Did Jordan Chandler Admit That MJ Did Not Molest Him?

[bluetopez]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

It would have been interesting to know what made him send Jordan to a psychotherapist, and what made him start his lawsuit.

Evan needed a third party to go to the authorities to make it look legit and not look like he was the one behind the allegations. The lawsuit was because MJ refuse to give into the extortion so he sued him civilly so MJ would settle since there was no chance in hell he was gonna sue MJ criminally cause he would have needed proof of a crime and there never was one. He used it as a scare tactic is all.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Yes, June never explicitly claimed MJ molested Jordan, however she took the money as well (a part of the settlement money went to the parents) and she went along with Evan's plan knowing full well the allegations are false. So she was a partner in crime, even if a passive one. But had June not gone along with Evan's plan a lot of things could have been very different about the allegations. Just imagine if June had teamed up with Michael against Evan! I'm sure Evan could not have won that way. (By "winning" I mean the settlement and the money they got out of it.)

Ray Chandler didn't claim to witness anything either (in fact, not even Evan claimed to have witnessed anything), however he wrote a book slandering MJ, he was on countless of TV shows slandering MJ (possibly being paid handsomely for those appearances), he lied to the media about a number of things and so on.

So if Jordan would tell the truth these people would not escape some very harsh criticism and condemnation. At the very least. If not lawsuits by Michael's family and the Estate.

Re June - I've got a horrible feeling that my only source for this is JRT, but apparently mj was advised once the allegations had been made in august not to have any contact with june. June would therefore be on her own in LA, and there would be big pressure on her as a mother to support her son's side of the story. I don't think she had access to jc at this point so maybe she couldn't ascertain for herself what the basis of the allegations were, coupled with the media jumping to conclusions that mj was guilty and i don't know how soon it was that all those ex -employees started coming out with their eye witness stories, which would all add to doubts in her mind. We know for a fact, that mj was out of the country on his dangerous tour in eastern europe/asia, so contact with him wd definitely be difficult. And i agree with Bouee, june understandably would be looking out for her own interests, she didn't want to be prosecuted for putting her son at risk. She only really knew mj for a few months. But i agree, mj (or his legal advisors) should have kept june onside.

Re ray chandler - I remember seeing one youtube of him on his 04/05 media rounds promoting his book and saying that the DA found that mj had hard-core commercially produced child porn at his home. It was such a nonsensical statement (it's a crime mj was never charged with, and what - do barnes and noble sell hard core child porn?) but what was more disturbing was that the tv interviewer never questioned it.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I have the same questions about Jordan, he was 25 in 2005, and from the FBI files, assuming the important witness they met in NYC was Jordan, it's clear he did not want to testify, he even threatened to go after the prosecution if they made him testify in 05.

As I said in a previous post, I'm wondering what Jordan said. If he had maitained incriminating things to the police in 93, then how come Michael was not charged, by 2 grand juries ? The police would have testified to that , wouldn't they ? It was clear that Gavin Arvizo was lying, there was no proof either, yet the grand jury decided to indict Michael. So what's the difference between the 2 cases ?

I got the distinct impresssion the difference between the grand juries in 93/4 and 03/4 was that they had a victim willing to testify. Although there were tons of witnesses, adults and children, interviewed in 93/4, i don't think jordan chandler was involved in the grand jury - i'm sure it wd have leaked out if he was. I think he was just interviewed by the SB police, and did his 'drawings'.

With his non-involvement in the 05 case, i think the DA spun it that JC was out of the country and couldn't be called (a bit like karen faye in the murray trial!). But then photos appeared of him skiing in colarado. I always wondered who tipped off the paps for this fortuituous photo opportunity - whether it was mj's people who were keeping tabs on jc, or jc himself sending a 'message'.

 

[bouee]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I got the distinct impresssion the difference between the grand juries in 93/4 and 03/4 was that they had a victim willing to testify. Although there were tons of witnesses, adults and children, interviewed in 93/4, i don't think jordan chandler was involved in the grand jury - i'm sure it wd have leaked out if he was. I think he was just interviewed by the SB police, and did his 'drawings'.

With his non-involvement in the 05 case, i think the DA spun it that JC was out of the country and couldn't be called (a bit like karen faye in the murray trial!). But then photos appeared of him skiing in colarado. I always wondered who tipped off the paps for this fortuituous photo opportunity - whether it was mj's people who were keeping tabs on jc, or jc himself sending a 'message'.

I think he did not want to testify in 93, but the police certainly did. So they had whatever he said to the police (if he did talk to them) + his drawings or descriptions (if he ever made them at all), and 2 grand juries did not charge : the only way to explain that is that even less believable than the Gavin Arvizo story. If Jordan had testified it would have been stronger , but if the grand juries suspected anything, I think they would have charged,even without Jordan, so that there would have been a trial. I don't know, it's just my opinion, and I'm not a legal expert, but that's the only explanation I have been able to find.

I think all this was done to force a settlement, Evan Chanler did not want a criminal trial, at least he didn't want to be involved in a criminal trial. The lawsuit was filed to force Michael to settle : at the time, since Jordan was under 14 years old, the civil trial would have happend before the criminal trial. That's the ost important factor IMO. If Michael had defended himself , the DA would just have had to sit down and listen to Michael's defense , and then find a way to build the case against him. The accusations in themselves are not 100% provable or disprovable, it was a matter of credility. So I think that's probably why some lawyers wanted to settle, they wanted to protect Michael's defense for a potential criminal trial.

That's why I'm wondering what was really said, or how much of it was a manipulation by Feldman and Chandler. I don't know, I could be completely wrong, but things don't add up for me.

ETA : I totally agree with you about the JC pictures : it was an answer to Sneddon

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

The law was different in 93 a Civil trial could be first before a criminal one. So settling was proably unfortunetly the only way out to protect MJ's right to not get double jepordy. His lawyers requested that the Criminal trial go first to provent the D.A to sit there and hear the defense side before any criminal case would even happen. Sneedon fought this request and the defense was denied so the old bastard got his way. MJ was truly put into a corner to settle soon after that by his advisors & insurance company who payed the settlement.

 

[DreamalilDream]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I'm so ignorant with certain areas in this particular case, but why did MJ or his insurance have to, or made the decision to even PAY ANYTHING out? I know MJ was ill advised, and he didn't want to go through with all the madness...but what's the basis of this pay out...the technical reasoning?...MJ was innocent of any crime, I don't see why he payed anything out NOT criminally but civil.

 

[qbee]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I'm so ignorant with certain areas in this particular case, but why did MJ or his insurance have to, or made the decision to even PAY ANYTHING out? I know MJ was ill advised, and he didn't want to go through with all the madness...but what's the basis of this pay out...the technical reasoning?...MJ was innocent of any crime, I don't see why he payed anything out NOT criminally but civil.

Michael was being sued. remember this wasnt a criminal case. Now many civils suites settle out of court for damages before it even has to go to court. Its becuase they come to an agreement before the case goes to court. Sometimes for convenience or sometimes to protect oneself from further character damage if they are being accused of serious wrong doing. Many celebrities settle just to protect their image and reputation. Even if they didnt do wrong. They want to settle the case just to keep the crap out of the media and to silence the accusers. Becuase these things can cause serious damage to ones character and career. Usually no one is even aware of these civil cases. It was pretty hush hush. but not for MJ it wasnt becuase of Tom Sneddon involvment in trying to build a criminal case against MJ.

I think for several good reasons they settled out of court. Civil suites can last a lot longer. Michael was planning to start his world tour and didnt need all this stress when trying to focus on that. also You dont have to proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil suite like a criminal case so it was no sure thing he would win. Tom Sneddon was waiting to use any thing presented in the civil suite against Michael for his criminal case. I think all around they felt it was best to just settle and put it behind Him fast as possible so it wouldnt interfear with his concerts, cause futher media frenzy and damage to MJ through the criminal courts. Im not sure he really was ill advised. I think that was probably the best decision based on all what was going on at the time.

 

[bouee]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I agree with Qbee. In hindsight, when we know how this settlment is misunderstood, and the toll it took on Michael, it's easy to say he should have fought the accusations. In a perfect world , yes he should have, and he wanted to. In a perfect world, there should have been a criminal trial, and Michael should have been able to defend himself as publicly as he was accused.
But the reality is that the civil trial would have dragged on , he was not sure to win it, and certainly more importantly, it was jeopardising his defense in a criminal trial And eventually, there was no criminal trial, Michael was not even charged.

