Skip to content

Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the DEFENSE?

June 23, 2010

There has been some discussion here of Ray Chandler’s “All that glitters” book. The author (whoever he is – Ray or Evan Chandler) claims that the book is based on ‘authentic’ documents. This claim was taken advantage of by Michael Jackson’s defense team who subpoenaed Ray Chandler to testify in court as a ‘custodian of documents”. Here is a marvellous article about it from

Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense?

MJEOL Bullet #205 (shortened)

30 September 2004

the best uncle one can ever have

It looks like Ray Chandler’s (Charmatz) mouth may have written a check that his proverbial ass can’t cash.   Appearing on Crier Live yesterday (Sept 29 2004), tabloid reporter Diane Dimond says that the 1993 accuser’s uncle, Ray Chandler, has been subpoenaed by the defense as a “custodian of documents”.

She insinuated that he is being “intimidated” by the defense.  Observers of the “case” say that Chandler has inserted himself into this “case” by doubtlessly trying to taint the jury pool and it has totally backfired on him.

The tabloid reporter claims that Chandler told her he’s being “intimidated” because, he says, that’s what happened in 1993.   This is preposterous.  In his zeal to trash Jackson, he has inserted himself into this situation.  He has allegedly credible, documented info—if the documents aren’t forgeries—directly regarding the 1993 investigation.

"They found hard-core child pornograghy there"

He has also made numerous statements, most of which couldn’t possibly be true, to the public about that investigation as well.  He claimed that police found commercial produced child pornography at Jackson’s ranch in 1993.  This is a complete lie because possession of child pornography is a FEDERAL offense.  And had this have been true, Jackson would have been charged with a crime in federal court 11 years ago.  There are other examples of ridiculous claims as well.

But now Chandler is whining and playing the victim because he has been called to the floor as a result of such statements.  Cue the violins!

It’s quite clear that ‘Uncle Ray’ could have only gotten certain information and documents related to the 1993 investigation from a very small number of places. Those documents are simply the unchallenged, un-cross-examined, unfounded allegation that initially started the ’93 investigation.

Prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation when it’s convenient to them. They actually alleged in court during one of the pretrial hearings that they weren’t sure if they were going to use the ’93 investigation. And called it “irrelevant” when defense attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information) from the ’93 investigation! We learned from court documents that the defense is hot on the prosecution’s tail in trying to get them to hand-over documents from the ’93 investigation every since Mark Geragos was Jackson’s attorney.

His attorneys say that the information from 1993 is “necessary to preserve Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair trial.” Now, remember, this is the defense talking. Thus, they either have information themselves or knowledge of the existence of material that something was discovered during the 1993 investigation that “will likely” be exculpatory to Jackson. What is also astonishing is the admission that law enforcement found information which indicates the 93 allegation was not true.

From the defense’s motion:  “Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation”.

Ray Chandler has specific knowledge and documents about the ’93 investigation which definitely should be challenged in court. His information, and that big mouth of his, makes him a REAL witness in this ‘case’ and not an ‘impeaching’ witness as prosecutors have disingenuously tried to claim with other people around this case.

What has always been a problem with the 1993 gang is that NEITHER one of them have ever actually come to court to testify to any of the things they have been saying—either directly or through ‘sources’—in a court of law where their shady stories can be challenged.

willing to listen to anything you say...

Chandler has had it very easy from the media because everyone who has interviewed him, from the Today Show to Diane Dimond, have absolutely NOT asked him any hard questions about some of the outrageous claims he has made in his book or in previous interviews. On second thought, Geraldo Rivera (Fox) got to ask one zinger of a question about whether or not the 1993 accuser’s father “pimped” the accuser’s allegation for money. We didn’t get a straight answer from Chandler because he claimed his audio wasn’t working properly.

One of the issues which may be addressed concern the documents Chandler cites in his book and posted on his website. Questions may be raised about the origin of these documents and who gave them to Chandler.  Did he get them from Evan Chandler, the ’93 accuser’s father? If so, can E. Chandler be sued for breaking the confidentiality agreement? Did he get the documents from leaks in the prosecution’s office or the sheriff’s department? If so, who? And what sanctions can be sought as a result? ETC.

