Square One - Documentary about the '93 allegations

I always thought it was because they needed Jordy to testify and he wouldn't. Yeah I always wondered why the chandlers didn't just launch into a criminal trial?
At the time of the strip search how could the police know Chandler would refuse to cooperate with them after the settlement? And what would have been the point of the whole thing if they knew it couldn't be used later on? It still was a physical evidence that most probably could have been used as a basis for indictment if it was incriminating. I'm no legal expert obviously, and we can't know for sure as the whole information isn't out there, but the most probable explanation is that the description simply didn't match.

Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti maintained that the settlement did not affect the criminal investigation. The settlement also did not prevent Jordan Chandler from testifying in any criminal case.
 
Coincidence? ;)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Simpsons episode “Stark Raving Dad” is now back in rotation on FXX, and is now up on the FX NOW app. <a href="https://t.co/5VjHHfNBOh">pic.twitter.com/5VjHHfNBOh</a></p>&mdash; AdventureWetpaint Schedules (@AWschedules) <a href="https://twitter.com/AWschedules/status/1180617431217127424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Square One has over 46,000 views so far. Why is this doing so much better than Leaving Neverland: Take Two? (Under 4000 views). I want them both to have the same exposure.


That's a re-upload. The first upload had a lot more views but was taken down, because the audio was taken from a podcast without permission. They somehow settled then and it was reuploaded. A shame really that the podcast guy couldn't just let it be for the good cause of it all. I think the original views were over 50k (or was it even over 100k?)
 
Yeah I wondered that as well. I'd like an answer to this. As pleased I am about this doc there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Other questions I have:
1. How do we know this Josie person knew the real Jordan? I always thought Jordan changed his name for some reason? To avoid being hounded by press etc
2. If Jordan split off from his parents, likes MJ and is allowed to testify. Why didn't he in 2004?
3. Whats the source/evidence behind the sodium amytal story?
4. Did David Schwarz give the taped phone conversations away willingly? Where does he stand on all of it now?
1. She was on the Defense witness list. So, I'm sure Mesereau checked out her story thoroughly. Plus, she's been around for years, and he's never tried to sue her or contradict her claims.
2. Jordan is the only one that can answer that question. But I suspect one of the reasons why he didn't testify was because he didn't want to be cross-examined. He admitted being afraid of cross-examination with Dr. Gardner.
3. Jordan and Evan Chandler are the sources for the Sodium Amytal story. Jordan told his psychologist, Dr. Gardner, that he was drugged right before he told his father about the allegations. Evan told Harvey Levin, who was working for KCBS-TV at the time, that the drug he used had the exact same effects on people as Sodium Amytal.
4. June and Dave were working with Michael to gather evidence against Evan in the beginning. He had threated to kill everyone including the children, so Pellicano told Dave to record Evan in case he made anymore threats. Dave doesn't believe the allegations, but thinks his family was torn apart by Michael's influence.

And I think you asked earlier if the Aug. 4th meeting, where Evan asked Michael for money, really happened (I can't remember your exact wording). Well, it did. We know this because Jordan said it did. He told this to social workers at the same time he told them about his allegations. Anthony Pellicano backs up Jordan's claims, as well. Ironically, the Chandlers never denied asking Michael for money before reporting the allegations. Ray Chandler, Evan's brother, even wrote in his book that if Michael had given them the money in August, then they would not have gone forward with the allegations.
 
Last edited:
ScreenOrigami;4271146 said:
Coincidence? ;)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Simpsons episode &#8220;Stark Raving Dad&#8221; is now back in rotation on FXX, and is now up on the FX NOW app. <a href="https://t.co/5VjHHfNBOh">pic.twitter.com/5VjHHfNBOh</a></p>&#8212; AdventureWetpaint Schedules (@AWschedules) <a href="https://twitter.com/AWschedules/status/1180617431217127424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What!? HA! Take that Groening, Brooks and Jean ya old b@$^@&#$! HA!

giphy.gif
 
1. She was on the Defense witness list. So, I'm sure Mesereau checked out her story thoroughly. Plus, she's been around for years, and he's never tried to sue her or contradict her claims.
2. Jordan is the only one that can answer that question. But I suspect one of the reasons why he didn't testify was because he didn't want to be cross-examined. He admitted being afraid of cross-examination with Dr. Gardner.
3. Jordan and Evan Chandler are the sources for the Sodium Amytal story. Jordan told his psychologist, Dr. Gardner, that he was drugged right before he told his father about the allegations. Evan told Harvey Levin, who was working for KCBS-TV at the time, that the drug he used had the exact same effects on people as Sodium Amytal.
4. June and Dave were working with Michael to gather evidence against Evan in the beginning. He had threated to kill everyone including the children, so Pellicano told Dave to record Evan in case he made anymore threats. Dave doesn't believe the allegations, but thinks his family was torn apart by Michael's influence.

And I think you asked earlier if the Aug. 4th meeting, where Evan asked Michael for money, really happened (I can't remember your exact wording). Well, it did. We know this because Jordan said it did. He told this to social workers at the same time he told them about his allegations. Anthony Pellicano backs up Jordan's claims, as well. Ironically, the Chandlers never denied asking Michael for money before reporting the allegations. Ray Chandler, Evan's brother, even wrote in his book that if Michael had given them the money in August, then they would not have gone forward with the allegations.

Ok cool thanks. So the drug used wasn't actual Sodium amytal? but something similar? :scratch: I read in that article that i was an anesthesiologist called Mike Tobiner that was there providing the sodium amytal? I was just wondering because some twitter troll tried to rip that whole story apart by saying there would be a paper trail showing Evan aquiring the drug and that he would have been arrested for doing it.
 
Ok cool thanks. So the drug used wasn't actual Sodium amytal? but something similar? :scratch: I read in that article that i was an anesthesiologist called Mike Tobiner that was there providing the sodium amytal? I was just wondering because some twitter troll tried to rip that whole story apart by saying there would be a paper trail showing Evan aquiring the drug and that he would have been arrested for doing it.
The Chandlers are the ones who claimed Jordan was drugged. Only they know if it was true or not. Maybe he really did use a drug like Sodium Amytal on his son. Or maybe he just said it because he knew testimony from Sodium Amytal or other similar drugs is not admissible in a court of law. Those are answers only the Chandlers would know.

And you can just tell that troll that Jordan Chandler is the one that claimed to be drugged right before he allegedly told his father of the allegations. He denied the allegations until he was supposedly drugged. Also, the police never really investigated Evan. They never raided his home, practice, or lawyer's office so we don't know what they would have found.
 
Last edited:
The Chandlers are the ones who claimed Jordan was drugged. Only they know if it was true or not. Maybe he really did use a drug like Sodium Amytal on his son. Or maybe he just said it because he knew testimony from Sodium Amytal or other similar drugs is not admissible in a court of law. Those are answers only the Chandlers would know.

And you can just tell that troll that Jordan Chandler is the one that claimed to be drugged right before he allegedly told his father of the allegations. He denied the allegations until he was supposedly drugged. Also, the police never really investigated Evan. They never raided his home, practice, or lawyer's office so we don't know what they would have found.

What we do know 100% is that Jordan was coached. I believe the drugging also though. Jordan wanted nothing to do with his father after this mess. Didnt he get emancipated? Years later Evan tries fighting Jordan over $$ + restraining order etc. Evan is mostly to blame but Jordan should come forward.
 
Last edited:
It was not just the claim, it was claim plus the order reciept for a drug that is has the same classifications as sodium amytal. We're not going to have video tape evidence.
 
I really hope Jorden go ahead and speak out. his father is gone so he has nothing to be scarce about anymore. unless he waiting until he's very very old to speak out. which is ridiculous. but understandable due to all the crap his father did to him which leave him in trauma. i'm sorry he had to go though that. i'm sorry Michael had to go though this. i seriously don't know what the heck his mother was thinking. it's sad though.
 
https://mtonews.com/.amp/review-michael-jackson-documentary-square-on-proves-hes-innocent I've just been reading this article in the news this morning, even the headline is good, square one proves Michael Jackson is innocent. I don't think Jordan will ever come forward and tell the truth, its possible he may be scared of the backlash that will bring for him, maybe he fears for his life especially now after LN. He knows we all know it was all a pack of lies and Michael never touched him so maybe he thinks he doesn't have to say anything. I maybe wrong and it might not be that reason but we may never get to find out
 
I doubt he was drugged as imo if he were he would still claim he was a victim to this day which he doesnt.
 
Danny Wu is having some problems with Copyright. Can anyone who knows about this stuff offer him advice? How did LN get to use songs and not Square One?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/hICQQNbMYv">pic.twitter.com/hICQQNbMYv</a></p>&mdash; Danny Wu (@dannywuyue) <a href="https://twitter.com/dannywuyue/status/1181401881270054912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wait, so Sony claimed copyright for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SquareOneMJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SquareOneMJ</a>? But DID NOT for Leaving Neverland?</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1181386677958238209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
WannaScream;4271246 said:
Danny Wu is having some problems with Copyright. Can anyone who knows about this stuff offer him advice? How did LN get to use songs and not Square One?


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/hICQQNbMYv">pic.twitter.com/hICQQNbMYv</a></p>&#8212; Danny Wu (@dannywuyue) <a href="https://twitter.com/dannywuyue/status/1181401881270054912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wait, so Sony claimed copyright for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SquareOneMJ?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SquareOneMJ</a>? But DID NOT for Leaving Neverland?</p>&#8212; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1181386677958238209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



Was it actually taken offline because of it? I can see the video online.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM
 
Sony always been wrong to Michael. i don't think the whole video should be taken down but Michael song ICSLY is copyright. sorry. :\ he probably gonna have to take it down and change the music or edit the song. he needs to do it because if he doesn't youtube can strikes him and his video can be taken down. that's how youtube works for all people. either that or they know what their doing. youtube has a problem with MJ fans. they trying to downsize them. ugh! :(
 
NatureCriminal7896;4271256 said:
Sony always been wrong to Michael. i don't think the whole video should be taken down but Michael song ICSLY is copyright. sorry. :\ he probably gonna have to take it down and change the music or edit the song. he needs to do it because if he doesn't youtube can strikes him and his video can be taken down. that's how youtube works for all people. either that or they know what their doing. youtube has a problem with MJ fans. they trying to downsize them. ugh! :(

According to this person it should be OK under 'Fair Use', but someone is going to the Estate about it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No need for an exception. SME and UMG abuse YouTube&#8217;s copyright claim system all the time. <a href="https://twitter.com/dannywuyue?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@dannywuyue</a> is following YouTube&#8217;s Fair Use Policy. <br><br>I&#8217;ve had it happen to me countless times. Dispute it, and if Sony still says no, it&#8217;ll go to YouTube and they will side with Danny.</p>&mdash; Matt Mamba (@MattMamba24) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattMamba24/status/1181426577441263616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
IF the video was not down...
it seems to be only about an automatic "claim" for the music, which is only about who is monetizing the video. It's not a copyright strike that would lead to the video being taken down.

Record labels like Sony have all their monetizeable music registered with YouTube and other video platforms. YouTube recognizes that audio automatically in any upload and gives the copyright owner a "claim" to monetize the views, ad clicks etc.

Danny Wu probably only disputed the claim, because YouTube's algorhythms somehow misidentified the MJ songs used for IJCSLY. Or he doesn't like that Sony is monetizing the video it at all.
 
Last edited:
I checked the part where Charles talks about the History album and the music has been edited already. At least he was able to do it without taking it down because he has a lot of views and comments. Shame it's been messed up though.

Also just saw this
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Received an email from Alicia from the Estate last night. She said that generally shorter clips are protected, and that Danny needs to appeal to Sony. She also believes it could be a triggered by a specific usage policies with Sony. I sent the email to <a href="https://twitter.com/dannywuyue?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@dannywuyue</a>.</p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1181578759746441216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Great documentary. I really learnt a lot and I'd like to say thanks to the creator for all his hard work
 
wonderouzmj;4271271 said:
What if Jordan admits to this in tajs documentary.... man!

That would be insane...but well overdue.

Can‘t he get some kind of immunity for this?
Let him keep the money (whatever is left of it).
Let him keep his freedom.
Just speak the truth and be done with it.

Should Jordan have been spoken out years ago. Of course.
He was used. By Evan. He was a child.
In my opinion it‘s the only thing left to do for him.
Let him clear MJs name and his own.
That‘s enough for me.

I can see that a lot of People wanna See him getting what he may deserves...i get it. Don‘t get me wrong.
 
I heavily doubt that. He wouldnt have a motive. I can't understand why he just wont do it

What are the legal implications of him speaking out? They weren't supposed to talk about the case after were they? Apparently MJ being dead doesn't change that. I'm wondering if he can just come out and say stuff or if there would be consequences for him
 
What are the legal implications of him speaking out? They weren't supposed to talk about the case after were they? Apparently MJ being dead doesn't change that. I'm wondering if he can just come out and say stuff or if there would be consequences for him
Good question. Since both parties of the agreement are deceased (Evan & Michael) I'm not sure what the legal issues if he came forward. Could this be why he refused to testify in 2005? If he did testify wouldnt that also void the agreement? Several questions that are unknown to me on that. If he could testify I guess that means he is allowed to speak about the case? Jordan was a minor at the time so maybe only his dad couldnt bring up details of the case? No idea.

I think Jordan simply wants no attention/publicity and live a normal life (unlike wade and Safechuck). If Taj can somehow get Jordan to speak up that would be beyond amazing. Doubtful, but one could dream.
Regardless, his actions since '93 lean towards MJs innocence imo.
 
https://mtonews.com/.amp/review-michael-jackson-documentary-square-on-proves-hes-innocent I've just been reading this article in the news this morning, even the headline is good, square one proves Michael Jackson is innocent. I don't think Jordan will ever come forward and tell the truth, its possible he may be scared of the backlash that will bring for him, maybe he fears for his life especially now after LN. He knows we all know it was all a pack of lies and Michael never touched him so maybe he thinks he doesn't have to say anything. I maybe wrong and it might not be that reason but we may never get to find out
If Conrad Murray can still be walking around, Jordan speaking out and tell the that he lied on MJ. He would be ok.
 
Last edited:
Good question. Since both parties of the agreement are deceased (Evan & Michael) I'm not sure what the legal issues if he came forward. Could this be why he refused to testify in 2005? If he did testify wouldnt that also void the agreement? Several questions that are unknown to me on that. If he could testify I guess that means he is allowed to speak about the case? Jordan was a minor at the time so maybe only his dad couldnt bring up details of the case? No idea.

I think Jordan simply wants no attention/publicity and live a normal life (unlike wade and Safechuck). If Taj can somehow get Jordan to speak up that would be beyond amazing. Doubtful, but one could dream.
Regardless, his actions since '93 lean towards MJs innocence imo.
That agreement never hindered Jordan from speaking on criminal case, he just did not do it. Remember settlements do NOT stop criminal testimony in a criminal case.
 
Back
Top