The 1993 case. [Threads merged, All discussion in this one thread]

[PrincessMichaela]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

the gq articles is not completely accurate. you can hear the taped phone calls on you tube.

Yeah, it's a good start, but you're right, there are a few inaccuracies. For one, Jordan was never given the Sodium Amytal.... Evan offered up that story as it would preclude Jordan from testifying. (Had he been given it they wouldn't have wanted him for the 2005 trial either.)

 

[Callaendia]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

He never really appeared much in public, so after the allegations it didn't change. I just remember the Neverland speech, and the NAACP awards.

I live in Europe, so I don't know how it was in the US. I think people here didn't really believe the allegations at first.

The settlement was misunderstood (we didn't have the internet back then, so the mainstream media were VERY powerful, it was more difficult to find information at that time).

As I said, the settlement was what changed the opinion back then : people didn't understand why he would pay if he was innocent. Especially if you don't understand the legal system and procedures in the US.

And the media at the time didn't really explain it either.

The same for me. I live in Europe and was too young at the time to be able to really understand what was going on. Without Internet that was impossible. I remember everyone saying he was accused, but nothing more. No information about circumstances or American law. Nothing at all. So people were trying to understand the situation and obviously were comming up with many wrong conclusions... :nono: I guess this lack of information was one of the worse things that could ever happen. The "story" has never had an ending or clearing up back then so started to live it's own life

he wanted to go to trial... otherwise he would have paid off evan chandler from the very beginning and no one would have heard about it.

but i think the issue was that .... there would have been two trials. a civil and the trial by the state.

the civil was suppose to precede the the criminal trial which could have been bad as whatever was said /testified in that case could have been used in the criminal trial.

to go ahead with civil first and then criminal meant that the prosecution would have had an unfair advantage it seems is part of the reason why the case was settled.

i hope that made sense.

also.... mike didn't settle the lawsuit the insurance company did.

just a mess!

and this is one of those very important information I wouldn't know... Thank you so much for sharing! I would never expect this worked that way. Thank you one more time!!
k:

yes it's sad to read isn't it? I think everyone should read those articles to see what MJ went through

this is not about the case itself but it's a picture taken during one of his concerts when the allegations broke out, and here he's looking at the crowd and he's crying...I saw it a year ago and it stuck in my mind
http://i36.tinypic.com/2j18prc.jpg

it's so heartbreaking...

the gq articles is not completely accurate. you can hear the taped phone calls on you tube.

can you link, please? :give_heart:

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Thank you for explaining elusive moonwalker

welcome. knowledge is power when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[dancemasterman]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Yeah, it's a good start, but you're right, there are a few inaccuracies. For one, Jordan was never given the Sodium Amytal.... Evan offered up that story as it would preclude Jordan from testifying. (Had he been given it they wouldn't have wanted him for the 2005 trial either.)

the part where it says they got chandler on tape admitting Mj never did anything wrong isn't true either. the tape recording basically goes something like "I'm furious, he'll be destroyed, he wont sell another record, I'll get everything I want"

 

[dancemasterman]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

as for the settlement I wish people from both sides of the argument would be more honest.

Michael settled it at the advice of his lawyers. He signed it. He paid the settlement. Michael even said in the bashir interview "I just said make it go away. I don't want a long drawn out thing. Just make it go away." It wasn't decided by the insurance company.

MIchael did not pay money to stay out of prison. He settled a civil lawsuit, which has no bearing on any criminal charges. It's up to the prosecutor to press the charge and to call to the witness stand whoever he chooses. The settlment had no effect on that. The prosecutor chose not to go forward. The settlement had nothing to do with that.

 

[dancemasterman]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

The same for me. I live in Europe and was too young at the time to be able to really understand what was going on. Without Internet that was impossible. I remember everyone saying he was accused, but nothing more. No information about circumstances or American law. Nothing at all. So people were trying to understand the situation and obviously were comming up with many wrong conclusions... :nono: I guess this lack of information was one of the worse things that could ever happen. The "story" has never had an ending or clearing up back then so started to live it's own life


and this is one of those very important information I wouldn't know... Thank you so much for sharing! I would never expect this worked that way. Thank you one more time!!
k:


it's so heartbreaking...


can you link, please? :give_heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnubxWTWf_4

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

s for the settlement I wish people from both sides of the argument would be more honest.

Michael settled it at the advice of his lawyers. He signed it. He paid the settlement. Michael even said in the bashir interview "I just said make it go away. I don't want a long drawn out thing. Just make it go away." It wasn't decided by the insurance company.

court documents say otherwise.

http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?...ost&id=3874
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.....

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

the part where it says they got chandler on tape admitting Mj never did anything wrong isn't true either. the tape recording basically goes something like "I'm furious, he'll be destroyed, he wont sell another record, I'll get everything I want"

true but the impression from those tapes is not of a man who son is being abused its of a man who is blackmailing someone. when he talks about everything set in place and he just has to make a phonecall.(not exactwords) when talking about rothman

 

[Yazman]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Yeah, it's a good start, but you're right, there are a few inaccuracies. For one, Jordan was never given the Sodium Amytal.... Evan offered up that story as it would preclude Jordan from testifying. (Had he been given it they wouldn't have wanted him for the 2005 trial either.)

Wait what? So you're saying Jordan never actually was under the influence of sodium amytal? If thats not true then how do you explain his memories? Just lies (possible I guess with his dad beating him constantly)

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

i think hughes talked about jordan not being given the drug. it was basically a cover to get jordan out of testiying.if u are given that drug your evidence basically isnt credible.also does the drug enduced memories fade after time? becasue hes told many ppl (his college friends) that mj did nothing.wouldntbe able to do that if u were still under the power of the drug

 

[Adore]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

It wasn't decided by the insurance company.

well that's bs because the settlement document proves that it was infact Michael's insurance company who settled the civil case.

 

[2600becs]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

oh my god. i have never seen that picture of michael crying before. i am scarred for life. oh michael......... please come back.

 

[Julia]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

yes it's sad to read isn't it? I think everyone should read those articles to see what MJ went through

this is not about the case itself but it's a picture taken during one of his concerts when the allegations broke out, and here he's looking at the crowd and he's crying...I saw it a year ago and it stuck in my mind
http://i36.tinypic.com/2j18prc.jpg

God this picture is so heartbreaking I had no seen it before. My heart hurts over all this deception and lies toward Michael it is so unfair. His heart must have been broken honestly I cry everytime I read about this.

Julia

 

[Yazman]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Oh my god that picture really is heartbreaking, I've never seen it before and I just cried after I clicked the link and saw it

Thats so horrible.. I hate what these people did to Michael

 

[RedLightParis]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I was there and had a terrible experience.
Heres what I know, my experience.
I had some newspaper articles from that year too, by the way::



YES HE CANCELLED, he cancelled Dangerous tour. I had my tickets to watch MJ live, but due to the accusations THAT YEAR, and all the legal issues Michael Jackson got very sick and cancelled the tour.

I had for sure too the first news said it was an extortion case.

So, that first accusation means to me a lot , I missed my only chance ot see MJ live on his super awesome Dangerous tour...

shitt wow i really feel for u....that sucks..I was going to see him for the first time last summer;(

 

[Callaendia]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnubxWTWf_4

thank you :hi:

true but the impression from those tapes is not of a man who son is being abused its of a man who is blackmailing someone. when he talks about everything set in place and he just has to make a phonecall.(not exactwords) when talking about rothman

this guy sounds as hate was all he was about. hate hate hate what a contradiction comparing to MJ's standards

 

[marialovesmjj]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Okay, I have a question. I've heard that if Jordan comes forward it could backfire and cost royalties that would go to Michael's children.

This makes no sense to me, I've got my info on the 1993 case but I'm a bit rusty on it.