Another issue revolves around the authenticity of at least some of the memos cited by Chandler. In MJEOL Bullet #197, Geraldine Hughes’s response to Chandler’s book was discussed. Hughes was a sole legal secretary to Barry Rothman, the ’93 accuser’s first attorney. Hughes asserts that several of the documents appearing on Chandler’s website seem to have forged signatures at the bottom. The documents show her initials, gh, at the bottom as the typists but she says she never typed some of them. She also reveals that her then-boss’s signature doesn’t even match from document to document:

Do these signatures match?

Geraldine Hughs: “When I review the documents that he has on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents, even though they bear my initials as the typist, I did not type that particular document. Several of these documents have been manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature of my attorney Barry Rothman”.

As a matter of fact, one of the documents has no signature at the bottom at all. These types of documents, again, had to be given to Chandler for the specific purpose of either writing his book to cash-in on the latest news or to try to taint the jury pool because more than one source has said he probably wasn’t privy to any of this information during the ’93 investigation.

Now the defense wants a chance to ask Chandler some highly important questions, and he’s trying to wrap himself up in this ‘victim’ nonsense.

Either put up or shut up. It’s quite easy to make unchallenged claims via a media who normally eats up unfounded trash about Jackson. It is quite another to have to answer, with a degree of responsibility, to the things he’s been saying concerning the ’93 investigation. 

Full story:

*   *   *

After reading this true masterpiece of an article from the Mjeol website I searched the internet for information whether Ray Chandler did give his testimony at the 2005 trial or not – but couldn’t find a single scrap of  it … This did not discourage me from making my own conclusions though. Correct me if I’m wrong:

That simple and easy to prove?

1) Ray Chandler SAYS his accusations of Michael Jackson are based on ‘authentic’ documents. Right?

2) Michael’s DEFENSE team (just think of this paradox!) subpoenaes him to testify in 2005 as a ‘custodian of those documents’. Right?

3) If not defense, then PROSECUTION should be summoning such a key witness to state his case in court. Right?

4) If they didn’t insist on his testimony they must have known there was something FISHY about his evidence. They probably insisted on it though (?).

5) If Ray Chandler HAD appeared in court as a custodian of priceless documents the mere fact of it would have been blasted all over the media. It wouldn’t be so hush-hush now and we wouldn’t have to check each piece of the 2005 court transcripts in search for his name. Right?

6) If there had been no hue and cry in the media over Ray Chandler’s evidence it means he NEVER testified in court. And never proved his documents to be really authentic. Right?

7) NOTHING prevented him from disclosing his documents in court except the fact that they were false and fabricated. If the family refrained from using them in the 1993 case (though they could have) it was Ray Chandler’s last chance to shine and get the ‘culprit’ finally nailed down in the year 2005. Right?

8) 8) The fear of Michael’s fans could be absolutely no pretext for his not showing up in court as publishing lies about Michael in a BOOK is no less dangerous than telling the same lies in COURT. Right?

Liked it? I can tell you more...

9) So we don’t even have to read the ‘Redemption’ book to see that Ray Chandler is a LIAR and has NO incriminating documents against Michael, do we?

10) And we didn’t even move our little finger to make sure that Ray Chandler’s “All that glitters” is a  SCAM?

Am I delusional or is it really THAT easy and simple to prove?

54 Comments leave one →
  1. David permalink
    June 23, 2010 11:28 pm

    That’s great analysis! The fact that he claimed he had all of this “evidence”, but wasn’t subpoenaed by the prosecution to be an 1108 witness, makes him lose ALL credibility. The way he presented the book was disingenuous because he claims that the book is based on official documents, but he never explained (nor was he ASKED) how were all of those conversations reprinted in the book WORD FOR WORD! Especially since he wasn’t even THERE to hear those conversations!!

    It’s plain and simple that the majority of the book was written in 1993-94 by Evan Chandler, before the confidentiality agreement was signed, and more importantly, before Ray and Evan lost contact with each other. In fact, Ray admits at the end of the book that Evan is alone and penniless, and he had not spoken to him in years.

