Square One - Documentary about the '93 allegations

[terrell]

Sure, that's clear. I'm just saying the reason he killed himself was his illness, not feeling of guilt. I think it's the the timing of his suicide that made some people think it was due to remorse.

It could be both. Evan had cancer and the guy Evan lied on (MJ) died in June 2009 and now Evan thinking his pain is the pain he put on MJ was coming back on Evan and Evan ended it. The key to me would be what kind of cancer Evan had and what stage was it in. Again, Evan could have had both feelings. He did not kill himself earlier before MJ died.

 

[ozemouze]

Not sure about what kind of cancer he had. Strangely his wikipedia page doesn't mention the illness, although his attack on Jordan is included.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Most probably because he had cancer (so it's not like guilt had anything to do with it, although he must have been left alone by the end due to his own actions).

Who cares why this SOB took his own life. Most likely it was because his own son, Jordan, hated him and blamed him for what he made him do towards Michael. Let’s nit forget that this bastard tried to kill his own son. Karma is a bitch and Evan Chandler was a lowlife bitch.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

To me, that make it more reliable. They are dealing in facts and NOT dealing to manipulate in editing, smoke and mirrors, hype, etc.

I agree. IMO, everything fit the documentary PERFECTLY.

 

[Elton-Cetera]

Square One has over 46,000 views so far. Why is this doing so much better than Leaving Neverland: Take Two? (Under 4000 views). I want them both to have the same exposure.

 

[ozemouze]

Who cares why this SOB took his own life. Most likely it was because his own son, Jordan, hated him and blamed him for what he made him do towards Michael. Let’s nit forget that this bastard tried to kill his own son. Karma is a bitch and Evan Chandler was a lowlife bitch.

Well I was just answering a question.

I understand it's sort of comforting to think that his guilt consumed him but there's no clear proof of that, and like I said I can't see his illness and suicide as "justice served". He should have been held accountable by society in his lifetime, all the while bringing justice to MJ.

It's true though that neither Chandler's life, behaviour or death is fitting into the anti-MJ narrative, on the contrary it makes you think. I just doubt that many of the general public are aware of these events (Jordan emancipating from his parents, Evan attacking Jordan and trying to get his money, etc.) - let's hope Square One will change that!

 

[Blondie]

Watched it and have some questions. Obviously it includes a lot of details that come up over and over. The thing about Evan drugging Jordan with sodium amytal, is there proof or evidence of that? Also all the bits about the criminal trial coming after the civil one and all that complication I found interesting but doesn't it contradict the story that his legal team ADVISED him to avoid criminal trial because it'd be long and he's be out of work for months?

 

[WannaScream]

Square One really took me by surprise. I think if it gets out it will make a difference to the public opinion. It is laid out so coherently and small detail like explaining the difference between civil and criminal trial adds to that. I don't think it's just YouTube quality. I think it's fine for Amazon Prime for example - there are many low budget films on there that are sometimes boring but this documentary is really engaging.

 

[Amaya]

Who cares why this SOB took his own life. Most likely it was because his own son, Jordan, hated him and blamed him for what he made him do towards Michael. Let’s nit forget that this bastard tried to kill his own son. Karma is a bitch and Evan Chandler was a lowlife bitch.

The haters probably love that he committed suicide because it gives them the opportunity to say that he did it because he was sad that he never got justice for his son. Never mind the fact that he attacked his own son (which haters ALSO blame Michael for), or that he had YEARS to press criminal charges against Michael and never did, or all the other red flags about him.

 

[ozemouze]

The haters probably love that he committed suicide because it gives them the opportunity to say that he did it because he was sad that he never got justice for his son. Never mind the fact that he attacked his own son (which haters ALSO blame Michael for), or that he had YEARS to press criminal charges against Michael and never did, or all the other red flags about him.

