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 | Larry Feldman

Lawyers being hired and the formation of the allegations

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

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

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

A. Correct. [1]


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

A. I believe that’s correct.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

A. No. [1]


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

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

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

A. That’s correct.

Q. You mention nothing about false imprisonment, correct?

A. Correct.

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

A. That is correct.

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

A. Correct. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Who was that other attorney?

A. Larry Feldman.

Q. And why did you do that?

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

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

THE COURT: They’re not hearing you.

MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry?

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

MR. ZONEN: I’m terribly sorry.

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

A. Well, we have an agreement.

Q. Okay.

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

Q. Which means what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Feldman’s testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?

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

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

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

MR. SNEDDON: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. How many months later?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I would assume that to be the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. That’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[3] See for example:
– Learning From the McMartin Hoax (1989)
– Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and
Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study (5 May, 2005)

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

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

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

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?”
“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.


[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

[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)

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

[6] Judith Regan on Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations on SIRIUS XM

[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)

[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)

[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)

Comments are closed