Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/128867/domains/michaeljacksonallegations.com/html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160
Archive | Site Content RSS feed for this section

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.

Comments are closed

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.

Perhaps it is also worth noting that according to journalist Diane Dimond (whom Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters describes as Evan Chandler’s “closest ally” in the media [1; page 194]) reported after Evan’s death in 2009 that Evan suffered from bipolar disorder.

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

Comments are closed

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

No, that 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.

On the other hand, Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau said that at Jackson’s 2005 trial he had witnesses whom he would have called if Jordan had testified. These witnesses were people who personally knew Jordan and according to Mesereau Jordan privately confided in them that Jackson never molested him. [1]

However, publicly Jordan Chandler never made any comments about the case and he also refused to testify about it in a court. According to Jackson’s FBI files, when prosecutors asked him to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial he refused and he told them that “he would legally fight any attempt” to make him testify against Jackson. [2]

Sources:

[1] Michael Jacskon was Innocent – Tom Mesereau talks about how Jordan Chandler Lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0

[2] Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view (page 4)

Comments are closed

Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson

Victor Gutierrez in front of a Michael Jackson This Is It poster

Victor Gutierrez in front of a Michael Jackson This Is It poster

There were numerous journalists reporting on the Michael Jackson cases and among them there were those who were molding it, often in ethically questionable ways [for details see this article]. There is one journalist, however, who stands out as someone who influenced the media’s reporting and possibly even the formation of allegations against Jackson more than anyone else. His name is Victor Gutierrez.

The name Gutierrez might not sound familiar but many of the more popular journalists reporting on the Jackson case used Gutierrez as their source, apparently without vetting the “information” he provided. Diane Dimond called him one of her best sources and said of him “I have never had a doubt about this person, ever” [1]. He was also used as a consultant in “documentaries” televised about the Jackson cases, programs that were full of untrue claims, claims very biased against the entertainer.

Gutierrez not only acted as a source for other journalists but was also in contact with many people who later appeared as prosecution witnesses on the stand at Jackson’s 2005 trial. Additionally, according to journalist Maureen Orth, the prosecution in Jackson’s case relied on Gutierrez’s book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover (discussed below) and believed it to be accurate information: “The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler” [2], Orth wrote in her article published in the April 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, in which she too seems to give much credit to Gutierrez and his salacious stories.

The first time the wider public heard Gutierrez’s name in connection with the Michael Jackson case was on January 9, 1995 when Diane Dimond announced on KABC-AM radio’s popular morning show that the police had reopened their investigation against Jackson because of an alleged 27 minute video tape, captured by one of the star’s security cameras, supposedly depicting acts of molestation. Dimond painted a very vivid picture of what was on the tape, despite the fact that she had not seen it herself, attributing the story to one of her “best sources”.

Though Gutierrez was not named on that particular show, he was revealed later that day as her source on Dimond’s television show, Hard Copy, where Gutierrez himself made an appearance. Dimond aired the story on Hard Copy despite receiving a letter immediately after her appearance on KABC-AM from Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman stating that what she had alleged was not true.

Indeed, the whole story turned out to be a total fabrication. The alleged tape did not exist and as such, was never produced. In fact, the only person who had ever claimed to have seen it was Gutierrez. The boy whom Gutierrez claimed was being molested on the tape was Jermaine Jackson’s son and Michael Jackson’s nephew, Jeremy Jackson. Jeremy’s mother, Margaret Maldonado recalled the story in her 1995 book entitled Jackson Family Values:

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. ‘I wanted to warn you, Margaret,’ she said. ‘There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons and that you have the tape.’ If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks. She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished.

To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece. Hard Copy, however, decided it would. Hard Copy correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.” [3]

Jackson sued both Dimond and Gutierrez and while Dimond (with a little help from Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon) escaped unscathed, Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages. He never paid and instead fled the country and later filed bankruptcy.

Gutierrez’s next move was to publish a book in 1996 entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover. The book contains graphic descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and his 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler. It also contains graphic sexual descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and other boys – boys, who have always stated, in no uncertain terms, that the singer never molested or touched them in any sexually inappropriate way. Because of its pedophiliac content, major publishers in the United States were unwilling to publish the book. The minor publisher/distributor which did has since become bankrupt.

Gutierrez claimed that he based his book on Jordan’s diary, however the Chandlers say that Jordan never kept a diary. A diary in which Jordan documented his abuse would have been very important evidence in any investigation against Jackson but no such evidence was ever produced. Again, the only person who ever claimed to have seen the diary was Gutierrez, yet his book was blindly believed, according to Maureen Orth, even by the prosecutors.

It is pretty clear that rather than Jordan’s diary, the graphic sexual content in Gutierrez’s book was based on Gutierrez’s own perverted fantasies. Quite disturbingly, Gutierrez does not disapprove of the alleged abuse but instead celebrates it as a consensual love story, a wonderful “relationship”; it is no wonder since in the foreword of the book, amongst the credits he thanks NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), an infamous pedophile organization [4]. Guiterrez, citing unnamed “experts”, advocates pedophilia in his book as something that is not harmful to children but misunderstood by society, and he uses the Chandler allegations in support of his point. For example, he writes:

“The cliché of pedophiles as old men who kidnap children in sacks is as erroneous as thinking that all homosexual men attack other male pedestrians on the street. Psychiatrists report that there are pedophile rapists and murderers, just as there are homosexuals and heterosexuals who commit these crimes. These same experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life. What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson.” [4]

When Michael Jackson was accused of molesting Gavin Arvizo in 2003, Gutierrez, perhaps sensing another opportunity to further his agenda, became very active in the media. He assisted in the making of slanderous “documentaries” about Jackson. Apparently the people who employed him as an expert on the allegations against Jackson did not find his history, the fact that he was Court ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million for lying about him, the pedophiliac theme of his book or his apparent association with NAMBLA problematic.

Snapshot of the credit list of NBC Dateline’s Inside The Jackson Case program with Victor Gutierrez (though his name is misspelled) listed as a consulting producer

Snapshot of the credit list of NBC Dateline’s Inside The Jackson Case program with Victor Gutierrez listed as a consulting producer (though his name is misspelled)

In a September 2006 British GQ article about Gutierrez it is claimed he was even engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s Jackson documentary [5].

As revealing as his book was an interview with Gutierrez that appeared in a German newspaper, Tageszeitung, in April 2005 while Jackson was on trial. According to a 2010 article in the German Spiegel magazine, Tageszeitung actively advocated pedophilia in a series of articles in the late 70s and early 80s.

“During this time, no other newspaper offered pedophiles quite as much a forum as the alternative, left-leaning Tageszeitung, which shows how socially acceptable this violation of taboos had become in the leftist community. In several series, including one titled “I Love Boys,” and in lengthy interviews, men were given the opportunity to describe how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was. “There was a great deal of uncertainty as to how far people could go,” says Gitti Hentschel, the co-founder and, from 1979 to 1985, editor of Tageszeitung. Those who, like Hentschel, were openly opposed to promoting pedophilia were described as “prudish” — as opposed to freedom of expression. “There is no such thing as censorship in the Tageszeitung,” was the response.” [6].

The newspaper’s journalist met with Gutierrez at a Hollywood hotel. The article is entitled “Es war Liebe!” (“It Was Love!”), referring to the alleged “relationship” between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler. It starts with the lie that Gutierrez’s book was based on Jordan’s diary and then details about Gutierrez’s life are presented. He grew up in Chile and became a journalist, later traveling to the USA in 1984, where he worked as a photographer at the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Afterwards, he did not return to his country, instead he found a job with a Spanish newspaper. Then:

“In 1986 he reports from a conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association. The so called NAMBLA was founded at the end of the 70s. At the beginning, the “Support Group for Relationships Between Generations” was promoted prominently by Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg, then it was quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. At the conference Gutierrez hears for the first time: “Michael is one of us.” A pedophile. “Jackson was treated like an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.” *

Gutierrez quits his job at the newspaper, talks to employees of Jackson, interviews the first boys. Soon he runs out of money for the research. He sells his car, saves money on food. He learns: there are different type of pedophiles, pedophilia is as old as the human race, not every game they play is a horrible crime. Victor Gutierrez says: “In the the five months of their relationship Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler were happy. It was love.[7]

(Emphasis added.)

[* Note: To be clear, Jackson has never been a member of NAMBLA and never had any association with them. What members express here is wishful thinking.]

To the question why aren’t there more boys accusing Jackson, Gutierrez again gives revealing insight into his “philosophy”:

“They are all afraid”, says Gutierrez. Not of Michael and his power but of public opinion. “It is about homosexuality”, Gutierrez opines, “nobody wants to be the gay Jackson boy”. His theory: if Madonna had an affair or a love relationship with a minor boy it would be a much smaller scandal. At the schoolyard the boy would be a hero. As Jackson’s lover he is a faggot.

“In a hundred years maybe such relationships will be accepted by society”, says Gutierrez. The story reminds him of Oscar Wild and his young lover, Bosi. As Gutierrez, who is a heterosexual himself*, was looking for a publisher for his book in 1995, he hears people say that he glamourizes pedophiles. [7]

(Emphasis added.)

[* Note: In different interviews over the years Gutierrez has made conflicting statements about his own sexuality.]

While in this article Gutierrez does not protest against the claim that he “glamorizes pedophiles” and the journalist never challenges Gutierrez’s portrayal of pedophilia as some kind of consensual love relationship, in English language publications Gutierrez is more cautious.

In the September 2006 issue of the British GQ Magazine, in an article that is based on Gutierrez’s version of the events and thus clearly biased for him and against Jackson, the story of Gutierrez’s visit to the NAMBLA conference is rehashed but without naming the organization:

“Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA, Gutierrez heard many references to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, “Wacko Jacko” was just an eccentric. The fact he liked the company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles.” [5]

While in the Tageszeitung article it was suggested he was there as a reporter, in GQ it is claimed he went there “undercover with the LAPD”. It is very unlikely that the LAPD would engage untrained outsiders for undercover operations over their own trained officers. In actuality, it is very unlikely Gutierrez would have been present at a NAMBLA conference as an outsider (let alone as a reporter) because the organization is very cautious about who they let in and very secretive about the exact wherabouts of their annual conferences. [8] [9] Only members and people who NAMBLA trusts receive an invitation.

The GQ article’s main subject is a film that Gutierrez planned to make of his book with the help of Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, founders of the World of Wonder production company. Based on what is said by the two producers in the article, like the book, the film would have also served the agenda of portraying supposed child molestation as a consensual, love relationship.

“Despite the explosive nature of the events it describes, the script is actually a model of amorous propriety. “We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie”, says Bailey.

[…]

Central to the film, and the most controversial element in it, is the presentation of Jordie as a willing, even eager, participant in a relationship with a man he had worshipped since the age of four. “The only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim,” says Bailey. “The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic.” [5]

Earlier in the article Barbato is quoted as saying:

“In America we are up against the ‘eek’ factor. The Europeans don’t have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version.” [5]

Barbato also acknowledges that their movie “goes outside of any of the acceptable norms”:

“However, the producer remains understandably cautious about the ultimate success of his undertaking. “Indie movies have gone mainstream in the States,” says Barbato. “They’ve become a genre. But this project is independent in the true sense of the word. It goes outside any of the acceptable norms.” [5]

After Gutierrez visited the conference of the “suspect organization” in 1986, the 2006 GQ article states, he started to “strike up friendships” with some of Jackson’s employees:

“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA (personal assistant), Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.” [5]

Again we read that after that NAMBLA conference, where pedophiles express the wish that Jackson become one of them, a celebrity poster boy as a “hope for social acceptance” [7] of pedophilia, Gutierrez goes on a mission and strikes up friendships with some of Jackson’s employees. The same employees who would later make allegations against the star.

There are also facts to consider about a possible connection between Gutierrez and Jackson’s first accusers, the Chandler family. According to the 2006 GQ article, Gutierrez became interested in the Chandlers when he saw Jordan, his mother and sister in Jackson’s company at several events during that time, including the 1993 World Music Awards in Monaco.

“A pariah in the celebrity-sucking world of freelance entertainment journalism, Gutierrez was forced to give up his writing and for a while supported himself by selling satellite dishes. Then, in 1993, his interest was reawakaned when he heard about a boy called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco.” [5]

As we have shown in other articles the Chandler accusations did not originate from Jordan Chandler himself. It was his father, Evan Chandler who first had the preconceived idea that the friendship between his son and Jackson was sexual; it was Evan Chandler who pressured and threatened the boy into corroborating his idea. [For details see our articles Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions” and How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge?]