It's important to remember a few things : the civil trial would have been held BEFORE the criminal trial , which is absurd : how can you decide how much the victim should be paid, when you don't know if a crime was comitted. Michael's defense asked that the civil trial be held after a potential criminal trial, and it was rejected. They didn't settle straight away, they settled after their request was rejected.

the settlement did not, and could not, prevent Jordan or anyone else involved in the settlement (Evan and June), from testifying. Jordan could not be made to testify if he didn't want to. If he had wanted to, he could have. What they can not do, is talk publicly (in the media), but they can talk to law enforcement, or testiy. So the setllment did not stop any criminal proceedings. If there had been anything serious against Michael, he would have been prosecuted, with or without a settlement.


The civil lawsuit was about molestation AND negligence. If it had been only about molestation, Michael could not have settled : it was admitting he did molest Jordan, and he would have been charged (and probably found guilty). He settled for negligence. The notion of negligence in the cvil lawsuit is vague (what is negligence ? ), and was really dangerous. If you cant convince a jury that molestation did happen, the negligence could be an easy way out...

I hope I am clear, it was really diificult situation at the time.

 

[teli-mj]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I'm so ignorant with certain areas in this particular case, but why did MJ or his insurance have to, or made the decision to even PAY ANYTHING out? I know MJ was ill advised, and he didn't want to go through with all the madness...but what's the basis of this pay out...the technical reasoning?...MJ was innocent of any crime, I don't see why he payed anything out NOT criminally but civil.

Because the Chandlers sued ?ike for 30.000.000 when Mike refused to give Evan Chandler the 20.000.000 that he kept asking him. So ?J at the time had two trials about the same accusation. The criminal trial (because of Chandlers accusing him of moloesting their son) and the civil trial (bacuse of Chandlers suing him.) Mike or his insurance settled the civil trial which is a very common practice. You can't settle a criminal trial so the Chandlers could still testify against MJ on the criminal trial,even when they took the money, but the chose not to. The settlement didn't prevent them from testifying in the criminal trial because that would be obstruction of justice regarding an alleged crime. But only the fact that they sued Mike speaks volumes. If they wanted justice why sue Mike and ask money. They could just proceed with the criminal trial and have the "molestor" of their kid locked in a prison.

One other very interesting thing is that Mike's lowayer asked for the criminal trial to go before the civil trial . What does this means? That if MJ was found guilty in the criminal trial he would have gone straing to prison. So why Mike's part ask for the criminal trial to go before the civil one? Because they knew that Mike was innocent and that he could win the case. But the judge or authorities didn't deside in favour of Mike. Like they didn't show any interest when Mike sued the Chandlers of extortion. I mean, the man was saying "look, i'm being extorted" and no one looked at it.

 

[PoP]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I agree with those theories. I always say recently to never trust the justice system in California, they're the worst and most corrupted that they wanted to put Michael down mainly all to Sneddon's doing like he changed the law to get at him.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

It does seem an unpopular opinion, probably because Tmez disagreed with it, but i agree with qbee and bouee about mj settling in 94. It's impossible to know, but i think the chandler's credibility wd have been stronger in court than the arvizos, if only because i can't imagine a less credible witness than the arvizo family. Also jc and family were actually close with mj compared to the fleeting relationship mj had with the arvizos. Yet that ridiculous arvizo case, which was so weak and dubious, caused mj an almost total emotional, mental and financial breakdown. The media didn't report it fairly and did their best to destroy mj - so what's to say this wouldn't have happened 10yrs earlier?

I get sick of reading everywhere, 'mj went to trial and was acquitted but...' Mj was in a lose/lose position i think, and i actually believe his lawyers' advice to settle wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

The decision to hold the civil before the criminal trial in 94 was hugely unfair to mj - it destroyed his right to a fair trial, and his first amendment rights. Was it just based on jc being 13/14 as bouee suggested?

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Im not gonna get tired of posting this until it's crystal clear for every one here how the law worked in the early 90's.

You could do it back then in early 90's... but since then, the laws changed regarding molestation-crimes and thats the reason WHY for instance the Arvizos HAD to go to a criminal trial before they could even think about suing MJ in a civil trial.

The Arvizos needed a GUILTY verdict in the criminal trial in order to be able to ca$h in on a civil trial.

Unfortunately, thats not how the law was in the first case in early 90s in California.

 

[bouee]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

What I read about why a judge ruled in favor of Jordan about not delaying the civil trial, is that the civil lawsuit was initiated by Evan on behalf of Jordan, in september 1993. Jordan was 13 at the time, technically a child. So technically , it was Jordan sueing Michael.

