last?

A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a lot.

Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was an occasion where you were there when you kind of bumped into him by accident ?

A. Yeah.

Q. When you actually made contact with him – okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long was the conversation between the two of you?

A. Maybe , like , five minutes. When — that time we bumped into each other, and then we just talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go somewhere. [3]

On cross-examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Meserau Gavin again complained about Jackson avoiding him and said that no other celebrity he befriended ever did that to him:

Q. Can you look this jury in eye and tell them Michael Jackson did nothing for you when you had cancer?

A. I never said Michael did nothing for me.

Q. Did you say he did very little?

A. Yeah. He didn’t do as much as I felt, as my 11-year-old mind felt.

Q. He should.

A. No. He shouldn’t — it’s not his obligation to do anything.

Q. Well, are you telling the jury you deserved a lot more from Michael Jackson than you and your family got?

A. No.

Q. Is that what you’re saying?

A. No. I’m just saying that — see, when I have a friend, Michael, and you’re saying all these things that he did, but, you know, when my 11-year-old mind — and when I see my friend say that he’s not there, and he’s not at Neverland Ranch trying — and I see him walking and I see his car that he only drives going down at Neverland, you know, it felt like my heart broke right there.

Q. So by doing all of these things –

A. And I don’t remember George Lopez or Jamie Masada or Louise Palanker ever doing that to me. [4]

Gavin also complained on the stand that Jackson changed his phone numbers and became unavailable to them.

Q. And at some point you complained to the sheriffs that Mr. Jackson had changed his phone numbers after you visited the Hilton, right?

A. Well, that was the only phone number I left — or I called — well, I’m not sure. Because the only phone number that never changed was Evvy’s [Evvy Tavasci – Jackson’s secretary at the time] phone number. And I would call her and I would ask her sometimes where Michael was or something. And then — and I had the phone number to his hotel, so I think I called him at his hotel and asked him if I could go visit him. I think it was around — I’m not sure when exactly.

Q. When did you first get upset about your phone numbers for Michael Jackson not working?

A. Maybe around the third or fourth chemotherapy round I called his numbers and it would be, like, “This phone number is no longer in service.” Or sometimes it would just ring and it wouldn’t never — no one would ever pick up or something like that.

Q. Well, you’ve indicated that you were upset that the phone numbers you had for Mr. Jackson at some point didn’t work, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the phone numbers you had for Mr. Jackson began to not work after it appeared that your cancer was in remission, correct?

A. No, I said they stopped working after my third or fourth chemotherapy round.

Q. Okay. Before that, could you easily call him?

A. Yes.

Q. And before that, did you often call him?

A. Yes. And he would call me and stuff. We would talk — we talked a lot more before then.

Q. In fact, you called him at the Universal — Hilton Universal the day you visited, right?

A. I believe so. I’m not too sure how it came about. [5]

and

Q. Okay. Now, you complained to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs that, “After I was done with my cancer stuff,” you never saw Michael again, right?

A. No, not until the Martin Bashir thing.

Q. Okay. And you wanted to see him after you were in remission, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You wanted to visit Neverland after you were in remission, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt in some way that Michael had cut off the friendship, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You felt he had abandoned you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt he had abandoned your family, right?

A. Yes. [5]

To not to lose contact with Jackson the Arvizo family started to bombard him with nice letters and cards:

Q. And approximately when do you think he wasn’t talking to you anymore?

A. Two months into my cancer.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Two months into my chemotherapy.

Q. Approximately when would that be?

A. August or September of 2000.

Q. Okay. So August or September of 2000, you and your family started sending nice letters and cards to Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And those are the letters and cards that I showed you a little while ago, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your understanding your mother used to send him cards and letters as well, right?

A. I think so.

Q. And she used to refer to him as “daddy,” didn’t she.

A. I don’t think she referred to him as “daddy.”

Q. You never heard her say that once.

 A. Well, toward me, me saying that. Because, I mean, my dad had left. And I started calling him “daddy” after my dad left because I didn’t have a dad.

 Q. And your mother approved of that, correct.

 A. Yeah. [5]

While Jackson personally kept his distance from the family, he did things to help them. In October, 2000 Jackson gave the family a white van as a gift. He also allowed the Arvizos to use Neverland for a blood drive for Gavin and all his employees donated blood.

In the Spring of 2001 Gavin’s biological father and mother, David and Janet Arvizo seperated – according to Janet Arvizo’s 2005 testimony because David physically abused her and the children.

In the Summer of 2001 both the laptop and the van Jackson gave the Arvizos the previous year had broken down and the family sent them back to Jackson to have them repaired. According to the Arvizos they never saw any of them again.

On September 24, 2001 the Arvizo family reached an out of court settlement with the J. C. Penney department store. The subject of the case was an allegation by the Arvizo family that in 1998 J.C. Penney guards beat up Janet, David, Gavin and Star Arvizo in a parking lot and they sexually abused Janet Arvizo. The guards followed the family in the parking lot because Gavin was caught stealing two school uniforms and two school uniform pants. The Arvizos then managed to turn it around into a physical and sexual abuse lawsuit against the J. C. Penney guards. At Jackson’s 2005 trial evidence and testimony showed that the family lied under oath in depositions in that case. We will discuss the details of this case in a separate article.

In the Spring of 2002 the Arvizos spent a few days at Neverland with the actor Chris Tucker to celebrate the birthday of latter’s infant son. Jackson was not present.

Sources:

[1] Martin Bashir – Living with Michael Jackson (February 2003)

[2] Frank Cascio – My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man (William Morrow, November 15, 2011)

[3] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 9, 2005)

[4] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 10, 2005)

[5] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 14, 2005)

In the Summer-Autumn of 2002 British journalist and television host Martin Bashir worked on a documentary with Michael Jackson entitled “Living with Michael Jackson”. During the creation of that documentary Bashir suggested to Jackson that in the film he could show the public how the singer helped children with serious illnesses. Jackson presented Bashir with two examples: the story of David Rothenberg (“Dave Dave”) who was badly burned by his father when he was a child in the 1980s. Jackson took it upon himself to help Rothenberg throughout his life. Here is Rothenberg talking about Michael Jackson after Jackson’s death:

The other option offered was the cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo. By 2002 Rothenberg was an adult and Bashir chose to go with the still 13-year-old Gavin instead, so they invited him and his siblings, Star and Davellin to the set – even though Rothenberg was present as well, according to Gavin’s testimony:

Q. Okay. Did you ever meet this person who was burned?

A. Yeah, I think Michael introduced me to him.

Q. And when was this?

A. Around the same time as the Martin Bashir thing.

Q. Was it at Neverland?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to this person?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the person’s name?

A. I think his name might have been David.

Q. Was it Rothenberg?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Was this a young man that you learned his father had poured gasoline on him and set him on fire?.

A. I don’t know.

Q. Okay.

A. I think that’s what happened.

Q. And he was supposed to be in the film with you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And correct me if I’m wrong, you discussed with Michael the fact that Michael had helped this young boy, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you talk to this young boy about what he had experienced?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you ever see him?

A. Yes.

Q. And please describe for the jury what he looked like.

A. He looked like he was really badly burned and he had like – he was like a rocker. He was wearing, like, rocker stuff. And he was burned. And he had like only a few hairs on his head because I guess it covered all the pores when he was burned.

Q. Did you and he appear in the film, if you know?

A. Later I watched it, and then — well, I watched my part, and then I don’t think he was in there.

Q. Okay. But was he at Neverland the day you were filmed?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you meet him shortly after you arrived?

A. Yes. [1]

The shooting of the scene with Gavin and his two siblings took place in September 2002. Janet Arvizo later said that she was not aware at the time that her children would appear in the documentary.

Jackson trusted that Bashir had no hidden agenda in how he presented his relationship with Gavin and out of naivety and guilelessness allowed himself to be filmed showing affection to Gavin and holding his hand while the boy leaned his head on his shoulder. Bashir exploited Jackson’s poor judgement in public relations and drew him into a discussion of whether it was acceptable to share a bedroom with a child.

When the documentary aired in February 2003 this segment caused a storm of bad publicity for Jackson and wild speculations about the nature of his relationship with Gavin Arvizo. In reality, as you have seen above, there was no close relationship between Jackson and Gavin, and since 2000 they hardly even met.

Throughout the documentary Bashir uses suggestive and highly manipulative narration and it seems that his intention from the beginning was to create and feed in innuendo about Jackson’s relationship with children. Even Gavin admitted in his 2005 testimony that Bashir’s portrayal of Jackson in the documentary was false. After the shooting of the scene the Arvizo children stayed at the ranch for one night, but Jackson immediately left after the segment and he was again unavailable to Gavin:

Q. At that point, could you reach Michael Jackson by telephone if you wanted to?

A. No, after the Martin Bashir thing, he didn’t give me any phone numbers, because he left, like, either the same day or the day after the Martin Bashir interview, and I didn’t really get any other phone numbers. [1]

Source:

[1] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 14, 2005)

The Arvizos had not met Jackson again until after the Bashir documentary aired in the UK on February 3, 2003 and then in the US on February 6, 2003. As a result of the documentary the media went into a frenzy, the 1993 allegations against Jackson were rehashed in articles and talk shows. On February 6 someone illegally leaked Jordan Chandler’s 1993 declaration to the media to further antagonize the public against Jackson. [For more details about the 1993 Jordan Chandler allegations please see the relevant section of our website.] The media also tried to “hunt down” the Arvizo family.

Jackson’s team tried to fight this negative publicity and decided to hold a press conference with the Arvizo family in Miami on February 5 or 6, 2003. The press conference eventually was called off, but the Arvizos did travel to Miami with actor Chris Tucker to participate in it in support of Jackson. Jackson and the Arvizos then returned to Neverland on February 7-8. The family remained there, on and off, until March 12.

In the hindsight, while making their allegations the Arvizos claimed that on the way back to Los Angeles from Miami on February 7 on the airplane they witnessed Jackson lick the head of a sleeping Gavin. Despite of the fact that many people were on the plane the only two people who have ever claimed to have witnessed this alleged scene were Star and Janet Arvizo. Although this whole alleged scene lasted for only six seconds, Janet Arvizo got up from her seat to go to the restroom exactly at the right moment to witness it – quiet conveniently.  Oddly, Janet Arvizo never confronted Jackson about what she allegedly witnessed, nor did she ever ask her sons about it. Supposedly she just kept it to herself and the first time she ever mentioned it to anyone was when the family first started to make child molestation allegations against Jackson later in 2003.

In the hindsight, when they made their allegations, the Arvizos claimed that during this period, February 7-March 12, 2003, they were kept captive at Neverland against their will. This allegation is what the conspiracy charge deals with and we will discuss it in detail in another article [coming soon]. During their alleged captivity the Arvizos went shopping several times, visited a lawyer, talked to Child Protective Services because of the Bashir documentary and appeared in a Court regarding a child support debate, yet they never reported to authorities that they were allegedly being kidnapped and held against their will at Neverland. The claim was that Jackson supposedly kept them captive to force them to participate in the so called “rebuttal video”.

Jackson’s team was trying to do damage control regarding the Bashir documentary and they were working on a so called “rebuttal video” which was released on February 20, 2003 as Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See. This documentary features footage made by Jackson’s own cameraman Hamid Moslehi during the shooting of the Bashir documentary and it features material that Bashir deliberately omitted, shows his manipulation of Jackson and also features interviews with other people, for example with Jackson’s ex-wife, Debbie Rowe.

Initially the Arvizos would have been featured in this documentary as well, but at the end their segment was not included. However, the footage that was made for this documentary with the Arvizo family was shot early in that morning (on February 20) and later found by the prosecution when they searched Moslehi’s home during the Jackson investigation. As a result the Arvizos, – with the prosecution’s assistance – were forced to change their initial timeline of the allegations.

Initially the Arvizos claimed the molestation started as soon as they returned from Miami with Jackson, on February 7. Their segment of the “rebuttal video” however was shot on February 20. In it they are seen laughing and joking, happily praising Michael Jackson. They also express their displeasure with Martin Bashir. In the hindsight they tried to claim they were under duress, but behind the scenes footage showed them not only laughing and joking, but even making suggestions themselves about what they wanted to do on film. They certainly do not seem to be forced or under duress by any means. The resulting timeline change was not just a minor correction. It significantly changed the narrative of the Arvizo’s initial story as we will discuss later in this article.

The Arvizo segment from the so called “rebuttal video” which eventually was not used in the Take Two documentary, but later became significant at Jackson’s trial:

Behind the scenes footage shows the family laughing and joking:

On February 20, the same day as the Arvizo’s segment for the “rebuttal video” was shot they also got a visit from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS, also mentioned as Child Protective Services – CPS). They interviewed the Arvizo family because a teacher from Gavin’s school filed a complaint over the claim in the Bashir documentary that Gavin had slept in Jackson’s bed. Again, the Arvizos said nothing but positive things about Jackson. They denied molestation and never claimed that they had been supposedly “kidnapped” or held against their will. In actuality, this meeting with the DCFS took place in Major Jay Jackson’s (no relation to Michael Jackson) home who was Janet Arvizo’s boyfriend at the time and later her husband.

To explain why they did not tell anything negative about Michael Jackson to the DCFS the Arvizos had several versions of their story: initially they claimed it was because Jackson and his people intimidated them. According to the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause (November 17, 2003) document on August 13, 2003 Gavin told them:

“Gavin was asked why he did not disclose anything to the CPS people. He said by then they were really afraid of Frank (Cascio) and Michael.” [1; page 60]

His brother Star too claimed on the same day that the reason why they had not disclosed anything to the DCFS was intimidation by Jackson and his people:

“When asked during the CPS interview why he did not disclose anything about what was going on with Michael’s people and Michael himself, Star replied that Michael had scared them by threatening them that he was going to kill them. He then clarified that it was not Michael that actually made the threat, but “Michael’s people.” He was asked if he was personally threatened or if he heard a threat, and he said yes. Frank told him that if Star didn’t protect Michael, something bad would happen to the family.

The threat was made at the snack area of the theatre at Neverland. He was the only one there at the moment. Frank made another threat a couple days before the CPS meeting. Star was asked if Frank knew that they would be meeting with the ladies from the Child Welfare Services, and he said yes. When Star was asked why he thought Frank had made that threat, he said, “Because he already knew what Michael did to us.” If they had told the truth, Michael would have gone to jail. “ [1; page 51-52]

and

“He is sure he did not say anything bad about Michael (to the CPS), because he was scared.” [1; page 52]

This is, however, totally contradictory with the later version of the Arvizos’ story, in which they claimed that the molestation started happening only AFTER the DCFS’s visit and that is why they did not disclose anything to them. In actuality, in 2005 in Court Gavin testified – according to the latest version of their story – that on February 20, when they shot the “rebuttal video” and when they were interviewed by the DCFS, they still considered Jackson to be a good person and they had no problem praising him.

Under cross-examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, the boy stated that most of the things that they said in the “rebuttal video” reflected their true feelings about the entertainer at the time. He talked about some lies that they told – allegedly at the request of one of Jackson’s people, Dieter Wiesner – but these were only exaggerations about how much Jackson was really there for him during his cancer or how much part he really played in his healing. However, on contrary with his and his brother’s earlier statements to the police, on the stand Gavin clearly stated that when they made the ”rebuttal video” they still felt that Jackson was a great person. Gavin also said that he had a good time at Neverland and did not give the impression they were intimidated by anything there:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. It wasn’t until you realized you were not going to be part of Michael Jackson’s family, you were not going to meet Michael Jackson in Brazil, you were not going to be going to Neverland, that you ever came up with these allegations of molestation, right?

A. I didn’t come and talk to the — to the — my mom always wanted to leave. She was the one that was able to realize and get us out of there. I liked being there. [2]

 and

Q. I see. So you went into town with Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yeah. Michael took us to Toys R Us.

Q. You picked up some fans, correct, on the way?

A. Yeah, Michael invited some people into our – the thing.

Q. You never complained to anyone in the store or any of these fans that anyone was being held against their will, correct?

A. I was actually happy to be at Neverland all the time.

Q. And you were happy to go –

A. That’s something you don’t really understand, is that the majority of those times was — the first few escapes that you talk about, I liked being at Neverland. That was like Disneyland. I loved being there. I had lots of fun. I mean, my mom was the one always worried. It wasn’t until the last time that I realized “I don’t want to be here.”

Q. Your mother was worried, but she always came back, right? Right?

A. I guess so. [3]

These last two lines are a reference to the Arvizos’ claim that during their alleged “kidnapping” they “escaped” three times, but then they always returned.

The first alleged “escape” happened shortly after they returned from Miami on February 7. One night Janet Arvizo asked Jackson’s ranch manager, Jesus Salas to take them home to Los Angeles, which he did. Moreover according to Janet Arvizo’s own claims in her police interview on July 6-7, 2003, Marie Nicole Cascio assisted them in their “escape”:

“She described running in the dark through Neverland, being led by Marie Nicole, to find her way to the car. Mrs. Arvizo was unable to recall exact dates of events during this period. She stated that there were no clocks or calendars at Neverland and she would lose track of the date.” [1; page 25]

Marie Nicole Cascio is the sister of Frank Cascio, who allegedly was one of the main culprits in the Arvizos’ “kidnapping”.

According to the Arvizo family there were no clocks at Neverland...

According to the Arvizo family there were no clocks at Neverland…

Janet Arvizo explained her “escaping” with the fact that she did not like two of Jackson’s people, Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer, whom she called “the Germans”, and felt intimidated by them. After Frank Cascio promised her that the Germans would not be at Neverland any more, she and her children returned. However, the Germans were still at Neverland, so Janet Arvizo “escaped” again, this time on her own, leaving her children behind, asking Jackson’s bodyguard, Chris Carter to take her to Jay Jackson’s house, which he did.

Both of these alleged “escapes” happened within a couple of days after they returned from Miami on February 7. The third occasion that was characterized as an “escape” by Janet Arvizo was when the Arvizos left Neverland for good. Once again the “escape” was not met with resistance from Jackson’s people – in fact, Janet Arvizo just asked Vinnie Amen, Frank Cascio’s friend and closest colleague, one of the Arvizos’ alleged “kidnappers”, to take them to the home of Janet Arvizo’s parents and he did.

Jackson and his people apparently were suspicious of the Arvizos and of how they may use the media frenzy resulting from the Bashir documentary for their benefit. The media at this point tried to contact the Arvizos and Jackson already had experience with the practices of the tabloid media and what the temptation of tabloid money can make people claim (see this article). The fact that Jackson did not trust this family from the beginning is apparent from the fact that he tried to keep his distance from them, as described by even Gavin himself in Court.

In fact, not long after the Bashir documentary aired Jackson hired attorney, Mark Geragos. Bradley Miller, a private investigator working for Geragos, conducted and tape recorded an interview with Janet Arvizo in Jay Jackson’s home on February 16. On the tape Janet Arvizo does not mention she or her children being “kidnapped” or being held captive by either Jackson or his people, nor any other wrongdoing by Jackson. In fact she says nothing but nice things about him. In Court in 2005 Janet Arvizo said of that interview:

Q. All right. And you said nice things about Mr. Jackson, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you believe those things at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You would have said those things even if he hadn’t rewound the tape-recorder?

A. That’s right. [4]

Like said before, the Arvizos’ story changed over the course of the investigation. Initially they claimed that Jackson started molesting Gavin immediately after they returned from Miami on February 7. This is also represented in the prosecution’s initial felony complaint, filed on December 18, 2003 [5]. In interviews they gave to the police in 2003 the Arvizos claimed that they told nice things about Jackson in their interview with the DCFS and the “rebuttal video” (both on February 20) because they were under duress and intimidated by Jackson’s people.

However, with the emergence of the “rebuttal tape” that was shot of the Arvizo family by Hamid Moslehi, this claim became hard to defend, so the story later changed to the molestation starting only after February 20 – after the shooting of the “rebuttal video” and after the Arvizo’s interview with the DCFS. In the new version of their story, and this was the version they presented in Court, the Arvizos did not tell the DCFS simply because no molestation had happened yet on February 20 and not because they were intimidated by Jackson and/or his people, as they initially claimed.

It was not only the DCFS that started an investigation against Jackson because of the Bashir documentary. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department too launched an investigation in February 2003 based on a complaint by psychiatrist Dr. Carol Lieberman – again, because of the Bashir documentary. This investigation continued until April, 2003.

(Dr. Lieberman is the same psychiatrist who together with attorney and TV personality Gloria Allred also filed complaints against Jackson for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. Then later in 2003 Allred represented a 18-year-old young men, Daniel Kapon, who claimed he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson when he was a child. Kapon claimed he had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. It was Dr. Lieberman who “helped” bring forth his “repressed memories”. During an investigation into the matter by the Santa Barbara Police Department it emerged that in reality Kapon never even met Jackson. For details about Kapon see this article.)