Remarkably, like Gutierrez, Evan Chandler spoke of supposed child molestation as if it was a consensual romance. In Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, they even feel 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.” [10; page 45]

In a secretly taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz that took place on July 8, 1993 (so before Jordan allegedly “confessed” to Evan about the alleged molestation – for the circumstances of that alleged confession see our article How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge?), Evan claims that it were other people who convinced him of the harmfulness of the friendship between Jackson and Jordan. He calls these people “experts”, although does not make it clear who these alleged experts were and in what field they had an expertise in. [11] Whether one of these alleged “experts” was Victor Gutierrez or not, we cannot tell, however there are additional facts to consider about a possible connection between Victor Gutierrez and Evan Chandler:

In his book, Gutierrez presents legal correspondence, letters belonging to the Chandlers and private photographs of Jordan, his room and the Chandler’s house. Gutierrez befriended the Chandlers’ maid, Norma Salinas, so those documents could have been provided by her. However, Gutierrez’s book also contains stories, with varying details, identical to entries that appear in Ray Chandler’s All That Glitters, a book which was published almost ten years after Gutierrez’s publication.

Another inference to a probable collaboration between the Chandlers and Gutierrez is the fact that a drawing allegedly made in October of 1993, by Jordan of Jackson’s private parts includes text that makes mention of the name “Orietta” twice. [More about that drawing in this article.] Jackson employed a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. Orietta Murdock, however, no longer worked for Jackson in 1993, when the star spent time with the Chandler family. Why would Jordan or any of the Chandlers make references to an “Orietta” while attempting to describe Jackson’s private parts? The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez. In the 2006 GQ article Orietta Murdock is mentioned as one of the Jackson employees that Victor Gutierrez befriended.

If there was indeed a collaboration regarding the allegations in 1993 between the Chandlers and Gutierrez, the relationship must have turned sour later because in 2004 Ray Chandler, while making his rounds in the media and promoting his book, called Gutierrez a “sleazebag” and stated that he did not endorse his book [12].

In the 2006 GQ Magazine article it is claimed that “after the first phase of his research” [5] Gutierrez sent a copy of his book to the LAPD, but they took no action “because I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA” [5]. (Take note that just a couple of paragraphs earlier it is claimed that Gutierrez was at that NAMBLA conference in 1986 “undercover with the LAPD”.) In Michael Jackson’s FBI files, released in 2009, a couple of months after the singer’s death, there is no information about a book sent to the LAPD. However, there is a document concerning a writer who called the LAPD on December 27, 1993, claiming that “he has been writing a book about Michael Jackson concerning allegations of sexual molestation of children” [13]. The caller, whose name is concealed in the FBI document, claimed that “he had information that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1985 or 1986, investigated allegations against Jackson for reportedly molesting two Mexican boys” [13]. He also claimed the investigation was “covered up” [13] because “Jackson was to receive an honor at the White House from the President” [13]. Jackson actually received the honor at the White House in 1984.

The LAPD did not take action, not because the caller was “a nobody” but because the claim was absolutely untrue. The document states that they checked the FBI indexes both automatically and manually and found no reference to such an investigation. Keep in mind that at that time the Chandler investigation was ongoing and the LAPD was eager to find evidence against the singer. It is nonsensical that the FBI would ignore any damning information against Jackson. The FBI ignored the information because it had no basis in reality.

In a Los Angeles Times article dated August 28, 1993, it is claimed that Victor Gurierrez was among the first people whom the police interviewed in regards to the case against Jackson (the allegations were formally made on August 17, 1993): “One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday. He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.” [14]

Many of the witnesses who testified for the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial, and on whom the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” case was mostly built, were people who had contact with Victor Gutierrez prior to selling their stories. Former security guard, Ralph Chacon testified he and other ex-employees of Jackson (whom the media often called the “Neverland 5”) spoke to Gutierrez before they went to sell their story to The Star magazine [15]. Former security guard, Kassim Abdool testified that he met Gutierrez once and they had a two, three hours conversation [16]. Former maid, Adrian McManus testified that Gutierrez “was going to try to help us in our lawsuit” [17]. Another prosecution witness was former maid, Blanca Francia, who is mentioned in the 2006 GQ article as one of the Jackson employees Gutierrez befriended shortly after his visit to NAMBLA in 1986 [5]. In Gutierrez’s book there is a photo of the two together [4].

Other people whom Gutierrez befriended, such as as Orietta Murdock or the Chandlers’ El Salvadorean maid, Norma Salinas, did not testify but they made their rounds in the media selling salacious lies about Jackson to tabloids.

Michael Jackson was the most internationally famous victim of Gutierrez’s lies and manipulation, but he was not the only one. In late 2003 in his home country Chile, Gutierrez published an article in which he linked a politician of a right-wing political party to a pedophile ring. Gutierrez’s article gave a detailed description of what allegedly went on in the house of a businessman, Claudio Spiniak, who was arrested just a few days earlier for operating a pedophile ring. Gutierrez claimed that a senator of the Alliance for Chile (a coalition of right-wing political parties) participated in those pedophile orgies. He did not name the politician in his article but alleged that the senator’s name was given to authorities. Later in an interview conducted by Gutierrez for a TV program, a minor boy, a street child, claimed to have seen a well-known right-wing politician at Spiniak’s orgies. [18] The boy later retracted his claim and it was revealed that Gutierrez paid him 10,000 to 20,000 Chilean pesos. In February, 2004 Gutierrez’s lawyer acknowledged the payment but claimed it was only a “humanitarian gesture”, not something given in exchange for the interview and false accusations. Authorities could not find any link between the pedophile ring and any politician of the party accused by Gutierrez but the rumors were enough to tarnish the public image of the right-wing coalition and certain politicians. [19] [20] [21]

In 2008 Gutierrez was sentenced to 61 days in jail and ordered to pay 30 million Chilean pesos (approximately $60,000) to former Miss Universe, the ex-wife of Argentina’s former president, Carlos Menem, Cecilia Bolocco for slanderous claims he made about her private life. This was considered a precedent, the highest amount of compensation ever awarded in this type of case in Chile [22].

Victor Gutierrez, the man accredited by media journalists and the prosecution as being a reliable source of information on Michael Jackson, whose stories inspired many media articles and “documentaries” about the star, and to whom the very origin of the allegations against Jackson may be traced is a man who has been convicted as a liar in a court of law, not once but at least twice and not in one but in two different countries.

Victor Gutierrez, a man who has expressed disturbing views about pedophilia, who has written a graphically sexual work of fiction, replete with pedophiliac fantasies about an alleged mutual “relationship” between a man and a child; a man who had the audacity to thank NAMBLA in the foreword of this book; who by his own account, visited a NAMBLA conference in 1986 was directly involved in helping to shape and form the false allegations made against Jackson.

Sources:

[1] Interview with Diane Dimond on The Ken and Barkley Company morning show (KABC-AM Radio, January 9, 1995)

[2] Maureen Orth – Losing His Grip (Vanity Fair, April 2003)
http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/04/orth200304 (page 4)

[3] Margaret Maldonado – Jackson Family Values: Memories of Madness (Newstar Pr, November 1995)

[4] Victor Gutierrez – Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Alamo Square Dist Inc, 1996)

[5] Robert Sandall – Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Brtish GQ Magazine, September 2006)

[6] Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen – The Sexual Revolution and Children, How the Left Took Things Too Far (Der Spiegel, July 2, 2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679-3.html

[7] “Es war Liebe!” (Die Tageszeitung, April 5, 2005)
http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170

[8] FBI Agent Robert Hamer’s undercover operation as described in Order Amending Opinion and Amended Opinion – USA v. David Cary Mayer
Page 8.: “He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time.”
USA vs Mayer

[9] Onell R. Soto – Little-known group promotes ‘benevolent’ sex (February 17, 2005)
Quote: “The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs. Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was not disclosed until the last minute.
“They don’t want press and they don’t want the cops showing up,” he said.”

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html

[10] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[11] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993)
schwartz_chandler

[12] Jacko: Accuser’s Uncle to Publish Exposé (FoxNews, September 8, 2004)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131615,00.html

[13] Michael Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%202%20of%203/view (Page 52)

[14] Charles P. Wallace and Jim Newton – Jackson Back on Stage; Inquiry Continues (Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

[15] Ralph Chacon’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 7, 2005)

[16] Kassim Abdool’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 25, 2005)

[17] Adrian McManus’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)

[18] La prensa y el caso Spiniak (El Periodista, August 27, 2004)
http://www.elperiodista.cl/newtenberg/1682/printer-63826.html

[19] Abogado confirma que Víctor Gutiérrez entregó dinero a L.Z. (Emol.com, February 11, 2004)
http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2004/02/11/138241/abogado-confirma-que-victor-gutierrez-entrego-dinero-a-lz.html

[20] UDI: se confirma tesis del montaje (LaNacioncl, February 12, 2004)
http://rie.cl/lanacioncl/?a=15112

[21] Víctor Gutiérrez reconoce que pasó su billetito a menor del caso Spiniak (La Cuarta, February 12, 2004)
http://www.lacuarta.cl/diario/2004/02/12/12.04.4a.CRO.GUTIERREZ.html

[22] Millonaria sentencia a favor de Cecilia Bolocco remece a la farándula local (El Mercurio, October 30, 2008)
http://www.emol.com/mundografico/?F_ID=657315

Comments are closed

Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael Jackson

The lawsuit arising from Jordan Chandler’s molestation allegations was not the only lawsuit the Chandlers filed against Michael Jackson. On May 7, 1996 Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler filed a lawsuit claiming the entertainer violated the Confidentiality Agreement portion of their 1994 settlement. [Details about the settlement here.]

On June 14, 1995 Jackson gave an interview to Prime Time Live a television program hosted by Diane Sawyer where he was asked, amongst other questions, about the allegations. During the interview Jackson maintained his innocence and according to Evan Chandler’s lawsuit this was a violation of the settlement. Chandler not only sued Jackson but also Jackson’s then-wife, Lisa Marie Presley, who participated in the interview, the ABC television network, which aired the program and Diane Sawyer. Additionally, he sued several other companies besides ABC, like the Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, Jackson’s record label, Sony Music Corporation, Warner Tamerlane Publishing and all companies owned by Jackson.

Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, speaks about this lawsuit:

Evan poured himself into the battle, working night and day to help his lawyers build their case. He became obsessed and put his entire life on hold, neglecting his health and his family in his quest to clear his name.

Evan rationalized his actions by believing that the lawsuits were a temporary detour, and that once they were over, life would be better than it had ever been — that he would have all the time in the world to spend with his children.

But life did not become better than it had ever been. It became much worse. Evan lost the lawsuits, his health and his family. The last two through no one’s fault but his own. But whatever faults Evan may have, whatever demons possess him, one thing he has never been and will never be, is an extortionist.” [1; page 248]

Evan Chandler

Evan Chandler

Michael Jackson did not explicitly call Evan Chandler an extortionist in the Prime Time Live interview (and he did not name his accuser). However, Jackson’s innocence would seem to implicitly suggest that Evan Chandler was an extortionist. In regard to Evan’s monetary demands of Jackson, please read this article and decide for yourself if Evan Chandler was an extortionist.

Besides the Prime Time Live interview, Jackson’s 1995 album, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I (in short HIStory) also hit a nerve with Evan. In his lawsuit he alleged that the album’s lyrics made derogatory, harmful, malicious” [2] statements against him and his son.

Jackson does not specifically name Evan or Jordan in his lyrics rather he mentions being falsely accused in the song This Time Around; he devotes a song, D.S., to criticizing District Attorney, Tom Sneddon; he criticizes greed in the song Money, and a segment of the media in the song Tabloid Junkie.

In his lawsuit Evan also indicated the line, “jew me, sue me” in the song They Don’t Care About Us was directed towards him since he was Jewish. However, listening to the song and the context in which the words were used, that is very unlikely. (Evan’s lawsuit quotes Jackson’s lyrics out of context and very imprecisely.)

It is undeniable that some of the songs on HIStory and their lyrics were influenced by the allegations and it is also natural that, like any artist, Jackson would process and vent his life experiences in his creative work. However, the claim that what Jackson expressed in his album violated the settlement and its Confidentiality Agreement did not find support in the Court system.

Money – one of the songs mentioned in Evan Chandler’s lawsuit:

In his lawsuit Evan Chandler claimed that Jackson, Lisa Marie Presley, ABC, Sony and others earned in excess of $60 million from album sales and the income of the Prime Time Live interview, and since their actions were allegedly in violation of the Confidentiality Agreement  they were actually indebted to him for that sum! He claimed Jackson “commercially exploited”[2] the allegations on his album and because of that Evan personally suffered damages.