It's the timing of his suicide that doesn't really fit this hater narrative though, if anything it's indeed looks more like out of remorse.
Plus he clearly was a sick individual which makes it even more plausible he was willing to frame MJ even by sacrificing his own son while doing so.

But none of the parents of the accusers help their cases TBH.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

I actually feel sorry for Jordan. what was mother thinking? Michael treat it him like a son and is a better father figure.

 

[ozemouze]

I actually feel sorry for Jordan. what was mother thinking? Michael treat it him like a son and is a better father figure.

Yep and this was another great thing in Square One that it actually makes the viewer feel more compassion for Jordan by understanding his difficult situation.

 

[Robbsaber01]

I doubt a monster like him could show any sign of guilt or remorse. Keep in mind this is a man who didnt care about his son until he learned MJ was close to him. He also drugged, planted false memories, and coached his son. I wouldnt be surprised if he was a sociopath tbh.

I hope Jordan sees this doc and comes forward one day. The woman in the doc that knew him seemed genuine and her story about Jordan saying "MJ wouldn't do these things" was new and interesting.

The narrative has always been "Payoff" but this doc ends that. Ive already seen comments of people who believed he was guily change their minds.

 

[Elton-Cetera]

Sorry, but that's just wishful thinking.

He certainly managed to ruin his family as well as his own life while ruining MJ's, but that's all due to his own deeds, for which he was never held accountable legally. Having a terminal illness and dying alone isn't just the faith of bad people unfortunately, so I can't see that as some sort of "justice". He should have been held accountable and pay his dues to society.


Yep, basically.


Quite chilling how some minor things can change everything, isn't it?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="hu"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Jackson's car stalled in front of my office at a time before cell phones, in a weird twist of fate he couldn't get in touch with anyone and I drove him to a repair place, his world changed forever</p>&#8212; Anne Prenatt Green (@greenswede82) <a href="https://twitter.com/greenswede82/status/1095441342673563648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">2019. február 12.</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So Michael Jackson was driving the van, and he was by himself in his own car.

 

[ozemouze]

Also all the bits about the criminal trial coming after the civil one and all that complication I found interesting but doesn't it contradict the story that his legal team ADVISED him to avoid criminal trial because it'd be long and he's be out of work for months?

His legal team advised him to settle the CIVIL case in order to avoid COMPROMISING the criminal one - not to avoid it all together. It's important to understand that the criminal investigation was still ongoing while the settlement happened.

In general and in brief:
- A civil case is between citizens: one citizen (the plaintiff) sues another one (the defendant) for some kind of compensation (mostly money). If they can reach an agreement (e.g. the defendant is willing to pay, but less amount, or without acknowledging any wrongdoing) they can settle the case out of court in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive proceeding.
- A criminal case is between the state and a citizen (or more): the police investigates the case and if there's enough evidence the prosecution files charges against the defendant. There will be a trial ending with a verdict either aquitting or sentencing the defendant (depending on the seriousness of the charges it can be serving jail time). You can't settle a criminal case out of court with the state.

The complications in MJ's case:
MJ's team wanted to postpone the civil lawsuit to allow the criminal proceedings before the civil one (clear sign they were ready to face the charges in CRIMINAL court, also quite a reasonable request as a criminal process is more important than a civil one), while Chandler's team wanted the CIVIL trial first (how strange they didn't want this "dangerous criminal" behind bars ASAP instead), and the judge sided with the Chandlers (quite a strange ruling for the same reasons).

The problem with this:
If the civil trial (which is only about money) comes first MJ has to give away his defence strategy making it possible for the prosecution to build their case around it (e.g. changing the timeline around MJ's alibi. Don't think that's possible? Well, Sneddon just did that in 2005) during the criminal trial (which is about freedom).
Basically: MJ's constitutional right to a fair criminal trial would have been severely compromised had the civil trial come first. THIS was the main reason he was forced to settle, all the other factors were just contributing to it.

Actually the chronology of how MJ's team fought to postpone the civil proceedings, how they were denied multiple requests, and how it lead to MJ being forced to settle (and when: the same day MJ was scheduled to give a deposition for the civil trial - so they basically fought to the last possible moment) as he had no other choice is quite clearly shown in Square One.

Also important to note that the settlement DIDN'T prevent the Chandlers from participating in the criminal proceedings (as it was acknowledged even by their lawyer), it was them who chose not to cooperate with the authorities afterwards. The police continued to investigate and the case went to two independent grand juries (one in LA, one in SB) but there simply weren't enough evidence to file charges against MJ.

For further reading:
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/

 

[Blondie]

Thank you for explaining. I'm watching it again because I'm still confused. I'm trying to understand what would have happened if Michael had refused to settle or pay any money? Is it just that the civil trial would have carried on and wouldn't have lead to a fair criminal one? But who's to say the civil trial couldn't have carried on and Michael would have been fine?

 

[terrell]

Thank you for explaining. I'm watching it again because I'm still confused. I'm trying to understand what would have happened if Michael had refused to settle or pay any money? Is it just that the civil trial would have carried on and wouldn't have lead to a fair criminal one? But who's to say the civil trial couldn't have carried on and Michael would have been fine?

That is risky and it was no guarantee he would have had a fair shake.

 

[Blondie]

That is risky and it was no guarantee he would have had a fair shake.

Was it THAT risky though. I understood the part about the prosecution having seen the defence already, but what could the prosecution really do apart from try and divert certain witnesses? Could they really have added anything that they wouldn't have brought forward in the civil trial?

 

[ozemouze]

Thank you for explaining. I'm watching it again because I'm still confused. I'm trying to understand what would have happened if Michael had refused to settle or pay any money? Is it just that the civil trial would have carried on and wouldn't have lead to a fair criminal one? But who's to say the civil trial couldn't have carried on and Michael would have been fine?

You're welcome.

Unfortunately no one can predict how a case like this can turn out and the risk of giving away defence strategy was too big (it was actually a violation of MJ's constitutional right for a fair trial in case there had been one). Especially knowing that later on Sneddon did change the initial timeline so basically built his case around MJ's alibi.

Plus I forgot to mention but the burden of proof is lower in a civil case: in a criminal case it's "beyond reasonable doubt" (one cannot be convicted if there's a reasonable uncertainty that he's committed the crime), in a civil one it's "preponderance of the evidence" (the plaintiff only has to convince the jury/judge that there’s a greater than 50 percent chance that their claim is true).

Of course looking back knowing that copycat accusations followed the settlement it's easy to say it was a mistake. But at the time they may hoped that he will clear his name during the criminal proceedings. They may thought that the public would understand the legal facts as well as start questioning the Chandlers' motive as well (why whould THEY settle if the accusations were true).

And it could have work if the media had done their work properly, but instead they distorted the truth and withhold crucial information.

The real question for me though: why did the judge side with the Chandlers in allowing the civil case before the criminal one?

 

[Blondie]

The real question for me though: why did the judge side with the Chandlers in allowing the civil case before the criminal one?

Yeah I wondered that as well. I'd like an answer to this. As pleased I am about this doc there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Other questions I have:
1. How do we know this Josie person knew the real Jordan? I always thought Jordan changed his name for some reason? To avoid being hounded by press etc
2. If Jordan split off from his parents, likes MJ and is allowed to testify. Why didn't he in 2004?
3. Whats the source/evidence behind the sodium amytal story?
4. Did David Schwarz give the taped phone conversations away willingly? Where does he stand on all of it now?

