Skip to content

THE CHANDLERS: the history of lies and distortion 2

July 2, 2010

THE FIRST MEETING

We are not yet finished with Larry King’s talk with RAY CHANDLER on November 25, 2003. Now the interview is taking us to the circumstances under which Michael Jackson met Jordan Chandler for the first time:

KING: Give me as best as you can remember the circumstances under which Michael befriended your nephew?
CHANDLER: Well, it was a simple twist of fate, really. Michael was driving down (unintelligible) Boulevard incognito and — as he would often do to go out without getting mobbed, his car stalled. He was having car trouble. An office worker on the side saw a man in trouble, asked if she could help. He said, yes. Going up to the floor in an elevator. She realized who it was and he said, yes, I’m Michael Jackson. She said, you know, my husband works for a car rental company, this was Rent-a-Wreck in Santa Monica. I’m sure they’d be glad to help you. Well, she called and her husband’s boss was my nephew’s step brother. My brother and mother were separated, had different (unintelligible). And he said, yes, I’ll send a limo for him, I’ll send a tow truck and then called his wife and said you’ll never guess who’s coming down here. Bring the kids down.

KING: That’s how they met?
CHANDLER: That’s how they met. Michael took the boy’s phone number.
KING: Took it right there? The mother no complaint about or stepfather had no complaint of the taking of the number by Jackson? There was no reason to think of anything?
CHANDLER: No, at that point it was very innocent. Or seemed innocent.

What an outrageous way to discuss the innocent procedure of getting anybody’s telephone! If they go on in the same manner they will soon describe a simple handshake as a sign of an abuse! The way they speak of this ‘taking the boy’s number’ issue it looks really sinister – something like “a sexual predator spotting an easy prey and unsuspecting parents falling into his trap”.

Why would Larry King ask this crazy question about the mother and stepfather not complaining about Jackson taking their number? Had Michael’s reputation been harmed so irreparably by the time of the interview that Larry couldn’t even imagine the way the exchange of telephones would have taken place back in the 90s, if someone had  had a chance meeting with a star like Michael Jackson then?

Well, to be able to see the way it really happened let us compare the accounts of the first meeting made by three different members of the family – Ray Chandler, Jordan Chandler and his mother June Chandler.

As to Ray’s/Larry’s story we are already familiar with their sinister version, so let’s see what JUNE CHANDLER has to say about that telephone incident (see her testimony at the 2005 trial):

Q. …do you recall how long you were with Mr. Jackson and Jordan that day?

A. Briefly. Five minutes. Ten minutes.

Q. And did — was there any information exchanged between you and Mr. Jackson that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. I said, “If you would like to see Jordie or if he could call you or if you’d like to speak to him, here is our number, and you can give him a call.”

Q. And you gave that to Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, let me go back in time. Before this meeting that you had at your husband’s place of business in 1992, had Jordan ever expressed, to your knowledge, some admiration for Mr. Jackson?

A. Oh, very much so, yes.

And this is how JORDAN CHANDLER describes the same situation in his talk with psychiatrist Dr. Gardner in October 1993 .

– My stepfather took him [Michael] outside to choose a car for him to use. And I guess when my stepfather was outside he said, ‘You don’t have to pay for the car if you just take Jordie’s number and give him a call’.
– Why would your stepfather say that?
– Because my stepfather knows I was interested in Michael Jackson and his music.
– And this was in your presence?
– No. I was told this by my stepfather.

Wait, are these three stories about one and the same thing or are they about three different events?  Would you know that these people were describing one and the same episode if I hadn’t told you in advance?

And what do you think of the cool and matter-of-fact version by June Chandler who seems to be emphasizing the idea that Michael “CAN give the boy a call” – as if she were the boss of the situation, weren’t thrilled by this chance encounter and weren’t looking forward to Michael calling them back at all?

Interesting how this small example gives you an insight into the character of each of the people involved in this play?

I don’t know which variant is preferable to you – to me Jordan’s version seems to be the most credible of all. It is only natural to imagine the excitement of their first meeting and the lucky chance taken by dear old David Shwartz who asked Michael for a favor – call my stepson, who is your diehard fan, and I’ll give you a car free in exchange for it…  No wonder Michael thought he was somehow bound by that goodwill gesture, kept his promise and called the boy back.

Oh, my God – how far is the real story from that sinister innuendoes we’ve just seen in Ray Chandler’s interview!

If the whole of his “All that Glitters” book is slanted in the same manner (which I never doubt for a second) and if the book is not a deliberate attempt to drug Michael through all this mud and the feeling displayed by the author is genuine (which I do doubt very much indeed) it means that we are at best looking into Ray or Evan Chandler’s own dark world of dirty suspicion, ill motivation, evil thought and cynical behavior…

To make the picture of the first meeting complete let me quote to you the remainder of Jordan’s conversation with psychiatrist Dr. Gardner about the period following their chance meeting in May 1992 – just to give you some insight into Jordan’s character too.

But before that here is what Ray Chandler writes in his book about Jordan’s adulation for Michael Jackson even before he met him in person:

“By age 6 Jordie had memorized the words to half a dozen Jackson songs and taught himself many of the star’s dance moves. One evening Jordie generated in instant crowd when he launched into his MJ routine to the sound of Beat It blasting from a radio Dave had bought.”Wow, look at him go”, one onlooker shouted as she threw a dollar into the hat that Dave had jokingly placed on the ground.

Two weeks before his 8th birthday Jordan strutted his stuff for the entire family. No sooner had he hit the dance floor when a circle gathered around the boy, three generations whooping and cheering as he twirled and moon-walked to The Way You Make Me Feel. Jordie’s grandmother was so impressed she went home that evening and knitted him a sequined glove to add to his routine.”

And this is how the same boy recounts to the psychiatrist the phone calls that followed his first meeting with Michael Jackson in the period from May 1992 to February 1993  when he met him again:

–   My stepfather took him [Michael] outside to choose a car for him to use. And I guess when my stepfather was outside he said, ‘You don’t have to pay for the car if you just take Jordie’s number and give him a call’.
–   Why would your stepfather say that?
–   Because my stepfather knows I was interested in Michael Jackson and his music.
–   And this was in your presence?
–   No. I was told this by my stepfather
.

“So what happened then?”-

“Then he left.”

“Did he agree to the deal, Jackson?”

Yeah.”

“Okay, then what happened?”

“I don’t remember how many days later, but he called me.”

“What did he say?”

“He said… I don’t really remember, but I remember the conversations we had on the phone around the early days of our relationship.”

“That was the beginning of the relationship, is that correct?”

“Right.”

“How long did the first call last?”

“I don’t remember. I don’t remember the very first call.”

“In this first phase, let’s call it the telephone call phase.  I would like to try to break it down into phases.  This first phase was started around May of ’92; that phase which was confined just to telephone calls.  How long did that phase last?”

“I would say sometime in late January of this year [1993].”

“How often were the calls during this phase?”

“Well, see, he went on tour during the summer so that was when I got off of school, so I would say June or so. But before that he called – – I don’t know, I don’t want to guess wrong.  I don’t know.”

“If you could guess the total number of calls during that first phase, over that seven or eight month period?”

“I don’t know.  Do you think I could tell you – get more specific in the phase – and let’s see there?  So, well, I remember – – he called over there at my dad’s house but my step-father had gave him my mom’s number.”

“You were living primarily with your mother at that point.”

“Yes.”

“Okay.”

“And so, I assume he – – I can’t really remember but I assume he was used to calling my mother’s house.  And so he called my dad’s house.  I don’t know, I think my mother gave him the number.  We spoke for, I remember, for like three hours.”

“You had conversations for three hours?”

“Well, that one call.”

“There was one phone call for three-hours; we’re talking about the telephone phase now.”

“Well, I’m trying to be specific and then when I’m finished – –

“Was it all in that time frame now, I want to stick with that time frame?”

“Right, I know, well I have to remember what happened.”

“Sure, but I’m going to interrupt you to clarify.  Was there more than one three-hour telephone call during the telephone phase?”

“Yes.”

“About how many, roughly, were there?”

“I don’t know, it could be – – ”

“More than ten?  Was it roughly 5-10 such calls to the best of your ability?  Would that be an accurate statement?”

(Inaudible.)

–         “Okay, that’s all.  I don’t expect you to (inaudible) but if you could narrow it down to a rough guess and we’re able to indicate that that’s a guess then that’s fine.”

–         “Okay, well – – – – ”

What impression does Jordan Chandler produce on you here? STRANGELY UNEMOTIONAL, INDIFFERENT, DISINTERESTED, BORED AND A LITTLE  BOSSY, isn’t he?

Why is he that way?

Is it because he is forced to play some kind of a role? And understands his importance too?

And isn’t it surprising that when speaking to FBI agents ten years later he would refuse to testify, saying something which would strangely remind us of this role ?

“I’m not interested in testifying against Michael Jackson. I’VE DONE MY PART”

95 Comments leave one →
  1. March 14, 2011 3:16 pm

    “So the Grand Jury in the 93 case was shown the photos of Michael’s private parts, right? They were shown that drawing of Jordan’s were he had sketched Michae’s penis right? They were shown the interview of Jordan’s with the first psychiatrist, dr. Gardner, etc.?”

    Visitor, sorry, I cannot assure you that the grand jury saw everything, because we don’t have access to their transcripts (we’ve recently learned that the transcripts are made public only in case of an indictment which did not take place in 1994).

    So we can only assume what the jury did or didn’t see. But I doubt that the prosecution showed them the evidence which was detrimental to their side. Because if they had shown the jury both the photos and Linden’s affidavit the discrepancies would have been too noticeable. So the jury most probably saw the ‘damning’ affidavit and didn’t see the exculpating photos.

    You remember that Larry Feldman interfered into the process and demanded that the photos should be “barred” from the trial? The other option Larry Feldman suggested was to provide their side with copies of the photos and arrange a new strip show for Jackson after that.

    Can you imagine how different those photos were from Jordan’s description if Larry Feldman wanted them barred??? Or – as an alternative – wanted Jordan to have a look at those photos, make a better description and then have another photo session of Jackson? The whole thing is laughable!

    This crucial matter unfortunately escapes the attention of most people as this news was reported only once and very briefly – in “Los Angeles County News in Brief”.

    Fortunately Lynette found it – see her post about it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/personal-pages/lynettes-page/

    Like

  2. lynande51 permalink
    March 14, 2011 2:53 pm

    I am going to be a little graphic here. In the article from The Smoking Gun Linden’s affadavit says the blemish is light. In Russ Birchims version of the “body search” it is dark and on the left. In Sneddons Declaration it is dark and on the right. Michael was right handed and obviously Sneddon had never masturbated in his life or he would have known that Michaels hand would have covered the right side of his penis when he was masturbating because when men masturbate they use their dominant hand most of the time.