Evan’s lawsuit claims:

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s, and others’ material breach of the Agreement as herein alleged for commercial exploitation and financial enrichment, Plaintiff [Evan Chandler] demands all economic benefits gained by Defendant Jackson and other Defendants from the commercial exploitation of the facts of the “Underlying Action” in an amount in excess of $60,000,000.00.” [2]

The lawsuit alleged that because of Jackson’s and others’ conduct Evan suffered “severe and extreme emotional distress”:

 “The conduct of Defendant Jackson and others as herein described was done with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard to cause, Plaintiff severe and extreme emotional distress. Such extreme and outrageous conduct exceeds all bounds of decency, and is of a nature which was and is specifically calculated to cause, and did cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover damages according to proof.” [2]

and

“As a direct proximate result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has suffered the following special damages: Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and injury to his feelings, while suffering and continuing to suffer general and special damages as set forth herein.” [2]

For the alleged trauma Evan demanded an additional $750 000 in damages, above the $60 million:

“As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered panic, trauma, humiliation, disgrace, worry, anxiety, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, all to his damage in a sum in excess of $750,000.00.” [2]

Evan also demanded that the Defendants compensate him for his legal costs.

Besides the monetary demands the lawsuit demanded an Order allowing Evan to release an album about the alleged molestation of his son, entitled EVANstory:

“As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s and others’ material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”: “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs.” [2]

Remember that the Chandlers claimed that they refused to testify against Jackson in a criminal court in 1994 because they wanted to protect their privacy and because they wanted to move on with their lives and not subject Jordan to the media spotlight and scrutiny that would have been unavoidable in a high profile case. They also claimed they received several death threats from Michael Jackson fans and since Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti refused to put the family in the Witness Protection Program, they were afraid for their lives. However, Evan Chandler was actually seeking media spotlight when he requested a Court Order to allow a release of an album about the alleged molestation of his son, in lieu of going to criminal court, testifying and subjecting himself and Jordan to cross-examination. Additionally, in 1998 Evan’s brother, Ray Chandler made his rounds in the media concerning the allegations in the civil lawsuit discussed in this article [3; page 8-9].

Consider the  lawsuit alleging that Jackson breached the Confidentiality Agreement in tandem with the fact that Evan’s brother, Ray Chandler was shopping a book about the allegations immediately after a settlement was signed. (For more about that book and Ray Chandler’s other appearances in the media see this article.)

Evan’s lawsuit was thrown out of court in 2000.

Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit can be read in its entirety here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

Sources:

[1] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

[2] Evan Chandler’s lawsuit against Michael Jackson filed on May 7, 1996
http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

[3] Notice of motion and motion of third party Raymond Chandler to quash subpoenas and/or in camera review; authorities; declaration of Raymond Chandler (October 25, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

Comments are closed

Ray Chandler’s Subpoena in 2004

The 1994 settlement between Michael Jackson and the Chandler family forbade the signing parties from speaking to the media and/or publicly about the allegations. However, book publisher, Judith Regan disclosed to SiriusXM radio the fact that Evan’s brother, Raymond Chandler was shopping a book to her shortly after the settlement was signed:

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So 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?”[1]

Evan's brother, Raymond Chandler

Evan’s brother, Raymond Chandler

That Ray Chandler was indeed shopping a book “within days” after the settlement was signed, is confirmed by none other than Ray Chandler himself in a Motion he filed with the Santa Barbara Court on October 25, 2004. The Motion was filed in response to a subpoena filed by Jackson’s defense which will be discussed in detail below. In it, Ray Chandler argued that his intent had always been to disseminate the information he gathered from his brother and nephew, which made him an Investigative Journalist and therefore afforded him the protection of the Shield Law, which would prevent him from being compelled to present his alleged evidence in court. “The California Shield Law provides legal protection for journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering.”[2]

In support of his claim that he should be protected by the Shield Law Ray Chandler disclosed in that Motion [3; page 8]:

“Within days after Jordan Chandler’s civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public. Such intent on the part of Raymond Chandler is evidenced by an article that appeared in the New York Post revealing his contact with a publisher one day after it occurred.” [3]

In the attached article to the Motion the publisher named is indeed Judith Regan [3; page 41].

Ray Chandler, in making his claim that he should be protected by the Shield Law states in the Motion that he traveled to Los Angeles “within two days after the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal became public in August of 1993″ [3; page 8] and from late August through December of 1993 lived in the Los Angeles home of Evan and Jordan Chandler with the intent of gathering information about the molestation allegations and then publicly disseminating that information [3; page 13].

Ray Chandler’s Motion makes it clear that from the very beginning of the child molestation scandal the Chandlers planned to publish a book about it. Please take note of this fact when you consider the Chandlers’ arguments as to why they did not want to testify against Jackson in a criminal court. They claimed they wanted to move on with their lives and not subject Jordan to media spotlight and the scrutiny that would have been unavoidable in a high profile case. They also claimed they received several death threats from Michael Jackson fans and since Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti refused to put the family into the Witness Protection Program, they were afraid for their lives.

However, it seems the Chandlers were alright with being in the media spotlight to promote their book and discuss the allegations contained in that book (as opposed to moving on with their lives). They even were apparently willing to accept the risk of potentially being threatened by Michael Jackson fans further because of that book and the allegations contained therein, although it was unacceptable to testify in a criminal court and subject themselves to cross-examination about these very allegations.

Ray Chandler eventually published his book entitled All That Glitters in September of 2004 at the height of the media frenzy caused by the Arvizo allegations lodged against Jackson. The book quotes Evan excessively and relies heavily on his account of the events which allegedly occurred in 1993. Ray Chandler also made his rounds in the media in 2003-2005, giving superficial interviews where no hardball questions were asked and appearing in biased documentaries. Additionally, he set-up what is now a defunct website specifically about the Chandlers’ allegations against Jackson.

The website claimed to have published documents which would “prove” Jackson’s guilt but in reality, the documents only re-stated the Chandlers’ and their legal representatives’ allegations, allegations which were never cross-examined or proven.

Additionally, according to Geraldine Hughes, who was employed as a legal secretary for Barry Rothman, the Chandlers’ attorney during the 1993 allegations, some of the documents on Ray Chandler’s website even appeared to be forgeries. Case in point, correspondence between Rothman and other parties appearing on the website bear the signature of the parties and initials of the secretary who typed them. However, Geraldine Hughes stated to the MJEOL website that although they bear her initials as the typist, she never typed some of those documents. Additionally, she stated some signatures bore little resemblance to Rothman’s and one document was posted unsigned. Hughes told to MJEOL:

“When I review the documents that he [Ray Chandler] has on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents, even though they bear my initials as the typist, I DID NOT TYPE THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. Several of these documents have been manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature of my attorney Barry Rothman.” [4]

Here are the signatures as they appeared on the documents published on Ray Chandler’s website:

signatures-of-rothman

In addition to Ray Chandler being very active in the media before and during Jackson’s 2005 trial, he also appeared in several interviews in and around 1998 in connection with a lawsuit his brother, Evan brought against Jackson regarding the 1995 Diane Sawyer interview [for details see this article].

It should be noted that the only Chandler ever to testify in a court and be subjected to cross-examination regarding their allegations against Michael Jackson was Jordan’s mother, June Chandler. On April 11, 2005 June Chandler testified as a prosecution witness in regards to the time her son spent with Jackson in 1993. June Chandler was asked about the details of the legal proceedings afterwards but during the trial she never testified that she witnessed molestation or any inappropriate touching. She also told the court that she had not seen Jordan for 11 years. (Jordan legally emancipated himself from both of his parents in 1995.)

The rest of the Chandler family, including Jordan himself, never testified against Jackson in a court of law  and were never cross-examined . As we discuss in detail in our article about the settlement, only a civil case can be settled out of court and no settlement can prohibit any party from testifying in a criminal court. In actuality, in 1994 the criminal investigation went on even after the settlement and the prosecution tried hard to convince the Chandlers to testify in a criminal court and though they could have they were unwilling. In actuality, Santa Barbara Disttrict Attorney, Thomas Sneddon even extended the statue of limitations in the Chandler case, so Jordan Chandler could have decided to testify against Jackson in a criminal court basically at any time he had wanted, but he was unwilling. [5]

During the 2005 People vs. Jackson trial, the prosecution once again attempted to get Jordan Chandler to testify on the stand in support of their case but Jordan, just as his uncle, Ray Chandler, once again declined. Instead of presenting evidence and testifying for the prosecution against Jackson in court, Ray Chandler chose to write a book, give interviews to the media and post questionable documents on his website; all this, despite being given the opportunity to testify against Jackson by none other than Jackson’s defense!

Court documents from 2004 reveal that on September 19, 2004, just a week after Ray Chandler released his book to the public, he was served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum (a request for the production of evidence) and a Trial Subpoena (a demand for personal appearance at trial and the production of documents) by Jackson’s defense. Since Ray Chandler alleged in his book, in television interviews and on his website that he had evidence of Jackson’s guilt, the entertainer’s defense wanted him to appear before the court, produce that evidence and subject himself to cross-examination. However, Ray Chandler, rather than take this opportunity to help finally convict a person he alleged had molested his nephew, instead fought tooth and nail against the subpoena.

An objection was filed with the Santa Barbara Court by Ray Chandler’s lawyers, Herb Fox and Peter Bezek, on October 25, 2004:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504verobjsnonpty.pdf

The document objects to the Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Jackson’s defense on September 19, 2004. The subpoena requested that Ray Chandler produce “all documents constituting, evidencing, concerning, discussing or mentioning” the alleged relationship between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler; all documents of communication between Ray Chandler and any other person discussing Michael Jackson; all documents of communication between Ray Chandler and enforcement agency, governmental entity, police personnel, Sheriff’s personnel, Child Protective Services where Michael Jackson or Jordan Chandler has been mentioned; all documents of communication between Ray Chandler and Jordan Chandler, and between Ray Chandler and Evan Chandler concerning the allegations against Michael Jackson; all documents and interview recordings concerning or relating to Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters; and all documents concerning the printing, distribution, promotion or sale of the book. Additionally there were two requests made about Ray Chandler’s assumed connection to a public relations agency, Tellem Worldwide, which also had the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office among their clients. [6]

Ray Chandler objected to all of these requests based on the following arguments: the request is either “overboard and burdensome”, or the “documents are public documents readily available to the Defendant”, or “to the extent that any of these documents are unpublished they are protected from compelled production by the journalists’ Shield Law”, or producing the documents “will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” or are “irrelevant to the issues in this case” or the request is “an invasion of privacy”. [6]

In his Motion Ray Chandler admitted that the majority of his documents are magazine articles and court pleadings. To the point where Ray Chandler was requested to provide all documents of communication between him and any enforcement agency, governmental entity, police personnel, Sheriff’s personnel, Child Protective Services where Michael Jackson or Jordan Chandler has been mentioned, the Motion answered: “Raymond Chandler objects to producing these documents on the ground that they are not relevant to the subject matter at hand in that none of these documents contain any information regarding any claims of child molestation or defenses to such claims.” [6]

For details please see the above referenced document which is seven pages long and for even more details of how Ray Chandler objected to the subpoena see the 70 paged Motion drafted by his lawyers, which was likewise filed on October 25, 2004 with the Santa Barbara Court: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

In this longer document, Ray Chandler’s lawyers also argue that the the Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the 1993 allegations, therefore “it is not yet known” if Chandler’s book, tapes and the documents upon which the book is based are relevant to the instant criminal prosecution. [3]

Although the Court had indeed not yet ruled on the admissibility of the 1993 allegations at the time, the prosecutors were working in the direction of trying to get those allegations introduced, including contacting Jordan Chandler in September of 2004. Jordan not only told them he was not interested in testifying against Jackson, according to Jackson’s FBI files released after the singer’s death in 2009, he also advised the prosecutors that “he would legally fight any attempt” to make him testify against Jackson [7]. Additionally, Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau stated in an interview that had Jordan Chandler come in to testify in 2005, he had witnesses prepared to testify that Jordan privately admitted to them that Jackson never molested or touched him inappropriately [8].

We do not know whether Ray Chandler knew about this or not but had the Chandlers wanted the 1993 allegations introduced in 2005 and discussed in court in detail, they could have had them introduced simply by agreeing to testify. Of course, at this time they would have also been subject to cross-examination for the first time.

In actuality, even with Jordan’s and Ray’s refusal to testify, the 1993 allegations eventually were introduced to court in 2005 through the so called “prior bad acts” provision. However, Ray Chandler did not testify and did not subject himself, his claims or his alleged evidence to cross-examination even then.

In the 70 paged long Motion, Ray Chandler’s lawyers also request, should the Court decline to grant their Motion to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum, that the Court review the documents (which according to them “include several thousand pages of newspaper and magazine clippings, copies of deposition transcripts and court pleadings, and approximately six to eight hours of tape recordings” [3]) in camera “to determine which documents, if any, should be provided to the Defendant for review and copying” [3]. In camera literally means “in chambers” and it “refers to a hearing or inspection of documents that takes places in private, often in a Judge’s chambers” [9]. It allows the judge to review the documents in private, with the exclusion of spectators and jurors, before determining its admissibility in open court.