 

[Glanni]

is it true that evan changed his face with many plastic surgeries? what is the source of this information?

and here an article of wade searching for jordan chandler in 2016. even jordans sister doesnt believes that jordan was molested.

https://www.tmz.com/2016/11/06/michael-jackson-alleged-molestation-victim-hunt/

 

[Blondie]

is it true that evan changed his face with many plastic surgeries? what is the source of this information?

and here an article of wade searching for jordan chandler in 2016. even jordans sister doesnt believes that jordan was molested.

https://www.tmz.com/2016/11/06/michael-jackson-alleged-molestation-victim-hunt/

Hold up, Lily just says she doesn't recall anything. Is that all we have about her? If so that doesn't mean she 'doesn't believe' Jordan was molested does it?

 

[ozemouze]

Could they really have added anything that they wouldn't have brought forward in the civil trial?

Just to clarify: civil and criminal trials are two absolutely different, independent proceedings with different actors.
- In a criminal trial there's a prosecutor representing the state, paid by tax payers, and a defence lawyer representing the defendant, paid by the defendant (or by the state if the defendant has no money as everyone has a right to a fair trial).
- In a civil trial there's a lawyer representing the plaintiff (paid by the plaintiff), and a lawyer representing the defendant (paid by defendant). There is no prosecution (state) involved in a civil trial, it's one citizen against another (represented by lawyers, of course).

So let's say there was a civil trial in 93, Sneddon (Santa Barbara District Attorney, which is a kind of chief prosecutor) wouldn't have been there, it would be Feldman (Chandler's lawyer) representing Chandler's claim.
Sneddon could have presented the criminal charges against MJ in a criminal trial would there have been one. And he COULD have built his case around the information that became public during the civil trial if that had prevented the criminal one.

Was it THAT risky though. I understood the part about the prosecution having seen the defence already, but what could the prosecution really do apart from try and divert certain witnesses?

E.g.: change the timeline after knowing your alibi.

Perhaps many are not familiar with the fact that charges were filed twice against MJ during the 03-05 case:
First set of charges by Sneddon in December 2003: timeline of the accusations between February 7, 2003 and March 10.
Turns out MJ wasn't even there some of these days.
Second set of charges, this time by a grand jury, in April 2004: different counts with different timeline to explain away the discrepancies: February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003.
They did build the case around MJ's alibi.

Or: threaten your witnesses with charges against them, this way tainting their reliability as witnesses or even keeping them away from taking the stand. Also done by Sneddon.

It's one thing to conclude "maybe it's not that risky" in theory, and another to risk your freedom in reality.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Just to clarify: civil and criminal trials are two absolutely different, independent proceedings with different actors.
- In a criminal trial there's a prosecutor representing the state, paid by tax payers, and a defence lawyer representing the defendant, paid by the defendant (or by the state if the defendant has no money as everyone has a right to a fair trial).
- In a civil trial there's a lawyer representing the plaintiff (paid by the plaintiff), and a lawyer representing the defendant (paid by defendant). There is no prosecution (state) involved in a civil trial, it's one citizen against another (represented by lawyers, of course).

So let's say there was a civil trial in 93, Sneddon (Santa Barbara District Attorney, which is a kind of chief prosecutor) wouldn't have been there, it would be Feldman (Chandler's lawyer) representing Chandler's claim.
Sneddon could have presented the criminal charges against MJ in a criminal trial would there have been one. And he COULD have built his case around the information that became public during the civil trial if that had prevented the criminal one.


E.g.: change the timeline after knowing your alibi.

Perhaps many are not familiar with the fact that charges were filed twice against MJ during the 03-05 case:
First set of charges by Sneddon in December 2003: timeline of the accusations between February 7, 2003 and March 10.
Turns out MJ wasn't even there some of these days.
Second set of charges, this time by a grand jury, in April 2004: different counts with different timeline to explain away the discrepancies: February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003.
They did build the case around MJ's alibi.

Or: threaten your witnesses with charges against them, this way tainting their reliability as witnesses or even keeping them away from taking the stand. Also done by Sneddon.

It's one thing to conclude "maybe it's not that risky" in theory, and another to risk your freedom in reality.