    Like

  3. Suzy permalink
    March 14, 2011 2:37 pm

    @ thetis7

    Yes, that’s the bottom line. And also it’s very telling that Sneddon only tried to trick with this “evidence” towards the end of the trial. If it had been the ultimate evidence he should have tried to show them right at the beginning of the 1108 evidence part! That he only tried to pull it towards the end, when everything seemed lost for him, is very telling. Desperation indeed.

    Like

  4. March 14, 2011 2:30 pm

    @ Suzy if the photos matched, MJ would have been arrested on probable cause. That’s the law. No arrest = no match. And don’t forget Larry Feldman who asked the court to bar the photos from the civil trial. We are talking about desperation here, seriously.

    Like

  5. Suzy permalink
    March 14, 2011 2:26 pm

    I personally think if the photos had matched we would have them leaked by now. Sneddon leaked so many things to his friend, Miss Dimond, why not the ultimate evidence, if true?

    Like

  6. March 14, 2011 2:20 pm

    Of course they can indict if they have enough evidence. And they specifically said they didn’t have them.

    Like

  7. visitor permalink
    March 14, 2011 1:14 pm

    So the Grand Jury in the 93 case was shown the photos of Michael’s private parts, right? They were shown that drawing of Jordan’s were he had sketched Michae’s penis right? They were shown the interview of Jordan’s with the first psychiatrist, dr. Gardner, sorry i don’t remember the name, and all the interviews that he had done were he describes in a very graphic and disturbing way the things that Michael had allegedly done to him. So the Grand Jury had seen all this things, photos, sketches, Jordans interviews. They had the opportunity to compare photos and drawings, read Jordan’s graphic descriptions but they didn’t indict Michael? So i imagine that they did all those things and when asked why they didn’t indict Michael they said that “they were never shown enough evidence” But if the photos matched Jordan’s description combined with the graphic tales of him, wouldn’t that be enough reason to indict?

    Like

  8. March 14, 2011 1:14 pm

    “the original News Press article is listed in the archives I have sent you”

    Olga, oh, I am sorry then – there is so much of everything that I increasingly get lost in all this material.
    By the way I tried to find this article in the archives, and as usual came across something completely different – the information about the grand jury which our opponent D. interpreted in her own way (now I see why D. claimed the jury convened only for investigative purposes). One of the article says:

    February 05, 1994|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
    A Santa Barbara County Grand Jury will convene next week to begin hearing testimony about whether Michael Jackson sexually molested a boy over a period of several months last year, sources close to the investigation said Friday.
    Subpoenas already have been delivered to a number of witnesses, the sources said. They added, however, that neither Jackson nor his young accuser so far has been asked to testify.
    The grand jury’s actions do not necessarily signal that an indictment is on the horizon. Grand juries often are used to gather evidence, not just to consider indictments.
    But the decision to convene the grand jury sends the strongest signal yet that the criminal investigations of the entertainer are continuing despite last month’s settlement of a civil case brought against him by his alleged victim.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-05/local/me-19273_1_santa-barbara

    So grand juries do convene to investigate, but if they find enough evidence as a result of the investigation they have the authority to indict too. And it doesn’t mean that there are two types of jury – one investigates and the other indicts. No, it is just a two-stage process, where stage A is not necessarily followed by stage B.
    In the 1993/94 they did investigate but found nothing to indict Michael for!

    Like

  9. March 14, 2011 12:36 pm

    Helena the original News Press article is listed in the archives I have sent you

    Like

  10. March 14, 2011 12:27 pm

    “At that time, detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties interviewed more than 400 witnesses over 13 months then called 30 witnesses to testify before the grand jury in Santa Barbara in 1994. The News-Press said it conducted recent interviews with some members of that grand jury who said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment.”

    Frankly, I don’t know whom to thank first for the great comments you’ve left in the blog. The job all the readers are doing is absolutely fantastic!

    Shelly, you are definitely the one I owe a big thank you for the rare documents you always manage to find. You are really a great help and I appreciate it very much.

    So several members of the grand jury in 1994 said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment? Even despite the 13 months of Tom Sneddon’s and Gil Garcetti’s efforts? And despite all those humiliating photos of Michael Jackson naked and the colorful interviews from Jordan Chandler both before and after the settlement?

    Can you imagine how shaky the 1993 case was if Tom Sneddon (who managed to make the Grand Jury indict MJ in the laughable Arvizo case) could not do the same with the Chandler case???

    And Jordan’s refusal to testify in a criminal court had nothing to do with it! The jury surely got familiar with the transcripts of all his interviews – however one crucial thing was missing among all that fiction – his DEPOSITION which is probably the only thing that does really have “evidential value”. The deposition was missing because it was to be taken in the presence of defense attorneys from the other side who had the right to cross-examine Jordan, and he was afraid of it (as he confessed to Dr. Gardner in that psychiatric interview – he said it was the only thing he was afraid of).

    And this means that Jordan Chandler didn’t want to testify not only at a trial – he didn’t want to expose himself to a cross-examination even at a preliminary stage. Johnnie Cochran confirmed that Jordan had never been deposed (you can read about it in Lisa Campbell’s book). And as far as I remember none of the Chandlers’ family was deposed either.

    This partially answers the question asked earlier whether Evan Chandler gave his testimony to the Grand Jury or not. I can’t say it for certain, but if he refused to be deposed, he must have refused to testify before the Grand Jury in person all the more so.

    P.S. Here is an excerpt from Lisa Campbell’s book:

    “With the grand jury convening in Santa Barbara, the scandal hungry tabloid TV shows once again kicked into high gear. A Current Affair offered up an interview with attorney Gloria Allred for her perspective on the story. What an objective, impartial observer – an attorney who had represented the boy at the beginning of the whole thing!

    The very next day, the same scandal featured a dramatization of the supposed seduction by Michael Jackson of the boy. The dramatization included portions of depositions taken from two housekeepers, Gail Goforth and Adrian McManus who were both described as hostile witnesses, Blanca Francia, as well as footage of a Michael Jackson impersonator with a young boy. This infuriated Michael’s attorneys who hoped to encourage Michael to sue the show.

    The show’s host, Maureen O’Boyle, appeared via satellite on the Bertice Berry Show to defend her show, where she was repeatedly verbally attacked by audience members for her show’s disregard for ethics. Questioned about the fairness in airing the program after the case had been settled, O’Boyle claimed the story was balanced. O’Boyle maintained that the dramatization, featuring a Michael Jackson look-a-like with a young boy, was based on the deposition of the boy.

    In a taped interview, Johnnie Cochran stated there was never a deposition taken from the boy. Cochran stated further that in her deposition for the civil case, the maid stated she never did see Michael Jackson in the shower with anybody, and she never saw Michael Jackson molest anybody.

    Like

  11. lcpledwards permalink
    March 13, 2011 5:36 am

    @ Shelly
    Thank you for those 2 links! That info on the grand jury will definitely come in handy to me!

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    March 12, 2011 10:36 pm

    D.A. convenes grand jury to avoid Jackson hearing
    Article from:Oakland Tribune Article date:March 11, 2004Author:Linda Deutsch, Associated PressMore results for:Linda Deutsch michael jackson

    LOS ANGELES — The district attorney who charged Michael Jackson with child molestation is convening a grand jury to hear evidence in the case, a move apparently designed to sidestep what could be a lengthy preliminary hearing, a newspaper reported Wed-nesday.

    Citing unnamed legal sources, the Santa Barbara News-Press said potential grand jurors have been receiving summonses to appear later this month for possible selection to a 19-member panel to hear the Jackson case.

    A spokesman for Tellem Worldwide, which handles media inquiries for Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, said a grand jury is being convened. But he could not say whether it is for the Jackson case or another matter.

    The business of the grand jury is confidential, said Jason Karpf of Tellem. There is also a gag order in the Jackson case.

    Sneddon told Tellem a grand jury is being convened but would not say why.

    Tom pointed out that the office convenes a grand jury every quarter, Karpf said. So this could be considered part of their standard activity. We can’t say.

    Jackson’s lawyers, Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman, said Wednesday they could not comment due to a gag order issued by the judge in the Jackson case.

    “It doesn’t surprise me if he has decided to go to the grand jury,” said Loyola University Law School Professor Laurie Levenson. “It’s the smart thing to do. It avoids the media spectacle and it gives them a chance for a dress rehearsal before a possible trial.”

    She said prosecutors almost certainly would have to present testimony to the grand jury behind closed doors from the boy who claims Jackson molested him.

    They get to see how well he holds up as a witness, she said. It also shifts the political pressure away from Sneddon if the grand jury decides there is not enough evidence to indict.

    Jackson has pleaded innocent to seven counts of performing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14.

    and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, reportedly wine. He is free on $3 million bail pending trial.

    The defense is not allowed to present evidence in a secret grand jury proceeding. But prosecutors are obligated to tell the panelists about any evidence that might tend to point toward innocence.

    The News-Press noted that the use of a grand jury parallels the 1993 investigation into child molestation allegations against Jackson. At that time, detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties interviewed more than 400 witnesses over 13 months then called 30 witnesses to testify before the grand jury in Santa Barbara in 1994.

    The News-Press said it conducted recent interviews with some members of that grand jury who said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment.

    The case was dropped when Jackson reached a multimillion dollar settlement with the accuser, who then refused to testify.

    If a grand jury is not convened, prosecutors would present a bare- bones version of their case in open court during a preliminary hearing to establish whether there is enough evidence to hold Jackson for trial.

    The next pretrial hearing in the case is set for April 2 at which time the judge is expected to set a date for the preliminary hearing, which could take weeks to conclude.

    Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has said he wants the Jackson case to go to trial before the end of the year.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6978389.html

    Like

  13. shelly permalink
    March 12, 2011 10:03 pm

    It’s from MJEOLSHOW: Showbiz Today 5:32 pm ET May 2, 1994 Transcript # 532-1 TYPE: Show SECTION: Entertainment LENGTH: 435 words
    HEADLINE: Grand Jury Disbanded in Michael Jackson Case

    BYLINE: JIM MORET HIGHLIGHT: The grand jury in the Michael Jackson investigation has been disbanded, and one jury member said no damaging evidence was heard. Jackson’s attorney said he believes no criminal charges will ever be filed.