In answer to Ray Chandler’s objection to the subpoena, in a Motion filed on November 5, 2004, Jackson’s defense argued that Ray Chandler was not a journalist since he was not engaged “in any news gathering activities as a reporter, editor, publisher or person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication”. Therefore, it was argued, “he is not entitled to protection under the Shield law”, and that he is a witness to the 1993-94 events who cannot withhold unpublished information [10]. For details see the document here: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/110504mjoppmotchandsub.pdf

On November 8, 2004 Ray Chandler’s lawyers filed an Answer in which Ray Chandler stated he was the owner of Windsong Press, the company which published his book, All That Glitters and therefore again, protected by the Shield Law. He also stated he was not an eyewitness to the alleged crimes in 1993 [11]. For details see the document here: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/1108043rdptyrcrepdftopp.pdf

Eventually the Judge decided that Chandler was indeed protected by the Shield law and so he did not have to present his documents in court and did not have to testify.

From our point of view whether Ray Chandler technically was really a journalist or not and entitled to be protected by the Shield law is a side issue. The more important point is the fact that Ray Chandler was not at all willing to testify against Jackson, to present his alleged evidence against him in a court of law or do anything at all to help convict the alleged molester of his nephew. In actuality, he vehemently fought against repeating his allegations in a court of law and having this alleged evidence subjected to cross-examination. Instead he chose to make those allegations in a book, on his website and in media interviews he gave. The above documents also demonstrate that, ironically, it was Jackson’s defense who fought to bring Ray Chandler and his alleged evidence to court.

Sources:

[1] Judith Regan on Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations on SIRIUS XM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM&feature=player_embedded

[2] Protecting Unpublished Information and Confidential Sources (thefirstamendment.org)
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html

[3] Notice of motion and motion of third party Raymond Chandler to quash subpoenas and/or in camera review; authorities; declaration of Raymond Chandler (October 25, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

[4] Hughes Responds to Ray Chandler – MJEOL Bullet #197
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/hughes-responds-to-ray-chandler-mjeol-bullet-197.html

[5] Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001
“Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn’t run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.”

[6] Verified objections by non party Raymond Chandler to Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum (October 25, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504verobjsnonpty.pdf

[7] Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view (page 4)

[8] Michael Jacskon was Innocent – Tom Mesereau talks about how Jordan Chandler Lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0

[9] In camera (The Lectric Law Library)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i018.htm

[10] Mr.Jackson’s opposition to motion to quash Chandler subpoena and declaration of counsel (November 5, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/110504mjoppmotchandsub.pdf

[11] Third party, Raymond Chandler’s reply to defendant’s opposition to motion to quash (November 8, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/1108043rdptyrcrepdftopp.pdf

Comments are closed

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?

On December 20, 1993 Michael Jackson was subjected to a humiliating strip search in which his genitalia and buttocks were photographed and videofilmed. Authorities wanted to compare the photos with the descriptions his accuser, Jordan Chandler gave to the police in order to prove his allegations regarding alleged acts of molestation by Michael Jackson.

Later District Attorney Thomas Sneddon claimed that Jordan’s description was a match. On May 25 2005, about a week before the end of Michael Jackson’s four month long trial, Sneddon attempted to introduce Jordan Chandler’s description and drawing as well as the photographs of Jackson’s genitalia. In the Motion Sneddon claimed:

“The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could have or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I believe Chandler’s graphic representation of the discolored area on Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.”

[…]

“Jordan Chandler’s knowledge on December 1, 1993 is relevant because it could only have been acquired in the course of a close and intimate relationship with Defendant.” [1]

This one mark is all Sneddon’s motion mentions – nothing about any other features in either Jordan’s description or on the photos. It is because out of the whole description he could find only one mark as “matching” (according to his own assessment at least) and even that only as “about” and “relatively”?

What the use of the expression “I believe” means in legal terms is shown in the same document where Sneddon makes his legal declaration:

“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and to those statements, I believe them to be true.” [1]

(Emphasis added.)

The timing of Sneddon’s move – it seemed to have been a last minute, desperate attempt to try to prejudice the jury after both the Arvizo case and the “prior bad acts” case against Jackson fell apart – and the fact that Jordan Chandler refused to testify in 2005, so he could not be cross-examined, made it very unlikely that Judge Rodney Melville would allow the introduction of this material, and indeed he did not.

Initial media reports after the 1993 strip search (for example, Reuters, USA Today in January 1994), citing law enforcement sources, stated that the boy’s description did not match the photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia. The claim that the photos matched the description spread through the media only later – particularly after an interview Sneddon gave to Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth in September 1995 where he claimed the photographs matched Jordan’s description [2].

Interestingly, Dr. Richard Strick, the doctor who was present at the strip search from the authorities’ side, indicated in an interview with Fox News in October 2009 that he did not come to a conclusion on his own, but rather someone else told him later that it was a match.

“The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described” [3].

(Emphasis added.)

Based on his statement it seems Dr. Strick did not actually see Jordan’s description and drawing; he was only told that there was a match. This is odd; as a medical professional, hired by the authorities to be present at the strip search, one would expect that he would have been asked to make the determination. It is unknown who told Dr. Strick that there was a match but all claims of this nature seem to point to Sneddon as a source. Sneddon, however, cannot be considered an unbiased source given his decade long malice against Jackson. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, for example, he made many claims in his motions which then were proven to be false on the stand – often by his own witnesses. Sneddon’s motions were often clearly deceptive.

Putting aside why Dr. Strick was not involved in making a determination and who exactly later told him that the description was a match, the fact that Jackson was not arrested after the strip search and indicted by any of the two Grand Juries which were convened against him, indicates that, despite Sneddon’s claims, there was no match.

There are further indications that there was no match. In early January 1994, Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing Jordan Chandler, filed a motion with the Civil Court that contained a “multiple choice request”. On January 5, 1994 the Los Angeles Times reported:

“Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.” [4]

So Jordan Chandler’s attorney sought to get the photographs barred from the civil trial as evidence. Feldman said he filed the motion because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs. However, it is a logical expectation that if Feldman was certain that his client was telling the truth then he would have been certain that the photographs would support and not harm his case. Instead of giving the option of barring the photographs from the court, if Feldman was confident in his client’s story, he should have fought to have them introduced.

This action refutes the notion that Jackson settled the civil case out of court with the Chandlers because the photographs matched Jordan’s description. In actuality, Jordan Chandler’s attorney requested that the photographs be barred from the civil court in case his other two requests are not met.

Another indication that the Jordan Chandler description and photographs were a mismatch rather than a match is the fact that when Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson was called to testify in front of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in the spring of 1994, investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia. On March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote:

“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.” [5]

(Emphasis added.)

On January 6, 2005 The Smoking Gun website published an article in which they claimed to have reviewed an affidavit by former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department Deputy Deborah Linden, which “was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts” [6].

According to the article, based on Linden’s affidavit:

“With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.” [6]

If this is indeed what Jordan said, then his description may have been “precise” (as in detailed), but it certainly was not accurate.

We know that Jackson was not circumcised as per his autopsy, released in early 2010 [7]. However, it makes sense that if someone were trying to guess whether a particular American male was circumcised or uncircumcised, the more likely option would be “circumcised”, since the majority of American men are, regardless of religion, especially in older generations, like Jackson who was born in the 1950s [8]. It is also worth noting that Jordan’s father Evan Chandler was Jewish and Jordan himself is most likely circumcised. Michael Jackson, however, was not.

Some pro-prosecution journalists tried to excuse Jordan’s failure to accurately describe Jackson’s penis by suggesting that perhaps Jordan did not notice the difference between a fully erect uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one. However, the allegations of Jordan Chandler describe not only one occasion of alleged molestation, but a very intense series of sexual contacts, including seeing each other naked many times (including in the bath) and many masturbation sessions in front of each other. Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler claims in his book, All That Glitters, that his nephew saw Jackson’s genitalia many times, “from every possible angle”:

“The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.” [9; page 210]

If this was true, then Jordan certainly would have been able to tell that Jackson was uncircumcised, but he got the description wrong.

It has to be noted that Jordan apparently gave two descriptions. Sneddon’s Motion is confusing on this issue because although it refers to two dates for the description (September 1 and December 1), it does not explicitly state that there were two descriptions. However, Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, states that there was one description given in September to the DA (more precisely, based on Sneddon’s Motion, to Los Angeles District Attorney Deputy, Lauren Weis) and one in December in the office of Larry Feldman, Jordan Chandler’s civil attorney. In this regard, Ray Chandler claims in his book in the chapter entitled “December 14″:

“It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took.

The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later.” [9; page 210]

( Emphasis added.)

Notice how Ray Chandler talks about “numerous distinctive markings and discolorations” that Jordan described, but in Sneddon’s 2005 motion Sneddon pointed out only one as, according to his own assessment, being “at about the same relative location” as where Jordan put a marking on his drawing.  Whatever happened to the rest of the description?

Like many others, Ray Chandler too references Maureen Orth’s above mentioned 1995 interview with Sneddon, and as such Sneddon himself as the source of the claim that the description they “eventually arrived at” was accurate. Neither Sneddon’s Motion or Ray Chandler’s book explains why a second description was needed and if there are differences between the two.  It has to be noted that between September and December, on November 26, the offices of Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein and plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin were raided by the police and they confiscated medical records of the star.

Jordan Chandler’s description and drawing was no more than an educated guess. Educated because he and his family knew that Jackson suffered from the skin disease, vitiligo. The entertainer announced that to the world in February, 1993 in an interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey. One of the areas vitiligo affects the most is the genital area [10]. All of the Chandlers could also see discoloration on Jackson’s arms, hands and face. Additionally, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler, in All That Glitters, describes an event on the weekend starting with May 28, 1993, when Jackson stayed in the house of Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler. Evan apparently drugged the singer [for details see our article Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”]. In the story it is stated that Evan gave Jackson an injection into his gluteus [9; page 47], so Evan would have seen what Jackson’s buttocks looked like.

Among the documents which Victor Gutierrez presents in his book, entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover, and which documents apparently were given to him by either the Chandlers or by the Chandlers’ maid, Norma Salinas, there is a drawing which Gutierrez claims Jordan gave to his father [more about Gutierrez, his role in the allegations against Jackson and his possible connection with the Chandlers in this article]:

One of Jordan Chandler's alleged descriptions of Jackson's private parts from Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover

One of Jordan Chandler’s alleged descriptions of Jackson’s private parts from Victor Gutierrez’s book Michael Jackson Was My Lover

[11]

The drawing is dated October 24, 1993, and is probably not the actual drawing and description Jordan gave in December, but it appears to be some kind of draft or instructional rehearsal for that.

On the drawing you can see random notes of an alleged “cow-blotchy-pink/brown/not white but pink” skin. On the top you see “Mike circumcised / short pubic”, in the middle you can read “body oil stink” and below that “brown patch on ass / left glut” and further below “bleaching cream / Orietta”. In the little box on the right you can read “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”.

The rest of the text on the drawing is a graphic fantasy of alleged sexual acts involving Brett Barnes. Brett Barnes has always stated emphatically that Jackson never molested him and never touched him in any inappropriate way whatsoever. In 2005 he testified in support of the entertainer and said he was “very mad” at the insinuation that Jackson molested or inappropriately touched him [12].

As we discussed above, in reality Jackson was uncircumcised, but this diagram evidences that the Chandlers’ guess in 1993 was indeed, like The Smoking Gun article/Linden affidavit stated, that the singer was circumcised.

During the 2005 trial, the same drawing circulated in the media and on the Internet, only in a heavily edited fashion. It is not clear who edited it, but the fantasies involving Brett Barnes and the claim about Jackson’s penis being circumcised had been removed. Ray Chandler too fully avoids mentioning the inaccurate circumcision issue in his book that was published in 2004.

The redacted version of the description

The redacted version of the description

It was claimed the diagram was given to Evan Chandler by Jordan, so we are to believe that these notes were the words and writings of a 13-year-old.

However, based on the instructions (eg. “be selective”) and notes like “my theory” it rather seems to be an instructional brainstorming session speculating what Jackson’s private parts looked like. Why would they need to theorize on paper about it if Jordan definitively knew?

Remember that in his book Ray Chandler wrote that in May 1993 Evan injected Jackson in his gluteus. This puts notes like this: “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”, into perspective.

Additionally, consider the references to an “Orietta”. Jackson had a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. In an article in the September 2006 issue of the British GQ magazine it was claimed that Victor Gutierrez befriended many of Jackson’s employees, including Orietta Murdock [13]. Why would Jordan Chandler make references to her while describing Jackson’s private parts? Orietta Murdock no longer worked for Jackson when Jackson spent time with the Chandler family. The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez [for details about who Victor Guiterrez is and what his role is in the allegations against Jackson see this article].