Thank you for explaining this. Let’s not forget that Sneddon was the most corrupt prosecutor ever, IMO. He planted evidence, he changed evidence, he changed Timelines to fit HIS agenda, he even switched charges to fit his “case”. The original charges against Michael in the 2003-2005 scam were that Gavin Arvisso AND his brother were molested. Sneddon then changed the charges to say that Gavin was molested and the brother watched. This just goes to show the length that this corrupt bastard went to frame Michael. I have always said that nothing happened with J. Chandler, nothing happen with Arvissio, and nothing happened to these lying pieces of trash Robson and Safechuck. Michael is innocent and has always been innocent. The sad thing is that haters don’t give a damn and WANT him to be guilty.

 

[Blondie]

Just to clarify: civil and criminal trials are two absolutely different, independent proceedings with different actors.
- In a criminal trial there's a prosecutor representing the state, paid by tax payers, and a defence lawyer representing the defendant, paid by the defendant (or by the state if the defendant has no money as everyone has a right to a fair trial).
- In a civil trial there's a lawyer representing the plaintiff (paid by the plaintiff), and a lawyer representing the defendant (paid by defendant). There is no prosecution (state) involved in a civil trial, it's one citizen against another (represented by lawyers, of course).

So let's say there was a civil trial in 93, Sneddon (Santa Barbara District Attorney, which is a kind of chief prosecutor) wouldn't have been there, it would be Feldman (Chandler's lawyer) representing Chandler's claim.
Sneddon could have presented the criminal charges against MJ in a criminal trial would there have been one. And he COULD have built his case around the information that became public during the civil trial if that had prevented the criminal one.


E.g.: change the timeline after knowing your alibi.

Perhaps many are not familiar with the fact that charges were filed twice against MJ during the 03-05 case:
First set of charges by Sneddon in December 2003: timeline of the accusations between February 7, 2003 and March 10.
Turns out MJ wasn't even there some of these days.
Second set of charges, this time by a grand jury, in April 2004: different counts with different timeline to explain away the discrepancies: February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003.
They did build the case around MJ's alibi.

Or: threaten your witnesses with charges against them, this way tainting their reliability as witnesses or even keeping them away from taking the stand. Also done by Sneddon.

It's one thing to conclude "maybe it's not that risky" in theory, and another to risk your freedom in reality.

I guess so yeah, certainly wouldnt put it past Sneddon. However, if MJ's side had a mismatched drawing of MJ's genitals and photographs to put alongside it wouldn't that be pretty damning in either the civil or criminal trial?

 

[ozemouze]

Yeah I wondered that as well. I'd like an answer to this. As pleased I am about this doc there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Other questions I have:
1. How do we know this Josie person knew the real Jordan? I always thought Jordan changed his name for some reason? To avoid being hounded by press etc
2. If Jordan split off from his parents, likes MJ and is allowed to testify. Why didn't he in 2004?
3. Whats the source/evidence behind the sodium amytal story?
4. Did David Schwarz give the taped phone conversations away willingly? Where does he stand on all of it now?

Well it's a ~80 min. docu, so it couldn't cover everything. Maybe it should have been 4 hours long.

1. She was on the defence witness list in 05, so she's not just someone telling a story to the public, she was willing to take the stand in a criminal proceeding as well (eventually she wasn't needed as Jordan didn't testify).

2. You should ask Jordan about this. I mean you can't except anyone else to be able to answer this. He's in a quite difficult situation, he may want to avoid the spotlight, the whole sitation may be traumatising for him (his father basically used and sacrificed him), he could be afraid of the consequences of his testimony - and who knows really, I'm just guessing here. One thing is for sure him not testifying isn't an indicator of anything (the same question can be asked even if someone thinks he was abused).

3. I can only sugggest reading this article, it's nothing conclusive though as not much of this topic became public knowledge (as the case didn't went to trial): https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-use-of-sodium-amytal/

4. Their relationship wasn't good to begin with, there were custody and legal battles between them. Don't forget that it was Evan's plan to extort MJ, June and David wasn't in it in the beginning, they could think MJ's lawyer team could help them too. But I'm not too familiar with this topic, you should read these articles for a start.
https://themichaeljacksonallegation...n-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/
https://themichaeljacksonallegation...ksons-first-accuser-meet-the-chandler-family/

One thing we have to understand that life is not like a Columbo episode where the viewer is aware of anything concerning the case, in real life many information simply can't be tracked down or made available to the public.

 

[ozemouze]

I guess so yeah, certainly wouldnt put it past Sneddon. However, if MJ's side had a mismatched drawing of MJ's genitals and photographs to put alongside it wouldn't that be pretty damning in either the civil or criminal trial?

Those photos where in the possession of the prosecution as possible evidence, it's not like MJ's team could just "borrow" them for the civil trial - and not likely they wanted to, just think about it how humiliating this "method" would have been.

What I would like to know is how usual this process was, because it's quite suspicious one of the main reasons was to humiliate MJ. And as the case never went to court the prosecution had a field day spreading innuendos about it in the media without having to fear it would be discredited, as no one had access to the necessary information (apart from the common sense that why wasn't he arrested and charged if the descriptions matched). It took MJ's death and a coronary report to disclose this knowledge. :/ Not really a price one would be willing to pay to clear their names...

 

[Blondie]

Yeah...fair enough. The theory the the anti MJ crowd use is that the description did match it was just some understanding that the Chandlers were not to go ahead with a criminal trial etc...or that MJ decided to settle because the pics matched. Obvs theres no proof of that. That pic of Jordans drawing..is that a police file anyone can find? Has it always been floating around the internet?

 

[ozemouze]

Yeah...fair enough. The theory the the anti MJ crowd use is that the description did match it was just some understanding that the Chandlers were not to go ahead with a criminal trial etc...or that MJ decided to settle because the pics matched. Obvs theres no proof of that. That pic or Jordans drawing..is that a police file anyone can find? Has it always been floating around the internet?

Those picture were evidence, obtained by the prosecution, during criminal proceedings. If they matched, it would have been incriminating evidence itself (and reason for arrest and indictment). Settling the civil case wouldn't have impact on the evidences in the criminal case (two different, independent proceedings).

Apart from this scenario being legally impossible, think about it this way: if MJ was guilty, why didn't he just pay the Chandlers in the beginning in order to avoid the whole criminal investigation - instead of cooperating with the police as he did?

The anti-MJ crowd hardly makes sense. ;-)

They should rather answer these questions: If the photos matched why weren't charges filed? If the Chandlers were willing to go ahead with the civil case, why not with the criminal one?

And look at this:

Another indication that the Jordan Chandler description and photographs were a mismatch rather than a match is the fact that when Michael Jackson&#8217;s mother, Katherine Jackson was called to testify in front of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in the spring of 1994, investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia.

The source of the leak of the drawing is Gutierrez according to this article: https://themichaeljacksonallegation...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

Among the documents which Victor Gutierrez presents in his book, entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover, and which documents apparently were given to him by either the Chandlers or by the Chandlers&#8217; maid, Norma Salinas, there is a drawing which Gutierrez claims Jordan gave to his father.

The drawing is dated October 24, 1993, and is probably not the actual drawing and description Jordan gave in December, but it appears to be some kind of draft or instructional rehearsal for that.

 

[Blondie]

They should rather answer these questions: If the photos matched why weren't charges filed? If the Chandlers were willing to go ahead with the civil case, why not with the criminal one?

I always thought it was because they needed Jordy to testify and he wouldn't. Yeah I always wondered why the chandlers didn't just launch into a criminal trial? lol. I'm also kinda hazy on the succession of events between Evans recorded phone call, the meeting he wanted to have (if it happened) etc and the civil trial kicking off. I know he got custody of Jordy for a bit and wouldn't give him back. When did June come back into the picture?