    BODY: JIM MORET, Anchor: More than eight months after a teenage boy first accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation, it remains unclear whether criminal charges will ever be filed against the superstar. After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action.
    HOWARD WEITZMAN, Jackson Attorney: I did not believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all.
    MORET: One juror told CNN he did not hear any damaging testimony during the hearings. CNN has previously reported the panel was never asked to render an indictment, and that no vote was taken to do so. The 19-member panel was used as in information gathering tool, compelling testimony from witnesses, including former Jackson valet Miko Brando, former Jackson private investigator Anthony Pelicano, and the mother of a boy who admitted to CNN to having slept with the entertainer in the same bed. But in a joint statement released last week, both Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr.and L.A. District Attorney Gil Garcetti declined to predict when the investigation would conclude. The dismissal of the Santa Barbara County grand jury, however, does not mean the investigation is over.
    Mr. WEITZMAN: I think, it’s a guess, this district attorney in Santa Barbara County could definitely impanel another grand jury for reasons unbeknownst to me, and this grand jury in Los Angeles could continue to try and call witnesses.
    MORET: Law enforcement officials in both counties began their criminal probes last August, when a then-13-year-old boy accused the entertainer of sexual abuse during a five-month relationship. The teenager filed a civil suit against Jackson, but it was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, with reports ranging from $5 million to $50 million. When contacted by CNN, neither the Santa Barbara nor Los Angeles County District Attorneys would comment on the status of the Jackson case. Meanwhile, Michael Jackson’s attorney tell us the entertainer is in New York recording a new album. Howard Weitzman says Jackson sounds well, he’s energetic, and wants to put all of this behind him.
    The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape. LOAD-DATE: May 3, 1994

    http://site2.mjeol.com/important-article/jackson-grand-jury-disbanded-1994.html

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    March 12, 2011 8:50 pm

    David, I have the transcripts to the CNN report on those 2 Grand Jurys if you would like it.

    Like

  15. lcpledwards permalink
    March 12, 2011 8:42 pm

    @ MC
    Thank you for that info! I’ll be sure to use it in my upcoming post!

    Like

  16. March 11, 2011 3:28 pm

    David,

    Regarding the indicting vs. investigative grand jury matter. From the Veritas Project:

    “In 1994, two grand juries were convened to hear evidence in the Jackson case but no charges were ever brought; in fact, evidence was so scant that prosecutors did not even ask for an indictment. According to a report from CNN that aired on May 2, 1994: “One jury member said no damaging evidence was heard.””

    Did not ASK for an indictment? Interesting!

    Like

  17. March 10, 2011 11:34 pm

    I think Michael had an obsessive personality period. By obsessive I mean passionate, he threw himself 100% into whatever he felt strongly about. I read Michael took years to complete an album sometimes over recording and having the musicians do take after take until it was perfect, even sleeping at the studio. His book collection was impressive; I think one of his attorneys said he had one of the largest privately owned libraries in the world. His love of art – I wouldn’t know where to start with this one; he was obsessed/passionate about art. His charitable works …. . I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point. I think that kind of personality spilled over into all facets of his life, and yes included children.

    Like

  18. March 10, 2011 7:10 pm

    I completely agree that he is not emoting over sleeping with her son, and an exaggeration of circumstances is a highly likely scenario.

    On cross examination Mesereau acknowledges that Michael became “upset” and puts the discussion, Michael’s feelings and hers, in the accurate context. She concedes that lack of trust in men after failed relationships are at the heart of the exchange between them, and it is pretty clear that inclusion and treatment as a “family” member is important to MJ.

    Problem is that her testimony in this case is widely regarded as one that convincingly demonstrates Michael’s “obsession” to sleep with boys, and among the most damaging to Michael.

    What I attempted to convey is that I understand how the average observer will likely isolate this emotional scene and view her testimony as proof of a “pattern” of obsessing over and insisting on being alone with boys, as the DAs attempted to present, and an “unhealthy” mental state. By and large, folks find it just “too weird and obsessive” for an adult male. And, EVEN once MJ’s behavior and reaction are explained, most are unwilling to accept Michael as a highly-sensitive, complex, unconventional, creative genius who happens to EMOTE (crying or not) in a way that is atypical for most men.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    March 10, 2011 4:31 am

    ” “You would think that an office like the D.A.’s would investigate these charges before making these accusations.”

    Not properly background checking information seems to be a constant problem with these DAs….

    @ Alison

    I agree completely. I don’t believe that Michael cried and demanded that Jordan would stay in his room. First off, he NEVER did that with any kid, why would he do this with Jordan? All the time you heard accounts how it were children who wanted to sleep in his room and it wasn’t Michael who demanded them to stay there. All the time you hear people say how Michael wanted kids to obey their parents. So this scene just doesn’t fit this.

    Second, June’s testimony was basically useless for the prosecution. She said she never witnessed abuse. So I guess she had some pressure from the prosecution to come up with at least something. And this is what she came up with. I personally think it may be an exaggeration (or maybe never happened altogether). What I find most likely is that Jordan wanted to stay in Michael’s room but mom wanted him to stay with her. Then Jordan asked Michael to ask his mother for it and Michael did, but I definitely don’t think it was this crying and demanding stuff as described by June. This wouldn’t be the only thing she was less than honest about in her testimony – she was caught lying several times. So I don’t think we should give much credit to her words about it.

    Like

  20. Alison permalink
    March 10, 2011 12:13 am

    @ Maral
    “Honestly, I do see how one would view a grown man behaving in this manner suspiciously, but MJ was not a conventional person in any way.”

    Personally I don’t believe this story about MJ crying at that time. I am sure it was made up to make him look bad and more guilty and it was potentially believable because everyone knew he was a sensitive person, and because of the general perception of him being immature (which i don’t think either but its part of the picture of lies built up about him) but i just don’t think it was true, it was part of the scam.

    Like

  21. March 9, 2011 9:54 pm

    @ Maral the crew is not listed in the making of video but in this site where the crew is listed the scam is not in

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088263/fullcredits#cast

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:39 pm

    @Maral

    This is what Reynosa said in 1993

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lD0PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F4YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6371,5422424&dq=eddie+reynoza+michael+jackson&hl=en

    At that time he never claimed MJ raped him.

    As for O.J. Simpson, it’s from an article from the LA Times called Simpson Prosecutors Drop 18 Allegations Trial: They say some of the domestic abuse claims could be reintroduced. Defense complains of a smear campaign, published on Jan 13, 1995

    “One allegation that prosecutors withdrew was based on statements by an actor named Eddie Reynoza, who said Simpson had threatened to cut the heads off his ex-wife’s boyfriends if they drove his cars. Reynoza, however, also claimed to have evidence during the Michael Jackson investigation-alleging that Jackson molested children and that he would never return to the United States, among other things. Jackson has never been criminally charged and is in the United States.

    Reynoza’s connection to the Jackson case, reported in The Times, was overlooked in much of the television and wire service coverage of Wednesday’s hearing, and defense attorneys demanded that prosecutors publicly clarify that his statements were no longer part of the allegations against Simpson.

    The discussion of the Reynoza allegations during Wednesday’s hearing particularly incensed defense lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., who represented Jackson during the child molestation case and the civil suit that arose from it. Cochran said prosecutors should have been aware of Reynoza’s credibility problems and should never have included his allegations in their motion or in their courtroom presentation, which was broadcast on national television.

    “This proves that these unsubstantiated charges should not be relied upon before they are tested in court,” said Cochran, who was especially critical of Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman, one of the prosecutors in the Simpson case who also was involved in the Jackson investigation. “You would think that an office like the D.A.’s would investigate these charges before making these accusations.”

    Like

  23. March 9, 2011 8:15 pm

    Thanks for all of your replies!

    David, I am eager to read your post!

    As I’ve just begun to tap into this great source of information, I apologize if the answers to my questions are provided on the site.

    Do we know if Evan Chandler was called to testify before the grand jury? I don’t know who would have made a more compelling eye-witness other than Jordan himself, as he was the one to whom the “revelation” was made and witnessed the “spooning” and “crotching” (made that one up!). If he was not called, I wonder WHY the grand jury would not have compelled him to explain the incidents.
    It seems abundantly clear that the man who vowed to “ruin” Jackson was desperately avoiding subjecting himself to a court of law, and the only place where he commits to anything legally is the settlement document. Correct?
    Those who are convinced of guilt believe the family was too fearful about the impact of the trial on Jordan and the family. Of course, concerns about the family’s welfare would be far more understandable had Evan Chandler not disclosed his grandiose plan and unequivocal vow to “bring him down” in partnership with the “nastiest son a b.” and others. Seems unsustainable to me.
    BTW, as you are probably aware, the tapes between Chandler and Schwartz were discredited because they were likely altered by the PI. While some of the conversations may have been taken a bit out of context when used and presented in reporting, it is highly doubtful that those key statements made by Chandler were altered to the extent that they could have different meaning. He declared he would bring Jackson down in a complex fashion, and he did! Thinking people know that going to the police would have involved a phone call, sworn statements, and a “nasty” prosecutor!
    On the tape, I also wonder why Chandler is unwilling to share his “suspicions” (whatever he is unwilling to share) with the stepfather when Schwartz asks at one point if Chandler thinks MJ is sexually involved with Jordan. Here, he was obviously willing to provide the “I don’t know” answer, then it stands to reason that he is hiding and referring to something else when he is talking about what he is unwilling to share with Schwartz. Thoughts?

    Finally, when June Chandler is questioned on the stand about MJ’s emotional plea to allow him to sleep with Jordan, I thought:

    What person who is prepared to rape/sexually assault a child would stand there, cry about sleeping with someone’s child and attempt to negotiate sleeping arrangements? Bold mastermind, you’ll hear!!Honestly, I do see how one would view a grown man behaving in this manner suspiciously, but MJ was not a conventional person in any way.

    In his own words, Michael told the world he was perhaps the “loneliest soul on the planet”, had virtually no confidence when it came to meeting women and relationships, was uncomfortable around adults, and cried A LOT! Furthermore, if the Glenda Tapes are authentic (sure sounds that way!), his father told him he was “too black”!

    Based on these profound insecurities and what I’ve come to understand about MJ’s highly sensitive nature, it does not surprise me that he would cry over haunting feelings of rejection.

    Thanks for reading.

    Gotta run for now!

    Like

  24. March 9, 2011 8:09 pm

    @Maral there was no interview of any rape accusations. This laughable press release appeared by his manager during the Arvizo case. Probably his manager thought it was a chance to advertise his nobody client. It took him loooooooooooong time to come up with this because back in 1993 the only thing he had to say was his fictional call from Michael. In the OJ Simpson case he probably had a dream and he made rounds claiming he was a “witness”. I don’t know if he worked for Thriller. Michael said he didn’t know him. I will check the credits and will get back to you

    Like

  25. Maral permalink
    March 9, 2011 7:56 pm

    “Michael said he didn’t know who this guy was.” wasn’t he a dancer in Thriller?

    i’m looking forward to your post.
    guys i’m sorry i put everything under the microscope but that’s how i was raised.

    Like

  26. Maral permalink
    March 9, 2011 7:48 pm

    @ thetis7
    what did he say about OJ? and how can he be discredited about MJ? and if he did interviews openly claiming MJ raped him why didn’t Sneddon or FBI mention him? sounds strange

    Like

  27. March 9, 2011 6:53 pm

    @Maral the only settlements were with Francia and Chandler. Reynoza was a scam that used to manipulate the popular stories like MJ and O.J. Simpson to appear in the news and he was always discredited. You will read about him in my future post. Michael said he didn’t know who this guy was.

