Jordan Chandler Discussion Thread

^ So why didn't tmez question him on the stand in 05 about these links to janet way back in 2000? It would be dynamite evidence that the arvizos accusations were fabricated. Feldman can only lie if he's asked, so when in his testimony did he deny it? Feldman wasn't asked about it by tmez because the matter had been cleared up in one of the pretrial motions - it was red herring.
 
This other Feldman what is their first name? And what a coincident that they would have the same last name and both be investigating MJ for something. Crazy!
 
la_cienega;3781104 said:
I was confused by this, was this in 2003 that she had a lawyer retroactively do this even though she'd asked them to do dates on which they hadn't met him yet, or did she really hire a lawyer in 2000?

TOM MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael?
ACCUSER’S MOTHER: August 2000.
MESEREAU: According to this official statement/sworn declaration that you gave to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department and district attorney, you retained an attorney and investigator in January 2000 for the sole purpose of finding out information about Michael Jackson and settling with him. You discussed a settlement concerning Michael Jackson before you even knew him?
ACCUSER’S MOTHER:
PROSECUTORS: Objection! Irrelevant.
JUDGE MELVILLE: Sustained.



That is it & there is the judge sustaining it, but TMez must have received some information about it^^. We are talking about a woman who asked her daughter to say the dad molested her, said the security felt her up, put in a false claim from JCPenny, Welfare fraud, used her son's illness to make money form comedians, teaches her children how to lie for fraud. This shows that she is capable of thinking out a plan for extortion & going through with it.

Sometimes I wonder what percentage of her actions or behavior on the stand is due to her mental illness. It is very frustrating when you have some of these schizophrenics who have a tendency to claim that some sexual abuse happened. I have met some of these women who will give graphic details about alleged rapes & you have to investigate it even though you know it is made up. I was wondering if this was part of Janet's problem, & she made up that sexual encounter for Gavin. After all her story about JCPenny's security & telling her daughter to say the father molested her, all involved some type of sexual wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:
That is it & there is the judge sustaining it, but TMez must have received some information about it^^. We are talking about a woman who asked her daughter to say the dad molested her, said the security felt her up, put in a false claim from JCPenny, Welfare fraud, used her son's illness to make money form comedians, teaches her children how to lie for fraud. This shows that she is capable of thinking out a plan for extortion & going through with it.

Sometimes I wonder what percentage of her actions or behavior on the stand is due to her mental illness. It is very frustrating when you have some of these schizophrenics who have a tendency to claim that some sexual abuse happened. I have met some of these women who will give graphic details about alleged rapes & you have to investigate it even though you know it is made up. I was wondering if this was part of Janet's problem, & she made up that sexual encounter for Gavin. After all her story about JCPenny's security & telling her daughter to say the father molested her, all involved some type of sexual wrongdoing.

Yes, and I recall that she testified that Gavin and Star asked to sleep with Michael. Maybe that was her idea--for them to ask for that? Then the conspiracy charges to prevent Frank C. from testifying he was there in the room when Gavin and Star slept in the room and MJ and Frank slept on the floor, but Frank was named as co-conspirator so he was at risk if he testified. Yet Janet supported the whole conspiracy bs. Too bad the judge sustained the objection so we didn't learn about the January 2000 visit to a lawyer re suing MJ.
 
That is it & there is the judge sustaining it, but TMez must have received some information about it^^.

Is there no more information about it? That's always confused me, but I thought there would be more info about it somewhere, a motion, Mesereau speaking about it?

I'm really confused if she actually hired a lawyer in January 2000 to investigate MJ, or if she only retroactively asked these lawyers to investigate him abusing her son even though she hadn't met him yet.

Her family also tried to extort $300 from George Lopez, David Arvizo asked him what reason he should give Gavin for Lopez no longer helping them and Lopez said, "Tell him his father's an extortionist." That was in 2000.

Evan Chandler's also manic depressive and very very clearly experienced episodes of psychosis. I bet if Evan had met MJ in 2003 and the Arvizo's had been from 1993, Jordan would suddenly have experienced the same molestation and holding hostage that the Arvizo's claim happened.
 
Is there no more information about it? That's always confused me, but I thought there would be more info about it somewhere, a motion, Mesereau speaking about it?

I'm really confused if she actually hired a lawyer in January 2000 to investigate MJ, or if she only retroactively asked these lawyers to investigate him abusing her son even though she hadn't met him yet.

Her family also tried to extort $300 from George Lopez, David Arvizo asked him what reason he should give Gavin for Lopez no longer helping them and Lopez said, "Tell him his father's an extortionist." That was in 2000.

Evan Chandler's also manic depressive and very very clearly experienced episodes of psychosis. I bet if Evan had met MJ in 2003 and the Arvizo's had been from 1993, Jordan would suddenly have experienced the same molestation and holding hostage that the Arvizo's claim happened.

I agree that both Evan and Janet were liars, scammers, and mentally unbalanced people (to put it mildly), people who were also desperate for $$$ and saw MJ as their ATM. Evan had these delusions of being a screenwriter and The Men in Tights had premiered in June or July of 93 so he was eager for more. He also owed back child support to the tune of 68k and didn't want to be a dentist any more (he had had his license suspended earlier for major errors in dentistry). Janet was constantly scamming anyone and everyone for $$ and had these ideas that MJ would take her kids on tour and promote them or mentor them in entertainment, maybe like Wade Robeson (?). Brett Ratner spoke of Gavin being on his set and telling him how to take shots and telling him what worked and what didn't, also sitting in his director's chair and refusing to get out of it. These families were wannabes as far as trying to be wealthy big shots in the entertainment world. They were both delusional and willing to stop at nothing to get what they wanted. And the sad thing is the children --Gavin, Star and Jordan-- went along with it.
 
Is there no more information about it? That's always confused me, but I thought there would be more info about it somewhere, a motion, Mesereau speaking about it?

.

Yeah I get what you are saying. It is a pity & I wish I was thinking of this before, because I met TMez at a dinner & he asked for questions, but unfortunately I did not think of these questions at the time. Hopefully, he will give another speech somewhere & we could ask all the questions & get some answers.

The thing is that people knew Michael liked kids way before they started putting a bad connotation to it. I remember at the award show in the 80s, when he was walking to the stage, he picks up little Emmauel who was making short steps and would have taken some time to get to the podium. The next day I was in a cab & heard Howard Stern talking about the award show & he said quite innocently that Michael liked children. However, even though Stern is a jerk, when he said it at that time, it was without malice & just an off hand statement. What I am getting at is that people knew Michael liked kids, so anyone with a devious mind would quickly know where his weak points are. That is why I think Janet knew about Michael's love for children before she met him, & she knew he was involved in the programs that help sickly kids. After all, she was part of a program where comedians helped those in need. However, I think you are right & that we should get some clarification from someone in the case who knows about the evidence; although, I must say that information from the Glitter book is not going to work for me.
 
Last edited:
However, I think you are right & that we should get some clarification from someone in the case who knows about the evidence; although, I must say that information from the Glitter book is not going to work for me.

Is there nothing else about it? I've tried googling and only the same thing shows up, no more info. So nothing was mentioned about it in 2005?

I think the Glitter book is very useful, as it was a book ghost written by Evan Chandler. It's a book that's supposed to be about confirming MJ molested Jordan from the father who was the one insisting he was a pedophile before Jordan confessed, and there's a reason why not even journalists recommend people read that book for the "truth." It's like the Jordan psychiatric interview, it's as close as we can get to cross examining them as they both refused to take the stand against him.

It also confirms how much they've lied. Like Ray claiming they wanted a criminal trial in 1994, lies confirmed in their own book.

Brett Ratner spoke of Gavin being on his set and telling him how to take shots and telling him what worked and what didn't, also sitting in his director's chair and refusing to get out of it. These families were wannabes as far as trying to be wealthy big shots in the entertainment world. They were both delusional and willing to stop at nothing to get what they wanted. And the sad thing is the children --Gavin, Star and Jordan-- went along with it.
Do you have the interview where Ratner speaks about this?
 
Last edited:
Lacienza yes it appears the Glitter is good to show up the lies because Evans discloses a lot about himself, motives, & the actions. In essence he tells on himself in that book, and that would be it's value to me. However, I still cannot use it as a source to validate factual documents & other people's facts, if you understand the distinction I am trying to make. This is only for myself, you understand, it does not mean that his document facts or the other facts he presents are wrong, it is just that I personally cannot accept them as valuable. I will have to see them from another source, because the only how I know what he writes in the book exposes the family's lies, is because I have the information from the trial or others who wrote about the investigation first, & I can use that as a cross-reference.

I was thinking of buying the grand jury transcripts; I have to think about it some more.
 
Thanks shelly webster for the quote. What i've read is sneddon's redirect to a motion re this issue of larry feldman, i don't think it was the trial proper but in 04. I'll try and find it but i definitely remember that it was confirmed it was not THE larry feldman.

You can check on the trial transcript as larry feldman is one of the pros witnesses and i'm sure he explains on oath and under xexam by tmez exactly when he met the arvizos and it would be 2003. The arvizos are opportunists not machiavelian masterminds.

It was Zonen who did the recross and he said it was a lawyer named Feldman but it wasn't Larry Feldman. I believe it was her lawyer for the JC Penney case, she then said she never hired a lawyer to investigate MJ before 2003.
 
I was thinking of buying the grand jury transcripts; I have to think about it some more.

Do the fans not have all the ones available?

It was Zonen who did the recross and he said it was a lawyer named Feldman but it wasn't Larry Feldman. I believe it was her lawyer for the JC Penney case, she then said she never hired a lawyer to investigate MJ before 2003.

Is that all the info there is to it? Are there any motions or mentions about it anywhere throughout the case?
 
la_cienega;3781642 said:
Is there nothing else about it? I've tried googling and only the same thing shows up, no more info. So nothing was mentioned about it in 2005?

I think the Glitter book is very useful, as it was a book ghost written by Evan Chandler. It's a book that's supposed to be about confirming MJ molested Jordan from the father who was the one insisting he was a pedophile before Jordan confessed, and there's a reason why not even journalists recommend people read that book for the "truth." It's like the Jordan psychiatric interview, it's as close as we can get to cross examining them as they both refused to take the stand against him.

It also confirms how much they've lied. Like Ray claiming they wanted a criminal trial in 1994, lies confirmed in their own book.


Do you have the interview where Ratner speaks about this?


It's from Fox News Feb 24, 2004, originally:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112273,00.html

Chris Tucker, the star of the two "Rush Hour" movies, and Brett Ratner, the director of the same two films, are suddenly at the center of the Michael Jackson child molestation case. I'm telling you this exclusively.
Tucker, it appears, plays a major role in the case along with his girlfriend, who is also the mother of his 5-year-old son. The two, I am told, often babysat the 13-year-old accuser as well as his brother and sister.
Indeed, a picture is becoming clearer of a mother who often deposited her children with anyone who'd take them — grandparents, friends, acquaintances — so she could spend time with her boyfriend. The mother is also said to have been inattentive during her son's bout with cancer.
One byproduct of parking her children with so many different people: lots of witnesses who can describe her then 12-year-old son's relationship with Jackson, as well as the boy's attitude and mental state if he were approached by a potential molester.
The boy, for example, was a frequent guest on the set of Ratner's comedy, "Rush Hour 2" which starred Tucker and Jackie Chan. This was long before the boy and his family logged time at Jackson's Neverland Ranch.
Ratner recalled for me what it was like to make the hugely successful comedy with a 12-year-old boy by his side. (Calls to Tucker were not returned.)
"[The boy] would sit in my director's chair. When I told him to get up, he'd tell me to go to hell." Ratner said, "He used to tell me, 'Brett, I don't like the last shot' while he was watching us make the movie. He's telling me how to make my movie! He's more street smart than I was at that age. If someone tried to fondle him, he'd punch them in the face. He's an adult. I think the jury will see that."
Ratner confirmed for me what I've heard a lot now from others: that actor/comedian Chris Tucker bonded with the boy when he was ill. I've told you before that it was Tucker and Adam Sandler who the boy wanted to meet when he was at a camp for sick children. It was through Tucker that he met Jackson.
What will come out in testimony, if there is ever a trial in this case, will be the story of how Tucker and his girlfriend/fiancee flew with the boy and his family from Miami back to California on Feb. 7, 2003, after the boy and his brother appeared on the Martin Bashir TV special, "Living With Michael Jackson." Both Tucker and his fiancee will testify, I am told, about the family, in particular about a mother who often dumped her star struck kids with Tucker so she could be with her boyfriend.
One major bombshell: contrary to previous reports in other places, it will come out in court that it was Tucker's girlfriend — and not Jackson employee Marc Schaffel — who accompanied the mother on her interview with Los Angeles County Child Protective Services one year ago. Some reports had named Schaffel as a witness to the interview. "They're wrong," my sources said.
The whole issue of Tucker's involvement with the family is going to be central to Jackson's defense. I told you two weeks ago that the mother encouraged her kids to call her boyfriend, Jay Jackson, an Army Reserve officer, "daddy." She also told them to do the same thing with Michael Jackson, I reported. Sources said she was equally enthusiastic about Tucker filling that role.
Interestingly, two sources who don't know each other both told me stories about the early days of the family's involvement with Michael Jackson. Both of these sources claim that initially it was the father — who has appeared on TV under his first name, David — and not the mother who seemed to be caring for the children. "She couldn't deal with the boy's illness," my sources said. "It was the father who was there when he had the cancer treatments."
"I always had a weird feeling that the mother would set Michael up," Ratner told me yesterday. He's directed several of Michael's music videos, including "You Rock My World."
"I always liked the father. But the mother was an opportunist.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112273,00.html#ixzz2LmmE3SJU

I found the quote in VMJ, and they got it from MJEOL.

It goes along with the flight attendant and the NL employees who said Gavin was demanding, arrogant.

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/re...-by-larry-feldman/4-a-civil-suit-for-arvizos/
 
Last edited:
Do the fans not have all the ones available?



Is that all the info there is to it? Are there any motions or mentions about it anywhere throughout the case?

Mary Holzer, the woman who testified about the JC Penney case, worked for a law office called Feldman & Rothstein. They represented Janet during the JC Penney case.

17 Q. Miss Holzer, what kind of work do you do?

18 A. I am an office manager/paralegal for a law

19 firm.

20 Q. And which law firm is that?

21 A. Law Offices of Feldman & Rothstein.

22 Q. Is that in Los Angeles?

23 A. Pasadena.
 
Mary Holzer, the woman who testified about the JC Penney case, worked for a law office called Feldman & Rothstein. They represented Janet during the JC Penney case.

So if she'd had them look into MJ molesting her kids, that would make this plausible. Where's the motion where Feldman denied it was him? Just to see what was said.

I'm really confused by this, because if it's true why couldn't it be allowed to be part of the 2005 case?
 
So if she'd had them look into MJ molesting her kids, that would make this plausible. Where's the motion where Feldman denied it was him? Just to see what was said.

I'm really confused by this, because if it's true why couldn't it be allowed to be part of the 2005 case?

Holzer's testimony wasn't about Janet having them look into MJ molesting her kids, but about the JC Penney case. That claim about Janet having people look into MJ before they even met him may be a myth. Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that it was a law office by the name Feldman&Rothstein that represented her in the JC Penney case and people assumed it's THE Feldman and kind of mixed it up with the situation in mid-2003 when Janet went to Larry Feldman.
 
So if she'd had them look into MJ molesting her kids, that would make this plausible. Where's the motion where Feldman denied it was him? Just to see what was said.

I'm really confused by this, because if it's true why couldn't it be allowed to be part of the 2005 case?

It's Janet who said it wasn't Larry Feldmann.
 
Has there ever been any court documents or info about Jordan's legal emancipation from his parents? It would be interesting to see the reasons he gave to the court to grant him legal emancipation.
 
Thanks respect. This lawyer was called george owen feldman. He happened to be a partner at the firm that janet had dealings with re jcpenny. She apparently didn't deal with him directly but one of the other partners. Tmez's suspicions were raised by some poorly worded statement that janet signed back in 03 by the da's office saying which lawyers she had been in contact with prior to coming to the police in summer 03, 2 feldmans were mentioned and there was this confusion.

After that exchange that shelly webstser posted where the judge said sustained, janet is asked in a recross by the prosecution to explain about this feldman and she does so, making clear it's not the larry feldman and it was nothing to do with mj. I remember reading this motion a couple of years ago but don't know where. I'm actually not impressed at all at mjeol in that article leaving out that part of the testimony - it's deliberately misleading. MJ's defence does not need to depend on these conspiracy theories - it makes mj fans look really defensive if arguments are made with no evidence except for sheer speculation that janet had been planning this scam for years. So it would be great if we just put it to rest now.
 
Last edited:
Has there ever been any court documents or info about Jordan's legal emancipation from his parents? It would be interesting to see the reasons he gave to the court to grant him legal emancipation.

Because he was a kid that stuff's kept private normally unfortunately.

But he seemed to be doing it because he was living with his step mother who was divorcing Evan and he didn't want Evan (or June) to have any parental authority over him. It was made clear though that this could not be a way for him to access his money sooner, so it wasn't about him wanting his money, it was about cutting himself off from the authority of both of them.
 
Thanks respect. This lawyer was called george owen feldman. He happened to be a partner at the firm that janet had dealings with re jcpenny. She apparently didn't deal with him directly but one of the other partners. Tmez's suspicions were raised by some poorly worded statement that janet signed back in 03 by the da's office saying which lawyers she had been in contact with prior to coming to the police in summer 03, 2 feldmans were mentioned and there was this confusion.

After that exchange that shelly webstser posted where the judge said sustained, janet is asked in a recross by the prosecution to explain about this feldman and she does so, making clear it's not the larry feldman and it was nothing to do with mj. I remember reading this motion a couple of years ago but don't know where. I'm actually not impressed at all at mjeol in that article leaving out that part of the testimony - it's deliberately misleading. MJ's defence does not need to depend on these conspiracy theories - it makes mj fans look really defensive if arguments are made with no evidence except for sheer speculation that janet had been planning this scam for years. So it would be great if we just put it to rest now.

The Mjeol article is from September 2004, the quote is not from the trial transcript.
 
Because he was a kid that stuff's kept private normally unfortunately.

But he seemed to be doing it because he was living with his step mother who was divorcing Evan and he didn't want Evan (or June) to have any parental authority over him. It was made clear though that this could not be a way for him to access his money sooner, so it wasn't about him wanting his money, it was about cutting himself off from the authority of both of them.

The only document we have is from VG's book.
 
Thing is janet arvizo is that :crazy: she probbly wouldnt even know which lawyer is which! lol
 
Jordan regardless of the Emancipation ended up living with his dad again, until the 2005 incident. What the hell made him go back to Evan crazy ass? His Sickness? Doubtful since the man still had even strength to nearly kill his son with a dumbbell and also maced him. SMH
 
Does anyone have a link to the info about where Gavin was found to have downloaded Jordan's declaration onto his computer? Was there a date for when he did that?
 
Does anyone have a link to the info about where Gavin was found to have downloaded Jordan's declaration onto his computer? Was there a date for when he did that?

Wow--I didn't know he did that. But he did mention Jordan's name in a session with Katz. So maybe it was around that time, which would have been in 03, not sure what month but I think he saw Katz in April or June. (??)
 
I remember tmez mentioning it, whether it was trial, or more likely in a pretrial motion requesting arvizo computer records.

The Mjeol article is from September 2004, the quote is not from the trial transcript.

Yes i know thanks. The quote is from a pre-trial motion from presumably sept 04. I've got links to 05 trial transcripts, does anyone have links to the pre-trial motions in 04 transcripts?
 
Last edited:
I remember tmez mentioning it, whether it was trial, or more likely in a pretrial motion requesting arvizo computer records.

Did he just request the records?

I don't know if any of the bloggers would remember having seen it.
 
In "Michael Jackson Making of Ghosts VH1 full version HQ", Michael Jackson is paying homage to DA Thomas Sneddon.

Michael calls the Mayor, aka DA Thomas Sneddon, a creep, fat, grotesque, ridiculous Mayor. Michael calls the Mayor stubborn, that he cannot see the beauty within the human and Stan Winston goes on about how the Mayor is Mr. right-wing, Mr. Establishment, if you're not like me(about 5 min. mark on short film) Was it retaliation coming from Michael Jackson and then Thomas Sneddon's retaliation was the 2005 Trial, even insinuating that Michael molested children or in this specific case, molested Gavin on account of his mounting debts. Now DA Tom Sneddon could not use that against Michael, as the Chandler's received over $15 million in an out-of-Court Settlement.

Was "Ghosts" the retribution from Tom Sneddon for Michael always insinuating Michael's hatred of him, and especially with Michael's fan's? I believe it was retribution from DA Thomas Sneddon because of how gleeful DA Tom Sneddon was when arresting Michael Jackson, 'we got him.'

The fact that "Neverland" was forever tainted by the accusations coming from the DA's camp in Court pretty much sums it up. At the very least, Tom Sneddon did not seek reelection after the 2005 Trial against Michael Jackson!

 
Back
Top