The Chandlers only had to know that Jackson had vitiligo to assume that some kind of blemishes were probably on Jackson’s penis and also conclude, from Evan’s knowledge of how Jackson’s buttocks looked like, that there were discolorations on the lower parts of his body. In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.

“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”

 “Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

“That’s very good.”

“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]

(Emphasis added.)

(* The Lauren Weis, who is claimed to have told Larry Feldman that anything Jordan says about the blemishes is irrelevant because they are subject to changes, is the same Lauren Weis to whom Jordan gave his original description in September. She was the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney at the time. In All That Glitters she is also described as a good friend of Richard Hirsch, the attorney who represented Evan Chandler against the extortion charges filed by Jackson [9; page 165].)

In the chapter entitled “December 14” Ray Chandler writes:

“Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael’s penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael’s defense. And the poor beast was already swayback.

On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry’s case was solid as a rock and he didn’t need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.”[9; page 206]

 (Emphasis added.)

As you can see, the Chandlers cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to change and they were preparing excuses for themselves to explain why their description did not match the photographs. However, both the Chandlers and Sneddon failed to acknowledge that if vitiligo markings were subject to change then they are inadequate to prove Jackson’s guilt, especially considering the fact the Chandlers got the circumcision issue completely wrong.

It seems that Sneddon, like the Chandlers, tried to have it both ways: if there was something in that drawing that remotely guessed a location of a marking right (at least according to Sneddon’s own assessment) it would have been used against Jackson, while everything else would have been ignored and/or explained away by the fact that vitiligo markings were subject to change. As Larry Feldman put it: “It’s a no-loser for us”.

 Sources:

[1] Plaintiff’s motion to admit evidence that Jordan Chandler had knowledge of, and accurately described Defendant’s distinctively-blemished lower torso and penis in 1994; Declaration of Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr; Memorandum of points and authorities (May 25, 2005)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

[2] Maureen Orth – The Jackson Jive (Vanity Fair, September 1995)

[3] Craig Rivera’s interview with Dr. Richard Strick (Fox News, October 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrJTrgKR1o

[4] LOS ANGELES : Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body (Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1994)
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

[5] Jim Newton – Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify (Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1994)
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-16/local/me-34715_1_grand-jury

[6] The case against Michael Jackson – The Telltale “Splotch” (January 6, 2005)
After Jackson’s autopsy had been released to the public (which among others stated that the singer was not circumcised) The Smoking Gun deleted the article from their website.  For a secondary source see, for example: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

[7] Michael Jackson’s autopsy report as released in 2010
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson,%20michael_report.pdf (page 18)

[8] Cat Saunders – Circumcision in America (originally published in The New Times in October 2001)
http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/firstcut.html

[9] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

[10] Vitiligo Skin Disorder
http://www.curevitiligooil.com/Vitiligo-Skin-Disorder.html

[11] Victor Gutierrez – Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Alamo Square Dist Inc, 1996)

[12] Brett Barnes’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 5, 2005)

[13] Robert Sandall – Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Brtish GQ Magazine, September 2006)

Comments are closed

The Settlement

A frequently asked question regarding the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson is:

“If he was innocent why did he settle the first case out of court?”

To understand his possible reasons we have to understand the legal circumstances preceding and surrounding the settlement.

Michael Jackson and his accuser, Jordan Chandler, reached an out of court settlement on January 25, 1994. The settlement was illegally leaked to Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003, so we know the amount paid into a trust for Jordan Chandler was $15,331,250 [1; page 5]. (Note: Either Dimond or the person who leaked the document to her omitted the parts after the third paragraph. 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” at one point [3; page 194]).

As you can see the document emphasizes that it is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. On page 4 it states:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be considered as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked], or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked] have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful act against, the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked] or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.” [1; page 4]

One of the myths regarding this settlement is that “Michael Jackson bought his way out of a criminal indictment“. The fact is, however, the settlement resolved the civil proceedings, not the criminal. In fact, under American law one is not allowed to settle a criminal case. The criminal proceedings proceeded after this settlement and nothing in the settlement prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti said right after the Chandler settlement in January 1994:

“The criminal investigation of singer Michael Jackson is ongoing and will not be affected by the announcement of the civil case settlement,” Garcetti said. “The district attorney’s office is taking Mr. [Larry] Feldman [the Chandlers’ attorney] at his word that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.” [9]

The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money AND testified against Michael Jackson in a criminal case. They eventually chose not to but it was not because they were forbidden to do so by the settlement. They could have done so, however after the Chandlers received their settlement money (which was their goal from the beginning as we will show below), they were unwilling to co-operate with the authorities investigating the criminal proceedings and were unwilling to testify in a criminal court. The criminal case was convened before two Grand Juries (one in Los Angeles and one in Santa Barbara) in February/April of 1994. After a seven months of investigation, multiple house searches, interviews of dozens of children and other witnesses, police officers traveling all around the world to find corroborating victims and evidence, strip searching Jackson’s body, both Grand Juries determined that they had not seen sufficient evidence to indict Jackson. The prosecution claimed they were not really seeking indictment, that these were only “investigating Grand Juries”, however the fact remains two Grand Juries found that the prosecution had not discovered incriminating evidence during the investigations sufficient to secure an indictment.

The criminal proceedings were never the Chandler’s priority. Less than a month after psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams reported Jordan Chandler’s claims to the authorities on August 17, 1993, an act that automatically kick-started the criminal investigation, the Chandlers filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson accusing him of sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence. They demanded a recovery of $30 million. (Before taking Jordan to Dr. Abrams the Chandlers had already requested $20 million, which Jackson refused to comply with. Details here.)

Normally, civil complaints are only filed after criminal proceedings are completed and justice has been served. One would naturally expect the parents of a molested child to pursue justice and not money. Only a criminal trial can result in jail time for the perpetrator. At the end of a civil trial, the only restitution available is monetary.

Moreover, in his book All That Glitters the accuser’s uncle Ray Chandler reveals that what the Chandlers really wanted was a “highly profitable settlement” from the very beginning. They filed their civil lawsuit with a settlement in mind. Ray Chandler describes a meeting between the boy’s mother June Chandler, her then-husband David Schwartz and the boy’s biological father Evan Chandler in civil attorney Larry Feldman’s office on September 8, 1993 as follows:

“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.” [3; page 168]

(Emphasis added.)

Once again: this was before they even filed their civil lawsuit, which Larry Feldman did a couple of days later, now we know, with a settlement in mind. In actuality, according to Ray Chandler’s book and other sources as well (such as Mary A. Fischer’s article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”, GQ, October 1994) during that meeting Evan Chandler and David Schwartz had a physical fight over the settlement money they planned to ask for. The Chandlers reasoning for aiming at a settlement rather than a trial was that they wanted to avoid the trauma of a high profile trial.  We will address this claim later in this article.

It is very important to emphasize that it was the Chandler family who demanded a settlement from the very beginning and it was not Michael Jackson who offered it! In actuality, since early August, 1993 Evan Chandler demanded money from the star which Jackson refused to comply with and that is what resulted in the Chandlers going public with their allegations. Had Jackson wanted to “hush” the accuser he could have paid them off before they turned to authorities and to the public. Details in our article about the Chandlers Monetary Demands.

Between September 1993 and January 1994 the disagreement between Jackson’s attorneys and Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing the Chandlers was in regard to which proceedings should precede the other. Jackson’s attorneys wanted the criminal proceedings to go before the civil proceedings and losing this fight was basically what lead to the settlement.

In 2005, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler in an article he wrote for his now defunct website (atgbook.net) claimed that Jackson’s attorneys tried to postpone the the civil lawsuit for six years, until the statue of limitations on child abuse expired. This is all he said, leaving the impression that Jackson’s side just wanted to hinder the process. However that’s a misleading half-truth. In actuality, Jackson’s attorneys attempted to postpone the civil lawsuit to allow the criminal proceedings to be held ahead of the civil proceedings.
They did not try to hinder the criminal proceedings, in fact they tried to get them heard ahead of the civil proceedings.

The reason being if the civil trial is held before the criminal trial it can give the prosecution in the criminal trial a major advantage because they have the opportunity to monitor the civil trial and study the defense’s strategy. They can then, therefore, adjust their claims and strategy in kind. Furthermore, unlike in a criminal proceeding, where the defendant can constitutionally refuse to be deposed without consequence, a defendant in a civil trial cannot refuse to submit to a deposition free of consequence. The prosecution then can use the testimony from the civil deposition in the criminal trial and adjust their claims in kind.

In addition, the burden of proof, or the rules for admissibility of hearsay evidence in a civil trial are more relaxed than in a criminal trial. Jackson’s attorneys were certainly aware that a civil trial was riskier for a defendant, even if the defendant is innocent. And they knew that if Jackson lost the civil trial it could prejudice the jury in an upcoming criminal trial.

There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant’s right to a fair trial and preventing that right from being violated. According to precedent cases:

“When both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved.” [2; page 116-117]

However, in regards to the case against Michael Jackson, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman. Apparently, the Chandler’s trump card was Jordan’s age. Here is what Geraldine Hughes (the legal secretary of Barry Rothman, the attorney who represented the Chandlers before Larry Feldman took over), writes in her book entitled Redemption:

“Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson’s favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson’s attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant’s constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman’s trump card was, “a child’s memory is developing,” and their inability to, “remember like an adult.” This law was designed to protect a small child’s ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old.” [2; page 124]

Using this reasoning, Feldman filed a Motion for Trial Preference for the civil proceedings. “This is a special request to have the trial heard within 120 days after the motion is granted” [2; page 121]. In this regard, Hughes writes:

“Mr. Feldman filed a declaration by Dr. Evan Chandler in support of the Motion for Trial Preference which had one statement: that the child was under the age of 14. That was it! Dr. Chandler did not state anything else in his declaration, which is a written statement under oath declaring statements of truth. I have never seen a declaration concerning an important case this short in my entire legal career. A declarant will usually attest to several facts, especially concerning an important case like this one. They will also declare that said facts are true and correct and state their willingness to be called to competently testify under penalty of perjury. Is it possible that the information that Dr. Chandler declared was the only information he could competently testify under penalty of perjury?”[2; page 122]

Under extremely unfavorable conditions, Jackson and his attorneys might have found themselves in a position where they would have had to fight and defend Jackson on two fronts at the same time – in both a civil and criminal trial. On top of that they would have to prepare for a civil trial within 120 days, while the police for the criminal proceedings had seized all of Jackson’s personal records and refused to provide copies or even a list of what they took. “The District Attorney’s office was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights, and the Court was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy [2; page 133].”

After all motions to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal had been denied, the Jackson team was left between a rock and a hard place. The start of the civil trial was set for March, 1994 and Jackson was to be deposed at the end of January, beginning of February.

The Chandler’s motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics”, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings heard ahead of the civil proceedings. Ray Chandler, in his book, All That Glitters, quotes a conversation that took place between Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler and their civil attorney, Larry Feldman and it proves that they were the ones utilizing delay tactics with regards to criminal proceedings:

“Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.”

No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.”

“Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.”

Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now.

“You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
“Yeah.”
“Jesus Christ!”
“Right! So we don’t want that.” [3; page 201-202]

It must be reiterated that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award.

The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. 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 Jackson’s 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo, could not use the same strategy as what the Chandlers did in 1993. He had no choice but to begin a criminal trial first:

“The prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case praised a law that can halt civil lawsuits during related criminal cases, saying it would prevent a scenario where the singer’s accuser accepted a settlement and then refused to testify in the criminal trial.

The state law was passed because another child backed out of a 1993 molestation case against Jackson after the singer reportedly paid him a multimillion settlement, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said.

“It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney’s office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation,” Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview.” [4]

The hostile media campaign against Michael Jackson might have also contributed to a decision to settle. Tabloid shows paid people for sensational stories that supported the allegations. Several of those people were to be used by the Chandlers in the civil case. The combined stress of a legal proceeding and the media backlash led to a dependency on painkillers for which Michael Jackson eventually sought professional help. Business partners and advisers urged him to put the matter out of his mind and get on with his life and business.

It has also been suggested that Jackson settled because the strip search in December 1993 supported his accuser’s claims. This does not hold water and is fully addressed in a separate post here.

While Jackson’s motives for the settlement are often questioned, it’s a much less frequently asked question (although it would be similarly valid to ask): why did the accuser’s family settle? Had your child been molested would you want justice or money?

The Chandlers themselves claim they settled because they wanted to move on with their lives and not subject Jordan to media spotlight and scrutiny that would have been unavoidable in a high profile case and trial such as this. They also claimed they received several death threats from Michael Jackson fans and since Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti refused to put the family to the Witness Protection Program, they were afraid for their lives. At first this seems reasonable, however Evan Chandler did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight and possible fan reaction when in his taped phone conversation with David Schwartz (the boy’s step father) in July, 1993 (BEFORE his son allegedly “confessed” to him!) he said of his attorney, Barry Rothman:

“[T]his 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, and he’s got a bad [tape irregularity]…[5]

Ray Chandler tries to excuse this quote in his book by claiming that when Evan said Rothman wanted to “get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can” he actually meant going to court, not to the media. The same claim is made about when on the same tapes Evan says of Rothman:

“He is nasty, he is mean, he is very smart [tape irregularity], and he’s hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him. [5]

However, there are some additional facts to consider regarding the Chandler’s intentions with publicity.

The Chandlers did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight, possible fan reaction, threats and Jordan not being able to move on with his life when when within days after the settlement they were shopping a book they have written about the allegations. Publisher Judith Regan:

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So 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?”[6]

That Ray Chandler was indeed shopping a book “within days” after the settlement was signed, is confirmed by none other than Ray Chandler himself in a Motion he filed with the Santa Barbara Court on October 25, 2004. [More about why this Motion was filed in our article entitled Ray Chandler’s Subpoena in 2004.] In support of his argument that he should be protected by the Shield Law Ray Chandler disclosed in that Motion ([7]; page 8):

“Within days after Jordan Chandler’s civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public. Such intent on the part of Raymond Chandler is evidenced by an article that appeared in the New York Post revealing his contact with a publisher one day after it occurred.” [7]

Ray Chandler, in making his claim that he should be protected by the Shield Law states in the Motion that he traveled to Los Angeles “within two days after the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal became public in August of 1993″ ([7]; page 8) and from late August through December of 1993 lived in the Los Angeles home of Evan and Jordan Chandler with the intent of gathering information about the molestation allegations and then publicly disseminating that information ([7]; page 13).

Ray Chandler eventually published his book in 2004 at the height of the media frenzy caused by the Arvizo allegations. Ray Chandler made his rounds in the media, giving interviews and appearing in documentaries heavily biased against Jackson. Obiously not concerned about media spotlight and not afraid of possible threats by Jackson fans.

Evan Chandler did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight, possible fan reaction, threats and Jordan not being able to move on with his life when he filed another lawsuit against Michael Jackson in 1996, this time for $60 million and a record deal so that he could release an album about the alleged sexual molestation of his son, titled “EVANstory” . According to the lawsuit “This album will include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”: “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs”. [8]

The lawsuit got thrown out of Court in 2000.

Sources:

[1] Out of court settlement between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler (January 25, 1994) as leaked to and/or by Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003
1993civilsettlementagreement

[2] Geraldine Hughes – Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (Hughes Publishing, January 2004)

[3] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[4] Linda Deutsch – Prosecutor says law won’t allow Jackson to pay off accuser before trial (Boston.com/Associated Press, November 20, 2003)
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/jackson_case.htm 

[5] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993)
schwartz_chandler

[6] Judith Regan on Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations on SIRIUS XM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM&feature=player_embedded

[7] Notice of motion and motion of third party Raymond Chandler to quash subpoenas and/or in camera review; authorities; declaration of Raymond Chandler (October 25, 2004)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

[8] Evan Chandler files another lawsuit against Michael Jackson on May 7, 1996 demanding $60 million and a record deal (Court TV Online, Legal Documents)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

[9] Jackson Settles Abuse Suit but Insists He Is Innocent : Courts: Singer will reportedly pay $15 million to $24 million to teen-ager. Criminal investigation will proceed. (Los Angeles Times, January 26, 1994)
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

Comments are closed

The Media’s Role In The Allegations Against Michael Jackson

While the prosecution, both in 1993 and in 2005, struggled to find credible corroborating “victims” in support of their case against Michael Jackson, much of the media, rather than report impartial and factual events, corrupted the legal proceedings by offering monetary rewards to people who were willing to make up slanderous lies about Jackson and his relationship with children. In this article we will show you some examples of what is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Those who were tempted, but resisted

During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Fox News’ Roger Friedman met with a family, the Newts, who told  him that when Jackson’s first scandal went public in 1993, the National Enquirer offered them $200,000 to say that in the 1980s the then 11-year-old twin boys of the family had been molested or improperly touched by Jackson.

In the mid-80s the twin boys, Robert and Ronald Newt Jr. were aspiring child performers, managed by Michael Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson. The Newts explained that the National Enquirer had learned that in 1985 they spent two weeks in the Jackson’s Encino family home as guests. They approached the family and offered the boys’ father, Ronald Newt Sr. $200,000 to say Michael Jackson was sexually inappropriate with his sons.

Robert Newt was 18 years old in 1993 when he and his father were contacted by a National Enquirer reporter, Jim Mitteager, whom they agreed to meet with at the Marriot Hotel in San Francisco. Mitteager wanted to pay them to lie.

“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'”

[…]

“My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.” [1]

According to Friedman, the Newts had evidence of their story, the contract that was given to them by Mitteager and signed by David Perel, who was the editor of the tabloid at the time. The Newts refused to sign the contract and told the tabloid that they were not willing to accuse Jackson of anything.

“The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.” [1]

According to Robert Newt, Mitteager knew nothing had happened but wanted them to lie nevertheless:

He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

[…]

“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.” [1]

Friedman had another piece of evidence, independent from the Newts, to back up their story: Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. After he died, his tapes were handed over to private investigator, Paul Barresi. Those tapes, according to Friedman, included Mitteager’s negotiations with the Newts.

The Newts’ story is not unique and could be considered the norm in the media’s handling of the allegations against Michael Jackson. In 1993, Jackson’s cousin, Tim Whitehead disclosed to Geraldo Riveira’s television show that he was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say Jackson was gay. In the same episode, television show actor Alfonso Ribeiro, who as a child in 1984 appeared in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson (and who is best known for his role as Carlton in the Will Smith sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air) told that his father “was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson”. Whitehead and Ribeiro firmly stated that they never saw Jackson act sexually inappropriate with any child and they never felt uncomfortable around him. [2]

Not everyone resisted the temptation of the money being offered by the tabloids. Many of these people, however, were quickly ruled out as credible witnesses even by this prosecution’s low standard for credibility.

Daniel Kapon

In 2003, Daniel Kapon was 18 years old when he, accompanied by his mother, contacted the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department claiming he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson when he was a child. The young man was represented by Gloria Allred, an attorney who also represented the Chandlers for a short period of time in 1993. The claim was that Kapon had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. The psychiatrist who helped Kapon “remember” was Dr. Carole Lieberman. Allred and Lieberman had filed earlier complaints against Jackson for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. [3]

The police interviewed the boy but they did not find him credible. He described horrendously sadistic acts, kept changing his story and he claimed impossibilities. Most importantly, when the police contacted Kapon’s father, they learned the boy had never even met Michael Jackson.

On May 28, 2004 the police closed the investigation stating “after an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought”. [4]

After the police closed their investigation, Kapon sold his story to the tabloid publication, News of the World. Reportedly, the tabloid paid him $500,000 for an approximate half hour video tape where he described the alleged abuse in graphic detail [5]. On May 30, 2004 the paper printed the story of Kapon’s allegations, but failed to mention that the police had already investigated his claims and did not find them credible.The article was published two days after the police released the statement stating that the case had been closed but at the end of the article, the journalist claimed that the investigation in Kapon’s case was actually ongoing [6].

Kapon also filed a civil complaint against Jackson. In his case, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, he claimed that a number of Jackson’s hit songs had been stolen from him, including songs on Jackson’s Bad album which was released in 1987. In 1987, Kapon was two years old. Kapon also claimed that he fathered the singer’s two eldest children; that his mother appeared in Jackson’s Thriller video and that Jackson was “madly in love” with her; that “his mother married Jackson multiple times, and testified that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyonce Knowles and Diana Ross” [7].

Daniel Kapon did not show up at start of the civil trial and the case was thrown out of court in January 2008.

Joseph Bartucci Jr.

Another accuser who, as it later turned out never even met Jackson, was a man called Joseph Bartucci Jr. Although he did not go to tabloids and “only” filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, we will briefly discuss him in this article because his case has similarities to Kapon’s in terms of absurdity.

In 2004 Bartucci filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson claiming the star kidnapped and molested him in New Orleans between May 19 and May 27, 1984. Bartucci alleged that Jackson cut him, licked the blood off of his arm and proceeded to snort coke off of the laceration – all while raping him. Bartucci was 18 years old at the time of the alleged assault. As an explanation for why he waited until 2004, twenty years later to report this kidnapping, he too cited “repressed memories” that he claimed he only recalled when he heard that Thomas Sneddon was calling for alleged victims to come forward in November, 2003.

Jackson was not in New Orleans but in California at the time of the alleged assault, a fact that could be easilly proven by the entertainer’s attorneys, so Judge Eldon Fallon tossed the lawsuit. It also emerged that Bartucci was, as Judge Fallon put it, a “professional litigator”. He had been involved in 18 civil and criminal suits over the previous 17 years and had also formally accused a minister of sexual abuse [8].

According to The Smoking Gun website, in 1996 Bartucci was arrested for stalking a woman: “According to court records, Bartucci took a plea to a reduced count of harassment and was fined, sentenced to probation, and hit with a 90-day suspended jail term.” [9]

Terry George

Terry George never filed a lawsuit against Jackson and in fact never reported his allegations to authorities but he was a frequent source for British tabloid stories in the wake of the 1993 Chandler scandal and has since been at their disposal whenever a fictitious story about Michael Jackson being inappropriate with children is required.

George, a disc jockey at the time, gained notoriety on August 29, 1993 when only six days after the Chandler case was first reported by the media, he appeared in British tabloids claiming that Jackson had been inappropriate with him in 1979, when Jackson was 20 and he was 13 years old.

George was a celebrity-obsessed teenager who regularly sought out celebrities, sneaked into their hotels to meet them, asked for their autographs and hoarded photos and taped interviews of them. As an adult George, who now amongst other businesses, runs a gay adult phone chat service, still likes to present himself as someone associated with celebrities. According to George, he met Michael Jackson in a hotel in February of 1979 while the Jacksons were on tour in the UK. He actually taped an interview with Michael and his brother, Randy, which was later aired on local radio stations. After the interview, George claimed, Michael Jackson asked for his telephone number and Jackson then regularly called him for about three months. George alleged that during these phone calls Jackson was once inappropriate with him, speaking about masturbation and masturbating while he was on the phone with him.

In the article it is claimed that the phone contact ended when George’s parents realized that he had run up a high telephone bill calling the US. George then tried to reach Jackson from a phone box but claimed that Jackson would not take his calls: according to one of the original 1993 tabloid articles “it became clear his superstar friend didn’t want to know” [10].

George, however, kept stalking Jackson. According to the article, “the final rejection came four years later when Terry tried to rekindle their friendship when Jackson came to London again. Terry tracked him down and was even photographed alongside his idol, but now the management were on hand to issue the polite brush-off.” [10]

In the article George concludes that Jackson rejected him because he was no longer a child, however this contradicts the earlier claim that Jackson actually refused to take his phone calls four years earlier, when George was still 13.

In a 2003 documentary made by British broadcaster, Louis Theroux, George spoke about his alleged “friendship” with Jackson. George proudly recalled his phone conversations with Jackson as a happy and joyful experience. It is Theroux who brings up his 1993 tabloid allegation that Jackson was inappropriate with him on the phone. George is reluctant to talk about that and claims what was printed “came out really without my authority”. When Theroux asks him if the story was true, George claims “parts of it are true” but adds that papers twisted and sensationalized it. Then, after stating he did not want to talk about that because “it is well documented in the papers”, he tries to go back to discussing what a great “friendship” he had with Jackson. [11]

Unfortunately the contradiction between the story being “well documented” in the papers and the claim that papers twisted and sensationalized it, is not resolved in the interview and George makes no attempt to make it clear what parts of the story, according to his current position, are true and what parts are not.

In the Theroux interview, George also says that it is unfortunate that the focus of the media has been on this small detail of the story, when they had such a great “friendship” otherwise. We are to believe that when George went to the tabloid media with these claims, six days after the Chandler allegations became public, he did not know what impact this story would have and what people would focus on. In actuality, it is safe to say that this hook, the masturbation claim, is just what George needed to include in his story to be picked up and printed by the tabloid media at all and to lend George national and international notoriety. Why did he make his allegations in the tabloids, which are known to pay money for such claims, instead of contacting the prosecutors in the Chandler case?

In January 2005, on his website George criticized tabloids for rehashing his story from 1993 and claiming that he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Despite this criticism and George’s claim to Theroux that the original story had been released without his authority, sensationalized by the media and that the “small detail” about the alleged masturbation had received disproportionate attention, in February 2005, shortly after Jackson’s trial began, George appeared in Martin Bashir’s slanderous documentary entitled Michael Jackson’s Secret World and rehashed the original story that was printed in the tabloids in 1993, adding even more focus on the masturbation claim.