Could someone explain if that statement makes sense or not?

 

[Nivea]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Okay, I have a question. I've heard that if Jordan comes forward it could backfire and cost royalties that would go to Michael's children.

This makes no sense to me, I've got my info on the 1993 case but I'm a bit rusty on it.

Could someone explain if that statement makes sense or not?

hmm.. well I think there was a contract signed which stated neither the family nor mj were to speak of the case publicly.
If he were to come forward, I can imagine he would have to pay back the money he got.

In any case, admitting you lied and are directly responsible for the ridicule mj has gone through these past few years will not only backfire financially, it will also give fans a reason to come after you.

 

[marialovesmjj]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I thought he spent the nmoney long ago and wouldn't have to pay it back because Michael passed?

Hmm...

 

[PrincessMichaela]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I think lawsuits (and his father, who nearly tried to kill him in 2005...) are the main concern. I think he could be sued for breach of contract or something? Not quite sure.

 

[Nivea]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I think lawsuits (and his father, who nearly tried to kill him in 2005...) are the main concern. I think he could be sued for breach of contract or something? Not quite sure.

his father nearly killed him!? :bugeyed mg: For real? Why?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

theres info in the thread about it. jordan filed a restraining order on evan around 05.

 

[Nivea]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Thank you! I'ma look for it now.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

The sad thing is, all these stupid idiots who keep talking shit about Michael have never ever read about this. The media just never tells it like it is, if for a change they'd finally show this on tv, all the little details that count for SO MUCH, people in general would probably start to think more clearly and normal about MJ.

Because it's always the same damn tiring things these people say... 'Oh but he paid off the family, why do that if you are innocent?' no idiot, it's not like that at all. Most of the time these people dont know anything else to back up their claims..that's the funny and pathetic thing about it, really.

Or recently when the losers at TMZ claimed that Jordan DID make a accurate description, when in truth...the description wasn't accurate by any means. Yet these people fall for it and believe it..
but then again, some people are just hopeless.

 

[Bo G]

Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

If moderators agree, I thought it might be useful to have a place to post and discuss how the 1993 allegation against MJ is being reported by the media, now that it's in the news again. The focus would not be on our personal feelings about Evan Chandler's death, which we've sufficient vented in another thread, but on how the media are covering the 1993 episode itself. This would be for mainstream news coverage, not tabloids.

I think it's promising that nearly every report mentions Evan's attempted murder of Jordan, which must surely be shifting the public opinion to skepticism about the allegation.

In the last hour, MTV has posted a story including further information showing how Chandler has been discredited. Hopefully this will be a trend and we'll see more of this.

Unfortunately, MTV uses Halperin as their source for the anti-Chandler information. Surely they realize Halperin is a pulp writer who has been dead wrong on too many MJ "facts." Why not Aphrodite Jones, who has an excellent reputation for accurate court and crime journalism? Just because her book was not published by a major publisher, presumably. Thus the media echo chamber perpetuates itself... sigh.

It's also a bit of a surprise how long it took the media to take note of this, as Chandler's suicide was discovered on Nov. 5.

Also, most stories still say "Jackson settled with the accuser" instead of "Jackson's insurance company..." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that completely inaccurate? I'm hoping if/when the larger outlets report on this, they'll get it right (but not betting on it...)

MTV
Nov 18 2009 9:06 AM EST
Michael Jackson Molestation Accuser's Father Dead Of Apparent Suicide
Dentist Evan Chandler was found dead in New Jersey earlier this month.

By Gil Kaufman

...In the recent book "Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson," celebrity journalist Ian Halperin wrote about an alleged conversation between Evan Chandler and his ex-wife's second husband, in which Chandler, upset that Jackson had cut ties to the Chandlers, threatened that he was going to go after the singer for money. "And if I go through with this, I win big time," Chandler allegedly said. "There's no way I lose. ... I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody] and Michael's career will be over."

Halperin also claims in the book that Chandler, a wannabe screenwriter, went to police with the allegations after extracting a tooth from Jordan, whom he'd put under with the controversial sedative sodium amytal, a drug that experts have claimed makes patients very susceptible to suggestions.

(The New York Post is a classic tabloid, in case anyone is wondering, so we can safely ignore it. The Times, once a respected UK newspaper, has descended into sensational, poor journalism since its purchase by Rupert Murdoch, so it's borderline, IMO.)

 

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

instead of halperin they could, or more SHOULD AND WILL HAVE TO use the Was Michael Jackson Framed article which was exceptional, Mary Fischer did a great profesional journalism work, the credits NEED to go to her, not crazy Halperin, he just copied that part from her...



WAS MICHAEL JACKSON FRAMED, by Mary Fischer, that is where the tapes of Evan Chandler were first published...

 

[Bo G]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

New York Daily News, which though published in tabloid form has some respectability in some areas and has won Pulitzers, is brief but fair, I'd say. It goes slightly beyond the standard wire story we're seeing.

New York Daily News

Evan Chandler, dad of boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation, commits suicide in New Jersey [apparently they won't let you link directly to the story, but if you copy and paste this URL into a new window of your browser, it should work... http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2..._accuser_kills_self_in_swanky_jersey_pad.html ]

BY Bill Hutchinson
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, November 18th 2009, 4:00 AM

Evan Chandler, dad of boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation, commits suicide in New Jersey

BY Bill Hutchinson
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, November 18th 2009, 10:19 AM

The father of a boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation in 1993 blew out his brains in his luxury New Jersey apartment, cops said Tuesday.

Evan Chandler, 65, whose son received a multimillion-dollar settlement from the King of Pop, was discovered in his 16th- floor waterfront pad in Jersey City with his gun still in his hand.

Chandler took his own life Nov. 5, Jersey City police spokesman Stan Eason said. The concierge of Chandler's building found the body.

"He [Chandler] was on his bed still holding the weapon with a single gunshot wound to the head," Eason said. "It's straightforward. Case closed. It's suicide."

Chandler had been extremely ill and was scheduled to see a hematologist on the day he committed suicide, Eason said.

When Chandler didn't show up for the medical appointment, his doctor called the concierge to go check on him, Eason said.

"There was medication found in [Chandler's apartment] consistent with a serious illness," Eason said.

He said Chandler did not leave a suicide note.

In 1993, Chandler's son, who was then 13, accused Jackson of molesting him at the pop icon's Neverland Ranch in California.

The allegations first surfaced after Evan Chandler, a former Beverly Hills dentist, administered Amytal sodium, known as truth serum, to his son.

The case never went to trial, and a civil suit filed by Evan Chandler and his son was withdrawn after Jackson paid the family $20 million.

Jackson, who died in June from a prescription drug overdose, later said he settled to avoid the circus of a trial. He was acquitted of molesting a different boy in 2005.

In 2006, Chandler's son accused his father of attacking him with a barbell, choking him and spraying his face with Mace. The charges were later dropped.

 

[Vici]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

i dont like the´way articles wrote about this yesterday.. they basically wrote that the settlement led to no charges were brought against MJ. but what can u expect from them?

 

[ginvid]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

"Also, most stories still say "Jackson settled with the accuser" instead of "Jackson's insurance company..." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that completely inaccurate? I'm hoping if/when the larger outlets report on this, they'll get it right (but not betting on it...)"


I believe that the insurance company settled with the accuser, but then later went after MJ to have them pay him back. I can't remember where I read this, but that was my understanding. I may be corrected as well,

 

[ginvid]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

New York Daily News, which though published in tabloid form has some respectability in some areas and has won Pulitzers, is brief but fair, I'd say. It goes slightly beyond the standard wire story we're seeing.

This article is no longer there. Hmm, I did a search for it, but to no avail. What did they say in the article (if you remember)?

Thanks