In the latest version of their story the Arvizos’ claim was that Jackson molested Gavin between February 20 and March 12, 2003 [6]. So the Arvizos’ story is that while all this was happening – public outrage because of the Bashir documentary, innuendo and allegations in the media about Jackson’s relationship with children – and specifically Gavin – as a result of the Bashir documentary, high media interest, tabloids trying to “hunt down” the Arvizo family, DCFS investigation, another investigation by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, Jackson’s PR and legal team working overtime on damage control because of the public relations backlash resulting from the Bashir documentary and its innuendo – all WHILE this is happening Jackson starts molesting Gavin Arvizo, even though for three years he has not touched him and obviously not even trusted him and his family. And even though he had not molested Gavin until all these investigations by the DCFS and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department started, but he started to molest him WHILE these investigations were ongoing. THIS is exactly what the Arvizo family claimed, this is exactly their story that you have to believe in order to believe their allegations! (Among several other problems with their case that we detail in separate articles.)

The Arvizos left Neverland for good on March 12, so according to their final version of the allegations Jackson molested Gavin between February 20 and March 12, 2003. In actuality, this period becomes even shorter when we know that between February 25 and March 2 the Arvizos were not at Neverland but stayed in a hotel in Calabasas. Moreover phone logs presented by the prosecution towards the end of the presentation of their side of the case inadvertently revealed that in early March Jackson stayed a few days at the Beverly Hilton hotel using the pseudonym Kenneth Morgan (as celebrities often use pseudonyms to avoid attention). From the logs it appears he was there at least on March 7-8, but possibly also on March 6, while the Arvizos were at Neverland. Based on the phone logs it also seems on February 20 Jackson was at the Turnberry Isle Resort in Miami, Florida. The testimony of Azja Pryor (Chris Tucker’s girlfriend at the time) confirms that Jackson was not at Neverland on February 20.

On February 21 Janet Arvizo first visited civil attorney William Dickerman. Janet Arvizo denied this in her testimony, but Dickerman in his own testimony stated they first met on February 21. Then they met again on February 25 – on this both testimonies agreed. This was during the Arvizos’ supposed “kidnap”, yet Janet Arvizo did not mention being kidnapped or being held captive to the lawyer on any occasion, nor did the lawyer report any such thing to any authority. According to Janet Arvizo she contacted Dickerman because she wanted him to stop the media from using her children’s likeness and photos in their publications and on their programs.

Around this time there were plans to take the Arvizos to Brazil for a vacation (possibly to keep them away from the media). This was later characterized by the Arvizos and the prosecution as an attempt to deport them, when in reality travel documents presented in Court showed that they were supposed to stay in Brazil for only a one week vacation. From Janet Arvizo’s cross-examination:

Q. Well, the itinerary says you’re leaving Los Angeles for Sao Paulo, Brazil, on March 1st, 2003, right?

A. Okay.

Q. It says you’re returning from Sao Paulo, Brazil, to Miami on March 6th, 2003, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And it says you’re leaving Miami for Los Angeles on March 7th, 2003, correct?

A. Uh-huh. [8]

According to the testimony of Azja Pryor, girlfriend of the actor Chris Tucker at the time, far from being forced, at the time Janet Arvizo was looking forward to the trip and even invited her:

Q. Did Janet ever mention a trip to Brazil to you?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she say?

A. She said that they –

MR. SNEDDON: I’ll object as hearsay.

MR. MESEREAU: Impeachment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.

THE WITNESS: She said that they were going to Brazil for Carnival.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And what is Carnival, to your knowledge?

A. Beautiful costumes, beads. I guess it’s kind of like Mardi Gras.

Q. Kind of a holiday celebration, right?

A. A holiday celebration.

Q. Did she ever ask you to go with her?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. And when did Janet ask you to go to Brazil with her to attend Carnival?

A. During a phone conversation. It was sometime in February.

Q. Okay. And did you say anything in response to her invitation?

A. I said, “Sure, I’d love to go.”

Q. And did you ever talk to her about Brazil again?

A. Yeah, we talked a couple of times about Brazil.

Q. And did you talk about your going with her?

A. I’m sure — I’m sure I did. I told her I couldn’t go for too long. I was in school at the time, so I would only be able to be there for, like, three or four days.

Q. Did she say that was okay?

A. Yes. [7]

Eventually the whole trip was called off and never happened.

On March 2 the family went back again to Neverland and stayed there until March 12 when they left for good. Like mentioned above, this was characterized by Janet Arvizo in her 2005 testimony as their “final escape”. In actuality, according to Janet Arvizo’s own testimony, she told Frank Cascio on the phone that her parents were sick and she would like her children to see them. Then Vinnie Amen delivered them to their parents’ home and that was it. This was “the big escape”.

Sources:

[1] Statement of Probable Cause (filed by the Prosecution on November 17, 2003)
plugin-111703stmtpc

[2] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 14, 2005)

[3] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 15, 2005)

[4] Janet Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 13, 2005)

[5] The Prosecution’s original felony complaint (filed on December 18, 2003)121803complaint_initial charges

[6] Opening statements at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (February 28, 2005)

[7] Azja Pryor’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 19, 2005)

[8] Janet Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 18, 2005)

On March 24, 2003 Janet Arvizo formally hired William Dickerman as her attorney and Dickerman began writing letters to Jackson’s attorney, Mark Geragos on her behalf demanding the return of furniture, clothes, documents and various other items which were put in a storage locker after the Arvizos moved out of their Los Angeles apartment on March 1-2. The storage locker was rented in Bradley Miller’s name. There were numerous back and forth letters between the two attorneys about the issue of where and how the Arvizos would take possession of their belongings and who would pay the outstanding bill of the storage locker.

In his letters Dickerman also claimed that Jackson’s people harrassed and followed around the Arvizo family after they left Neverland. However, nowhere in his letters there are claims of child molestation, claims of false imprisonment or claims of providing alcohol to a minor. From William Dickerman’s cross-examination by Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Nowhere in this letter of March 26th that you wrote to Mr. Geragos on behalf of the Arvizos is there any mention of alcohol, correct?

A. Correct. [1]

and

Q. Now, in this letter of March 26th to Mr. Geragos, there is no mention of the Arvizo family ever being falsely imprisoned, correct?

A. I believe that’s correct.

Q. And in this letter of March 26th to Attorney Mark Geragos, there’s no mention of the Arvizo family ever being kidnapped, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In this letter of March 26th, 2003, to Mr. Geragos that you wrote, there’s no mention of any extortion, right?

A. I believe that’s correct. I haven’t read this word for word, but it sounds right.

Q. Okay. When you sent this letter to Mr. Geragos on March 26th, 2003, two days after you had been retained by the Arvizos, did you ever call the police to complain about false imprisonment, kidnapping, molestation or alcohol?

A. No. [1]

 and

Q. In that letter, you never mention anything about molestation, correct?

A. That’s correct. The only purpose of the letter was to get the items that I had written about before.

Q. In the April 3rd letter, 2003, you mention nothing about alcohol, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. You mention nothing about false imprisonment, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You mention nothing about any alleged kidnapping, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. You mentioning nothing about any alleged extortion, correct?

A. Correct. [1]

Dickerman never mentioned any such complaint in his verbal communication with Geragos either:

Q. Now, in all of these conversations you had with Mark Geragos on behalf of the Arvizos, at no time did you mention to him anything about child molestation, correct?

A. Well, I don’t think I had more than one or two conversations.

Q. And you never mentioned anything about child molestation, correct?

A. That’s correct. That wasn’t the purpose of the communication.

Q. You never mentioned anything about wine allegedly being given to any of the Arvizo children, correct?

A. Correct. There was no reason to do that. [1]

According to his own testimony, in early May of 2003 William Dickerman entered into a fee-sharing agreement with attorney, Larry Feldman. Feldman in his own testimony confirmed that they had fee-sharing agreement, although he suggested it came about a little bit later, (”not right at the beginning”), but he did not specify when.

Larry Feldman was the same civil attorney who negotiated the $15 million settlement for the Chandlers, the family of Jackson’s first accuser in 1993-94 . [For more details about the 1993 Jordan Chandler allegations please see the relevant section of our website.] According to the Arvizos’ later story at this time Gavin had not yet disclosed his alleged abuse to anyone, including his mother or Dickerman, so at this time there were no allegations of child sexual abuse by the Arvizos yet. So why would Dickerman refer them to the same attorney who dealt with the first child abuse allegation against Jackson in 1993-94? In his 2005 testimony he explained it this way:

Q. All right. Did you file a lawsuit on behalf of Janet Arvizo or her family?

A. No.

Q. At some point in time, did you refer this matter to another attorney?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Who was that other attorney?

A. Larry Feldman.

Q. And why did you do that?

A. Excuse me. I began representing the Arvizos in February. And by the time I met with Mr. Feldman, it was the beginning of May. In that period of time I had learned a lot of things. There were a lot of allegations being made, and I realized that the best thing for my clients to do, and for me personally as their attorney, was to get some expert input as to matters of Michael Jackson. The initial things I didn’t think I really needed to do that with, but as things developed, I wanted to get some input. So I met with Mr. Feldman, whom, by the way, I knew — not “by the way.” It was very important. I knew that he was – by reputation, he was one of the top trial lawyers in California, if not the United States.
And actually, previously, not knowing him except by reputation, I had referred a case to him, tried to refer a case to him that I could not handle for various reasons of an old client of mine. And I knew that he was the go-to guy with regard to Michael Jackson matters. Of course, I knew about the 1993 case, so I met with him, with the idea of picking his brain, actually, not to refer any matters to him. And afterwards, he met with them, and they — we all associated together. The Arvizos hired both him and me.

Q. All right. Have you filed a lawsuit as of this time on behalf of the Arvizos or anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Is it the case that the extent of your dealings with them so far, in terms of your communicating with others, has been for purposes of getting their property returned or dealing with the consequences of “Living with Michael Jackson,” the documentary?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an understanding with Mr. Feldman that should there be a lawsuit in the future, that –

THE COURT: They’re not hearing you.

MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry?

THE COURT: Behind; these people can’t hear you.

MR. ZONEN: I’m terribly sorry.

Q. Is there an arrangement that, should there be a lawsuit in the future, that there would be compensation for you in any form of a settlement even if you’re not participating in that lawsuit? Do you know what I mean?

A. Well, we have an agreement.

Q. Okay.

A. It doesn’t say anything about participation or not. We were retained together, and I have a fee-sharing arrangement with Mr. Feldman.

Q. Which means what?

A. Which means I will get — if there is such a lawsuit anytime in the future, that I will be entitled to a sliding scale, depending on whether there’s a settlement or a judgment.

Q. Okay. What kind of lawsuit do you anticipate?

A. I don’t anticipate any lawsuit. My understanding is that there isn’t one in the offing. Nobody’s talking about one. And I suppose if there were to be one — well, that would be speculation. [1]

It is not clear what Dickerman refers to when he says: “In that period of time I had learned a lot of things. There were a lot of allegations being made”, because according to the Arvizos’ own story they had not disclosed anything about alleged child sexual abuse to Dickerman at that point yet. The claim is that they contacted Dickerman to get back their stuff from the storage locker, to stop alleged harassment by Jackson’s people and to deal with the Arvizos’ issues with the media – i.e. writing letters to various media outlets to make them stop using the Arvizos’ photos and footage from the Martin Bashir documentary, unless they could show that the Arvizos had given their legal consent.

In the above extract Dickerman says: “And I knew that he was the go-to guy with regard to Michael Jackson matters. Of course, I knew about the 1993 case, so I met with him, with the idea of picking his brain, actually, not to refer any matters to him.”

Feldman previously dealt with only one case regarding Michael Jackson and that was the allegations of child sexual abuse by the Chandler family in 1993. There is no other claim for him being “the go-to guy with regard to Michael Jackson matters”. But we are supposed to believe that Dickerman contacted him just to help him get back some old furniture from a storage locker or to help him write letters to the media? Because remember, this was all happening BEFORE Gavin first made allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson.

After being referred to Feldman by Dickerman, Feldman sent the Arvizos to Dr. Stanley Katz, a psychologist whose field is child sexual abuse. Moreover, Dr. Katz is the same psychologist who evaluated Jordan Chandler in 1993 and with whom Larry Feldman first worked together in 1987. Dr. Katz was formerly also involved in the highly controversial McMartin preschool trial. He was the Director of Training and Professional Education at the Children’s Institute International (CII). Kee McFarlane, who initially interviewed the McMartin children, worked under him. On cross-examination at Jackson’s 2005 trial, Dr. Katz testified that he did the assessments of the McMartin children. [2] The CII’s role in the McMartin case has been widely criticized in professional circles. Their interviewing techniques are considered coercive and manipulative which may lead children make false allegations about sexual abuse. [3]

Again, keep in mind that the claim is that the Arvizos were sent to Feldman regarding the storage locker, the alleged harassment and the media issues. Gavin testified in 2005 that the first person he ever made his allegations to was Dr. Katz and that he did not make any such allegations to either Dickerman, Feldman or his mother. Yet, he was sent to the same lawyer who negotiated a $15 million settlement for the Chandler family in 1993 in a child molestation lawsuit and this lawyer then sends him to a child abuse psychologist – the same one who also evaluated the 1993 accuser.

In his testimony Feldman claimed that Dr. Katz reported his findings to him in a verbal conversation in his office. Next Feldman called the Arvizo family back in his office to tell them about it. This is yet another contradiction among the many contradictions in the Arvizos’ story, because according to Janet Arvizo she had not learnt about her son’s alleged abuse until September 2003 when the police informed her about it after talking to her children. It actually does not make much sense that a child is sent to a psychologist who is a child abuse expert and the parent would not be informed of the alleged findings of that interview until months later, nor would she enquire about them.

From Feldman’s testimony:

Q. At some point in time, did you receive a report back from Dr. Katz about his initial contacts with the family?

A. Oral. I got an oral — I had an oral conversation with him.

Q. Do you recall whether it was in person or over the phone?

A. I think it was in person, quite frankly. I think he came to my office.

Q. Now, after you received this report, did you do anything?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?

A. I called the Arvizo family, Mrs. Arvizo and the three children, back into my office for a meeting.

Q. All right. And in that meeting, what was the topic discussed?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it calls for hearsay.

MR. SNEDDON: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter only.

THE WITNESS: The subject matter only. The subject matter was the options — well, what Dr. Katz had told me, and their — the options that existed at that point for that family. Different courses of action that were available to them at that point in time. [4]

Now we have four different versions by the accusing side about how and when Janet Arvizo found out about the alleged abuse of her son:

1) According to the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause (November 17, 2003) in her initial interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003 Janet Arvizo claimed that their sons disclosed to her the alleged abuse after February or March, 2003:

“These disclosures were made to her after February or March of this year [2003]. She explained that she would interrupt and tell Star and Gavin to “forgive and forget”. She did this because she thought she was doing the right thing. She wanted Star and Gavin to make the disclosures to a priest or someone else. She has since learned that this was wrong of her to do.” [5; page 23]

On the stand in 2005 Janet Arvizo claimed that at the time she was not aware that either of her sons were molested, she was only “aware of things”, however, in the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause document (November 17, 2003) it is clearly claimed that in February-March, 2003 her sons disclosed accounts of molestation to Janet Arvizo (eg. Jackson allegedly “moving his hips against Gavin” in bed while they were supposedly in bed together, Jackson allegedly touching Star’s private parts etc. – see page 22-23 of the referenced document [5]).

2) The very same prosecution document later contains a totally different version of how and when Janet Arvizo learnt about the alleged molestation of her son:

It is important to note that during the course of the two interviews detailed in this affidavit, Mrs. Arvizo was not aware that Gavin has been molested. She believed the focus of our investigation was the family’s having been held against their wishes at the Neverland Ranch upon their return from Miami and their escape in March. Mrs. Arvizo (sic) told your Affiant she had contacted an attorney to help get their possessions back and to set up contacts with law enforcement to report what had happened to them. She emphasized she was not interested in money.

Your affiant is aware through a conversation with Sgt. Robel that around 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2003, that Sgt. Robel, Lt. Klapakis and District Attorney Tom Sneddon met with Mrs. Arvizo and her family in a Los Angeles hotel and informed her that our conversations with her children had established that Gavin had been molested. This was the first time she was aware of the nature of her children’s disclosures to law enforcement.” [5; page 64]

3) On contrary with both versions in the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause Larry Feldman in his testimony in 2005 then provided a third version when he said after sending the Arvizo family to Dr. Stanley Katz in June 2003 he called them back to his office and discussed Dr. Katz’s findings with them and what kind of legal actions were available to them at that time.

4) As mentioned above, in March-April 2003 attorney William Dickerman wrote letters to Jackson’s attorney, Mark Geragos regarding the issue of returning the Arvizos’ items from a storage locker. In those letters Dickerman never makes any allegation of child molestation, false imprisonment or providing alcohol to a minor. When asked about this on the stand by Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau, this is what Janet Arvizo had to say:

Q. In none of his letters did he ever mention anything about alcohol or child molestation, true?

A. Because that was information for these guys right here, for the police.

Q. How many months later?

A. Because I didn’t want Geragos to know that we were headed towards — straight to the police. [6]

So this is yet another version, in which they do not mention alleged molestation in those letters dated March-April, 2003, not because Janet Arvizo was not aware of it at the time yet, but because they were preserving that information for the police. Here we have to add, however, that they did not go “straight to the police” in March-April 2003, but they went to civil attorney Larry Feldman in May 2003 – like we have described above.

This is just one of the many contradictions in the Arvizos’ allegations. Others are discussed in detail in a separate article.

Although Feldman represented the Arvizos, in a private conversation with television and radio host Larry King, shortly before Jackson’s trial began, Feldman admitted to King that he did not believe them, that he felt they only wanted money and that the mother was a ”whacko”. King testified about it at Jackson’s trial but due to the hearsay nature of his testimony the jury was not allowed to be present and to take his testimony into consideration. Earlier in April in his own testimony, Larry Feldman denied making these remarks to Larry King.

It should be also noted that the California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial in 1993-94 was changed since – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. [Details see in our article about Jackson's settlement with the Chandler family.] Because of this change, an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial.

It is for this reason that the Arvizos could not use the same strategy as what the Chandlers did in 1993. They had no choice but to begin a criminal trial first. And if they had won the criminal case that could have been used to secure an automatic win for them in a civil court too, as we have learnt from the cross-examination of William Dickerman by Thomas Mesereau:

Q. But you certainly know that if someone has a judgment of a criminal conviction against them for sexual assault, you can use that in a civil court to establish liability and not have to incur the expenses and the time involved in a trial on liability, right?

A. I would assume that to be the case.

Q. The only issue at that point would be how much money you get in a civil courtroom, correct?

A. I don’t know if there are other issues, but I think as the judgment, that’s true of any criminal action, that you don’t then have to go, once again, and prove exactly what was proved with a higher burden of proof. [1]

Larry Feldman’s testimony under cross-examination confirmed this:

Q. Isn’t it true that a judgment of conviction in a criminal case for anything related to child molestation could be dispositive in a parallel civil suit alleged for the same facts?

A. As long as it’s a felony conviction, that’s right.

Q. In other words, if Mr. Jackson were convicted of felony child molestation in this case, either Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo could use that conviction to essentially win a civil case regarding similar alleged facts against Mr. Jackson?

A. That’s correct.

Q. If there were a conviction for felony child molestation in this case, and if Star or Gavin elected to sue in a civil case based on the similar alleged facts of sexual abuse, essentially the only issue remaining would be how much money you get, correct?

A. Probably. I think that’s — it’s close enough. I mean, nothing is that simple, as just stated. You know it as well as I. But essentially I think that’s what would happen. [4]

Whatever Larry Feldman privately thought of the Arvizos, on June 13, 2003 he called Lieutenant Jeff Klapakis at the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and reported to him Gavin’s allegations. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office was not new to the case. Like mentioned earlier they were already investigating Jackson since February 2003 and their investigation started before the alleged molestations even happened according to the Arvizos’ final timeline. Klapakis was personally involved in that investigation since the beginning.

In July-September, 2003 investigators conducted several interviews with Gavin, Star, Davellin and Janet Arvizo. These interviews contain several contradictions with each other, as well as with the later versions of the Arvizos’ story. We address those and other contradictions of the Arvizos’ allegations in a separate article.

