Evan Chandler’s vendetta against Michael: ENTER RAY CHANDLER

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?”