Skip to content

Evan Chandler’s vendetta against Michael: ENTER RAY CHANDLER

May 4, 2010

After having a look at the  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between the Chandlers and Michael Jackson  it is interesting to see how well it was observed by both parties.

(for the text of it please go to https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/mjagreement/)

As soon as the Chandlers agreed not to ruin Michael’s life any further (the grace which cost Michael or his insurance company some $15 mln.) Evan Chandler and his brother Ray Chandler immediately started looking for an opportunity to break this agreement.  As Ray considered he was not bound by it he began negotiations about publishing his version of Jordan’s saga.

I wonder why Ray was not bound by the agreement. Isn’t it strange that Michael’s lawyers included there almost everyone in sight but overlooked Evan’s immediate kin – his brother Ray? The brother, however, could still be regarded as a ‘representative’ of the family, so who knows how the arbitration court would have looked upon the case if it ever came to a dispute?

You will remember that the sum of the agreement was to be paid in full in any case – even if the contract was breached but there was still a danger that Michael could take some money back if the arbitration court ruled in his favor. However even despite a possible claim from Michael’s side the Chandlers’ desire to break the agreement was simply too strong to  overcome, so here they go …

The story Ray Chandler told various publishers clearly points to Evan Chandler being part of the project.  An American editor and book publisher Judith Regan says she was approached by Ray Chandler within days of the family settling the case:

  • “I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. ($15,3 mln. to be exact). And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”

Let me post the tape again in case someone missed it:

Indeed, first they sign an agreement and snatch the money, and the next moment they break it without even batting an eyelid?  Well, whatever each of us thinks of the reasons for signing the agreement, such a gross violation of the obligations stated there and the easy manner in which it was done speaks volumes about Evan Chandler’s beautiful character, decent behavior and overall integrity, doesn’t it?

One of the steps the Chandlers took was to refute Mary Fischer’s article “Was Michael Framed?” which was originally published by the GQ Magazine in October 1994. It was published on a haters’ site where they referred to it as a “persuasive argument that M. Fischer’s article is at best extremely sloppy and at worst intentionally false”.

The author of the anti-Fischer article is most probably Ray Chandler as the person who wrote it often refers to the book “All that glitters” as his doing.

However this is a supposition only as the exact name of the author, the source where the article comes from and the date on which it was published are enveloped in some mystery. The October 1994 date in the headline actually refers to Mary Fischer’s article and is evidently put there on purpose to direct readers from the real article by Mary Fischer to a fake one by Ray Chandler which he calls her ‘rebuttal’.

So giving the same title and date to the article is just a small marketing trick on the part of the author which is meant to confuse the readers – they look for one thing and get another and instead of Mary’s article go to something totally the opposite. And it is this person who employs such dirty tricks who intends to disprove Mary Fischer’s article as intentionally false? Well, well…

The so-called rebuttal was of course written much later as the author refers there to the book “All that glitters” which was published in September 2004 only. He also falsely claims that the same month Mary Fischer had “a change of heart” and asked for her article to be removed.

Well, firstly, she did not have a “change of heart” as only recently she allowed her article to be reprinted at AboveTopSecret.com (I saw her consent with my own eyes there), and secondly, it would be nice if the author of the article stopped telling lies and doing dirty tricks to draw attention to his story.  Or does he think that is it through lies that the truth should be told?

Whatever the case let us see what this somewhat mysterious and cunning guy has to say. His article is a well-structured mass of details where important issues (Jason Francia) and unimportant (the number of scripts Evan Chandler wrote) ones are mixed together to create the general impression of a serious research made with not a single detail overlooked or non-analyzed.

The main idea of the article is to try and prove that it was no extortion and replace it by the idea that the parties were involved in negotiations usual for all out-of-court settlements.

While raking through the 22 pages of the innumerable and unnecessary details I searched for an answer to a question which is really crucial to the matter and will settle it once and for all  – WHO WAS THE FIRST TO SUGGEST THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT?

If it was Michael who offered the money, it could give some grounds for thinking that he was indeed ‘buying the Chandlers’ silence’, but if it were the Chandlers who were the first to demand it, this would point into a totally different direction …

The matter was not quite clear especially since the article vaguely implied that it was “Pellicano who suggested the movie deals”.  So I really did not expect to find an answer to my question in this particular article and was pleasantly surprised when I did – which is all the more precious as this is firsthand information coming from the original source (Ray or probably Evan Chandler himself).