Although the tabloid articles in 1993 claimed that George was ready to help investigators in the Chandler case, he never did. Based on Jackson’s FBI files, the FBI monitored George’s claims in the tabloid media, but then the prosecution never used him. Either the prosecution did not consider him credible and/or he was not willing to repeat his claims under oath and subject himself to a cross-examination about them. In 2005, on his website, he vehemently denied media reports that claimed he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Instead of testifying at Jackson’s trial and subjecting himself to cross-examination he chose to smear Jackson in the media and in Bashir’s documentary. His platform to make allegations against the star was always only the media and mainly the tabloids which are known to pay money for such allegations. George never testified about his claims under oath and was never cross-examined about them.

In 2009, in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, George once again made his rounds in the British tabloids, now posing as a “friend” of the star and recounting stories with very questionable credibility. According to a June 28, 2009 Mirror article, George conveniently claimed that just before his death Jackson called him to apologize and they made up. “He phoned me out of the blue and we both made our peace about what had happened in the past. I’ve forgiven him for what happened” [12]. Not surprisingly, he had no evidence for this alleged phone call and once again we are just supposed to take George’s word for it.

George used the opportunity to make false statements in order to promote a website he set up in 2005, Gone Too Soon, curiously bearing the name of a Michael Jackson song, although it has no association with the star.

“Terry also revealed that Jacko had taken a strong interest in the website he’d founded, Gonetoosoon.org – where users post tributes to people who die young.

“He had been on the site and said he was touched to see some of the messages,” he said. “It had left him very sad and emotional.” [12]

No other child has ever claimed that Jackson masturbated while on the phone. Several recordings exist of private phone conversations Jackson had with children, as people often taped their telephone conversations with him without his knowledge and consent, but no tapes have shown that Jackson ever behaved inappropriately with children. On the contrary, all of his taped phone conversations with children are very child-like and innocent. Terry George could never present evidence for his claims either (consider that he often taped his conversations with celebrities), though there is plenty evidence of his opportunism.

Prosecution witnesses sponsored by tabloids

Although the likes of Kapon, Bartucci and George never made it on the stand, the prosecution did not shy away from using people who were previously paid money by tabloids. Most of the people called in support of the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” allegations at Jackson’s 2005 trial were these types of witnesses. We will discuss them in detail in a seperate article later on this website. Here we only note that Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool all had to admit on the stand that they were paid money by the tabloid media. Phillip LeMarque also admitted to have asked tabloids for $100,000 and then $500,000 for his story. Jackson’s former public relations man, Bob Jones wrote a sensationalist book about the star – admittedly to make money because he was broke. On the stand he admitted that the salacious story about Jordan Chandler and Jackson that he included in the book (the reason why he was called to testify) was not true. This made prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss, who did his questioning, argumentative with the witness and he made attempts to impeach him. Remember, Jones was the prosecution’s own witness!

There are former employees who did not appear at Jackson’s trial as prosecution witnesses but instead made their rounds in the media and were richly compensated for making slanderous claims. The “Hayvenhurst 5”, as dubbed by the media, was a group of bodyguards (Leroy Thomas, Morris Williams, Donald Starks, Fred Hammond, Aaron White) who formally worked at the Jackson family’s Encino home. In November 1993 they went to Diane Dimond’s televised news program, Hard Copy and claimed they were fired because they “knew too much” about Jackson’s relationship with children. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 GQ Magazine article:

“Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.”[13]

The bodyguards never reported to authorities that they saw any inappropriate behavior by Jackson towards children. In fact, in depositions given to the police they admitted they never saw anything inappropriate. Their lawsuit was thrown out of court in July, 1995.

A Filipino couple, Mariano “Mark” and Ofelia “Faye” Quindoy, who worked for Jackson between 1989 and 1990, sold stories to the tabloid media in 1993 in the wake of the Chandler allegations, claiming that they quit because they were so disturbed by what they witnessed Jackson do with children. However, they were not disturbed enough to report what they saw to the authorities. In actuality, a lawsuit they filed against Jackson claiming he owed them $283,000 in overtime reveals that the real reason they left their employment with Jackson was because of disagreement about their wages and conflicts with other employees.

The Quindoys gave a television interview about a year before the Chandler scandal, in which they never mentioned any impropriety by Jackson towards children. In that interview they described Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. [2]

Additionally, in 1992 the couple was also interviewed by Allan Hall, a reporter from the British tabloid, The Sun. Hall also attested to the fact that at the time they had nothing bad to say about Jackson:

“The Sun drew up a contract for $25,000 and I spent some time with them in Los Angeles doing the Life and Times with Michael Jackson… [They] didn’t have a bad word to say about the guy, not one bad thing… Nothing, absolutely nothing. That he was just a kind man with children.” [14]

Hall remarked:

“They are two people that I would not trust at all. And I think that they have really gone to town to do Michael Jackson down for the mighty dollar. Now they see money being offered around again and they want some more.” [14]

In 1993, the Quindoys’ own nephew, Glen Veneracion, a law student at the time, came forward and denounced his aunt and uncle as opportunists:

“I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.” 

[…]

“What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.” [2]

At the time, Veneracion said he would be willing to testify against his relatives if the case went to court.

After the Chandler case went public in 1993 the Quindoys did not contact authorities but went to tabloids instead with their new allegations. In the 1994 documentary Tabloid Truth Diane Dimond revealed first the Quindoys wanted $900,000 for their story then they went down to $500,000. News of The World reporter, Stuart White disclosed in the same documentary that from his paper the Quindoys wanted about $250,000. [14]

Authorities eventually contacted the couple as a result of those tabloid stories. When asked why they did not turn to authorities with the information they now claimed to have, not even after the Chandler scandal went public, their answer was: “we were just witnesses not victims”.  Keep in mind that Mark Quindoy was a lawyer in his country.

The Quindoys also tried to shop around a book deal. In their attempt to get publishers interested they claimed they had “secret witnesses” that they formerly withheld from the District Attorney.

It is unknown exactly how much money the media paid out for the slander of Michael Jackson but it is safe to say it is probably in the millions. Instead of reporting facts and uncovering the truth, a large segment of the media enabled false allegations by paying people to make up stories about Jackson, knowing full well that they were lies that they could potentially put Jackson behind bars for the rest of his life. A jury could have been prejudiced by such articles and influenced by the prosecution witnesses who created their allegations only after being paid by the media for them. These were not innocent white lies, Jackson’s life was deeply affected by the character assassination and the emotional distress they put him through, yet the media and much of their audience actually considered these stories “entertainment”.

In addition to paying people for false allegations, the media also did their part in misleading the public and biased reporting on the Jackson criminal proceedings. During Jackson’s 2005 trial much of the media reported the salacious claims of the prosecution witnesses while failing to report the cross-examination of those same witness, where they were totally discredited. Although the payments for false allegations were mainly offered by tabloids, in the reporting of the Jackson trial there was hardly any difference between the tabloid stories and many “legitimate” news reports. Additionally the “serious media” often used, and still continues to use, tabloids as sources about Michael Jackson, thus blurring the line between tabloid journalism and serious reporting.

One of the latest examples of media manipulation about the Michael Jackson allegations is an article by British tabloid Sunday People that was published on June 30, 2013 and went viral almost immediately, being quoted by several other publications – without these other publications vetting the information. The article claimed that the paper 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”. This was not true and we discuss that article in detail here.

Sources:

[1] Roger Friedman – Former Protégé Vouches for Jacko (FoxNews.com, April 7, 2005)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

[2] Lisa Campbell – The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour (Branden Publishing Company Inc., Boston, 1994)

[3] Jennifer Vineyard – Jackson Camp Calls New Allegations A Smear Campaign (MTV.com, June 1, 2004)
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1488069/new-jackson-allegations-called-malicious.jhtml

[4] Press release by the Los Angeles Police Department (June 2, 2004) http://www.lapdonline.org/press_releases/2004/06/pr04305.htm – the original link is not active any more, for a secondary source see http://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/police-release-on-kapons-case-june-2-2004.png

[5] Mozart an Idiot! (OCweekly.com, January 12, 2006)
http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-01-12/music/mozart-an-idiot/

[6] Carole Aye Maung – Jacko filmed as he abused me; News Of the World investigates (News of the World, May 30, 2004)

[7] Lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of molestation is dismissed (The Daily Breeze, January 15, 2008)
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_7969754

[8] Judge: Jackson in California during claim (USA Today, April 18, 2006)
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-04-18-jackson-follow-up_x.htm?csp=34

[9] New Jackson Accuser’s Stalk Rap (The Smoking Gun, November 10, 2004)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-jackson-accusers-stalk-rap

[10] Tabloid articles of Terry George from 1993 attached to Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%201%20of%203/view (page 3)

[11] Interview with Terry George from the documentary “Louis, Martin & Michael” (documentary by Louis Theroux, November 16, 2003)

[12] First target of Michael Jackson’s obsession with boys says: ‘What he did was wrong.. but I forgive him’ (Mirror, June 28, 2009)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/first-target-of-michael-jacksons-obsession-402845

[13] Mary A. Fischer: Was Michael Jackson Framed? (GQ, October 1994)
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

[14] Tabliod Truth – The Michael Jackson Scandal (documentary by Frontline, February 1994)

Comments are closed

Jason Francia

Jason Francia

Jason Francia at Jackson’s 2005 trial

As discussed it in this article despite an extensive and costly investigation, the prosecution still struggled to find corroborating victims to support the Chandlers’ allegations. In 1993 police officers interviewed 40-60 children who had either spent time with Jackson or at his Neverland Ranch. None of the children corroborated the accuser’s story. They all told authorities that they had never been molested by the star and he had never done anything inappropriate to them.

In desperation, the prosecution engaged in questionable tactics, which are detailed in the above mentioned article, but that still did not result in the discovery of more alleged victims, with the exception of one boy: Jason Francia. He was the only young man whom the prosecution was able to put on the stand in support of the Arvizo allegations at Jackson’s 2005 trial as well.

Jason Francia is the son of Blanca Francia, a maid who worked for Jackson between 1986 and 1991.

When the police first interviewed Jason Francia in 1993, the only boy claiming abuse by Jackson was the original accuser, Jordan Chandler. The police interviewed dozens of children but could not find any other child willing to corroborate the Chandlers’ claims, despite the investigators engaging in questionable methods. This is how they got to Blanca Francia’s then 13-year-old son, Jason, on November 4, 1993 and then again on March 24, 1994. It was the police who initiated the contact, Blanca and Jason Francia never turned to authorities.

To the police, Jason Francia initially denied that Jackson had ever done anything inappropriate to him. He said: “I’ll just say this out flat. I don’t remember him trying anything with me except for the tickling” [1]. When the police pressured him to “remember” wrongdoings by Jackson, he maintained: “If I don’t remember, I don’t remember” [1].

At Jackson’s 2005 trial, Jason claimed that he initially denied impropriety because of embarrassment. However, audio tapes and the police transcripts of his 1993-94 interviews reveal how investigators pressured and lead him to create  allegations against the star. In a Motion in opposition to the DA’s Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses, Jackson’s defense classified these interviews as “textbook examples of improperly suggestive interrogations” [2].

A paper written by Kenneth E. Blackstone, a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners International and an expert of sexual offense investigation explains how interviewing methods can make a child’s testimony tainted and unreliable, leading to false allegations. On page 11-12 of his paper The Fallibility of Forensic Interviewing, Blackstone lists nine factors which raise suspicion of improper interrogations techniques that can lead to false allegations. Those factors are:

  • Absence of spontaneous recall;
  • Interviewer bias against defendant – a preconceived idea of what the child should be disclosing;
  • Repeated leading questions;
  • Multiple interviews;
  • Incessant questioning;
  • Vilification of defendant;
  • Ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements;
  • Use of threats, bribes and cajoling; and
  • Failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.

[3]

Eight of those nine factors (1-8) can be observed in the interrogations of Jason Francia.

For example, on November 4, 1993, in a police interview, Francia told investigators he did not remember Jackson ever putting his hand anywhere that made him feel uncomfortable. Detective Vincent Neglia was not satisfied with that answer and made it very clear what answer he would be satisfied with, by suggesting to the boy that his memories were wrong and blatantly suggesting what he should “remember”:

 “Det. Neglia: Okay, but what I am getting at is that maybe I am not being obvious enough. What I am saying is maybe he put his hands someplace on you where he shouldn’t have. Maybe he put his hands on you someplace that made you feel uncomfortable. And that’s why you are not remembering. It’s like there is a little bit of “Oh, I can’t remember that guy’s name and I don’t remember his last name, and I just don’t remember that. No I don’t want to remember that, no I can’t remember.” It’s a little of bit of a different kind of not remembering, one is because you are choosing not to, and one is that you just can’t call back the uh, the event. And I think of what you doing is tickling and all this stuff, is trying forcing yourself not to remember. And you also kind of got to the one where you’re saying that fourth time at the party you said something like, “That was the time.” What time was it Jason: What was the time?“ [2]

At other times during the interviews investigators lied to the boy and said that other boys, such as Macaulay Culkin, had been molested by Jackson and the only way they could rescue them was if Jason said incriminating things about Jackson.

“Det. Neglia: I realize how hard this is. I realize how painful it is to think of these things you tried so hard not to think about but you are doing fine. And you are also helping the kid that he is bothering now.

Jason Francia: What do you mean he’s bothering?

Det. Birchim: He’s doing the same thing.

Jason Francia: Macaulay Culkin.

Det. Neglia: Only he’s getting a lot more into it. Like your mother pulled you out of there. Macaulay’s mother is not going to pull him out of there. They are feeding him.

Det. Birchim: He’s doing worse stuff.

Det. Neglia: It’s much worse with him.” [2]

They claimed Corey Feldman had drug problems because Jackson molested him:

“Det. Neglia: He’s a junkie now, he gets arrested, he doesn’t act or anything. He gets high. He packs his nose with cocaine and he’s going to die by the time he is 22 years old.

Jason Francia: How old is he?

Det. Neglia: About 21. But that’s the kind of life he is living, and it’s got to do with being exposed to people like this, and having nobody to protect them and to take them out.

Det. Birchim: Like you had your mom.

Det. Neglia: Like your mom pulled you out, and you’re, you’re candid, and you’re (sic) honesty with us is going to help us. To pull the next kid out, it might even be too late for Macauly (sic) already. But these kids that he’s traveling with are on tour right now. Maybe we can pull them out of it… “ [2]

Both Culkin and Feldman stated very firmly to authorities and the public alike that Jackson never molested them and never touched them in an inappropriate way.

The investigators referred to Jackson as a “molester”[1] in their interviews with Francia, even though they did not have any evidence against him. They also used derogatory profanity against Jackson, for example, saying: “he makes great music, he’s a great guy, bullshit” [1]. At one point, after the investigators told Francia what they thought Jackson did to him, the boy said “Well, I’ll have to work on that” [1]. In one of the interviews Francia said: “They [the interrogators] made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn’t want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head” [1]. In the second interview, on March 24, 1994 Francia indicated he was aware of the fact that another boy (Jordan Chandler) had sued Jackson for money [1].

In his 1993-94 interviews, after initially denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, Jason Francia gave in to the pressure. Case in point, in 2005, while under cross-examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, he admitted that he said things in those interviews because he “was trying to figure out how to get out of there” [1]:

Q. Remember telling the police, “You guys are pushy”?

A. Yeah. I remember telling the police that.

Q. Okay. And after they kept pushing you, you finally said, “You know, I think he did tickle me,”right?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember that? Do you remember at first saying you didn’t know, and then after –

A. Yeah, I remember saying at first, “I don’t know.”

Q. And after telling the police, “You guys are pushy,” you eventually finally said, “Yes, he tickled me,” right?

A. I believe that’s how it went.

Q. Okay. You kind of went back and forth during the interview, didn’t you? One second you’d say, “He tickled me,” and the next second you’d say you’re not sure, right?

A. I was trying to figure out how to get out of there.

Q. I understand. And you remember exactly how you felt in 1993 during the interview, right?

A. The feeling of, yeah, crying and crappiness. [1]

It was also revealed that after the police’s first interrogation of Jason Francia in 1993 he was sent for therapy with a counselor by the name of Mike Craft. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon was present at least one time in Craft’s office while Jason was there, though Jason could not explain what communication went on between the two men and why Sneddon was there at all. According to an article in USA Today on February 7, 1994, the therapist Jason Francia was sent to was arranged and paid for by the county Sheriff’s office after the boy’s mother expressed concern that Sheriff Deputies had called and met with her son while she was not present [4].

There had never been charges filed against Jackson based on Jason Francia’s claims, although the prosecution was obviously desperate to find another alleged victim besides Jordan Chandler.

However, Jason’s mother, Blanca Francia, taking a page out of the Chandlers’ playbook: hired civil lawyers and at the end of 1994 threatened Jackson with a civil lawsuit. In actuality, Blanca Francia talked about wanting to sue Jackson for money at least as early as March, 1994 – while the criminal investigation was still ongoing (for details see this article – the “Document 2″ segment). With the Chandler case behind him and a plan to release a new album in 1995, Jackson settled with the Francias out of court. As testified to during Jackson’s 2005 trial, two settlements were signed with the Francias – one with Blanca and another one with Jason Francia. Reportedly Jackson paid them $2.4 million.

It must be noted that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award, so, like the Chandler settlement, this was not a case of Jackson buying his way out of a criminal indictment. [You can read more about the Chandler settlement here.] Two Grand Juries had already decided in the spring of 1994 not to indict Jackson. However, a civil trial could have resulted in a long, drawn out court process with lots of negative publicity for Jackson, which, regardless of the lack of credibility of the allegations and the outcome, would have affected Jackson’s ability to promote a new album, that he planned to release in 1995. To put the $2.4 million he paid out to the Francias into a perspective: Jackson’s record label, Sony Music spent $30 million on the promotion of Jackson’s double album released in 1995, entitled HIStory. The first video of the album, Scream, cost $7 million and a teaser that was shot for the album in Budapest, Hungary cost $4 million.

The language in both the settlements with Blanca and with Jason Francia emphasized that there was no admission of any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. The fact that both Jason and Blanca Francia were called to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial is a clear indication that such settlements of civil lawsuits do not and cannot prohibit anyone testifying at a criminal court. Francia’s allegations were heard in Court during the 2005 proceedings and weighed in when the jury reached its “not guilty” verdicts.

During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Jason alleged the first act of impropriety occurred in 1987, at Jackson’s Century City condo, in Los Angeles, when Jason was about seven years old. According to his story, while his mother was cleaning the condo, he and Jackson watched cartoons on the television and Jackson supposedly started to tickle him which resulted in a “tickle contest” between the two. Jason claimed that while tickling him Jackson’s hand moved down to his crotch and he touched his genital area above his clothes.

A second act of impropriety was described, similar to the first one, occurring in the same place, again while watching cartoons, one and a half years later, this time when Jason was about eight, eight and a half years old. Jason again claimed, while watching cartoons, Jackson moved behind him and began “spooning” him. Jason claimed he started to tickle him and while doing so Jackson again touched his genitalia above his clothes. He claimed the contact with his genital area lasted at least about four, five minutes.

A third act of impropriety was claimed to have happened at Neverland in the arcade when Jason was about ten and a half years old. He claimed while playing a video game, Jackson again started to tickle him and somehow they ended up on the couch in a “spooning” position. Jason claimed that this time Jackson put his hand in his shorts and touched his testicles. He alleged this lasted about three to four minutes. At this point Jason felt the need to voluntarily emphasize: “It took a lot of counseling to get over, just to let you know.” [1] (Note: Jason Francia was put into therapy by the prosecution in 1993/1994, like we mentioned above.)

Jason further alleged that every time Jackson tickled him, the star put a hundred dollar bill in his pants. Jason claimed he never told his mother about the alleged abuse: “I don’t even think to this day she knows”[1], he said on the stand in 2005, even though his mother hired civil lawyers and threatened to sue Jackson over the allegations in 1994.

During the 2005 trial, Jason’s Francia’s testimony was not considered credible by the jury, and the improper police interrogations those led to his allegations were not the only reason. Other than the alleged impropriety, Jason Francia did not seem to know or remember anything on the stand and was caught in several contradictions and lies. At the very least, this young man seemed to have an extremely bad, unreliable and ever-changing memory.

At age of 24, he sat on the stand and claimed he did not know if he ever signed a settlement with Jackson. He claimed he had not heared about the payment his mother received from Hard Copy until two days before his testimony and that he never discussed it with his mother.

At first, he claimed he never told his mother he was improperly touched but then admitted he did, claiming he was “mistaken” earlier. He claimed he never told the lawyers who represented him in 1994, Terry Cannon and Kris Kallman, that he was improperly touched, but later on in the testimony he said he did not know if he ever told them, and even later he said he did tell them.

In one of the 1993-94 interrogations Francia claimed that during a tickling episode he blacked-out and because of that he did not remember anything besides the tickling. In 2005, when Mesereau asked him if he had a black-out how could he have told the police that his mother was not in the room, he answered: “I blocked it out. I didn’t blank it out” [1]. Please note, Jackson’s condo was a small apartment and the alleged improprieties occurred while Blanca Francia was present, cleaning up and able to walk in on them at any time.

When the police asked Jason in 1993-94 if anything inappropriate had ever happened to him at Neverland he said “I was around too many people” and when they pressured him about the third account of tickling in the arcade, the incident where he now alleged Jackson put his hand in his pants – at the time initially Jason said he did not know if Jackson touched him inappropriately while tickling him. In actuality, he said he was not sure if Jackson even tickled him at all [1].

Mesereau pointed out that in an interview with the police in October, 2004 Jason claimed that this third tickling incident lasted more than ten seconds but he did not remember how long. At the trial, only a couple of months later, Jason suddenly remembered that it lasted for three to four minutes.

As for the money Jason allegedly received from Jackson after alleged acts of improper touching, when Jason Francia was initially interviewed by the police in 1993-94, he claimed that Jackson promised him money each time he read a book or achieved a good grade, because Francia had difficulties in school and with learning (in 2005 on the stand he admitted he still had problems with reading). This story later somehow evolved into Jackson putting money in his pants after each tickling.

During the trial, when asked if Attorney, Terry Cannon still represented him, Jason said “I don’t think so, no”[1] but later said he did not know if Cannon represented him. Mesereau reminded him that Cannon was present at a meeting Jason had with the prosecutors on December 6, 2004. At that meeting Jason did not want the interview to be tape-recorded. When Mesereau asked him why, at first he claimed to not remember that he made that request. Then when presented with documents that showed he indeed did, he could not testify what his reason was: “I don’t know”[1] and “Tape-recording is weird. I don’t know. No, I don’t” [1]. Documents also showed that he requested Cannon to be present at the interview but Jason said he did not remember why Cannon was there and whether he asked him to be there or not.

During the trial, when asked whether any criminal charges had ever been filed against Jackson based on his claims (there had never been), Jason answered: “I don’t know much. I don’t watch the news.” [1]

Mesereau asked Jason about another meeting which prosecutors held on November 19, 2004 when his mother was interviewed in the DA’s office. Again, Jason first claimed to not know anything about it:  “I don’t know. Me and my mother don’t talk about that stuff much.” [1] However, when Mesereau pointed out to him that he was present at that meeting, Francia all of a sudden remembered: “Now I remember, yes.” [1] In actuality, not only was Jason present, but he too was interviewed by the prosecutors and he asked that the interview not be tape-recorded on that occasion as well. Again, Francia did not remember any of this: he did not remember that an interview by the prosecutors that lasted for about an hour, took place at all, although it happened only a couple of months before his testimony at Jackson’s trial!

So not surprisingly, Jason Francia did not make a good impression on the jury at Jackson’s trial. Jury Foreman, Paul Rodriguez told Nancy Grace in an interview after the verdict.

GRACE: Mr. Rodriguez, did you believe the boy that came in that is now a youth minister* that stated Jackson molested him in the past?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, we got a little problem with that because he had no idea where some of his money came from, and he didn’t want to talk to his mother. And so those kind of things that we kind of didn’t focus on, but it did keep — we kept that in the back of our minds.

GRACE: So would it be safe to say you did not believe him?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we had a hard time believing him…

[…]

GRACE: Yes. What about the one kid that became a youth minister*, who stated plainly Jackson molested his — fondled his genitals?

RODRIGUEZ: Again, like you said earlier, you know, about his scenario or his testimony, it was hard to buy the whole story, when he acted like he knew nothing about it. I mean, he acted so much like the mother of the other accuser, you know, he just didn’t seem that credible. He didn’t seem to convince us, like we wanted to be convinced. And he just — he was leaving too many little loopholes in his statements. [5]

(* The prosecution and the media constantly tried to make Jason Francia look more credible by emphasizing that he used to be a youth minister.)

It is very telling that Rodriguez put Francia’s testimony on par with that of “the mother of the other accuser”, Janet Arvizo, which was widely regarded, even by pro-prosecution journalists, as a disastrous testimony for the prosecution.

 

Sources:

[1] Jason Francia’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 4-5, 2005)

[2] Supplemental Brief In Support Of Opposition To District Attorney’s Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses (March 25, 2005)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032505suppopp1108.pdf

[3] Kenneth E. Blackstone – The Fallibility of Forensic Interviewing
http://www.blackstonepolygraph.com/articles/Fallibility_of_Forensic_Interviewing.pdf

[4] Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson (USA Today, February 7, 1994)

[5] Nancy Grace’s interview with jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez (CNN.com, June 13, 2005)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/13/ng.01.html

Comments are closed