    And let’s not forget the fact that the book was self published. Now think about this for a minute: a book that does nothing but trash MJ couldn’t get a publisher? That is a huge red flag right there! I think it’s because the book publishers (like Judith Regan) all turned him down in 1994, and when he shopped the book again in 2004 they turned him down AGAIN. I truly believe it’s because they didn’t want to be accused of aiding and abetting the Chandlers in breaking the confidentiality agreement.

    For example, remember that judgement that was brought down against Victor Guiterrez? That may have set a precedent as far as book publishers being careful about publishing anti-MJ books. Guiterrez had the book published overseas, but no American publisher touched it after he was successfully sued for slander. They probably didn’t want to be sued just in case a worst case scenario regarding the Chandlers turned out to be true. (On a side note, Evan sued ABC News & Sony for helping MJ “break” his side of the agreement, so that may have been a factor as well).


  2. Lynette permalink
    June 23, 2010 11:49 pm

    I think I have Tom Mesereau’s Motion for dicovery. If not it is one of th edocuments for download on the Floacist site.


  3. Suzy permalink
    June 24, 2010 6:35 am

    Sorry to go a bit off topic, but I want to write something about the alleged “child erotica” they found in Neverland. Well, it wasn’t erotica (only maybe for the sick minded), but at the time of the trial the media consequently used this term when describing them. Diane Dimond called one of them a “homoerotic classic”.

    Since this material is often brought up by haters as one of the strongest arguments for MJ being a pedophile or at least having pedophile leanings, I think this issue needs to be addressed.

    So what are we talking about? Didn’t we say that no child pornography was found? We did and it’s true! No child porn was ever found, otherwise MJ would have been charged on that.

    However the prosecution found two artistic photo books with nude or semi-nude children that they decided to call “child erotica” and use it as an evidence against Michael. The two books were called „The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and “Boys will be boys”.

    It’s the first one that Dimond called a “homoerotic classic”. Well, it depends on with what mind you look at those pictures. For some the David statue might be “homoerotic”. Most however just look at it as art.

    The pictures in the book were shot at the set of the 1963 movie “Lord of the flies” – and yes, some of them features naked boys and there are also pics of “full frontal nudity”. The haters’s argument was that pedophiles often have books like this, books that are legal, but “borderline”. Maybe pedophiles often have it, I don’t know. But just because they have it, that doesn’t mean that other people might not have it for completely different purposes. And it seems for Michael it didn’t mean “erotica”, but something else, since this is the inscription he left in the book: “Look at the true spirit and happiness on the faces of these boys. This is the spirit of boyhood, the childhood I never had. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

    The other, “Boys will be boys” has some nude, semi-nude pics – eg. boys in swimming trunks – too, but that’s just about 10% of the pics according to even Ron Zonen. It’s obvious that it was a gift from a fan, since it has the following inscription in it: “To Michael: From your fan, Rhonda. Love XXXOOO ¦ Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.”

    It’s also important to note that both of these books were confiscated in the 1993 raid. Why is it important? Because if they needed to bring in these two books from the 1993 raid it means they didn’t find anything damning in 2003, and in two raids and in 10 years this was the most that they could come up with!

    Yesterday, I read an article from Diane Dimond at the time describing this material. She said something along the lines that it is a significant evidence because if it had been found of someone’s possession who was an avid collector of art photography it could perhaps be put down like just that, however if it’s found in someone’s possession who is an avid collector of p.o.r.n, it is damning. Now, there is the spin! She suggests that Michael was not an avid collector of art which is a BIG lie! He was an avid collector of art, ALL KINDS of photography books (as proven by many auctions organized from his books) and was also an avid collector of books! He had one of the largest private libraries in the world!

    Yes, he was also an avid collector of p.o.r.n, but that collection featured a totally different taste in totally different subjects – namely an interest in adult women.

    If these kind of “boy books” had been a recurring theme of his collection then I would admit there is reason to be suspicious. But they weren’t! Among his several thousand books (literally!) – and many of them art books and photo books – and after two raids with 10 years difference this is ALL that they could come up with!

    Now, of course the question is: what kind of thoughts Michael had when looking at those pics. Nobody knows, but him. Diane Dimond, the prosecution and the haters like to think he had sexual or erotic thoughts but that’s just their biased opinion – and the reflection of their OWN pervert minds. At least when we say, “no, his interest in those books wasn’t sexual” we have something to support this claim: namely the inscriptions in the books, which don’t imply anything erotic or sexual (on the contrary).

    People conveniently forget that your sexual interest is not something that you can easily get rid of or change. So if his interest in these books had been a sexual interest, instead of an interest in art, I’m sure he would have had a LOT more of this. Not only that, but he would have had many of this type in 2003 as well. Just like with his real erotic material: they confiscated porn magazines in 1993 and when they returned in 2003 they found a large collection of that again. That is because THAT (adult heterosexual erotica) was his sexual interest! The fact he only had two of these so called “borderline” books and he didn’t resurrect his “collection” (which wasn’t even a collection the first time either) of that by 2003, along with the inscriptions in the books, is a strong indication that his interest in it was really not sexual or erotic.


  4. Suzy permalink
    June 24, 2010 7:33 am

    By the way, it’s funny how haters often argue that he kept all that heterosexual stuff for artistic purposes, while he kept the “boy books” for erotic purposes. Or that he kept the heterosexual porn to seduce little boys, while the books mirror his own interest.

    These arguments just don’t make any sense at all! Had he have 70-80 “boy books” and two Playboys then I would agree. But it’s the other way around! And while there are certainly sick people who look at those “boy books” with homoerotic thoughts, but the books in themselves are not erotic material. They are artistic photo books. If you are not a pervert they don’t raise erotic thoughts in you – certainly they don’t in me (similarly I don’t get homoerotic thoughts when I see artsitic pics of naked female children) and by his inscription I don’t think they did in Michael.

    On the other hand it’s laughable to think he kept Playboy, Hustler and even more graphic porn magazines for “artistic purposes”: there is absolutely nothing artistic about them! They are what they are: magazines made for men for sexual, erotic purposes. There’s no other way to explain them, although the prosecution tried hard to come up with laughable theories. He didn’t need to have 70+ porn magazines (dated from 1991 to 2003 – which means he was a regular collector) just to show them to children (and besides Gavin no child has ever claimed he showed them such material). For that purpose it would have been enough to have a couple, and the rest of his collection would have been made of child porn, “child erotica” and homoerotica.

    Just imagine: what if they had found 70+ child porn/child erotica pictures, magazines, traces to “man-boy” websites and “boy books” in his possession – and two artistic photo books about women with some naked women in it. Would Diane Dimond and the haters think the two artistic books about women mirror his sexual interest and he kept the child porn for “artistic purposes”? Of course not and of course it would be stupid to make that conclusion from that. But the same way it’s stupid to make the conclusions that Dimond and the haters made from the material what they have found!


  5. July 4, 2010 7:12 am

    So Michael Jackson’s porn collection started in 1991. Do any of you know the month? The reason I am asking is because in Taraborrelli’s book he said Michael purchased the playboy which had LaToya in it. I know she did a topless shoot in 1989, but followed up a I believe a centerfold in 1991(not certain if it was a centerfold).


  6. Suzy permalink
    July 4, 2010 8:02 am

    Teva, here is the list of porn found:

    I don’t see LaToya there (but there’s not a link to each magazine).


  7. lynande51 permalink
    July 4, 2010 8:20 pm

    I found the entire 1996 lawsuit that Evan Chandler had against Michael, Lisa, Diane Sawyer, ABC and sony. In it he says several times that Michael did not put out a statement to his fans about their supposed death threats and he should have. Why would Michael be held responsible for other peoples actions? In their book they talk about the beating that Evan got and was crying when he called his brother Ray. This was not an attack on Evan Chandler by angry Michael Jackson fans. The cause of it was Evan Chandler himself when he was confronted by paparrazi in the parking garage of his dental office. He came out of the car swinging his briefcase at them and might have been hit in the head by a camera or by his own brief case. This was discussed and confirmed by the 2 reporters from Splash news in the Frontline documentary. You know I have no pity for him in that case. He was the one that wanted to get it out in the public as fast as he could to bring Michael to his knees and force him to give him 20 million dollars that he asked for in the first place. He let loose that monster he should have known he couldn’t control it, it wasn’t his to control. The only documented case of a Michael jackson fan threatening them was Denise Pfeiffer from the UK. If Jordan was so unsafe how come he could live in the same house with his stepmother after his father left? Another thing that really struck me in the second legal document is that it was about calling him a liar not his son. If Jordan is mentioned in it at all it is as an afterthought.


  8. Suzy permalink
    July 5, 2010 4:18 am

    & Lynande

    Helena made an article about that lawsuit:

    The whole thing is ridiculous. It’s all about Evan, Evan and Evan – his feelings and “emotional distress” that he “suffered from Defendant Jackson oppressing him”. Anybody who still has question marks about the personality of Evan should read it.

    The funniest part is when they request an order to allow Evan to release a “musical composition” called “EVANStory” (as in reply to Michael’s “HIStory”) with songs titled “D.A. Reprised”: “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs. ”

    Is this guy for real?


  9. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 1:09 pm

    I found that prosecution witness list, it’s on page 57

    Click to access 121304motcompeldisc06.pdf

    The whole Chandler family was subpoaned and I wonder why the DA called only June Chandler? Why not Evan lol?
    Why Jordan is on that list when they knew he wasn’t going to testify.

    David Schwartz was on that list too.


  10. April 29, 2011 2:42 pm

    Shelly anyone can be on the witness list. It doesn’t mean that all of them will finally testify.


  11. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 2:52 pm


    I know that, but I found that strange that they didn’t call them. Evan was the one who reported the case, Nathalie Chandler was his wife. Why not forced them to testify? I think they didn’t testified because Sneddon didn’t want them to be cross-examined by Mesereau. He could have listed them in his prior offense document, he didn’t so he never wanted them to testify. The only who is mentionned in the Prior bad acts document is Jordan.


  12. lynande51 permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:02 pm

    @ Shelley and Thetis: It sould also be noted that he did not intend to have Jordan come to court to testify at that point he knew he would fight it and that would have looked very very bad for the prosecution if their primary accuser from the 1993 allegations did what Ray Chandler did. What he wanted to placed into evidence was Jordans original statement to the police from 1993. He did not want to be cross examined and imagine the heyday that Mesereau would have had withthat decription. He wanted his statement and then he wanted to put the photos in but not both together because when put together what do they say? They say that Michael was not seen nude and did not commit the acts that the Chandlers claim. Put together they clear evidence of extortion.


  13. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:11 pm

    Another question, Ray chandler said his brother started worrying about Jordan’s relationship with Jackson in May but Sneddon said it was on June 9th. P32

    Click to access 121004pltmotadmprior.pdf


  14. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:15 pm

    I think that document is interesting, it’s not related to Jackson but it should be read anyway.

    Click to access S158898.PDF


  15. lynande51 permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:35 pm

    @Shelley page 32 is from Mary Coller not June or Jordan or even Evan Chandler . They don’t have anythingfrom any Chandler but June in that Document.


  16. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:45 pm


    It’s just before Mary Coller and the text says

    “It began on June 9th when Jordan was with Jackson instead of going to his stepbrother, Nickie’s graduation.”


  17. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:47 pm

    It’s on line 10 and after that they spoke about family confrontation with Jordan.


  18. April 29, 2011 7:39 pm

    Shelly they couldn’t keep their story straight


  19. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 8:35 pm


    I know that, but Ray Chandler said his brother started worrying when MJ was at their home and I’d like to know why Evan, David and Nathalie weren’t called to testify. Sneddon didn’t need the Neverland 5, all he needed was the Chandler family but he needed strong witness.


  20. April 29, 2011 8:53 pm

    “I’d like to know why Evan, David and Nathalie weren’t called to testify. Sneddon didn’t need the Neverland 5, all he needed was the Chandler family but he needed strong witness.”

    Shelly, it is clear that Tom Sneddon did need them, but only the Chandlers didn’t need him. And this is all there is to it.

    The Chandlers never wanted to be cross-examined – either in 1993 or 2005 – and avoided it at all costs. Only June Chandler agreed to come to the trial as her nerves are made of steel and she is in perfect command of any situation. Which makes me think that if there was anything “bad” to notice as regards MJ and her son she would have been the first to see it.


  21. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 8:57 pm


    The problem is you can’t fight a subpoenea, unless you are a sexual abuse victim. If a lawyer or a DA wants you to testify you can’t refuse so the question is why Sneddon didn’t want them. He never called them to testify, why?


  22. April 29, 2011 9:26 pm

    “If a lawyer or a DA wants you to testify you can’t refuse so the question is why Sneddon didn’t want them. He never called them to testify, why?”

    And why did Jordan Chandler manage to avoid it? His refusal is fixed even in FBI files. He said he would sue them if they insisted.

    The reason for that maybe that they didn’t know Arvizos and had a good pretext of saying they had nothing to say on that case. So for them it was probably not that obligatory (just a supposition).


  23. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 9:40 pm

    “And why did Jordan Chandler manage to avoid it? His refusal is fixed even in FBI files. He said he would sue them if they insisted.”

    Because he is an alleged sexual abuse victim and it gave him the right to refuse to testify. His family had no rights to refuse. Tom Sneddon never asked June if she wanted to testify, he called and told her she was subpoaned, she never had any choice.


  24. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 9:43 pm

    You really should read that link

    Click to access S158898.PDF

    They couldn’t force him to testify but they could have forced him to go to the courthouse.


  25. April 29, 2011 10:13 pm

    “They couldn’t force him to testify but they could have forced him to go to the courthouse”.

    Shelly, this is interesting. What you are saying leaves us with only one option – the prosecution did not subpoena the Chandlers because they didn’t want to.

    And they didn’t want to probably because they were not sure what they would say there, or were afraid that the truth of the 1993 case would be revealed under cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau.

    All this shows that there was nothing real behind all their invented ‘cases’.

    P.S. Sorry, I must be off now – it is past 2am here.


  26. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 10:16 pm

    “Shelly, this is interesting. What you are saying leaves us with only one option – the prosecution did not call the Chandlers because they didn’t want to.”

    It’s exactly my point, Sneddon could have forced Nathalie, Evan and David Schwartz to testify in 2005 and in 1993. They never did it.


  27. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 10:55 pm

    Look at what Norma Salinas said in 2005 on page 11

    Click to access 092304orderunsealtscpt.pdf

    “She said she was surprised when the boy came to live with his father because the teenager was rarely more than a weekend visitor who spent his time alone. The father usually to preoccupied with work, until that weekend”

    “At first they didn’t want this boy in the house and later when the relastionship started with Michael, the boy came here to live.”


  28. shelly permalink
    April 29, 2011 11:04 pm

    Look at page 14

    “6 months later, frustrated that prosecutors still hadn’t charged Jackson with a crime and citing anonymous death threats, the boy’s famiy backed out of the criminal case. the boy would no longer cooperate”

    “Thomas: That was a surprise. From the standpoint of what the actual outcome was of our victim not testifying was a blow”

    So who is lying, Sneddon who claimed Jordan refused to testify just after the settlement or Thomas and Garcetti?


  29. lynande51 permalink
    April 30, 2011 4:19 am

    @ Shelley, There was no truth. Zonen and Auchincloss went with an FBI agent to New York on September 27th-28th of 2004.The 1108 was written in Decmber of 2004 so they knew full well that Jordan wasn’t coming and yet they say specifically that they were still uncertain if he would be testifying. They could have subpoenaed Evan, Nathalie, Dave and June. There has never been a statement from Natalie who was supposedly in the house when Michael was there and the abuse was supposed to be happening. Do you know why? Natalie is a lawyer and I don’t believe that they or she would risk the chance of perjury. The thing with their timeline is interesting. In the Chandler book ATG another funny thing occurs. Jordan did not miss the graduation. That was Evans first confrontation with Jordan and he asked him not to go on tour. He and June had a row about it later where she says he is a terrible father and owed Jordan money for the screenplay. She told him then that she was the one that was managing Jordans career from then on. That was when he went ballistic.


  30. Suzy permalink
    April 30, 2011 6:23 am

    This document that Shelly linked in: says about a lot of people that they would testify about whom we know now they didn’t. For example the Quindoys who were never credible (didn’t their own nephew came out to say he was ashamed of them and he would be willing to be a character witness against them in case they are called to testify?). And lots of others. I don’t think Sneddon ever really intended to call the Quindoys and these other “witnesses”. He knew they were not credible. If he thought Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool and the Francias were his most credible witnesses, imagine how “credible” these other witnesses were!

    BTW, how many of thes people we know had a contact with Victor Guiterrez? So far we know of:

    – The Francias
    – Orietta Murdock
    – Ralph Chacon
    – Adrian McManus
    – Kassim Abdool
    – The Chandlers
    – The Chandlers’ maid

    I bet most other ex-employees who said they saw MJ molesting boys too had a contact with VG. The above are just what we are sure of by now (Chacon, MCManus and Abdool admitted it at the trial, The Chandlers made mention of him too, and about the Francias and Murdock we know because when VG boasted about how many employees of MJ he contacted he specially mentioned them by name). And let’s not forget to put

    – Martin Bashir
    – Diane Dimond

    on that list as well. And of course he had failed contacts too like the one to the Robsons.

    To me this is the most staggering aspect of the story. This was all the doing of one man! He led so many people by the nose (Sneddon and Co., most of the media), simply because they were unable to see clearly because of their own prejudice and hatred! I wish Mary Fischer or some good, credible journalist would write an investigative piece on it similarly to her 1994 GQ article.


  31. shelly permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:29 am

    Sneddon wanted them to testify but the judge refused. They are in the prior bad acts document.


  32. shelly permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:31 am

    What was the name of their nephew.


  33. Suzy permalink
    April 30, 2011 9:06 am

    Glen Veneracion


  34. shelly permalink
    April 30, 2011 10:27 am

    Thank you, suzy. I wonder if he was on the defense witness list.


  35. Suzy permalink
    April 30, 2011 11:02 am

    I wonder if the diary they have written was also VG’s idea (like the Jordan Chandler diary). He seemed to have coordinated so many people from the background….


  36. shelly permalink
    April 30, 2011 11:33 am

    I wonder how VG got that picture of MJ in his pajama.


  37. shelly permalink
    April 30, 2011 11:34 am

    ANd the retainer agreement.


  38. Suzy permalink
    April 30, 2011 12:12 pm

    I wonder how VG got that picture of MJ in his pajama.

    I think he and Evan started to write the diary together initially and at the time Evan gave him material. Then they probably had a falling out.


  39. Teva permalink
    May 4, 2011 11:38 pm

    @ Shelly, is a very interesting document .
    “Under the Uniform Act, as adopted in California, a party in a criminal case can ask a court in the state where an out-of-state material witness is located to subpoena the witness and also to have the witness taken into custody and brought to the prosecuting state to testify.” That is telling me that Jordan Chandler did not have the right to refuse a subpoena, and he really could not fight it. In the document a rape victim did not want to testify against her accuser, but the court could have compelled her to bear witness against her will under the Uniform Act. The Prosecution not only subpoena her, but sent her plane ticket, meal and hotel accomodations. Of course I don’t think Sneddon would have enforced this Act on Jordan because it would not have been a good look for them if one of their lead witnesses was force to testify under duress.

    I agree with you Shelly the other Chandlers especially Natalie could have been called as material witnesses to bolster their case, but they weren’t only June was called. It was not a question of one or the other, it could have been all 5 of them. So why only June?


  40. shelly permalink
    May 4, 2011 11:58 pm


    I really don’t understand why the DA never tried to have all the family in the stand. Why did they chose the Neverland five instead of them?


  41. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:08 am

    Why not Raymond, Natalie, Evan and David?

    Well Raymond and Evan were peddling a book deal after the settlement, Evan had that pesky extortion thing to get past the jury, plus his molestation album and movie deals. David could only incriminate Evan and never saw Jordan being molested, and that just leaves us Natalie.


  42. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:09 am

    “I really don’t understand why the DA never tried to have all the family in the stand. Why did they chose the Neverland five instead of them?” – Shelly

    Why not the Neverland five AND the Chandler 5!


  43. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:11 am

    Make that the Chandler 4, or better yet C4 like the explosive.


  44. lynande51 permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:13 am

    @Teva and Shelley well knowing that they could have been force to testify, what does that say? Sneddon could have had them Subpoenaed at any time and forced to testify against the person they accused and yet he and the Chandler’s minus June refused to testify and even fought it in court. He knew that his statments over the entire trial were false when he said that he knew that Michael was guiltyand that everything he pointed at as evidence was nothing but his own opinion.


  45. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 3:15 am


    “He knew that his statments over the entire trial were false when he said that he knew that Michael was guiltyand that everything he pointed at as evidence was nothing but his own opinion.” – lynande51

    I agree with you on alot of things, but I don’t agree that Sneddon thought Michael was innocent. I personally believe Sneddon believed in the varacity of the Chandlers’ story and the Arvizos’. That tunnel vision made him ignore exculpatory evidence, and made him irrational.

    When Shelly pointed out the fact that Jordan was a cooperating witnesses for 5 months after the settlement it made me think why at that point didn’t Sneddon arrest Michael, he had all the ammunition he needed. The 1108 evidence was all gathered from the 1993 case they were no other cases, so why wasn’t Michael arrested. Here is my theory – I think Sneddon KNEW he could not secure a conviction even with Jordan’s testimony, and had he charged Michael there was a very strong possibility of an acquittal and the Double Jeopardy Law prevented him from retrying the case had he lose. So, he waited for what seemed like an eternity and along came the Arvizos. By that time Sneddon was overcome with Michael mania (in a bad way) that if the Mad Hatter told him he was mol..ted by MJ Sneddon would have believed him.


  46. lynande51 permalink
    May 5, 2011 1:53 pm

    Misunderstood again. When I said that he knew. I meant that he knew it was based on opinion, his opinion. He based his entire opinion, like I said, on the settlement. In many of the pleadings he submitted he refered to it as, an eight figure settlement, and reported to be in excess of 20 million dollars, and in one the even included the snide remark : the garden of multimillion dollar settlements.The key word is reported to be and what was told to him.I think in 1994 when Jordan told him he wasn’t g oing to testify he or his father actually told him that the reason he didn’t testify was because of the settlement, thus perpetuating the lie and continuing the saga. The fact is he wanted to believe it, there was no other answer.


  47. shelly permalink
    May 5, 2011 5:21 pm


    He subpoaned them, they are on the prosecution witness list, but he never wants them to testify. No one has the right to refuse to testify. It’s Sneddon and his team who didn’t want them.


  48. May 5, 2011 9:32 pm

    “I agree with you Shelly the other Chandlers especially Natalie could have been called as material witnesses to bolster their case, but they weren’t only June was called. It was not a question of one or the other, it could have been all 5 of them. So why only June?”

    Teva, the only explanation I see for it is that the prosecution wasn’t sure of them and didn’t want them to be cross-examined. June was their only choice because she is made of steel and is a very hard nut to crack (you should read her testimony to really feel it).

    Ray Chandler offered their own laughable explanation why none of them was testifying:

    Uncle of 1993 Jackson Accuser Speaks Out

    Dec. 6, 2004 – The uncle of the boy who Michael Jackson accused of molestation in 1994 says the boy’s parents did not go forward with a criminal case felt because they were threatened and denied a request to join the witness protection program.

    “One of the biggest myths is that the family refused [to cooperate with prosecutors],” Ray Chandler told “Good Morning America” in an exclusive interview today.”They only did it because they were refused requested protection. They wanted to be put in witness protection program, and that request was refused.”

    (back translation from Spanish:


  49. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 10:29 pm


    ” June was their only choice because she is made of steel and is a very hard nut to crack (you should read her testimony to really feel it). “- VindicateMJ

    True, they believed she could withstand the cross examination the best, but I also believed that they wanted to get out there the fact that Jordan had not spoken to her for 11 years.


  50. Teva permalink
    May 5, 2011 10:55 pm


    I apologize if I misunderstood your point.


  51. Dialdancer permalink
    May 6, 2011 5:33 am

    @ Suzy,

    “I wonder how VG got that picture of MJ in his pajama.”

    Take another long look at that picture, the entire room.

    And why would you take a picture of someone in their pajamas?


  52. lynande51 permalink
    May 6, 2011 8:11 am

    The photo is one that Jordan took at his house with a polaroid camera tath Micahel ahd given him. IT was at the Chandler’s ( Evan’s) house. It was given to him by the family.



  1. Les démarches des médias pendant les procès de Michael Jackson « "Mon reflet dans le miroir… c’est toi" – Blog des amis de MJ

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: