Skip to content

SODIUM AMYTAL for Jordan Chandler

April 2, 2010

Updated February 26, 2012

The aim of this post is not to definitely answer whether Jordan Chandler was or wasn’t given sodium amytal (the so-called “truth serum”). Its aim is to evaluate the chances of its administration and the effect the drug could have on Jordan Chandler (if it was ever given to him at all).

Jordan’s interview with Dr. Richard Gardner takes us to July 16, 1993 as the date whey Evan Chandler put the boy to sleep in order to take his tooth out. After Jordie regained consciousness his father asked him if anything had happened between him and Michael and after some hesitation the boy said “yes” for the first time. Up till then Jordie had never claimed there was anything improper between the two of them. The drug under which Jordan started talking was told to be sodium amytal which is wrongly assumed to be a “truth serum”.

Four days prior to that, on July 12, private investigator Anthony Pellicano interviewed Jordan Chandler in MJ’s Century City apartment and asked him direct and specific questions for 45 minutes about his relationship with Michael Jackson. In her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa D. Campbell says that Jordan denied even seeing Michael’s body, not to mention molestation:

  • “The boy answered “NO” to each and every question. Pellicano asked if he had ever seen Michael’s body, and the boy said “NO”, but he did lift his shirt once to show him the blotches on his skin. Jordy then complained that his father always wanted him to sit in the house and write screenplays, and that his father just wanted money”.

Pellicano explained that it was important to him to know for himself if this had ever happened, because if it had he would have turned Michael in himself. It was only after Jordan denied any wrongdoing on the part of Michael Jackson that Anthony Pellicano became involved in the case on behalf of Michael.

So the questions I asked myself were:

  • Did Jordan really tell the truth under the drug?
  • Was the “truth serum” given to him at all?
  • And is sodium amytal indeed a truth serum? 

In search for the answers the first step was to look at what others have to say about it:

Diane Dimond says she obtained information from confidential sources, Ray Chandler (the boy’s uncle) and documents including the anesthesiologist’s own report. They show that Jordan Chandler was not given sodium amytal that day. According to the anesthesiologist’s records, there is no reference to the barbiturate sodium amytal. The purchase of sodium amytal requires filing specific forms with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). No such forms were located in this case by law enforcement officers or the media.

She claims that “questions about whether Dr. Chandler implanted the molestation in Jordie’s subconscious while the boy was under the influence of anesthesia first surfaced in a story that ran in GQ magazine’” (Mary Fischer’s article, October, 1994).

Yan Halperin says that D. Dimond may be unaware of the fact that the sodium amytal story was first reported not by Fischer, but by a newsman for KCBS-TV five months earlier. The reporter asked Evan Chandler whether he had used the drug on his son. Rather than denying sodium amytal was involved, Chandler claimed he had used the drug only to pull his son’s tooth out and that while under that drug’s influence, the boy came out with the allegation.

Mary Fischer, however, was not content to rely solely on the KCBS-TV report. She went straight to the source of this information and asked Mark Torbiner whether he used sodium amytal during Jordan Chandler’s dental procedure. Rather than denying it, he told Fischer, “If I used it, it was for dental purposes”.

Here is the audio of Mary Fischer’s November 2003 interview with Greta Van Susteren of FOX News.

Here is a link to an article that further discusses the case of Gary Ramona, who was falsely accused by his daughter of molestation after she was given sodium amytal by her psychiatrist.  Fischer referenced this case in her GQ article.

Geraldine Hughes (author of the Redemption book and supporter of Michael’s innocence) on the other hand does not believe in the sodium amytal theory. She says:

  • “No, I think that’s their story on how they found out. I really believe that the whole thing was plotted and planned [ ]. They made it look like they just happened to take the boy to the psychiatrist and that’s where he got the information. Then I’m hearing the sodium thing, so I thought, first you said the psychiatrist is the one that got the information and then now you’re saying, the father put him under a truth serum and I’m like, which one is it?”

However Ray Chandler, Jordan Chandler’s uncle, provided a transcript of his nephew’s interview with a psychiatrist as a proof that sodium amytal had been administered. In that interview Jordan Chandler says:

  • “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.”

Let me review all of the above not to mess things up:

  • Jordan’s father Evan Chandler admitted on TV that he had used the drug to pull Jordan’s tooth out.
  • His friend Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist, vaguely confirmed it by saying “If I used it, it was for dental purposes”.
  •  Jordan also said to his psychiatrist that he was put to sleep before having his tooth pulled out.
  • Ray Chandler said one thing to D.Dimond and another to everyone else as he included in his book “All that glitters” Jordan’s interview with the psychiatrist where he speaks about his tooth taken under a sedative.
  • And it is only Michael’s supporter Geraldine Hughes who doubts Evan’s story though the use of a mind-altering drug seems to be a factor in favor of Michael’s innocence.

Since all this is somewhat confusing the next step was to look up the description of sodium amytal and the way it works. All sources available to us say that sodium amytal is no truth serum at all as it only provokes people to fantasize.

The fact that international law also regards sodium amytal as a means of torture explains why the anesthesiologist was so careful in wording his statement (“If I used it, it was for dental purposes”). He didn’t want any complications for himself, though the choice of this drug for pulling a tooth is highly unusual, as sodium amytal is not an anesthetic or pain killer – its purpose is totally different as it is mainly used in psychiatry.

Another interesting point is that since the “evidence” obtained under sodium amytal is not considered truthful it is not admissible in the court of law. And since Evan Chandler said it himself that he had given his son this drug (even at the risk of being accused of using it as a “means of torture”) he looks like not wanting his son’s testimony to be admitted in the court of law or him to testify there at all. Interesting…

One more point worth mentioning is that sedation under sodium amytal “occurs in one hour or longer and lasts for 10 to 12 hours” which shows that its use for pulling a tooth was extremely out of place. However if it was used it becomes a  clear sign that Evan Chandler gave it to his son solely for interrogation purposes and/or planting false memories into his mind.

Intelligence Encyclopedia says, 

“The term ‘truth serum’ has been applied to drugs that are used in narcoanalysis. This term is a misnomer in two ways: the drugs used are not serums and truthfulness is not guaranteed. Although inhibitions are generally reduced, persons under the influence of truth serums are still able to lie and even tend to fantasize. Courts have ruled that information obtained from narcoanalysis is inadmissible.

Narcoanalysis is not used in the United States as an interrogation method. The unethical use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law. However, they are used in the evaluation of psychotic patients in the practice of psychiatry.

Truth serums are divided into classes according to the duration of sedation: ultrashort, short, intermediate, and long.  Sodium Amytal is an intermediate-acting barbiturate. Sedation occurs in one hour or longer and lasts for 10 to 12 hours. Sodium amytal depresses the central nervous system. It is used as a sedative, hypnotic, and anticonvulsive and for narcoanalysis. When sodium amytal is used for narcoanalysis it may be called an “Amytal interview.”

An even more informative source is a CIA study of special interrogation methods by means of truth serums. This report says that Sodium Amytal is a dangerous drug as it causes death in case of an overdosage, so using it for interrogation purposes requires maintaining it in the body at a low but constant level through multiple intravenous injections:

Sodium amytal can be given orally but it would be difficult to achieve and maintain the proper dose using the oral route. So for narcoanalysis the only method of administration used is intravenous injection.

A subject coming under the influence of a sodium amytal injected intravenously goes through all the stages of progressive drunkenness. Outwardly the sedation effect is dramatic – the patient’s features slacken, his body relaxes. Some people are momentarily excited; a few become silly and giggly. This usually passes, and most subjects fall asleep, emerging later in disoriented semi-wakefulness. The descent into narcosis and beyond with progressively larger doses can be divided as follows:

I. SEDATIVE STAGE
II. UNCONSCIOUSNESS, WITH EXAGGERATED REFLEXES (hyperactive stage).
III. UNCONSCIOUSNESS, WITHOUT REFLEX EVEN TO PAINFUL STIMULI. At this stage consciousness is lost and coma follows. The subject no longer responds even to noxious stimuli, and cannot be roused.
IV. DEATH. In the last stage, respiration ceases.

Whether all these stages can be distinguished in any given subject depends largely on the dose and the rapidity with which the drug is induced. In anesthesia, stages I and II may last only two or three seconds.

The first or sedative stage can be further divided:

Plane 1. No evident effect, or slight sedative effect.
Plane 2. Cloudiness, calmness, amnesia. (Upon recovery, the subject will not remember what happened at this or “lower” planes or stages.)
Plane 3. Slurred speech, old thought patterns disrupted, inability to integrate or learn new patterns. Poor coordination. Subject becomes unaware of painful stimuli.

Plane 3 of the Sedative stage is the psychiatric “work” stage. It may last only a few minutes, but it can be extended by further slow injection of the drug. The usual practice is to bring the subject quickly to Stage II and to conduct the interview as he passes back into the sedative stage on the way to full consciousness.

Administering drugs requires clinical judgment. Knowing what to expect and how to react appropriately to the unexpected takes both technical and clinical skill. The process calls for qualified medical personnel, and sober reflection on the depths of barbituric (sodium amytal) anesthesia will confirm that it would not be enough merely to have access to a local physician.

Examples

…The subject was kept in twilight consciousness. In it his speech was thick, mumbling, and disconnected, but his discretion was markedly reduced. This valuable interrogation period, lasting only five to ten minutes at a time, could be reinduced by injecting more amytal and putting the patient back to sleep.

Several patients revealed fantasies, fears, and delusions approaching delirium, much of which could readily be distinguished from reality. But sometimes there was no way for the examiner to distinguish truth from fantasy except by reference to other sources.

One subject claimed to have a child that did not exist, another threatened to kill on sight a stepfather who had been dead a year, and yet another confessed to participating in a robbery when in fact he had only purchased goods from the participants.

During the follow-up interview nine of the 17 admitted the validity of their confessions; eight repudiated their confessions and reaffirmed their earlier accounts. The results showed that normal individuals who had good defenses and no overt pathological traits could stick to their invented stories and refuse confession.

Neurotic individuals with strong unconscious self-punitive tendencies, on the other hand, both confessed more easily and were inclined to substitute fantasy for the truth, confessing to offenses never actually committed.

J.M.MacDonald, who as a psychiatrist for the District Courts of Denver has had extensive experience with narcoanalysis, says that drug interrogation is of doubtful value. Criminal suspects under the influence of barbiturates may falsely confess to crimes they did not commit. And the tendency against which an interrogator must guard in the interrogatee to give the responses that seem to be wanted without regard for facts will be heightened by drugs: the literature abounds with warnings that a subject in narcosis is extremely suggestible. In the drunken state of narcoanalysis patients are prone to accept the therapist’s false constructions.

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-cs…

If all subjects under the sodium amytal narcosis are extremely suggestible it is no wonder Jordan never spoke of any molestation before the drug, but after its administration hesitantly agreed that it had taken place. He could have easily acquired the knowledge about  his alleged “molestation” from his own father who admitted that he used this drug on him, though “for dental  purposes” only.

And though we do know that Evan Chandler said he administered the drug we still don’t know whether he used it for interrogating him or planting false memories into his mind –  deliberately or unwittingly (just by asking about the details of  “molestation”).  To learn an answer to that we need to ask ourselves some more questions and depending on which answer each of us gives, so will be our conclusion on this matter.

I suggest some questions which focus not on Jordan Chandler but on the character and nature of his father:

  • Could  Evan Chandler use this type of drug for INTERROGATING his son?

He could. In addition to that he even said he had used this highly improper drug on Jordan and specially invited an anesthesiologist for the purpose.

  • WAS there any other way for him to find out whether the awful suspicions raging in his brain were justified?

No, there wasn’t. Since the only answer he was getting from his son was a stubborn denial of any misconduct on Michael’s part I think that Evan Chandler was sure he could not force Jordan to speak in any other way.

  • WAS he able to cope with his imagination that had been killing his mind for several months by then?

I think he wasn’t. This man was unable to cope with his emotions and passions in general. Jordan Chandler’s father was an extremely suspicious, jealous and unruly guy who beat his both wives, had a fight with Jordan’s stepfather David and even made an attempt on the life of his son many years later. He was consumed by very strong emotions and was capable of fatal decisions as his own suicide shows it.

  • Even if he was using sodium amytal for “dental purposes” only COULD he resist the temptation to ask Jordan questions about his association with Michael Jackson?

A man like that? No, I think he absolutely couldn’t. Moreover it seems that the primary purpose of this drug was to draw some “dark secrets” from Jordan.

  • DID he take special care to ask his questions in an neutral way not to suggest any ideas to his son while he was under sedation?

He didn’t. He surely asked as detailed and graphic questions as it was only possible and probably repeated them not just once. Even if it wasn’t his intention to plant false memories into Jordan’s mind the mere questioning about “who touched whose penis” and “how often they masturbated each other” was quite enough for the boy to remember those ideas and start fantasizing on his own.

  • WHAT was the result Evan Chandler got?

And what other result could he get?

  • WHY did he ask Jordan only one question after his son regained consciousness and why was it about his relationship with Michael?

Because this is all he was interested in and because it was the continuation of what he was asking Jordan under sedation. He didn’t wonder if he felt any pain after the procedure (which shows that the pretext of pulling a tooth was complete BS) – instead he  checked up whether the boy remembered anything of what he had said to him under narcosis. He just made sure that the boy did remember it.

And this is all Evan wanted to know and do.


*  *  *

Here are a couple of videos on the disastrous results of applying ‘memory recovery’ techniques to some people’s minds. I never knew it could be that bad (OMG, what if Jordan is such a hopeless case?):

Here is the story of Meredith Maran, an award-winning journalist and author of several best-selling nonfiction books.  She discusses her family’s devastation and ultimate redemption around her experience of false memory. Set against the backdrop of the sex-abuse scandals, beginning with the infamous McMartin preschool trial, Maran shares with incredible honesty, her unbelievable personal story.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. TatumMarie permalink
    May 15, 2011 5:43 pm

    @Incognito
    You feel sorry for Jordan?

    Like

  2. Amerie permalink
    November 13, 2010 4:17 am

    I think that Geraldine Hughes is right on this one. For instance, Jordan told people in recent years it never happened so how could a false memory have been implanted? Second, How would Evan be able to induce all of the details of the hotel and all the sexual acts where they took place etc? Jordan was told what to say and the drug admission was part of it to attempt to make it more credible in Evans own hollywood way. Raymond Chandler has a few false documents in this book that he alleges is from Geraldine Hughes. I can’t trust his book– he was supeonaed by Michael’s defense in 2005 to show his court documents that he claims was in this book. He got out of it using a law that protect Michael’s witnesses. His documentation wasnt too credible.

    Like

  3. Dialdancer permalink
    October 5, 2010 1:15 am

    David said:

    “I think that one HUGE mistake that a lot of MJ fans have made over the years is to completely disregard “All That Glitters” as trash, and not seriously read it. Although it is TRASH, it really helps to exonerate MJ in so many ways when you read it carefully”

    It is true about a lot of articles and books of this nature. I could weep when I think about all the negative material I either bypassed or were sent and I tossed. The biggest problem is for those who are not into celebrity gossip and the like, most of this appears to be just that and without value.

    Some of this stuff is really written for those with certain appetites so for others it is extremely unpalatable and makes it difficult to objectively approach it.

    @ Helena,
    Excellent work. It confirms a belief and answers a question.

    Like

  4. lcpledwards permalink
    October 4, 2010 12:02 am

    hey guys, I just added a new video at the bottom of the post of another victim of “false memory syndrome’. She falsely accused her father of abuse after “remembering’ as an adult that it happened as a child. She recently released a book about her experiences, and you can google her for more information.

    Also, I added the audio of Mary Fischer’s interview with Fox News, and an article detailing the court case involving sodium amytal that she referenced in her article.

    Like

  5. Truth permalink
    June 23, 2010 7:58 pm

    Lex,

    Talk about bombshell evidence!

    Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.” He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.”

    What more evidence does one need? Well from this piece of evidence, I am convinced that nothing happened.

    Like

  6. David permalink
    June 19, 2010 8:50 pm

    @ Ingognito

    You stated the following in your last comment about Aphrodite Jones:

    “For example, the Aphrodite Jones doc – even though it was pro-Mike – it should have dug deeper.”

    I have something I want to share with you and everyone else, and this will SURELY give everyone the information that we’re looking for!

    There is a MJ fan who has the youtube username “LunaJo67 “, and she is producing a series of videos that THOROUGHLY examine the molestation allegations in chronological order. Each video is 10 minutes, and as of right now she’s at #59. So when you do the math, 59 videos x 1o minutes each equals 590 minutes, divided by 60 minutes equals 9.8 hours!

    So OBVIOUSLY LunaJo67 can go into FAR MORE DETAIL than Aphrodite Jones could dream of in her documentary. And what makes it more amazing is that LunaJo67 is NOT a journalist! She’s a teacher who lives in the Netherlands! She makes 1 or 2 new videos a week, and anyone who wants to do serious research needs to check these videos out! She uses actual clips from tv shows (like Dan Abrahms’ MSNBC show) to expose media bias!

    Pay attention to parts 45, & 52-54 because these videos have the radio commentary of Matt Drudge, a conservative political commentator here in the USA. He interviews Roger Friedman, and they truly call it as they see it! Drudge BLASTS Sneddon, Grace, Dimond, etc. for their coverage, and he’s truly objective. He even admits he’s not that big of a MJ fan, which gives him even MORE credibility, because nobody can accuse him of being a “cheerleader”!

    I’m trying to get all the MJ blogs and websites to give these videos the EXPOSURE that they deserve! Everyone knows about Aphrodite Jones’ documentary, but most have never heard of these videos, and I’m trying to change that.

    Here is part 1:

    Like

  7. David permalink
    June 19, 2010 7:14 pm

    Hey Incongnito, Suzy, and Lynette: This is a great topic, and we’re all learning valuable information about the 1993 case! Let’s keep it going!

    I think that one HUGE mistake that a lot of MJ fans have made over the years is to completely disregard “All That Glitters” as trash, and not seriously read it. Although it is TRASH, it really helps to exonerate MJ in so many ways when you read it carefully .

    For example, Evan’s claim that he & Mark Torbiner drugged MJ, and then asked him if he was gay. That shows that he was certainly capable of drugging Jordie. And the book shows how Evan manipulated Jordie by telling him his room was bugged. (Isn’t it funny that after MJ was drugged, that’s when he went to sleep that night in Jordie’s bed, and only then did Evan walk into the room unannounced and found them “spooning” in bed! It’s very suspicious!)

    Also, Ray described how Evan was frivolously sued by some former patients for medical malpractice after receiving the settlement. Evan’s medical insurance carrier forced Evan to settle out of court (Gee, does that sound familiar? LOL!), and one of his former patients even claimed that Evan MOLESTED HER during a dental procedure (but that case was thrown out of court!). What goes around, comes around!

    BTW, based on what Judith Regan said in her interview (about how Ray tried to shop the book “before the ink was dry” on the confidentiality agreement), it’s obvious that Evan began writing the material in the Fall of 1993, months before the civil case was settled in Jan. 1994. He he was already planning on violating the agreement before he even signed it! And it’s fitting that Ray had to SELF PUBLISH the book in 2004, because I’m sure no publisher wanted to risk aiding and abetting Ray in violating the agreement. And since Evan gave Ray the info to write “All That Glitter”, then we also know he gave Victor Guiterez the info to write “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”.

    While we’re on the subject of “victims”, I sent an email to the Admins with some info about another manufactured “victim” who was enabled & encouraged by Gloria Allred & “Dr.” Carole Lieberman. (I’m sure we’ll see a full post on this soon! Hint hint!) His name was Daniel Kapon, and he claimed that MJ molested him, made him have plastic surgery, held him hostage, and stole music ideas from him! (That is more absurd than the other claims put together! As if MJ would steal music from ANYONE!)

    He claims that he “forgot” about all of these abuses until they were “recovered” while undergoing therapy with Dr. Carol Lieberman. He then hired Allred for a civil suit. Lieberman called the cops (as she’s required to do), but the cops disregarded the case. But in 2006 a judge threw out the civil case because Kapon NEVER SHOWED UP TO COURT!!

    So it seems that Allred & Lieberman (who both lobbied hard to get MJ”s kids removed from his custody!) filed the civil lawsuit hoping that MJ’s insurance would force him to settle the same way it did in 1994, and when their plan didn’t work, their “victim” cold got feet!

    Lieberman and Allred deserve to be in the same category as the guy who got that Canadian kid to lie to Diane Dimond in her 1995 Hard Copy report!!!

    Kapon case becomes public:
    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1488069/20040601/jackson_michael.jhtml

    Kapon case is thrown out:
    http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2008/01/15/michael_jackson_assault_lawsuit_dismisse

    There is still another “victim” that we need to investigate. Both Ray Chandler and Diane Dimond mentioned in their respective books that a German woman who called Evan to tell her that MJ molested her son in Germany, but wouldn’t testify against him for fear of the media attention. I’ll see what I can dig up on this one.

    Like

  8. Incognito permalink
    June 19, 2010 2:23 pm

    @ David and Suzy

    I think the problem with alot of people is that they just don’t know enough. And when you hear things like that you start form certain opinions on the given information. When people are told that they slept in the same room for example, then it doesn’t look good. They don’t see all the info we search. Even in documentaries, they just talk about the same things all the time – not digging in any deeper. For example, the Aphrodite Jones doc – even though it was pro-Mike – it should have dug deeper.

    I think the problem with the Jordan Chandler case is that people don’t have enough info because of the settlement. I agree that if it went to court things would be alot clearer.

    Like

  9. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2010 9:55 am

    @ David

    One thing I noticed that the belief that MJ was guilty is always based on assumtions and not on facts. Assumtions like what “boys wouldn’t lie about molested by men”, “children are innocent, they cannot possibly make up something like this”. These are usually the “arguments” of the guilty side: just assumptions on what someone else would or would not do in their opinion.

    There are a lot of examples when boys did lie about being molested by men, there are a lot of examples of children who are not so innocent at all. Who killed James Bulger?

    The media got the public on the “guilty” side by playing on this “children are innocent” sentiment in people. So we have “innocent children” on the one side and a strange “freak” on the other side – and the judgment in their heads is already made alone based on that, without even looking into the evidence.

    I also find it strange when somebody says he was not guilty of molesting Arvizo, but was guilty of molesting Chandler and Francia. They don’t know much about child molesters, do they? A child molester won’t molest just two kids in his lifetime, especially if he has “access to them” as much as Michael did. If Michael had been one of these monsters he would have a LOT more accusers. And credible ones….

    And I am convinced the only reason why people find Chandler more credible than Arvizo is because that case didn’t go to court, so there was no opportunity to expose the Chandlers as liars the same way the trial exposed the Arvizos. Before the trial people believed Arvizo too, the same they believed Chandler. It was the trial that made them realize what they were up to. I’m sure it would have been the same with the Chandlers had it gone to court. It’s their luck (and not Michael’s) that it didn’t.

    Like

  10. Lynette permalink
    June 19, 2010 3:07 am

    I have read and read that Affidavit and I might be missing something but is that really detailed it looks more like an outline to me. I don’t see any details there other than they watched the movie the Exorcist and Michael cried all the time. If it were detailed it would have the description in it wouldn’ t it? And like I’ve said before is it standard practice to ask for a description no, they offered it to throw people off and some of the greatest media minds fell for it hook,line and sinker. Of course we do have to exclude DD from one of the greats even one of the mediocres.

    Like

  11. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 11:57 pm

    ooopppss! I forgot to include Jordie’s affidavit in my last post! Sorry!

    One more thing to consider: MJ haters always use this affidavit as a sign of guilt. Well, if he was so guilty, then why wasn’t MJ ARRESTED AND CHARGED with molesting Jordie after he gave his sworn statement? I’d like to hear Sonny Hostin answer that question…………….