After some 12 pages of dwelling on this and that the author finally asks Mary Fischer in a somewhat defiant manner “so when did the extortion occur?” and answers the question himself a couple of paragraphs further: “after the August 4, 1993 Westwood Marquis meeting between Evan, Jordan, Michael and Pellicano ended with no resolution, Pellicano and Rothman met at Rothman’s office later that day, at which point Rothman made a demand for $20 million”.

Rothman made a DEMAND for $20 million”! 

So it was Rothman! And so it was consequently Evan Chandler who raised the question of money! And even demanded’ it as the author puts it.  Thank God Michael didn’t have anything to do with it…

However the author evidently didn’t notice what he has just said and is trying to prove the point that the whole thing was nothing but negotiations:

  • “Pellicano did not reject the $20 million demand outright. He stated he would talk to his client and get back to Rothman. Pellicano’s secretly recorded tape of Rothman reveals that Pellicano made a counteroffer of $1 million on August 9, which was rejected by Evan. To punish Evan for arguing with him, Pellicano came back with a $350,000 offer on August 13. On August 17, as evidenced by Pellicano’s recording, the two men were still negotiating”.
  • ”The negotiations took over a period of two weeks and were cited by authorities as just one of the reasons they concluded that no extortion had occurred. Another reason was that the police did not hear any words of extortion on the two recordings offered by the Jackson camp. Neither did the press.”

Now are they serious about that? What a laughable thing to say! The police did not hear the exact words of extortion and it hindered them from seeing the true nature of Evan Chandler’s project? I didn’t know that the police were so naïve and needed someone else to prompt them how to put two and two together…

The author goes on:

  • “According to the official statement made by the LAPD, the evidence revealed that the parties were involved in legitimate negotiations to settle legal claims out of court – something the law encourages, the police spokesman said”.

I agree that such negotiations may sometimes be legitimate and the law might even encourage things like that – for example, if the party accused of any wrongdoing offers money of his own free will,  but having his arms twisted the way it was done in this particular case adds a totally different dimension to the whole story!  No wonder that the author devoted only half a page of his 22 page narration to this crucial but uncomfortable issue – he clearly feels uneasy about it.

The fact that Michael did not offer any money himself, was totally against any payment to the Chandlers and didn’t settle then – when it was still possible to avoid all the horror of a criminal investigation and harassment from the press – is proof enough he did not feel guilty of any wrongdoing and was facing the future with a hope to get fair treatment and some justice even if it came to criminal proceedings against him.

What else is interesting about the Chandler article?

  • It tells and repeats at least twice an outrageous lie that the boy gave an “accurate description of the distinctive marks on Michael’s genitals” though the author knows it for sure both in 1994, 2005 or whatever the year of the article is that it is a complete lie and that the description and photos were as similar and ‘matching’ as black and white are.
  • The author also alleges there was child pornography found in Jackson’s home which is a completely ridiculous thing to say –  if it had been that way this fact alone would have been enough to indict Michael, try him and put him into jail (without any Chandler’s accusations) as keeping child pornography is a criminal offence in itself.
  • The article also says that one of the bodyguards alleged that Michael had ordered him to destroy a picture of a naked young boy that was taped to the mirror in his private bathroom. I incidentally happen to know that name of that body guard – it was Leroy Thomas who told this lie and even recklessly submitted himself to a polygraph test to prove it. In her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa Campbell says that “the results showed he was truthful on some questions but he failed other questions, most notably that Michael had asked him to destroy a photo of a nude boy” (which was not there in the first place, not to mention the need to destroy it).
  • The author also refutes the sodium amytal story which says that the truth was extracted from Jordan together with his tooth. This refutation was however denied again by the author himself who gave a completely different account of the same circumstances in his “All that glitters” book. There he says that the boy was put to sleep to have his tooth pulled out and the first question his father asked him was about Jackson’s wrongdoing to him and it was the first time he said “yes”.

This boring enumeration can go on – it is just the usual tedious mixture of lies and half-lies sprinkled with some truth to be taken by a spoonful at night by an average tabloid reader…

The ending of the story is extremely impressive though – see how hypocrisy and falsehood are dripping from every word of the author’s thunderous conclusion:

  • “Time and time again history has taught us that a free and unfettered press is essential for a democratic society to thrive. So self-evident was this to our Founding Fathers that they protected the press in the very first amendment to the Constitution.
  • Since that time, particularly in recent years, The Supreme Court has continued to safeguard the media’s vital role by awarding reporters increasing protection for refusing to reveal sources, and increasing immunity from liability for reporting what they believed to be the truth, even it turned out to be false and defamatory”.

