1993 - The Case Files Discussion **All Things Jordan and Evan Chandler Go Here**

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
The Arvizos were not even good at lying... stories hardly ever made sense.. How bout the one where they never new what time it was at Neverland..
http://blog.homeadverts.com/blog/wp...meadverts-Michael-Jackson-Blog-Sotehbys-2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/90/01/a3/9001a34d2a33492bcca8bee04d810b32.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01436/*****-15_1436034a.jpg
...and so on!


Or how bout when Mez showed a porn mag to Gavin and asked if that was the magazine Michael showed him... "yes" it was dated after he ever was at Neverland..

And wasn't there surveillance of them jumping the fence at Neverland to retrieve a ball where they were 'trapped'..

Or when they'd be in public, and the limo driver stays outside while Janet gets a bodywax...

Also when she simply asked a Neverland employee to take her to her and her kids to her parents house.. they left! that's not trapped.. Keep in mind she asked this request in the middle of the night!
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
The Arvizos were not even good at lying... stories hardly ever made sense.. How bout the one where they never new what time it was at Neverland..

and this:

8bc2dbbc2684730ad01726483f5fea7e.jpg


a2d56a2e03b45527f0a77a53cdf9ea1f.jpg
 

#MJforever57

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,050
Points
48
That got me too about the clocks. How can you not tell what time it was.
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
^ oh wait... and lets not forget about mobile phones.. Didn't Janet Arvizo have a cell phone? phone records... they have clocks on them lol
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
Lol i reckon had sneddon asked bout those clocks gavin wouldve said mj "moved them"
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
hey, I'm glad the stories the Arvizos and team came up with did not add up and were beyond ridiculous.. it helped MJ's case and showed many fans that may have had 'wonder' in there heads KNOW it was not possible..

I'm sure many fans that had some type of wonder of what really happened in 1993 - made the switch in there minds from 'believing' to 'knowing' Michael was innocent.. thanks to the 2003-2005 allegations.
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
I'm glad bout that too :) as it proved what liars they really are
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
#MJforever57;4193271 said:
That got me too about the clocks. How can you not tell what time it was.

Star Arvizo claimed that they didn't know the time because the clocks were all wrong.
One showed 1 o'clock the other 5. Yes this was his explanation. First he said they were kept from
the clocks then he said we saw the clocks and they all showed different times.

Imagine Mj's employees or MJ himself setting all his clocks to different times just so the Arvizos wouldn't know the real time.
Let's assume they did this. What about the watch MJ gave Gavin? That was wrong too? Or MJ didn't let him wear it?
What about their own watches? They were not allowed to bring watches to Neverland?
So let's assume before their first "escape" all the clocks were wrong and they realized that MJ doesn't let them
know the time. Why didn't they just took watches with them the next time they came back to Neverland?
to be falsely imprisoned again, obviously.

Back to Chandler something just hit me regarding what Chandler said about Brett Barnes (Tommy Jones is his codename in the Gardner interview)

"Do you think that Tommy Jones was lying when he went on television?"
"Yes."
"Why do you think he's lying?"
"Because Michael told me they did."
"Okay, but Michael said he did these things - - "
"I mean it could be that Michael could be lying to me."
"Somebody is lying. Right? Because Michael was lying to Tommy by saying the opposite things, right?”
"Yeah, well one of them is lying.”
“Who do you think is lying?”
“Tommy.”
"Why do you say that?"
"Because in public, when he’s 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."

The only time when Chandler could see MJ and Brett Barnes together - physically and
verbally and relationship-wise close as he puts it - was in Feb 1993 there was no other occasion when MJ was with the Chandlers and Brett Barnes at the same time. So supposedly right then and there Chandler came to the conclusion that it was "more then just a friendly relationship"?

But we know for June Chandler's testimony that in March Jordan kept nagging her to let him
stay in MJ's room because all the other kids were there and so why can't he?
Brett Barnes most likely stayed in MJ's room during that weekend in Feb and Jordan knew that. He apparently
wanted to do what Brett and the Cascios did: sleep in Mj's room.

If he saw something fishy was going on between MJ and Brett and he knew Brett was sleeping in Mj's room
why did he want to be there too? In fact why did he want to hang out with MJ at all if he saw Brett and MJ
having a "more than just a friendly relationship"?

And let's not even talk about June Chandler not becoming concerned after seeing this "more than just a friendly relationship"
When he talked about that trip with Brett and MJ in the limo she didn't mention anything odd about it.

There is also the issue of MJ getting Brett and Jordan together. If someone is planning to molest Jordan
why would he want him to hang out with an already molested boy Brett Barnes? Why would a pedophile
arrange such a meeting and risk losing his next prey by potentially exposing him to a victim who
could spill the beans any moment, tell him what MJ had been doing to him or just ask Jordan
are you doing that with you too? Things like that could easily happen when kids get together why would
a pedo take that risk when he could easily avoid it by keeping his victims and targets separate?

According to Chandler MJ arranged Wade (Billy) and Macaulay (Peter) to be with Jordan too.

"So he was talking about how all these kids masturbated in front of him, and he said that - -
Oh, by the way, I met Tommy and Billy during that time period, and Peter Davis as well. So
he was saying that all these kids masturbate and it feels really good,

They never bother to explain why MJ had a habit of arranging his supposed victims to be
around him at the same time. Once again he did something repeatedly which needlessly increased the chance
of him being exposed but somehow he was so lucky he was not. None of those molested kids ever wondered
looking at the other kids whether they were molested too and none of them asked such questions from the others.
This is what we are supposed to believe.
Instead of just taking Occam's razor: he had no problem with having all those kids in the same place at the same time because they were not victims at all.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
^^2003? He never saw Brett before that?

Sorry I meant 1993. Chandler saw Brett only once in Feb 1993
when MJ went to Disneyland with him and the Chandlers
and they spent the weekend in Neverland after that.

And obviously neither Jordan nor June saw anything alarming about
MJ's interraction with Brett. this is just typical Gutierrez fantasy, Brett
Barnes is one his obsessions.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
1993 Civil Suit Settled by Insurance Co. against Jackson's wishes - Hot Doc

Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents

Holy $@#!. In released court documents, it turns out that Michael Jackson's insurance company negotiated and settled the 1993 civil suit against his wishes.

The following are excerpts from that recently released court document:

Pg3
The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2
Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3
The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

This motion filed by T-Mez during the trial last year should clear that info:

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....


9c2919501b8a2984c86d44a7c2b6dae2.jpg

9c9fe0f8dd317a1910b6170b0c29f843.jpg

327ca0f32ed462e0b26059fd444b0bce.jpg

3b09d8d50c4b9731f4b1695a13813071.jpg

55606278ee14b52a604e4c8770ee4a43.jpg

69aeb6334fc59273b9b8a7074d3f4a2d.jpg

0ba6776051a01ca56a0d7179449b2df5.jpg
 
Last edited:

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
Details of the civil case settlement are not private anymore, but statements made in a press conference by lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant shed some light.
VERBATUM Transcript from the Michael Jackson/Chandler settlement press conference as taped from satellite on 1-26-94, unedited.

Larry Feldman's statement-Attorney for Plaintiff:
"We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin."

Johnnie Cockran's statement-Attorney for Defendant [Michael Jackson]:
"In the past ten days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much. "
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
From the very beginning, the 2003 case against Michael Jackson looked like a bad rerun of 1993 with essentially the same cast of ridiculous characters:

ifc41j.png





To say that all of Michael Jackson's enemies have converged in Santa Barbara might be an understatement. Contrary to the flimsy observations of the likes of paperboy Dan Abrams of 'The Dan Abrams Show' as well as those of media ho Diane Dimond, this is a setup, folks. Just take a look at our chart below. One would have to suffer from cataracts not to see the 'pattern' of conspiracy perpetrated against Jackson, not by him.


When persons involved with this project first resolved to do it, we took it on with the sole purpose of reporting what mainstreaming media appears to be afraid to report. For reasons still not clear (alright we think we know why), few if any news/media outlets have even touched on the subject of the suspicious involvement of virtually the same players from the 1993 allegations in the latest case against Mr. Jackson. It is our hope that persons reading this report will take the time to ponder what we have found, process the information, and decide for themselves. We are particularly hopeful that journalists interested in reporting the story as objectively as possible will consider this modest offering and perhaps decide to investigate both sides of the case for themselves. All we can do is hope.



Sneddon and the Chandlers

(1) District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who attempted to bring charges against Michael Jackson in 1993 and who is now prosecuting the current case against Jackson, is on the faculty at the Santa Barbara College of Law. Ray Chandler, (2-3) the uncle of the boy who accused Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993, studied law at the Santa Barbara College of Law and is currently a real estate lawyer.

(4) Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson's first accuser, is the founder of Rent-a-Wreck, a car rental agency that is represented by the public relations firm Tellem. After Jackson was arrested in 2003, Tellem offered Tom Sneddon their services - for free.



The Chandlers' Former Attorneys and their Ability to Find 'Victims'

(5) Civil lawyer Larry Feldman represented Jordan Chandler, the boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. (6) Feldman sent Jordan Chandler to see psychiatrist Stan Katz for an evaluation.

(7) In 1993, Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia was deposed by civil lawyer Larry Feldman for the Chandlers' lawsuit. In the deposition, Francia claimed to have seen Jackson act inappropriately with other children, including her own son. She later recanted these statements but members of the District Attorney's office often refer to Francia's son as an alleged victim of Jackson's.

(8.) After getting in contact with Larry Feldman, John Arvizo accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; the boy was then sent to see Dr. Katz (9). Note that less than four months earlier John Arvizo and his family had vehemently defended Jackson on numerous occasions.

Feldman is not the only former attorney for the Chandlers who can't seem to stay away from the Jackson case. (10) The Chandlers' first attorney Gloria Allred has also made it her life mission to seek out other accusers. We're sure her efforts are solely motivated by justice and have nothing to do with the cut of the settlement that she would inevitably receive if one of her clients were to successfully sue Jackson.

(11) In February 2003, after seeing a documentary that put a sinister spin on Jackson's relationship with John Arvizo, Gloria Allred contacted Tom Sneddon and demanded that he investigate Jackson. At the same time, 'media psychiatrist' Carole Lieberman also filed a complaint against Jackson. Sneddon responded to Allred and Lieberman's complaints by stating that although he would take the matter seriously, he could not reopen the Jackson case without a cooperative victim.

Months later, John Arvizo told Larry Feldman that Michael Jackson sexually abused him. Once again, Allred missed out on the opportunity to represent a Jackson accuser. As for Lieberman, she made sure to advertise on her website that she was the first psychiatrist to demand that Jackson be investigated.

(12) Not to be one upped by Feldman and Katz, Allred and Lieberman teamed up on another collaboration 'an accuser' named Daniel Kapone. After being treated by Dr. Lieberman, Kapone suddenly remembered having been abused by Jackson when he was just three years old. Once Lieberman helped him recover his 'repressed memories', Allred signed on as his attorney. Unfortunately for Allred and Lieberman, it was later determined that Kapone had never even met Michael Jackson.


1993: The Media

(13) During the 1993 case, many of Jackson's former employees cashed in on the allegations by selling salacious stories to the media. The most visible opportunist from the 1993 case was the aforementioned Blanca Francia, Jackson's former maid. She first sold her story to Diane Dimond during an interview on Hard Copy and later collaborated with Chilean journalist Victor Gutierrez on his book Michael Jackson was my Lover.

(14) Aside from providing Blanca Francia with a platform for her sensational stories, Gutierrez and Dimond had something else in common; they were both were sued by Jackson for spreading a false story about him in the mid-90s. During an interview on Hard Copy, Gutierrez claimed to have seen a videotape of Jackson molesting one of his nephews; Dimond later repeated his story on a local radio station. It was eventually proven that no such tape existed and Jackson filed a lawsuit against Gutierrez and Dimond for defamation of character.


2003: The Media

While the mainstream media has been collectively irresponsible in their coverage of the Jackson case, NBC seems particularly intent on ruining Jackson's reputation by hiring several well-known Jackson detractors to cover the case. The following people either have an axe to grind with Jackson, have spread false rumours about him in the past or have connections to the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office. Take a look:

(15) Despite the fact that Jackson sued her for spreading an irrefutably false story about him, NBC hired Diane Dimond to cover the Jackson case in 2003. (16) Dimond also admittedly receives information from the District Attorney's office and there has been much speculation regarding the nature of her relationship with Tom Sneddon.

(17) Tim Russert, the senior vice president of NBC News, is married to Maureen Orth, a journalist who has written three slanderous articles about Jackson for Vanity Fair magazine. Two of these articles were written about the case and were full of half-truths and rumours.

(18.) NBC hired Jim Thomas as a special analyst; Jim Thomas is admittedly good friends with Tom Sneddon.

(19) NBC produced two salacious Dateline NBC specials about the Jackson case. The most recent one featured interviews with Jim Thomas and Ray Chandler and was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution's version of events. (20) The special was produced by none other than Victor Gutierrez, who was hired by NBC to cover the Jackson case even though he still owes Jackson $2.7 million dollars from a defamation of character lawsuit that Jackson filed and won against him. Conflict of interest anyone?


Gutierrez and the Chandlers

(21) Many have speculated that Victor Gutierrez collaborated with Evan Chandler, the father of Jackson's first accuser, to write Michael Jackson was my Lover. The book contains personal photographs of Jordan Chandler and court documents that only somebody directly involved in the case could possibly have access to.

(15) Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler recently worked together on the Dateline NBC special, which Gutierrez produced.


Conclusion

Is it merely a coincidence that all of the people who have accused Michael Jackson of acting inappropriately with a child are connected to one another? Every accuser, every professional who has worked with each accuser, every tabloid hack who has reported negative stories about Jackson - literally all of the players involved in both the 1993 case and the 2003 case are related to one another.

Is it a conspiracy?

Nah.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:

"I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."

"[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy's power and money."

"I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It's already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."

"And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over."

"[Jordan's welfare is] irrelevant to me. It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

"This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity."
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
Summary of the 1993 plot
- In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.

- According to June Schwartz's former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy's father and June's ex-husband Evan Chandler "began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out."

- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.

- At Jordan's 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson's part. Freeman says that June Schwartz "thought the whole thing was baloney" and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.

- Chandler's behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano's advice, Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler.

- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part.

- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.

- According to Rothman's former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.

- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler's phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.

- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.

- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.

- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person's mind when they are under the influence of this drug.

- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes." Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.

- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: "[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don't like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he's an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, 'I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?' And I said 'Yes,' and he gave me a big hug and that was it." [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy's uncle Ray Chandler]

- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz's attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he'd had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.

- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson's part.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
THE CIVIL LAWSUIT

- Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.

- On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.

- Up until that point, the alleged victim's mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz's divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned. "The whole thing was such a mess," he explained. "I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn't a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn't playing things straight."

- The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

- The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant's defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.

- Jackson's attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved." Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.

- Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy's "fragile state" was more important than Jackson's 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy's favour.

- Jackson's attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.

- If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.

- Let's pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson's most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.

- During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.

- As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson's decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:

1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.

2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.

3) In civil trials the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.

4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson's medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.

5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.

6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?

7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson's insurance company to force him to settle the case. "I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation," Oxman explained. "That means that the homeowners' insurance policy takes over and a homeowners' insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, 'I will not settle that case,' and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it."

For the above reasons, Michael Jackson reluctantly settled the civil lawsuit that had been filed against him.
…….


THE CIVIL SETTLEMENT

For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser's family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several interesting facts:

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.

3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: "Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise." It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the "negligence" allegation was redefined:

"Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress."

Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the "infliction of emotional distress"; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit's definition of "negligence" is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?

OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

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

Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy's allegations are true.

"The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation."

Sorry Diane.

THE PAYMENT:

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond's copy of the settlement but according to Jackson's current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson's insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:

"Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending."

"Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments... the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice."


The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.

WAS IT HUSH MONEY?

Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:

"The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler , and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases, except as may be required by law."

The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.

"In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually... receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson... they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request."

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson's attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family's own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.

Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?

One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.

For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a "pay off" but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson "buy" when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it "hush money" when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it "hush money" when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it "hush money" when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?

Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler's initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

If it is still your contention that Jackson's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to "bribe" the boy into not testifying. Jackson's actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler's silence.

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the justice system was not working in his favor and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could have either gone through with the civil trial and risked a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settled the civil lawsuit and risked people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit.

Once the civil lawsuit was settled, Michael Jackson still had the criminal investigation to contend with.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION


- When the boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993 refused to cooperate with authorities, the police investigation fell apart.

- Police obtained Jackson's telephone books and contacted about thirty children and their families. Although investigators allegedly used aggressive interrogation techniques to scare the children into making accusations against Jackson, they still could not find another accuser. All of the children questioned maintained that Jackson had never sexually abused them.

- In an attempt to find corroborating evidence, the Santa Barbara Police Department subjected Jackson to a strip search to see if the description the accuser provided of Jackson's genitalia was accurate. According to an article from USA Today: "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct."

- By February 1994, police still did not have a witness who was willing to testify against Jackson. Investigators consequently turned to the tabloids for leads, contacting several of Jackson's former employees who had sold their stories to the media. For example, investigators flew to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys, a couple who had told the tabloids that they'd seen Jackson act inappropriately with a child. Police decided that their story was not credible based on the fact that the more money they received, the more salacious their story became.

- Police also got in contact with Blanca Francia, Jackson's former maid who had sold her story to Hard Copy for $20,000. On December 15 1993, Francia told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson showering with young boys and that she had also seen him act inappropriately with her own son. Francia repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers' civil lawsuit. While under deposition by one of Jackson's attorneys, however, Francia admitted that she had exaggerated details during her Hard Copy interview and that the producers had paid her for her story.

- In the mid 90s, Francia threatened to accuse Jackson of molesting her son unless she received money from the Jackson camp. To avoid the negative publicity that would have inevitably resulted from a second child abuse allegation, Jackson's associates advised him to quietly settle the case. After receiving $2 million from Jackson, Francia did not go forward with the civil lawsuit.

- While Francia seemed more than willing to make accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, she did not have anything incriminating to reveal when authorities questioned her during the criminal investigation in 1994. Contrary to what she had previously claimed (and to what she would claim in the future), Francia told investigators that her son had repeatedly denied being sexually abused by Jackson. Here is an excerpt from a USA Today article that was published on February 7th, 1994:

Investigators from the county sheriff's office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson's former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star.

The offer of a therapist was made after the woman, an immigrant from Central America, complained about meetings and phone conversations sheriff's deputies had with the boy while she was not present.

It made her "feel uncomfortable," she said in a deposition, that she didn't know what the deputies were talking about with the young boy. When she asked them "who should I talk to" about her concerns, they arranged for the woman and her son to see separate therapists at the county's expense, she said in the sworn statement.


- In 1994, two grand juries were convened to hear evidence in the Jackson case but no charges were ever brought; in fact, evidence was so scant that prosecutors did not even ask for an indictment. According to a report from CNN that aired on May 2, 1994: "One jury member said no damaging evidence was heard."

- If the case against Jackson was so weak, why did District Attorney Tom Sneddon spend the next ten years slandering Jackson's name in the press? Read on to find out.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

- After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.

- Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler's story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.

- According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson's genitalia. "I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis," Rivera said.

- In 1995, Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that appeared on his album HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I. In the song, Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA's office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame. Click here to read the lyrics.

- Many legal experts dismissed the idea that Sneddon would prosecute Jackson solely for his own self-aggrandizement but perhaps there are other motives involved. According to Thambiah Sundaram, a dentist who filed and won a lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors in 1996, the commercial prospects of Neverland might be one factor influencing authorities’ relentless pursuit of Jackson.

- In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fundraising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram's allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county’s annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn't enough available land in the area to do so.

- Whether or not Sundaram's allegations have any merit remains to be seen, but there are other facts that point to Sneddon having a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Sneddon said in a press conference that after 1993, he changed certain California laws pertaining to child molestation specifically because of the Michael Jackson case.

- In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine: "The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward."

- Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said: "After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed."

- Regarding Jackson’s comments that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom with a child, Sneddon replied by saying it was, "unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously." He then urged any victims to come forward.

- Shortly after this statement was released, Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he discussed the 1993 case.

- Coincidentally, the boy who appeared in Living with Michael Jackson - the documentary that Sneddon taped and watched - is the same boy who ended up becoming Jackson's second accuser. Did Sneddon have something to do with this boy coming forward?

- During his testimony at a pre-trial hearing, Sneddon admitted to having met with the second accuser's mother in an empty parking lot to give her papers that would qualify her for a state victim's fund. He also personally investigated the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson, a job that is supposed to be carried out by investigators.

- Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said of Sneddon's actions: "It's way too personal. It's way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case." She continued: "It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it's not his place to do that. He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role."

- Although the accusing family's story had numerous holes in it, Sneddon went forward with the case and pressed charges. Read on to learn about the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson.
 

#MJforever57

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,050
Points
48
Ppls are so quick to judge a person without knowing the facts. Sneddon was so hell bend on putting Michael behind bars that a lie to him was the truth. What a mess up justice system we have.
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
All these notes are good.. but the simple F'ing fact that Evan said "I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."


This tells you more than enough!
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
^Thanks... side note

You know what would be an interesting project for someone to do.. Since the full audio has never been released.. is to do a reenactment of the script of the call!! For those who wont read the full thing.. There are a lot of people that would be willing to listen to the audio vs. reading..
 

#MJforever57

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,050
Points
48
That is a good idea because the audio would be better.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
You gotta love these contradictions

I don't know whether Jordie is being harmed I could be wrong and I want to talk to June and Michael and let's see if we can solve this

vs.

I know for a fact that he is being harmed I have the evidence and I just want to humiliate them and torture them


MR. CHANDLER: -- and I think what's going on now is bad for Jordy, and therefore any
4 alternative is better. If I'm wrong, they should sit down, and they should tell me why I'm wrong.

3 MR. CHANDLER: But if they are there, it's going to be far better than if they're
5 not -- I mean, they're going to have a chance to make things a lot better if they're there.

4 MR. CHANDLER: -- discuss why it might be harmful.
6 Suppose I'm right? I mean if Michael loves [tape irregularity] Lisa at least want to
8 hear my opinion about why what's going on could be potentially harmful? If you love somebody, you
10 don't want them to get hurt.


18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think that he's ****ing him?
20 MR. CHANDLER: I don't know. I have no idea

25 MR. CHANDLER: I think in the long term he's got a [tape irregularity] a chance of being a
2 happy human being if I do what I have to do than if I let things go the way they are.
4 Could a compromise be worked out?
5 Possibly.

6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
7 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. Let them convince me as to why [tape irregularity] tell me I'm wrong.
9 Let them show me how Jordy's benefitting and not being harmed. They got their chance.

15 MR. CHANDLER: I had a good communication with Michael.
17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
18 MR. CHANDLER: We were friends, you know. I liked him
21 MR. CHANDLER: I respected him and everything else for what he is, you know. There
23 was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He could have called me.

9 MR. CHANDLER: -- specific about it, but I tell you that, again, it all comes down to
11 one thing. They don't want to talk to me.


13 MR. CHANDLER: I want to talk to June and Jordy and Michael

4 MR. CHANDLER: But if they don't show up -- and I've made it very clear -- I've tried to
6 make it really clear on that answering machine, "This is the last chance to talk. If you talk, we
8 have a chance.
If we don't talk, it's all over."

vs.

10 MR. CHANDLER: I know for a fact that he's going to be affected adversely if I do nothing.


15 MR. CHANDLER: But it could have been used to advantage, and in some ways Michael is
17 using his age and experience and his money and his power to great advantage to Jordy. The problem is
19 he's also harming him, greatly harming him,
for his own selfish reasons.


4 MR. CHANDLER: And I know what you're
25 saying, and it breaks my heart, but I truly believe my son is being harmed greatly and that his
2 life -- he could be ****ed up for the rest of his
3 life
4 MR. SCHWARTZ: You gotta tell me why you think he's being screwed up.
6 MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence
MR. CHANDLER: You show up in court and you'll see it on the big ****ing screen


5 MR. CHANDLER: The evidence is already locked up in a safe place --

20 MR. CHANDLER: It's never -- by the time it runs its course --
22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
23 MR. CHANDLER: -- if it does, he will be so damaged he'll never recover


20 MR. CHANDLER: I know that after tomorrow -- in fact, not even after tomorrow. It's
22 already happened. I don't ever want anything to do with June anymore because June is not part of my
24 family. In my mind, she's died. I don't ever want to talk to her again. [tape irregularity] sitting
1 on the stand being totally humiliated or at the end of a shotgun. That's the only way I want to see
3 June now.

7 MR. CHANDLER: Well, you know, that doesn't matter anymore. June is nonexistent.
9 If -- I have no -- I have nothing for her anymore I will never talk to her again, ever. Never.


14 MR. CHANDLER: (Simultaneous, inaudible) Michael Jackson -- Michael Jackson's
16 career, Dave. This man is gonna be humiliated beyond belief. You'll not believe it. He will not
18 believe what's going to happen to him.


3 MR. CHANDLER: But if they are there, it's going to be far better than if they're
5 not -- I mean, they're going to have a chance to make things a lot better if they're there.
7 My instructions were to kill and destroy [tape irregularity], I'm telling you. I
9 mean, and by killing and destroying, I'm going to torture them, Dave.


And he believed his son was molested and needed experts to convince him that molestation was wrong?
I guess he had the same therapists as Robson and Safechuck.


2 MR. CHANDLER: I kept saying, "No, this is okay. There's nothing wrong. This is great."
4 It took experts to convince me [tape irregularity] that by not taking action --
6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
7 MR. CHANDLER: -- my son was going to be irreparably damaged for the rest of his life
9 [tape irregularity]. That was what I heard.
 
Last edited:

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
^ That's a man who is in the middle of coaching himself.. To be a convincing liar - he had to believe his own BS.. Goes from the truth to the "truth" he had to be in to pull such a horrendous act without the guilt to make him crumble and be believable enough... This may have been his FIRST role in the entertainment industry. Acting 101!
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
^ That's a man who is in the middle of coaching himself.. To be a convincing liar - he had to believe his own BS.. Goes from the truth to the "truth" he had to be in to pull such a horrendous act without the guilt to make him crumble and be believable enough... This may have been his FIRST role in the entertainment industry. Acting 101!

I know Taraborelli is like Shana, generally positive about MJ but wants to have it both ways
feed the tabloids and feed the fans at the same time but this is spot on:


I actually knew Evan Chandler. I met him several times in the 1990s. I had lots of secret meetings with Evan Chandler, trying to get to the bottom of what was going on. I was pretty young, sort of green and wish I had my present level of expertise to be able to have applied back then. I have stories about that guy that I have never even published. He was about as inconsistent as they come. He was so determined to get me on his side, I thought he was just a tad scary. If you read my book you sort of get how I felt -- feel -- about him. When it came out, he called me screaming at me for not just buying his story 100%. He actually threatened me, and I thought... okay, pal, now I know who you really are. I wish it had all been handed differently.

http://www.isitscary.com/2009/11/taraborrelli-speaks-out-about-evan.html

Evan Chandler sure liked to threaten people.

13 MR. CHANDLER: So when I leave a
14 threatening message, I am threatening them


20 MR. CHANDLER: Appealing to the
21 motherly [tape irregularity] nothing worked. So
22 what else is left? You threaten. If that doesn't
23 work, you've basically tried everything there is
24 that you could possibly try
 

#MJforever57

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,050
Points
48
This is just a evil man how can you drug your own son just to get money. What a sick world we live in.
 

Bad7

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
473
Points
18
This is just a evil man how can you drug your own son just to get money. What a sick world we live in.

The sodium amytal theory, by Mary Fischer, is just that... a theory. I don't personally believe it. Had Jordan been given sodium amytal, and Evan implanted false memories in him, he'd think he'd been abused. Therefore he wouldn't of told people at college nothing happened.

It's known that Jordan dealt with the abuse he'd supposedly endured quite well. His Uncle's book even says Jordan dealt with it all better than the family did! Now, had he been given sodium amytal, and believed he'd been abused, he'd of surely been affected by what he thought had happened.
 
Top