Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the DEFENSE?

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 mjeol.com:

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: http://site2.mjeol.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1091

*   *   *

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?