Well, doesn’t it look like the author is practically warning us that what we have just read in his article may turn out to be “false and defamatory’ and there will be no one to blame for it as this right is safeguarded by the Supreme Court?

The article goes on to dwell on the responsibility to report the truth, but since it does not have any bearing on this particular author we shall just leave it at that.

Here is a link to the article (not recommended):
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/atgbook.net/GQFinal.html

UPDATE:

Our contributor David agrees that it is Ray Chandler who stands behind the above article. Here is his analysis:

“… though the author isn’t listed, I believe it was Ray Chandler. We have to “rebut” his rebuttal in order to stand behind our research! So I’ll try my best to do that.

I included an excerpt that talks about the use of sodium amytal. This is the most important piece of information to exonerating MJ from those charges. MJ haters love to use Jordie’s declaration as irrefutable “proof” that MJ is guilty, so we have to make sure that we can definitely prove that sodium amytal was used. Even though OBVIOUSLY we can never prove with 100% accuracy that it was used (only Jordie and Dr. Torbiner could do that), the fact that Jordie didn’t get the description correct speaks volumes, and eradicates his “declaration” found on the Smoking Gun.

Ray uses the same flawed logic that Diane Dimond used in her book: because Dr. Torbiner didn’t file the correct paperwork, then he couldn’t have used it. Also, because there is “no demand” for sodium amytal on the street, he couldn’t have possibly have obtained it illegally. If it’s possible for Dr. Torbiner to get those other drugs and illegally use them for non-dental purposes (which caused UCLA to “ask him to leave” his role as assistant professor), then it’s certainly within the realm of possibility for him to get sodium amytal without the DEA’s knowledge. Maybe he asked another sleazy doctor to obtain it for him?

Now, Ray did bring up a good point, which is something that I alluded to in a previous email. Why would either Evan or Dr. Torbiner admit or even imply that sodium amytal was used? My only theory is that somehow that reporter (whose name is Henry Levin) found out through a source close to Evan, and then he ambushed Evan with the question, catching him off guard. After seeing the report, Mary Fisher went to Dr. Torbiner, and because it was almost a year later he probably had a fuzzy memory about the incident (because he makes so many “house calls” to his patients, I guess), which is why he said “If I did use it, it was for dental purposes”. I don’t know Raven, that’s just my spin on it!! Ray also questions when or if Henry Levin even interviewed Evan, which is what I’ve wondered about as well due to the confidentiality agreement being signed in January 1994.

Next, Ray goes on to imply that since the media didn’t report this “bombshell” evidence that would help exonerate MJ, then it must not be true. But since when does the media report ANYTHING that would exonerate MJ? As for his assertion that Evan & Dr. Torbiner couldn’t have implanted those memories because they had no training, well, maybe someone else did over a period of several days or weeks, or maybe they really DID have some type of training. Remember, according to Dr. Resnick, just merely asking questions in a non-neutral way (i.e. leading questions) could implant those memories. And Evan said that he had people “in certain positions” that were waiting for his “call”, so maybe he had some assistance? Ray furthers implies that there’s no way that those memories could have been implanted because Jordie fooled so many police, therapists, etc. But the whole point of implanting false memories is to get the victim to believe they’re true, and subsequently everyone else will believe them too! Look at those other cases where people were hypnotized with sodium amytal or other methods, and put their “perpetrators” arrested and even jailed!!

Ray then uses Pellicano’s description of Jordie at their meeting to say that Jordie couldn’t have been brainwashed. But remember, Evan told Jordie that he would never tell anyone, so Jordie’s look could have been embarrassment that Evan was threatening MJ with those allegations, not that they weren’t true. Even though he was brainwashed, he still believed that Evan would keep the allegations secret.

Lastly, Ray goes on to peddle the same lie that Sneddon, Dimond, Orth, and so many people in the media have said for years: Jordie’s description matched!!! What absolutely baffles me when people say this, is that they never explain why MJ wasn’t arrested!! The whole point of that strip search was to determine if there was a match, which would have been the probable cause needed to arrest him! They claim Jordie’s description of the vitiligo blotches match, but they always IGNORE the most defining characteristic of any man’s penis: MJ WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED!!!