According to Larry Feldman’s testimony in about August, September or October of 2003 (he was not sure of the exact month) he wrote a letter to the Arvizos saying he was not going to represent them. However, from his testimony we have learnt that later he and his law firm did represent various members of the family in related and other matters. For example, in 2004 on behalf of the Arvizos he filed a claim with the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services, seeking monetary damages, because the DCFS’s report from February 20, 2003 got leaked to the public.

On November 18, 2003 an arrest warrant was issued for Michael Jackson based on Gavin Arvizo’s allegations. Jackson at the time was in Las Vegas, but at the news of his arrest he returned to California and turned himself in. He was then released on a 3 million dollar bail. The same day, in Jackson’s absence, 70 sheriffs raided his home, the Neverland Ranch, to carry out a search warrant.

The Prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause (November 17, 2003) document, on which the search and arrest warrants were based, reasoned the request for the warrants as follows:

“The mere fact of forty-five-year-old Jackson’s three-year-long interest in the adolescent Gavin is corroborating in itself; it would strike a reasonable person as grossly abnormal. So is the way that interest manifested itself: endless telephone conversations with the youngster, inappropriate and relatively public touching, kissing, licking and cuddling of him; expensive gifts, cross-country flights, the relocation of the family from their modest quarters in Los Angeles, his efforts to have them take up residence in Brazil.” [5; page 66]

As you have seen above in reality Jackson did not have a “three-year-long interest in the adolescent Gavin” and “endless telephone conversations with the youngster”. In actuality, Gavin himself complained on the stand that Jackson was actively avoiding him during those three years and did not take and return his phone calls. The so called “inappropriate, public touching, kissing, licking and cuddling” was conveniently always only observed by other members of the Arvizo family and there were no independent witnesses to confirm them.

As for expensive gifts, Jackson was generous with everyone – children and adults alike. The only cross-country flight (there were no cross-country flights in plural) took place on February 5-6 where the Arvizo family, including the mother, was invited to Miami for a press conference which eventually was called off (see above) and the claim about an attempt to relocate the family, to have them “take up residence in Brazil” is also a gross misrepresentation of what really happened (again see earlier in this article).

The case went to Court in 2005 and Jackson was found not guilty on all charges on June 13, 2005. We will discuss the details of the case in separate articles.

Sources:

[1] William Dickerman’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 30, 2005)

[2] Dr. Stanley Katz’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 30, 2005)

[3] See for example:
- Learning From the McMartin Hoax (1989)
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_2_7.htm
- Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and
Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study (5 May, 2005)
http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=james_wood

[4] Larry Feldman’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 1, 2005)

[5] Statement of Probable Cause (filed by the Prosecution on November 17, 2003)
plugin-111703stmtpc

[6] Janet Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 18, 2005)

Leave a Comment
post icon

The Changing Content of the Allegations and Contradictions

Between 2003 and 2005 the Arvizos told their story several times. First to a psychologist, Dr. Stanley Katz, in June 2003, then to the police several times in a series of interviews in 2003, then in front of a Grand Jury in 2004 and finally at the trial itself in 2005. The public does not have access to each of these interviews but the material that we do have access to already reveals a timeline that changed significantly during the course of the investigation, changing the allegations in content and creating a lot of contradictions.

The issue of the changing timeline and its significance is discussed in this article [see The crucial period: February 7-March 12, 2003 part in particular]. In this present article we are going through some of the changes and contradictions in the content of the Arvizos’ allegations as not only the timeline changed but also the alleged acts of molestation. Moreover, the family members contradicted each other and themselves on several occasions. Below follows a collection of such changing allegations and contradictions.

Star and Gavin Arvizo

Star and Gavin Arvizo

  • The number of alleged molestations

The number of alleged molestations claimed by Gavin changed a couple of times between 2003 and 2005. In the prosecution’s original Statement of Probable Cause on November 17, 2003 they write (emphasis added by us throughout the article):

“Gavin describes at least five instances of masturbation occuring between February 7 and March 10, 2003. There are at least two other instances detailed in the affidavit, occurring within that period, in which Star observed Jackson with his hand down the front of Gavin’s pants, in the area of his penis, while Jackson was masturbating himself. On those two occasions, Star believes Gavin to have been passed out on Jackson’s bed in the upstairs bedroom.” [1; page 3-4]

On July 7, 2003 Gavin told Sgt. Steve Robel that the acts of molestation occurred less than five times:

“Gavin told us that Michael masturbated him every night that Star wasn’t sleeping in Michael’s bedroom. When asked, he said this occurred less than five times. He was not made to masturbate Michael and never saw Michael’s penis during these incidents. He did say that Michael once made him touch Michael’s “private part” over the clothes.” [1; page 56]

On August 13, 2003 in another interview with Sgt. Robel Gavin claimed that the acts of molestation occurred a total of five times:

“Gavin said these incidents occurred toward the end of their last visit to Neverland before they stopped going to Neverland. When asked how many times Michael had done this to him, he replied, “Every time my brother wasn’t there, for a total of five times.” [1; p 62]

Then in the same interview at another time Gavin claimed seven occasions:

“He said Michael would tell him to put his underwear he was wearing during the masturbation into Michael’s hamper before showering. This happened after each time Michael masturbated him. He said this happened about seven times. The underwear was not given back to him. Michael bought him new ones.” [1; p 63]

By the time the case went to trial Gavin’s “at least five”, “less than five”, “a total of five”, then “about seven times” acts of alleged molestations became two and when after the description of the second alleged act he was asked whether there were any other occasions that Jackson tried to do inappropriate things to him, he said there were not:

Q. Were there any other occasions where Mr. Jackson tried to do something to you that you felt was inappropriate, that you remember.

A. No. [2]

The changing number of alleged occasions of molestation is also reflected in the fact that in the prosecution’s initial felony complaint they alleged seven acts of lewd act upon a child [3], while in the final indictment it changed to four [4]. (In both documents two of these were allegedly observed by Gavin’s brother Star, and Gavin was not aware of them because he was “passed out” after Jackson allegedly gave him alcohol.)

As for the claim about Jackson allegedly telling him to put his underwear into his hamper after each acts of molestation – “about seven times”. Pedophiles often keep so called trophies from their victims. This seems to be an attempt to establish such a thing by claiming that Jackson kept Gavin’s underwear after each acts of molestation. The problem is that during the house search on November 18, 2003 none of Gavin’s underwear was found in Jackson’s possession or anywhere at Neverland, so no such claim could be supported by evidence. Interestingly after the search did not produce any corroborating evidence this story became a lot tamer and instead of seven occasions there was only one claimed and even that was not linked to any sexual activity: Gavin only claimed that on one occasion after allegedly sleeping in Jackson’s room Jackson allegedly told him to put his underwear in the hamper and he did, but on the stand he did not link this to masturbation or any sexual activity, let alone on seven occasions. On the stand Gavin also said that after they had left Neverland for good and Jackson’s employees had delivered their clothes to them from Neverland, some pieces of his clothes were missing (some underwear, shirts, pants) “and they put in some other guy’s pants” instead. It appears that this is what they tried to turn into a narrative about Jackson keeping his underwear as some kind of molestation “trophy”, but then somewhat backtracked on it by the time the case went to trial and when no corroborating evidence had been found.

  • Who told Gavin that men have to masturbate?

In his interview with Sgt. Robel on August 13, 2003 Gavin said that his grandmother told him that men have to masturbate, otherwise they may rape women:

“He was asked what he thinks masturbation means. Gavin said that his grandma had explained to him that grown men must masturbate, because if they don’t, they may go out and rape a woman.” [1; page 61]

However, on the stand Gavin claimed it was Jackson who told him that. This is important because according to the Arvizos’ allegations this is how Jackson introduced Gavin to masturbation (the boy claimed he never masturbated before) and he claimed that the first act of alleged molestation immediately followed this statement by Jackson.

When confronted with the contradiction on the stand by Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau, Gavin tried to get out of it by claiming that both Jackson and his grandmother told him the same thing.

  • Changing claims about who showed the Arvizo children Internet pornography

Gavin claimed that when he and his brother, Star spent a night in Jackson’s room in the summer of 2000, Jackson showed them pornography on the Internet on a laptop computer he had just given Gavin as a gift. According to the prosecution’s original Statement of Probable Cause on November 17, 2003 in his initial interview with Dr. Stanley Katz in June 2003 Gavin claimed Jackson himself operated the computer and navigated to pornographic websites.

“Also, during a visit to Neverland Ranch, Michael gave him a laptop computer. They connected the laptop to AOL and Michael started looking for naked women. Gavin was shown pictures of naked women on the computer screen. Michael told him and Star not to tell anyone and to say they were watching the Simpson’s.” [1; page 16]

Initially Star Arvizo too claimed that Jackson did the typing.

In later versions of their story this changed to Frank Cascio operating and navigating the computer, although they still claimed that Jackson was sitting with them and encouraging and approving of it. (Cascio was in the room because Jackson did not want to stay alone with the Arvizo kids. Jackson’s children were also in the room.)

Cascio in his 2011 book, My Friend Michael, denied that either Jackson or he showed the Arvizo children Internet pornography. He said Gavin and Star started to search for such websites on their own and when Jackson realized it, he asked Cascio to make them stop it and left the room and returned only later [5].

  • Initially Star claimed to have been inappropriately touched as well – later this allegation disappeared

Initially in their interview with Dr. Stanley Katz the Arvizos claimed that not only Gavin, but also Star had been inappropriately touched by Michael Jackson:

“Star told Dr. Katz that on one occasion while at the Ranch during their stay, he was in a golf cart with Michael. Michael placed his hand on Star’s penis, on top of his pants. Star also said that Michael had touched his “butt”, and he saw Michael touch Gavin’s “butt” a lot, on top of his clothes.” [1; page 16]

This claim also appeared in their first interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003:

“Michael touched Star’s private area.” [1; page 23]

and

“When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart.  Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.” [1; page 50]

Later, as their allegations evolved, this claim completely disappeared from them and on the stand it was never alleged by any of them, including Star himself.

  • What did Star allegedly see?

Out of the four counts of lewd act upon a child that Michael Jackson’s was accused of in the prosecution’s final version of their story, two were alleged to have been observed by Gavin’s one year younger brother, Star, but without Gavin himself being aware of them as the claim was that he was “passed out” during those because Jackson allegedly gave him alcohol.

Initially, in his interview with Dr. Stanley Katz in June 2003, Star claimed that on the two occasions when he allegedly witnessed Jackson inappropriately touch his brother Gavin, Jackson’s hand was on top of Gavin’s clothes:

“Dr. Katz reported Star disclosed that on two occasions, he saw Michael place his hand on Gavin’s crotch on top of his clothes. Star said Gavin was passed out in bed from drinking too much. He said Michael and Gavin were both on top of the covers. He described Michael as wearing a T-shirt and briefs. Star said Michael was on his back, with his legs open and right hand inside his briefs. He said Michael had an erection and was rubbing himself while his left hand was on Gavin’s crotch.” [1; page 15]

Later Star claimed that Jackson’s hand was inside Gavin’s pants on both occasions and this later version was what he claimed on the stand.

In an interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 7, 2003 Star also claimed that on the second occasion he witnessed Jackson molest his brother Jackson had his penis out of his underwear:

“Michael had his own penis out of his underwear while “stroking it”. He said Michael’s penis was “hard”.  [1; page 48]

Later this claim disappeared from their allegations and on the stand Star never claimed to have witnessed such a thing.

On the stand Star first claimed he did not see any alcohol in the room while he observed these alleged acts of molestations, but later in his testimony he was reminded that to the Grand Jury he claimed he saw vodka, so he suddenly “remembered” he did.

Initially Star also claimed to Dr. Katz that he once witnessed Jackson rub his private parts against Gavin’s butt and touch Gavin’s butt. According to the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause (November 17, 2003):

“Star disclosed that on a different occasion he saw Michael get into bed and rub his private part against Gavin’s “butt”. He said Michael kissed Gavin on the cheek and touched Gavin’s butt. Star did not say whether Michael or Gavin were clothed.” [1; page 15]

Dr. Katz testified about it in 2004 in front of the Grand Jury as well.

Not only did this claim disappear from their allegations later on, but at the trial in 2005, when Jackson’s lawyer Thomas Mesereau confronted him with what he initially claimed to Dr. Katz, Star flat out denied ever saying such a thing.

Q. Well, when you met with Psychologist Stanley Katz, you also describe what you claim happened in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And would you agree that you’ve given different descriptions almost every time that you have described it.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. Well, you’ve given different descriptions about what Michael Jackson was wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions of what Gavin was supposed to be wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions about what you claim Michael Jackson did in the bedroom, right.

A. No.

Q. Well, there were times you said that Michael Jackson put his hand on top of your brother’s underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember saying that.

Q. And there are other times you said he put his hand inside his underwear, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And there are times you’ve said your brother was wearing pajamas, right.

A. Yes.

Q. There are times you said he was wearing underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. And there are times you said that Michael Jackson touched his butt and not his crotch, right.

A. When was this.

Q. When you did some interviews, right.

A. About what.

Q. About what Michael Jackson, you claim, was doing in his bedroom, right.

A. I never said he touched his butt.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that when you saw Michael Jackson in bed with your brother, he was rubbing his butt.

A. No.

Q. Never said that at any time to anybody.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to Mr. Katz, right.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to the sheriffs, right.

A. No.

Q. And never said it to a grand jury, right.

A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you remember when you described for Stanley Katz the second time you claim Michael Jackson was observed by you in bed with your brother. Do you remember that.

A. What.

Q. Do you remember telling Stanley Katz there was a second time that you went up the stairs and observed Michael Jackson touching your brother.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell Stanley Katz that Michael Jackson had his hand on your brother’s crotch.

A. Yes.

Q. That’s really not what you told him at all, is it.

A. What are you talking about.

Q. Well, you told Stanley Katz that Michael Jackson was rubbing his penis against Gavin’s buttocks, didn’t you.

A. When. The second time.

Q. Yes. Did you tell Stanley Katz that.

A. No.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you his grand jury testimony.

A. I know what I said, though.

Q. Are you denying telling Psychologist Stanley Katz –

A. The second time.

Q. — that you told him the second time you observed Michael Jackson touching your brother in bed, that Michael Jackson was rubbing his penis against your brother’s buttocks.

A. No.

Q. You never told that to Stanley Katz.

A. No.

Q. If I showed you his testimony, would that jog your memory.

A. No. I know what I said, though. [6]

In his interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July, 2003 Star also claimed this:

“Star described another incident where Gavin was sleeping in Michael’s bed. Star was half asleep in a chair next to the bed. Michael came into the bedroom and got into bed with Gavin. He believes Michael thought he was asleep. He observed Michael scoot up to Gavin who was curled up and sleeping on his side. Michael began moving his hips back to front against Gavin’s back side. Gavin was wearing pajamas and Michael was wearing underwear. Star said he then pretended to wake and Michael quickly moved away from Gavin and pretended to be asleep.” [1; page 49]

This story changed too by the time the case went to trial. On the stand Star claimed that he was in the bed with Jackson and Gavin when this allegedly happened, instead of being half asleep in a chair next to the bed as he initially claimed. On the stand he also did not mention anything about Jackson allegedly “moving his hips back to front against Gavin’s back side”, instead he said he did not see it whether he did anything.

Q. All right. Now, you said there was an incident. Where were you prior to the time that Mr. Jackson came into the room.

A. Sleeping.

Q. Where.

A. On the bed.

Q. And where was your brother.

A. Right next to me.

Q. And when we’re looking straight at the bed towards the back of the wall – okay. – where were you located on the bed.

A. All the way to the right.

Q. And where was your brother.

A. In the middle.

Q. And were you under the covers.

A. Under the covers.

Q. Over the covers.

A. Under the covers.

Q. And how were you dressed.

A. In PJ’s.

Q. Do these PJ’s — describe them.

A. Sweat pants.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. Sweat pants and a shirt.

Q. All right. And do you recall what your brother was wearing.

A. Not really.

Q. Now, did you see — tell us what happened.

A. I was sleeping. It was in the morning. And I saw Michael come up, and I tried to say hi, but I couldn’t. He got in bed. Started scooting over closer and closer to my brother. And for a time he didn’t stop until I moved, and then he stopped.

Q. And what happened when he heard you move.

A. He stopped.

Q. Okay. Did you see whether or not he did anything.

A. No. I was — no. [7]

 

  • Sleeping pills?

Initially in their interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003 the Arvizos claimed that Jackson gave the kids sleeping pills:

“Michael wanted Star to take a sleeping pill. (Mrs. Arvizo said Star kept the pill and that it is currently with their attorney.)” [1; page 23]

“Star stated that on one occasion Michael wanted Gavin and him to take sleeping pills. Michael told him to go and get the sleeping pills from Rudy the head chef. Michael wanted Gavin and Star to take the pills, but somehow the subject changed and the pills were forgotten. He kept the sleeping pill and their attorney now has it.” [1; page 49]

Later this claim completely disappeared from their allegations and on the stand it was never claimed that Jackson gave them sleeping pills.

  • Simulated sex with a mannequin?

The Arvizos claimed that on one occasion Jackson simulated sex with a female mannequin in front of them. When Star first told this story to Dr. Katz he said he could not recall if Jackson was clothed or not when this allegedly happened:

“He couldn’t recall if Michael was clothed or not.” [1; page 15]

Later, on July 7, 2003 when he told his story to Sgt. Steve Robel he suddenly remembered that Jackson was clothed:

“Michael was dressed and only acted like he was having sex with the mannequin” [1; page 51]

By the way, the mannequin about which the Arvizo children claimed this turned out to be a replica of one of Jackson’s female cousins.

  • Did Gavin and Star Arvizo ever go to Jackson’s bedroom while Jackson was not there?

When asked on the stand in 2005 whether they had ever gone to Michael Jackson’s bedroom while the entertainer was not there Gavin claimed they never did:

Q. How many times do you think you entered Michael Jackson’s bedroom when Mr. Jackson wasn’t there.

A. I never went inside his room when he wasn’t there.


Q. To your knowledge, did your brother ever go into his room when he wasn’t there.


A. I don’t think my brother went into his room when he wasn’t there.


Q. Okay. So you have no knowledge of him doing that, correct.

A. No. [8]

While Gavin denied ever going to Jackson’s room while Jackson was not there, his younger brother Star had pretty vivid memories of him and his brother doing so. He testified not only that they went to Jackson’s bedroom but also that they even slept there when the entertainer was not there. He claimed that Jackson allowed them to sleep there, but this is pretty dubious considering the fact that Jackson did not trust this family.

Q. Okay. You gave a description of Michael’s bedroom to the jury yesterday, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you tell the jury you’d find on the first floor.

A. The first floor.

Q. Yes. The first floor of Michael’s bedroom, yes.

A. The room to the right or to the left.

Q. Let’s take the room to the left. What do you see in the room to the left.

A. All the way to the left.

Q. Yes.

A. There’s like — there’s a counter with a bunch of perfumes and colognes. There’s a mirror. There’s another big mirror behind it. There’s speakers. There’s a bunch of electric razors in a drawer. There’s a big bathtub, Jacuzzi-type thing. There used to be a reclining chair there. It wasn’t — you couldn’t — it was — it was like a square cushion, and there was a cushioned chair, and there’s a dresser. There’s a door with a small — with a toilet in there. There’s glass doors all the way to the end. There’s a big safe in there. What else. There’s a — yeah.

Q. And how about the room to the right.

A. All the way to the right, there’s another counter with a bunch of stuff on it. There’s a poster of Harry Potter and his two friends. There’s a rest room all the way, if you keep walking down, with a shower. There’s a closet to your left with a bunch of clothes and a bunch of souvenirs from other movies. There’s — when you first walk in, there’s a closet with a bunch of pajamas. And if you go to your left, there’s the stairs going up. What else is there. There’s a — that’s it.

Q. You and your brother were caught in that room when Michael Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland, weren’t you.

A. To sleep, yeah.

Q. You and your brother used to go into that room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.

A. Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we could sleep there while he was gone.

Q. You were actually asked to leave that room when you were caught during a time when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.

A. No.

Q. And you and your brother rummaged through every room in that bedroom area, correct.

A. No.

Q. You went snooping around the entire bedroom area when Michael wasn’t even there, correct.

A. No.

Q. You went into that closet when Michael wasn’t even there, correct.

A. No.

Q. How do you know there are pajamas in the closet.

A. Because Michael showed us.

Q. So Michael was showing you every little bit of the bedroom.

A. No, he just showed us where the pajamas were.

Q. And you were never caught in there and asked to leave; is that what you’re saying.

A. Yes. [6]

Azja Pryor (actor Chris Tucker’s girlfriend at the time) said in her testimony in 2005 that she witnessed one occasion when the Arvizo children asked an employee to let them stay in Jackson’s bedroom while the singer was not there. [9] The employee refused to let them in, but we know from testimonies (including the Star Arvizos’ testimony) that at a point they got hold of the entrance code to Jackson’s bedroom [7].

  • Differing accounts of alleged abusive or inappropriate situations

There were also differences in the stories of alleged abusive or inappropriate situations Gavin and Star supposedly experienced together. One of their claims was that on one occasion Jackson deliberately showed himself to them naked with an erection. The Arvizo kids claimed they were hanging out upstairs in Jackson’s bedroom when the singer walked up naked with an erection to show himself to them then walked down again. Their details of the story, however, differed. Gavin claimed Jackson just ran up to get something and went back down again immediately without saying a word. Star on the other hand claimed Jackson sat down on the bed with them for about two minutes and told them it was natural.

When you ponder the above story about Jackson allegedly showing himself nude to the Arvizo children, please also consider the fact that another time during his testimony there was an exchange between Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau and Gavin about Jackson’s skin condition and the fact that his skin had brown patches on it. During this conversation Gavin said he was not aware of it, he thought Jackson was “just all white”:

Q. And you knew that that disease was causing certain patches of white and brown on his skin, right.

A. Yes. I guess.


Q. And –


A. I don’t know. It’s not like I was making fun of him yesterday, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.


Q. Well, you knew that his skin is vulnerable to sunlight, correct.


A. Yes.


Q. And that’s why you see him with an umbrella, correct.


A. Yes.


Q. And you also knew, because of the patches that appear on his skin from that disease, he does sometimes put some makeup on, right.


A. I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white. [10]

The Arvizo kids claimed that Jackson showed them pornographic magazines on two occasions: first in the downstairs area of his bedroom then on the second occasion upstairs. However, when they were asked to describe the details of the alleged situations in their testimonies the brothers contradicted each other on several points again:

  • Gavin claimed the first occasion happened on the same day they got back from Miami (February 7) and the second occasion about two weeks later. Star claimed the first time happened “after the Calabasas hotel” which would be after March 2 and the second occasion was “a few days later”.
  • About the first occasion Gavin claimed Jackson told them the briefcase was Frank Cascio’s and he made fun of Cascio while showing them the material. Star claimed Jackson did not make any comments while showing them the material.
  • About the second occasion Gavin claimed they went through the full content of the briefcase (“we saw, like, practically everything”) and the whole thing lasted about 30 minutes to one hour. Star claimed they saw only about three or four magazines.
  • About the first occasion Star first claimed the briefcase was open when they first saw it, then later in his testimony he claimed it was closed.
  • Who was chasing whom?

In her initial interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003 Janet Arvizo tried to portray Michael Jackson as the clingy one who tried to attach himself to her family and especially Gavin. She claimed it was because she complained about too long phone conversations between Jackson and Gavin why Jackson failed to return a van and a laptop computer he had gifted to the family. (Jackson gifted Gavin a laptop in the summer of 2000 and he gifted a van to the family in October 2000. In 2001 both items broke down and the Arvizos sent them back to Jackson so that he would get them repaired but then they were never returned to them.)

“Michael was also upset because she complained that his phone conversations with Gavin were too long. Mrs. Arvizo believes this was Michael’s motivation for not returning the Bronco and laptop.”  [1; page 20]

However, this claim became hard to defend when during the investigation cards and letters written by the Arvizo family to Jackson were discovered in which THEY beg for the singer’s attention because he was not answering their phone calls. Gavin on the stand admitted that Jackson actually stopped calling him as early as in August-September 2000 and that rather than complaining about too long phone conversations between Gavin and Jackson, Janet Arvizo actually wrote cards and letters to Jackson to try to get him contact them.

Q. And approximately when do you think he wasn’t talking to you anymore.

A. Two months into my cancer.


Q. Excuse me.


A. Two months into my chemotherapy.


Q. Approximately when would that be.


A. August or September of 2000.


Q. Okay. So August or September of 2000, you and your family started sending nice letters and cards to Michael Jackson, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And those are the letters and cards that I showed you a little while ago, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your understanding your mother used to send him cards and letters as well, right.

A. I think so. [8]

Jackson was the exact opposite of clingy to the Arvizos or Gavin. In actuality, on the stand the boy complained that the entertainer actively avoided him.

Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was on the ranch, did you have any contact with him?

A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean, like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he would say that he ‘s not there , and then he would be there .

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don‘t know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle of my cancer. And, like, I would go up there, and I would see, like, Prince and Paris playing there , and I would think that Michael was there, and they would tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like, I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.

Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident ?

A. Yeah.

Q. Tell the jury about that.

A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was . And then we were walking into the — into the main house . And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes. And then I walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And then we walked into the house and there I saw Michael walking, like, toward me . But I guess he didn’t see me turn the corner . And then he acted as if , “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw me. And then — then he just played it off and , like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know, at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like, he ‘s my –

MR . MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a narrative and non responsive.

THE COURT : Sustained .

Q. BY MR . SNEDDON : Okay.

A. And then , like –

Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question. So in any case , you bumped into him ?

A. Yeah. And I was — because of –

Q. That’s okay . How much more contact did you have with him on that time when you bumped into him? How much time did the contact last?

A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a lot.

Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was an occasion where you were there when you kind of bumped into him by accident?

A. Yeah.

Q. When you actually made contact with him – okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long was the conversation between the two of you?

A. Maybe , like , five minutes. When — that time we bumped into each other, and then we just talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go somewhere. [11]

On cross-examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Meserau Gavin again complained about Jackson avoiding him and said that no other celebrity he befriended ever did that to him:

Q. Can you look this jury in eye and tell them Michael Jackson did nothing for you when you had cancer.

A. I never said Michael did nothing for me.

Q. Did you say he did very little.

A. Yeah. He didn’t do as much as I felt, as my 11-year-old mind felt.

Q. He should.

A. No. He shouldn’t — it’s not his obligation to do anything.

Q. Well, are you telling the jury you deserved a lot more from Michael Jackson than you and your family got.

A. No.

Q. Is that what you’re saying.

A. No. I’m just saying that — see, when I have a friend, Michael, and you’re saying all these things that he did, but, you know, when my 11-year-old mind — and when I see my friend say that he’s not there, and he’s not at Neverland Ranch trying — and I see him walking and I see his car that he only drives going down at Neverland, you know, it felt like my heart broke right there.

Q. So by doing all of these things –

A. And I don’t remember George Lopez or Jamie Masada or Louise Palanker ever doing that to me. [2]

and

Q. And you were lying about Mr. Jackson helping you with cancer; is that correct.

A. No, because Michael did help me a little bit, but, I mean, he — for me, what I felt as a little kid, I mean, besides the fact of all this money and who paid for this and who paid for that, who — I felt who really helped me was my other friends. Because Michael, at the time when he was calling me and talking to me and stuff, I felt like he was my best friend. But, I mean, when he — when I would call his phone numbers and a little operating lady would say, “This phone is no longer in service.” I mean, I never called Chris and his phone was never in service. I never called George and his phone wasn’t in service. [8]

and

Q. Okay. Now, you complained to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs that, “After I was done with my cancer stuff,” you never saw Michael again, right.

A. No, not until the Martin Bashir thing.

Q. Okay. And you wanted to see him after you were in remission, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. You wanted to visit Neverland after you were in remission, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt in some way that Michael had cut off the friendship, right.

A. Yes.

Q. You felt he had abandoned you, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt he had abandoned your family, right.

A. Yes. [8]

 

  • When did Janet Arvizo learn about her son’s alleged sexual abuse?

The mother, Janet Arvizo claimed in her initial interview with Sgt. Steve Robel on July 6-7, 2003 that their sons disclosed to her the alleged abuse in February or March, 2003. According to the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause:

“These disclosures were made to her after February or March of this year [2003]. She explained that she would interrupt and tell Star and Gavin to “forgive and forget”. She did this because she thought she was doing the right thing. She wanted Star and Gavin to make the disclosures to a priest or someone else. She has since learned that this was wrong of her to do.”  [1; page 23]

On the stand in 2005 Janet Arvizo claimed that at the time she was not aware that either of her sons were molested, she was only “aware of things”. However, in the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause document (November 17, 2003) it is clearly claimed that in February-March, 2003 her sons disclosed accounts of molestation to Janet Arvizo (eg. Jackson allegedly “moving his hips against Gavin” in bed while they were supposedly in bed together, Jackson allegedly touching Star’s private parts etc. – see page 22-23 of the referenced document).

Later it is totally contradicted in the very same document when it is claimed that Janet Arvizo had learned about her son’s alleged abuse when law enforcement had informed her about it in September 2003.

It is important to note that during the course of the two interviews detailed in this affidavit, Mrs. Arvizo was not aware that Gavin has been molested. She believed the focus of our investigation was the family’s having been held against their wishes at the Neverland Ranch upon their return from Miami and their escape in March. Mrs. Arviso (sic) told your Affiant she had contacted an attorney to help get their possessions back and to set up contacts with law enforcement to report what had happened to them. She emphasized she was not interested in money.

Your affiant is aware through a conversation with Sgt. Robel that around 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2003, that Sgt. Robel, Lt. Klapakis and District Attorney Tom Sneddon met with Mrs. Arvizo and her family in a Los Angeles hotel and informed her that our conversations with her children had established that Gavin had been molested. This was the first time she was aware of the nature of her children’s disclosures to law enforcement.” [1; page 64]

The web of contradictions becomes even more complicated when we also consider the testimony of Larry Feldman, the Arvizos’ civil lawyer (the same lawyer who represented the Chandler family in 1993), who on the stand in 2005 provided a third version about how Janet Arvizo supposedly learnt about the alleged abuse of her son. According Feldman, in June 2003 he sent the Arvizo family to psychologist Dr. Stanley Katz for evaluation and that is where it emerged that Gavin had allegedly been molested. When Dr. Katz reported back to him he called the Arvizo family back to his office where he discussed with them, including the mother, Katz’s findings and what kind of legal actions were available to them at that time.

Q. At some point in time, did you receive a report back from Dr. Katz about his initial contacts with the family?

A. Oral. I got an oral — I had an oral conversation with him.

Q. Do you recall whether it was in person or over the phone?

A. I think it was in person, quite frankly. I think he came to my office.

Q. Now, after you received this report, did you do anything?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?

A. I called the Arvizo family, Mrs. Arvizo and the three children, back into my office for a meeting.

Q. All right. And in that meeting, what was the topic discussed?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it calls for hearsay.

MR. SNEDDON: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter only.

THE WITNESS: The subject matter only. The subject matter was the options — well, what Dr. Katz had told me, and their — the options that existed at that point for that family. Different courses of action that were available to them at that point in time. [12]

On March 24, 2003 Janet Arvizo formally hired William Dickerman as her attorney and Dickerman began writing letters to Jackson’s attorney, Mark Geragos on her behalf demanding the return of furniture, clothes, documents and various other items which were put in a storage locker after the Arvizos moved out of their Los Angeles apartment on March 1-2 (for details see this article – the part entitled Lawyers being hired and the formation of the allegations in particular). In his letters, dated March-April 2003, Dickerman never makes any allegation of child molestation, false imprisonment or providing alcohol to a minor. When asked about this on the stand by Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau, this is what Janet Arvizo had to say:

Q. In none of his letters did he ever mention anything about alcohol or child molestation, true?

A. Because that was information for these guys right here, for the police.

Q. How many months later?

A. Because I didn’t want Geragos to know that we were headed towards — straight to the police. [13]

So this is yet another version, in which they do not mention alleged molestation in those letters dated March-April, 2003 not because they were not aware of it at the time yet, but because they were preserving that information for the police. Here we have to add, however, that they did not go “straight to the police” in March-April 2003, but they went to civil attorney Larry Feldman in May 2003 – like we have described above. (For more details about the Arvizo family’s dealings with Larry Feldman and Dr. Stanley Katz see this article – the part entitled Lawyers being hired and the formation of the allegations in particular.)

Apparently the prosecution was not bothered by even the most blatant contradictions in their story.

Sources:

[1] Statement of Probable Cause (filed by the Prosecution on November 17, 2003)
plugin-111703stmtpc

[2] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 10, 2005)

[3] The Prosecution’s original felony complaint (filed on December 18, 2003)
121803complaint_initial charges

[4] Opening statements at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (February 28, 2005)

[5] Frank Cascio – My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man (William Morrow, November 15, 2011)

[6] Star Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 8, 2005)

[7] Star Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 7, 2005)

[8] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 14, 2005)

[9] Azja Pryor’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 19, 2005)

[10] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 15, 2005)

[11] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 9, 2005)

[12] Larry Feldman’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 1, 2005)

[13] Janet Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 18, 2005)

Leave a Comment
post icon

Full Court Transcripts of Michael Jackson’s 2005 Trial

You can download the FULL transcripts here: Court Transcripts

The file _MJ COURT TRANSCRIPTS serves as an index which shows who testified on what day.

Leave a Comment
post icon

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This section contains answers to Frequently Asked Questions or questions and answers which are not directly within the scope of either the 1993 (Chandler) allegations part or the 2005 (Arvizo) allegations part, but are generally related to these allegations.

  • Is it true that Jordan Chandler publicly confessed after Michael Jackson’s death that Jackson did not molest him?

No, it is not true. The rumor that after the singer’s death Jordan Chandler publicly confessed that he was not molested by Jackson was an Internet hoax. Privately, allegedly, he confessed to some people that his allegations against Jackson were not true, but it was never confirmed by him publicly and he has never spoken about the case publicly.

Details

  • Why did Jackson settle with his first accuser out of court if he was innocent?

The Settlement that Jackson signed with his first accuser in January 1994 is interpreted by some people as a sign of guilt in itself. However, it is a more complicated issue than that. You can read about the Settlement and its reasons in detail in this article.

Jackson also signed a Settlement with Jason Francia in 1994. Again, this in itself does not mean that Francia’s allegations were true, as indeed Jason Francia was not found credible when he testified at Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial. You can read about his allegations, how they emerged and his 2005 testimony in this article.

  • Has there ever been any child pornography found in Michael Jackson’s possession?

No. The possession of child pornography is illegal and a crime in itself. Despite extensive searches on his homes both in the 1993 and the 2005 case, nothing illegal has ever been found in Jackson’s possession and he was never charged with the possession of anything illegal.

Details

A full survey of the books, magazines, DVDs and Internet material found in Jackson’s home

  • I read the FBI has evidence that Michael Jackson had paid off dozens of young boys to silence them after he had sexually abused them. Is that true?

No, it is not true. It was a British tabloid’s claim in 2013 and it is demonstrably false. Details in this article.

  • What about Jackson’s sharing his bedroom with unrelated children?

This issue has often been misrepresented by the media. The picture they paint of Jackson is of a predator who lured children into his bedroom while keeping away their parents. In reality, Jackson’s two-story bedroom was a gathering place for families and friends, and the parents and families of the children were allowed to stay there, as well as the children.

Details

  • Did Jackson only befriend young boys?

No. A large portion of the media and the prosecution tried to portray Jackson as someone who was obsessed with young boys. In reality, Jackson almost always befriended families and not just any children, and the young people around him were of both genders.

Details

Leave a Comment
March 4, 2014
post icon

Taped phone conversations between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz on July 8, 1993

The context and the origin of the tapes

In this article we present extracts from three telephone conversations that took place between Jordan Chandler’s father Evan Chandler and the boy’s stepfather David Schwartz on July 8, 1993. The conversations were taped by Schwartz who handed the tape over to Michael Jackson’s private investigator Anthony Pellicano a day later. A few months later the tape was submitted to a Court in a civil lawsuit between Schwartz and Evan Chandler. The full transcript of the conversations can be read here.

(Note: Besides the three conversations between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz there were other conversations on the tape, which are included in the transcript as well. The conversations which have relevance to us can be found on page 4-39, page 136-160 and page 160-243. Some names, such as the name of Evan Chandler’s second wife or the name of his son from his second marriage were changed in the transcript in order to protect their privacy.)

It has to be emphasized that these conversations took place BEFORE Jordan allegedly “confessed” to his father about the alleged abuse [for details about how Jordan allegedly "confessed" see this article] and they took place while Jordan himself denied any wrongdoing by Jackson. This is very important to keep in mind throughout reading the conversation.

In the conversation Evan Chandler does not explicitly accuse Jackson of molestation, in fact he indicates that he has been advised by his lawyer to be careful with what he says and what he reveals to other people about his “plan”, but he does insinuate an “intimate relationship” between the singer and his son – again, this before his son allegedly confessed to him. About how the Chandlers explained Evan’s “suspicions” of molestation before Jordan’s alleged confession, please read this article.

Below we are going to examine and address extracts from this conversation, and also put them into the context of the Chandlers’ – especially Evan Chandler’s – other actions.

The conversations

(Emphasis added by us where bolded.)

Part 1

MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way: I have a set routine of words that I’m going to go in there that have been rehearsed and I’m going to say.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay? Because I don’t want to say anything that could be used against me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So I know exactly what I can say. That’s why I’m bringing the tape recorder.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I have some things on paper to show a few people –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and that’s it. My whole part is going to take two or three minutes, and I’m going to turn around [tape irregularity], and that’s it. There’s not going to be anything said, other than what I’ve been told to say -

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and I’m going to turn around and leave, and they’re going to have a decision to make.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And based on that decision, I’ll decide whether or not we’re going to talk again or whether it’s going to go further.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I have to make a phone call. As soon as I leave the house, I get on the telephone.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I make a phone call.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Say “Go” or I say, “Don’t go yet,” and that’s –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — the way it’s gonna to be.  I’ve been told what to do, and I have to do it. I’m not — I happen to know what’s going to be going on, see? They don’t have to say anything to me. [Tape irregularity] “you have refused to listen to me. Now you’re going to have to listen to me. This is my position. Give it a thought.”

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: “Think it over.” I’m not saying anything bad about anybody, okay? I’ve got it all on paper.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m going to hand out the paper so that I don’t inadvertently [tape irregularity], handing out the paper, “Michael, here’s your paper. June, here’s your paper.”

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: “Compare papers. Read this whole thing. This is my feelings about it. Do you want to talk further? We’ll talk again.”

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: “If you don’t” [tape irregularity] — but, see, all I’m trying to do now, they have forced me to go [tape irregularity] on paper and give it to them to read –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — because [tape irregularity]. I mean, isn’t that pitiful? Now, why would they want to cut me out, to go this far, spend this much money, spend so much time in my life crying, being away from my practice, not paying [tape irregularity] everybody else? Why would they want to put me through that? And I made it very clear to June that she was putting me through that because I didn’t want any misunderstandings. I’ve done everything I could to appeal to her. (Inaudible) is cold and heart- — absolutely cold and heartless. That’s all –

In the above extract Evan talks about a meeting he demanded to have with Jordan, Jordan’s mother June and Michael Jackson on July 9. What preceded this demand is detailed in this article. It is recommended to read that article before continuing with this one.

The immediate antecedent was that Jordan refused to call his father on Father’s Day (June 20) and even when Evan called him he refused to talk to him.  (There is actually a contradiction in the Chandlers’ story here – not the only one. In her 2005 testimony the mother, June Chandler claimed that although initially Jordan did not want to call his father on Father’s Day, he eventually did talk to him that day as a result of June having a conversation with him about it. This, however, does not seem to be true based on Evan’s threats that we present below.)

According to Ray Chandler’s book (Evan’s brother) entitled All That Glitters Evan attributed Jordan’s refusal to talk to him to Jackson’s influence on the boy – as if Evan’s mania, threats, temper tantrums and weird sexual suggestions and questions [detailed in the above referenced article] would not be enough to alienate a child. According to All That Glitters, Evan told his ex-wife this: “Let me tell you something, June. He better call me, and it better be soon, or you’re all going to be sorry. You know me. I’ve had enough!” [1; page 59] According to the same book on July 7 Evan left this threatening message on June’s answering machine:

“It’s Wednesday, July 7. June, make sure you play this message for Michael and Jordie. I’m going to repeat that. June, make sure you play this message for Michael and Jordie. All three of you are responsible for what is going on. No one is a neutral party. Since Jordie has repeatedly refused to return my phone calls, this will be my last voluntary attempt to communicate. I will be at your house at San Lorenzo this Friday. Julv 9. at 8:30 in the morning. Take my word for it, there is nothing else any of you has to do that is more important than being at this meeting.” [1; page 62]

The meeting that Evan wanted on July 9 did not take place, but later, on August 4, another meeting did with Evan, Jordan, Michael Jackson and Jackson’s private investigator Anthony Pellicano present. About the details of that meeting you can read in this article. The choreography of that August 4 meeting went very similarly to what Evan planned for the July 9 meeting: instead of talking in his own words he relied on paper to avoid saying “anything that could be used against me” (on August 4 he read the letter of a psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams [for details read this article]). As we will see later in this article Evan was advised by a lawyer how to carry out his moves – already before his son allegedly “confessed” to him about the alleged abuse.

MR. CHANDLER: […] By the way, they’re going on tour on August 15th. They’re going to be gone. They’re going to be out of the country –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — for four months.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Is that bad?

MR. CHANDLER: Well, I’m not going to be able to communicate with them about this when they’re gone, am I?

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, but you think that –

MR. CHANDLER: By the way, they’re not going.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They don’t know that yet, but they are not going.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So, I mean, especially if they don’t show up tomorrow, they’re definitely not going. They’ll be lucky if Michael even –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Let me ask you — let me ask you this –

MR. CHANDLER: — tour (inaudible) get canceled.

Jackson was scheduled to begin the second leg of his Dangerous World Tour in August, 1993. He invited June, Jordan and Jordan’s sister to join him on the tour, like he often did with many people over the years. This did not sit well with Evan and, according to Ray Chandler’s book, he tried to talk both his son and his ex-wife out of it but they wanted to go nevertheless. Evan here declares “they don’t know that yet, but they are not going” and even indicates that Jackson might be forced to cancel his tour. This is before Jordan allegedly “confessed” to Evan about the alleged abuse.

MR. CHANDLER: I’ve already told you I have — I’m not allowed to say anything more –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — than I’ve already prepared. It’s on paper.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it your –

MR. CHANDLER: I’m not going in to –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Is it because of your attorney?

MR. CHANDLER: What?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Because of your attorney?

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.

This again supports that Evan was coached by a lawyer about what to do and how to do it. This lawyer, as we know by now, was Barry K. Rothman. Evan had more to tell about his lawyer in the conversation:

MR. CHANDLER: He’s willing to meet with them. Right now he’d like to kill them all. I picked the nastiest mother-fucker I could find.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: The only reason that I’m meeting with them tomorrow is, the real fact of the matter is –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — because of Monique. [An alias used for Evan’s then-wife in the transcript.]

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Monique begged me to do it.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: She said, “You’re out of control” –

[…]

MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) I’m only going there because of Monique, because, to tell you the truth, Dave, it would be a lot easier for me and a lot more satisfying –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — to see everybody get destroyed –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — like they’ve destroyed me, but it would be a lot easier. And Monique just kept telling me, “You don’t want to really do this,” and she finally [tape irregularity] for the sake of everything that we’ve all had in the past –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — to give it one more try, and that’s the only reason, because this attorney I found — I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: – and humiliate as many people as he can, and he’s got a bad [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s good?

MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) he’s costing me a lot of money.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s good?

MR. CHANDLER: I think that’s great. I think it’s terrific. The best. Because when somebody — when somebody tells you that they don’t want to talk to you –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — you have to talk to them –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — you have to get their attention. It’s a matter of life and death. That’s how I’m taking it. I have to talk to them.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: This is life and death for my son. I have to get their attention. If I don’t get it, if I haven’t gotten it on the phone and I don’t get it tomorrow –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — this guy will certainly get it. That’s the next step. And you want to know something? I even have somebody after him if he doesn’t [tape irregularity]. But I don’t want [tape malfunctioned]. I’m not kidding. I mean what I told you before.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: It’s true. I mean, it could be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. But I do believe this person will get what he wants.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So he would just really love [tape irregularity] nothing better than to have this go forward. He is nasty, he is mean –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: – he is very smart [tape irregularity], and he’s hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And that’s where it’ll go –

MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think everyone loses?

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) totally humiliate him in every way –

MR. SCHWARTZ: That — everyone doesn’t lose in that?

MR. CHANDLER: That’s not the issue. See, the issue is that if I have to go that far –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — I can’t stop and think “Who wins and who loses?”

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: All I can think about is I only have one goal, and the goal is to get their attention –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — so that [tape irregularity] concerns are, and as long as they don’t want to talk to me, I can’t tell them what my concerns are, so I have to go step by step, each time escalating the attention-getting mechanism, and that’s all I regard him as, as an attention-getting mechanism. Unfortunately, after that, it’s totally out of [tape irregularity]. It’ll take on so much momentum of its own that it’s going to be out of all our control. It’s going to be monumentally huge, and I’m not going to have any way to stop it. No one else is either at that point. I mean, once I make that phone call, this guy’s just going to destroy everybody in site in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that. To go beyond tomorrow, that would mean I have done every possible thing in my individual power to tell them to sit down and talk to me; and  if they still [tape irregularity], I got to escalate the attention-getting mechanism. He’s the next one. I can’t go to somebody nice [tape  irregularity]. It doesn’t work with them. I already found that out. Get some niceness and just go fuck yourself.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Basically, what they have to know, ultimately, is that their lives are over, if they don’t sit down. One way or the other, it’ll either go to the next step or the [tape irregularity]. I’m not stopping until I get their attention. Do I [tape irregularity] the only goal is right now I have to do what I think is best for Jordy –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and I think what’s going on now is bad for Jordy, and therefore any alternative is better. If I’m wrong, they should sit down, and they should tell me why I’m wrong.

Even though Jordan Chandler himself at this point was adamant that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him, here Evan Chandler rants about having picked a lawyer who was “the nastiest son of a bitch”, who wanted to “destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it”, who wanted to “humiliate as many people as he can” and who was “hungry for the publicity”. This latter remark, by the way, goes against the Chandlers’ claim that they refused to testify against Jackson in a criminal court because they were wary of the publicity that would have been unavoidable in a high profile case such as this. In fact, Evan Chandler deliberately picked a lawyer who was “hungry for the publicity” [you can read more about this claim by the Chandlers in this and this article].

But was not Evan Chandler just a desperate father who wanted to communicate a legitimate concern to his ex-wife and Jackson, but was not heard, so he had to resort to desperate measures?

According to Ray Chandler’s book All That Glitters at this point Evan had already communicated his “concerns” to Jackson, his ex-wife June and his son Jordan as he had the fixed, preconcieved idea that the relationship between his son and Jackson was sexual, however, his son rejected this idea, as well as Jackson. As for what Evan based those concerns on, please read our article entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”. In that article you will see that there are many circumstances which make the self-portrayal of Evan as a concerned father dubious at best. To put Evan’s alleged concerns further into a perspective, please also read our article about his monetary demands, our short summary about Evan’s relationship with his family and our article about Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael Jackson. Additionally having concerns alone would not explain elaborate plans to destroy and humiliate people (and notice the plural – apparently Evan does not only talk about Jackson) in any devious, nasty, cruel way”, while the son himself denies any wrongdoing by Jackson.

Rather than a concern for his son, it seems to be more about Evan’s hurt ego as reflected on when he says: “I’m only going there because of Monique, because, to tell you the truth, Dave, it would be a lot easier for me and a lot more satisfying to see everybody get destroyed like they’ve destroyed me, but it would be a lot easier.”

Later in the conversation we will see that Evan does not resent only Jackson, but also June and even Jordan for what they have – in Evan’s mind at least – done to him.

Part 2

MR. CHANDLER: That’s silly. No. Michael has to be there. Michael has to be there. He’s the main one. He’s the one I want.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think he’s a bad guy?

MR. CHANDLER: Michael?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: He’s an evil guy. He’s worse than bad.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you believe that?

MR. CHANDLER: Huh?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Why do you believe that?

MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence to prove it.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: You’ll believe it, too, when you hear –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Let me ask you something. I mean, you trust me, right?

MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, Dave. Nobody in this world was allowed to come between this family of June, me and Jordy. That was the hard [tape irregularity] be the opposite. That’s evil. That’s one reason why he’s evil. I spoke to him about it, Dave. I even told him that [tape irregularity] the family.

MR. SCHWARTZ: When did you talk to him?

MR. CHANDLER: About that?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Months ago. When I first met him I told him that.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s the law. That’s the first thing he knew. Nobody’s allowed to do that. Now there’s no family anymore.

Evan accuses Michael Jackson of coming between “this family of June, me and Jordy”. However, according to June Chandler’s 2005 testimony at Michael Jackson’s trial, Evan neglected his son before Jackson came into their life, and Evan neglected his other two children after the allegations, who were raised by another man. You can read more about Evan’s relationship with his family in this article. We will address Evan’s claim of having evidence later in this article.

MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know where it’ll go, but I’m saying is that when people – when you — when people cut off communication totally, you only have two choices: To forget about them, or you get frustrated by their action. I can’t forget about them. I love them. That’s it. I don’t like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not like them because I do not like the people that they’ve become, but I do love them, and because I love them I don’t want to see them [tape irregularity]. That’s why I was willing to talk. I have nothing to gain by talking. If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But when you say “winning,” what are you talking about, “winning”?

MR. CHANDLER: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave. That’s what –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help –

MR. CHANDLER: — Michael the career will be over.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be over.

MR. SCHWARTZ: And does that help Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but I mean the bottom line is –

MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line to me is, yes, June is harming him, and Michael is harming him. I can prove that, and I will prove that

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and if they force me to go to court about it, I will [tape irregularity], and I will be granted custody. She will have no rights whatsoever.

Again, let me remind you that the conversation takes place before Jordan’s alleged confession, and while the boy was adamant that Jackson never molested him. Yet Evan talks about “winning big time” and states that there was “no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”, that “they will be destroyed forever”, that “June is gonna lose Jordy”, and that “Michael’s career will be over”.

Although Evan claims here – and later in the conversation – that he “can prove that”, in actuality the Chandlers never had any factual evidence against Jackson. In their book at one point they state they were wary of going to Court because it would have been just Jordan’s word against Jackson’s word. However, at this point Evan does not even have Jordan’s word to support him.

MR. CHANDLER: This is –

MR. SCHWARTZ: — detrimental to him?

MR. CHANDLER: Extremely harmful to him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Everybody agrees with that. I mean, they — it’s their opinions that have convinced me to not stay away. You know, I’m not confrontational. I’ve got an [tape irregularity] inclination to do what you do, say, “Okay. Go fuck yourself. Go do what you want to do, and, you know, call me some day. I’ll see you then. I got a [tape irregularity],” but I’ve been so convinced by professional opinions that I have been negligent in not stepping in sooner that now it’s made me insane. Now I actually feel [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh, I do, and I –

MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity] more important than the money, if the kid’s more important that you are, and they’re more important than I am –

MR. SCHWARTZ: And they are.

 […]

 MR. CHANDLER: I never did before, but when her getting her last word is now going to be harmful to Jordy, yes, I am going to step in, and, again, I’m not telling you this is my — my opinion was formed by –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — but this is my  perception of [tape irregularity] professional opinions to make sure I wasn’t going off the deep end here.

[…]

MR. CHANDLER: What do I do? I mean, in the opinion of these experts, I would be a negligent father if I did not do what I am now doing.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: In fact, in their opinion I have been negligent not to put a stop to [tape irregularity] opinion. I happen to agree with them now. I didn’t agree with them at first. Michael [tape irregularity] nice [tape irregularity] –

Evan claims that other people convinced him that the relationship between Jackson and Jordan was “extremely harmful”. Who were these alleged “professionals” and “experts”? If we are going by the Chandlers’ own story in All That Glitters at this point they had not contacted any psychologist, psychiatrist or therapist (the first therapist they contacted was Dr. Mathis Abrams on July 14). They do mention that Evan asked people like actress Carrie Fisher and through her a friend of hers who was a security expert, and Jackson’s long-time dermatologist Arnold Klein, but these people are not experts and professionals, at least not in the field of child abuse, nor did they ever talk to Jordan. According to All That Glitters Klein told them that they had nothing to worry about and Fisher’s account in her 2011 autobiography Shockaholic about how this story occured is significantly different to the Chandlers’ account that we can read in All That Glitters. Fisher’s portrayal of Evan is anything but a “concerned father” – on the contrary. For details please read our article entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”.

Alternatively Evan could mean his lawyer Barry Rothman by an “expert”, but again, Rothman was not a child abuse expert, and child abuse allegations were not even his main field, other than once previously having represented a woman who during a child support and custody battle accused her ex-husband of sexually molesting their child [2]. Additionally, as we have seen from this conversation earlier, Rothman was “hungry for the publicity” and he would have loved “nothing better than to have this go forward”, so he had his own vested interest in convincing Evan about going forward with what promised to be an extremely high profile case.

MR. SCHWARTZ: So why do you think he’s not nice?

MR. CHANDLER: Why? Because he broke up the family, that’s why.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And he was put on notice from the first sentence out of my mouth was, “Michael, I think you’re really a great guy. You’re welcome into the family, as long as you are who you seem to be, but don’t take anything [tape irregularity].” I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think he did it?

MR. CHANDLER: Well, Dave, if he wasn’t in the picture, everything would be as it was. I’m not –

MR. SCHWARTZ: But that’s sort of –

MR. CHANDLER: — saying that he did it premeditatively, and I’m not saying he did it on his own.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m saying that he might have — it might have just evolved that way, and it might have evolved that [tape irregularity] desire, so I’m blaming all three of them, but when I come to that [tape irregularity], it really makes me hate June because the family was inviolate, [tape irregularity] felt about it. There was nothing I had. I mean, you came in this family and made it better. It was great. Someone else comes along and breaks it up. You know how [tape irregularity]. Okay. So do I [tape irregularity] coming into the family who’s going to do good things for the family.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean –

MR. CHANDLER: Michael divided and conquered, Dave.

MR. SCHWARTZ: He what?

MR. CHANDLER: He divided and conquered.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –

MR. CHANDLER: He did, Dave. He did.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Oh –

[…]

MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line is — the bottom line is he took Jordy out of the family with June’s help.

[…]

MR. CHANDLER: — problem with that, then that problem has ultimately ended up bringing the family to this point. But you’re not solely to blame for it. It doesn’t mean that June was still — I didn’t do anything that — they didn’t have the right to take my kid away from me, to break up the family.

Evan’s main problem seems to be that Jackson allegedly ”broke up the family” and it seems to be about Evan’s hurt ego and jealousy of Jackson:“I mean, that to me was the worst thing anybody could do to me.”  He blames ”all three of them” – Jackson, June and Jordan.

Part 3

MR. CHANDLER: Let me put it to you this way, okay? You put all of — you put the three of them on the stand (simultaneous, inaudible) –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — any questions, and they will all be asked questions, and they will all have psychological examinations –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous, inaudible) given lie detector tests.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m going to tell you what. There is no excuse in law for June having done what she does. Despite the fact that you might say it’s your fault –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — whatever you say is going to [tape irregularity] capable of making her own decisions –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and she made those decisions to the harm of her son, despite the fact that, yeah, maybe she’s insecure, maybe she’s macho on the surface, and maybe you fucked her over.  Maybe you did. Maybe you didn’t.

Evan was fantasizing about putting all three of them on the stand, Jordan included – this before Jordan’s alleged “confession”, and while the boy was adamant that Jackson never molested him.

MR. CHANDLER: And I know what you’re saying, and it breaks my heart, but I truly believe my son is being harmed greatly and that his life — he could be fucked up for the rest of his life [tape irregularity].

MR. SCHWARTZ: You gotta tell me why you think he’s being screwed up.

MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I know, but what – I don’t know what evidence. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

MR. CHANDLER: Well, you’ll see.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But why can’t you tell me? I swear –

MR. CHANDLER: You show up in court and you’ll see it on the big fucking screen –

MR. SCHWARTZ: But what –

MR. CHANDLER: — and then you’ll know what I’m talking about.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And you’ll hear in on tape recordings.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: You’ll hear it all. You’ll see it all, just like I have.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: It cost me thousands, tens of thousands of dollars –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — to get the information I got, and I — you know I don’t have that kind of money –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and I spent it, and I’m willing to spend more, and I’m willing –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — to go down financially to –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that’s going to help Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: Dave, Jordy’s – I believe that Jordy’s already irreparably harmed.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s my true belief.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that he’s fucking him?

MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know. I have no idea.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But harmed in — in just been spoiled?

MR. CHANDLER: No.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Just tell me –

MR. CHANDLER: You know, you gotta forgive me for one thing, but I have been told by my lawyer that if I say one thing to anybody –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Okay.

MR. CHANDLER: — don’t bother calling him again. He said this case is so open [tape irregularity] “You open your mouth and you blow it,” he said, “just don’t come back to me.”

Here Evan talks about having physical evidence against Jackson that can be shown on a big screen and tape recordings. No such evidence was ever produced during the Chandler investigation. Like discussed in this article, in Ray Chandler’s book All That Glitters it is claimed that, in order to get a “confession” out of Jordan, Evan lied to him about having bugged his room (although the bluff did not work on the boy). Whether Evan really lied to Jordan about it or he did indeed bug Jordan’s bedroom, only what he taped did not produce evidence against Jackson (or maybe even on the contrary) we cannot decide, but the fact is that there was never any kind of physical or taped evidence that Evan could use against Jackson. In All That Glitters the Chandlers admit had the case gone to Court it would have been a case of Jordan’s word against Jackson’s, so Evan’s claims in this conversation about having evidence are nothing but a bluff. Evan also claims the evidence and information cost him “thousands, ten thousands of dollars”, but considering the fact that no evidence ever showed up this seems to be another bluff.

In this part Schwartz directly and quite bluntly asks him whether Evan suspects sexual molestation to which Evan says he has no idea and then proceeds to saying he was told by his lawyer not to say anything to anyone to not to “blow it”.

MR. CHANDLER: And let me tell you this, by the way: What harm would it be to you, what harm would it be to your relationship to June, if Michael wasn’t around anymore? You say that you [tape irregularity] your fault. You say that you made her insecure.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait.

MR. CHANDLER: So if he wasn’t around anymore –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?

MR. CHANDLER: — what do you think she’s going to do? She’s going to come back to you. She doesn’t need you anymore. She doesn’t even want you around anymore. She’s told me and she’s told you — I’m sure she’s told you that if [tape irregularity] Michael she’ll get rid of you. She’s told me that. She means it.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well –

MR. CHANDLER: She means –

MR. SCHWARTZ: The only thing I told you before is I told her I didn’t want him buying her things in Europe. I gave her some money. And then when he did buy her things and she told me, I got pissed off at her. And that’s it, and that’s really the whole thing. That’s all we ever talked about.

MR. CHANDLER: How do you feel about her going off on tour with him? You told me when you were there the other day that everybody’s been calling you saying “Your wife’s been [tape irregularity]” –

MR. SCHWARTZ: It does [tape irregularity] –

MR. CHANDLER: And let me tell you something, by the way. That’s the best thing that could happen to him, is that people think he’s interested in June.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: The fact is, he has no interest in her whatsoever. The fact is he doesn’t even care about her. He doesn’t even like her. He’s [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: You don’t think he likes her?

MR. CHANDLER: I know he doesn’t. He told me he doesn’t. He can’t stand her. He told me that when –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Huh! He can’t stand her?

MR. CHANDLER: No. He told me that when he was in my house.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. At that point he liked us better than — Jordy too. Jordy’s the same as Michael. It was a simple divide and conquer. They felt us both out.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They saw who was going to let them do what they wanted to do, and then they made their choice.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And until I had a talk with Jordy one day at [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — they were gonna come live with me. They were gonna pack up, leave June’s house, and come here.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s what they were going to do, because they were getting more resistance from her than they were getting from me. You cannot tell this stuff — you cannot — I’m confiding in you, okay, Dave?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

Evan tries to play on Schwartz’s jealousy of Jackson in order to convince him to join forces with him against the singer. Then he proceeds to claim that Jackson cannot stand June and that “Jordy’s the same as Michael. It was a simple divide and conquer. They felt us both out”.

Of course, just because Evan claims this it does not mean it is true – just like his claim of having evidence was not true -, but it shows that in Evan’s mind Jackson and Jordan were some kind of unit who acted together against him and June, and who only cared about which one of them would “let them do what they wanted to do”. Evan also claims they “were gonna come live with me” because “they were getting more resistance from [June] than they were getting from me”. Evan’s claim of Jackson and Jordan getting more resistance from June than from him is interesting because at other times he represents June as an enabler of Jackson, and himself as the saviour of his son.

To put this all into a context: in All That Glitters Evan Chandler spoke of supposed child molestation as if it is a consensual romance. At one point Ray Chandler even feels the need to explain in a footnote why the alleged “relationship” between Jordan and Jackson is described as a love story:

“Evan and Monique’s belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were “in love,” is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant.” [1; page 45]

About how and why an educated adult would consider supposed child molestation a consensual romance, please read our article about Victor Gutierrez, a journalist who used the allegations againts Jackson to further his disturbing agenda. In that article we explain the possible connection between Gutierrez and the Chandlers.

As for Evan’s claim that Jordan and Jackson “were gonna come live with me”: Jackson spent only two weekends in Evan’s home – both weekends in the May of 1993. During one of these weekends Evan suggested to Jackson that he should move in with them them and either pay for an addition to the house or build Evan a new house. In All That Glitters Ray Chandler represent this story as Jackson making this offer instead of Evan, however June Chandler in her 2005 testimony confirmed the version that Evan wanted Jackson to finance a wing on his house which Jackson refused. Moreover Evan, an aspiring screenwriter, also pressured Jackson to finance his screenplays and movie ideas. In our article about Evan’s alleged “suspicions” you can read in detail about what preceded Jackson cutting ties with Evan.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What I’m telling you is that Jordy and Michael are users.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They had — they were gonna — they had their own relationship.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They want to carry it out the way they want to carry it out. They don’t want anybody getting in the way [tape irregularity] — least resistance, and that’s the way they’re going. They simply divided and conquered, and June went along with it. And she was wrong because she did it to the detriment of Jordy.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is not old enough to make these kind of [tape irregularity] that he’s making.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But is that a huge life decision?

MR. CHANDLER: Oh, you bet it is.

Here it becomes even more clear that Evan talks about the supposed relationship between Jordan and Jackson as a consensual one. He calls both of them ”users” who “don’t want anybody getting in the way”. While just a couple of sentences ago Evan said that from June they got more resistance than from him, here June is again the enabler who “went along with it”.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think Jordy hates you?

MR. CHANDLER: If he doesn’t, he’s gonna hate me tomorrow.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But why do you –

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) to –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you want that?

MR. CHANDLER: It doesn’t matter what I want.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But why would you want him to hate you, and why would you want to put him through that –

MR. CHANDLER: Because all I care about is what happens to him in the long run.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the long run, is that going to be healthy in the long run?

MR. CHANDLER: According to the experts?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Absolutely. According to the experts, if it goes on the way it is, he’s doomed. He has no chance of ever being a happy, healthy, normal human being, no [tape irregularity].

MR. SCHWARTZ: So what happens if you force him not to see him?

MR. CHANDLER: Not to see Michael?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Nobody’s saying for sure what will happen. Most people’s feeling is that he’s gonna go on and hate me for a long time and then some day when he gets older he’ll thank me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And why do you think he hates you now?

MR. CHANDLER: I said I think he’ll — I said he may or may not hate me now –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — but he’ll definitely hate me tomorrow. He’ll hate me, why? Because I’m taking Michael away from him. That’s why.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And that’s a –

MR. SCHWARTZ: So you really think Michael’s bad for him?

MR. CHANDLER: I know Michael’s bad for him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: You know how I know that? Why would somebody, Dave — if you tell me this, think of this logically. What reason would he want us split up — [tape irregularity] would he want me out of the way? What would be the reason, unless he has something to hide?

MR. SCHWARTZ: But –

MR. CHANDLER: I know what he has to hide. I happen to know what it is.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: But I can’t tell you.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m just asking you in terms of logic. You know me. I’m not — I’m a pretty liberal guy.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I don’t get in anybody’s way, okay? So, I mean, what reason would he want me out of the way to such an extent that neither one of them will take my phone calls, neither one of them will talk to me?

Evan claims Jackson wants him “out of the way” and he assumes the star has ulterior motives for that. In the previously quoted part of the conversation Evan claims that Jackson and Jordan “don’t want anybody getting in the way” and now he says “I don’t get in anybody’s way, okay?”and that he is “a pretty liberal guy”. Considering what Evan assumes about the relationship between Jackson and Jordan and how he blames June for enabling Jackson and portrays himself as a concerned father, this is remarkable.

MR. CHANDLER: […] My approach to the whole thing is that the one person — the person who doesn’t talk is the one who’s wrong, period –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — no matter what the action was, I believe everything is preventable, every bad action that anybody takes is – unless you’re truly pathologic –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — is probably preventable if you just found somebody who would sit [tape irregularity] you know what? They don’t even have to talk back and give you [tape irregularity] if you get it out, everything will be okay, you know, but that’s my approach. My approach is that the people who don’t talk are the ones who are wrong.

[…]

MR. SCHWARTZ: I just said I am wrong, but here is the other — I mean, the thing is Jordy’s 13 years old. I’m talking about adults. I mean, I don’t know if he — I mean, you’re his dad. You’re his role model.

MR. CHANDLER: No, I’m not his role model.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, you are, definitely –

MR. CHANDLER: Not anymore.

MR. SCHWARTZ: You are, positively, in the long run, you’re his role model.

MR. CHANDLER: There is no – there isn’t gonna be a long run if things went on like this. Don’t you see? As long as I go along with whatever they want to do –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — everything’s okay. As soon as I say you can’t [tape irregularity] anybody –

To be clear: Jackson or Jordan did not indicate to Evan that they have some kind of “romantic” or sexual relationship that Evan or June needs to go along with. On the contrary. According to All That Glitters when Evan asked Jordan about whether their relationship was sexual Jordan answered: “That’s disgusting! I’m not into that.” [1; page 46]

While earlier Evan claimed he had evidence against Jackson, here he bases his suspicions on his belief that “the person who doesn’t talk is the one who’s wrong”.

Evan also complains that he is not Jordan’s role model any more – from the context it seems, because Jackson is instead of him.

MR. CHANDLER: There’s no reason why they would have to cut me out unless they – unless they need me to be away so they can do certain things which I don’t think are good to be doing.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And I — and not only that, but I don’t even have anything to say about it, okay? [tape irregularity] I think what they’re doing and it isn’t bad, and so maybe I’m wrong –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — but I’m not even getting a chance to express that.

[…]

MR. CHANDLER: I had a good communication with Michael.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: We were friends, you know. I liked him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I respected him and everything else for what he is, you know. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He could have called me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I – you ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship, what I want [tape irregularity], okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure me out.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And one of things I said is we always have to be able to talk to each other.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s the rule, okay, because I know that as soon as you stop talking weird things start going on and people [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Imaginations take over.

MR. CHANDLER: Imagination will just kill you.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.

While earlier Evan claimed he had evidence, here he says maybe he is wrong. He assumes things because he feels cut out and because Jackson stopped calling him and stopped talking to him. In fact, he concedes that because Jackson stopped talking to him “weird things start going on” and “imagination will just kill you”.

MR. CHANDLER: And you want to know what I told her? I told her this. I said June — “Monique,” I said, “if you ever want to sleep with somebody else or if you don’t love me anymore, if you come to me and you tell me that [tape irregularity] out of the house and fuck his brains out, I’ll love you forever, I’ll support you and wish you well. But if it’s the other way around, you fuck him first and then you [tape irregularity], I’ll kill you, period.” I said, “Those are the rules. If you want to stay with me, you gotta understand that’s the only way I can survive. That’s how I live.

Here Evan talks about his then-wife “Monique” and what would happen if she cheated on him. We quote this part to further illuminate Evan’s character and to put the next part into a context.

MR. CHANDLER: And so if I wasn’t able to talk to her, this marriage would have been over a long time ago.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Because [tape irregularity] –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Don’t we learn like that?

MR. CHANDLER: Because of my imagination, Dave.

Here we get back to the topic of Evan’s imagination and this is how it is related to the main subject of the conversation. Evan says if he would not be able to discuss his insecurities, fears and jealousy with his wife (this is discussed in a bit more detail in the full conversation) their marriage “would have been over a long time ago” because Evan would imagine things. Basically Evan admits that when people stop talking to him he has a tendency of imaginaning bad things about those people.

MR. CHANDLER: I know that after tomorrow — in fact, not even after tomorrow. It’s already happened. I don’t ever want anything to do with June anymore because June is not part of my family. In my mind, she’s died. I don’t ever want to talk to her again. [tape irregularity] sitting on the stand being totally humiliated or at the end of a shotgun. That’s the only way I want to see June now. She’s gotta [tape irregularity] do this to kid. Again, it’s not right. Can do it to me. Can’t do it to my kid. It’s not right.

Evan has just admitted that he could be wrong and rather than having facts he imagines things, yet he is very aggressive towards June and wants to see her “sitting on the stand being humiliated or at the end of a shotgun”.

MR. CHANDLER: You want to know something? You don’t even have to ask me. You could — as you said before, you want to sit down and talk to the people I spoke to –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — you’re going to have a chance to do that if you want to. You go and ask the experts –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and you won’t have to ask. They will be there anyway. There’s not one person in this world [tape irregularity] can’t find a person –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — disagree with me. I’m the one that disagreed with – I didn’t even want to know about it.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I kept saying, “No, this is okay. There’s nothing wrong. This is great.” It took experts to convince me [tape irregularity] that by not taking action –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — my son was going to be irreparably damaged for the rest of his life [tape irregularity]. That was what I heard.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Because his friend is older, or because of all the seduction?

MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know, age in and of itself is not a harmful thing.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: But it could have been used to advantage, and in some ways Michael is using his age and experience and his money and his power to great advantage to Jordy. The problem is he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his own selfish reasons. He’s not the altruistic, kind human being that he appears to be.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think –

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) selfish motives here.

MR. SCHWARTZ: You mean, harming Jordy because it’s taken him out of reality?

MR. CHANDLER: It’s not so much really what he’s taken him out of. It’s what he’s brought him into.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I don’t mean to be devious. I just can’t be –

MR. SCHWARTZ: You can’t tell me.

MR. CHANDLER: — specific about it, but I tell you that, again, it all comes down to one thing. They don’t want to talk to me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Jordy — yeah, he’s 13 years old. He’s only [tape irregularity], hoping that the problem will go away by itself, but June’s old enough to know better. June’s the one that’s frustrated me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, you know, this is the deal: I talked to Jordy about it today, about, you know, his not contacting you and not calling you on Father’s Day and not sending you anything. He’s confused June — and this is the truth and from him. June did everything to get him to send you a card, to call and everything. He’s just frustrated, you know, and I don’t know about what or — you know, it’s just like he’s scared or doesn’t know what to do or –

MR. CHANDLER: (Inaudible).

MR. SCHWARTZ: Pardon me?

MR. CHANDLER: June didn’t do a thing to have him call me or send me a card by her own admission to me last time. She didn’t give a shit, is what she told me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but I don’t believe that because, I mean –

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) told me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Because, I mean –

MR. CHANDLER: I –

MR. SCHWARTZ: With June and – I talked to them today.

MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, she’s lying to you, Dave.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, but would Jordy lie?

MR. CHANDLER: Now they’re scared shit.

MR. SCHWARTZ: No. Would Jordy — no, because they don’t know anything about it. I didn’t even tell them that I had talked to you this morning, okay?

Evan again talks about “experts” convincing him that if he would not take action his son would be “irreparably damaged for the rest of his life”. Earlier in this article we have already addressed Evan’s claims about these so called “experts”, as well as the fact that Evan did not have any evidence and apparently he relied on his “imagination” more than anything else.

Evan claims Jackson “is using his age and experience and his money and his power” and later in this conversation we will see Evan use more of these same expressions while describing Jackson. This is significant because Jordan used these same or very similar expressions to describe Jackson in an interview that was conducted with him by psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner in October 1993. According to All That Glitters Jordan and Evan never talked about the alleged abuse in detail, yet Jordan’s train of thought, opinions, choice of words in his interview with Dr. Gardner are remarkably similar to those of his father’s in this conversation.  About Jordan’s alleged “confession” please read this article. For a little more detailed discussion about the similarities between Jordan’s expressions in the Gardner interview and those of his father’s in this conversation, please read our article about the exact content of Jordan’s allegation.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, you know more than I know, so I’m at a disadvantage.

MR. CHANDLER: Well, then, I will tell you without question. It’s gone way too far.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is never going to be the same person he was.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: It’s never — by the time it runs its course –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — if it does, he will be so damaged he’ll never recover –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and that’s not my opinion. I mean, I happen to be believe it now because my eyes have been opened –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — but I’m not the one that first [tape irregularity], so what I’m saying to you is that I’m acting because [tape irregularity] I’m going to cause him great harm, and you tell me if maybe it’s gonna cause him harm right now. I think he’ll be harmed much greater if I do nothing, and besides now I’m convinced that if I do nothing I’m going to be, from doing nothing, causing him harm, and I couldn’t –

Again a reference to outside influences who allegedly formed Evan’s opinion. Evan talks about harm that Jackson allegedly causes, while not having any evidence of any wrongdoing and while his son is adamant that nothing inappropriate has happened.

MR. CHANDLER: […] I ask you this: If Michael Jackson were just some 34-year-old person, would this be happening? No. He’s got power, he’s got money, he’s got seduction. [tape irregularity] happening [tape irregularity] they’ve been seduced away from the family by power and by money.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And by this guy’s image.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: He could be the same person without the power and the money, and they wouldn’t even be talking to him. You know it and I know it. So for power and money and his image, June and Jordy have broken up the family, and even though [tape irregularity] a lot better, because I’ve sat down and talked to him, and I’ve told him long before it came down to going this far –

Evan seems to be jealous of Jackson (in fact in All That Glitters it is admitted that he was jealous of the star and of the friendship between Jackson and his son) and he accuses both his ex-wife and his son of “breaking up the family” for Jackson’s money, image and power.

MR. CHANDLER: — but if [tape irregularity] now, June wouldn’t be in the picture and neither would Kelly, any more than I am.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They would have dumped her a long time ago. They even told me [tape irregularity]. They can’t stand her.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Wait. Jordy can’t stand June?

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Neither one of them like her. They don’t like anybody but each other.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They don’t like you, and they don’t like me and they don’t like her. They don’t want anybody coming between them. [tape irregularity] got to be eliminated. You go ahead and you see — you tell June. You tell June to start saying “No” to everything they want –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and see what happens. The only reason she’s there is because she says “Yes” [tape irregularity] favorite as long as I was saying “Yes.” Trust me. I don’t know what’s happened to Jordy except he doesn’t care, literally does not care, if he would ever see him again. He hopes I would go away and not bother him. That’s [tape irregularity].

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I know that’s not true.

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) Michael.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I know that’s not true.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m telling you. But that doesn’t matter, you know. I’m not taking it personally. I’m just trying to do what I have been led to believe is the right action to take so that he’s not harmed. I mean, Unfortunately, June and [tape irregularity] because in order to protect Jordy certain things are gonna have to come out, and those two are not going to have any defense against it whatsoever. They’re just going to be [tape irregularity] violently destroyed.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that it helps Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, it’ll help Jordy because he won’t — he’ll never see Michael again. That’s –

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that –

MR. CHANDLER: And he’s probably never gonna see June again if I have to go through with this.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think –

MR. CHANDLER: Unless I’d let him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Do you think that would affect him?

MR. CHANDLER: What?

MR. SCHWARTZ: That he was — that this was done by force?

MR. CHANDLER: You mean that Michael did this to him?

MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that you, like, are forcing him not to see someone or take him away from his mom?

MR. CHANDLER: Well, I am gonna force him not to see –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but do you think that’s the right way to do it?

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. I’ve been led to believe that it’s the right thing to do. In fact, it’s the right thing to do because how do you know? You don’t know what –

MR. SCHWARTZ: I don’t have a clue.

MR. CHANDLER: Suppose you were to find out what they’re doing and you were to agree with me that these things that they’re doing are harmful to Jordy or –

MR. SCHWARTZ: I’d like to know.

MR. CHANDLER: — be harmful.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, in my wildest imagination I can’t figure out what it is.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. But suppose –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Unless it’s sex, and I don’t know, you know.

MR. CHANDLER: Suppose that you were to find out that there were things going on that you believed were harmful to him? Would you say to me, “Hey, look. You know, I got things to do here [tape irregularity], but, you know, time will go by and everything will be okay”? I mean, that’s –

 […]

 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Well, they won’t talk to me about those things. They won’t talk to me about anything.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Even about what you think they’re doing or about what you know they’re doing?

MR. CHANDLER: What I know they’re doing.

Evan makes the accusation that Jordan and Jackson “don’t like anybody but each other”, that “they don’t want anybody coming between them” and he says that he has been “led to believe” that he needs to take action so that the boy does not get harmed. He also says that “those two” (presumably June and Jackson) are going to be “violently destroyed”. He goes on about how Jordan will “never see Michael again”, and “he’s probably never gonna see June again if I have to go through with this”. Remember this is all while Jordan himself is adamant that nothing inappropriate has happened.

Evan also says: “Suppose you were to find out what they’re doing and you were to agree with me that these things that they’re doing are harmful to Jordy” and later claims he does not just think they are doing harmful things but he knows. In actuality, Evan did not have anything but assumptions and “imagination”, but this does not stop him from fantasizing about violently destroying both Jackson and June.

Like we said before, our articles about Evan’s alleged “suspicions” , his monetary demands, his 1996 lawsuit against Jackson, his relationship with his family and others on this website give a context to Evan’s posturing in this conversation as a concerned father.

MR. CHANDLER: I mean, I’ve tried to talk to Jordy. Jordy — Jordy does not talk to me. This stopped long before I told him he couldn’t [tape irregularity]. He just does not talk to me anymore. In fact, when he talks to Michael on the telephone, he goes in another room because I’m not allowed to hear what they’re talking about except I taped [tape irregularity] they’re talking about. Ha ha ha. Anyway, all I’m saying is that [tape irregularity] that I would be negligent to continue to do nothing [tape irregularity] gonna be because nobody really knows how Jordy will be affected one way or the other. I know for a fact that he’s going to be affected adversely if I do nothing.

Previously we have already discussed that in All That Glitters it is claimed that Evan lied to Jordan when he said he bugged his room. No incriminating tape has ever been produced of Jackson and Jordan’s phone conversations. That means either Evan bluffs here about taping Jordan and Jackson, or if he indeed did then it did not produce the evidence he hoped for.

Evan claims he knows “for a fact” that Jordan is going to be “affected adversely if I do nothing”. How does he know it for a fact when all he has are assumptions and “imagination”?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you do me a big favor?

MR. CHANDLER: What?

MR. SCHWARTZ: Could you and I go to one of these shrinks and talk it over?

MR. CHANDLER: No.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Why not?

MR. CHANDLER: Because it’s too late, after 8:30 tomorrow.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But why not? Why couldn’t we go talk it over –

MR. CHANDLER: Because the thing’s already — the thing has already been set in motion.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: It’s happening at 8:30. 8:36 tomorrow –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — it’s out of my hands. I do nothing else again –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — after 8:36 tomorrow. It’s all been automatically set in motion.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m not even in contact anymore –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — with this person. This thing is –

Evan refuses Schwartz’s offer to go together to a “shrink” claiming that “the thing has already been set in motion” and that “it’s out of my hands”. This makes little sense because Evan pretty much pulled the strings and was in control during the formation of these allegations. What was already unstoppably “set in motion” when Evan has no evidence, just “imagination”, and while his son himself is adamant that he has not been molested?

MR. CHANDLER: The evidence is already locked up in a safe place –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and it’s gonna come out only [tape irregularity] let it come out, and that’s it. If they don’t talk to me tomorrow, out it comes.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Well, but let me ask you this- -

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) Michael Jackson — Michael Jackson’s career, Dave. This man is gonna be humiliated beyond belief. You’ll not believe it. He will not believe what’s going to happen to him.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Beyond his worst nightmares. [tape irregularity] not sell one more record.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s for sure. And I mean I’m [tape irregularity] it just has to happen in order to get — to keep [tape irregularity] and it doesn’t have to happen if they show up tomorrow.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: But if they don’t show up — and I’ve made it very clear — I’ve tried to make it really clear on that answering machine, “This is the last chance to talk. If you talk, we have a chance. If we don’t talk, it’s all over.” It’s out of my hands. I mean, what else can I do?

We have already addressed Evan’s claim of having evidence. When you read these aggressive sentences from Evan about how Michael Jackson “is gonna be humiliated beyond belief” and that “he will not believe what’s going to happen to him” always remember that this is all while Jordan himself is adamant that he has not been not molested, and while Evan relies on “imaginations” rather than on factual evidence of any wrongdoing. It is important to emphasize that Evan’s desire to destroy and humiliate Jackson precedes the emergence of Jordan’s allegations and that Jordan first came up with those allegations while he was later in Evan’s care and paid visits to the office of Evan’s “son of a bitch” lawyer, Barry Rothman. Details in this article.

MR. CHANDLER: What’s the disadvantage to you if Michael Jackson’s destroyed and out of the family? What good is he doing you?

MR. SCHWARTZ: What harms it — well,  it has nothing to — I’m only thinking of Jordy.

MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) come over to talk to you, you seemed pretty damned upset that everybody was telling you that Michael Jackson has taken your family away from you. You even went so far as to tell me you couldn’t get bank loans because of that [tape irregularity] turn around completely 180 degrees.

Evan here again tries to convince Schwartz to join him in destroying Michael Jackson by playing on his vanity as a husband.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I would do anything for Jordy. I would lose everything. I would die for Jordy. That’s the bottom line.

MR. CHANDLER: Then why don’t you just back me up right now and let’s get rid of Michael Jackson.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Because I don’t know the facts.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Well, when you know –

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, I don’t –

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. When you know the facts, when you see the facts come out, then you’ll make a decision at that point.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. That’s fair.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay.

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, that’s more than fair, but this — let me –

MR. CHANDLER: It’s unfortunately gonna be too late, then, and nothing’s gonna matter at that point.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?

MR. CHANDLER: Because the fact is so fucking overwhelming –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?

MR. CHANDLER: — that everybody’s going to be destroyed in the process. The facts themselves are gonna – once this thing starts rolling –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — the facts themselves are gonna overwhelm. It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That’s [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good?

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It’s great.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?

MR. CHANDLER: Great, because –

MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how you’re –

MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy and Michael –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: – have forced me to take it to the extreme –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: – to get their attention. How pitiful, pitifuckingful they are to have done that. I’ve tried to get their attention –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — I have begged on the phone, and all I get back is, “Go fuck yourself” on the phone, and so now I’m still trying to get their attention until 8:30 tomorrow for their [tape irregularity], and I will know that even havin gone this far they won’t talk to me, then I know that I’m absolutely right in doing what I’m doing because they have left me no other [tape irregularity]. I am not allowed to talk to [tape irregularity], and so since they’re sending me that message and telling me that –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — they leave me no choice. They will not let me say to them, “This is what’s bothering me, and this is what I’d like to do about it. What do you think?” They’re saying, “We don’t care what you have to think — say about [tape irregularity].”

MR. SCHWARTZ: You mean by no communication?

MR. CHANDLER: Am I supposed to just bury my head? No. Not when my kid’s involved.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I can’t. So it’s their fault. Everything’s their fault, one hundred percent, and the reason it’s their fault [tape irregularity] try to communicate, and they have time after time frustrated my attempts to talk by telling me, “Go fuck yourself.” And when you do that to somebody, consistently, you drive them to do something [tape irregularity]. I’m not an evil person. I don’t want to do this.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: It’s their fault because they won’t talk. They have one more chance. I’ve told them this. That’s why I left that message. The message was very harsh [tape irregularity] and  it was very true, and it was to let them know that I am not kidding around.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m begging them. That message was begging, one more time –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — to sit down and talk and saying basically, “I don’t want to hurt you, but you’re not leaving me any choice.”

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And, you know, if they choose to ignore it, for whatever their motives — June doesn’t ignore things for the same — she doesn’t bury her head in the sand and make believe it’s gonna go away.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: June usually will call you up and say, “Go fuck yourself and drop dead” –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and she’ll get violent and all that, maybe even punch you in the face.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, that’s not so bad.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s right, and yet she’s not calling me –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — she’s not doing anything. She’s not talking either. So Michael’s not talking either. The three of them, completely different personalities –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — handle situations in three completely different ways, and yet none of the three of them is calling me.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: You can tell me that Jordy’s burying his head in the sand and that’s his reaction [tape irregularity]. What’s the other two excuses? I don’t know. They won’t even tell me what their excuse for not talking to me is. I don’t even — I can’t make an excuse for –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Michael, I can’t tell you. June, she doesn’t know what’s going on.

MR. CHANDLER: Well, of course she doesn’t know what’s going on. She wouldn’t let me tell her.

MR. SCHWARTZ: But she doesn’t going on — know what’s going on –

MR. CHANDLER: I did tell her once.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I did tell her once what my thoughts were about it.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And she said, “Go fuck yourself,” basically.

Evan is desperate to “get rid of Michael Jackson” and this is before he made his son – under dubious circumstances – support his claim that the star had allegedly molested him.

Evan talks about overwhelming “facts” when in reality he did not have any evidence. His anger is not just directed towards Jackson, but also towards June and Jordan as evident when he says: “Because June and Jordy and Michael have forced me to take it to the extreme to get their attention. How pitiful, pitifuckingful they are to have done that.”

He blames all three of them for not talking to him – and in fact, their refuseal to communicate with him seems to be his main problem. At one point Evan says: “I’m not an evil person. I don’t want to do this”. If what he does is in the best interest of his son and he is only trying to get him out of a situation that is harmful to him then why would he say that?

He also accuses June of physical violence, when in fact it is documented that Evan himself was the physically abusive one [see our article about the Chandler family].

According to All That Glitters the situation when Evan allegedly told June of his concerns about Jackson and Jordan happened on June 9, the day of the preschool graduation of “Cody” (an alias), Evan’s younger son. According to the book this is how it went:

“When June came by to pick up Kelly, Evan took June into the backyard where they could talk privately. “I’m worried about Jordie,” he began. “I’m afraid he might be gay.”

According to Evan, June shrugged her shoulders and replied, “So what. So he’s gay. Who cares?”

Evan couldn’t believe what he had just heard. In his mind, June was admitting their son might be gay and having sex with Michael, and that it was no big deal. He became instantly enraged and screamed at June, “Who cares! Who cares! Are you crazy!!” Barely in control of his temper, Evan ordered June to leave his house.

That June saw nothing wrong with Jordie being gay was not what angered Evan. “Though what straight parent would be pleased at the prospect,” he later explained. “It was the way she flipped it off, like there was nothing to be concerned about, or even talk about. Maybe I should have tried to talk to her more. But I just lost it. Anyway, looking back, I doubt it would have made any difference. She was already locked on course.” [1; page 55]

 (Emphasis added.)

As we can see again, Evan is pretty liberal with details and with the interpretation of certain stories. June stating that she would not care if Jordan was gay is far from “admitting” that Jordan may have sex with Michael Jackson, yet “in Evan’s mind” that alleged statement by June meant that she “admitted” she would not care if their son was molested by Jackson.

The story in All That Glitters also contradicts Evan’s interpretation in this conversation where he repeatadly claims that June told him to “go fuck himself” when he voiced his concerns about Jordan and Jackson to her. However, according to their own book all he voiced concerns about was that Jordan might be gay and when June said she would not care, Evan “became instantly enraged and screamed at June” and then “barely in control of his temper, Evan ordered June to leave his house”. This kind of behavior by Evan – weird assumptions, suggestions and temper tantrums – would explain why June, Jackson and Jordan refused to communicate with him, rather than having something to hide as Evan imagines in this conversation.

For the record, Jordan is not gay.

MR. CHANDLER: I have nothing to gain by talking to them tomorrow. All that can happen tomorrow is that I’m gonna look at their faces and I’m gonna feel bad –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and I’m gonna mitigate my position. I’m gonna give in somewhat [tape irregularity] I just went ahead and did what I was gonna do, I don’t ever have to see them again –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — they’re automatically gonna be destroyed and I’m gonna get what I want. That’s a given [tape irregularity], so –

MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean, is that the way to get Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: — talk to them — I’m talking to them for their sake –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — mine. This is my fourth, fifth and last attempt to communicate.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So when I leave a threatening message, I am threatening them –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — because nothing else works. Crying didn’t work. Begging didn’t work. Intelligence didn’t work.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Appealing to the motherly [tape irregularity] nothing worked. So what else is left? You threaten. If that doesn’t work, you’ve basically tried everything there is that you could possibly try.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I didn’t threaten him physically. I didn’t say I was going to kill them. Michael can show up with all his bodyguards with guns and surround me if he wants to.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: I’m not killing anybody tomorrow. It’s not the next step. His death is not the next (inaudible), so I mean I will talk to them tomorrow, but that’s for their — they can’t possibly feel threatened.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: That’s bullshit. I didn’t threaten them physically in any way, and certainly Michael’s got enough [tape irregularity] lawyers (inaudible). He has Burt Fields (sic!), who’s a big hotshot, if he wants to, sit right there. I don’t give a shit.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Whatever, you know, is going to make them protected from my great threat. I’m showing up all by my little self, and they can show up with an entire army if they need to protect themselves from me, but there’s nothing that they can do to convince me that they’re not showing up because they’re afraid for their lives.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: They could show up [tape irregularity] surrounded by bodyguards. He could certainly have them come over to June’s house, so [tape irregularity] threat was obviously the last (inaudible). I’ve never punched anybody. I’ve never shot anybody. I’ve never done anything violent in my life. There’s no reason why they should feel physically threatened. Never ever given them any indication that I [tape irregularity] Jordy, so, you know, they know that that threat’s [tape irregularity] to be fearful of that. They know that that [tape irregularity] and they know that I left it because there’s no other way to get ahold of them.

Like detailed in this article it is not true that Evan was not violent. Also take note of Evan’s words when he says “I’m not killing anybody tomorrow. It’s not the next step. His death is not the next” – as if that should make him look less threatening.

Evan claims that he tried everything reasonable to communicate his alleged concerns to June and Jackson and that he is acting only out of desperation because no intelligent way of trying to talk to them worked. However, in All That Glitters, there is simply no intelligent attempt at talking to them presented. According to the book , only one day after Evan was personally introduced to Jackson, he asked, out of the blue: “Are you fucking my son up the ass?” (sic!) [1; page 30] . According to the same book, some time later he asked his son just as bluntly:

“Hey, Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?”

“That’s disgusting!” Jordie reacted. “I’m not into that.”

“Just kidding.” [1; page 46]

We have previously addressed the way Evan, according to the book, communicated his concerns to June.

From the book it is also obvious that Evan did not accept a “no” for an answer and he pressured Jordan as long as he did not go along with him. As a good representation of this please read our article about how Jordan allegedly “confessed” to him about allegedly having been molested.

MR. CHANDLER: There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are intentionally going to be in certain positions –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity]. I paid them to do it. They’re doing their job. I gotta just go ahead and follow through on the time zone.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Um-hmm.

MR. CHANDLER: I mean the time set out. Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved –

Evan talks about a plan that is not just his but there are also other people involved who are in certain positions and whom he paid. Again, keep in mind that this is while Jordan is adamant that no inappropriety has happened. Evan however already goes by “a certain plan that isn’t just mine”.

MR. CHANDLER: But if they are there, it’s going to be far better than if they’re not — I mean, they’re going to have a chance to make things a lot better if they’re there. My instructions were to kill and destroy [tape irregularity], I’m telling you. I mean, and by killing and destroying, I’m going to torture them, Dave.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Because that’s what June has done to me. She has tortured me

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — and she’s gonna know that you can’t [tape irregularity]. I’ll tell you one thing that Jordy has no idea about, and that’s what love means. He doesn’t even have the remotest idea. He can’t learn it from June. She doesn’t know what it means. She has no conception of what it means.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So maybe, you know, I can get (inaudible) teach him that. I don’t know.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah [tape irregularity].

MR. CHANDLER: Part of it [tape irregularity] other people and communicating, and those are three things that must be in place in order for a loving relationship to exist, because all of those things show that you care about that other person. Not one thing [tape irregularity].

This is more about Evan’s hurt ego than anything else. He wants to “kill and destroy” and “torture them” because of what June – in Evan’s mind at least – has done to him.

The claim about Evan wanting to teach Jordan about love is ironic considering the fact how Evan treated his other two children after these allegations. Details in our article about the Chandler family.

MR. CHANDLER: — look at her behavior, I’m just saying that June is a brilliant and pathologic personality.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: What you see on the surface ain’t even remotely related to what’s really going on underneath.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: And I believe that that will come out in lie detector [tape irregularity] psychological evaluations –

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: — which they’re all gonna have to do.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: So –

MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think that’s good for Jordy?

MR. CHANDLER: I think that in the long run would — of course it’s not the best thing for Jordy.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: The best thing for Jordy would be for everybody to sit there and peaceably resolve amongst themselves [tape irregularity], but because they’re not willing to do that, I’m not allowed to have a say in what the best [tape irregularity]. I’m not even allowed to [tape irregularity] Jordy is. I’m not allowed to have a say in anything about Jordy. So when you ask me that question [tape irregularity] I would welcome them to do that, but they don’t care. They don’t care about what I think, so they don’t ask me that question. Do I think — I mean, just to answer your question, I think that [tape irregularity] for Jordy either way in the short [tape irregularity], in the short term.

There is an irony in Evan calling June a pathologic personality” considering his own behaviour.

MR. CHANDLER: I think in the long term he’s got a [tape irregularity] a chance of being a happy human being if I do what I have to do than if I let things go the way they are. Could a compromise be worked out? Possibly.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Let them convince me as to why [tape irregularity] tell me I’m wrong. Let them show me how Jordy’s benefitting and not being harmed. They got their chance.

 […]

MR. CHANDLER: They’ve had four or five times that I’ve called them [tape irregularity] haven’t wanted to get in a conversation with me about it, and I believe they don’t want to get in a conversation with me about it is because they know they can’t defend their position.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

MR. CHANDLER: [tape irregularity] to cut – I mean, I’m young, I’m really liberal. As far as I’m concerned, anybody could do anything they want. That’s my philosophy. You guys can do whatever you want. Just be happy. Don’t get hurt. So… [end tape]

Why would a parent who genuinely suspects child molestation – moreover, claims to have “evidence” of it – want to work out a “compromise”? Considering Evan’s alleged beliefs about the relationship between Jordan and Jackson the last sentences of the conversation are also interesting.

Summary

This conversation needs to be viewed in the context of Evan Chandler’s other actions and also in the context of his personality. While discussing the conversation above we cited many of the facts, events and actions which put Evan’s claims and posturing as a concerned and desperate father into a perspective. Additionally please also consider the fact that during these allegations Evan’s focus was always on the money – every step, every action he made was aimed at that. For details it is highly recommended to read our article about the Chandlers’ monetary demands, our article about the settlement between Jackson and the Chandlers and also our article about Evan’s 1996 lawsuit against Jackson.

Also consider the sequence of events as these allegations against Jackson emerged: Evan gets jealous of the friendship between his son and Jackson and he develops the fixed idea that the relationship between them is sexual, although he has no evidence of it and his son himself states to him that nothing inappropriate has happened. Probably it is no coincidence that this “suspicion” of Evan emerges at the same time when Jackson refuses to finance his screenplay ideas and refuses to build an addition to his house or buy him a new house. Evan keeps pressuring Jordan about the “suspected” sexual abuse, then Jordan allegedly “confesses” to him under highly questionable circumstances. Between Jordan’s alleged “confession” to Evan and their reporting of the allegations to authorities (through a therapist) there is a full month during which Jordan stays with his father who refuses to return him to his mother June.  During this time Jordan pays visits to the office of Evan’s “son of a bitch” lawyer Barry Rothman, and of course there is plenty of time for Rothman and Evan to coach the boy.  Meanwhile Evan threatens Jackson and demands $20 million from him in exchange for not going public with allegations of sexual molestation of his son. Jackson refuses to pay him – not only the initially demanded $20 million but also when Evan offers him that he would go away for $1 million. And it is after Jackson’s refusal to pay him off when Evan takes his son to a therapist where Jordan makes his detailed allegations for the first time which then triggers the investigation and the public scandal. All these events are detailed in the articles on this website (many of which were referenced in this article) and it is highly recommended to read them to get a full perspective of the events as they unfolded.

Sources:

[1] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[2] Mary A. Fischer: Was Michael Jackson Framed? (GQ, October 1994)
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Leave a Comment
post icon

Did the FBI have evidence that Michael Jackson paid off dozens of young boys to silence them after he sexually abused them?

No, they did not. The claim that they did comes from a British tabloid and it is not true.

On June 30, 2013 British tabloid Sunday People (the Sunday edition of The Mirror) published an “exclusive” article in which they claimed that they had insight into “secret FBI files” which “reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years” [1].

They claim the files were in the possession of a private investigator Anthony Pellicano who worked for Jackson in 1993. When Pellicano was arrested for illegal wiretapping in 2002, the FBI confiscated these documents, the article claims. That is their claim to these documents being “FBI files”.

In the article they talk to a private investigator who claims that he worked with Pellicano in 1993 on the Jackson case. The unnamed man is claimed to have kept copies of the documents that he now presented to the Sunday People – so the narrative of the story.

The article claims Pellicano was hired by Jackson to pay-off other “victims” when the singer was accused of child molestation by Jordan Chandler in 1993.  The sloppy tabloid article manages to contradicts itself on how many boys it claims were allegedly paid-off: in some parts of the article (including the title) they claim 24 boys, in another part they claim 17 boys and in yet another part of the article their source talks about three.

Despite the contradictions, the sloppiness of the article and the lack of supporting evidence, the “news” spread like wildfire. Apparently the term “FBI files” were enough to convince people, including other journalists who did not bother to check out the veracity of the story, that the tabloid’s claims were true.  In no time many other publications and websites ran the story, stating it as a fact that “the FBI revealed thousands of pages of their secret files which prove Jackson was a serial molester and paid-off dozens of young boys”. The claim even crossed-over to mainstream, non-tabloid media. No one in the media who published the story as a fact ever asked the logical question: if it was true how come that this evidence was never presented to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? And why should we take the words of an unreliable tabloid for it without any evidence?

When we review the documents those were attached to the Sunday People article as “evidence” we see they do not prove what is alleged in the article, nor do they represent an official stance by the FBI. Evidence of abuse and pay-offs, let alone the FBI verifying anything, is nowhere to be found in them. For those who are familiar with the details of the allegations against Jackson it is easy to spot what these documents really are – and they are not what the tabloid claims them to be. Let’s see them one by one.

Document 1

1

Apparently this is a fax sent to Pellicano on July 26, 1993. The name of the sender is blacked out. The sender claims that a source (which is unnamed) told him or her that Jackson “has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992”. Then the sender elaborates on this supposed $600,000 pay-off by quoting what is alleged to be the settlement agreement. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead we are just supposed to take the words of this person for it, of whom we do not even know who he or she is as the sender’s name is blacked out.

Fortunately we have another source for this story, which source, unlike the Sunday People, also provided a context for these claims, as well as the names which are blacked out in the document.

During Michael Jackson’s trial in 2005 journalist Roger Friedman, who worked for Fox News at the time,  received audio tapes from a private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi. These were recordings of a tabloid journalist (National Enquirer, Globe) Jim Mitteager, who had a habit of secretly taping his conversations. When he died his wife gave the tapes to Barresi. These tapes, among others, included some conversations about Jackson. One of those conversations sheds light on the  above mentioned document as Friedman wrote about this story extensively in 2005:

“Mitteager, at least in the case of Jackson, relied heavily on a sketchy stringer named Taylea Shea. Her veracity consequently became integral to a lot of tabloid reporting at the time.
Shea, who seems to have gone by a number of aliases and had a long list of addresses and phone numbers, could not be contacted for this story, despite many tries.
Neighbors at the Los Angeles address at which she lived the longest do not remember her fondly. They recall a hustler and con woman who was always on the take.
“She should be in jail, if she hasn’t been already,” one former friend and neighbor said.
On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.
Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.
Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year.
This would have been a blockbuster, if true, because it would make Brandon, not the differently-named boy who settled with Jackson in 1993, the first of Jackson’s accusers.
Shea also says on the tape that the legal document came from the offices of famed Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields, Jackson’s attorney at the time.
No reason is given why Jackson and Brandon Richmond should be separated. The implication, however, is clear.” [2]

So we learn from Friedman that the original source of this story was a “sketchy stringer”, a woman who is recalled by her neighbors as a hustler and a con woman. We also learn that no one actually saw this alleged agreement, Shea only “read it” to Mitteager. (It is possible that it was Mitteager who sent this fax to Pellicano about his conversation with Shea.) Shea is the only person who claimed to have seen the alleged agreement. Moreover, there was never a Brandon P. Richmond around Jackson. The boy and his mother seem to be completely fictional.

Because neither tabloids, nor authorities found evidence that a Brandon P. Richmond ever existed in Jackson’s life, Friedman suggested that the boy in question might be Brandon Adams, a boy who played in Jackson’s 1988 movie, Moonwalker. Besides sharing the same first name, Adams, was an actor and a dancer just like the fictional Brandon P. Richmond. However Friedman contacted Adams and his family in 2005 and they denied they had ever been paid off by Jackson. Nor does the name of Brandon Adams’ mother have any similarity to the mother’s name in Shea’s story. Friedman wrote in 2005:

“The Globe published the story without using names. Over time, it was assumed that Brandon P. Richmond was in fact Brandon Adams, a boy who had appeared in Jackson’s “Moonwalker” video.
Discussions on the tapes indicate that the tabloids also believed the two Brandons were one and the same. But there’s a problem with Shea’s story: Nothing adds up.
For one thing, a source close to Fields says the document uses language uncommon to their usual agreements.
Then there’s the actual family.
According to the Adamses, whom I met in January, they don’t know an Eva Richmond.
Brandon Adams’ mother is named Marquita Woods. And Brandon’s grandmother assures me she knows nothing of a $600,000 payment. The family has lived in a modest home in Baldwin Hills, Calif., for 30 years.
Brandon Adams, who is now 25, is a struggling actor. He appeared in “D2: The Mighty Ducks” and the indie film “MacArthur Park,” and is currently working on building a music career.
“I wish I had $600,000,” he said. “I’m broke.”
The Adamses pointed out that Brandon never visited Neverland, just the Jackson family home in Encino.
For a short time they were friendly not only with the Jacksons, but with Sean Lennon and his mother Yoko Ono, who were also part of “Moonwalker.” But the relationship seems to have ended well before Taylea Shea’s big scoop.” [2]

Brandon Adams was again contacted and asked about it on his Twitter when the Sunday People article came out in 2013. Here is what he said:

Question: “Hey, there’s a British tabloid today claiming again that MJ paid you off in 1992, can you deny it once again?”

Brandon Q Adams: “smh… Lol.. Not me!”
“they luv 2 tell lies about people… I guess it just comes with the territory #MJ #Greatness” [3]

Additionally the text of this alleged agreement is far too sloppy to be an agreement drawn up by professional top lawyers.

Friedman concluded that Shea likely made up the story: “Was Shea simply lying to Mitteager to collect a big fee? It would seem so.”  [2] The prosecution in the Jackson case never brought up this story in Court or elsewhere either.

At the end of the the document the writer says: “In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims” [1] and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that and based on what. If this is supposed to be the Sunday People’s “evidence” of Jackson paying off dozens of boys then it’s about as convincing as their fictional Brandon. All of this is according to only one questionable source – a “sketchy stringer” who was called a hustler and a con woman by her neighbors – allegedly informing Pellicano about rumors, not an established fact, and it is definitely not information verified by the FBI.

In actuality, anyone who wants to give credit to the claim that the FBI had evidence that Jackson paid-off dozens of boys, must ask the question: why then that evidence was never introduced to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? The FBI cooperated with the prosecution during the trial, but no such evidence ever emerged.

Document  2

2

This is apparently a note written by someone to Anthony Pellicano. The sender’s name is blacked out here as well. On this document there is no date given, but from the text we can derive it was probably in March, 1994.

“Detectives [blacked out] escorted [blacked out] yesterday, March 2nd, to [blacked out] house.”

This part of the text, as well as the full first half of the document, is about Blanca Francia. She was the maid who received $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview in 1993 in which she claimed she witnessed Jackson be inappropriate with boys and that possibly her own son was molested by the singer. She and her son were prosecution witnesses at Jackson’s 2005 trial, so their allegations are no new revelations either. You can read about Jason Francia’s allegations in detail in this article. We will address Blanca Francia in detail later on this website.

On January 26, 1995 British tabloid Today reported that “it had been discovered that Blanca Francia had used a National Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, as her translator when she was interviewed by police in 1993/4 as part of the criminal investigation of Jackson”.  [4] That story was based on Mitteager’s tapes:

“Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia’s interview statements with the police in 1993. Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a ‘molestation’ story to sell on Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.”

and

“On April 4, 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso, then working at the Daily News, reported in a piece about the upcoming ‘prior acts’ testimonies in Jackson’s 2005 trial, that the ‘Mitteager Tapes’ included sessions with then Enquirer editor – David Perel, telling Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: ‘the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.’ [4]

Caruso talked to detective Russ Birchim, who interviewed Francia in 1993-94.

“Caruso reported that Birchim told her, “ Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles.” Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim refused to elaborate.” [4]

All this seems to corroborate that the above document is some kind of note about what is on Mitteager’s tapes and can be traced back to Paul Barresi – just like the previous document.

Instead of revealing new allegations, the document just records Blanca Francia’s dealings with the media. At Jackson’s 2005 trial Blanca Francia admitted that besides Hard Copy she also contemplated to sell her story to the National Enquirer, but then she did not. From this document it appears this was because after her Hard Copy interview “the cops put her under wraps”.

“She got $20,000 from Hard Copy and supposedly regrets doing it because after her segment aired the cops put her under wraps.”

Of course, when the cops “put her under wraps” she was not able to sell her story to more tabloid media. We also learn from this document that Blanca Francia already planned a civil lawsuit against Jackson before the criminal proceedings were even over:

“[She] told her friend that when the Jackson criminal case is over, she will sue Jackson for molesting her son.”

The document further states that “the cops are looking for agreements between Jackson and parents of children who [blocked - presumably Blanca Francia] allegedly eye witnessed being molested including [blocked].”  No such agreements were ever presented despite a decade long investigation.

The second part of the document contains more rumours and speculations, nothing that was ever confirmed or proven. The document cites an unnamed “source” about certain allegations and rumours (none of which was ever confirmed or proven) and about detective’s beliefs and what actions they plan to take. It states:

“Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to.”

It is well documented that investigators in the Jackson case were biased and very hostile against the entertainer from the beginning. For example, in this article you can read about how they tried to convince boys to say that Jackson molested them by using improper interrogation techniques. In our article about Jason Francia you can read even more about those interrogation techniques.

So when their preconceived opinion about Jackson’s guilt was not supported by evidence and testimony they excused that by “believing” that the reason for that is that Jackson paid off people and not that maybe he was innocent, after all. However, there was never any evidence in support of the “belief” that Jackson paid-off people to keep silent about abuse. Instead of any proof that Jackson paid off dozens of boys, what we find in this document are speculations on the part of a desperate and biased prosecution and media to excuse their lack of evidence against the singer. Beliefs however need to be proven to become more than just uncorroborated opinions. Jackson was put to trial in 2005, after more than a decade of investigation, and no evidence of him paying off people to silence boys was ever presented.

Moreover, consider the fact that Jackson’s first accuser did everything feasible in order to receive a settlement in order not to go public or to trial in 1993. It is recommended to read our article about the Chandlers’ monetary demands which puts this uncorroborated myth of Jackson paying off people left and right into perspective. If it was routine for Jackson to pay off boys to not to go public and to authorities with their allegations then why did he refuse to pay off the Chandlers when they admittedly wanted nothing more than a pay-off from the very beginning?

Document 3

3

This is a document that appears to record a conversation between Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano on December 10, 1993. It is a mystery about what it is supposed to prove, because it actually contradicts what the Sunday People claims, as here Pellicano tells Mitteager that there is no other accuser than Jordan Chandler.

“There is no other kid. Now that’s the thing that nobody is paying any attention to. They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid.”

Please also consider that the date of this alleged conversation is December 10, 1993 – which is around the time when Pellicano stopped working for Jackson. Previously Pellicano worked closely together with one of Jackson’s lawyers Bert Fields, they left the case because they did not agree with the direction that some of Jackson’s other lawyers were taking. Upon leaving Pellicano stated that he believed in Jackson’s innocence and his leaving was no indication of otherwise.

The Sunday People chose not to include it, but there is another conversation between Pellicano and Mitteager that is recorded on Mitteager’s tapes. It was recorded in September 1994. Paul Barresi gave this tape to reporter Aphrodite Jones a couple of years ago, who published the transcript on her website. On this tape Pellicano talks about his conversation with Jordan Chandler who told him that Jackson never molested him and that his father only wanted money.

“PELLICANO:  You have to understand something. I have nine kids.  Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby.  They crawl all over him.  They pull his hair.  They pull his nose.  Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face.  If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER:  Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO:  Not only that.  If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games.  I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is.  Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation.  He going to say all kinds of stuff.”  He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.”  As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes.  Then I tried tricking him.  I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian.  I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb.  So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either.  And I said Michael is all upset.  We went over and over.  I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there.  I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about?  And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions.  There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.” [5]

Document 4

4

This is a transcript of an audio taped interview with a couple, Philip and Stella LeMarque. The couple who worked for Jackson in 1991 for ten months (they claimed two years in the media, but at Jackson’s 2005 trial Philip LeMarque admitted it was only ten months), alleged on this tape that they witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately with certain boys. The Sunday People presented these allegations as if they were some kind of bombshell news, never before heard allegations, even suggesting that the couple’s claims were verified by the FBI.

In reality the LeMarques’ claims are nothing new and certainly not proven. Philip LeMarque testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial about his allegation that he witnessed Jackson put his hand in Macaulay Culkin’s pants, but was discredited by Culkin himself.

The document the Sunday People presented in 2013 was the transcript of an interview that tabloid broker Paul Barresi conducted with the LeMarques on August 28, 1993 – five days after the Chandler allegations hit the media. However, in a 1994 documentary entitled Tabloid Truth even Barresi himself expressed  doubt about the credibility of the couple. Barresi, a self-confessed opportunist, admitted he did not care if a story he sold to tabloids was true or not as long as he was paid. Watch Barresi talk about the LeMarques between 30:14-35:35 and between 36:55-37:10 in the video below:

Like neither one of these so called “third party witnesses” the LeMarques initially did not turn to authorities either, but tried to sell their story to tabloids for money. First their asking price was $100,000 then they promised to further embellish their story if they got $500,000. (Watch Barresi talk about it in the above documentary at 36:55-37:10.) It was admitted by Philip LeMarque in Court as well.

Q. You upped the price to 500 from $100,000 at one point?

A. Yeah, to see if we were going to do it. [6]

and

Q. Did you have a discussion with Paul Baressi where you said, “We don’t want 100,000. We want 500,000”? Yes or no.

A. Yes. [6]

It has to be noted that the LeMarques were in huge debt when they attempted to sell molestation stories about Jackson to tabloids. In their interviews with Barresi, the LeMarques alleged to have witnessed improprieties between Jackson and other boys as well, not only Macaulay Culkin, but interestingly those stories were never even brought up by the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial.  Perhaps because not even this prosecution, which otherwise threw everything but the kitchen sink at Jackson, felt these stories were credible?

Document 5-6

56

These documents are property receipts about someone providing audio tapes to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the FBI respectively. They were probably attached to the Sunday People’s article in an attempt to give the documents some sense of “officialism” and somehow to link them to the FBI. However, the only thing they prove is that someone provided audio tapes to authorities. They do not reveal anything about the authorities’ opinion about the provided material.

Thanks to the 1994 Tabloid Truth documentary (see above) we know how and why Document 5 was produced. That document is the property receipt about someone giving the audio tape of the LeMarque interview to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office on August 30, 1993. From the Tabloid Truth documentary we know this was Paul Barresi himself and that it is his name that is blacked out on the document attached by Sunday People. Please stop the above shown documentary at 34:00. It is exactly the same document that the Sunday People tried to pass on as some newly discovered “FBI file” in 2013! However, in the documentary Barresi himself explains what it really is and the purpose why it was produced. The relevant part is at 33:00-35:01 in the documentary.

Barresi’s explanation in the documentary gives us an insight into the manipulative tactics of the tabloid world:

“I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.”

If Barresi brought the tape to the DA he’d have nothing to fear for his illegal tape recording. Besides it would juice up the story. If the DA’s working on it that’s action, that’s inside information!

“That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innocuous they would throw it out the window. So this is one way to do it with grand style, certainly.”

“So I called the editor of the Globe and I said: ‘I have a tape, I’m on the way downtown to hand it to the District Attorney.’ And his words were: ‘Let us come with you.’ And then I knew I had them. The next though on my mind was I’m gonna ask for 30 thousand dollars. You always ask twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold and within less than a minute came back and said: ‘well, we can’t give you 30, we give you 10.’ I said: ‘Make it 15.’ He said ‘You have a deal’.”

“Could you see the headline coming?”

“Oh, yeah. Sure. And I could see that money coming too.”

The Sunday People used the same manipulative tactics when they presented these documents as “FBI files”, knowing that linking them to the FBI would give them a sense of credibility and officialness in many people’s eyes – even though just because a paper is submitted to the FBI it does not mean it is credible or that its contents are proven. Upon scrutiny the documents fail to provide evidence for the paper’s claims, and can be traced back to Paul Barresi rather than the FBI. Barresi was clearly the anonymous source behind the Sunday People’s story presenting himself as someone who worked together with Pellicano on the Jackson case in 1993. However, Barresi never worked for Jackson, he is simply an opportunistic tabloid broker.

Jackson was on trial in 2005 and during that trial the FBI closely co-operated with the Santa Barbara prosecution. If the FBI had evidence of Jackson paying off people left and right why didn’t they introduce that evidence to the Court? In actuality, the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the prosecution’s many witnesses – including  Blanca Francia and Philip LeMarque – received from the tabloid media for their allegations! It is ironic that the same media who paid out fortunes to people for the slander of Michael Jackson over the course of two decades, accused the singer of  secret pay-offs with no evidence to back any of it up.

For more about the media’s role in the Michael Jackson allegations please read this article!

Sources:

[1] James Desborough, David Gardner – Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years (Mirror.co.uk, June 30, 2013)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

[2] Roger Friedman – Was There an Unknown Jacko Accuser? (FoxNews.com, March 25, 2005)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/03/25/was-there-unknown-jacko-accuser/print

[3] Brandon Q Adams Twitter
https://twitter.com/BrandonAdams22/status/351200257968840704

[4] Michael Jackson: The Making Of A Myth – Part 1
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

[5] Taped phone conversation between Anthony Pellicano and Jim Mitteager (September, 1994)
It was originally posted on Aphrodite Jones’ website at http://www.aphroditejones.com/Michael_Jackson_Trial/Michael_Jackson_Trial.htm
The website has been since then reorganized and the Michael Jackson Trial section is not available anymore.

[6] Phillip LeMarque’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)

Leave a Comment
post icon

Did Jackson only befriend young boys?

No. A large portion of the media and the prosecution tried to portray Jackson as someone who was obsessed with young boys. In reality, Jackson almost always befriended whole families rather than children alone, and the young people around him were of both genders.

In his 2005 book entitled Lost Boy, Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit Culkin wrote:

“I have heard it reported that Michael always wanted to play only with boys (just as boys usually only want to play with other boys, I suppose), but I never noticed this to be true.  My six year old daughter Quinn (who, as her name would imply, was my fifth child) was always included in the activities that Michael would often plan, and was always made to feel as though she was a part of the gang.  As I say, Michael always treated my kids quite equally.”[1]

and

“I should here say that Michael ever seemed to genuinely like all of my kids (as they him), and quite equally so, I noticed, for I never found him in his visits or ours to be exclusionary or one to play favorites (holding one or some in higher esteem than the others; this sort of things).  Indeed, he seemed ever to treat with them all quite democratically and as though they were all of them (himself included) brothers and sisters of equal standing.”[1]

An example of how the media deliberately puts the focus on the boys while ignoring the girls and families around Jackson is their regular use of a photograph of Jackson and the Chandlers in Monaco, 1993. When there is an article about the allegations of the Chandlers in the media they often use this photograph as an illustration:

 MJjordanchandler01

However, here is the full context of that photograph:

 MJjordanchandler02

MJjordanchandler03

MJjordanchandler04

What they cut off from the photograph is Jordan’s sister whom Jackson holds in his arms, and the children’s mother, June. This is a well known method of media manipulation as illustrated here:

 mediaaltersviewMJ

Another example is a snippet out of a slanderous and manipulative British documentary on Jackson from 2005 entitled Michael Jackson’s Boys.

In the fashion of Martin Bashir, this documentary too operated using innuendo and suggestive narration in order to raise suspicion about Jackson’s relationship with male children. The innuendo was made about boys who befriended Jackson, even though said boys stated emphatically that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to them. For example, in this particular scene you can see a man called Damion Stein talk about the friendship between Jackson and his family when he was younger. The documentary is already suggestive in captioning Damion as “Michael’s Boy 1985-90” (at 0:26), even though Damion never claimed here or elsewhere any impropriety by Jackson. In actuality, Damion attests to the fact that what Jackson was looking for in these relationships was a family atmosphere and a relationship with the whole family. He speaks about how Jackson called his mother on the phone day and night, which made his father so jealous that he secretly taped their conversations (these tapes are now known as the Glenda Tapes [2] and some of them can be found on YouTube). If anyone could be considered the closest to Jackson from the family it was the mother, not any of the children. Yet, it does not prevent the documentary from going along with its agenda and labeling Damion“Michael’s Boy”.

For the record, the mother, Glenda Stein, stated on Facebook, commenting an article about Jackson in September, 2011, that she never believed that Jackson was a pedophile: “I never thought that Michael was a pedophile. He loved kids but not in that sick way. Leave his family alone.” [3]

In most other cases too it were families whom Jackson befriended, not individual boys.

It has also often been claimed by the media that Jackson “preyed on” boys with a single mother. Again, that is a myth created with an obvious agenda in the mind. While he had young friends who were raised by a single mother, however, by no means can that be established as a pattern. Most of the children he befriended lived in families with both the mother and the father being present in the children’s lives. In actuality, Jordan Chandler even had two fathers – a biological and a step-father, and two mother’s, his biological one and his step mother.

Here is an interview with the Cascio family on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in December, 2010, talking about the same thing that Damion Stein talked about above: that what Jackson was looking for in these relationships was a family atmosphere.

While the media focused on the male children around Jackson, they rarely ever mentioned the female children. Children, like Kellie Parker, who had a role in Jackson’s 1988 movie, Moonwalker and who remained friends with him until the singer’s death. Here is Parker talking about Jackson after the singer’s death:

In a CineVegas Podcast with Vincent Paterson, after a Moonwalker screening in 2009 she said [4]

Kellie: “It’s hard… (losing composure, pauses) I’ll always feel that way. I’ll always be waiting for him.”
Steve Friess: “As I understand it you remained in contact with Michael up until very recently.”
Kellie: “Yeah. I remained very close with Michael for about ten years. Then after that I continued to stay in touch with him but not as regularly, every couple of years and then I did actually see him a couple of weeks before he passed away.”
Steve: “What was the occasion?”
Kellie: “I was working on a show he came to see, sort of randomly…”
Kellie: “I do know that in his life he would struggle with being so well known, that was sort of a constant struggle throughout his life. But I do have to say, I spent a lot of time with Michael alone on set, he and I had a lot of scenes together and he taught me so much. He was so dedicated. We would go through – before we even shot he and I would spend sometimes like half an hour together just improving, ’cause he was so committed to it.

[…]

“Michael was magic, pure and simple. He was a man who believed in the goodness of mankind and embodied pure unconditional love for the world. I am so sad on so many levels. For the loss of an innovative genius and who was music and dance personified, for the loss of a man who loved the whole world and touched so many lives, but mostly, for me personally, the loss of a friend that I loved so dearly.

Most people don’t know about how close I was to Michael for many years following ‘Moonwalker/Smooth Criminal’ because I was never one to exploit that, even to this day I rarely talk about it, for that was a friendship that I honored and respected as private. I feel compelled at this time though, to speak of my amazing friend, as a witness to his life, and the gentleness of his soul.

He taught me so much, both as an actor and as a person, he continually inspired me to reach beyond my boundaries. He and I spent a great deal of time, one on one, while filming ‘Moonwalker.’

I remember that he told me once to never rush an emotion, that everything in life has a rhythm, and that it is the pauses and silences that speak the truth. He understood this better than anyone, he had a way of quietly inspiring everyone around him to be better than ever thought they could be. He helped so many, and inspired us all.

Michael believed in Magic, he believed that we could change the world, and he had such unconditional love that when you were around him, you couldn’t help but believe it too. He is intertwined in all of who I am, I became a dancer because of him, I became an artist because he inspired me to dream, and a writer because he taught me the power of moving people through words and actions. I love you my friend, and I know you are in a better place, we were blessed to have you for as long as we did.”[3]

Kellie Parker as a child with Michael Jackson

Kellie Parker as a child with Michael Jackson

Many more examples of female children whom Jackson befriended can be found here: http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/

The figurative (and often literal) erasing of families and female children out of the picture that was painted of Michael Jackson by the media and the prosecution served the misleading and false portrayal of the relationship between Jackson and children.

girl_mj

Sources:

[1] Kit Culkin – Lost Boy (May 09, 2005, the book was published and distributed exclusively through KitCulkin.com)

[2] “Glenda Tapes” – Audio and Transcripts http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/glenda-tapes/backstory-glenda-stein-and-family-glenda-tapes/

Originally released in 2005 on http://www.hansnews.com

[3] Facebook comment by Glenda Stein on September 29, 2011 on AOL’s Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/aol/posts/226747887382305?comment_id=2815772

[4] CineVegas Podcast with Vincent Paterson, after a Moonwalker screening in 2009 (For a secondary source see: http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/ )

Leave a Comment