    Like

  28. shelly permalink
    March 9, 2011 6:51 pm

    @Mara,

    I think you shouldn’t give credit to what Reynoza said. Yiu should go on google news year 1993. At that time period he did lots of interviews, claiming that he received a phone call from MJ who told him he wanted to leave the US for ever. The only problem is when he said that MJ was already back in the US

    Like

  29. Maral permalink
    March 9, 2011 6:31 pm

    [I] As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim,[B] because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.[/B][/I]
    so the alleged victim wasn’t even interviewed or claimed anything happened? choker! NOT!

    however i still wonder about Eddie Reynoza. why would he claim such a thing? while searching for his story, which i can’t find, i found this link. http://rockandrollbookofthedead.com/blogs/141-michael-jackson-history-3-the-bad-chronology
    it claims more boys were payed…….

    thank you everyone. it is very helpful to have a place to go to when things gets too confusing.

    Like

  30. Suzy permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:50 pm

    @ Lynette

    Plus there was a court order against Chacon, Abdool and McManus stating they stole from Michael. They were ordered to pay him $1.4 million, which they never did, instead they filed for bankruptcy.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    March 9, 2011 4:42 pm

    Yes they could have and would have indicted if they had found the evidence supported the crime. What seems to completely escape most of the haters is what these allegations did to a young Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macauley Kulkin. Here is a list of people who for their own gain did not think once about the effect that their lies might have had on them.
    1. Tom Sneddon
    2. Victor Gutierrez
    3. Evan Chandler
    4. Ralph Chacon
    5. Kassim Abdool
    6. Adrian MacManus
    7. Phillipe LeMarque
    8. Mark Quindoy
    9. Maureen Orth
    10 Diane Dimond
    Sneddon went to Australia to reinterview Brett following an interview in June of 1994 with Kassim Abdool and Ralph Chacon when they said they had seen things but were “afraid to say anything” to the Grand Jury. However it was amazing that they were not afraid to sit through a 6+ month law suit to win millions for being wrongfully terminated. The real kicker is that Kassim Abdool was once a sworn police officer in Trinidad. And it isn’t wrongful termination if you don’t have a job after suddenly not showing up for it ( all of them quit on the same day when they did not show up for work as scheduled.

    Like

  32. Olga permalink
    March 9, 2011 11:56 am

    Yes they could indict. Members of these grand juries gave interviews and said there were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment. That means they could have done it.

    Like

  33. lcpledwards permalink
    March 9, 2011 10:22 am

    @ Helena
    Thanks for those articles! I will surely incorporate them into my rebuttal, which I hope to post later this week after Lynette posts her article. I’m also waiting to hear from Lisa The Lawyer to get her expertise on it, which will be the icing on the cake (while your articles were the cake! LOL!)

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    March 9, 2011 10:19 am

    I don’t know if the law has changed since 1993 but I found that

    “The Grand Jury is part of the judicial branch of government and has three functions:

    To examine all aspects of city and county governments and special districts by initiating its own investigations.
    To serve as ombudsmen for the citizens of the cities and county
    To conduct criminal investigations and, if the evidence is sufficient, issue criminal indictments in lieu of a preliminary Superior Court hearing. ”

    http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/grandjury/gjfunction.htm

    Like

  35. Suzy permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:21 am

    I hope someone who is knowledgable about American law will clear this up about the grand juries. However just based on common sense what D. claims simply doesn’t make sense. I mean if this grand jury couldn’t indict, no matter what were the evidences, what was the point of it anyway? Just to spend time and taxpayer money? And this would suggest Sneddon didn’t really try to indict Michael, which is ridiculous.

    Like

  36. March 9, 2011 8:45 am

    “You might be aware that one of your “opponents” believes that MJ would have been indicted if the charges related to the 93 case were brought before an indicting grand jury, as opposed to an investigative one, which she stated was convened in 94. Are you in a position to comment on this?”

    @MC, not very much as I haven’t looked into it specifically, but all newspaper articles of that period speak of the grand juries as those which could indict MJ. Below are some quotes.

    In one of the articles they discuss whether grand jury can ask questions about the witness’s sexual orientation and refer to ‘several experienced lawyers’.
    In this connection they mention INDICTMENT as the goal of the inquiry. Also please note that it was Michael’s lawyers who repeatedly complained about the slow pace of criminal investigation (as if they wanted the indictment sooner?):

    March 31, 1994|JIM NEWTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER
    Prosecutors investigating allegations that Michael Jackson sexually molested a 13-year-old boy asked a witness to tell a grand jury about Jackson’s sexual orientation and to testify about his own sexual orientation as well, according to sources familiar with that witness’s testimony.

    The witness, an employee of Jackson who appeared before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recently, told his lawyer about the questions, and that attorney fired off an angry letter to the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County district attorney’s offices in response.

    In his letter, lawyer Richard M. Steingard accused prosecutors of exceeding the proper limits of grand jury questioning. Steingard wrote that grand jury questions must be limited to evidence that would be admissible in court–a contention that legal experts disputed even as some expressed reservations about inquiring into a witness’ sexual orientation.

    Steingard’s letter is the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara who are investigating the allegations against Jackson. The entertainer’s lawyers (!) have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry, which was launched last summer, while ministers, civil rights activists and other Jackson supporters have added their criticisms as well.

    Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said officials there could not comment on the allegations raised in Steingard’s letter. Prosecutors are prohibited by law from discussing any matters that are before a grand jury–even to confirm that a grand jury probe is under way.

    Legal experts, meanwhile, disputed Steingard’s reading of the law about the limits of grand jury inquiries.
    “The grand jury is given powers that we do not give police or prosecutors . . . and it may ask a broad range of questions whose relevancy might not be clear until other evidence is gathered,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who has extensively researched issues related to grand juries. “For the most part, the grand jury can ask whatever it wants.”

    During grand jury inquiries, prosecutors generally question witnesses, but jurors also can ask questions.

    Several experienced lawyers said they considered it highly unusual for prosecutors to inquire about a witness’ sexual orientation. One area of particular concern, they noted, is that state grand jury transcripts become public documents IF THE SUBJECT OF THE INQUIRY IS INDICTED. As a result, the information about the witness’ sexual orientation could become public if Jackson were indicted.

    Steingard’s letter indicates that his client was asked about three topics he considered objectionable: the sexual orientation of Jackson, the sexual orientation of Jackson associates and the witness’s own sexual orientation.
    “The grand jury can ask questions that are relevant to the inquiry,” said Donald M. Re, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. “Given the nature of this case, the first two questions may be proper. . . . The third question, ‘Are you yourself gay?’ gets a lot closer to the line.”

    Howard Weitzman, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said prosecutors have “spent considerable time, money and energy to construct a case that does not exist.” Although the lawyer said he did not know whether a witness had been questioned about Jackson’s sexual orientation or his own, Weitzman added: “If what (Steingard) claims in that letter is true and the investigation is now down to that level, it is a real sad commentary on the prosecution in this case.”

    The case has been under investigation since last summer, and an array of witnesses, including Jackson’s mother, have been forced to appear before grand juries meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Authorities in the two counties are conducting investigations because Jackson allegedly molested the boy in both jurisdictions.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-31/local/me-40405_1_grand-jury

    “Jackson has not been charged with a crime. A grand jury disbanded in July without indicting the singer, but the statute of limitations on child molestation charges runs six years, and the district attorney’s office has not said Jackson is in the clear.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/local/me-39356_1_michael-jackson

    The conclusions we can make from the above:
    – the grand juries convened to investigate and could indict in case they found enough evidence for it
    – if the subject of their inquiry had been indicted the grand jury transcripts would have become public documents
    – but since he was not these transcripts did not become public (which is a pity – we could have put them to a good use if they had been)

    Like

  37. March 9, 2011 8:24 am

    “I guess this second victim is just made up by the media”

    Even Victor Gutierrez refers to Larry Feldman as saying that there were no other “victims”:
    “During our conversation, Feldman expressed to me his uneasiness about the difficulty of finding more children to testify against Jackson.”

    And the scope of investigation is clear from this quote from Los Angeles Times:
    “Los Angeles police are focusing on the entertainer’s contact with at least four young boys, including a 13-year-old whose therapist was the first to report the alleged molestation, sources close to the investigation said Wednesday.
    “They are even interviewing friends of friends to see if they were told anything,” one of the sources said.”

    Like

  38. Suzy permalink
    March 9, 2011 6:47 am

    Thanks Lynette.

    Just like I suspected: it’s just Sneddon calling someone who always denied being abused a “victim”, just based on other people’s claims (in this case Jordan’s and possibly Chacon and Co. who all were trained by VG).

    Like

  39. lynande51 permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:51 am

    STATEMENT OF DECLINATION ISSUED JOINTLY BY
    THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICES
    OF LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARABARA COUNTIES

    September 21, 1994

    It became clear at the inception of the investigation into child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson that those allegations involved conduct that occurred in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties. Therefore, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office participated in a joint investigation of those allegations.

    After approximately one year, the investigation is now concluded. During the course of the investigation, approximately four hundred witnesses were contacted (some more than once) and additional thirty witnesses were called before grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Hundreds of “clues” from the public were probed. Much time was spent pursing potentially exonerating evidence as well as inculpatory evidence. Several leads were explored which later turned out to be false.

    The first alleged victim who came forward and who was the catalyst for this criminal investigation is the same individual who filed and settled a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson. The factual allegations underlying the civil lawsuit are identical to those which would support a criminal prosecution.

    However, at the present time this alleged victim has chosen to assert his rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 1219 and has declined to testify. This decision was not communicated to either prosecutorial agency until July 6, 1994. Until that time, the alleged victim had indicated his possible willingness to testify and we continued with our investigation.

    During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.

    As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.

    The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.

    In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be reevaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.

    This is the official Press Release from the 2 District Attorney about the 1993-1994 case. The other boy that they are refering to is Brett Barnes. They based this on the fact that Jordan told them that Michael had Mo**** Brett. Brett and his family were at Neverland when it was searched in August of 1993. He issued the general denial and then they went back to Australia. In June of 1994 Sneddon along with 2 detectives and Lauren Weiss the ADA from Los Angeles went to Melbourne to interview Brett again and were turned down. It just goes to show you how tenacious Sneddon was in his pursuit of Michael.Let’s watch what Brett, Wade and a German boy have to say about it.


    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    March 9, 2011 5:29 am

    @ MC

    I wonder how those who are convinced of Jackson’s guilt explain why Chandler’s declaration/statement and even closely “matching” body pictures were not sufficiently incriminating to a grand jury, given the entire proceeding is under the advisement and control of the DA.

    Not only that, but Ray Chandler himself wrote in his book that without a second victim it would have been impossible for them to get MJ sentenced. Why? It seems like even they knew they didn’t have anything….

    As for the “second victim” – the prosecution and the media liked to call kids “victims” who weren’t. Not just phantom victims but also kids who always vehemently denied abused. Brett Barnes, Mac Culkin and Wade Robson too were called “victims” by the prosecution when they introduced their 1108 evidence.

    If there really had been a “second victim” between Jordan and J. Francia we would know about it – whether he was willing to testify in 2005 or not. His name would have been surely brought up by the prosecutors in 2005 (like they brought up Jordan despite of the fact he wasn’t willing to testify). This “second victim” would also have appeared in the FBI files. So I guess this second victim is just made up by the media.

    Like

  41. Dialdancer permalink
    March 9, 2011 4:34 am

    David you next piece on this promises to be enlightening. It is becoming more and more difficult for them to find excuses. Wonder if any of the original Grand Jurors thought Mushroom when seeing that drawing? I did.

    Like

  42. March 9, 2011 4:09 am

    I decided to do some research on the 2nd victim and the only name that came up was actor Eddie Reynoza. Reynoza or his agent claimed that he was r..ped by MJ at the age of 16 while on the set of Thriller. http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/entertainment/michael-jackson-raped-16-year-old-eddie-reynoza.html . The article claims he went to the police, but no one took him seriously.

    I cannot find any credible sites that carried this story. Reynoza is also qouted heavily in Maureen Orth’s Nightmare at Neverland. Reynoza also had inside information in the OJ Simpson trial. He is either very well liked and trusted by Hollywood, or disturbed. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-12/news/mn-19285_1_nicole-simpson/5 .

    I don’t know if he is the second victim Sneddon was referring to, because his credibility is shaky.

    Like

  43. lcpledwards permalink
    March 9, 2011 3:47 am

    @ MC
    I’m glad you brought that up, because I know EXACTLY who you’re talking about! I am currently finishing a series that will refute and debunk her and the MJ Hater site that she has been assisting for the last few weeks, and I will set the record straight, once and for all, regarding those grand juries. She basically parroted the pathetic excuse that Sneddon gave in court as to why there were no indictments in 1994. You don’t have to be a legal expert to see that he was being less than honest in his explanation!

    I will post the first part later this week, hopefully, so stay tuned!

    Like

  44. March 9, 2011 3:29 am

    I commend all of you for your enlightening, excellent reseach, and tireless quest for the truth.
    You might be aware that one of your “opponents” believes that MJ would have been indicted if the charges related to the 93 case were brought before an indicting grand jury, as opposed to an investigative one, which she stated was convened in 94.
    Are you in a position to comment on this? Do BOTH juries have the power to issue an indictment after a finding of probable cause?
    I wonder how those who are convinced of Jackson’s guilt explain why Chandler’s declaration/statement and even closely “matching” body pictures were not sufficiently incriminating to a grand jury, given the entire proceeding is under the advisement and control of the DA.
    I look forward to further exploring the site.

    Like

  45. visitor permalink
    March 9, 2011 3:26 am

    If there was that third victim, wouldn’t Sneddon have called him as a witness in the 2005 trial like he did with Jordan Chandler and Francia?

    Like

  46. lcpledwards permalink
    March 9, 2011 2:44 am

    @ Maral
    I believe the third accuser that was referenced in that press release was Jason Francia, who I thoroughly discredited in this post on MJ’s settlements: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

    @ Teva
    I have no idea who the “second” accuser was! When I first read that press release, I was so confused so that’s why I helped Helena write the “Phantom Victims” post, where we just went through each and every accusation, and left no stone unturned! I think that Sneddon probably included someone who was totally un-credible in order to boost the number of “victims” and make MJ look bad.

    Like

  47. March 9, 2011 1:48 am

    “The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County.”

    My question is who was the second?

    Like

  48. shelly permalink
    March 8, 2011 11:43 pm

    @Maral,

    It’s Jason Francia.

    Like

  49. Anna permalink
    March 8, 2011 11:42 pm

    @Maral

    Hi there! I know your question was to David but I wanted to post a link from this blog about the research of this third alleged victim and other “Phantom Victims”

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/phantom-victims-of-mj/

    Like

  50. Maral permalink
    March 8, 2011 11:10 pm

    @David do we know more about this third victim?
    Here are some excerpts:
    “The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    it doesn’t make sense that the case was dropped IF there were other victims who’s words were consistence with Jordan. could sneddon have made the 3rd one up?

    Like

  51. Dialdancer permalink
    September 26, 2010 2:52 am

    @ Visitor,

    Thank you I will and I passed it on in another post elsewhere.

    Like

  52. visitor permalink
    September 25, 2010 12:27 pm

    There is a great documentary called “Witch Hunt” by Sean Penn

    http://witchhuntmovie.com/about.html

    You should really watch it

    Like

  53. Dialdancer permalink
    September 25, 2010 9:02 am

    Sometimes those “feelings” you get are really something heard or seen and tucked away. I was referencing Geraldine Hughes’ book when it came to me. This may be the reason I do not believe Jordan was drugged or coerced into anything.

    Except: Redemption by Geraldine Hughes: Source MJEOL2

    “Mr. Rothman was in his office with the doors closed, and that generally meant you had to knock first. Without thinking, I opened his office door to say goodbye, and to my surprise, I saw the young boy around 12 to 13 years old at the back of Mr. Rothman’s office. I knew he was the Chandler boy because that was the only case, to my knowledge, that Mr. Rothman was working on which involved a child. I was, however, very surprised to see the boy in Mr. Rothman’s office unaccompanied by a parent”

    “This meeting between Mr. Rothman and the Chandler boy took place just before the boy was taken to see the psychiatrist who later reported the sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson”

    “The father was far more nervous than his son. The boy seemed to just stay in his own imaginary world playing, having fun and not seemingly worried about what was going on with the outside world. …Although I do not have enough psychological experience to know how a child would act who had been sexually abused, I can say that there was nothing abnormal about his behavior, personality or attitude. In fact, he was the one who kept calming and consoling his father, who was a nervous wreck.”

    Maybe Jordan was drugged, it is far easier to accept that than this young boy was capable of being a willing participant of extortion with cool and calculating intent.

    Entire Comment:
    http://site2.mjeol.com/redemption-excerpt/suspicious-secret-meeting-with-1993-accuser-before-abuse-allegation.html

    “. No one was prepared for the public’s response to the allegation. Dr. Chandler was afraid to go home because his yard was crawling with news media.”

    I am beginning to think that Evan was one of those persons who would wave a loaded gun around, talk loud and tough, but never meant to pull the trigger. I think things got out of hand, did not go the way he expected, went further than he expected and his plan may have been taken out of his hands. Things changed with the advent of Ray. This may explain his guilty conscious at Michael’s death and his possible act of contrition. Or maybe he was just the equivalent of a suicide bomber.

    Like

  54. August 19, 2010 8:02 am

    Dialdancer: “I have stated numerous times prior to the discovery of the attempted second law suit by Jordan and Company that I believe Jordan lied. I believe he was convinced to doing this monstrous thing, but not forced nor were false memories implanted.”
    http://www.freejesse.net/LATimes/Introduction.htm

    THESE REVELATIONS ARE AMAZING

    (and we need a post about them).

    Like

  55. August 19, 2010 12:55 am

    Dialdancer,

    I read that article on Kyle Zirpolo. The McMartin case is like an eerie mirror of what happened to Michael. The huge difference is Kyle admitted he lied and said he even knew he was lying about McMartin as a child. Kyle said he felt ashamed. Jordan and the rest of the Chandler bunch don’t feel shame, they were/are to blinded by their Greed.

    This part really stood out to me:

    “Peggy Ann has said that they would rather hear from the police, social workers, therapists,
    prosecutors, doctors and parents who fueled the case.”

    Everyone on that list Peggy Ann gave were the really abusers to those children in the McMartin case. The tactics that were used by Children’s Institute International, during Kyle’s interview was
    completely disgusting. I read the excerpt of Kyle’s transcript, it was so weird and confusing to me. No doubt it was confusing for Kyle when was a child doing this interview.

    This same list of people, plus the media are the ones that need to be apologizing to Michael, his children and his family.

    As a side note: Regarding the Chandlers, I don’t by that lawsuit that Dave brought against Michael saying “Oh, Michael broke up the family” The Chandler family were are already broken up and dysfunctional before Michael had unfortunately crossed their path.

    Like

  56. August 19, 2010 12:23 am

    Helena,
    I don’t think Dave believed the allegations either. In a meeting with Evan during 1993 he told Evan “this is all about extortion, anyway.” And in response Evan walked over to him and started beating him up. That’s why I’m confuse by the article. Especially, since Dave admitted in the lawsuit that he didn’t believe the abuse allegations.

    Like

  57. Dialdancer permalink
    August 18, 2010 11:34 pm

    I have stated numerous times prior to the discovery of the attempted second law suit by Jordan and Company that I believe Jordan lied. I believe he was convinced to doing this monstrous thing, but not forced nor were false memories implanted.

    http://www.freejesse.net/LATimes/Introduction.htm

    Source: Aria, Michael Jackson Forum

    Like

  58. August 17, 2010 6:00 pm

    Ja: “Geraldine Hughes wrote in her book that Dave Schwartz said in his statement of facts that he didn’t believe the abuse allegations, but did feel that his family was torn apart by MJ’s influence. But the article says that he did believe the allegations”

    @Ja, I also think Dave did not believe the allegations – just look up his taped conversation with Evan and how terribly surprised he is by what Evan is saying to him. Also David seems to be the only person who was genuinely concerned about Jordan’s well-being.

    Like

  59. August 17, 2010 1:10 am

    @ Dialdancer,
    Geraldine Hughes wrote in her book that Dave Schwartz said in his statement of facts that he didn’t believe the abuse allegations, but did feel that his family was torn apart by MJ’s influence. But the article says that he did believe the allegations. I wonder if Dave Schwartz changed his mind about the allegations after he filed the lawsuit.

    Like

  60. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2010 2:35 am

    @ Dialdancer
    Yes, Dave Schwartz also tried to cash in on MJ BEFORE the scandal became public. According to “All That Glitters”, his creditors demanded that he pay them $4 million dollars, so he asked June to ask MJ to loan him the money. It doesn’t say whether or not June asked MJ, but either way he didn’t get the money, so he asked Larry Feldman for$4 million from the settlement, but was rejected. He was furious, and he a Feldman and Evan got into a huge fight.

    During the trial, June not only denied asking MJ for the $4 million dollars, but she denied even knowing that he owed the $4 million in the first place!

    So that means that either Ray Chandler or June Chandler is LYING regarding that $4 million!

    Like

  61. Dialdancer permalink
    August 16, 2010 1:55 am

    It seems even Jordan’s step-dad tried to cash in.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-17/local/me-28064_1_michael-jackson

    Like

  62. Suzy permalink
    July 29, 2010 5:12 am

    @ Dialdancer

    Not only he didn’t try to find excuses not to meet Michael, but, according to June chandler’s testimony, he wanted to spend all his time with him!

    If I compare that with the behaviour of real abuse victims, it just doesn’t make sense that Jordan was molested and that made him cling on Michael.

    Like

  63. Dialdancer permalink
    July 29, 2010 12:48 am

    I was recount my post here with a friend and what was said: “he claimed repeatedly he did not like what was happening, but never told, never not accepted an invitation to spend time alone with Michael. Even if they are afraid or ashamed to tell an adult most children will begin to resist, find excuses for not being around their assailant, make some effort to avoid being placed in the same situation.

    Like

  64. Dialdancer permalink
    July 28, 2010 10:23 pm

    I have again read Jordan”s Declaration. First things first Jordan may be said what he said because he wanted to get from under his father’s influence, but he was no innocent boy induce to making this statement. He lied knowingly, which may be the real reason he has failed to make an effort to publicly tell the truth. That is my observation.

    On P.3 lines 18 – 22, Jordan states that during the period May 1993, he and Michael stayed home, because they both had colds. “That’s when things really got out of hand” “We took a bath. “This was the first time we had seen each other naked.”

    Jordan supposedly had seen Michael in a state or pre and post sexual activity numerous time but did not notice Michael’s genitalia was not like his? He is given to using words such as masturbation, rather than the phrase jerking off which is common among teen boys.

    He details his alleged seduction in a step by step method which would be used by someone who is familiar with this kind of thing, not a 13 year old boy. Given current rumors leaked supposedly leaked from the Coroner’s office concerning Michael’s anatomy, identification should have been easy, if were true. There are no reported signs of intense sexual activity which are acute especially at his home where there are no maids clean up.

    Like

  65. shelly permalink
    July 14, 2010 11:12 am

    I just found that from a Maureen Orth article Nightmare in Neverland

    “At first Children’s Services wanted to take Jamie into custody. Their report recommended that the mother be questioned about “her ability to protect minor,” and that the father be questioned about the discussion of money to keep the whole thing quiet—which Jamie had also talked about.”

    http://sinhablar.com/news/maureenorth.html

    Even her admitted they wanted to keep the whole thing quiet.

    Like

  66. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 2:21 pm

    I did see in Jordans “interview ” with Dr. Gardner that he wanted at one time to just tell the story without interruption which lead me to believe that he has learned these in a certain order and can’t really recall them but he attemts to recite them. Dr. Gardner even tells him that he is going to interrupt from time to time to clarify things. This is not memory it is rehearsal.I would believe this was the actual interview if they were able to produce his written conclusion but theyare not. He would not have sent them back to LA with the information themselves he would have been required to send it to the attorneys involved. He was called in as a legal expert and he would not report his findings to them at any time. For that reason they would not have been given a copy of this transcript. I know that Dr. Gardner was considered a quack in the psychiatric community for his PAS theory but he wanted recognition for his work and to do it any other way would have discredited him. Also what was June Chandler doing there? She did not see Jordan again once he was in Evans custody according to them.

    Like

  67. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 10:59 am

    One thing I realized in Jordie’s testimony that he talks like an adult. Using words that an adult would use, but what you wouldn’t really expect from a 13-year-old. Now, it could be that he was that mature – but then would a mature boy with an adult way of thinking let himself manipulated into being molested with lame tricks like “if you don’t do it I will love Tommy more” etc? Not very likely.

    Ah and he sounds completely emotionless, measured, with expressions like “see, I was doing this and that”, “let’s see”, “number one…. number two…..” etc. He sounds like overly coached and rehearsed and not somebody who is emotionally attached to the subject in any way! When real child abuse victims speak that doesn’t go like this at all!
    They are upset to go through the memories again. Jordan doesn’t sound upset AT ALL! He sounds like doing a job, performing an act, to which he is not emotionally attached.

    Thank you, hater site, for posting that interview and make me realize this! (Oddly, they also put up the Chandler-Schwartz convo, which is pretty damning to Evan, IMO.)

    Like

  68. July 6, 2010 10:58 am

    David:“I wanted to alert you to what I believe is Ray Chandler’s “rebuttal”. I found this article on the internet somewhere, and even 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!” Link to the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/http://atgbook.net/GQFinal.html#_ftnref31

    David, I finally recalled where I had made a post about the same article – it is here in this blog: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/evan-chandlers-vendetta-against-michael-enter-ray-chandler/

    Since I had such a vague memory of it myself I naturally can’t blame you for not remembering it either – but this alerted me to a problem that we need to get familiar with each other’s contributions much more attentively than it is now. Or otherwise we will do one and the same thing again and again with no end to it. There should be some system in what we are doing and some movement too…

    However your analysis is good and I’ll post it as an update to that article of mine.

    We are a funny couple of ‘investigators’, aren’t we?

    Like

  69. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 9:58 am

    I took a look at that hater site and I agree with Helena this isn’t just your average hater. This is somebody who seems to be familiar with details – or rather: somebody who looks to be very much inside of it (biased on the Chandler side, of course).
    Of course this doesn’t prevent him from twisting the facts to his liking.

    For example I went to the “Redemtion” section and I didn’t yet read it fully, but his way of “rebuting” Geraldine Hughes is saying things like “the only time Jordie was alone in Rothman’s office is on this and this date (and gives a specific date)”.

    So this site either comes from the Chandlers or from Sneddon or from Rothman or from someone who was involved the case on the Chandlers’ side.

    Like

  70. David permalink
    July 6, 2010 9:41 am

    One last thing……

    Here is a copy of the Jan. 1994 USA Today article that proves that Jordie’s description did not match. Notice how it’s listed in the “Life” section on page 2. If Jordie’s description would have matched, and MJ was subsequently arrested (which he would have been if it DID match), where do you think the headline would be? In the “Life” section buried deep inside of the paper? NO!!! It would have been plastered on the front page!!

    Lisa Marie Presley alluded to this point in the 1995 Primetime Interview:

    Diane Sawyer: So when we’ve heard the charges….

    Michael: There was nothing……

    Diane Sawyer: …markings of some kind?

    Michael: No markings.

    Diane Sawyer: No markings?

    Michael: No.

    Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the…..

    Michael: Why am I still here then?

    Lisa Marie: You’re not going to ask me about them, are you? [laughing] Sorry. About the markings?

    Diane Sawyer: You volunteered.

    Lisa Marie: No, I’m just….the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing a tiny area], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.

    http://site2.mjeol.com/pdf/important-article/photos-may-contradict-michael-s-accuser-1994.pdf

    Like

  71. David permalink
    July 6, 2010 8:42 am

    Helena, when you do your first post about that site, I think you should look at the Sept. 21, 1994 press release from Sneddon & Garcetti. They mention a 3rd “phantom victim”, in addition to Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia (who aren’t mentioned by name, but you know this is who they are talking about). This is the issue that I brought to everyone’s attention a few weeks ago. The press release is listed under “MJ, ABC News, & the California Courts” link, at the bottom of the page.

    Here are some excerpts:

    “The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.”

    It’s weird that Sneddon decided not to prosecute because of the accuser’s “well being”? To this day, we’ve never heard anything about this alleged “victim”, and perhaps he falls in the same category as Daniel Kapone (i.e. a manufactured victim that was exploited by a quack psychiatrist). He certainly wasn’t mentioned in the 2005 trial.

    Notice how they mention the lack of credibility of the “witnesses” to the molestations due to them selling their stories to the tabloids! Anyway, I think this should be priority #1.

    Like

  72. David permalink
    July 6, 2010 8:13 am

    @ Suzy:

    Thanks for the compliments! Over the last few weeks, I’ve found out so much information on the 1993 case, and I’m glad that this blog and the All For Love blog are both doing stories on the Chandlers. There are so many questions about that case, and as MJ fans we should be as knowledgeable as possible about all of the facts.

    The reason I posted my rebuttal to Ray Chandler’s rebuttal is because in order to defend MJ, we need to know the other side’s talking points. You can learn them by reading the anti-MJ books, with “All That Glitters” being the most valuable because it’s “their” side of the story. Most of them are the same lies that they can’t even defend. For example, they say that Jordie’s description matched. OK, well, if it matched, then why wasn’t MJ immediately arrested?

    And do you ever notice how haters will criticize MJ all day and night, but never criticize the Chandlers for not pursuing justice? I’m sure it’s because they think that since they were “paid off” with “hush money”, they couldn’t legally testify in court. If they really feel that MJ “paid them off”, then why don’t they ever say that the Chandlers’ should be arrested for aiding and abetting a pedophile by accepting the money? But as we all know, if there was any truth to “hush money”, MJ would have been arrested and charged with obstruction of justice!!

    Sorry, but I just get soooo frustrated when I listen to the ridiculous arguments that haters use. It’s like they don’t have any logic or common sense, you know?

    Well, on a lighter note, I found an interview from 1985 with Quincy Jones. MJ is briefly interviewed for this story, and he talks about working with Quincy on his albums. There is a funny story about a special request that Quincy Jones asked MJ to do on “The Lady In My Life”, but you’ll have to watch the video to find out!!!

    Like

  73. July 6, 2010 8:07 am

    Suzy, congratulations on starting your own blog! I’ve been there and seen that you’ve translated a lot – it is a great amount of work! I wish you and Michael much success…

    David, thank you for your contribution – the analysis is very good and I’ll make a post of it. The site you’ve given a link to is not just a hater’s site – it is something very special and there is every reason to believe it belongs to Ray Chandler (or now deceased Evan Chandler). The manner and style is the same in all posts there and at least one of the documents can be clearly identified as Ray Chandler’s.

    This is the MAIN hater’s site which serves as the main source of information for other haters (they always refer to it) and thus should be handled with utmost attention. It also shows that the massive hatred campaign in the internet is being continously fed from one source – which is one of the Chandlers. It means that Chandler has never let Michael go and was harassing him even after the 2005 trial.

    This site deserves all our attention!

    P.S. David, as regards Dr. Gardner I remember reading about him and had the impression he was a specialist focusing on differentiating false accusations from true ones and his “parential alienation syndrome” was criticised by other psychiatrists because he would often defend the parents (accused of molestation) by applying that syndrome idea. He actually maintained that they were wrongly accused. Please look into that…

    Like

  74. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 7:42 am

    David,

    I just want to say once again that your research is invaluable, thank you for that!

    Inspired by Helena’s blog I started one to vindicate Michael in my own language for my own country too: http://jacksonaktak.wordpress.com/

    This is because my people have even less information available in our language than people in English speaking countries, so they are left to rely on tabloids which is of course not good (tabloids here are just as bad as elsewhere PLUS ignorance!). I started with translating the recent Charles Thomson article on the 2005 case and translating the GQ article in 1993. Now, I’m also using the research that is presented and discussed here (by Helena, David and others), I hope you don’t mind.

    The next thing I will do is subtitling the video David found on the controversial methotds of retaining “repressed memories”, including Sodium Amytal. That video has a second part on YouTube and there is a woman telling about how her psychiatrist hypnotized her and made her think she was molested by her uncle and mother as a child. She started to tell VERY SPECIFIC details, she says, although she has never been molested. I found that story very interesting too, although Sodium Amytal wasn’t mentioned in that.

    As for the “rebuttal” of Fischer’s article. None of those “rebuttals” are very convincing IMO. I personally don’t think Fisher would make up a conversation with Torbiner or with anyone. Fischer to me seems to be very honest, thorough and professional in her research. A lot more so than any journalist I have ever seen from the “other side” – or than Ray Chandler, for that matter.

    A good example is what was pointed out by Helena: Ray claimed to Larry King that Michael was asking for Jordie’s number when they first met. In the Fischer article it is claimed it was the other way around and it was almost as if June was trying to force her son on Michael. Now, who is telling the truth? Fischer! As corroborated by June’s 2005 and Jordan’s 1993 testimony.

    Fischer is an independent journalist, not tabloid, not obsessed with MJ in any way (unlike the Diane Dimonds of this World), she has nothing in it to claim he was innocent, if that’s not what she honestly found. I trust her any time over Ray Chandler, Diane Dimond and the likes.

    Like said, the fact Torbiner hasn’t filed papers for Sodium Amytal is a ridiculous way to “rebute” the claims. As if you couldn’t get ANYTHING illegally in this world. In fact, for such abuse of the drug it’s a lot more likely that Torbiner would obtain it illegally. As for them not having any training. Who knows if Torbiner hasn’t already had a practice in abusing this drug? He was by no means a impeccable doctor before this case. In fact he seems to be the Dr. Murray of his time.

    Another laughable claim is that what Jordie spouted doesn’t even classify as memory, since it’s so close in time. I thought memory is memory, no matter if you remember things those happened a month ago or 10 years ago – both are memories.

    In that video where that woman tells about her therapist planting false memories in her, she says it was a combination of anxiety, fear, the desire to want to please her therapist and the state of hypnosis and trans why she started to tell she was molested. It very well could apply to Jordie as well. I think he was so much pressured by his father to say something like that, so while under hypnosis he simply gave in to that pressure to please him.

    I don’t know what he felt during that meeting with Pellicano and Michael, maybe he still wasn’t quite sure of his newly planted “memories” or deep inside he felt there was something not right with that. But by then he and his father crossed the point of no return.

    Like

  75. David permalink
    July 6, 2010 6:03 am

    Hey guys:

    1. I found an MJ hater’s website that has a lot of so-called “facts” that prove MJ was “guilty” of molesting Jordie Chandler in 1993. We should all go through it with a fine-toothed comb and rebut all of their rebuttals! They try to rebut the GQ article, Hughes’ “Redemption” book, they peddle the same lie that Jordie’s description was accurate, and worst of all they have some so-called “private investigator” who says that MJ’s attorneys had an unwritten agreement with the Chandlers that they would get the $20m settlement in exchange for their silence. That’s not true at all because MJ’s insurance paid the settlement without his approval!!
    http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/

    2. I found some dirt on Dr. Richard Gardner. Apparently, he’s another quack psychologist who has been vilified by many in the psychiatric community for his “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. There is considerable criticism of Gardner by the medical community, social workers, and those who deal with child abuse cases including many law practitioners, who have called his work “junk science”. I think we should investigate the authenticity of Dr. Gardner’s interview and Jordie’s declaration:
    http://www.cincinnatipas.com/richardgardner-pas.html

    Like

  76. Kathy-wife-bnepi permalink
    July 6, 2010 4:49 am

    I do not see much from the researcher’s about Barry K. Rothman, he was the prime attorney for Warner Music, for 5 years in the 1970ty’s…he left the 1993 Jordan case as soon as Evan Chandler started looking for more than just money…well that is what I have found, so far…is His connection to the people that managed the MIJAC catalog important?…..this group is well informed on the history of 1993….what do you think about Barry K. Rothman?

    Like

  77. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 1:43 am

    I should explain why I question the interview with Dr. Gardner. No matter what kind of a kook he was he was still a bonafide member of the medical community. In other words he would have been observing Jordan during the inteview, watching his actions and tone of voice among other things. No one else would have been allowed in the room so it would have been on tape. He would not have reported his findings to Evan or Jordan he would have sent them to the District Attorney.They would have had to have been told of his findings by these parties they would not have a copy of this tape and when was it that he committed suicide? 2003 or 2005? The tapes would have been destroyed not given to them. So if he killed himself in2003 theywere free and clear to say what ever they wanted to about it.

    Like

  78. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 1:32 am

    Sorry I keep remebering things. Evan Chandlers wifes name was Nathalie, his son Nikki and a daughter Gabrielle. I looked them up on People Search. The written transcripts are all we have available on the web and considering when they started showing up they are from the book. Dr Gardners interview too, which I question the valididty of because we only have their word that Dr Gardner believed Jordan, not Dr Gardners confirmation. The only excerpts that can be heard are those that imply extortion put out by Anthony Pellicano. Jordan actually lived with Nathalie after she and his father divorced and Jordan probably gained legal emancipation from his parents so he could get part of his money because he would then have been considered of legal age. My guess is he did it to give his father the money and get rid of him.

    Like

  79. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 1:11 am

    I can clear up something about the false memories. Whether it is done through hypnosis or drug induced it is this: A false memory does not erase the former memory it grafts or adds new information into the memory. Jordan would have been able to recall the bedspreads and wall paper of the room in Monaco and other hotels that they stayed at . He would have remembered the room number and what they did otherwise, his memory would have just added the new information of being molested. I thought of this a long time back and found information about implanting false memories. I started wondering why Jordans police statement and the interview with Dr. Gardner seemed vague to me. There were no number of times or any thing like that. It would seem that after Monaco that was all that he and Michael did. The threats that were supposedly made by Michael like so and so is a better friend so I will love them more, keep it in a box it is our secret, this is called unconditioning,and you will go to juvenile hall hold no credence for me because they are straight out of the things a p*******e says to children textbook. It is what they give parents when they suspect something is going on with their child. They expect me to believe that the one man with the greatest imagination on the planet couldn’t think of soemthing better than a pamphlet statement. Evan got that informatin from Barry Rothman he knew how to work it. He just forgot to add important details like what happened where. the police would have needed to know this to charge Michael with specific acts of child abuse in certain jurisdictions. In other words he would have had to remeber not that Michael kissed him with an open mouth or masturbated him or performed oral sex but where he was when he did it because they are all different charges. The reason they didn’t think of something better was they actually thought that Michael would cave before he let this thing go public. Guess what he didn’t because he was innocent. This also accounts for the outlandish number of 30 consectutive nights in the same bed with Michael. They have too many acts of abuse to account for in the actual number of nights spent together.

    Like

  80. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 12:36 am

    Everyone forgets how close these Doctors are to Mexico where you don’t need a DEA number to get them. Just a day trip south and he has enough for six months.

    Like

  81. David permalink
    July 5, 2010 11:04 pm

    Hey Helena,

    Since we’re making so much progress with the investigation of Evan Chandler using various sources, including Mary Fisher’s GQ article, I wanted to alert you to what I believe is Ray Chandler’s “rebuttal”. I found this article on the internet somewhere, and even 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?

    Here is a portion of Ray’s rebuttal, with the link to the full rebuttal below:

    The Powerful Hypnotic Drug Used to Brainwash Jordie

    In a nutshell, Fischer accused Evan and Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist, of intentionally planting false memories of child abuse in Jordie’s head by giving him the drug sodium Amytal during a dental procedure in Evan’s office. According to Fischer,
    A newsman at KCBS-TV in LA reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth.

    Fischer then quoted experts on the proper administration of the drug and the dangerous – even fatal – consequences that could result if these procedures were not followed. And Fischer surmised that Evan failed to use the proper procedures, inferring that he went so far as to place his son’s life in danger just to extort Michael Jackson.[1][18]
    To purchase sodium Amytal legally, Torbiner would have been required to fill out a triplicate DEA form. No such form is on file with that agency. To obtain the drug illegally is difficult; there is no demand for it on the street.
    Given the list of experts Fischer quoted about how the use of this drug would have been highly unethical and dangerous, it seems unlikely that Evan or Torbiner would have said anything to a reporter that might be construed as if they had actually used the drug. Their livelihoods and professional licenses were at risk, not to mention potential criminal charges.
    Most strange is why this monumental brainwashing evidence did not surface for a full five months after the settlement. It would have been the scoop of the century! Not only was it worth a fortune to the tabloids, but it could have stopped Jordie’s civil suit dead in its tracks, cleared Jackson criminally, and catapulted his career to new heights.
    It is oddly convenient that Fischer’s most powerful “evidence” surfaced shortly before she
    would have completed her article.[2][19] And, that it came in the form of unnamed sources that the
    KCBS newsman, Harvey Levin, could not be compelled to reveal.
    One could infer from Fischer’s report that Levin claimed to have personally communicated with Evan. Levin made no such claim. But had he followed professional guidelines he should have had at least two independent and unbiased sources. After all, his story not only accused two health-care professionals of brainwashing a minor, it was the single most important piece of evidence in the largest public scandal of all time.
    But the press paid little attention to Levin’s story and it quickly died. Why? Why would the media reject such a bombshell? Could it be that they, too, were suspicious of the timing? Or did they question the reliability of Levin’s sources? Perhaps they believed those sources came from within the Jackson camp. Pellicano, for example.[3][20]
    Or maybe the legitimate press realized that Levin’s story made no sense. Two dentists, with no prior training in brainwashing techniques, had planted false information in a child’s mind with such expertise, that for a period of over four months the child had fooled every professional who interviewed him, including psychiatrists, experienced detectives, social workers, lawyers and district attorneys.
    Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer’s drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie’s behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows:
    The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. “Jordie was looking down,” [Pellicano said] “and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, ‘I didn’t say that.'”[4][21]

    According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn’t brainwashed at all! He was acting embarrassed and guilty about the accusations his father had made.
    Fischer next quoted Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist, saying how easy it is to plant false memories using sodium Amytal. She followed this with a discussion of a landmark California lawsuit that successfully challenged the validity of the repressed memory syndrome. The lawsuit involved a 20-year-old woman who, after being given sodium Amytal by her psychiatrist, accused her father of molesting her when she was a child.
    Assuming that the repressed memory syndrome is nothing more than a giant mound of horse apples, what did it have to do with the Jackson case? The allegations against Michael were not the memories of an adult about events that had transpired decades earlier in childhood. Or even one year earlier! Jordie spilled his guts in mid-August about sexual acts that occurred between April and June. His “memories” did not have time to become repressed. They don’t even qualify as memories. They were fresh in the child’s mind. As was his accurate description of the distinctive marks on Michael’s genitals: information that could not have been planted in the boy’s mind by those who had never seen the marks.

    [5][18] Fischer claimed that she spoke to Torbiner and that he told her “If I used it [the drug], it was for dental purposes.” Dr. Torbiner would not respond to inquiries about what, if anything, he told Fischer. His attorney stated that Torbiner was bound by the doctor-patient privilege and could not discuss the issue without written consent from his patient.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/http://atgbook.net/GQFinal.html#_ftnref31

    Like

  82. July 5, 2010 10:14 pm

    David, frankly, if you want to share some information with me and everybody else the best thing to do is writing in the comments section – for convenience sake, to save time and for transparency too.

    All the information you and others are providing me in the mail is worth being posted here and any reposting only complicates things (how should I repost this information – in my name???).

    If you write in the comments to the respective post it would speed up the process of clearing Michael’s name manifold and it would be much better than waiting for me to edit it (which I CAN’T for obvious reasons – English is not my native language and the process is difficult for me, not to mention the result).

    If you don’t find the respective post please send me one and I’ll post it in your name. The requirements are the same – do your BEST, proven facts ONLY and writing about MICHAEL, not ourselves.

    If you want to tell me a terrible secret it is okay to use the email too (you’ll receive a reply from Teresa Tuareg who created this blog and email for me at the very beginning. I need to change it into my name but have no time to look into how to do that). For all these reasons I don’t use the mail too often (“Contact me” section) and prefer everything HERE and I mean it.

    I would gladly make a forum here if I could. There is a way to attach one to this blog, so if you think it is needed, I’ll look into that.

    Like

  83. Truth permalink
    July 5, 2010 10:14 pm

    David, thanks for the link to Raven Woods’ Blog.
    Interestingly I found an excerpt from Ray Chandler’s book:

    “I’ll be there in a minute”. Evan said, and as Jordie turned to leave, added, “Hey Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?”

    That’s disgusting!” Jordie reacted. “I’m not into that!”

    “Just kidding.”

    First of all, doesn’t Jordan’s response say it all. Second of all, what kind of way is that for a parent to question their child over a very serious subject?!

    Like

  84. David permalink
    July 5, 2010 8:43 pm

    Helena, what’s the best way to reach you directly? Should I email you, or use the “contact us” form in the website? I’ve sent you some emails recently with some new info on the Chandlers (pointing out all of there lies, etc.). Raven Woods is also doing a series on the Chandlers in her “All For Love” blog, and she has used some of my research as well.

    For example, in the book Ray mentions that Dave Schwartz owes $4 million to his creditors, so he asked June to ask MJ for a loan. When he didn’t get the load from MJ, Dave asked Feldman for $4 million from the settlement, but was denied. But during the trial, June said that she didn’t even know that Dave owed that kind of money, let alone ask MJ to loan it to him! So someone is lying here!

    I haven’t gotten any replies from you lately, so I don’t know if you’ve read those emails yet. I’ll use the “contact us” form if that’s better for you.

    Like

  85. July 5, 2010 7:26 pm

    Guys, I am currently working on the next episode of the Chandlers’ saga and while rereading June Chandler’s testimony stumbled on a puzzle I’d like to share with you:

    1) June Chandler says the name of Evan’s second wife is NATALIE:

    Q. And do you know his wife or did you know his wife at that time?

    A. Yes, I did.

    Q. And her name is?

    A. Natalie Chandler.

    2) Ray Chandler refers to her as Monique in his ‘All that Glitters’ fairy tale on purpose – in order to hide her true identity.

    3) But why is Evan Chandler referring to his wife as MONIQUE too when talking to David Schwartz in that secretly taped conversation? And David supports it and never asks questions as to whom he is talking about:

    MR. SCHWARTZ: Can Monique be there?
    14 MR. CHANDLER: Tomorrow?
    15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    16 MR. CHANDLER: She wanted to be there,
    17 but —
    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I want her to be there.
    19 MR. CHANDLER: I wouldn’t let her.
    20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? Why not?
    21 MR. CHANDLER: Because June hates
    22 Monique.
    23 MR. SCHWARTZ: That’s not true.

    Had they discussed the name change in advance? And if they had, was that tape such a surprise to Evan Chandler as they made it out later? Did they expect the tape to be made public? Could the tape be meant for Michael’s ears from the very start – for his intimidation, for example? To show how serious Evan’s intentions were? That he would turn his life into a massacre and so on?

    Or did they decide once and for all to give pseudonyms to Evan Chandler’s family and speak of them that way only? What for? If Evan was afraid the names would leak into the media why didn’t he make a secret of Jordan’s name then? Or was he concerned only about his wife?

    I know that this is a minor detail only, but it is necessary to understand every detail if we want to understand the whole. Any ideas?

    P. S. I have an idea. If this transcript is coming from Ray Chandler’s book, then it is clear why the text is edited and Natalie is called Monique. But then, if it is Ray Chandler’s version of the conversation, it is not only the name which could have been edited, right? As far as I know the only piece we have on tape (which is really hard evidence) is the one where Evan Chandler is threatening Michael – THAT was real. But what about the rest?

    Does anyone happen to know of any other tape fragments to prove the script is authentic?

    Like

  86. July 5, 2010 6:09 pm

    David, thanks for the video – I’ll include it into the sodium amytal post as an update. I never thought that a ‘memory recovery therapy’ could be such a disastrous means of fabricating lies.

    Like

  87. July 5, 2010 10:21 am

    Guys, hello again – sorry I’ve been away for so long. Started reading your comments now (they are absolutely great!) David, thanks for the article – you will find it now in the blogroll in Reflections-on-the-dance site.
    Will go on reading….

    Like

  88. David permalink
    July 3, 2010 7:59 am

    Here is an article that was written by a lawyer and a professional writer. They didn’t cover MJ’s allegations in life, but after he died they researched the 1993 allegations throughly, and this is the masterpiece that they wrote. They take the media to task for being so biased, and they are very critical of Diane Dimond. In fact, they explicitly say how they used her book to prove MJ’s innocence!!!

    Helena, you should add this to your blogroll! Also, this website didn’t include this on their sitemap, but hopefully they’ll correct that soon.

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/theextortionofmichaeljackson.html

    Like

  89. lynande51 permalink
    July 2, 2010 10:58 pm

    The interesting part of the book is that it starts with a very little known fact. When Michael met June and Jordan in May of 1992 at Rent- a -wreck it was the 3rd time that they had met. The first time he was ” little more than a toddler” when Michael picked him up in a restaurant and said something like ” oh he’s so cute”. In 1984 when Jordan was five and Michael was in the hospital after sustaining burns during the filming of a Pepsi commercial, June penned a get well card to Michael in Jordans name and hand delivered it to one of his body guards at the hospital. Included in the letter were Jordies picture and phone number.
    Needless to say, June and Jordie ___ who was now five years old___ were thrilled when Michael called later that day to thank them. Surprise turned to elation when an invitation arrived several days later for Jordie to appear in an ad that Michael was filming.Though Jordie was not selected to appear in the ad, and did not get to meet Michael on the set as expected, the let down was softened by a personal invitation from the star to attend the Los Angeles performance of Bad. ATG page 12.
    Now who seems obsessed to you?That was the second time June had forced Jordan and their phone numeber on Michael.
    Now more on page 13 of ATG:
    Jordie was twelve when he met Michael at Dave’s car rental agency. The singer did not remember the boy, but Jordie sure as hell knew Michael. For more than half the child’s life he had a strong, albeit one-sided friendship with the star. Adulation would be more to the point.
    So when the phone rang that fateful day in May 1993 ( yes they got the year wrong), it was not just your basic ,run-of-the-mill superstar my nephew was going to meet. It was his hero, the most famous human being and childrens advocate on the planet. To say that Michael already had some influence over the boy is like calling Niagara Falls a leak. Jordie worshipped him, as did millions of children around the globe.
    Sounds like the entire famiy worshipped Michael to me, maybe even obsessed over him. How come they can remember these two tiny meetings but for gods sake can’t remember exact accounts of chld abuse? I’m baffled. If I was molested by a hero of mine I would have started scraming about it from the roof top.Why? Because there is nothing worse than finding out that your idol is made of clay. Everything they say goes completely against human nature. What is with these people?

    Like

  90. Truth permalink
    July 2, 2010 10:54 pm

    In her testimony, June said Jordan would dress like Michael before he had even met him! So why did this stir up suspicion in Evan?

    Like

  91. Emma permalink
    July 2, 2010 9:30 pm

    Surely Michael could have got any doctor to come and look after Jordie if he had something to hide?

    Like

  92. Suzy permalink
    July 2, 2010 6:58 pm

    About who gave to whom Jordie’s number. Here is a third account on that from Mary Fischer’s GQ article. This is from one of Schwartz’s employees:

    “Jackson’s troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue.

    When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage.

    The boy, then 12, was a big Jackson fan. Upon arriving, June Chandler Schwartz told Jackson about the time her son had sent him a drawing after the singer’s hair caught on fire during the filming of a Pepsi commercial. Then she gave Jackson their home number.

    “It was almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.””

    http://site2.mjeol.com/was-michael-jackson-framed/was-mj-framed-part-1.html

    One thing I realized in Ray Chandler’s book that he always seems to “remember” things a lot differently than others – actually the opposite way. This phone number thing is just one example. (And now we have three people – Mel Green, June and Jordie Chandler – saying it was June who gave Michael Jordie’s number and told him to call him vs. Ray’s claim that Michael asked for it.)

    Another similar example is that in his book Ray claims it was Michael’s idea to want to build an addition to Evan’s house or build a new house for him to live there together with Jordie. I’m pretty sure it was the other way around, because it would be pretty much out of character from Michael, but it would pretty much in-charatcer from this maniac man, Evan to want to tie Michael to himself that way. And I will quote Mary Fischer again (who is proven to be a lot, lot more reliable than Ray Chandler):

    “When Jackson and the boy stayed with Chandler during May 1993, Chandler urged the entertainer to spend more time with his son at his house.

    According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done, Chandler made another suggestion–that Jackson just build him a new home.

    And I think this is the same with many, many other things in his book! They are projecting what they did, wanted to do, thought onto Michael! And this entire story of molestation was just a thought in Evan’s mind that he then projected onto Michael. Everywhere he looked he was looking for “clues” that – in his mind – would support his crazy idea. So, for example, when Jordie dressed up like Michael he saw that as a proof of something being wrong, something being sinister. Newsflash: there are a lot of people in this world who dressed up like Michael Jackson. He was a superstar with a unique dressing style that was copied by thousands of people all around the world. So what if a 13-year-old boy, whom Michael Jackson happens to befriend, dresses up like him? I don’t get it. But to Evan this was a “sign” of something wrong.

    Or there was a part in Ray’s book, so I have heard, when Jordie was sick and they called over Evan to check him out and when Evan went there, Michael was sitting at his bedside looking worried – and this was, according to Ray, suspicious to Evan. Again: what’s so suspicious in it if somebody is worried for his sick friend? It was only suspicious to him, because he was looking for clues everywhere to support his own sick thoughts.

    Like

  93. David permalink
    July 2, 2010 6:03 pm

    Here’s a 60 Minutes report of repressed memory syndrome from 1994. This video gives visual confirmation about how easy it is to implant memories, and how much the “victim” can believe that they are true! In the video, you’ll see a man who is “sure” that a priest molested him, only to recant his story a few months later because his memories are “unreliable”! You’ll also see comedienne Roseanne Barr talk about getting molested when when was 6 months old! Give me a break!

    Helena will surely include it in her next update (hint, hint)!

    Here is more in-depth report on Gary Ramona’s case. This was originally mentioned in Mary Fischer’s GQ article.
    http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/santafe.html

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Discrepancies between Jordan and June Chandler’s stories « Vindicating Michael
  2. World Wide News Flash

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: