Michael Jackson’s INNOCENCE and Evan Chandler’s GUILT & SUICIDE

ON HARD FACTS OF MICHAEL’S INNOCENCE

I received a comment from a reader:

• “Evan Chandler seemed genuine in his belief that the relationship was negatively affecting Jordan. We weren’t there, can’t say definitively what happened and it could be possible that Michael did do it”.

Yes, some people need only hard facts to be sure of what happened (or not happened) between Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson. Okay, here is a hard fact which asserts Michael’s complete innocence – JORDAN DESCRIBED MICHAEL AS CIRCUMCISED WHILE IN REALITY HE WAS NOT.

For the accuser whose father is Jewish and who is probably circumcised himself this crucial and glaring mistake settles the matter once and for all – Jordan NEVER saw Michael’s genitalia, the man was INNOCENT and the things told about him were complete LIES.

I wish I didn’t have to elaborate on details of that, but it seems that I’ll have to. The presence of a foreskin can more or less go unnoticed in case of an intercourse (sorry for the description) which was never alleged by anyone at all, but in case of masturbation which was the essence of that allegation (sorry again) the foreskin is the very first thing to notice. It simply cannot go unnoticed as it is not only the visual picture which is different, but the feel of it is different too as the foreskin moves in the process even when erect (OMG, sorry again).  So if Jordan made a crucial mistake in a matter like that there can be no doubt that he was telling a LIE.

When making general descriptions of the ‘abuse’ the Chandlers could tell whatever their fantasies or internet testimonies of real victims prompted them to, but when it came to the basic fact which could be either this or that they had to make a guess – and their guess was ALL WRONG, even though the statistics is that 90% of all men in the US are circumcised. In the 1970s the circumcision rate was 94%, 91% and 57% in Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, respectively – see information and pictures on the matter here: http://www.circinfo.net/what_is_circumcision.html

And since Michael was non-circumcised it is no use talking it any longer – we can close the subject forever, go home now and admit that all of us  OWE A REALLY BIG APOLOGY TO MICHAEL.

ON EVAN CHANDLER’S GUILT

After stating this hard fact of Michael’s innocence there is actually no need to look into what doubters further say about this and that – whether Pellicano was a bad guy or not, or whether Evan genuinely believed any abuse had taken place or just pretended that it had. Yes, the tape of his talk with David Schwartz shows that he seemed to believe in what he was saying as he was entangled in most terrible emotions, but what does it change?

Nothing.

It only shows that his motives could have been slightly different from what we initially thought them to be – and that it was not just an impassive and calculated extortion in its most blatant form, but the extortion colored by severe emotions which led him to the nastiest form of revenge anyone could think of.

First he arranged a media massacre ruining Michael’s health (and ultimately his life), then he took $15 mln. and made an agreement with him, dropping all claims,  but immediately after the agreement he resumed them by letting his brother publish a book where both of them gave full vein to their wildest imagination –  despite the agreement Evan had just signed.

Yes, the book “All that glitters” by Ray Chandler is an especially disgusting example of the Chandlers’ crooked behavior and breaking of all possible decency rules – Evan Chandler chose to take the money and then stab Michael in the back by telling hideous stories about him (and his own son!) instead of going to court and telling his story there.

If he really thought Michael was to blame wasn’t it his moral obligation to his son and the society in general to stop the “molester” and testify in court – especially since both he and Jordan had every chance to do it twice, both in 1993 and in 2005?

Why didn’t Evan go to court, let’s say in 2005?

Because he was absolutely not sure of his suspicions, that’s why.

But why did he provide then all information to his brother to publish a slanderous book about Michael? An angry answer would be because he was the scum of the earth of course, while a kind answer supposes that Evan Chandler wanted to explain himself to the general public.

Playing the devil’s advocate I’ll risk a statement that his desire not to look a villain or an extortionist for the rest of his life was more or less understandable – but the only decent way of dealing with that problem was speaking up in court, and not in a book.

Instead he preferred to kill two birds with one stone – take the money and whitewash himself in his book of betrayal by saying to everyone around “see what grounds I had for behaving the way I did”.

Please note that I’m not even dwelling on the financial gain from that project though this is the first thing which should have been mentioned here.

On the subject of Evan Chandler’s betrayal here is a great piece from YouTube providing proof that the Chandlers planned a book of their fantasies IMMEDIATELY UPON AGREEING NOT TO RUIN MICHAEL’S REPUTATION ANY FURTHER – and this while the ink was not yet dry under their agreement. Here is what Judith Regan says about it:

Wasn’t it the same Evan Chandler who later demanded $60 mln. from Michael for his feeble attempt to say at least something in his defense? And who thundered in indignation over Michael’s alleged breach of the agreement by merely saying he was innocent – in his and Lisa-Marie’s interview with Diane Sawyer? Or by asserting his innocence in his heart-wrenching songs of the History album?

So what decency rules and Evan’s beliefs are we talking about if he was ready to sue Michael for a couple  of words in his defense while he himself was grossly breaking the agreement when the ink was not yet dry under it?

ON EVAN CHANDLER’S SUICIDE AND VIOLENT NATURE

Since both the accuser and accused are deceased now I really don’t want to pass judgment on Evan Chandler. HIS SUICIDE AS WELL AS ITS TIMING TELLS IT ALL.

No one will ever convince me that he committed suicide due to his pains only – his or his son’s money could have bought him all the painkillers in the world.  Why rule out a possibility of him having some remorse? Why not give Evan the benefit of this decent doubt? After all Judah couldn’t live either with all that burden on his conscience even despite the 30 silvers and a field he had bought for the money?

I hear that Ray Chandler didn’t attend his brother’s funeral. So he wasn’t at one with his deceased brother any longer before his death? Another small point in favor of my supposition, though of course Evan Chandler’s suicide could have a different explanation – it could be the result of just his ugly nature and violent emotions…

Here is  one more short note on the power of Evan Chandler’s emotions.

In 2006, Jordan Chandler sued his father for life threatening physical abuse. According to court documents filed in New Jersey http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a0422-05.opn.html Evan Chandler tried to kill his son:

“The judge found that plaintiff had proved that he and his father, the defendant, were members of the same household when defendant struck him on the head from behind with a twelve and one-half pound weight [approx.6 kgs] and then sprayed his eyes with mace or pepper spray and tried to choke him. The judge also found that the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death”.

It is high time we remembered at this point that if Evan Chandler genuinely believed that Michael was “negatively” affecting his son by merely being friends with him, what did he think about himself striking Jordan from behind with a 6kgs weight and trying to choke him?  I wonder if he thought it to be “positive”?

And who cares what he thought about anything or anyone at all?