    This affidavit was given on December 28th, 1993, which is after the strip search and before the settlement.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

    Like

  12. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 11:47 pm

    Hey Ignonito and Lex:

    On another post, I included a link to Mesereau’s 3-22-2005 request to deny Sneddon the chance to use MJ’s 1994 settlement as a sign of guilt. ( That was the document that confirmed that MJ’s insurance carrier paid the settlement without his consent.) Here it is again:

    http://heeheeshamone.com/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

    If you read page 9, lines 23-28, an page 10 lines 1-4, it states that Jordie was interviewed by cops conducting the CRIMINAL (not civil) investigation AFTER the settlement was paid. It then says that “no criminal charges were filed AS A RESULT OF THAT INTERVIEW”, and his statements were NOT SUFFICIENT to support molestation charges.

    Sneddon and the media have always tried to maintain that Jordie’s lack of cooperation is what killed the criminal case, but according to that document he was still interviewed AFTER the settlement and the cops basically said his story was BS! (I’m paraphrasing, but you get my drift! LOL!) Perhaps it wasn’t the Chandlers that stopped cooperating, but maybe Sneddon STOPPED WORKING WITH THEM because their story was bogus, but still thought he could use Jason Francia and others to try to indict MJ (which didn’t work because two grand juries refused to indict).

    I think we definitely need to investigate this, because that is something that is unknown to a lot of MJ fans. That document not only destroys the myth that MJ paid “hush money” to avoid the criminal case, it also proves that Jordie’s affidavit (which was leaked by Larry Feldman after the Bashir documentary aired in Feb. 2003) was a rehearsed piece of fiction.

    Unfortunately, there are some MJ haters posing as legal “analysts” who use that affidavit as “proof” that MJ is guilty, like Sonny Hostin. In the video below, while debating Peter King’s vicious comments last summer, Sonny says that MJ is guilty based on that affidavit alone!! (“How could a kid tell such a detailed lie? MJ’s guilty!”)

    Oh, not only does she claim he’s guilty of molesting both Jordie AND Jason Francia, but she regurgitates all of the lies that have plagued MJ throughout his life (“he bleached his skin, he’s a self hating black man”, “he paid off Jordie and Jason Francia”, etc.) and she also says that “boys don’t lie about being molested by men” (it’s obvious she hasn’t seen that 1995 Hard Copy report about that Canadian kid!). But I’ll give her credit where it’s due: SHE STATED THAT HE WAS INNOCENT OF MOLESTING GAVIN ARVIZO!!! So that shows that she has at least some sense of intelligence!

    And the icing on the cake is when Tucker Carlson compared MJ to -not OJ Simpson as you probably expect- but to Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, who slaughtered 2 million people!!!

    With people like this in the media, no wonder so many people think MJ is guilty!

    Like

  13. Incognito permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:28 pm

    Wow that is compelling! If only we were able to listen to all of Pellicano’s tapes – I wonder what else we would find.

    Like

  14. Lex permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:25 pm

    Look at this evidence from Aphrodite Jones’ Website – I think this is the moste compelling piece of evidence of MJ’s innocence. Remember, this is before the ‘Sodium Amytal’ incident.

    http://www.aphroditejones.com/Michael_Jackson_Trial/Michael_Jackson_Trial.htm

    THIS IS AN EXACT REPLICA OF A TRANSCRIPT HANDED TO APHRODITE JONES BY PAUL BARRESI, A PRIVATE DETECTIVE, WHO STILL HAS RECORDINGS BETWEEN ANTHONY PELLICANO AND JIM MITTEAGER.

    PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

    MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

    PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.” He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over. I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Swartrz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”

    Like

  15. Incognito permalink
    June 16, 2010 11:16 pm

    I feel sorry for Jordan. I know I wouldn’t want to go through the things he’s gone through.

    Like

  16. April 2, 2010 7:44 pm

    This is one of the most in-depth articles I’ve read.
    I’ve seen a lot of the info hear and there but this is concise.
    I really want to see mj cleared and want to do more, but I don’t know what to do. Frustrating!
    I have seen some imp. on the net of attitude and anger at the media, for assorted reasons. But then I avoid the hater’s sites anyway.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: