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
Tag Archives | Anthony Pellicano

Did the FBI have evidence that Michael Jackson paid off dozens of young boys to silence them after he sexually abused them?

No, they did not. The claim that they did comes from a British tabloid and it is not true.

On June 30, 2013 British tabloid Sunday People (the Sunday edition of The Mirror) published an “exclusive” article in which they claimed that they had insight into “secret FBI files” which “reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years” [1].

They claim the files were in the possession of a private investigator Anthony Pellicano who worked for Jackson in 1993. When Pellicano was arrested for illegal wiretapping in 2002, the FBI confiscated these documents, the article claims. That is their claim to these documents being “FBI files”.

In the article they talk to a private investigator who claims that he worked with Pellicano in 1993 on the Jackson case. The unnamed man is claimed to have kept copies of the documents that he now presented to the Sunday People – so the narrative of the story.

The article claims Pellicano was hired by Jackson to pay-off other “victims” when the singer was accused of child molestation by Jordan Chandler in 1993.  The sloppy tabloid article manages to contradicts itself on how many boys it claims were allegedly paid-off: in some parts of the article (including the title) they claim 24 boys, in another part they claim 17 boys and in yet another part of the article their source talks about three.

Despite the contradictions, the sloppiness of the article and the lack of supporting evidence, the “news” spread like wildfire. Apparently the term “FBI files” were enough to convince people, including other journalists who did not bother to check out the veracity of the story, that the tabloid’s claims were true.  In no time many other publications and websites ran the story, stating it as a fact that “the FBI revealed thousands of pages of their secret files which prove Jackson was a serial molester and paid-off dozens of young boys”. The claim even crossed-over to mainstream, non-tabloid media. No one in the media who published the story as a fact ever asked the logical question: if it was true how come that this evidence was never presented to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? And why should we take the words of an unreliable tabloid for it without any evidence?

When we review the documents those were attached to the Sunday People article as “evidence” we see they do not prove what is alleged in the article, nor do they represent an official stance by the FBI. Evidence of abuse and pay-offs, let alone the FBI verifying anything, is nowhere to be found in them. For those who are familiar with the details of the allegations against Jackson it is easy to spot what these documents really are – and they are not what the tabloid claims them to be. Let’s see them one by one.

Document 1

1

Apparently this is a fax sent to Pellicano on July 26, 1993. The name of the sender is blacked out. The sender claims that a source (which is unnamed) told him or her that Jackson “has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992”. Then the sender elaborates on this supposed $600,000 pay-off by quoting what is alleged to be the settlement agreement. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead we are just supposed to take the words of this person for it, of whom we do not even know who he or she is as the sender’s name is blacked out.

Fortunately we have another source for this story, which source, unlike the Sunday People, also provided a context for these claims, as well as the names which are blacked out in the document.

During Michael Jackson’s trial in 2005 journalist Roger Friedman, who worked for Fox News at the time,  received audio tapes from a private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi. These were recordings of a tabloid journalist (National Enquirer, Globe) Jim Mitteager, who had a habit of secretly taping his conversations. When he died his wife gave the tapes to Barresi. These tapes, among others, included some conversations about Jackson. One of those conversations sheds light on the  above mentioned document as Friedman wrote about this story extensively in 2005:

“Mitteager, at least in the case of Jackson, relied heavily on a sketchy stringer named Taylea Shea. Her veracity consequently became integral to a lot of tabloid reporting at the time.
Shea, who seems to have gone by a number of aliases and had a long list of addresses and phone numbers, could not be contacted for this story, despite many tries.
Neighbors at the Los Angeles address at which she lived the longest do not remember her fondly. They recall a hustler and con woman who was always on the take.
“She should be in jail, if she hasn’t been already,” one former friend and neighbor said.
On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.
Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.
Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year.
This would have been a blockbuster, if true, because it would make Brandon, not the differently-named boy who settled with Jackson in 1993, the first of Jackson’s accusers.
Shea also says on the tape that the legal document came from the offices of famed Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields, Jackson’s attorney at the time.
No reason is given why Jackson and Brandon Richmond should be separated. The implication, however, is clear.” [2]

So we learn from Friedman that the original source of this story was a “sketchy stringer”, a woman who is recalled by her neighbors as a hustler and a con woman. We also learn that no one actually saw this alleged agreement, Shea only “read it” to Mitteager. (It is possible that it was Mitteager who sent this fax to Pellicano about his conversation with Shea.) Shea is the only person who claimed to have seen the alleged agreement. Moreover, there was never a Brandon P. Richmond around Jackson. The boy and his mother seem to be completely fictional. As well as this “Michael Jackson Organization” on the other side of this supposed agreement, as Jackson never had a company or organization named Michael Jackson Organization.

Because neither tabloids, nor authorities found evidence that a Brandon P. Richmond ever existed in Jackson’s life, Friedman suggested that the boy in question might be Brandon Adams, a boy who played in Jackson’s 1988 movie, Moonwalker. Besides sharing the same first name, Adams, was an actor and a dancer just like the fictional Brandon P. Richmond. However Friedman contacted Adams and his family in 2005 and they denied they had ever been paid off by Jackson. Nor does the name of Brandon Adams’ mother have any similarity to the mother’s name in Shea’s story. Friedman wrote in 2005:

“The Globe published the story without using names. Over time, it was assumed that Brandon P. Richmond was in fact Brandon Adams, a boy who had appeared in Jackson’s “Moonwalker” video.
Discussions on the tapes indicate that the tabloids also believed the two Brandons were one and the same. But there’s a problem with Shea’s story: Nothing adds up.
For one thing, a source close to Fields says the document uses language uncommon to their usual agreements.
Then there’s the actual family.
According to the Adamses, whom I met in January, they don’t know an Eva Richmond.
Brandon Adams’ mother is named Marquita Woods. And Brandon’s grandmother assures me she knows nothing of a $600,000 payment. The family has lived in a modest home in Baldwin Hills, Calif., for 30 years.
Brandon Adams, who is now 25, is a struggling actor. He appeared in “D2: The Mighty Ducks” and the indie film “MacArthur Park,” and is currently working on building a music career.
“I wish I had $600,000,” he said. “I’m broke.”
The Adamses pointed out that Brandon never visited Neverland, just the Jackson family home in Encino.
For a short time they were friendly not only with the Jacksons, but with Sean Lennon and his mother Yoko Ono, who were also part of “Moonwalker.” But the relationship seems to have ended well before Taylea Shea’s big scoop.” [2]

Brandon Adams was again contacted and asked about it on his Twitter when the Sunday People article came out in 2013. Here is what he said:

Question: “Hey, there’s a British tabloid today claiming again that MJ paid you off in 1992, can you deny it once again?”

Brandon Q Adams: “smh… Lol.. Not me!”
“they luv 2 tell lies about people… I guess it just comes with the territory #MJ #Greatness” [3]

Additionally the text of this alleged agreement is far too sloppy to be an agreement drawn up by professional top lawyers.

Friedman concluded that Shea likely made up the story: “Was Shea simply lying to Mitteager to collect a big fee? It would seem so.”  [2] The prosecution in the Jackson case never brought up this story in Court or elsewhere either.

At the end of the the document the writer says: “In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims” [1] and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that and based on what. If this is supposed to be the Sunday People’s “evidence” of Jackson paying off dozens of boys then it’s about as convincing as their fictional Brandon. All of this is according to only one questionable source – a “sketchy stringer” who was called a hustler and a con woman by her neighbors – allegedly informing Pellicano about rumors, not an established fact, and it is definitely not information verified by the FBI.

In actuality, anyone who wants to give credit to the claim that the FBI had evidence that Jackson paid-off dozens of boys, must ask the question: why then that evidence was never introduced to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? The FBI cooperated with the prosecution during the trial, but no such evidence ever emerged.

Document  2

2

This is apparently a note written by someone to Anthony Pellicano. The sender’s name is blacked out here as well. On this document there is no date given, but from the text we can derive it was probably in March, 1994.

“Detectives [blacked out] escorted [blacked out] yesterday, March 2nd, to [blacked out] house.”

This part of the text, as well as the full first half of the document, is about Blanca Francia. She was the maid who received $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview in 1993 in which she claimed she witnessed Jackson be inappropriate with boys and that possibly her own son was molested by the singer. She and her son were prosecution witnesses at Jackson’s 2005 trial, so their allegations are no new revelations either. You can read about Jason Francia’s allegations in detail in this article. We will address Blanca Francia in detail later on this website.

On January 26, 1995 British tabloid Today reported that “it had been discovered that Blanca Francia had used a National Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, as her translator when she was interviewed by police in 1993/4 as part of the criminal investigation of Jackson”.  [4] That story was based on Mitteager’s tapes:

“Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia’s interview statements with the police in 1993. Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a ‘molestation’ story to sell on Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.”

and

“On April 4, 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso, then working at the Daily News, reported in a piece about the upcoming ‘prior acts’ testimonies in Jackson’s 2005 trial, that the ‘Mitteager Tapes’ included sessions with then Enquirer editor – David Perel, telling Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: ‘the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.’ [4]

Caruso talked to detective Russ Birchim, who interviewed Francia in 1993-94.

“Caruso reported that Birchim told her, “ Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles.” Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim refused to elaborate.” [4]

All this seems to corroborate that the above document is some kind of note about what is on Mitteager’s tapes and can be traced back to Paul Barresi – just like the previous document.

Instead of revealing new allegations, the document just records Blanca Francia’s dealings with the media. At Jackson’s 2005 trial Blanca Francia admitted that besides Hard Copy she also contemplated to sell her story to the National Enquirer, but then she did not. From this document it appears this was because after her Hard Copy interview “the cops put her under wraps”.

“She got $20,000 from Hard Copy and supposedly regrets doing it because after her segment aired the cops put her under wraps.”

Of course, when the cops “put her under wraps” she was not able to sell her story to more tabloid media. We also learn from this document that Blanca Francia already planned a civil lawsuit against Jackson before the criminal proceedings were even over:

“[She] told her friend that when the Jackson criminal case is over, she will sue Jackson for molesting her son.”

The document further states that “the cops are looking for agreements between Jackson and parents of children who [blocked – presumably Blanca Francia] allegedly eye witnessed being molested including [blocked].”  No such agreements were ever presented despite a decade long investigation.

The second part of the document contains more rumours and speculations, nothing that was ever confirmed or proven. The document cites an unnamed “source” about certain allegations and rumours (none of which was ever confirmed or proven) and about detective’s beliefs and what actions they plan to take. It states:

“Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to.”

It is well documented that investigators in the Jackson case were biased and very hostile against the entertainer from the beginning. For example, in this article you can read about how they tried to convince boys to say that Jackson molested them by using improper interrogation techniques. In our article about Jason Francia you can read even more about those interrogation techniques.

So when their preconceived opinion about Jackson’s guilt was not supported by evidence and testimony they excused that by “believing” that the reason for that is that Jackson paid off people and not that maybe he was innocent, after all. However, there was never any evidence in support of the “belief” that Jackson paid-off people to keep silent about abuse. Instead of any proof that Jackson paid off dozens of boys, what we find in this document are speculations on the part of a desperate and biased prosecution and media to excuse their lack of evidence against the singer. Beliefs however need to be proven to become more than just uncorroborated opinions. Jackson was put to trial in 2005, after more than a decade of investigation, and no evidence of him paying off people to silence boys was ever presented.

Moreover, consider the fact that Jackson’s first accuser did everything feasible in order to receive a settlement in order not to go public or to trial in 1993. It is recommended to read our article about the Chandlers’ monetary demands which puts this uncorroborated myth of Jackson paying off people left and right into perspective. If it was routine for Jackson to pay off boys to not to go public and to authorities with their allegations then why did he refuse to pay off the Chandlers when they admittedly wanted nothing more than a pay-off from the very beginning?

Document 3

3

This is a document that appears to record a conversation between Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano on December 10, 1993. It is a mystery about what it is supposed to prove, because it actually contradicts what the Sunday People claims, as here Pellicano tells Mitteager that there is no other accuser than Jordan Chandler.

“There is no other kid. Now that’s the thing that nobody is paying any attention to. They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid.”

Please also consider that the date of this alleged conversation is December 10, 1993 – which is around the time when Pellicano stopped working for Jackson. Previously Pellicano worked closely together with one of Jackson’s lawyers Bert Fields, they left the case because they did not agree with the direction that some of Jackson’s other lawyers were taking. Upon leaving Pellicano stated that he believed in Jackson’s innocence and his leaving was no indication of otherwise.

The Sunday People chose not to include it, but there is another conversation between Pellicano and Mitteager that is recorded on Mitteager’s tapes. It was recorded in September 1994. Paul Barresi gave this tape to reporter Aphrodite Jones a couple of years ago, who published the transcript on her website. On this tape Pellicano talks about his conversation with Jordan Chandler who told him that Jackson never molested him and that his father only wanted money.

“PELLICANO:  You have to understand something. I have nine kids.  Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby.  They crawl all over him.  They pull his hair.  They pull his nose.  Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face.  If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER:  Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO:  Not only that.  If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games.  I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is.  Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation.  He going to say all kinds of stuff.”  He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.”  As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes.  Then I tried tricking him.  I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian.  I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb.  So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either.  And I said Michael is all upset.  We went over and over.  I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there.  I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about?  And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions.  There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.” [5]

Document 4

4

This is a transcript of an audio taped interview with a couple, Philip and Stella LeMarque. The couple who worked for Jackson in 1991 for ten months (they claimed two years in the media, but at Jackson’s 2005 trial Philip LeMarque admitted it was only ten months), alleged on this tape that they witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately with certain boys. The Sunday People presented these allegations as if they were some kind of bombshell news, never before heard allegations, even suggesting that the couple’s claims were verified by the FBI.

In reality the LeMarques’ claims are nothing new and certainly not proven. Philip LeMarque testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial about his allegation that he witnessed Jackson put his hand in Macaulay Culkin’s pants, but was discredited by Culkin himself.

The document the Sunday People presented in 2013 was the transcript of an interview that tabloid broker Paul Barresi conducted with the LeMarques on August 28, 1993 – five days after the Chandler allegations hit the media. However, in a 1994 documentary entitled Tabloid Truth even Barresi himself expressed  doubt about the credibility of the couple. Barresi, a self-confessed opportunist, admitted he did not care if a story he sold to tabloids was true or not as long as he was paid. Watch Barresi talk about the LeMarques between 30:14-35:35 and between 36:55-37:10 in the video below:

Like neither one of these so called “third party witnesses” the LeMarques initially did not turn to authorities either, but tried to sell their story to tabloids for money. First their asking price was $100,000 then they promised to further embellish their story if they got $500,000. (Watch Barresi talk about it in the above documentary at 36:55-37:10.) It was admitted by Philip LeMarque in Court as well.

Q. You upped the price to 500 from $100,000 at one point?

A. Yeah, to see if we were going to do it. [6]

and

Q. Did you have a discussion with Paul Baressi where you said, “We don’t want 100,000. We want 500,000”? Yes or no.

A. Yes. [6]

It has to be noted that the LeMarques were in huge debt when they attempted to sell molestation stories about Jackson to tabloids. In their interviews with Barresi, the LeMarques alleged to have witnessed improprieties between Jackson and other boys as well, not only Macaulay Culkin, but interestingly those stories were never even brought up by the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial.  Perhaps because not even this prosecution, which otherwise threw everything but the kitchen sink at Jackson, felt these stories were credible?

Document 5-6

56

These documents are property receipts about someone providing audio tapes to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the FBI respectively. They were probably attached to the Sunday People’s article in an attempt to give the documents some sense of “officialism” and somehow to link them to the FBI. However, the only thing they prove is that someone provided audio tapes to authorities. They do not reveal anything about the authorities’ opinion about the provided material.

Thanks to the 1994 Tabloid Truth documentary (see above) we know how and why Document 5 was produced. That document is the property receipt about someone giving the audio tape of the LeMarque interview to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office on August 30, 1993. From the Tabloid Truth documentary we know this was Paul Barresi himself and that it is his name that is blacked out on the document attached by Sunday People. Please stop the above shown documentary at 34:00. It is exactly the same document that the Sunday People tried to pass on as some newly discovered “FBI file” in 2013! However, in the documentary Barresi himself explains what it really is and the purpose why it was produced. The relevant part is at 33:00-35:01 in the documentary.

Barresi’s explanation in the documentary gives us an insight into the manipulative tactics of the tabloid world:

“I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.”

If Barresi brought the tape to the DA he’d have nothing to fear for his illegal tape recording. Besides it would juice up the story. If the DA’s working on it that’s action, that’s inside information!

“That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innocuous they would throw it out the window. So this is one way to do it with grand style, certainly.”

“So I called the editor of the Globe and I said: ‘I have a tape, I’m on the way downtown to hand it to the District Attorney.’ And his words were: ‘Let us come with you.’ And then I knew I had them. The next though on my mind was I’m gonna ask for 30 thousand dollars. You always ask twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold and within less than a minute came back and said: ‘well, we can’t give you 30, we give you 10.’ I said: ‘Make it 15.’ He said ‘You have a deal’.”

“Could you see the headline coming?”

“Oh, yeah. Sure. And I could see that money coming too.”

The Sunday People used the same manipulative tactics when they presented these documents as “FBI files”, knowing that linking them to the FBI would give them a sense of credibility and officialness in many people’s eyes – even though just because a paper is submitted to the FBI it does not mean it is credible or that its contents are proven. Upon scrutiny the documents fail to provide evidence for the paper’s claims, and can be traced back to Paul Barresi rather than the FBI. Barresi was clearly the anonymous source behind the Sunday People’s story presenting himself as someone who worked together with Pellicano on the Jackson case in 1993. However, Barresi never worked for Jackson, he is simply an opportunistic tabloid broker.

Jackson was on trial in 2005 and during that trial the FBI closely co-operated with the Santa Barbara prosecution. If the FBI had evidence of Jackson paying off people left and right why didn’t they introduce that evidence to the Court? In actuality, the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the prosecution’s many witnesses – including  Blanca Francia and Philip LeMarque – received from the tabloid media for their allegations! It is ironic that the same media who paid out fortunes to people for the slander of Michael Jackson over the course of two decades, accused the singer of  secret pay-offs with no evidence to back any of it up.

For more about the media’s role in the Michael Jackson allegations please read this article!

Sources:

[1] James Desborough, David Gardner – Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years (Mirror.co.uk, June 30, 2013)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

[2] Roger Friedman – Was There an Unknown Jacko Accuser? (FoxNews.com, March 25, 2005)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/03/25/was-there-unknown-jacko-accuser/print

[3] Brandon Q Adams Twitter
https://twitter.com/BrandonAdams22/status/351200257968840704

[4] Michael Jackson: The Making Of A Myth – Part 1
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

[5] Taped phone conversation between Anthony Pellicano and Jim Mitteager (September, 1994)
It was originally posted on Aphrodite Jones’ website at http://www.aphroditejones.com/Michael_Jackson_Trial/Michael_Jackson_Trial.htm
The website has been since then reorganized and the Michael Jackson Trial section is not available anymore.

[6] Phillip LeMarque’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)

Comments are closed

The Chandler Allegations

According to the Chandlers’ story, Jordan Chandler “confessed” about the alleged sexual abuse by Michael Jackson, on July 16, 1993 after he was sedated for a minor dental procedure in his father Evan Chandler’s dental office. The circumstances of that alleged “confession” are discussed in this article.

There was more than a month between the date of Jordan’s alleged “confession” to his father (July 16) and the day he was taken to a psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams (August 17), where he first made formal allegations against Michael Jackson, which then triggered the official investigation against the entertainer.

According to the book All That Glitters, written by Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler, between July 16 and August 10 Jordan’s alleged “confession” was never mentioned to anyone by either Jordan or his father, not even to Jordan’s mother, June Chandler even though Evan is described as desperate to convince her that their son had been molested. All Evan relied upon was the so called Abrams letter, about which can be read in this article.

Evan Chandler used that letter to demand money from Michael Jackson between July 16 and August 17. The Chandlers vehemently protested the use of the term “extortion”, they preferred the word “negotiations” instead. For details of Evan Chandler’s monetary demands and the events between July 16 and August 17, see this article.

On August 16, the Court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother the next day. In response of that, and frustrated by Jackson’s refusal to pay him off, Evan took Jordan to Dr. Abrams on August 17 where the boy alleged that he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson. Therapists are required by law to report all child abuse allegations to authorities. Taking Jordan to a therapist and having the therapist report the allegations instead of Evan himself reporting them was a way to report the alleged child abuse through a third party without liability passing to the parent.

Although Dr. Abrams dutifully reported the case, ten years later, on December 12, 2003 he told CBS News that he did not spend enough time with Jordan Chandler to conclude whether the boy was telling the truth or not:

“I think that this [children changing their stories] is a possibility in both cases, that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out.” [1]

Before Jordan made his formal allegations to Dr. Abrams, he lived with his father for more than a month. Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary of Evan’s attorney, Barry Rothman claimed in an interview she gave to the Reflections On The Dance website that the boy spent several hours in Rothman’s office alone with the attorney behind closed doors:

“I really believe that the whole thing was plotted and planned and the words were given to him [Jordan Chandler] to say because I actually witnessed the 13 year old in my attorney’s office without any supervision of his parents and he was kind of snuck in there, it was like no one in the office knew he was in there. He was behind closed doors with my attorney for several hours, and I kind of believe that is where he was being told what to say.  I can’t say that I actually witnessed him being told, but I did witness that there was a meeting between my attorney and the 13 year old accuser for several hours.  Actually it was a meeting that nobody in the office was supposed to know even existed and the only reason that I found out (was because) I was on my way out of the office and we were under threats of death about just walking in his office without even knocking or without announcing, and I was just rushing so I opened up the door and when I opened up the door I saw the boy in his office and I was kind of shocked.  We didn’t even know he was in there and he had a startled look on his face and the attorney blasted me for coming in there unannounced.” [2]

What Jordan specifically told Dr. Abrams on August 17 was not disclosed to the public. However, there are two documents which we can use to determine what was alleged: a declaration by Jordan Chandler dated December 28, 1993 [3] and an interview that psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner conducted with Jordan on October 6, 1993 [4].  Both were leaked to the public in February, 2003, only a couple of days after Martin Bashir’s manipulatively cut and narrated documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, was aired.

Who leaked them to the media is not known. However Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler later presented audio clips from the Richard Gardner interview in a second slanderous documentary Bashir made of Jackson, entitled Michael Jackson’s Secret World, which aired in February 2005, just when Jackson’s trial for the Arvizo case was about to begin. Ray Chandler also quotes parts of the interview in his book.

From these two documents we learn that Jordan Chandler alleged that he and Jackson started to sleep in the same bed in late March, 1993 when he, together with his mother and sister, went on a trip to Las Vegas where they stayed at the Mirage Hotel. According to Jordan Chandler, one night while Jordan and Jackson watched the movie The Exorcist, Jackson, because Jordan was scared, offered to let Jordan sleep in his room. There was no claim of physical contact occurring between Jordan and Jackson on that trip.

Jordan claimed that from then on, whenever he and Jackson were together, they slept in the same bed. In the Gardner interview Jordan claimed that physical contact started in early May with Jackson simply hugging him. But he contradicted himself later in the interview when he said that on a trip to Florida, which took place in April, Jackson grabbed his butt and put his tongue in his ear.

Jordan claimed that the physical contact between them “increased gradually” as time went by. First he claimed it was just a hug, then a brief kiss on the cheek, then he claimed there was kissing on the lips, first briefly and then for longer periods of time. Then, Jordan claimed, Jackson put his tongue in his mouth. Jordan claimed he told Jackson he did not like that and in response Jackson started to cry and said “there was nothing wrong with it” [3] and that “just because most people believe something is wrong, doesn’t make it so” [3]. Jordan claimed that Jackson told him that other boys would kiss him with an open mouth and would let him put his tongue in their mouth. Jordan also alleged that Jackson emotionally blackmailed him, by saying that if Jordan wouldn’t let him do these things it meant he didn’t love him as much as another friend who would do.

Jordan claimed that “the next step was when Michael Jackson rubbed up against me in bed. The next step was when we would lie on top of each other with erections” [3]. In the Gardner interview he added: “By the way, he never put his tongue in my mouth again once I told him not to.” [4]

Jordan claimed in the Gardner interview that on a trip to Florida in April, 1993 Jackson kissed him, grabbed his butt and put his tongue in his ear. He also claimed that “he was walking to the bathroom to take a shower, and he looked at me before he closed the door and he said, ‘I wish I didn’t have to do this,’ and he shut the door, implying that he wished he could be so free as to be able to change in front of me.” [4] Jordan also claimed that when he told Jackson that he didn’t like that he put his tongue in his ear and grabbed his butt, Jackson once again started crying and tried to make him feel guilty and said that “Tommy” (a cousin or a young friend of Jackson whose name is concealed in the transcript of the Gardner interview to protect his privacy) would let him do that. “By the way, he never did those either” [4], Jordan added.

In May, 1993 Jordan, his mother, his sister and Jackson went to Monaco. As the story goes, Jordan and Jackson were suffering from colds and stayed in the room all day while the boy’s mother and sister went shopping. Jordan alleged that he and Jackson took a bath together and this was the first time they saw each other naked. He claimed Jackson named certain under-aged friends of his who masturbated in front of him. Then, Jordan claimed, Jackson masturbated in front of him. Jordan alleged that Jackson told him he would do it for him when he was ready. He also claimed that while they were in bed, Jackson put his hand underneath his underpants and masturbated him to a climax.

Jordan alleged that then Jackson masturbated him many times both with his hand and with his mouth until the end of their association. He also claimed that one time Jackson had him suck one of his nipples and twist the other while Jackson masturbated.

Jordan volunteered to psychoanalyze Jackson’s interaction with other children and to give his “expert” opinion about “Tommy”, who at the time appeared in the media publicly defending Jackson against the allegations:

“Who do you think is lying?”

“Tommy.”

 “Why do you say that?”

“Because in public, when he’s [Jackson] with Tommy, they’re very close together physically and verbally and relationship-wise. And if one were to observe things in public, how they acted to each other, one would come to that conclusion, that it was more then just a friendly relationship.” [4]

The boy claimed that Jackson told him not to tell anyone and what they were doing was a secret. In his interview with Dr. Gardner he claimed that Jackson told him that if anybody found out about it, Jackson would go to jail and Jordan would go to a juvenile hall. When asked if he believed that, Jordan answered, “Well, I didn’t really believe it at the time, and I definitely don’t now. But at the time I didn’t really believe it but I said, okay, whatever, and just went along with it.”[4]

It is not known what Dr. Gardner concluded from the interview because his analysis was not leaked with the interview. (Dr. Gardner died on May 25, 2003.) What we know is that the Chandlers and their civil lawyer, Larry Feldman took the tape to psychologist, Dr. Stanley Katz for evaluation. Dr. Katz was formerly involved in the highly controversial McMartin preschool trial. He was the Director of Training and Professional Education at the Children’s Institute International (CII). Kee McFarlane, who initially interviewed the McMartin children, worked under him. On cross-examination at Jackson’s 2005 trial, Dr. Katz testified that he did the assessments of the McMartin children. [6] The CII’s role in the McMartin case has been widely criticized in professional circles. Their interviewing techniques are considered coercive and manipulative which may lead the children make false allegations about sexual abuse. [7]

Besides his involvement in the McMartin case and the Jordan Chandler case Dr. Katz was also the psychologist who evaluated Jackson’s 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo.

Before Jordan went to his father on July 11, he had always denied that Jackson ever molested him or touched him in any sexual way, although Evan had already pressured him for a long time to corroborate his preconceived idea that the boy’s relationship with Jackson was sexual. [For details see our article on Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”.]

On July 8, the boy’s step father, David Schwartz, recorded three phone conversations that he had with Evan Chandler, in which Evan threatened to destroy Jackson with the help of a carefully prepared plot and with people who were only waiting for his phone call to set everything in motion if the star refused to communicate with him and refused to give him what he wants. [8] Schwartz took the tape to Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano on July 9, and on that same day Pellicano interviewed Jordan Chandler. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 article for GQ magazine:

“Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says, “very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened.” [10]

In September 1994 on a secretly taped phone conversation with Jim Mitteager, who was a reporter for The Globe tabloid at the time, Pellicano spoke about this event as well (at the time he did not work for Jackson any more):

“PELLICANO:  You have to understand something. I have nine kids.  Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby.  They crawl all over him.  They pull his hair.  They pull his nose.  Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face.  If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER:  Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO:  Not only that.  If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games.  I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is.  Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation.  He going to say all kinds of stuff.”  He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.”  As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes.  Then I tried tricking him.  I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian.  I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb.  So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either.  And I said Michael is all upset.  We went over and over.  I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there.  I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about?  And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions.  There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.” [11]

(Both Pellicano and Mitteager had a habit of secretly taping their conversations. This conversation was found amongst Mitteager’s tapes, which were handed over to Paul Barresi after Mitteager’s death. Barresi gave this tape to reporter, Aphrodite Jones, who published the transcript on her website.)

Jordan Chandler never repeated his allegations in a court and was never cross-examined about them. The interview he gave to Dr. Gardner contains remarkably similar trains of thought to that of Evan Chandler’s in the taped phone conversation he had with David Schwartz on July 8, 1993. For example, in that conversation Evan says:

“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.“[8]

and

“MR. CHANDLER: It was the saddest thing I [tape irregularity]. I mean, how do you do that? 13 years old. There’s no — you know, and a [tape irregularity] just come into it? 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.” [8]

and

“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 –“ [8]

From the Dr. Gardner interview with Jordan:

“You still wanted to go on the tour?”

“Yes, at the time.”

“Why is that?”

“Because I was having fun. At the time, the things Michael was doing to me, they didn’t affect me. Like, I didn’t think anything was totally wrong with what he was doing since he was my friend, and he kept on telling me that he would never hurt me. But presently I see that he was obviously lying.”

“You’re saying you didn’t realize it could hurt you? Is that what you’re – – “

“I didn’t see anything wrong with it.”

“Do you see the wrong in it now?”

“Of course.”

“What is wrong as you see it?”

Because he’s a grown-up and he’s using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don’t have as much experience as him, and don’t have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He’s using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness – to get what he wants.” [4]

When asked what, in his opinion, was wrong with what allegedly was done to him, Jordan was unable to relate to the alleged experience emotionally:

“When you say it could have hurt you, how could it have hurt you?”

“Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt, otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime.”

“Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?”

“Because – that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.”

“How?”

“I don’t know.”

“Just your own guess.”

“It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.”

“Well, this is important. You say it’s a crime. Why is it a crime?”

Because, like I said before, he’s using his experience, power, age – -

“How could this have left you? If this had gone on and not been interrupted, how could you have ended up?”

“According to his pattern, I believe he would have left me and, sort of dumped me, I guess you could call it. And I would be, sort of, a vegetable.” [4]

Jordan’s idea that what allegedly happened to him is wrong because it “separates you from any other people” is suspiciously similar to his father’s opinion, as related to us in his brother’s book, All That Glitters, which quotes Evan as saying:

“And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.” [9; page 109]

or

“Even if there was no sex, Jordie’s personality had been seriously altered. As he morphed day by day into a pint-sized clone of Michael, he withdrew further and further from his family and friends.”[9; page 49]

Keep in mind in the same book, it is claimed that after Jordan “confessed” to his father on July 16 by answering with an almost inaudible “yes” to the question did Jackson touch his penis, they supposedly never talked about the allegations again [details here], yet Jordan’s train of thought, opinions, choice of words in this interview are remarkably similar to those of his father’s.

(It is also remarkable that Jordan talks about a “pattern”, when there was no pattern at all as there was no other accuser. However, literature by specialists on psychology/psychiatry and criminalistics often refer to patterns of criminals. Would a 13-year-old use such terms and have such concepts without adult coaching?)

Continuing with the Dr. Gardner interview, Jordan goes on to say a couple of questions later the best thing that happened to him in his life was when he told his father what Jackson had allegedly done to him, “because once I told him, I knew that Michael would never be able to do that to me again. And when something horrible ends, it’s most likely the best thing in your life” [4]. Take note that just a couple of sentences before Jordan’s concern was that Jackson would have “left him” and “dumped” him. He also wanted to go on tour with Jackson and said that the alleged molestation did not affect him.

In the interview Dr. Gardner asks Jordan if he ever had any homosexual attractions or feelings, but the boy firmly states he is only interested in girls and he does not seem to be confused about his sexuality. When asked by Dr. Gardner if he had a girlfriend, he is described as smiling and answers that he was “in the process of chasing after one” [4]. In All That Glitters it is even stated that Jordan at the time only cared about his girlfriend and that he seemed to be “the least affected” by the whole case. Ray Chandler quoted his brother, Evan telling his ex-wife, June:

“Jordie’s into his girlfriend. That’s all he cares about. I don’t even think about it day to day because it’s so speculative, you know, the news and their comments. I’m only interested in the facts and what actually happens. Quite frankly, I’m beginning to think that Jordie will be the least affected by all this. He seems very strong. He’ll be very scared if it goes to court, but that’s probably the main emotion he’ll feel.” [9; page 198-199]

Another part of the book talks about Jordan “running and laughing” and dating in October, 1993 – seemingly unaffected (and also unbothered by Michael Jackson fans or anyone), only a couple of months after his alleged molestation, while the investigation was still in full gear:

“By mid-October the Chandler’s could be reasonably assured of walking out of their front door without having a camera staring them in the face. Which meant that Jordie was able to play in the front yard or across the street at a friend’s house. To look at him, he seemed without a care, running and laughing like any other kid. But to those who knew him well, there was much inner conflict.

In Jordie’s small circle of friends there were boys and girls, but as of yet, la difference seemed to be of no interest to him. Then one day his friend’s eleven-year-old cousin came to play — a dark, slim beauty with big brown eyes. Jordie was smitten. And apparently the feeling was mutual. She returned the next day, and then the next, and soon they were spending much of their days together.

“He would do stuff,” Evan explained. “Like throw a stick to show her how macho he was. And then she’d remark how far he’d thrown it and act impressed. Sometimes they’d go off on their own, just a few houses away, and sit on the lawn and talk. The other kids would giggle and make fun of them. What a relief!”

“What do you think of her?” Evan asked his son, after watching the relationship blossom for several weeks. “I want to kiss her,” Jordie replied. But we might get in trouble with her mother. She’s too young.” And he was right. Not too young to kiss, perhaps, but too young to establish a more intimate bond — which I’m sure is what he had in mind.

Being the gentleman that he is, Jordie controlled his desires and learned an important lesson, for his patience was soon rewarded. A day or so later a new, older girl appeared on the block. “Hey, Pops,” Jordie exclaimed, “look at her, she’s beautiful!” And that she was. A sweet kid, too. They “dated” for over a year.” [9; page 188-189]

In the interview, Jordan claims he went along with the alleged sexual acts because he was overwhelmed by Jackson and he was under his spell. However, at another point in the interview he says he was not in awe of Jackson at all and that to him the star was “just like, a regular person” [4].

Dr. Gardner also asked Jordan if he had any fears. Perhaps not understanding that Dr. Gardner referred to the type of fear that is common in many children who suffered with sexual abuse, Jordan replied that he was only afraid of cross-examination.

“What about fears? Any fears of any kind?”

 “No.”

“Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”

“Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.” [4]

In the interview Dr. Garnder also asks Jordan about his relationship with his mother, June Chandler. The pyschiatrist tries to find out if Jordan feels resentment toward her for “facilitating” the alleged abuse. Jordan, however, says he does not feel resentment toward her and says his mother was under Jackson’s spell just like he was. Dr. Gardner pressed him further on the issue:

“What about trust of your mother? Do you think any trust of your mother has been affected?”

 “Well, not because she, as people would say, she wanted to pimp me out. More because of maybe, I tried to tell her one time and she didn’t believe me.”

“When was that? Do you remember?”

“No.”

“How do you feel about that?”

“I feel that if there’s any remote, itty-bitty thing in your mind that your kid may be getting hurt, you should put an army together, you know, if there’s a suspicion as strong as that, that my Dad had carried out this far. She should have at least listened to what I had to say.” [4]

(Keep in mind that Jordan was still under his father’s control when this interview was conducted.)

Besides the strangeness of Jordan saying that his main problem with his mother was NOT that she allegedly tried to “pimp him out” (“as people would say”), but that she would not listen to him, this is yet another contradiction in the Chandler story. Here Jordan claims he tried to tell his mother about the alleged abuse, but she did not listen. However, in Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters we read that Jordan was very secretive about the alleged abuse and despite of repeated questions by his father or others (like Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano on July 9, 1993 – see earlier in this article) he would not disclose it. This conversation between the boy and his father took place at the end of May, 1993, according to the book:

“I’ll be there in a minute,” Evan said, and as Jordie turned to leave, he added, “Hey, Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?”

“That’s disgusting!” Jordie reacted. “I’m not into that.”

“Just kidding.”

Evan explained it this way. “It was crude, but I was so anxious, I decided on the spur of the moment to say it because I figured it would elicit an unplanned response.”

Jordie’s repulsion brought Evan great relief.” [9; page 46]

In our article entitled How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge?   you can read in detail about the Chandlers’ version of  how Jordan allegedly “confessed” about the abuse: his father basically threatened and blackmailed him into it, despite of Jordan denying any wrongdoing by Jackson initially. Even according to their own story it was not a voluntary disclosure by the boy or something he was eager to do – on the contrary.

As you can read in the above referenced article, according Ray Chandler’s book on August 6, 1993 – three weeks after his alleged “confession” to his father – Jordan was still unwilling to disclose his alleged abuse to his mother. In actuality, based on the same book, on August 10 June Chandler took out the boy to lunch and told him that if he would confirm Evan’s allegations against Jackson then she would help them punish him. Yet Jordan was still not willing to tell her that Jackson had allegedly molested him. The confirmation would finally come the next morning, according to the book, when Jordan called his mother and told her about his allegations on the phone – with Evan standing next to him. June then requested to talk to the boy alone, but Evan refused to let them. Before that the book portrays the boy as being firmly against telling it to his mother and it also claims that he did not want his father to tell it to her either. 

In the interview with Dr. Gardner Jordan’s answers often sound mechanical, rehearsed, emotionally detached and at times he uses expressions and concepts that sound very unusal from a 13-year-old.

Like mentioned earlier in this chapter, in Ray Chandler’s book Evan Chandler stated that he believed out of the whole family the allegations affected Jordan the least. The same book also recalls Jordan’s behaviour as he emerged from Dr. Mathis Abrams’ office on August 17, 1993, after he first told the story of his alleged sexual abuse.

Ten minutes after noon, Jordie finally emerged. “Hey, Dad, can we get something to eat?” His favorite question.

Evan was startled. He expected Jordie to come out heavy-hearted, but the boy seemed exuberated, almost whimsical. “Are you okay?” Evan asked, wrapping his arms around the boy.

“Yeah, Pops. Let’s go, I’m starved.” [9; page 121]

Sources:

[1] Dimond Misleading the Public, Katz not first to hear allgations? Bullet #113
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/dimond-misleading-the-public-katz-not-first-to-hear-allgationsbullet-113.html

[2] Interview with Geraldine Hughes by Deborah L. Kunesh
http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html

[3] Declaration by Jordan Chandler on December 28, 1993 as leaked in February 2003
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/jacko-original-child-abuse-allegations

[4] Dr. Richard Gardner’s interview with Jordan Chandler as leaked in February 2003
j-chandler-gardner-interview

[5] June Chandler’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 11, 2005)

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

[7] See for example:

- Learning From the McMartin Hoax (1989): http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_2_7.htm

- Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study (5 May, 2005): http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=james_wood

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

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

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

[11] Taped phone conversation between Anthony Pellicano and Jim Mitteager (September, 1994)
It was originally posted on Aphrodite Jones’ website at http://www.aphroditejones.com/Michael_Jackson_Trial/Michael_Jackson_Trial.htm
The website has been since then reorganized and the Michael Jackson Trial section is not available anymore.

Comments are closed

The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands

The fact that Michael Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser in 1994 is often brought up against him as a sign of guilt. The settlement and the events leading to it is discussed in this article. The critics who bring up the settlement do not realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations (indirectly, by capitalizing on the rule that all psychiatrists must report allegations of abuse) was because they did not get the pay-off they desired.

Before disclosing their allegations to a person mandated to report the alleged abuse, a psychiatrist, and going public with the allegations, Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler demanded money from Michael Jackson. In his book, All That Glitters, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler vehemently denies that the demand was an act of extortion and prefers to call it “negotiations”. Whatever you want to call it, this is how it went:

[It is recommended that our articles entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions” and How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge? be read as the following events’ antecedents and context. In the article Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”, you can learn more about Dr. Abrams’ letter that Evan Chandler used as a “negotiation” tool.]

According to Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, with Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter in his hand, Evan attempted to “negotiate” with Michael Jackson and wanted to do so alone. In the chapter entitled “August 1” the book states:

“Although Evan was certain Michael’s actions toward Jordie were harmful, he still did not believe them to be intentional. As twisted as Michael was, Evan believed Michael genuinely cared about Jordie, and that if he could talk to Michael alone and explain his concerns, Michael would understand and together they could work out a solution, “without the damn lawyers.” [1; page 99]

Jackson, however, refused to negotiate with Evan “without the damn lawyers”. According to All That Glitters, Jordan’s step father, David Schwartz had already delivered the news of the Abrams’ letter to Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, so Jackson already could suspect that Evan was up to something. Additionally, Jackson had already listened to the secretly taped phone conversation between Evan and Schwartz, recorded on July 8, 1993. Nevertheless, Jackson agreed to meet with Evan but only in the presence of his lawyer, Bert Fields or Pellicano. The telephone conversation between Evan and Jackson is described as follows in All That Glitters:

“I just want to find out what’s going on between you two,” Evan explained. “You don’t need a lawyer. We can work this out ourselves.”

Michael wouldn’t budge: Pellicano or Fields had to attend.

“We may talk about some embarrassing things for both of you,” Evan cautioned.

“Anything you say to me, you can say to Bert,” Michael insisted.

“But I don’t think anyone else should hear these things. I don’t want you to get in trouble. I just…” Click.

This phone call was a turning point for Evan. “I understood that a man in Michael’s position needed lawyers for everything, but this was not business, not to me. I really thought we could work it out if we could get all the lawyers out of the picture, and I thought Michael would want that too. If I wasn’t bringing a lawyer, why did he need one?” [1; page 100]

The meeting took place on August 4 at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Present were Michael Jackson, Anthony Pellicano and Evan and Jordan Chandler. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 GQ magazine article:

“On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it.

When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.”

As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.” [2]

The hug is mentioned in Ray Chandler’s book as well: “Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend.”[1; page 102]

And then it is explained in a peculiar way:

“In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting, Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting.”If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.” Supposedly this means that because Evan didn’t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn’t believe the molestation occurred.

Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing.

But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn’t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael’s audio expert/private investigator present as a witness!

That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn’t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.” [1; page 107]

How many parents would give the person whom they suspect to have molested their child a “happy-to-see-you hug” and would “pat him on the back like an old friend”? And how many parents would have to “pretend” to be angry with the alleged molester, instead of genuinely be angry?

Another remarkable aspect of the above quoted text is Evan’s apparent attempt to refrain from the use of the term “molestation”. Remember, this meeting took place after Jordan allegedly already “confessed” to Evan.

Jackson and his people understood that Jackson was being accused of child molestation, even if Evan was careful not to make that accusation himself. At the Westwood Marquis Hotel Evan had only read Dr. Abrams’ letter, he did not make any accusation in his own words. Apparently, Evan and his attorney Barry Rothman were trying to make sure that Evan could not be sued later if the allegations were proven to be false. Actually, according to Ray Chandler’s book, Rothman warned Pellicano on August 1, that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be untrue:

“But Barry was not intimidated. He informed Pellicano that Evan had made no public statements of defamatory remarks about Michael in any way. And further, that Evan, as a dentist, was a mandatory reporter governed by the same requirements as any licensed health professional. Not only was he required to report his suspicions to the proper authorities, but he could not be sued for doing so even if they turned out to be incorrect.” [1; page 100]

As for Mary A. Fischer’s claim about the reaction of Jordan when his father read the Abrams’ letter, it is brought up in an article that Ray Chandler wrote for his now defunct website in 2005 and the context tends to confirm Pellicano’s account: Ray Chandler uses it as a defense against the claim that Sodium Amytal was administered to Jordan. [Details about this and how it tends to support Pellicano’s account can be found in this article.]

According to All That Glitters, a day after Rothaman warned Pellicano that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be false, allegedly Pellicano called Rothman and “announced he had a way of working everything out. Michael would help Jordie and Evan “reestablish their relationship” by assisting them in setting up a screenwriting career. That way they could spend lots of time together doing what they loved best.” [1; page 101]

According to the book, this offer was the first thing that Evan brought up at the Westwood Marquis Hotel on August 4, but Pellicano denied making the offer and it became clear that he was not willing to offer him anything. According to All That Glitters, this made Evan “frustrated by Pellicano’s attitude, and Michael’s apparent condoning of it” [1; page 102-103] and Evan allegedly told the entertainer that he knew what he had done to Jordan and that the boy had confirmed it. The book claims “Evan then asked his son to confirm that he had, and the boy nodded affirmatively” [1; page 103], to which Jackson looked straight into Jordan’s eyes and said: “I didn’t do anything.”[1; page 103]

Allegedly, for Evan this was “the defining moment”:

“For Evan, it was the defining moment. “I knew Michael was screwed up, but until that point I wasn’t sure where he was coming from. Part of me still believed he was genuinely in love with Jordie and was acting innocently out of a warped mind, without any forethought or cunning.

“But his smile was chilling, like the smile you see on a serial killer or rapist who continually declares his innocence despite mountains of evidence against him. I knew it immediately; Michael Jackson was a child molester! It was suddenly so obvious, June had been fooled, Jordie had been fooled, and I had been fooled. The entire world had been fooled by this pitiful creature with a brilliant but criminal mind.” [1; page 103]

According to All That Glitters Jordan “confessed” to Evan on July 16, yet Ray Chandler describes this moment on August 4 as the defining moment; a moment in which Jackson looked into Jordan’s eyes and said he didn’t do anything. We are to believe that this is what convinced Evan that Jackson was a child molester? Not that his son had earlier “confessed” to him? Ray Chandler closes the account of the meeting by stating:

 “Evan felt victorious. Not because he had won anything, but because he had finally solved the puzzle. Not only had there been sex between his son and Michael, but he now understood Michael’s true feelings. He had glimpse into the man’s heart, and it was not a pretty sight.” [1; page 104]

Jordan allegedly “confessed” to his father on July 16, but according to this storyline  Evan “solved the puzzle” only on August 4, and does that by interpreting Jackson’s denial in a rather peculiar way.

Evan’s new conviction, however, didn’t prevent him from continuing his “negotiations” with Jackson. After the Westwood Marquis Hotel meeting, Pellicano was invited to meet with Barry Rothman and Evan at Rothman’s office and that is when Evan and Rothman made their $20 million demand.

Ray Chandler’s reasoning for that is:

“Evan had two goals. First and foremost was the welfare of his son. On the surface Jordie seemed fine, but this wasn’t surface stuff. Dr. Abrams had expressed deep concern for the boy and left Evan with the impression that serious damage might already have occurred. [Note: Dr. Abrams had not met Jordan yet at this point. Evan refers to Dr. Abrams’ letter here, which was in answer of the version of events that he and his lawyer presented to Abrams.] Evan hoped for the best but needed to prepare for the worst.

If Jordie needed long-term counseling it could be expensive, and they would have to find a state that did not require psychotherapists to report child abuse to the authorities. That could mean relocating and closing his dental practice. How would he support his family? A worst case scenario to be sure, but possible.

Soured by his experience with Pellicano and Michael — in particular, “Michael looking into Jordie’s eyes and denying their intimacy” — Evan’s second goal was to punish Michael. “I didn’t want him to get off scot-free. But a few million is chump change to him. I figured twenty million was definitely punishing amount. At the very least it would give him something to think about. If it turned out Jordie was okay and didn’t need a lot of counseling, so much the better*. He’d be set for life. He deserved it after what Michael did to him.

“And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.” [1; page 108-109]

(*Not surprisingly, Jordan indeed did not need a lot of counseling.)

Others have differing account about where the $20 million sum demanded by Evan (who was an aspiring screenwriter) came from. On August 28, 1993 the Los Angeles Times wrote: “Film industry sources have said that the boy’s father sought a $20-million movie production and financing deal with Jackson.” [4]

A friend of Jackson, painter David Nordahl elaborated that in an interview he gave to the Reflections on the Dance website in 2010:

“I was working on sketches for his [Jackson’s] film production company, called Lost Boys Productions. Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boys dad (Evan Chandler), who considered himself to be show business material, because he had written part of a script. After that he considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and thats where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted half of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion. Michael listened to his business advisors and they all told him to keep his mouth shut and to go on to Korea, go on with your tour, youre in the middle of a tour. Well take care of it.” [5]

Back to Evan Chandler’s opinion that $20 million was “punishing amount”: why not leave punishment up to the proper authorities? The answer in All That Glitters is that Evan thought they would not believe them and he was concerned about the publicity that the allegations would bring. Ray Chandler writes about that concern:

“It wasn’t just after the fact that Evan made these claims. He expressed his fears about a public airing on Dave’s secret tape, six weeks before the affair became public. “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.” His son and himself included.” [1; page 109]

However, there’s a problem with this claim. In the taped phone conversation between Evan and David Schwartz, and in the context, that statement wasn’t an expression of concern. On the contrary.

“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.”[3]

(Towards the end of our article about the settlement you can read some more facts those go against the claim that the Chandlers settled for money and tried to avoid a criminal trial because they were wary of publicity.)

According to All That Glitters, Rothman was convinced that Jackson would not pay $20 million, so he tried to talk Evan down to $5 million, but Evan was intractable because he believed “five million was a pay-off, not a punishment.” He wanted Michael punished for what he now believed was a blatant molestation.” [1; page 109]

According to the book, on August 9 Pellicano came back with a counteroffer of $1 million to fund three screenplays written by Evan and Jordan. Evan turned it down. Then on August 13 Pellicano’s next offer, which made it clear that Pellicano was rather just keeping them in check and mocking them and not seriously bargaining, shocked Rothman and Evan: $350,000.

“Barry couldn’t believe his ears. Pellicano was completely ignoring the rules of the game. Barry started at twenty million, Pellicano had countered with one million, surely the next number should be somewhere in between. And strange as it was that Pellicano had lowered his million dollar offer, it was even crazier that he refused to reinstate it when Barry told him that he had “busted [his] hump for three days…getting Evan to hopefully agree.” [1; page 117-118]

According to the book, on August 17 Pellicano called Rothman to find out if Evan accepted the offer.

“Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. “It’s never going to happen,” the investigator insisted.” [1; page 121]

The day before, on August 16, June Chandler’s attorney, Michael Freeman informed Rothman that they had filed a motion for a Court Order to have Jordan returned to his mother, June Chandler. In response to that and frustrated by Jackson’s refusal to pay him off, on August 17 Evan took Jordan to Dr. Abrams where the boy made his allegations against Michael Jackson, which inevitably involved the authorities and afforded Evan the ability to get custody of Jordan.

According to All That Glitters:

“In a phone conversation the night before Freeman’s request was to be heard in court, Barry counseled Evan that unless he was willing to walk into the courtroom and accuse Michael of molesting Jordie, he didn’t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.” [1; page 119]

If one were to follow the above events, it is clear that Jackson had plenty of opportunities to pay off the Chandlers, had he really wanted to, before the case went public or to the authorities. He chose not to do so, which baffled Evan. Ray Chandler writes in his book:

“Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you’ve got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money’s no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn’t work, you can always come out swingin’ anyway.” [1; page 126]

and

“On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?” [1; page 138]

Whether you use the term extortion to describe the above events or not, Ray Chandler closes the chapter about the “negotiations” with a standalone paragraph, as if to summarize the chapter and emphasize:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”[1; page 128]

Yes, this is coming right from the accuser’s family. Meanwhile, please remember how Jordan’s allegations emerged: his father basically threatened and pressured him into saying what he wanted to hear. The same father who then used these allegations to try to “negotiate” with Jackson for money.

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

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

[4] 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

[5] Friendship & A Paintbrush – Interview with David Nordahl (2010)
Original source: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html – the audio clips those contained the conversation are no longer available. For a secondary source, see, for example: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/transcript-of-“frozen-in-time-a-riveting-behind-the-scenes-view-of-the-michael-jackson-cases”-part-3/

Comments are closed