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 | Stanley Katz

Lawyers being hired and the formation of the allegations

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

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

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

A. Correct. [1]


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

A. I believe that’s correct.

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

A. Correct.

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

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

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

A. No. [1]


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

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

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

A. That’s correct.

Q. You mention nothing about false imprisonment, correct?

A. Correct.

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

A. That is correct.

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

A. Correct. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Who was that other attorney?

A. Larry Feldman.

Q. And why did you do that?

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

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

A. No.

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

A. Yes.

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

THE COURT: They’re not hearing you.

MR. ZONEN: I’m sorry?

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

MR. ZONEN: I’m terribly sorry.

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

A. Well, we have an agreement.

Q. Okay.

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

Q. Which means what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Feldman’s testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?

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

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

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

MR. SNEDDON: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled. The subject matter only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. How many months later?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. I would assume that to be the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. That’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed

The 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?”


 “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]


“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]


“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.”


“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]


“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?”


“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?”


“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]


[1] Dimond Misleading the Public, Katz not first to hear allgations? Bullet #113

[2] Interview with Geraldine Hughes by Deborah L. Kunesh

[3] Declaration by Jordan Chandler on December 28, 1993 as leaked in February 2003

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

[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)

[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)

[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