Everyone has a right to a speedy trial in the US. Based on that , the judge ruled in favor of a minor. That law was changed later in the 90s, making it impossible to hold a civil trial before a criminal trial. That's what I read, I dont know if there was another reason.

Also, the fact that Jordan was under 14 years old , and it was a sexual matter, made it impossible for anyone to force him to testify. Again that was the law at the time.

I can't remember where I read that , so I'm sorry I can not post the source.

About the extorsion that was not investigated : does anyone remember when Michael's lawyers filed the complaint ? Because, IMO, when Michael signed he settlement , then he could no longer say it was extorsion, since, technically, he agreed to the settlement.

Based on what I wrote in my previous posts, I believe that Evan did have a "perfect plan" as he said himself , based on twisting and using the law to his advantage to get the money.

Based on the facts of the "case", and what was leaked, as I said in a previous post, I really wonder to what extent the manipulation went. Again, it doesn't make sense for me , unless it was a huge manipulation, and at some point , even Sneddon was aware of it.

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Regarding the Extortion allegation.

Larry Feldman himself, in his public statement said:
"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."

So it makes it clear that MJ filed charges for extortion against the Chandlers but logically, part of the agreement was that MJ remove that allegation.

 

[HIStory]

Im not gonna get tired of posting this until it's crystal clear for every one here how the law worked in the early 90's.

You could do it back then in early 90's... but since then, the laws changed regarding molestation-crimes and thats the reason WHY for instance the Arvizos HAD to go to a criminal trial before they could even think about suing MJ in a civil trial.

The Arvizos needed a GUILTY verdict in the criminal trial in order to be able to ca$h in on a civil trial.

Unfortunately, thats not how the law was in the first case in early 90s in California.

Yes, and Sneddon changed the law exactly because of the Chandlers! Because he couldn't get the Chandlers testify in a criminal case! The Chandlers were desperate to push the criminal trial behind the civil trial. Here is a quote right from Ray Chandler's book. The conversation is between Evan and Larry Feldman:

“Late in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for.

Larry: “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. (not necessarily true) If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.”

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

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

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

Evan: “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”

Larry: “Yeah.”

Evan: “Jesus Christ!”

Larry: “Right! So we don’t want that.”

Now, if you are a parent of a molested boy is your greatest concern all this legal maneuvering? If you are a parent of a molested boy is your concern how to avoid or at least push back a criminal trial? Wouldn't your Nr 1 goal be to see the molester behind bars? And only a criminal trial can put somebody behind bars. A civil trial can only get you money. Of course, that's all the Chandlers wanted.

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Exactly respect77




Edited.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

It does seem an unpopular opinion, probably because Tmez disagreed with it, but i agree with qbee and bouee about mj settling in 94. It's impossible to know, but i think the chandler's credibility wd have been stronger in court than the arvizos, if only because i can't imagine a less credible witness than the arvizo family. Also jc and family were actually close with mj compared to the fleeting relationship mj had with the arvizos. Yet that ridiculous arvizo case, which was so weak and dubious, caused mj an almost total emotional, mental and financial breakdown. The media didn't report it fairly and did their best to destroy mj - so what's to say this wouldn't have happened 10yrs earlier?

I get sick of reading everywhere, 'mj went to trial and was acquitted but...' Mj was in a lose/lose position i think, and i actually believe his lawyers' advice to settle wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

The decision to hold the civil before the criminal trial in 94 was hugely unfair to mj - it destroyed his right to a fair trial, and his first amendment rights. Was it just based on jc being 13/14 as bouee suggested?

I personally think had it gone to court the Chandlers would have been just as big of a failure there as the Arvizos. I believe people only consider the Chandlers "more credible" than the Arvizos (I mean even many who think MJ was guilty admit the Arvizos weren't credible) because they weren't exposed in court (and sadly, because Michael settled with them). But had they gone to court they would have been exposed just like the Arvizos. There's a good reason why they were trying to avoid the criminal trial like hell and they were running scared from court. Not only in 1993 but also in 2005. There's a reason why Jordan said to Dr. Gardner in his psych interview that the only thing he fears is cross-examination. Had it gone to court the Schwartz-Chandler tape would have been definitely played too.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Yes, for people like us who take the time to look at court records and use our common sense, the chandler case would have been exposed to the light and shown to be shaky. I'm thinking evan chandler could have been as much of a liability as janet arvizo, he didn't seem a likeable character. Howevr, what i would have been afraid of was the court of public opinion. The media might have been a little less virulently against mj in 94 than 10 yrs later, but you just know how they would spin the evidence, however poor it was. It would have been brutal to his career. Also the personal cost to mj's health and emotional well-being - his 93 drug addiction showed that he prob cdn't take the strain. I feel that the only thing that got him through the 05 trial were his children, which of course he didn't have in 93/4. MJ paid the money in 94, got married and released history, the alternative of a long jury civil trial looks less appealing with its uncertain consequences and certain bad media headlines.

 

[bouee]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

I agree with you Respect, if there had been a trial the Chandlers and Feldman would have been exposed, and it would have been maybe worse than the Arvizo because at least Evan and Feldman's manipulations for the civil trial would have been shown.
In the hindsight, I wish there would have been a criminal trial, not a civil lawsuit. Though I understand his decision , I wish the judge had postponed the civil lawsuit. Knowing what we know now, it was the best solution IMO. The Chandlers took the money, and Michael never had the chance to defend himself. it's as unfair as the accusations themselves. I don't know how Michael would have reacted to a criminal trial, but given the toll the allegations took on him, the best solution would have been to prove them wrong.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

The Arvizo case would never have happened in the Chandlers did not do what they did.. Arvizos scheme and those who helped with it litterally fallowed step by step what to do by what Chandlers did and what not to do by what they felt Chandlers should have done differently.. It was plotted based on the Chandlers.. PLUS like they would have thought up a molestation agenda if chandlers didn't think of it first.

 

[DreamalilDream]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Wow brilliant responses to all those who responded to my question. I have much better understanding of the insurance pay out and I thank You all.
So Mj was being sued for Molestation and negligence. WHATEVER negligence may be.
There was possibility MJ could have lost the Civil suit? How? When there wasn't even proven fact of molestation/negligence ?
Heck how could they have even sued MJ for such a lumpsum with no determination, which would have been based from the criminal trial?

I know the toll of took on MJ but I feel its a double edged sword. I do wish MJ would have taken these people in court to expose them, I mean after all said and done, MJ was shaffted. These people. became rich after all, Sneddon made the whole civil settlement so public, giving the impression that MJ payed these people off to hush them up of incriminating evidence of molesting this boy.

Court denying the man in question his request and RIGHT to prove his innocence in court in a criminal trial.

Wow this whole thing was just so flipping messed up.

God forbid MJ was able to prove his innocence in a criminal trial.

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Wow brilliant responses to all those who responded to my question. I have much better understanding of the insurance pay out and I thank You all.
So Mj was being sued for Molestation and negligence. WHATEVER negligence may be.
There was possibility MJ could have lost the Civil suit? How? When there wasn't even proven fact of molestation/negligence ?
Heck how could they have even sued MJ for such a lumpsum with no determination, which would have been based from the criminal trial?

I know the toll of took on MJ but I feel its a double edged sword. I do wish MJ would have taken these people in court to expose them, I mean after all said and done, MJ was shaffted. These people. became rich after all, Sneddon made the whole civil settlement so public, giving the impression that MJ payed these people off to hush them up of incriminating evidence of molesting this boy.

Court denying the man in question his request and RIGHT to prove his innocence in court in a criminal trial.

Wow this whole thing was just so flipping messed up.

God forbid MJ was able to prove his innocence in a criminal trial.

Good questions.

In the Diane Sawyer interview MJ explained a little what would have happened if he didn't settle:

"The trial could last for even 7 years " And that's true. CIVIL trials can last that long, maybe even more.

But imagine how the press would have managed this civil trial!
Do you guys think the press would have explained that this was not a molestation trial but a Negligence trial?
Do you think the press would have explained the differences between a criminal an a civil trial to the common public?

I don't think so.

For all those years the press would have made a feast over a civil trial.

And there's more: There was no guaranty that MJ could have won because there is no need for hard proofs in a civil trial.

So imagine after years of a CIVIL trial and at the end MJ losing. Still he would have payed money.
But in the eyes of the public he would had become guilty according to law of harming a child. (negligence/molestation that wouldn't matter for the bad press). That's what I think it would have happened, had MJ lost that civil trial.

 

[DreamalilDream]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

So true about the lengthy process of the civil suit, but how could they have come to the conclusion of the "damage" MJ is/was responsible for? ...or could they have proven that, IF the case was tried?

So generally in a criminal case you have to prove wether or not the person in question is guilty of a crime, but the Civil suit is to prove wether or not the person is responsible for physical and or emotional "damage" ....but I don't understand if a person (particularly THIS case) COULDNT and DIDNT defend themselves in a criminal trial and was never proven guilty of any crime how could they have caused damage? Granted I know in this case the suit was settled.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

There are many things in Ray Chandlers book that exonerates MJ and shows that this was indeed a setup. Ray admitted in the book that if MJ would have just paid the money when Evan first demanded it that MJ would have never been accused. He also admits in the book that Jordan testifying against MJ was never an option, that they were never gonna let that happen. Ray acts like he has no contact with Evan and Jordan anymore but, it's clear he sure did. That's why he ended up being their mouth piece in 03/05 and wrote this book.

The excuse that Larry Feldman gave to the judge for the civil case to go ahead first before the criminal or/and a speedy trial of the Criminal trial was Jordan age and that because of his age his memory of events can be forgotten.

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Also the first file of the Civil trial involved Molestation. But, the one MJ settled out of court had that dropped and in it's place was Negligence only.

Exactly.

So true about the lengthy process of the civil suit, but how could they have come to the conclusion of the "damage" MJ is/was responsible for? ...or could they have proven that, IF the case was tried?

So generally in a criminal case you have to prove wether or not the person in question is guilty of a crime, but the Civil suit is to prove wether or not the person is responsible for physical and or emotional "damage" ....but I don't understand if a person (particularly THIS case) COULDNT and DIDNT defend themselves in a criminal trial and was never proven guilty of any crime how could they have caused damage? Granted I know in this case the suit was settled.

We can only imagine how could they have proven that. But it was a possibility.
There are a lot of examples of Negligence cases that are settled (by Insurace companies) because supposedly it takes more money and time to take the case in trial.

The fact is that most celebrities have an Insurance company that "back them up" and it's their job to settle when it's possible.

 

[DreamalilDream]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

Do we have an idea what "negligence" in this case entails?

 

[Lucilla]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

"Negligence course of distress"
I think Ivy could explain this better.
But it's possible that they would have needed a psychologist or psychiatry to prove that.

 

[teli-mj]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

So true about the lengthy process of the civil suit, but how could they have come to the conclusion of the "damage" MJ is/was responsible for? ...or could they have proven that, IF the case was tried?

So generally in a criminal case you have to prove wether or not the person in question is guilty of a crime, but the Civil suit is to prove wether or not the person is responsible for physical and or emotional "damage" ....but I don't understand if a person (particularly THIS case) COULDNT and DIDNT defend themselves in a criminal trial and was never proven guilty of any crime how could they have caused damage? Granted I know in this case the suit was settled.

I'm not sure i understand your question. If the civil trial went one both sides would present their evidences and the jurors would then decide if the Chandlers did deserve the 30.000.000 that they were suing Mike off.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

There are many things in Ray Chandlers book that exonerates MJ and shows that this was indeed a setup. Ray admitted in the book that if MJ would have just paid the money when Evan first demanded it that MJ would have never been accused. He also admits in the book that Jordan testifying against MJ was never an option, that they were never gonna let that happen. Ray acts like he has no contact with Evan and Jordan anymore but, it's clear he sure did. That's why he ended up being their mouth piece in 03/05 and wrote this book.

Right.

To me it seems even as if Ray Chandler is boasting in his book about how clever they were in tricking the system and extorting money out of Michael. Despicable people.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Did Jordan Chandler admit that MJ did not mlest him

^^ I didn't know that ray said jordan testifying in court wasn't an option. That's really interesting. Maybe that was jc's bottom line to his father - he cdn't make the accusations in court in front of mj and be x-examined.

Dreamalildream - i imagine the 'proof' that wd be offered in a civil trial wd just be the same as the type of proof in the arvizo criminal trial - the boy and his family members' testimony, the maid (?), the psychiatrist etc. There was an eye witness to mj/jc abuse in the 05 case, an ex employee who saw something in front of a peter pan statue (i swear a tabloid hack suggested that to spice up the headline), but i think he was one of the neverland 5 and only remembered this crucial evidence after he was fired in 94/5. The 'damage' jc's lawyers wd be looking for recompense for would be emotional distress and disruption to jc's childhood i imagine.