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 | Ray Chandler

Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

Earlier in the article Barbato is quoted as saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarkably, like Gutierrez, Evan Chandler spoke of supposed child molestation as if it was a consensual romance. In Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, they even feel the need to explain in a footnote why the alleged “relationship” between Jordan and Jackson is described as a love story:

“Evan and Monique’s belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were “in love,” is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant.” [10; page 45]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed

Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit against Michael Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evan Chandler

Evan Chandler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evan’s lawsuit claims:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

Comments are closed

Ray Chandler’s Subpoena in 2004

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

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”[1]

Evan's brother, Raymond Chandler

Evan’s brother, Raymond Chandler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

signatures-of-rothman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]

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

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

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

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

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

The redacted version of the description

The redacted version of the description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

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

 “Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

“That’s very good.”

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

 (Emphasis added.)

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

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

 Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed

The Settlement

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

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

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

Michael Jackson and his accuser, Jordan Chandler, reached an out of court settlement on January 25, 1994. The settlement was illegally leaked to Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003, so we know the amount paid into a trust for Jordan Chandler was $15,331,250 [1; page 5]. (Note: Either Dimond or the person who leaked the document to her omitted the parts after the third paragraph. It is not known who leaked the confidential settlement to Dimond, however, Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, calls Dimond Evan Chandler’s “closest ally” at one point [3; page 194]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. Because of this change, an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial. It is for this reason that Jackson’s 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo, could not use the same strategy as what the Chandlers did in 1993. He had no choice but to begin a criminal trial first:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“[T]his attorney I found… I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can, and he’s got a bad [tape irregularity]…[5]

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

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

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

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

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”[6]

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit got thrown out of Court in 2000.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed

The 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

The Use of Sodium Amytal?

Mary A. Fischer, in her October, 1994 GQ Magazine article writes that when Jordan was sedated in his father’s office on July 16th, 1993, allegedly, he was administered the controversial drug Sodium Amytal, which studies have shown can make the human mind suggestible. Fischer wrote that through the use of Sodium Amytal false memories might have been implanted in Jordan’s mind.

However, according to Anthony Pellicano about two weeks later, on August 4, 1993 (the day the Chandlers made their demand for $20 million of Michael Jackson [details in this article]) while Evan read passages from Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter to Jackson and his people, when he arrived at 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.” [1]

Jordan’s uncle Ray Chandler himself uses this defense against the Sodium Amytal story in an article he has written for his now defunct website (atgbook.net) in 2005:

“Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer’s drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie’s behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows:

The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. “Jordie was looking down,” [Pellicano said] “and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, ‘I didn’t say that.'”

According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn’t brainwashed at all! He was acting embarrassed and guilty about the accusations his father had made.” [2]

“Ironically”, with this defense against the Sodium Amytal story Chandler acknowledges the credibility of Pellicano’s account. If Chandler brings up Pellicano’s account as a defense against the Sodium Amytal claim then logically that means he acknowledges it as accurate. Pellicano’s account supports the theory that Jordan’s memory was not altered.

Jackson’s 2005 attorney, Thomas Mesereau said he had witnesses who, if Jordan testified against Jackson at the 2005 trial, would tell the jury that Jordan privately confided in them that Jackson never molested him. If this is true then this too supports that Jordan’s memory was not altered.

Ray Chandler in his book and article admits that Jordan was sedated on July 16 for a minor dental procedure (pulling a baby tooth), but he denies that Sodium Amytal was used. In his 2005 article Ray Chandler speculatively tries to attribute the origination of the Sodium Amytal story to Jackson’s camp, but Fischer cites her sources for the story, none of whom belong to the Jackson camp.

One of her sources was a report by “a newsman at KCBS-TV”. We know from Ray Chandler’s 2005 article that the newsman was Harvey Levin (since then known as the founder of celebrity gossip website TMZ). Fischer wrote in 1994:

A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations.” [1]

From the wording (“the dentist claimed” and the emphasis on that it was used “only to pull his son’s tooth”) it seems that the source of Levin’s information was  Evan Chandler himself or someone on his side, but Ray Chandler in his article denies this. Mary Fischer herself asked Mark Torbiner, Evan’s Anesthesiologist, the person who supposedly sedated Jordan, and he answered somewhat ambiguously: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes” [1]. Ray Chandler in 2005 cannot get a flat-out denial from Torbiner either. In the footnotes to his article he writes:

“Fischer claimed that she spoke to Torbiner and that he told her “If I used it [the drug], it was for dental purposes.” Dr. Torbiner would not respond to inquiries about what, if anything, he told Fischer. His attorney stated that Torbiner was bound by the doctor-patient privilege and could not discuss the issue without written consent from his patient.” [2]

We don’t know Levin’s sources for his claim, but we do know that Fischer’s source, Mark Torbiner was a member of the Chandler camp, not the Jackson camp. Though he did not directly claim he used Sodium Amytal on Jordan, but he made an ambiguous statement about it.

In the spring of 1994, when this story first appeared through Harvey Levin, there was a high profile child abuse trial featured in the American media with the protaginist Sodium Amytal. In that case a 23-year-old woman, Holly Ramona accused her father of raping her when she was a child. However, her father counter-sued Holly’s therapist for implanting false memories in her mind with hypnosis and with the use of Sodium Amytal.  In that trial, evidence revealed that the drug was unreliable. [3]

At the time the prosecution in the Jackson case were still pursuing the Chandlers to testify against the entertainer in a criminal case. 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.” [4]

A claim that Sodium Amytal was used on Jordan would be a good way for the Chandlers to impeach him and allege that his memories are unreliable and thus get the prosecution off their back. Remember, the Chandlers already had their money from the settlement and never wanted to testify in a criminal court [for details see our article about The Settlement].

However, whether Sodium Amytal was used or not is not pivotal in this case at all. As you can read in this article, the Chandlers’ version of how Jordan came up with the allegations is very problematic in itself, even without the introduction of Sodium Amytal into the story.

Sources:

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

[2] Raymond Chandler’s article on his now defunct website (Allthatglittersbook.com, Atgbook.com, Atgbook.net, January-February, 2005)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/atgbook.net/GQFinal.html

[3] Dennis Dutton: A Family Torn Asunder (July 20, 1997)
http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/santafe.html

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

Comments are closed

How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge?

On July 11, 1993 Jordan Chandler, who was residing with his mother June Chandler, went to visit his father for a week but at the end of the week Evan Chandler refused to return the boy to his mother. This was the week when Jordan’s allegations against Michael Jackson began to take shape. The Chandlers claimed that the boy’s confessions of abuse were made after Evan sedated him for a minor dental procedure (pulling a baby tooth) with the help of his Anesthesiologist and friend, Mark Torbiner on July 16, just one day before Evan was scheduled to return his son to his ex-wife.

According to the Chandlers’ story, as presented in Ray Chandler’s 2004 book All That Glitters, after Jordan emerged from the sedation Evan pressured him to “confess” and corroborate his suspicions that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him. The boy refused. Then Evan started to blackmail him with lies and threats against his friend, Michael Jackson.

First Evan claimed he had bugged Jordan’s bedroom (admittedly a lie).

“When Jordie came strolling back from the kitchen, Evan went on the attack. “Have a seat, and listen very carefully to what I’m about to say. Do you remember when you came over to the house I told you that if you lie to me I was going to destroy Michael?” Jordie nodded that he did. “Good. Keep that in mind, because I’m going to ask you a question. Do you care about Michael?”

“Yes,” the boy answered.

‘You could say you love him, right?”

“Yes.”

“And you wouldn’t want to hurt him?”

“No.”

“Okay then, let me remind you of something. Remember I told you I bugged your bedroom?” Jordie nodded. “Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it.” [1; page 90]

But Jordan remained “silent, seemingly unimpressed”[1; page 90] and “sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack” [1; page 90]. Then he tried to cajole Jordan by telling him that being bisexual was not only OK but was “sorta cool, in a way”[1; page 91]. That didn’t work either, Jordan still would not say that Jackson molested him.

Then Evan’s threats against Jackson became more direct and more aggressive:

“I’m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I’m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it’ll be all your fault because you’re the one person who could have saved him. [1; page 91]”

 and

“I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,” Evan lied. “This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie. So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him. [1; page 91]”

Jordan by this time, of course, knew what his father would consider “the truth” and what would he consider a “lie”, since Evan made that very clear. Ray Chandler writes in his book: “In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn’t need Jordie to confirm it.” [1; page 91] In other words Evan had a fixed, preconceived idea that Jackson had molested his son and he would only accept confirmation from Jordan as “the truth”. Everything else would be considered a “lie” and would result in Evan acting to “taking down” the entertainer. And this is when Jordan, after pleading his father not to hurt Jackson, allegedly, gave in:

“Okay. What’s the question?”

“Did Michael touch your penis?”

Jordie hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered “Yes.”

Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged back, tight.

“We never talked about it again,” Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn’t matter. “The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.” [1; page 91-92]

After all these threats and blackmailing Jordan “confesses” with an almost inaudible “yes” and we are to believe that Evan doesn’t have any further questions? Supposedly his son has just confessed he has been molested but his father is not interested in details, such as when, where, how, how many times and exactly what happened, under what circumstancis was his son’s penis touched by another man? In actuality, Evan later tells the Los Angeles DA that “we never talked about it again”.  It would only make sense if Evan knew there were no details to be told. It also seems to be an attempt on Evan’s part to distance himself from the allegations, so that he could not be accused of coaching his son.

All the “details” would later coalesce when we hear about the masturbation, mutual masturbation and oral sex claims but these “details” only surface after Jordan spends more time in his father’s care and in the office of Evan’s attorney, Barry Rothman, a person that Evan himself described in his taped phone conversation with David Schwartz as the “nastiest son of a bitch” [2].

It must be emphasized that the above described story of Jordan’s alleged “confession” about the abuse is based solely on Ray Chandler’s account in All That Glitters and we do not know how much of it is true. Even if it is completely true, the way Jordan was coerced and threatened into a “confession” would make these allegations very problematic. However, there are reasons to doubt the claim that Jordan “confessed” anything at all on July 16.

In All That Glitters it is claimed that on July 20 Jordan’s mother, June Chandler and her then husband, David Schwartz met Evan’s attorney, Barry Rothman in his office. During that meeting Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter (a letter that Dr. Abrams wrote without having even met Jordan [More about Abrams’ letter in our article about Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”.]) was shown to them and it was demanded that they sign a document that would transfer custody of Jordan from June to Evan. Although Rothman and Evan Chandler wanted to convince June Chandler and David Schwartz that Jordan had been molested by Jackson – and as a tool for that they used Dr. Abrams’ letter – Jordan’s alleged confession was not mentioned to them during that meeting. In All That Glitters it is claimed that it was because Evan did not tell Rothman about Jordan’s alleged “confession”. The reason given is that Evan did not want to betray the boy’s trust.

On August 4 Evan and Jordan met with Jackson and his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Evan read Dr. Abrams’ letter to them and after the meeting Evan and Rothman invited Pellicano to Rothman’s office where they made a $20 million demand to not to go public with allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson. [Details about that meeting in our article about The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands.]

However, according to Ray Chandler’s book, on August 6 Jordan was still unwilling to tell his mother, June Chandler that Jackson had allegedly molested him. Ray Chandler claims it was because the boy was “too ashamed”[1; page 111]. This could be possible, of course, however Evan himself still did not mention Jordan’s alleged “confession” to his ex-wife either, although he is described as being desperate to convince June that their son had been molested by Jackson. The explanation given in the book is once again that Evan did not want to betray the boy’s trust. Evan is quoted in the book as saying: “It shouldn’t have mattered, anyway,” Evan believed. “I am his father and if I’m telling her our child has been molested, that should be enough.” [1; page 112]

The book describes a peculiar sequence of events on August 9-11. June took Jordan to the movies, but Evan only allowed it “on the condition that she not badger Jordie with questions” [1; page 115]. Keep in mind that meanwhile Evan is desperate to convince June that their son had been molested by Jackson, yet he does not allow June, the boy’s mother, to personally ask Jordan about it. According to the book, the next day June again took out Jordan to lunch and she and her then-husband, David Schwartz started to ask him questions: “What’s your dad up to? How much money did he ask for? Did Rothman file for custody?” [1; page 116]

The book claims that this made Jordan threaten them that he would call the “cops” if they did not take him back to his father, so June took him back to Evan. The book describes this as a dramatic “abduction” attempt by June [1; page 116] which makes little sense because June had legal custody over the boy, so the “cops” could not have done anything to force her to return Jordan to Evan if she had not voluntarily wanted to. Keep in mind that this version of the events is just Ray and Evan Chandler’s version and it does not mean it is the truth, but this is their story. The story in the book goes on:

“When they arrived, June told her son that if Evan were telling the truth she would join forces with them to see Michael punished. Safely inside his father’s house, Jordie told Evan what had occurred, and about June’s offer to help if she could be convinced.

Evan knew the only chance of accomplishing this was for Jordie to tell June everything, which the boy was still reluctant to do. “I realized for the first time I was going to have break my promise to Jordie and tell June he admitted to being touched. Things were totally out of control and it was the only way to end the insanity.” [1; page 116]

It is very ironic that Evan talks about an “insanity” when it was his behaviour that was bizarre. Why all the drama, secrecy and complications when he could have simply told June immediately after July 16 that Jordan had confessed to him that he was inappropriately touched by Michael Jackson? Are we to believe that while Evan is described as desperate to convince June that Jackson molested their son, for almost a month he would not mention to her the single most important “evidence”, Jordan’s own confession? The explanation that Evan did not mention it because he did not want to betray Jordan’s trust is hard to believe considering the fact that he did not have a problem with betraying his son or lying to him on other occasions. Additionally, Evan had already claimed to other people, including June, that Jackson had allegedly molested Jordan, basing his claim on Dr. Abrams’ letter. Why would telling Jordan’s mother about the alleged “confession” of the boy be a bigger “betrayal”?

Even on August 10, when June told Jordan that she would help them punish Jackson if Jordan confirmed his father’s claims, the boy was still reluctant to do so. 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. Evan’s reasoning in the book was that he did not trust June after her “attempt to abduct” Jordan, and that June and David Schwartz expressed to him their suspicion that Evan had coerced Jordan into making allegations against Jackson. With the above described events June did have a good reason to suspect that and Evan not letting the boy talk to her alone certainly would not be the way to dispel that suspicion. Nor would the fact that during this period Evan and his lawyer, Barry Rothman continued to demand money from Jackson which is discussed in detail in this article.

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 first made his detailed allegations against Michael Jackson, which inevitably involved the authorities, made the allegations public and afforded Evan the ability to get custody of Jordan. In Ray Chandler’s book we read:

“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]

Consider the fact that Evan should have returned Jordan to his mother on July 16. To claim in the hindsight that Jordan “confessed” to him that day about having allegedly been molested by Michael Jackson, would be a good way for Evan to justify why he did not. However, the events which took place between July 16 and August 17, as described above, make that claim dubious at least.

Sources:

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

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

Comments are closed

Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”

The allegation that Michael Jackson sexually molested Jordan Chandler did not originate from the boy himself. You can read here how his father, Evan Chandler pressured and blackmailed him into corroborating his preconceived, fixed idea that there was something sexual going on between Jordan and the entertainer.

Upon what did Evan Chandler base his “suspicions”? According to the version of the story, as presented by his brother Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, the suspicions were based on vague feelings and odd interpretations of certain events.

In the book, Evan is distanced from being the originator of the “suspicions”. It is claimed that his ex-wife, June Chandler and her then husband, David Schwartz had concerns before him, only to “forget” about them later, when they were blinded by Jackson’s fame, influence and money.

According to the book, June Chandler first had concerns in February, 1993 when she and her children, Jackson and another boy traveled to Neverland in a limo and the other boy, who was about Jordan’s age, allegedly sat on the entertainer’s lap while he was seated in the front-seat. Ray Chandler’s book claims that the entertainer caressed and kissed the boy “on the ear and the cheek”[1; page 16] with “soft, lingering kisses”[1; page 16]. Though Ray Chandler does not give the name of the boy in his book, we do know that it was Brett Barnes who was with them on that trip.

At Jackson’s 2005 trial June Chandler was asked about this trip by the prosecution, but she did not mention “soft, lingering kisses” and did not describe the scene as a disturbing sight. She also described Brett Barnes as sitting next to Jackson, not on his lap [2].

Brett Barnes was interviewed by the police several times in 1993 as a child. In 2005, as an adult, he quit his job in Australia to travel to the US and testify at Jackson’s trial in support of the singer. He categorically denied that he had ever been sexually molested or inappropriately touched by Jackson. He said he was “very mad” [3] at the insinuation that Jackson molested or inappropriately touched him. On the stand he called Jackson a good personal and family friend with whom he was still in touch as an adult. “He’s a member of the family. Just always had warm conversations, reminisce about old times” [3]. Brett Barnes’ mother and sister also testified at the trial in support of Jackson.

The next event Ray Chandler cites as a source of concern for June is when she and her children accompany Jackson to Las Vegas in March 1993 and stay at the Mirage Hotel. According to June Chandler’s 2005 testimony one night Jackson and Jordan went to see a Cirque du Soleil performance and when they came back Jackson insisted on Jordan sleeping in his bedroom. According to June Chandler when she refused Jackson kept insisting on it “sobbing, crying, shaking, trembling”[2] to which June gave in and let Jordan sleep in Jackson’s bedroom for the first time.

However, Jordan’s own version of this story contradicts his mother’s 2005 testimony. In an interview that psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner conducted with Jordan on October 6, 1993 the boy said he and Jackson watched the horror movie The Exorcist that night and Jackson, because Jordan was scared, offered to let Jordan sleep in his room. According to Jordan’s version it was after that night when he told his mother about having slept in Jackson’s bedroom and that is when the alleged confrontation took place between June and Jackson – so in the hindsight of Jordan having spent a night in Jackson’s bedroom and not before. [4]

From June Chandler’s cross examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau we learn that the conversation with Jackson revolved around trust issues and it appears Jackson cried because he felt June did not trust him. June also admitted that it was Jordan, who wanted to stay in Jackson’s bedroom [2]. In any case, there was no claim of physical contact occurring between Jordan and Jackson on that trip.

In Ray Chandler’s book it is claimed that June did not tell Evan about the alleged limo “incident” with Brett Barnes, and “only very little” about the alleged Las Vegas “incident” until later [1; page 18] so these alleged events could not have served as a basis for Evan’s suspicions. (According to All That Glitters June Chandler initially dismissed Evan’s idea that Jackson molested Jordan.)

In All That Glitters it is admitted that Evan was jealous of Jackson, of the friendship between Jackson and his son and of the fact that the boy, instead of visiting him, preferred to spend his spare time with the entertainer. In the book it is stated that Evan hoped that once Jackson went on tour in August 1993, it would end. However, Jackson later invited June and the children to go with him.

***

By the way, Jackson’s hanging out with the Chandler family was not unique at all and Jordan Chandler was not any special in his life, as opposed to some portrayals by the media or by Evan and Ray Chandler. In actuality, we learn from a book written in 2011 by a friend of Jackson’s, Frank Cascio that often when Jordan and the Chandlers were around Jackson, so were other families, including the Cascios – and they too were invited to the tour.

Some extracts from Cascio’s book:

“I went up and shook Jordy’s hand; he seemed like a nice kid. This wasn’t the first time I’d met another kid through Michael. Like my own, Jordy’s family was one of many families Michael befriended, although the Cascios were the only ones he called his “second family.” We Cascios were a big family ourselves, and we were more than happy to embrace Michael’s friends. There was always room for more. To me, Jordy and his family seemed pleasant and unexceptional.” [9]

[…]

“Seeing the look on [my mother’s] face, I understood that my friend was being accused of doing something wrong to Jordy. I was beyond shocked: the idea didn’t even make sense to me. I had spent plenty of time with Jordy and Michael, and when I was at Neverland, Jordy never even stayed in Michael’s room with us. Not once. I had never seen anything out of line happen, and I didn’t believe anything had happened, not for a single second. Furthermore, Michael had never acted in any way even approximating “inappropriate” toward Eddie or me. This story was utterly unbelievable; I simply couldn’t imagine Michael as a molester.” [9]

“As this disturbing news sank in, I couldn’t help remembering some of what Jordy had said about his father during the trip we had taken to Disneyland together and later at the ranch. Jordy was an open, honest kid, and I didn’t have the sense that he was hiding anything. The night we’d gone to Toys “R” Us, he told me that his father, a dentist and aspiring screenwriter named Evan, was extremely jealous of Michael. He volunteered the information that his father thought it was weird that Michael was so close to Jordy and the rest of the family, and that the relationship had become a problem for the Chandler family. Thinking back on it, I remembered how Jordy had said that Evan had a terrible temper, that when he was upset he’d scream and bang things around the house. In retrospect, it’s not hard to see that Michael was a father figure for Jordy, that Jordy’s mother was attached to Michael, and that this most likely made for a problematic family dynamic. But at the time I wasn’t thinking in these larger terms. All I knew was that I was certain that Michael was being falsely accused—whether it was because of Jordy or his father didn’t matter.” [9]

Cascio further describes that his family and the Chandlers, including Jordan’s mother, were often together on various trips to Disneyland and other places. This is important to point out, because sometimes some of the tabloid media – and Evan Chandler himself – attempted to portray Jordan as someone very special in Michael Jackson’s life (with the obvious undertone), but that portrayal is false.

It also has to be noted that it is well documented that Jackson was very generous with almost everyone – boys, girls, kids, adults. Again, this needs to be pointed out because his generosity was then turned against him by his accusers and the prosecution, portrayed as some sort of “grooming of young boys”. In reality, Jackson gave and bought gifts for anyone who asked or did not even ask [see examples at footnote 10].

***

In Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters it is claimed that Evan Chandler first met Michael Jackson in person on May 20, 1993 in June’s house. Evan, it is said, was surprised by the huge amount of gifts he saw in Jordan’s room, all bought for the boy by the entertainer. The book alleges that the thing that “disturbed” him were the toys, which he deemed were “inappropriate” for Jordan’s age. They were plastic army men and other toys which, according to Evan, were fit for younger children.

“Jeez, Jord,” Evan said, “Cody [Jordan’s little brother] doesn’t even play with this stuff anymore. What are you doing with it?” [1; page 25]

As the story goes, this was the moment when Evan’s life long trust in his ex-wife crumbled and he started to doubt her motives concerning their son:

“What I saw in Jordie’s room disturbed me not only because it was so inappropriate for his age and personality, but also because I instinctively knew that June had to know it was inappropriate, and was therefore condoning it. It was the first time I had ever doubted her motives concerning our son.” [1; page 27]

How toys for younger children are a sign of ulterior motives by either June or Jackson is never explained.

On May 21 Jackson invited Evan and the children to his Century City condo. According to All That Glitters, only one day after Evan was personally introduced to Jackson, he asked, out of the blue: “Are you fucking my son up the ass?” (sic!) [1; page 30] Jackson allegedly “giggled like a schoolgirl” and said he never used that word [1; page 30]. Keep in mind that this is just Ray Chandler’s account and we do not say this is what really happened (in actuality, there are many stories, interpretations and claims in that book which are demonstrably false), but this book is the only detailed source for what the Chandlers’ allegations exactly are, so we use it as a source for their claims. So this is what Ray Chandler claims in his book and even his own version of the story leaves one puzzled as to what prompted Evan to ask such a question in such a rude manner only a day after he first met Jackson? What kind of preconceived ideas did he already hold?

According to All That Glitters Jackson spent the May 22-23 weekend in Evan’s house where, allegedly, Jackson told Evan that he did not like June and he wanted to live with Jordan and Evan in the latter’s house. According to Ray Chandler, Evan told Jackson they would need to add one more room to the house and Jackson told him to do it and offered to pay for it. However, allegedly Evan’s wife “Monique” wasn’t happy about the idea and this never materialized. At least that is Ray Chandler’s version of the events.

Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 article for GQ Magazine actually reports the scene happening the other way around. According to Fischer, it was Chandler who made the suggestion that Jackson should move in with them and either pay for an addition to the house or build Evan a new house:

“According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done, Chandler made another suggestion–that Jackson just build him a new home.” [5]

This version is confirmed by June Chandler’s testimony at Jackson’s 2005 trial where she was asked about whether Evan wanted Jackson to finance a wing on his house and she answered “yes”:

Q. And do you recall anything about your ex-husband wanting Michael Jackson to finance a wing on his house?

A. Yes.

Q. And to your knowledge, Michael Jackson never did that, right?

A. No.[2]

As another example of how Ray Chandler’s version of events differs from others’, consider a story that appeared in two books: in All That Glitters and in actress Carrie Fisher’s 2011 autobiography entitled Schockaholic. In the latter Fisher discloses that Evan Chandler was her dentist before the 1993 allegations. In All That Glitters, it is claimed that Evan was so worried about the relationship between Jackson and his son that he asked Fisher’s opinion about it and she in turn, asked other people’s opinions. However, according to Shockaholic we get a totally different picture about Evan Chandler’s motives and behavior compared to the portrayal of the concerned father that we read in All That Glitters.

Fisher writes that Evan proudly bragged about the friendship between Jackson and his son, while making odd remarks:

“But remember that dentist who sued Michael for molesting his kid?
Yes, that was my dentist. Evan Chandler, D.D.S. Dentist to the Stars. And this same Dr. Chandler — long before the lawsuit was brought (though not necessarily before it was contemplated) — needed someone to brag to about his son’s burgeoning friendship with Michael Jackson. (This was years before Michael had children of his own.) And so my “dentist” would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son. And the most disturbing thing I remember him saying was, “You know, my son is very good looking.”
Now I ask you—what father talks about his child that way? Well, maybe some do but (a) I don’t know them, and (b) they probably aren’t raising an eyebrow and looking suggestive when they say it. Over the years I’ve heard many proud fathers tell me, “My son is great,” or “My kid is adorable,” but this was the only time I’d ever heard this particular boast:
“My son [unlike most average male offspring] is VERY [unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink] good-looking [pause for you to reflect and/or puke].”
It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson wanted, and it happened to be his son. But it wasn’t who his son was, it was what he was: “good-looking.” [6]

A couple of months later, Fisher writes, Evan Chandler announced to her that he was going to sue Jackson for sleeping in the same bed as his son. Fisher shares some thoughts about his accusation:

“Now, I know for a fact that when this first started happening, the good doctor saw no problem with this odd bunking! Excuse me, he had been creepy enough to have allowed all this to happen, and now he’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—virtually consumed with moral indignation! “Can you believe it? I think Michael may have even put his hand on my child’s privates.” Well, what was this man thinking in the first place? Why did he encourage him to sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson to begin with?

He did it because he knew, somewhere, he would eventually be able to say, “Oh, my God! I suddenly realize that this thing between Michael and my son is weird. I’m horrified. My son may have been damaged! And the only thing that can repair this damage is many millions of dollars! Then he’ll be okay! And we’re not going to buy anything for ourselves with that money! It’s all going toward our son being okay!!!” This was around the time that I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the fact that one’s skin is crawling.

The thing is, though, I never thought that Michael’s whole thing with kids was sexual. Never. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn’t normal doesn’t mean that it had to be perverse. Those aren’t the only two choices for what can happen between an adult and an unrelated child spending time together. Even if that adult has had too much plastic surgery and what would appear to be tattooed makeup on his face. And yes, he had an amusement park, a zoo, a movie theater, popcorn, candy, and an elephant. But to draw a line under all that and add it up to the assumption that he fiendishly rubbed his hands together as he assembled this giant super spiderweb to lure and trap kids into it is just bad math.

[…]

But wait! Check this out! Let’s say your “really good-looking son” started hanging out with this odd-looking famous multi-multimillionaire that could maybe be persuaded to give you twenty-two million dollars if you threatened to tell everyone in the world that he touched your son’s underage, maybe-not- even-fully-grown-yet member. Well, I don’t know what you’d do? But when my dentist was presented with a choice between integrity and twenty-two million dollars, you’ll never guess what he did! That’s right—he went for the cash! But hey, he was only human-ish, right? But really, who could blame him? I mean, besides you and me and anyone else alive who cares about ruining their kid’s life, who else could blame Dr. Chandler for what he did? (I’ll wait while you think.)” [6]

Apparently, despite having no evidence, Evan Chandler assumed and hoped that the relationship between his son and Jackson was or would turn sexual and he hoped to tie the entertainer to himself through that. In this context it becomes clear why he would suggest that Jackson move in with them. According to All That Glitters Evan assumed his son and Jackson were “lovers”. If you are wondering why and how someone could have such twisted ideas about the nature of supposed child molestation, you will have to read our article about the journalist, Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson.

On Memorial Day Weekend, beginning on May 28, Jackson spent one more weekend in Evan’s house. According to All That Glitters:

Michael and Jordie had been off in their own little world all day, as if Evan didn’t exist.” [1; page 45]

and

“Monique reiterated her opinion that Michael was taking up too much of Jordie’s life. But this time she offered an additional observation. “Jordie doesn’t even know you’re in the room, Evan. Can’t you see what’s going on? They’re in love!”
The minute the L word left Monique’s mouth, Evan believed she was right. “It should have been a dead giveaway,” Evan recalled weeks later, when Jordie came walking in the house that night wearing tight black pants, white socks, black loafers and a black fedora, and Michael came walking in right behind him wearing the same riling. Or when they ran off into the living room together after dinner and closed the door behind them, leaving me to work alone on the history paper. Or that Michael never once called Jordie by name, referring to him instead by affectionate nicknames like ‘Applehead’ and ‘Doo Doo Head.’”
“Do you think it’s physical?’ Evan asked his wife.
“I don’t know?” Monique answered. “It could just be infatuation. But whatever it is, it’s
not good for Jordie.” [1; page 45]

How playing together, enjoying each other’s company, silly nicknames, and Jordan dressing the same way as his favorite pop star who also happened to be his friend, is a sign of sexual abuse is never explained.  As for the nicknames, Jackson was well known to have called many of his friends and family members those names, including his nephews, nieces, cousins and later his children.

(Examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUJpN2Vyo58

Jackson calling his own son Applehead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MC6HFS3N2I

A friend of Jackson’s, Dr. William Van Valin also mentioned this nickname in his 2012 book entitled  Private Conversations in Neverland with Michael Jackson:

“Michael tried to get Paris [Jackson] to say hi, but all she did was bury her head in his pajama bottoms. This made Michael laugh a little and he said, “Paris, you applehead.” Eventually after hearing this word used a number of different times over the next few months I figured out that ‘Applehead’ was actually a term of endearment that Michael used for anyone who was being silly.” [8])

According to All That Glitters the next morning Evan asked his son whether the relationship between him and the star was sexual – apparently just as bluntly as he supposedly asked Jackson before:

“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.”[1; page 46]

Despite his “relief” Evan apparently did not give up. According to All That Glitters Jackson complained about a strong headache that morning. (This is not mentioned in the Chandler book, but we know from the 2013 AEG trial that Jackson had a scalp surgery a couple of weeks before because of the long lasting effects of his injuries from his 1984 Pepsi commercial accident when his hair caught fire.) Evan gave him Aspirin and Tylenol but they did not work. He called his anesthesiologist, Mark Torbiner for advice who came over and brought some Toradol with him, which is a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol. At least that is what they claimed to have administered to Jackson. According to their story, Evan injected 30 mg of it into Jackson’s gluteus, but Jackson was still in pain, so Evan administered another 30 mg.

(In her book Carrie Fisher described both Evan Chandler and his anesthesiologist as two of those Hollywood doctors who abused medications:

“But getting back to the special medical access I mentioned earlier, I had this dentist at the time, a Dr. Evan Chandler, who was a very strange character. He was what would be referred to as the Dentist to the Stars! And as one of the people who would have unnecessary dental work just for the morphine, this man was one of those people who could arrange such a welcome service. He referred his patients to a mobile anesthesiologist who would come into the office to put you out for the dental work. And as if that wasn’t glorious enough, this anesthesiologist could also be easily and financially persuaded to come to your house to administer the morphine for your subsequent luxury pain relief. And I would extend my arms, veins akimbo, and say to this man—“Send me away, but don’t send me all the way.” [6] )

Whatever Evan and Torbiner administered to Jackson, after that, it is claimed that the star showed drunk-like symptoms: “he was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring his speech” [1; page 47]. According to Ray Chandler’s book, after a while the entertainer began to sober up, and was in a somewhat coherent but still uninhibited condition. It is then said that Evan decided to take advantage of the situation to ask him questions about his sexuality, whether he was gay. Jackson answered he was not. According to the book Jackson did not feel well and remained in bed all day – and despite of the claim that Evan was suspicious of Jackson molesting Jordan he put the drugged-up entertainer to sleep in his two sons’ bedroom.

Ray Chandler describes Evan checking on the star three times that night. The third time, it is claimed, Jordan sneaked into Jackson’s bed (not the other way around) and they were sleeping in a “spooning” position “with Michael’s arm wrapped tightly around the boy, his hand resting on the boy’s crotch on the outside of the covers” [1; page 48]. It is stated they were both fully clothed, but according to Ray Chandler this scene reinforced Evan’s “suspicions”.

We cannot know how much, if anything of this is true. This is Ray Chandler’s account of Evan Chandler’s story and we only have his words and they may well be only half-truths, twisted “truth”, exaggerated “truth” or a total fabrication. According to the story in Ray Chandler’s book, upon observing this scene, that allegedly deeply troubled Evan, he did not do anything. He did not wake up Jackson and Jordan to question them about it, nor did he question them about it the next morning. Apparently he just walked out of the room and kept the story to himself.

Whatever Evan saw or did not see in reality, it seems he could not convince even himself, because right after the description of this scene we read in All That Glitters:

“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.” [1; page 49]

On June 9 at the preschool graduation of Evan’s other son, “Cody” (his real name is concealed to protect his privacy) Evan asked Jordan what he would do if he asked him not to go on tour with Jackson, to which the boy answered: “I’d go anyway” [1; page 53]. When Jordan asked him to give him a good reason why he shouldn’t go, this conversation is quoted:

“What if I said you could be dead in five years if you went on tour?”

Jordie looked puzzled. “Well, of course, I don’t want to die. But why would I?”

“Because you guys lied to me!” Evan erupted. “And you know how much I hate liars. You’re not going on the tour. Now let’s go, I’m taking you home.”

[…]

“Thank God he didn’t ask me what they had lied about,” Evan later recalled. “I don’t know what I would have said, other than Michael had lied about his dentist*.” [1; page 53-54]

(* In All That Glitters it is claimed Evan assumed Jackson lied to him when he claimed he was not a patient of a certain dentist who had AIDS.)

Like in the above extract, throughout the book Evan keeps accusing others of lying, while in almost the same breath he admits to lies he had been telling Jordan and other people.

The book alleges that on Father’s Day (June 20) Jordan refused to call his father and when Evan called him he refused to talk to him: “He doesn’t want to talk to you,” [June Chandler] said, “And I’m not getting involved.” [1; page 59] When days later the boy still refused to talk to him on the phone he threatened his ex-wife and son: “Let me tell you something, June. He better call me, and it better be soon, or you’re all going to be sorry. You know me. I’ve had enough!” [1; page 59]

That Father’s Day was recalled in June Chandler’s 2005 testimony as well, however while Evan claimed that Jordan did not talk to him on Father’s Day, nor days later when he called again, and that June refused to be a mediator between father and son, June in her testimony claimed that Jordan, though initially he did not want to call his father, eventually did talk to Evan on Father’s Day as a result of June having a conversation with him about it [2].

Whichever version is true about Father’s Day, according to All That Glitters, Evan left this threatening message on June’s answering machine on July 7:

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

According to Ray Chandler’s book Evan attributed Jordan’s refusal to talk to him to Jackson’s influence on the boy – as if Evan’s mania, threats, temper tantrums and weird sexual suggestions and questions would not be enough to alienate a child.

To help to improve their relationship, on July 11 Jordan was sent to visit his father for a week.

On July 14 Evan and his attorney, Barry Rothman contacted a psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams and presented him with their side of the story and asked his opnion about it. Without having met either the child or the accused, simply based on Evan’s version of the story, on July 16 Dr. Abrams sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occured” [7]. Evan later used this letter as a “negotiation” tool with his ex-wife June and with Michael Jackson.

At the end of the week, on July 16, Evan refused to return the boy to his mother and constantly pressured him to corroborate his preconcieved idea that Jackson had molested him. The details of how Jordan was threatened into an alleged “confession” can be read in this article.

According to All That Glitters, on July 20 Barry Rothman met June Chandler and her then husband, David Schwartz in the attorney’s office. The Abrams letter was shown to them and it was demanded that they sign a document that would transfer custody of Jordan from June to Evan. June refused to sign it and according to Ray Chandler Evan’s fear was that they might have seen Dr. Abrams’ name and address on the letter and they might contact him and tell him their side of the story:

“It was Evan’s idea to white out the psychiatrist’s name, address and phone number. He feared Dave and June might contact Dr. Abrams and tell him a different story, in which case Evan would be forced to take Jordan in to verify his side. That would trigger a report to the authorities, a catastrophe for everyone.
Dave delivered Dr. Abrams’ report to Pellicano.” [1; page 98]

At that meeting there was no mention of Jordan’s alleged “confession” on July 16, the negotiations solely revolved around Dr. Abrams’ letter. In All That Glitters it is claimed that Evan did not want to betray the boy’s trust by telling others about his “confession”.  According to the book, as of August 11 June still was not told about Jordan’s alleged “confession”, although Evan is described as being desperate to convince June that their son had been molested. The explanation given in the book is once again that Evan did not want to betray the boy’s trust. Evan is quoted in the book as saying: “It shouldn’t have mattered, anyway,” Evan believed. “I am his father and if I’m telling her our child has been molested, that should be enough.” [1; page 112]

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Carrie Fisher – Shockaholic (Simon & Schuster, November 2011)

[7] Letter sent to Barry Rothman by Dr. Mathis Abrams on July 16, 1993. Also qouted in All That Glitters [1].

[8] William Van Valin II – Private Conversations in Neverland with Michael Jackson (p. 9) (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, December 20, 2012)

[9]  Frank Cascio – My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man (HarperCollins, Kindle Edition, November 15, 2011)

[10] We could bring a lot of examples. Just a couple of them:

  • The granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin, Laura Chaplin said this about Jackson to a Swiss website (translated from French):

“I was about 12 years old when Michael Jackson came to the mansion. Subsequently, he called me almost every day to chat. He sent me incredible birthday gifts. Huge cartons. I went up on stage with him in Geneva. He was a great friend of the family. ” During his first visit, MJ had landed by helicopter in the garden of the domain. “I was pretty impressed,” said Laura. The King of Pop, too, but the big dogs. “We had nine dogs and he was afraid. We had to lock them up before it happens. “At the time of eating, seeing the big table, Jackson sat down with the children. “He was very shy. He was doing pirouettes in the garden. We played the PlayStation. He was a great kid. “Smile”, composed by my grandfather was one of his favorite tracks “

(Emphasis added.)

http://www.lematin.ch/people/charlot-jusqu-doigts/story/24716250

  • The comedian Chris Tucker telling a story that when he once complimented Jackson’s flat screen TV the singer just wanted to gift it to him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UviMepWwdlA
  • An extract from a book written by two of Jackson’s bodyguards entitled Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days” (written by Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard, along with Tanner Colby) about what Jackson did when he saw homless people in Las Vegas: http://www.mjyouaremylife.com/post/112797152737/giving-from-the-heart
Comments are closed