At the end of the excerpt, I included a footnote about Dr. Torbiner refusing to acknowledge what he did or didn’t say to Fischer, citing doctor-patient privilege. I’m sure if Fischer lied about what she claims that Dr. Torbiner said to her, he would have taken legal action shortly after the article was released in 1994. His silence is a tacit acknowledge of his honesty, in my opinion!

Well, I included a link to the entire rebuttal. I only wanted to stick to the most important topic, but you’re free to look at it and see if there’s anything else you want to rebut. No matter what Ray, Orth, Dimond, or anyone else says, us MJ fans have these facts on our side that haters need to address before they call MJ guilty:

1. The Chandlers acknowledged themselves that had MJ paid the $20 million in August 1993, they wouldn’t have notified authorities of Jordie’s “molestation”. (ATG page 128)
2. Jordie’s description DID NOT MATCH. Period.
3. MJ’s insurance carrier negotiated and paid the $20 million dollar settlement without his approval, and the agreement did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in criminal court. And there’s no guarantee that MJ would have been indicted even if they cooperated with authorities.
4. In July 2009, Judith Regan acknowledged that Ray Chandler proposed to her a book deal telling “their side of the story” BEFORE the confidentiality agreement was signed, and she described them as “brazen opportunists”. And Evan also assisted Victor Guiterrez in writing “MJ Was My Lover”!
5. Jordie legally emancipated himself sometime in 1994, which is very suspicious. He got back in contact with Evan sometime in 2005, and Evan almost murdered him in August 2005.
6. In 1996, Evan sued MJ, Lisa Marie Presley, ABC News, & Sony for $60 million dollars, and the right to record a rebuttal album called “EVAN-story”. He didn’t want the media attention from testifying in court against MJ, but wanted to record a freakin’ album? Are you serious?
7. Jordie, Evan, and Ray refused to testify against MJ in court, and June’s testimony was full of lies. She claimed that she had no knowledge of Dave Schwartz being $5 million in debt, when Ray said that not only did she know, but she asked MJ to loan them $4 million. She also said she didn’t sue MJ, when her name is all over that lawsuit.
8. Jordie told the FBI in 2004 that he would take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed. Why was her so scared of being cross-examined? Was it because of the witnesses that Mesereau had to testify against him?”

17 Comments leave one →
  1. visitor permalink
    July 9, 2010 1:24 am

    Mary Fischer also gave an interview to Greta van Sustren for “On the Record” show in FOX in December 1 2003. Below I provide teh transcript of that interview

    Greta: Tonight, Michael Jackson’s lawyer vows his client won’t be a pinata for financial motives. Is that what happened in 1993. Mary Fisher investigated the 1993 accusations for GQ magazine and joins us from Los Angeles with more. Mary, first the question, do you think he was framed in 93, and if so, the follow up question, is why you think that?

    Mary Fischer: I definitely think he was the target of a plan to extract money from him. And I base that on a five month investigation that I did for GQ…that looked at the accusers, the adults that were surrounding the boy who made the accusation. And I looked at who they were as people and to look at their motivations. And what I came up with was that three of them had questionable backgrounds and also the boy had been giving a powerful, psychiatric drug, before he ever made any allegations against Jackson. And, uh, there was a lot of evidence that had not come out before that strongly suggest that Jackson was the target of extortion.

    Greta: Mary was there any evidence at all that other than the boy and his family had ever seen anything to suggest a criminal activity about Michael Jackson. If you strip away the accusations from the one family settled civilly. Is there anyone else that back them up?

    Mary Fischer: There was no other corroborating evidence as there often is in these cases of alleged child molestation. It’s easy for someone to make an accusation, but it’s very hard to defend against it. And that’s because often there is no other evidence. There’s the say so of the child surround by adults who encourage the child to, uh, to make these statements for their own motivations and there is no other evidence. That was the case in 93, and so far that seems to be the case now.

    Greta: In the 93 case, did the family first go to a lawyer for civil damages for money before they went to the prosecutor?

    Mary Fischer: That’s exactly right. The interesting thing is if the parents of the first boy had genuinely believed that there son had been sexually molested by Jackson. You would think that the first thing they would think to do is go to the police, but they didn’t do that. They went to an attorney, and the attorney then helpled them with some sort of plan to extract money from Jackson. And then they brought in a psychiatrist, who by the way had no experience with children and met with the boy several times, and it was only after that and being given the drug, that the boy then said yes Jackson did inappropriate things to me.

    Greta: In terms of the drug, do you know what the drug was?

    Mary Fischer: Yes, it’s sodium amytal (sp?) and it’s a powerful psychiatric drug when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible. And that drug was given to the boy by the father of the boy and the father’s friend who was a dental anaesthesiologist , and the anaesthesiologist gave the boy the drug in the dentist office.

    Greta: Was there any accusation by the boy before this drug that Michael Jackson had been inappropriate with him?

    Mary Fischer: No. In fact he had been asked several times if anything inappropriate happened and he would always said no, and then again this is what happens in some of these cases and incidents, that a series of adults, whether it is police, the parents, psychiatrists surround the child and the child becomes influenced by these adults and often they are false accusations that come out of this.

    Greta: Alright this family, the mother and father not married, right? That adds the results to that element to it that the family was falling apart.

    Mary Fischer: Exactly right. In the first case, the parents were involved in a bitter custody and divorce battle. What also happened is that Jackson had befriended the father and the boy and got busy and moved on and the father was disgruntled by the fact that Jackson was no longer as close to him as he once been. That seems to be a parallel in this frequent, in this new case. Uhm, and in this new case that fact that parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a lawyer(s), civil lawyer.

    Greta: And the lawyer, is there any parody or similarities. Are there any lawyers from the 93 case hovering around this new case?

    Mary Fischer: Well, the lawyer, the civil lawyer from the boy in the first case is also the attorney who the parents, uh, the mother of this current boy took him too. That’s what’s in common.

    Greta: Aright, and what has happened to the family. Any quick update where, he’s now a young man, was a boy back then in 93. What’s he up to?

    Mary Fischer: You know, I haven’t really kept on top of it. I understand he’s living in the east coast. I guess he’s 22 years old in college but I don’t know where. And to me there is so many similarities with the old case and this current case that it is really important to reserve judgement before anyone comes to a conclusion about guilt or innocence here.

    Greta: Alright, Mary, thank you very much for joining us

    Mary Fischer: You’re welcome. Thank you.

    Like

  2. Emma permalink
    June 15, 2010 9:48 pm

    I couldn’t believe that Ray actually said about the false allegations that were put against his brother that his insurance company forced him to settle, yet failed to see the comparison with the allegations Evan made against Michael! One of these days the papers (not the tabloids cos people are slowly starting to see that they are nothing more than a bunch of lies) need to publish the other side of this, the side that you are brilliantly reporting.

    Like

  3. June 15, 2010 12:07 pm

    David, thank you for your support and sorry for being away so long – I’ve only just started reading your (and other people’s) comments. It is funny Evan had to encounter the same thing he had done to Michael – what goes round, does come round, only it returns magnified in force – I am not surprised Evan committed suicide in the end.

    It is also funny to hear no one but RAY CHANDLER confirming that insurance companies DO PAY in such cases! We should never shy away from reading the original ‘sources’ (I mean haters) – though you have to wash yourself after reading all their dirt there is so much gold to dig there, so many discrepancies, so many open and hidden lies…

    Guys, reading your comments I see that I need to catch up with a lot of things. Please give me some time to get familiar with all the information.

    Like

  4. Lynette permalink
    June 12, 2010 11:12 pm

    I know I read that too and thought : alright somebody’s going after him now. From what I read in that book maybe she really was molested by him while she was under that would sure explain why he was so fixated on it. I’m surprised he didn’t try to blame MJ Fans he blamed them for this big long string of ” death threats ” that he was supposed to have gotten.

    Like

  5. Incognito permalink
    June 12, 2010 3:10 pm

    @ David

    That’s actually quite funny.

    Like

  6. David permalink
    June 12, 2010 6:54 am

    Hey, this is a great blog!! I just read “All That Glitters”, and although that piece of trash wasn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, there was one thing that really jumped out at me when I read it.

    On page 226, Ray mentions how Evan had several frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits filed against him because the media erroneously reported that Evan was in full control of the $20 million dollar settlement, when in reality most of the money was put into a trust for Jordie. (Wow, who would have ever thought that the media could ever mis-report something about MJ? LOL!!)

    One of the lawsuits actually went to trial, but the “victim” knew she was going to lose the case, so she tried to say that she was “molested” by Evan during a dental procedure, but her memory had been “repressed” until she suddenly remembered the molestation during the trial. Two other lawsuits were settled out of court because Evan’s insurance company felt it was cheaper to just settle, regardless of what Evan felt.

    Sound familiar? That’s exactly what happened to MJ! His insurance forced him to settle too! And isn’t it ironic that after falsely accusing MJ of molestation, one of Evan’s patients falsely accused him? What goes around, comes around! Here is the exact paragraph from the book:

    “After the media announced that Evan controlled his son’s fortune, several of Evan’s patients all of a sudden threatened malpractice suits against him. Most of these claims were so frivolous they died a quick death. One or two were paid because the amount was so small it was more costly for the insurance company to defend than to fight. And one went to trial, but was dismissed when the plaintiff, knowing she was losing, attempted, in the middle of the case, to admit new evidence that a repressed memory had surfaced of her being sexually molested while under sedation in the dental chair.”

    That’s karma for you! LOL!

    Like

  7. Lex permalink
    May 7, 2010 3:30 pm

    Great post! I thought he had it but couldn’t remember where I had read it. It makes perfect sense considering his behaviour. Taraborelli saying he’s “as inconsistant as the come” – sounds about right.

    Like

  8. May 7, 2010 9:32 am

    Lex, you’ve hit the nail on the head. And thank you for your great additon from Taraborrelli. With this BIPOLAR disorder of Evan Chandler’s now everything is fitting in. I suspected it that Evan was a psychiatric case but didn’t have proof of it – NOW WE HAVE IT.
    P.S. You’ve probably recieved my earlier comment to you which later disappeared – I was so excited with this bipolar news that accidentally deleted it. But I am making a separate post of it now.

    Like

  9. unbreakable1 permalink
    May 6, 2010 7:41 pm

    Great job! The Chandler’s contact Judith Regan “before the ink is even dry” – that would make it early 1994. Ms. Regan was acquiring celebrity bios for Simon & Schuster at that time. She must have been the first in a long line of major editors/publishers who rejected the Chandler manuscript over the years. It’s not until Sept. 2004 – on the eve of Michael’s trial – and in one last desperate act – the book ends up self-published.

    Like

  10. Truth permalink
    May 6, 2010 5:58 pm

    Re Lex’s post – interesting read. Has anyone read the Magic and the Madness – my thinking is he does seem fair to Michael overall in the book. He does state he truly doesn’t know what to believe regarding 1993 but feels 2005 was a scam (like most people).

    I always did wonder how he got some information on Michael and Jordan, that only people who were there would now (i.e. the Chandlers and Michael), and now I know – from Evan. That’s why in some parts it seems like he believes the allegations.

    Call me sceptical – but I don’t think he will get the interview with Jordan. He’s maintained a low profile all this time. However when he says “…something tells me I’m going to get it, too. Don’t know why… just a sense I have always had about it…” – maybe he knows something we don’t? … Who knows – it maybe nothing.

    Like

  11. Lex permalink
    May 6, 2010 1:52 pm

    Yeh this guy is something else – he’s suffered from bipolar right?

    Here’s what J Randy Taraborelli had to say about him:

    Interesting view points, you guys. Personally, I try to stay removed from all-out hatred of anyone, no matter how awful they appear to be, or what I feel they’ve done. The Universe works these things out in it’s own way and doesn’t need my emotional investment in the outcome. I just stand back, take a look at the always surprising unfolding of events, think — wow, that’s really something, isn’t it? — and then just hope everyone who is truly involved finds some measure of peace in it. I’m not so sure that terrible people get what they deserve, either. Because I know a lot of awesome people to whom terrible things have happened, I don’t think God doles out punishment to the deserving and rewards to the rest of us. I just think everyone is on a personal path and that if we are going to be the undoing of ourselves, only we know how we’ve gone about it — or even if we had nothing to do with it at all and were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I actually knew Evan Chandler.

    I met him several times in the 1990s. I had lots of secret meetings with Evan Chandler, trying to get to the bottom of what was going on. I was pretty young, sort of green and wish I had my present level of expertise to be able to have applied back then. I have stories about that guy that I have never even published. He was about as inconsistent as they come. He was so determined to get me on his side, I thought he was just a tad scary. If you read my book you sort of get how I felt — feel — about him. When it came out, he called me screaming at me for not just buying his story 100%.

    He actually threatened me, and I thought… okay, pal, now I know who you really are. I wish it had all been handed differently. To be honest, I wish MJ had never settled, and I told Michael that several times. But… he felt he had to save his life, and I understood that, too. He really was in bad shape. However, I wish it had gone to trial so we could have had real evidence presented in a court of law – like the Arvizo nonsense — and then really been able to sort through it and come to some real decisions. It all seems so useless now, though, doesn’t it? And such a shame. Now…

    I want The Interview with Jordie. I want that interview, damn it. Something tells me I’m going to get it, too. Don’t know why… just a sense I have always had about it. Peace, my friends. Live your very good lives. Things have a way of working themselves out…

    Like

  12. May 5, 2010 9:50 pm

    Emma, I think that we will be able to answer this question only after studying every detail of Evan Chandler’s case. I don’t know myself where this small investigation will take us. The only thing I know for sure is that Michael was innocent.

    This comment is not probably the best place to share with you Michael’s thoughts about innocence, but I can’t resist the temptation to quote them here (from his Dancing the Dream book):

    It’s easy to mistake being innocent for being simpleminded or naive. We all want to seem sophisticated; we all want to seem street-smart. To be innocent is to be “out of it”.

    Yet there is a deep truth in innocence. A baby looks in his mother’s eyes, and all he sees is love. As innocence fades away, more complicated things take its place. We think we need to outwit others and scheme to get what we want. We begin to spend a lot of energy protecting ourselves. The life turns into a struggle. People have no choice but to be street-smart. How else can they survive?

    When you get right down to it, survival means seeing things the way they really are and responding. It means being open. And that’s what innocence is. It’s simple and trusting like a child, not judgmental and committed to one narrow point of view. If you are locked into a pattern of thinking and responding, your creativity gets blocked. You miss the freshness and magic of the moment. LEARN TO BE INNOCENT AGAIN, AND THAT FRESHNESS NEVER FADES.

    Michael Joseph Jackson

    Like

  13. May 5, 2010 9:31 pm

    Sharon, you are absolutely right. It was an interrogation indeed – do you remember her asking Michael and LMP if they had sex? Why would people think it acceptable to ask questions like that? Imagine asking your boss whether he has sex with his wife? Would Diane Sawyer like it if she had to answer this question in front of a multi-million TV audience?

    I think that with regard to Michael Jackson the media has crossed EVERY possible line. Somehow they began thinking that everything was acceptable when it came to this gentle and soft-spoken man. They started it and we gleefully accepted the terms of the game. After all it is so much fun… something totally unreal… not even a true human being… just some wacko jacko thing…. and all this ending in complete insanity and SHEER HORROR OF BEHAVIOR. And most of the media does not notice what they are doing even now!

    His gentleness brought out in many people their absolute barbarian worst – an animal desire to hunt and poke him with a cane to check whether he was still alive when he was actually mortally wounded and bleeding.

    He turned to be a catalyst which brought out in many their most essential – and often their worst features. In exactly the same way NOW he is miraculously bringing out the best in the very same people – remember Aphrodite Jones who was among his critics and the change she has undergone? Unbelievable.

    I must confess that my life is completely overturned now too. If someone had told me only a year ago that I’d be standing up for Michael Jackson, I would have never believed him and thought him crazy. And now here I am not being able to enjoy a moment of quiet if I don’t go on… (sorry for this rambling too).

    As to Michael’s interview with Diane Sawyer we’ll need to have a closer look at it – especially since it was followed by a lengthy lawsuit filed by Evan Chandler against each and every participant in it, including Diane Sawyer.

    Like

  14. May 5, 2010 8:19 pm

    Truth, this is an absolutely great artilce you’ve posted. Many of us have read it but it is such a marvel that should learned by heart and posted on every wall.
    It clearly shows that the whole thing was completely insane. I begin suspecting that Evan Chandler was a psychiatric case.

    Like

  15. Emma permalink
    May 5, 2010 4:38 pm

    I wonder if the whole reason that Evan Chandler did all this was because in his twisted mind he should have been the one who had the showbiz career? Was it all jealousy?

    Like

  16. May 5, 2010 3:59 pm

    Re the above article I watched that interview with Diane Sawyer doing the digging and stabbing at MJ and LMP. Before this I had respected Diane as a journalist/interviewer.
    At that time I was not a fan, just curious enough to watch it. My sympathies were completely with the subjects of the interrogation. Michael was unusual but so appealing that I was fascinated enough to continue to watch. Lisa was frustrated with all the non-of-your-business questions questions but answered firmly.
    Diane kept stabbing re the settlement and I think asked straight out if Micheal harmed that boy. He firmly denied it-He would NOT harm a child. They said they could not talk about the settlement under law. Diane kept digging and digging!!
    Since then I have never watched anything she did and even avoid the networks she has been on. I wonder how she feels about his “guilt” now? Has she changed her mind?
    The only news I watch now is CNN anf take anything they say with a bowl of salt. Many of us out here have lost all confidence in what we see or read. I wish Walter Cronkite was back with us. I did believe him! I apologize for rambling. sb

    Like

  17. Truth permalink
    May 5, 2010 11:29 am

    Well said. No matter what happened – one thing is for sure – Evan Chandler was all about the $$$$!!

    This article sums him up perfectly.

    Michael Jackson sequel: Settlement not enough
    DeWayne Wickham
    USA Today
    Jun 24, 1996

    Father, who accused singer of molesting son and is now suing again, ought to get a life.

    LOS ANGELES — Remember Evan Chandler?

    He’s the Beverly Hills dentist who several years ago accused pop music superstar Michael Jackson of sexually molesting his then 13-year-old son. Instead of trying to put Jackson in jail, Chandler sought to pick his pocket. The civil suit he filed in 1993 was settled out of court, reportedly for more than $10 million.

    Now Chandler is hoping for another visit from the tooth fairy.

    The former dentist to the stars is back in court. And this time he’s not just suing Jackson. Chandler also has named the pop music star’s ex-wife, Lisa Marie Presley, the Sony Music Corp., the Walt Disney Co. and some 300 unnamed persons as co-conspirators.

    Aided and abetted by this cast of characters, Jackson violated the terms of their confidential 1994 agreement, Chandler says. How? By denying — in words and song — that he sexually abused the young boy. He did so last year during an interview on ABC with Diane Sawyer, Chandler charges, and again in his latest album.

    And for that Jackson must pay.

    How much? Chandler, who between root canals co-wrote the screenplay for the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, wants at least $60 million to settle his latest complaint against the pop music king. He also wants an album. Not a copy of HIStory, the Jackson album he cites in his suit. Chandler wants a court order “to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale” his own musical composition — something he calls “EVANstory.” And, yes, he wants to be taken seriously. Hmmmm.

    But, of course, he blew his chance for that when he chose to press his child-abuse charge in a civil, rather than criminal, court. How many parents who really believe some guy was molesting their child would pass up the chance to put him in jail? Who would seek a financial payoff in lieu of a criminal prosecution?

    If Michael Jackson is a child molester, he belongs in jail. And if Evan Chandler has any evidence to support the charge that Jackson “sexually molested and assaulted” his son, he should give it to a prosecutor — not try to use it to launch his own recording career.

    When Chandler and Jackson reached their out-of-court settlement, lawsuit lawyers for both men announced the deal in a joint, one-page statement. Twice in that document Jackson asserted his innocence. Now, two years later, Chandler claims such a denial is a violation of the agreement.

    Some of these denials, Chandler contends, are buried in the lyrics of several of the songs on Jackson’s HIStory album. What is he talking about? Well, in one song Jackson sings: “Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me, they really wanna use me, they falsely accused me.”

    Chandler believes these words are targeted at him. Maybe. Maybe not. In recent years Jackson has been dragged into civil court by a Denver songwriter who accused him of stealing his lyrics and a woman who said he fathered her child. Maybe he was talking about them. Or maybe — like most songwriters — he wasn’t talking about anyone in particular.

    And remember the recent controversy over Jackson’s use of terms like “Jew me, sue me” and “*#*# me, don’t you black and white me” in a song on the HIStory album? Well, Chandler, who is Jewish, suggests in his lawsuit that they were aimed directly at him. Now he wants a chance to fire back with his own repertoire of songs.

    Evan, get a life. The statute of limitations for your child-abuse charge expires in three years. If Michael Jackson did the unspeakable to your boy, give prosecutors the evidence they need to put him in jail.

    Put up or shut up.

    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: