Skip to content

Ray Chandler SUBPOENA: ready to tell even some truth in order NOT to testify

August 6, 2010

I know that the posts about Ray Chandler subpoena are becoming too numerous but there so many documents made by Ray Chandler’s lawyers to save him from Michael Jackson’s subpoena that their number alone shows the ferocity of his opposition to it. One would think he is fighting for his life…

The documents that come next are dated October 25, 2004 and include the Motion of Third Party Raymond Chandler to Quash Subpoenas and/or in Camera Review and his Declaration.

I decided to have a closer look at these impressive 70 pages of legal thought: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

1) Ray Chandler starts with a NOTICE OF MOTION to object to the subpoena (i.e. with declaring that it is useless to wait for his arrival to testify on November 4, 2004). See what grounds for objection he gives:

NOTICE OF MOTION

To defendant Michael Jackson and his attorneys of record:

Please TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 4, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in Department SM-2 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, located at 312 East Cook Street, Santa Maria, California 93456, third-party RAYMOND CHANDLER will move this Court for an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum served on him on September 23, 2004.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT at the time and place specified above RAYMOND CHANDLER will request an in camera inspection by the Court of all documents requested in the subpoena.

This motion will be made on the grounds that the subpoenas do not provide adequate cause for compelling production of the documents by a third party; the documents sought by the defendant are not material to the issues involved in the case; that Raymond Chandler is a journalist protected from complying with this subpoena by the journalists’ privilege. In the alternative, Raymond Chandler proposes that this Motion be continued until such time as the Court rule on the admissibility of the 1993 child molestation allegations that are the subject of these subpoenas. Finally, Raymond Chandler asks this Court to review in camera to subpoenaed documents to determine which, if any, should be provided to Defendant for review and copying.

This motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the Declaration of Raymond Chandler, the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on the papers and recorded on file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing.

Dated: 10/25, 2004                                      Herb Fox, Attorney for Third-Party Raymond Chandler

–       So while every Michael’s hater thinks it an absolute must for Ray Chandler to present his invaluable documents to court, Ray himself is of the opinion that the subpoena from the Defense is not an “adequate cause” for compelling production of those documents…. Interesting, isn’t it?

–      And while Tom Sneddon is digging into Michael’s past for every speck of dust there and every art book in his library to evidence possible molestation Ray Chandler claims that the “documents” which laid the basis for his tell-all book about MJ “molesting” Jordan ‘are not material to the issues involved in the case’?

In principle, after Ray Chandler admitting a thing like that we could close the issue of his ‘All That Gitters’ book as virtually non-existent and move on to other subjects, but there are other revelations awaiting us, so let’s go on with it.

–     Though we previously thought that Ray Chandler’s profession was someone in construction projects to be later turned into a lawyer (the back cover of his book says, “he earned his J.D. from the Santa Barbara College of Law and was admitted to the bar in 2001, and currently practices law in Santa Barbara”), now we suddenly find out that Ray Chandler is actually a journalist who is protected from Michael Jackson’s subpoena by the journalists’ privilege. The more we read the more fantastic it gets…

–     We also learn that the only thing Ray Chandler agrees to is having his ‘documents’ reviewed in camera (in the judge’s chambers with no onlookers or jury present). Since the procedure did most probably take place before the trial but none of those invaluable documents surfaced ground it shows that even the authorities could not fish out anything worthy of their attention there. Very enlightening piece of information …

2) The Notice is followed by  10 pages of “MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES” and 4 pages of Ray Chandler’s DECLARATION both dated October 25, 2004 (the date is important as one more declaration will be made in November ).

Since the main idea of these documents is already clear to us (objecting to the subpoena) let me disregard all the numerous “irrelevance to the case” issues and legal precedents supporting the objection and focus on some fresh ideas found here. I mean the following:

1. Ray Chandler admits that he is a dedicated harasser of Michael Jackson though he says he possesses NO personal knowledge of the sexual abuse of his nephew:

  • “My intent in 1993 was, and at the present time continues to be, to investigate, gather and publicly disseminate the true facts surrounding the 1993 molestation scandal and civil lawsuit brought by Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson for sexual battery.”
  • “I was not a witness to, nor do I possess personal knowledge of, the sexual molestation of my nephew, Jordan Chandler, by Michael Jackson”. (from Declaration)

2. He says he has disseminated in the internet at least 500 hateful materials about Michael Jackson. For this purpose he has set up a special site on the internet (I tried the website, but it isn’t operative).

He is tracing down all positive information about Michael Jackson on a regular basis and is exposing the role of these media outlets in covering up his “crimes”. He sees dissemination of “truth” (i.e. lies) about Michael Jackson as his mission on earth:

  • “…Raymond Chandler has posted on a public Web site (www.atgbook.net) over 500 pages of documents gathered during the course of a ten-year investigation” (from Memorandum)
    • From approximately September 12 to the present I have posted on the internet (free of charge for the first month) at www.atgbook.com over 500 pages of documents relating to the 1993 scandal. On that same Web site I have posted, and continue to post (free of charge) several reports authored by me concerning the role played by various media outlets in covering up the crimes committed by Michael Jackson against my nephew in 1993. The aforementioned Web site has received over 18 million “hits” (I always said Ray Chandler was a villain!)
  • From 1993 until the present I have continued, and will continue, to investigate the 1993 molestation scandal for the purpose of publicly disseminating the true facts concerning that event, and to provide the public with information concerning child abuse (from Declaration).

3. He says he posted on the internet a lengthy report on Michael Jackson’s interview with Diane Sawyer conducted in 1995 (which we found on that haters’ yola site here: http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/primetime.php and immediately recognized it as Ray or Evan Chandler’s doing):

  • “In 1998 I posted on the internet for public dissemination a lengthy report of statements made in an interview with Michael Jackson conducted by Diane Sawyer on the ABC News television program Prime Time Live. The purpose of my report was to expose false statements made by Mr. Jackson, Ms. Sawyer and ABC News. At that time I appeared on various television and radio programs for the same purpose.”
  • “At that time I publicly stated that I was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal. My public appearances and statements were reported in the New York Post and the Santa Barbara News Press. True and correct copies of said articles are attached collectively as Exhibit E”

4. Ray Chandler’s main exhibit offered to court is his book “All that Glitters” (exhibit A). The other valuable exhibits are cuts from newspapers: The Hot copy – 1pc ( exhibit D), The New York Post – 3 pcs, Off the Beat – 1pc (exhibit E), the Los Angeles Times – 2 pcs (exhibit F) and once again The Los Angeles Times – 2 pcs (exhibit G).

5. He says that there is nothing in those “documents” to aid Michael Jackson in his defense. Over here I fully agree – those paper cuts naturally have nothing to aid Jackson with, as the media had different intentions towards Michael, but his team was not looking for any aid from those paper cuts. Even if they did not say it openly, their aim was to see whether Ray Chandler did indeed have the ‘documents’ he repeatedly spoke about and check their authenticity in case he really happened to possess them.

However Ray Chandler subtly shifts the attention of the reader from the matter of authenticity to the matter of Michael being on a ‘fishing expedition’ for some facts to exonerate him:

  • “I do not possess or have in my control any documents, recordings or other information that would tend to exonerate or otherwise aid Michael Jackson in a defense to the molestation of Jordan Chandler” (from the Declaration)
  • “The request for discovery must describe the information sought and offer a plausible justification for production of the requested documents. The Defendant may not engage in a “fishing expedition”
  • “…the published pages … offer not one example of a statement made by Jordan or Evan Chandler to indicate that any additional statements might be found in the requested documents that would aid in Jackson’s defense. Rather, defendant Jackson is on a fishing expedition, as is evidenced by the broad scope of the requested documents” (from the Memorandum)

6. Ray Chandler says that all the documents he is talking about are available from other sources so there is no need for him to present them to court. Some of the documents can indeed be found on that “yola” haters’ site I’ve mentioned (which can very well be Ray’s site judging by its content):

  • “Raymond Chandler’s book and Web site contain letters and deposition testimony of former agents of Michael Jackson. Mr. Jackson either possesses these documents or can readily obtain them from his former agents, who can authenticate them. Chandler cannot.”
  • “The book and Web site contain letters between Evan Chandler’s 1993 attorney and Mr. Jackson’s 1993 attorneys and investigators. Mr. Jackson is either in possession of these letters or can readily obtain them from his former attorney, who can authenticate them. Chandler cannot.”
  • “The book and Web site contain transcriptions from an audiotape interview between Jordan  Chandler and a psychiatrist. This tape can readily be obtained from Jordan Chandler (if only he came) or his former attorney, who can authenticate that tape. Chandler cannot.”
  • “Documents evidencing communications between Raymond Chandler and Evan Chandler (Request No.8) can be obtained from Evan Chandler (if only he came), who may be called as percipient witness to the 1993 events. In contrast, Raymond Chander is not a percipient witness to the sexual misconduct of Michael Jackson in 1993″ (which doesn’t prevent you from detailing this ‘misconduct’  in your book though).
  • “If 1993 evidence is admitted, then defendant must first request the documents from others who are in possession of the documents. These are persons who, unlike Raymond Chandler, are witnesses who were involved in the 1993 matter and have already been or are likely to be subpoenaed to testify in this case” (you bastard, first you brag you have the documents, and now you say Michael should turn to others to get them?)

7. The mammoth scope of his internet and media activity gives Ray Chandler a pretext to claim that he is a “journalist”. Proving this point is the MAIN idea of his declaration:

  • “What makes journalist journalism is not its format but its content” (congratulations to everybody – all of us are journalists!)
  • “The critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether the information was gathered for dissemination to the public” (we do qualify)
  • “Ray Chandler’s activities over the past ten years meet that standard, (ours too) and he is protected by the journalist’s privilege from disclosing non-public documents or sources” (from the Memorandum)

8. In his zeal to prove that he is a journalist Ray Chandler starts disclosing valuable personal information about his activities against Michael Jackson.

He says that it has been his intent to collect materials for an incriminating book about Jackson from the very beginning of the case and he specially moved to his brother’s place for that purpose in August 1993 (so all that Evan Chandler’s sobbing over the telephone after being ‘beaten by a journalist’s camera’ was indeed a soap opera as we suspected it all along). Now he speaks about it in a very matter-of-fact and no-nonsense way:

  • “Within two days after the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal became public in August of 1993, Raymond Chandler traveled from his home in Santa Barbara to Los Angeles and began gathering information and conducting interviews with persons directly and indirectly  connected with the molestation allegations. From that point in time to the present (even after the publication of the book), Raymond Chandler has continued to gather information related to the 1993 sexual battery complaint brought by Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson..”.
  • “As evidenced by the following, Raymond Chandler’s intent in 1993 was, and at the present time continues to be, to investigate, gather and publicly expose the true facts surrounding that lawsuit and scandal” (from Memorandum).
  • “From late  August 1993 through December of 1993, I lived in the home of Evan and Jordan Chandler in Los Angeles. During that time I talked extensively with Evan Chandler, Jordan Chandler, June Chandler (Jordan’s mother), and other persons directly and indirectly connected with the molestation allegations”.

9. Ray Chandler continues to reveal his secrets as he thinks they will never be disclosed to the general public and the documents containing them will be sealed by the court (following that protective order).

So he openly tells us of his plans to publish the book immediately after the confidentiality agreement was signed in 1994 but says he didn’t do it “at the request of his brother and his attorney” (translation: because they were afraid to be sued for breaching the agreement):

  • “Within days after Jordan Chandler’s civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public”. (from Memorandum)
  • “Shortly after Jordan Chandler’s civil molestation suit against Michael Jackson was settled in January 1994, I traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for my book. An article attesting to this fact appeared in the New York Post. A true and correct copy of said article is attached as Exhibit D. (At the request of my brother and his attorney I did not publish a book at that time)”.(from Declaration)

10.  Though the Chandler brothers waited for some ten years to publish the book (its release date is September 12, 2004) Ray Chandler occasionally reminded Michael Jackson via different media channels that he was considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal’.

From the strange way he goes on repeating this idea even in the Memorandum and Declaration it looks like he is either reconnoitering for a possible reaction to it from the opposite side or wants to keep Michael in suspense over the danger of a slanderous book…

Could it be a form of a blackmail to keep Michael from ever opening his mouth about the Chandlers’ exoneration  effort and overall allegations against him? The over-sensitive reaction of Evan Chandler to a couple of Michael’s innocent words in the Diane Sawyer interview (which took the form of a $60mln suit against him) strongly speak in favor of this possibility.

Could it be a form of a threat meant to force Michael Jackson pay them the whole sum? Well, we know now that those fears were groundless – the confidentiality agreement said that Michael Jackson’s duty to pay was absolute and the Chandlers were to receive the money in any case. The only danger was in having to return the money if the arbitration court proved that the Chandlers had talked to the media and had thus broken the agreement – which was what they were actually doing without any shame or remorse:

  • “In the Fall of 1994 I wrote approximately ten letters requesting interviews with Michael Jackson’s attorneys, private investigator and other agents, in which I stated that I would soon be publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal” (Declaration)
  • “At that time [1998] Raymond Chandler appeared on various television and radio programs to discuss his report, and he publicly stated that he was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 lawsuit and scandal” (Memorandum)
  • “In 1998 … I publicly stated that I was still considering publishing a book regarding the 1993 scandal”
  • “On September 12, 2004, I appeared on the NBC News television program Dateline at which time I publicly stated that my intent in becoming involved in 1993 was, among other things, for the purpose of publishing a book regarding the molestation scandal”. (Declaration)

11.  Since Ray Chandler declared himself a journalist he now claims that he is “protected by a reporter’s privilege” so that “the burden shifts to the defendant to make the showing required to overcome the privilege”.

The burden of disproving that he is a journalist is now shifted to the defendant? No comment.

12.  He also makes a lot of fuss over the fact that the day before signing the confidentiality agreement Michael Jackson withdrew his claim of extortion (same as the Chandlers withdrew their claim of molestation) and this for some reason proves that Evan Chandler was no extortioner:

  • “As to Evan Chandler, on January 24, 1994, Michael Jackson publicly withdrew his claim that Evan Chandler attempted to extort from him in 1993 (Exhibit G).

13.  In conclusion Raymond Chandler promises to produce his valuable ‘documents’ to the court for in camera review. As this is exactly what all haters are dribbling over let’s see what these documents look like:

  • “Notwithstanding this Motion to Quash and the Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum, filed concurrently, Raymond Chandler has produced the documents and tapes that appear to be responsive to the Subpoena for in camera review. These documents include several thousand pages of newspaper and magazine clippings, copies of deposition and court pleadings, and approximately six to eight hours of tape recordings”.

The only interesting point in this paragraph is “deposition transcripts” as the recordings are already known to us, not to mention “thousands of newspaper and  magazine clippings”.

The law encyclopedia says that a DEPOSITION is “a pre-trial interrogation in which a witness in a case answers questions under oath. The testimony delivered during the deposition may be used during the trial”. And also: “The deposition, because it is taken with counsel present and under oath, becomes a significant evidentiary document.”

An interesting thing about a deposition in the Chandlers’ case is that Jordan NEVER MADE IT as was confirmed by Johnnie Cochran (see Lisa Campbell’s book The King of Pop’s darkest hour”, p.183).  But even if we don’t believe Lisa Campbell the same conclusion may be derived from the fact that no deposition from Jordan was ever used in court (though this is its direct goal and application).

The most Jordan made was  a DECLARATION (the authenticity of which still remains to be proven). The law encyclopedia says that the legal value of a declaration is not as high as that of a deposition (as it cannot be used in court in the absence of a witness) and “in the law of evidence, it is a statement or narration made not under oath but simply in the middle of things, as a part of what is happening”.

Even if made under oath its legal value is minimal as the person cannot answer for perjury even if the statements he made in the declaration are false. So whatever deposition transcripts were in possession of Ray Chandler we may be sure that Jordan’s deposition was NOT among them.

14. The final conclusion made by Ray Chandler on October 25, 2004 is the following:

  • “For all of the above reasons the subpoena duces tecum should be quashed. In the alternative Defendant should not be provided access to said documents until the Court rules on the 1993 evidence. Finally, this Court may inspect the requested documents in camera to determine what documents, if any, should be produced for inspection and copying by the defendant”. (Memorandum)

Okay, we know that Defendant Michael Jackson was never given that right as Ray Chandler’s subpoena was quashed, but it is also interesting to see that the Prosecution didn’t use any of those documents either. Evidently the “determine what documents, if any” clause showed that there was NOTHING worth of submitting to the 2005 trial even for Sneddon.

If you think that this is how this endless legal argument terminated you’ll be wrong. The Defense made an opposition to the above Motion, saying that Ray Chandler could not qualify as a journalist.

You’ll be amazed by Ray Chandler’s answer…

(to be continued)

41 Comments leave one →
  1. Dialdancer permalink
    August 15, 2010 2:47 am

    <>>

    Even Evan did not speak using the same kind of language found in Jordan’s Declaration.

    Like

  2. Carl S permalink
    August 14, 2010 6:14 pm

    For a man like raymond chandler,who seems to take every possible opportunity to drone on about his incredible evidence re michael.That in a court of law,a court in which another boy is making the same accusations his nephew did,where he had the ultimate opportunity to get his obvious vendetta to come to fruition.Did he then so desperately attempt to get himself off the hook so to speak?All the talk,all the embellished stories and lies,he had the opportunity to stand up and have the whole world as audience.But he ran,because he knew his grand scheme would have fallen apart,mesereau managed to pick apart every phony witness with incredible precision.And that is why chandler ran,he knew the same would happen to him.The same reason that i believe evan chandler chose to make his “dramatic exit”from life.Also i would like to comment that i believe ray chandlers law degree was obtained as a get out clause in any cases,he now knows all the legal loops and get out clauses to stop himself from being incriminated.Not that it will work,his web is rapidly unravelling

    Like

  3. August 14, 2010 6:58 am

    LYNETTE, wow, just wow, as Suzy would say!

    All the documents you’ve found are a gold mine but this small article about them asking for the pictures of Michael naked is a precious gem on top of it all!

    WHY ask for the pictures if you know what he looks like naked anyway?

    Let us make the timing of Larry Feldman’s motion clear to everyone – so on January 4, 1994 (two weeks after the strip search on Dec.22, 1993 and one week after they made a certain ‘declaration’ in the name of Jordan, Dec.28, 1993) they suddenly ask for the pictures of Michael’s private parts… The way Larry Feldman words his motion is fantastically shrewd and misleading:

    “We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.

    Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence”.

    The insolence of it is staggering – they want to have the pictures for Jordan to study them and amend his story accordingly, then subject Michael to another humiliating procedure (for making sure they didn’t miss anything – otherwise I see no reason for it) and after that they’ll come up with another ‘declaration’ describing Michael’s private parts, making it even more graphic than the previous one and absolutely accurate this time!

    And in addition to that they say that if their request for the photographs is not met they SHOULD NOT be used in the civil suit as evidence! The photographs were apparently SO much different from Jordan’s description that Larry Feldman wanted them excluded from the civil trial!

    Wow, just wow…..

    P.S. Lynette, this information deserves to be turned into a separate post!

    P.P.S. I am staying in town and hope to post the last part of that Ray Chandler subpoena business still today.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    August 14, 2010 6:19 am

    Los Angeles
    Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body
    Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
    January 05, 1994
    The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.
    Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.
    “We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.
    Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.
    Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.

    This is a copy I made with the link below of an article that ran January 5th 1994 in the Los Angeles Times. Larry Feldman was a very tricky lawyer wasn’t he? To ask for copies of the photos (no way Michael would say) submit to a second search (certainly he would, he enjoyed the first one soooo much why not do it again), or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence. Clever wasn’t he? If they were barred from evidence in the civil trial all they would have had to go on was Jordan’s word that Michael matched his description and the photos could not be used as exculpatory evidence either. Or better yet they could not be used as evidence that their story was a lie and they were extortionists! Then he goes to the press and blatantly lies that they were a match!
    This is the day that Larry Feldman crossed the line from Lawyer to extortionist. Why didn’t someone in that press corp. ask him why they wanted to see them? I mean if they were telling the truth and knew they were a match why look at them? And after looking at them of course they would know what he looked like for heaven’s sake! Why, why, why didn’t someone ask him that one simple question? It wasn’t that they gave 2 descriptions it was that they asked for 2 searches like in 15 days Jordan suddenly remembered he was not circumcised? These people were EVIL no other word for it! They saw Michael on TV and retaliated in this way.They saw how upset he was, how traumatized and hurt he was and wanted to do it to him AGAIN! They were just plain sick, sick sick sick.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

    Like

  5. Suzy permalink
    August 14, 2010 4:33 am

    It’s funny how they had the nerve to even sue people like Lisa Marie Presley, and at the same breath they defended Ray’s appearances in the media and publishing of a book by saying he wasn’t covered by the settlement. Well, LMP wasn’t either, yet they sued her for defending her husband.

    Like

  6. Suzy permalink
    August 14, 2010 4:12 am

    Lynette and David

    That’s another good find on Jordan about the 1998 lawsuit! There was some other info on him a couple of weeks ago from somebody, from an article describing how he lived after he emancipated himself. He lead a lavish, luxury lifestyle and also was very conscious of using his money in investments in buying shares and so on. To me that made the impression that he had a love of money, he didn’t need his father’s greed motivate him, he had his own. (I’m not saying investing and using money cleverly is greed in itself, but it was certainly a kid in whose mind money had top priority.)

    I would think that someone who was molested would resent his father for wanting to release a music record about the molestation with songs like “Duck Butter Blues” or „You Have No Defense (For My Love)”. Frankly, that just sounds perverted and not something I would want to have something to do with as the victim. And Jordan joined this lawsuit? Wow, just wow!

    To me it just further strengthens the impression that, like his father, he was a greedy liar on his own right.

    Like

  7. lynande51 permalink
    August 14, 2010 4:04 am

    One of the common themes that run through MJ’s motions in both Jordan’s case and Ray Chandlers Motion to Quash the subpoena is that he keeps trying to compel Ray, or for that matter, any member of the Chandler family into court to produce documents and be deposed. Is that what a guilty man does? It seems like he is saying ” get in here show me what you got ,tell me what you know”. That is not someone who is afraid of that man’s testimony.

    Like

  8. August 14, 2010 3:41 am

    Hi David,

    I was about to post the link to the video where I saw Michael/Mesereau PI say that sodium amytal was used, but the video I was referencing turned out not to be the one. I will try to find and post.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    August 14, 2010 3:10 am

    Somebody used it on someone, but remember their description of Michaels reaction to the supposed Toradol injection. First Toradol is a potent NSAID ( think Aleve) and does not have the sort of effect that they are describing. They said he started acting really weird and was slurring his words and stuff. Also when he came out of it he was ok but had a serious case of cotton mouth, Well not from Toradol he didn’t. You guys I use this every day, we don’t even tell people they can’t drive home. Second when he is describing it in ATG he says how he decided that he would take advantage of the situation and ask him if he was gay because he was so concerned that he was gay. Michael denied being gay but given Mark Torbiner’s penchant for using sodium amytal my guess is that is what they gave Michael and he was questioning him trying to find information he could use to blackmail him. When he didn’t give him the information he wanted he went in another direction. I mean if you step back and think about that why would you even get this man that was at your house for the first time a drug for his headache beyond tylenol? It was right after that that Michael stopped talking to Evan he talks about how he didn’t talk to him anymore on that tape. I mean their story is so screwed up about the use of the Toradol and the sodium amytal from my standpoint that alone discredits their entire story. You know don’t you that if one part of their story is a lie so is the rest of it. It is way to far fetched that’s it. I mean come on “my son needed a baby tooth out and requested anesthesia”. I say “give me a break.” That’s a perfect example, I had a 10 year old with a broken radius today and he took the needle full of lidocaine and setting it without so much as a flinch. Kids are alot more scared to be put to sleep than they are 20 second of having their tooth pulled.
    I wanted to add something too about being emancipated he might have hated his father and got emancipated to get his money and give it to his father to get him off his back. As for suing him again probably the same reason.

    Like

  10. lcpledwards permalink
    August 13, 2010 11:39 pm

    @ Teva
    I didn’t know that Mesereau’s PI said it was used. If he did say it was used, then I can’t argue with him. I never said definitively that it wasn’t used, I just said that I used to think that it was used, but lately I’ve had a change of heart after finding out some info on Jordie. On May 26, 1998 he sued MJ, and it was our co-admin Lynette who brought this to my attention. He joined Evan’s second lawsuit that was filed in 1996. Here is part of her email explaining how she obtained the document:

    I went to LA County Superior Court and bought some case Summaries from Michael’s files and Jordan was 18 in 1998 and his is a separate case, as part of his father’s second lawsuit which he joined in 1998 Ray Chandler/ Charmatz is listed as a witness in that civil case. His case was declined in arbitration the same as Evans the difference is that his was only against Michael not Lisa or ABC. This indicates that the reason he emancipated himself when he was 16 was to have full access to his trust. He was not supposed to be able to touch the trust until he was of legal age which was 18 in California. Once he filed for emancipation he was able to get the money and he even asked for the full amount early. When he joined his father in the1996 lawsuit he shows that his interest was in the money as well.

    Jordan was not a good kid. I think Geraldine was right when she said that they were going to say that the sodium amytal acted as a truth serum and that was how they found out. They just didn’t reckon on Mary Fisher and having to spend so much time defending that particular part of the lie. They had their money and they were running out would be my guess by the number of lawsuits against Evan. Bashir asked Michael why he thought Jordan did it but it wasn’t added to the showing. Michaels reply was that he didn’t know and he even became tearful. In my opinion Jordan and Evan were the nails in Michael’s coffin.

    I always thought that Jordie emancipated himself out of anger towards both of his parents for making him lie. This is what Mesereau alluded to when he said he had witnesses ready to testify against him at the Harvard panel in 2005. But Lynette says that he emancipated himself to get access to the money. Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive; he could have been so upset at his parents that he decided to not speak to them again, and as a result he wanted early access to his money at 16 years old. But this lawsuit is troubling, because why would he join Evan’s lawsuit against MJ, with Ray Chandler as a witness? Here is a case summary of Jordie’s lawsuit against MJ, which was dismissed in 2000, along with Evan’s lawsuit. Lynette has a lot more of the documents, so ask her if you have any additional questions.

    Case Summary

    Case Number: SC052717
    JORDAN CHANDLER VS. MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON ET. AL
    Filing Date: 05/26/1998
    Case Type: Commrcial Compl-Not tort or Complx (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Judgment by Court-Petition granted 07/01/1999
    ________________________________________
    Future Hearings
    None
    ________________________________________
    Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
    Parties
    CHADLER JORDAN – Plaintiff
    GOLDENRING & PROSSER – Attorney for Plaintiff
    JACKSON MICHAEL JOSEPH – Defendant
    KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS & ROSENMAN – Attorney for Defendant
    KIRKER & FOX – Witness
    MIJAC MUSIC – Deft’s DBA
    MIRAN INTERNATIONAL – Defendant
    MJJ PRODUCTIONS INC. – Defendant
    RAYMOND CHANDLER/CHARMATZ – Witness
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
    Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    02/05/1999
    11/22/2000 Memorandum of Costs (MEMO OF COSTS ON APPEAL CLAIMED BY DEFTS AGAINST PLTF – JORDAN CHANDLER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    11/22/2000 Memorandum of Costs (MEMO OF COSTS ON APPEAL CLAIMED BY DEFTS AGAINST PLTF, JORDAN CHANDLER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    10/17/2000 Remittitur filed (DEFTS ARE TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS ON APPEAL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, FROM PLTS. DEFT, LISA MARIE PRESLEY, IS TO RECOVER HER COSTS ON APPEAL FROM PLTF. )
    Filed by Second Appellate District
    08/26/1999 Memorandum of Costs
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/16/1999 Notice (NTC TO ATTY IN RE NTC OF APPEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/12/1999 Notice of Entry of Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    08/03/1999 Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/16/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/04/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    06/04/1999 Declaration
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    05/12/1999 Order
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/12/1999 Ex-Parte Application
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/15/1999 Notice (NTC OF ENTRY OF ORDER )
    Filed by Witness
    03/05/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTN TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS RAYMOND CHANDLER/CHARMATZ & PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA; DECL OF JANE FARR IN SUPPORT THEREOF)
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Declaration (- of Jane H. Farr re notice of ex parte application of defendant Michael Jackson for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third-party witness)
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Order (- shortening time )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/02/1999 Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third- party witness )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/26/1999 Ex-Parte Application (DEFTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE APPEARANCE OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/25/1999 Order (ORDER CONSOLIDATING ARBITRATIONS )
    Filed by Defendant
    02/24/1999 Notice of Ruling (MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/19/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (supplemental opposition to defendant’s motion to consolidate )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    02/18/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (DEFTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/16/1999 Opposition (PLTFS OPPOSITION TO MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES DECL OF JAMES E. PROSSER )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    02/09/1999 Proof of Service
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    02/05/1999 Motion to Consolidate
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    01/26/1999 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (STATUS CONFERENCE CONT TO 6-16-99 9:45 AM DEPT WE A )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    10/05/1998 Order (COMPELLING ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/25/1998 Response (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL ARBITRTATION AND STAY CIVIL ACTION; DECL OF ZIA F. MODABBER. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/24/1998 Declaration (DECL OF JANE H. FARR RE: FILING OF REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY CIVIL ACTION. )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    07/14/1998 Opposition (OPP TO DEFTS EXPARTE APP FOR ORDER TO SEAL RESPONSE TO THE COMPLT SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    07/14/1998 Order (PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    07/14/1998 Ex-Parte Application (APP FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/26/1998 Complaint Filed
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
    Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
    07/01/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding
    Motion to Vacate – Motion is granted in Part
    06/16/1999 at 10:00 am in Department WEA, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status conference is held & cont.
    05/12/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEG, Paul G. Flynn, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding – Granted-Uncontested
    03/08/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Motion Denied
    03/03/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (Ex parte application denied onMarch 2, 1999 is readdressed andgranted.) – Granted-Uncontested
    03/02/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening timefor a hearing on his motion tocompel the appearance of third-party witness) – Denied
    02/26/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEJ, Lorna Parnell, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (DEFT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ANORDER COMPELLING THIRD PARTYWITNESS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) – Denied
    02/22/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Consolidate – Motion Granted
    01/25/1999 at 09:30 am in Department A203, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status Conference continued
    09/10/1998 in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Motion Granted
    08/26/1998 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Submitted
    07/14/1998 at 08:30 am in Department WED, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding (APP/ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERDOCUMENTS ORDERED SEALED) – Motion Granted
    ________________________________________
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

    Like

  11. August 13, 2010 10:29 pm

    Teva: “He describes the events in a rather pedestrian and casual manner”
    In that conversation with a psychiatrist Jordan sounded like a cold fish.

    “He only seemed to have come to that understanding after persons around him said it was”.

    I really don’t want to pass judment without proving my point first but everything inside me is screaming out in favour of the theory that Jordan knew all along what he was doing.

    Of course he could have later assumed the ‘adult’ views on his relations with Michael imposed on him by the parents and the police and have started thinking that staying in another person’s bedroom was completely inacceptable even if it was innocent. But this will not explain all those graphic details which he elaborated on.

    Those descriptions can be only explained by him telling a LIE and telling it on PURPOSE. And this means that he was PART of the set up, and that it is USELESS for us to wait for him to speak up and that we must do all the job of vindicating Michael OURSELVES.

    But this conclusion will be true only if the documents we are talking about (interview and declaration) are true too. And that is exactly the reason why I am looking into them.

    Like

  12. August 13, 2010 9:49 pm

    Helena -“This is in stark contrast with real victims of molestation who cannot get over their trauma even some 20 years after it happened to them.”

    But that is just my point. Jordan does not seem to have recognized the relationship as molestation the way other victims have. He describes the events in a rather pedestrian and casual manner. He only seemed to have come to that understanding after persons around him said it was. That I found strange because the kid was bright and fear of molestation is not something that has to be taught to kids. Children naturally feel victimize when an adult touches them in their private parts. My issue with Dr. Gardener is regardless of what Jordan says his diagnosis was already going to be that Michael M Jordan because he believes when an adult shares his bed with a child it is “already molestation.” He said so.

    Like

  13. August 13, 2010 9:15 pm

    @lcpledwards

    Then if you don’t believe the sodium amytal then how do you explain Mesereau’s PI saying so. Did Michael have incompetents working for him?

    Like

  14. August 13, 2010 9:12 pm

    Guys, I think that we are very far from making final conclusions on Jordan Chandler – too many things still need to be looked into. And in the long run it is not even important whether Jordan spoke under the effect of sodium amytal, lied consciously to please or obey his father, or was part of a set up devised by the adults – the only thing which does matter is that he TOLD LIES and we have already proven it BY FACTS.

    Everything else will inevitably be a speculation on our part and it will actually be a miracle if we manage to get to the Chandlers’ real motives. Human emotions are a terribly difficult subject – so difficult that even we here won’t be able to explain all the different motives we have for spending so much of our valuable time on discussing the various issues of this blog. So if we do start looking for the Chandlers’ motives we should agree from the very outset that the chances of getting to know them are minimal.

    But why the need to do it at all if finding the real motive is so difficult? Because the motive seems to be the only way to find out how and by whom all this havoc against Michael was organized and orchestrated.

    I made this long comment on emotions just to safeguard ourselves from taking the wrong lead. It is a well established psychological fact that emotions cannot be faked – they can be only imitated or simulated and this is a premise which we should base all our further conclusions on. We simply cannot start from a wrong premise as the conclusions will be wrong too and that is all there is to it.

    The point I wanted to explain (but evidently failed to) is that the so-called false memory ‘victims’ may very well believe that they have been molested but when speaking about it they will not be able to relive the emotions they have never experienced – it is simply impossible to relive the nauseous fear or panic or dismay if you have never felt it, while it will come back to you on its own, if you did go through it and have to recall it again.

    The false memory victims can relate their stories quite convincingly and can be filled with real anger towards their ‘abusers’ – because they think they’ve been abused by them or were led to believe so by the police, BUT they will not be nauseous at seeing their abuser again, their heart will not beat faster and their blood will not throb in their veins when they remember the pain and humiliation of their experience and they will surely never commit suicide because they are not able to put up with their memories.

    In short they may be angry and resentful (you will be too if the police convince you the abuser tried to rape you), but they will not be ill, suicidal and psychotic. They will live a normal life, same as actors come back to normal life after they play in thrillers or horror films (unless they experienced real horror in the process of making the film).

    If someone lies out of malice and needs to display emotion to make it more convincing he’ll employ acting techniques. Since it is impossible to relive the emotion you never had an actor will try to simulate it by remembering his emotions in similar situations – when he was offended, hurt, insulted by someone or had to go through a severe psychological pain, ‘record’ his then reaction to it in his memory and apply the “record” to the situation in which he has to display his emotions artificially. Thus when he has to shed tears on stage he will remember the moment when his pet dog died and all the emotions he had then…

    Michael’s haters often refer to Jason Francia’s tears as to him being sincere during his testimony (concerning tickling). But from all the previous incidents examined in minute detail I know that Michael was innocent – and this means that I’ll have to prove that Jason Francia was either an actor or someone who had been so well worked up by the police that he could no longer tell whether the molestation had or had not happened to him – tickling, same as stroking one’s hair may be interpreted in any way. In this case he will be more of a false-memory witness who was traumatized not by ‘molestation’ which never happened but by the police techniques which confused and brainwashed him completely.

    And then he will be crying just out of the disgrace and pressure of having to talk about such intimate and unpleasant things in public – or out of the resentment that the celebrity he was once so much in awe of would involve him – even against his will – in a humiliating procedure like this.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    August 13, 2010 7:09 pm

    @ lynande51

    Yeah, I think that Jordan first went along with his father’s claims because in his childish way he thought that’s how he will get off Evan Michael’s back and this topic. After all Evan told him nothing will happen if Jordan tells him he was molested by Michael, but if he kept denying he would get Michael into trouble.

    And yeah, I remember how CM claims were handled by the public back in those days. People automatically assumed it’s true, even though statistics says 48% of the allegations are false! That’s because nobody would want to harm a child, of course, so people are afraid to side with someone who is MAYBE a CM. Of course, it can be that the person is falsely accused but somehow people would rather live with falsely accusing an adult of CM than with maybe falsely accusing a child of lying.

    Like

  16. Suzy permalink
    August 13, 2010 6:37 pm

    Hi guys!

    Helena, it’s interesting what you write because it’s exactly Jordie’s lack of emotion while talking about the alleged molestation that makes me think he knowingly lied. To me that simply doesn’t look like a molested kid talking. Like David said, I was thinking that even if he had been given false memories by Sodium Amytal he would feel more emotional about it because when we talk about emotions what matters is what he believes. But this kid IMO didn’t believe he was molested. He just said it in his rehearsed way and in an adult’s words.

    Now you say even with false memories he wouldn’t be emotionally attached. I’m not an expert, so I cannot argue with what an expert (your mother) says. But to me many of those false memory victims in the 60 Minutes programme from the 90s that David once showed, seemed like they genuinely believed they were molested – until they realized they were manipulated. So I don’t know.

    Another thing is what Geraldine Hughes said, that it was planned for a long, long time and Jordan was trained and making visits to Rothman’s office a long time before the SA thing allegedly happened. Hughes believes the SA thing was only to make it look like it was a spontaneous confession, when, according to her, in reality Jordan was trained for long by that time!

    We only know from the SA story through that KCBS TV report (that was Mary Fischer’s reference to the story as well). And where did they get it from? Only Evan, Torbiner or Jordan could have told them. Any of them leaked this, he certainly had a purpose with it – and the purpose was not to help Michael. Let’s not forget SA was also called the “truth serum” – maybe they didn’t realize how controversial this drug actually was. And when they realized they turned around and denied using it. Who knows?

    I will be interested what you have to say anout Jason Francia’s tears. I have my theory, which is that (while I have doubts about Jordan) I think he might be a real false memory victim. Of course, he could be just another con artist, I won’t exclude that – after all he and his mother claimed they saw MJ molesting people like Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and they sold their stories to newspapers for cash.

    What I think is that he was innocently tickled by Michael a couple of times and then (2 years later, I might add), AFTER the police forced him to “confess” and manipulated him into saying he was molested, he might have start to believe his own lies (the sheriffs convinced him he was molested) and especially after sent to “therapy”. As we saw in that 60 Minutes documentary a quack therapist can easily turn something innocent (like tickling) into a false memory of molestation – even without Sodium Amytal.

    This is of course, just my theory. I’m curiously waiting to hear yours.

    Like

  17. lynande51 permalink
    August 13, 2010 5:09 pm

    You know I have been thinking much simpler. Kids do things like lie everyday. They say they didn’t take Tommy’s toy away or no I didn’t push her all the time. In the US we see kids do unspeakable things like take guns to schools and kill several classmates. Why? Because they do not have the abilityto comprehend the enormity of the consequences. How many 13 year olds actually have a grasp on death? It is the unusual one that does, that really knows the finality of it. It has to be someone incredibly close to them before they get it. I know I didn’t get death until I was 28 and my father died of a massive heart attack in spite of the fact that I preformed CPR for a full 20 minutes before rescue got there. They had to pull me off my father and a scream that I will remember to this day came from the depths of my soul when they told me he was gone. It takes something like that before you understand dead. No one knows what that feels like until they have felt it, and a 13 year old would never understand it because they are generally shielded from it by nature and nurture.
    When Tom Mesereau was defending Michael he said he was treating this like a capital case, a death penalty for Michael if he were to be found guilty. When Johnny Cochran recommended him to Randy Jackson I’m sure he thought the same. He knew that Tom Mesereau had the passion and conviction that Michael needed to save his life.
    I know that several of you are from different areas of the country and the world and are very young and don’t remember a time before. Here in 1993, child molestation was just becoming something that was put on the news. It was not an everyday topic and the public was horrified by the extent that seemed to be occuring. It had become a witch hunt of sorts to find these people called child molesters and hunt them down. As adults we were warned to believe every report of it because a child would never lie about such a thing and to doubt them would do them considerable psychological damage. To be accused of such a thing was worse than being accused of murder, even the other inmates hated them and if they were put in general population they would be dealt with swiftly and justly through jailhouse justice. They spent their incarceration in orange jumpsuits and were labled by prison staff to be target risks, the orange jumpsuit was so guards could see them at all times and try to keep them alive.Very few adults even knew that side of the equation so how could our children?

    Now looking at it with a little more perspective do you think Jordan,who had been told that no one else was going to find out, had ANY idea of the enormity of what he was doing. I think he thought something verychildish and attempted to problem solve this in a childish way. If I tell my dad what he wants to hear and he asks Michael for money, Michael will give it to him and everything will be ok. I can go back to live with mom and we can go on tour with Michael. Dad will have his money and he will just leave us all alone.
    When you try to understand why Jordan might have done this try to think like a 13 year old and use the problem solving skills of a 13 year old. Then you will come closer to the answer.

    Like

  18. August 13, 2010 1:14 pm

    David: “I used to think that Jordie was indeed given sodium amytal because how else could you get him to do a 180 on MJ? But the more I think about it, the more I start to go with Geraldine Hughes’ theory that Evan and Barry Rothman got him to lie. If Jordie had those false memories implanted in his head, then he would have BELIEVED that he had been molested, and he would have shown EMOTION in his interviews”.

    Let me make one serious remark on emotions, David.

    My mother has been studying ‘the emotional sphere’ all her professional life and I know for sure that emotions under no circumstances can be faked, even if a person is given sodium amytal and as a result believes that he ‘was molested’.

    The combination of these circumstances in Jordan’s case creates a unique situation for us to observe – he could have been give sodium amytal and think that ‘he was molested’ but since the idea was artificially imposed into his mind he won’t feel it the way real victims feel – there will be no trauma, no emotions and consequently no need for a lengthy therapy. In fact this is what Ray Chandler confirmed his nephew never had – he said Jordan had got over “the trauma” very easily and was doing fine.

    This is in stark contrast with real victims of molestation who cannot get over their trauma even some 20 years after it happened to them – remember the video of Todd Bridges you’ve found yourself – and the actor had only 3 episodes of molestation if I remember it correctly, and not several months as Ray Chandler claims in Jordan’s case!

    The impossibility to falsify emotions concerns genuine emotions only, of course. Actors learn how to express emotions – so expression of emotions can be faked. To be able to imitate emotion they have to work themselves up into a certain state, but whatever the result is it will never be an a real emotion accompanied by a wild heartbeat, blood throbbing in one’s head, a panicky state (if we talk about the reminiscence of a real abuse), tears, etc.

    This inevitably raises a question of Jason Francia who shed tears when he was giving testimony – was he acting or was his emotion real? We need to specially look into that and I am planning to do it once I am more or less finished with our dear old Ray Chandler.

    Here is some information on emotions and their crucial role in human behavior:

    From the book review by Anthony Campbell on Antonio Damasio’s acclaimed book “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (1999): http://amyscott.com/Emotion.pdf

    There’s a tendency for writers on the mind/brain problem to concentrate on reasoning and the logical faculty and to regard the emotions as a rather regrettable complication, of no real importance to our understanding of how our minds work. And even if they do accord importance to emotion, they often seem to regard it as something separate from intellectual activity. (For understandable reasons this is particularly true of those who favour the view that the brain is more or less a computer.)
    This is “Descarte’s error”, according to Damasio. He is a neurologist who has become convinced, by his observation of patients with brain damage, that reason alone is insufficient even for the efficient operation of the intellect.
    Descartes’ famous “cogito” — I think, therefore I am” — is profoundly mistaken, according to Damasio. Thinking is a late evolutionary development. Long before there was thought, there was feeling; and we are still primarily feeling organisms….

    http://www.unc.edu/~prinz/WhichEmotionsAreBasicPrinz.pdf
    “Sneezing is a involuntary response. We can fake sneezes, but real sneezes are outside of our control. Sneezing isn’t the kind of thing that can be learned. Likewise for emotions. Emotions are not like beliefs, so they cannot be aquired by weighing evidence. They are also passive, like sneezes, and outside of voluntary control.

    The connection between emotions and the body is central to the theory of emotions defended by William James (1884) and Carl Lange (1885) . We sometimes perceive our hearts racing, our lungs inhaling, and our muscles tensing. The perception of these and other changes can be identified with fear. If the James-Lange theory is right, emotions are quite rudimentary from a biological point of view. They involve bodily responses that we share with much simpler animals. The bodily response associated with fear is no accident. It prepares an organism for flight”….

    “While the expression of emotions can be faked, the emotions themselves cannot”.

    http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/what_is_real_emotion.html
    What Is REAL Emotion?
    By Mark Ivar Myhre

    Are you feeling real emotion? Or is it just a fabrication? Here’s how to find out…
    Just because you’re feeling something, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a ‘real’ emotion. Because so much of what we feel is a ‘mental construct’ of our own making. In other words, it’s a fabrication; an artificial emotion.

    So often we think what we’re feeling IS true emotion, when it’s not.
    When you feel real emotion, it usually lasts only a few seconds. Or a few minutes at most. You feel the complexity of it – like eating a delicious gourmet meal. You FEEL the COMPLEXITY of it – then it’s gone – and you are left invigorated. No matter what the emotion is: love, anger, hate, fear, hurt, happiness….

    …Compare [real anger] to righteous anger; which means ‘anger you believe you have the RIGHT to feel – because it’s caused by an outside influence’. In other words, you honestly believe someone or something outside yourself actually created YOUR anger.

    To feel righteous about your anger – you’re taking a little bit of real anger and putting it onto a treadmill or a hamster wheel or however you wish to visualize it. That treadmill is your ‘mental construct’.

    Rather than feeling it and being done with it – you must keep the story alive of how ‘they’ did it to you. So it goes on and on and on and never ends. That’s painful! And exhausting. And a tremendous waste of energy.It creates powerlessness. Because I don’t have my power. I’ve given it to the ‘offender’. Or rather, I lay my power at their feet. Since someone else ‘created’ your anger, you’re forced to believe only they can take it away. Which of course is impossible.

    With real emotion there is no story; no explanation; no rationalization. It’s just me feeling my feelings. With artificial emotion, I take my feelings – whatever they may be – and build something out of them that isn’t even true. Because NO ONE CAN EVER MAKE YOU FEEL ANYTHING.

    With real emotion – you’re going for a short exhilarating ride on a roller coaster. With fabricated emotion – you’re sitting underneath the metal structure – in the dirt and the grease – looking at the rust and the rivets – and saying:
    “I know what roller coasters are!” But you never ride one.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080422200952.htm
    Lying? The Face Betrays Deceiver’s True Emotions, But In Unexpected Ways

    ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008)

    In making a public appeal for the safe return of his missing wife, M. White broke down in tears and sobbed.
    “My wife is a good person, never hurts anybody. If she’s out there and you see me or you see this, just stay out there and we’ll find you,’ said the tearful husband, sitting on the sofa in his living room in Edmonton after his pregnant wife Liana White disappeared in July 2005. Canadians watching his plea couldn’t help but be moved by the plight of the distressed man.

    Three days later, flashes of anger broke through his sadness when talking with reporters. He said he was so frustrated with the police investigation that he was going to go and find his wife himself. He led volunteer searchers directly to her body in a ditch on the outskirts of the city, and was immediately arrested by police.

    He’d been lying all along. M. White was charged and convicted with second-degree murder and committing an indignity to a dead body.

    How can we tell who’s lying, who’s not? New research out of Stephen Porter’s Forensic Psychology Lab at Dalhousie University determines the face will betray the deceiver’s true emotion, but not in the stereotypical ways we think.

    It’s not the shifty eyes or sweaty brow or an elongated nose (à la Pinocchio) the lie detector should look for. Instead, other elements of a liar’s face will give them away – “cracking” briefly and allowing displays of true emotion to leak on to the face. In fact, when Porter and his team analyzed White’s plea frame by frame, they found hints of anger and disgust in his face, not noticed by most of the supportive public.

    “The face and its musculature are so complex—so much more complex than anywhere else in our external bodies,” says Leanne ten Brinke, a graduate student in experimental psychology who collaborated on the new research. “There are some muscles in the face you can’t control … and those muscles won’t be activated in the absence of genuine emotion—you just can’t do it.”

    Adds Dr. Porter: “Unlike body language, you can’t monitor or completely control what’s going on your face. This research was the first detailed experimental demonstration of the secrets revealed when people put on a “false face,” faking or inhibiting various universal emotions.”

    An article based on their research, “Reading between the Lies: Identifying Concealed and Falsified Emotions in Universal Facial Expressions,” appears in the May issue of Psychological Science. The research is the first comprehensive study of the secrets revealed by the human face for four of the universal emotions: happiness, sadness, disgust, and fear. They also tested a hypothesis originating with Charles Darwin in 1872—that there are certain specific facial actions that cannot be created just because we want them to. As well, facial actions may be involuntarily expressed in the presence of a genuine emotion.

    In conducting the research, Dr. Porter and Ms. ten Brinke enlisted adult participants to view images that ranged from happy (puppies playing) to fearful (a close-up of open-mouthed rabid dog) and disgusting (a severed hand) and were instructed to respond with genuine or deceptive emotional expressions. (For example, they’d be directed to smile when viewing the severed-hand photo.) Their reactions were watched and judged by other volunteer observers, who could not see the corresponding images, and recorded on video. The 697 emotion clips were exhaustively analyzed frame by frame for more than 100,000 frames.

    The results were that no one participant was able to falsify emotions perfectly. Odd or out-of-place expressions—such as smirking or rapid blinking in a supposedly sad face—were more likely to show up when the participant was attempting to be deceptive. Some emotions were harder to falsify than others: happiness is easier to fake than disgust or fear.
    The researchers were able to discern rare “microexpressions,” flashes of true emotion that show briefly, from one-fifth to one-25th of a second, on the faces of participants when instructed to deceive.

    “The facial expression appears to crack and another emotion leaks on the face, however briefly,” says Ms. ten Brinke. “When you see a facial expression like this, you’ve got to probe with questions to find out why the person is feeling this way.” The authors noted that most flashes of inconsistent emotion usually showed in either the upper or lower face only. Further, meaningless muscle twitches sometimes occurred even in genuine expressions, meaning that correct interpretation can only occur by following up with the right questions.
    It seems the face does reveal all.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229080859.htm
    Facial Expressions Of Emotion Are Innate, Not Learned
    ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) — Facial expressions of emotion are hardwired into our genes, according to a new study. The research suggests that facial expressions of emotion are innate rather than a product of cultural learning. The study is the first of its kind to demonstrate that sighted and blind individuals use the same facial expressions, producing the same facial muscle movements in response to specific emotional stimuli.

    http://www.blurtit.com/q5290719.html
    Emotions and facial expression

    Look at the pictures here, including those with Eye Contact which liars usually avoid. In this connection it was curious to notice that Jason Francia was wearing sunglasses in the courtroom, which helped him to avoid eye contact, and Michael Jackson, in contrast to him, gazed at him intently while Jason was giving his testimony. At the end of it he even stood up still gazing at Jason…

    http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/fake-tears
    Fake tears

    My four-year old daughter has entered a phase I’m labeling “emotional scientist.”
    “I’m mad!” she’ll declare, pursing her lips and scrunching her eyes. Most times, she’s not the least bit angry, but rather curious whether her simulation of anger is close enough to the real thing to elicit the desired response. The adults in her life are essentially lab rats. We run through her mazes as she tests her hypotheses.
    Currently, the bulk of her experiments involve fake tears. Every parent knows exactly what real crying sounds like, be it a scraped knee or a crushed hope: plaintive, gasping, desperate. Real tears show up uninvited and unwelcome.
    Fake crying is a caterwaul, a siren parked three feet away. It’s a performance. Lacking the ability to summon tears, children rub or cover their eyes, pausing every now and then to survey the room to see whether it’s working.
    Nope? All right. Back to the wailing.
    As a parent, I endure these episodes with a measured response, knowing it’s just a phase.
    But as a writer, I watch her with fascination, secretly hoping she gets better at faking it.
    While it doesn’t rank up there with math and reading, the ability to simulate an emotion you’re not actually feeling is a fundamental skill, one that’s served me particularly well.
    This is an essay in defense of fake tears.

    WRITING IS ACTING
    I had lunch yesterday with a former child actor who has gone on to have a big career. I knew he got his first roles when he was four years old, but I was curious at what age he started “acting” — that is, when did he become aware of craft and technique?
    His answer: at four. His father taught him to maintain eye contact with the other actors in the scene, and listen carefully to what they were saying. He wasn’t allowed to perform. He simply had to experience the moment and follow along.
    Experiencing the moment is what writers do, too.
    Screenwriters are basically actors who do their work on the page rather than the stage. Both professions earn their keep by pretending things are much different than they are. Actors ignore the lights and cameras and missing walls. Writers ignore the missing everything, summoning locations and characters to enact scenes which they can later transcribe.
    Actors and writers are trying to create moments that feel true, despite being completely invented.
    Read a good book on acting, and you’ll find many techniques that can help you as a screenwriter. Sense memory — the ability to experience a sensation that is not actually present — lets you feel the rumble of approaching tanks. Other exercises have you substituting your experiences for the character’s, letting the broken arm you got in fifth grade be the gunshot in your hero’s leg.
    Once you become aware of the techniques, you find yourself pressing your brain’s RECORD button whenever you experience something remarkable or intense. The middle section of The Nines documents my disassociative disorder during production on the TV show D.C. in 2000. Even in my fugue state, I realized it was fascinating and worth recording. That red light was blinking in the corner a lot.
    When my dog of 14 years passed away this summer, I was a wreck. I wasn’t faking any tears, but I was keenly aware of them. I kept mental notes on how it felt to feel that way; rather than push past the experience, I pushed into it.
    My dog was a huge part of my life. He was my kid before I had my kid. In losing him, one thing I gained was that experience of profound loss. I’ll have it to use for the rest of my life.

    FEELING YOUR WAY THROUGH
    Here’s how I wrote the last ten pages of Big Fish.
    Sitting in front of a full-length mirror, I brought myself to tears. Then I started writing Will’s dialogue. I looped over and over until I got a piece of it finished, then started on the next section. It was three solid days of crying, but it was cathartic and productive.
    These were fake tears, in the sense that I wasn’t actually guiding my Southern father through his last moments on Earth. But they were true in the context of writing the story. I was creating in myself the experience I was hoping to create in the reader.
    One basic goal of creative writing is to evoke a desired response. That sounds clinical and scientific, but the process is squishy and exhausting. I don’t hear other screenwriters talking much about it, probably because it’s uncomfortably personal. At least writers get to do it alone, without a crew and cameras watching.
    My daughter’s fake tears are writing practice, just as much as her wobbly uppercase letters. I’m hesitant to offer her much coaching on how to cry more convincingly; it’s like arming your opponent.
    But as I watch her perform an ersatz lament, I find myself pressing the RECORD button. And hoping she’s doing the same.

    * * *
    NOW, WHY DID THE LAST STORY SUDDENLY REMIND ME THAT EVAN CHANDLER WAS A SCRIPTWRITER?
    And that JORDAN was showing all the makings of a scriptwriter too?
    And that it was HIM who suggested the idea of that Robin Hoo film to his father ?
    And that Jordan even said that his father wanted him to write scripts?
    And why was it a story about a WRITER’S emotions imagined, simulated and played out for real which suddenly reminded me of those details?

    Like

  19. gigi permalink
    August 13, 2010 6:12 am

    David,

    Wow, that newspaper clipping is a great find. I agree that awful movie was filled with sexual innuendo.

    Like

  20. lcpledwards permalink
    August 13, 2010 4:40 am

    @ Teva

    well, there is a lot of controversy over whether or not Jordie was given sodium amytal. Here is the post on that very topic, and make sure you watch the video that is included from a 1994 episode of “60 Minutes” that discusses false, implanted memories. They confirm that sodium amytal is one way of implanting memories.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/sodium-amytal-for-jordan-chandler/

    Here is the story of a man falsely accused of molestation by his daughter after she was given sodium amytal that Mary Fischer mentioned in her GQ article, but in much more detail.
    http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/santafe.html

    Personally, I used to think that Jordie was indeed given sodium amytal because how else could you get him to do a 180 on MJ? But the more I think about it, the more I start to go with Geraldine Hughes’ theory that Evan and Barry Rothman got him to lie. If Jordie had those false memories implanted in his head, then he would have BELIEVED that he had been molested, and he would have shown EMOTION in his interviews. I think Evan just manipulated Jordie to lie, and on page 60 of Diane Dimond’s book, she states exactly how Evan said he got Jordie to confess:

    “When Jordie came out of the sedation I asked him to tell me about Michael and him. I (falsely told) him that I had bugged his bedroom and I knew everything anyway and that I just wanted to hear it from him. I told him not to be embarrassed….”I know about the kissing and the jerking off and the blow jobs.” This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying – If you lie then I’m going to take him (Jackson) down.”

    Now, according the Evan’s diary, Jordie contemplated how to answer the question for about an hour, and then Evan tried again:

    “I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes or no”.

    Jordie spoke his first words, “Promise?”

    I said, “Jordie, did I ever lie to you in your whole life?”

    He said, “No.”

    I said, “Well, I never will.”

    He said, “You won’t hurt Michael, right?

    I said, “I promise.”

    He said, “I don’t want anyone else ever to know. Promise me you won’t ever tell anyone.”

    “I promise,” I said.

    So he said, “What’s the question?”

    I asked, “Did Michael Jackson ever touch your penis?”

    Unbelievably, he still hesitated. The longest couple of seconds of my life went be and then finally he answered in an almost inaudible whisper, “Yes.”

    So Evan used reverse psychology and LIED to Jordie to make him think that he already knew about the “molestation”. Jordie felt comfortable telling Evan about the “molestation” because he believed that Evan would keep it secret. He also felt threatened to tell because Evan said that if Jordie lied, he would “take down” MJ. Jordie probably went along with it after the scandal went public to protect his dad, since blood is thicker than water.

    If Evan truly thought Jordie was being molested, he would have called the police. Period. It’s clear that he concocted this molestation to extort money by drugging and threatening Jordie to confess to something that never happened. In fact, on page 128 of “All That Glitters”, Ray Chandler EXPLICITLY says the following regarding the failed negotiations between Evan and MJ:

    “Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

    That statement IN AND OF ITSELF confirms that it was extortion, and Evan was more than willing to just take the money and run when the opportunity had presented itself. And why do you think MJ didn’t pay? Because he was innocent!

    One last thing about Jordie: he played a significant role in writing “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, which was filled with sexual innuendo. It was Jordie’s idea to do the spoof, after watching “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, and Jordie almost got credited for it. Evan Chandler, Mel Brooks, and David Shapiro were credited as the writers, but Mel Brooks stated in the following article that he and David should get screenwriting credit, but that Evan and Jordie should get STORY CREDIT! So this means that Jordie wasn’t the shy, naive, innocent child when it comes the sex that the media made him out to be! Watch the trailer on youtube, and look at the reference to the lady wearing the chastity belt!

    By the way, if you guys do a google search of “Michael Jackson”, and then click on “news”, and under “any time” you’ll see that you can filter by the past hour, 24 hours, past week, month, or year. They also have 1993-94, 2003-04, and 2005 in their own category, so that means that Google recognizes that there are a LOT of people researching articles from those time periods. Thanks Maria Saint for the link to this incredible story!

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ocwtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MqEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4723,1772293&dq=evan+ch

    Like

  21. Dialdancer permalink
    August 13, 2010 2:31 am

    Unless Jordan was more precocious then he was portrayed, the conversation is one of an adult telling a tale which is sure to incite, anger and revulsion with other adults. This all goes to ensuring no one would look closely at the supposed hard evidence. This graphic tale kept getting in the way of the public’s of seeing an innocent man. Although a declaration cannot be used in a court of law it is a legal document, by law it is suppose to read as if written by the speaker himself. Whoever transcribes the written or recorded version of the statement has a duty to abide this law. They may not use a substitute due to the language or words used to identify an act, person or event. I believe either Jordan was coached or he did not make a statement at all.

    Like

  22. Lynette permalink
    August 12, 2010 11:57 pm

    You know that it was their side or Larry Feldman that sent Jordan to see Dr. Gardener.They say so in the introduction to the interview on the yola site. If he had concluded that Jordan’s story was true does anyone doubt that that would not have been included in the documents that were offered as a separtate purchase along with their book ATG? If he had concluded that it was true does anyone think that the authorities would not have gone to where Michael was on the spot and arrested him. I think he sent a letter saying he could not conclusivly determine if Jordan was truthful, he would have had to. He would not have ever come right out and said that he was lying but he would have said that based on his interview he could not come to a firm conclusion that he had been molested.There is a lot more to a psychiatric interivew than the words. The fact that this interview took place,there is not a supporting letter confirming their alleged conclusion and they try too hard to defend it tells me it was a lie. They did the same thing with the description saying it was a match when they knew full well that it wasn’t. they continued to manipulate the masses with this faulty description and the haters try to defend it to this day that he might have only seen it whenit was erect. Whenever they say things like that it just confirms their desperation and the only people that are desperate to to prove a lie are the liars.

    Like

  23. August 12, 2010 11:56 pm

    Well it is clear he [Jordan] was listening in on grown-up conversations. For example, he said, she [June], “people would say, she wanted to pimp me out.” Showing that he is hearing what people are saying around him; however, he does not believe his mother did this.

    To be honest I found the conversation: disturbing, and confusing. How could anyone not find it disturbing? You have a 13 year old boy giving graphic details about sex acts with an adult. Some of the things he says are down right nauseous, like – “he masturbated me with his mouth” he is talking about a blow job! I found it confusing because it contradicted my understanding of the behavioural characteristics of molestation victims. What slid quietly off the page about the whole nightmare was Jordan does not seem to have known he was being molested! He saw what he and Michael allegedly did as just something between friends. Friends do not give each other blowjobs! How can a very bright 13 year old not recognize that there is no such thing as a blowjob between friends? The next thing that confused me was after all the molestation he still wanted to go on tour with Michael Jackson, and I think that statement surprised Dr. Gardener as well. I would have anticipated Michael going on tour was the perfect opportunity for him to get out, but he told the doctor that he was having fun. With all this he still managed to get straight A’s in school. This causes me to scratch my head and go “huh?”

    I like to look at both sides of the story, and you are right Helena – I just can’t figure out Jordan’s motive if he was lying. Yes I said IF because I have NOT dismissed the sodium amytal.

    Like

  24. Suzy permalink
    August 12, 2010 8:10 pm

    @ Teva

    “For example Jordan says Michael was using his power, age, overwhelmingness and experience to manipulate, and to get what he wants; a refrain he constantly repeats.”

    This are the things where you can track down these are not a child’s thoughts but his father’s. In fact this statement echos what Evan told to Dave Schwartz on their tape.

    As for what Evan really believed. I don’t know. I mean if he really believed his son was molested could he have been so cynical to ask a record deal from Michael where he could sing songs like “Duck Butter Blues”? Is that what a molested child’s father does? Or ghostwrtiting books like Ray’s and Guiterrez’s? Also I don’t think Ray really believes MJ molested Jordan – otherwise he wouldn’t have been such a chicken to run when he was called to testify. And he wouldn’t have said things like he hoped the allegations wouldn’t ruin Michael’s career (I mean, WTF?). Or after his death that he hopes he is happy where he is now. And if Ray doesn’t really believe in their own claims then I think Evan doesn’t believe in them either.

    Strange, strange, strange reactions everywhere in that family. From Jordan, from Evan, from Ray. That’s why I think they all knowingly lied.

    Like

  25. August 12, 2010 2:53 pm

    Teva: “Jordan says Michael was using his power, age, overwhelmingness and experience to manipulate, and to get what he wants; a refrain he constantly repeats. At first it made sense and it seemed reasonable, but later Dr. Gardener asked him if he were “in awe” of Michael and he said “no” that the closer they became the more he saw him as a regular person. This clearly contradicts what he was saying before”.

    ABSOLUTELY. These contradictions are a clear sign of LIES.

    But I would like to point out that despite all those Jordan’s “interviews” and “declarations” we must ALWAYS keep in mind one fundamental thing – the description Jordan gave of Michael’s private parts was absolutely different from the real thing and we know it for a fact and not as some ‘fans hearsay’.

    Jordan did not only say that Michael was circumcised (which he was not) but he also spoke of some distinctive splotch “which was light and was the color of his face” (it’s great that he added the point about the face so that we can easily remember his words!).

    And Tom Sneddon – in his declaration and on the basis of the photographs taken – mumbled something indistinct about a dark spot found somewhere approximately “around the same place”. Even if you abstract yourself from the vague somewhere-around-the-same-place-location, the MAIN discrepancy in color will mean to you, figuratively speaking, that Michael was a WHITE COW with one dark spot – while Jordan thought he was a DARK COW with one light spot (and circumcised too).

    Now will you be able to tell a white man from a black one if you see one? Or to put it in simpler terms will you be able to tell a white penis from a black one if you see it (not to mention its non-circumcision state)? So what are we talking about here then?

    Sometimes I think that the Heavens played with Michael’s skin color solely for the purpose of us being able to unravel this mystery even after his death….

    All of the above means that Jordan NEVER saw what he was speaking about (and in so much graphic detail too) and EVERYTHING you read in his interview and declaration is pure SCIENCE FICTION and it will be a grave mistake on our part to take those descriptions seriously.

    The only reason why we are studying Jordan’s interview and ‘declaration’ is because we are looking into 1) their authenticity 2) Jordan’s motives and 3) further discrepancies which may be found between Jordan’s words and the words of Ray Chandler and other characters of his kind.

    And in this respect the observation you’ve made about Jordan speaking about Michael’s power and overwhelmingness on the one hand and him not being in awe on the other hand is exactly the discrepancy we are looking for. Please DISREGARD everything else.

    Now we know for sure that Jordan DID lie and it is only the reason WHY which still remains to be found out.

    Like

  26. lynande51 permalink
    August 12, 2010 3:43 am

    Evan Chandlers motive were clear to me from the beggining. He wanted to be rich without working for it. Jordan may have been a willing party to it. My whole thing with that transcript is the use or accusation of ” other victims” sounds like a kid who wants to get other kids in trouble to me.I mean why bother with it unless he wanted to stop the other kids from being able to hang around with Michael when he couldn’t

    Like

  27. August 12, 2010 1:46 am

    Hi vindicatemj,

    Here are my thoughts and speculations on Jordan Chandler. I don’t fully know what to believe where he is concern. When I first read the Gardener interview I thought damn Michael could have done it, but I re-read it 3-4 times then my thought was, “huh?” For example Jordan says Michael was using his power, age, overwhelmingness and experience to manipulate, and to get what he wants; a refrain he constantly repeats. At first it made sense and it seemed reasonable, but later Dr. Gardener asked him if he were “in awe” of Michael and he said “no” that the closer they became the more he saw him as a regular person. This clearly contradicts what he was saying before. I said to myself it seems to me as if Jordan is listening, and repeating what he is hearing others around him say. Then when I read on this blog that Raymond moved in with Evan after the allegations broke that part made complete sense. You see a half-truth is more effective than a lie the difficulty is determining which is which. You can’t just read JC’s responses you really have to pay attention to the questions being asked because Gardener is a false claims specialist, and in his mind Michael is guilty because he believes sharing a bed with a child constitutes molestation. A phrase I hear TV pundits regurgitate.

    As for the motivation of the Chandlers I think it was a combination of money and revenge. We all know the extortion story which I 1000% believe, but the rest I am not sure of. I think he sued for the 60mil because under Feldman’s settlement the money was not controlled by him, his cut was only 1.5m, and he was hoping for more. Also he seemed angry at Michael for breaking up the family. I always thought it incriminating that Jordan did not speak to June for 11 years, but when EC committed suicide, and his own brother did not even know his funeral had taken place, and none of his children attended I realized the whole family went in different directions. Also I think (though not 100% sure) that Evan did believe Michael was M-ing Jordan. Remember he was inquiring from JC about his relationship with Michael long before the tooth extraction, even asking Michael himself about it. By the time Jordan had his tooth pulled, and sodium amytal was administered Jordan already had thoughts of molestation in his head and they were in Evan’s head too.

    From Michael’s perspective he thought the whole thing was based on money and jealousy. Taraborelli said Michael told him that Evan was jealous of his relationship with his son [Jordan] something he repeats in his song Ghosts:

    “You put a knife in my back
    Shot an arrow in me!
    Tell me are you the ghost of jealousy”

    Like

  28. August 11, 2010 9:49 pm

    Guys, now that some technical matters are taken care of, I am slowly getting back into the general discussion.

    Teva says, “You’ve lost me COMPLETELY. What are you saying, that the Chandlers’ were threatening Michael with publishing a book to keep him [Michael] from talking about the extortion? Well if that is the case how do you explain the Guitterez book? That book was ghost written by Evan, and no one hushed up Michael he spoke about what happened in the HIStory album you just had to read between the lines.

    The one thing we can agree on is, the Chandlers did not want to see the inside of a court room. That is why Evan and his lawyers fed all the testimonies, depositions, interviews, and affidavits to the public it was to overwhelm the defense. Instead of the prosecution having to prove molestation happened the defense now had to prove it didn’t. It was set up to make it a foregone conclusion in everyone’s mind what took place.”

    Teva, I absolutely agree with you – you’ve said it perfectly well. I was only reflecting on the subject of Ray Chandler’s book and am far from making any final conclusions at the moment.

    The thing is that the factual side of what happened in 1993 is more or less clear to me (and to you I hope) as Jordan’s total inability to describe Michael’s private parts and the prosecution and media maneuvers to hush up this fact effectively prove to us that Jordan WAS LYING. But what is still not really clear is the motive or the range of motives the Chandlers had. As is usual the case with human beings the Chandlers probably said one thing to themselves, another thing to the outside world, and the truth could be something hidden in the subconscious of their minds and could be completely different from the first two.

    The Chandlers’ motives seem to me complex ones ranging from wild hopes of stardom in the film industry (probably for both Evan and Jordan) to grave disappointment in Michael’s unwillingness to help them, and from great admiration to the desire to take murderous revenge on him. After all Jordan’s name was trashed through his own father’s efforts and all for nothing too? No fame, no money, but only the stigma of been allegedly ‘molested’? They could very well demand money for that reason alone (as a sort of compensation for all their troubles though it was Evan who triggered them off) and once they enjoyed the first victory their appetites could very well grow – why ask for some $20 mln. if you can ask for $60 mln.?

    However going down into history as extortionists after taking the money is something not to their liking either (everyone wants to respect himself and be respected by others), so every effort is made now to show that their story is based on substantial evidence – which they don’t have, though they think they do. They present ALL they have to the prosecution and the grand jury but the jurors refuse to indict and the prosecution does not bring criminal charges – what a disappointment…. So now it is the turn of the prosecution and the jury to be wrong – they are star struck and “afraid” of Michael’s celebrity status!

    On the other hand the Chandlers are not sure of Michael’s ‘crimes’ themselves and they start digging deep into Michael’s life for ‘molestation’ facts – otherwise I cannot explain why Ray Chandler would spend some ten or more years collecting thousands of newspaper cuts about Michael as he said it himself. To me this is a clear sign that they were not sure of their own accusations and were on a ‘fishing expedition” hoping to find at least something.

    Simultaneously they know that it won’t hurt their case if Michael’s name gets continuosly trashed. Hence all these covert operations on the Chandlers’ part to disseminate lies about Michael through various media and internet channels – the dirtier he is, the cleaner they are. They desperately want to see the fall of Michael Jackson while simultaneously publicly display concern for his career (as Ray Chandler repeatedly says it in his interviews). Even Jordan is a victim to their all-consuming desire to tarnish Michael – Ray Chandler says he defends Jordan as a “molestation victim” and dwells on his having therapy and easily (!) overcoming the trauma and on the other hand tells graphic stories about Jordan and thus disgraces him and digs into his trauma even more.

    Publishing a book in their own name for cowards and double-dealers like that is really too much because they are fearful of a civil suit (Ray Chandler says he didn’t publish “at the request” of Evan and his attorney), but trying a roundabout way through Victor Gutierrez is very much in line with this type of cowardly behavior – we give you some ideas, you put all the necessary “embellishments” (disregarding Jordan’s interests again) but if you get caught in the process it is none of our doing and it is you who will face all the music. But even if you fail we will hail your effort as the damage will be done and some of the dirt and suspicion will rub off Michael anyway.

    Why would Ray Chandler repeat again and again that he was going to write a book and never do it until he felt that it was absolutely safe to publish it? I think the reasons were fear and uncertainty in their case – if Ray had had the cast–iron proof of ‘molestation’ on his hands he would have had nothing to fear…

    On the other hand these threats of an “imminent” book published in case Michael spoke in his defense was a way to restrain him from speaking up – any word of his innocence was automatically regarded as an attack against themselves (see their furious report about that ABC interview – when Michael said the other side found nothing they thought he said that Evan was an extortionist!) Now this ability to blow things out of proportion is also adding some understanding to the Chandlers’ character and behavior, doesn’t it?

    I hope our little on-line investigation will help to find more keys to the Chandlers. I am particularly intrigued by the question whether Jordan was part of the gang or not…

    Like

  29. August 10, 2010 6:31 pm

    Lynande: “It has always been a common theme with the opposing side that when Michael made his satellite appearance he never said the words “I didn’t do it”.

    Hello to Lynande and everyone here. Sorry that it is only now that I’m able to join the discussion. I haven’t yet read the rest of the comments but Lynande’s remark attracted my attention – her point is very important as some internet studies of Michael’s statement claim that he lied as he didn’t say directly “I didn’t do it”.

    I asked myself a question – to what exactly should he have said “I didn’t do it”?

    The paradox of the situation is that if they asked him specific questions, like “Did you ever allow children to crawl beside you?” – he’d have to say YES, “Did you ever hug them?” – he’d have to say YES, “Did you ever stroke their hair?” – he’d have to say YES, “Did you ever put your arm round a child?” – he’d have to say YES. Did you ever ‘molest’? NO, he would surely say NO.

    But to many of those who were asking those questions all the YES answers alone would be proof of the otherwise – because they are projecting their own thoughts on what he is saying and look at his words with the eyes of cynicism and perversion rather than with the eyes of purity and innocence the way Michael did.

    I can very well understand Michael’s unwillingness to go into every detail of it – it is both unnecessary and humiliating to explain obvious things like that. The need to say, “I did hug him but the hug was a friendly one” or “I kissed the child but it was a kiss on the cheek which had no sexual meaning” was a big humiliation to Michael and put him in a totally no-win situation. Once you start explaining and defending yourself you have already lost. And he shied away from all that degrading discussion and said it in the only way possible for him – “I am innocent”. Even if I hugged your child it was INNOCENT, even if I kissed your child, it was INNOCENT, even if you looked at your child asleep it was INNOCENT TOO…

    Only today I’ve had a similar experience and understood Michael at a different, inner level which for some reason had been previously closed to me. One of my colleagues is on a maternity leave and visited us with her one-year daughter. The baby was all smiles with her tiny two lower teeth showing and her little eyes looking so curiously and so trustfully at me that the picture of that charming baby is still standing in my eyes. I followed her with my gaze everywhere she was and felt completely glued to her wanting to take her into my arms and touch her little toes and press her to my chest and even smell her (I didn’t because I’m shy and somehow thought it inappropriate, but this is how I felt).

    And this is probably how Michael felt with babies – his father said that he always had a baby in his arms even when he was a teenager – but I’m telling you this only to say that if someone hostile, cynical or corrupt was observing a scene like that (especially if it involved a man, not a woman) it would be no problem for him to imagine that “something was wrong with that guy” – which they actually did imagine in respect of Michael when they saw him with children.

    What I mean to say is that when one is watching with the eyes of innocence he sees innocence, and when one is watching with the eyes of corruption he sees corruption. We are simply not as innocent as Michael was and this seems to be the main reason for all this misunderstanding.

    Like

  30. Dialdancer permalink
    August 10, 2010 12:32 am

    Does anyone know why when the Judge denies a petition or motion from either side there is only the stamped word DENIED, no signature just the word and when it is granted a signature is affixed? Is it just a typographical error to use the word GRANTED at the completion of the sentence, but stamp denied in the signature box?

    Like

  31. August 9, 2010 11:30 pm

    ” I dont think the Chandlers set out to threaten Michael, i think the reason it took so long for Ray to come out with a book is because no publisher wanted to touch it and that’s why he had to self-publish it.” – Truth

    That’s right they originally wanted Judith Raynor to write the book before the ink was dry on the settlement. Eventually Evan got Guitterez to write it. I am not sure Raymond was involved with the Guitterez project, he and Evan may have had a parting of ways by then. However, Raymond still was sitting on his stash, he just had to wait for the right time, and that landed in his lap like a gift from hell with the Bashir mockumentary. When that air there was renewed interest in the 1993 case, and with the future indictment and trial the book was positive orgasmic.

    Like

  32. August 9, 2010 11:20 pm

    Well he said, “I am not guilty of these allegations.”

    Like

  33. lynande51 permalink
    August 9, 2010 10:21 pm

    It has always been a common theme with the opposing side that when Michael made his satellite appearance he never said the words “I didn’t do it”. Yes he did, we know he did he just used different words but because of the media spin we get he never said he didn’t do it.I’ll try to find an example if I can.

    Like

  34. Truth permalink
    August 9, 2010 9:38 pm

    I’m back and i’m so overwhelmed with how much I need to catch up with!

    I find the Chandlers’ one interesting bunch! I wish a certain one would just come out and state the truth, whatever it may be.

    I have to agree with Teva – I dont think the Chandlers set out to threaten Michael, i think the reason it took so long for Ray to come out with a book is because no publisher wanted to touch it and that’s why he had to self-publish it.

    Like

  35. August 9, 2010 4:05 am

    vindicatemj * “This constant threatening of publishing a book was meant to keep Michael from talking and telling his side of the story. They were terribly afraid he would explain a couple of things and would look innocent in the eyes of the general public which would automatically make them look guilty. ”

    You’ve lost me COMPLETELY. What are you saying, that the Chandlers’ were threatening Michael with publishing a book to keep him [Michael] from talking about the extortion? Well if that is the case how do you explain the Guitterez book? That book was ghost written by Evan, and no one hushed up Michael he spoke about what happened in the HIStory album you just had to read between the lines.

    The one thing we can agree on is, the Chandlers did not want to see the inside of a court room. That is why Evan and his lawyers fed all the testimonies, depositions, interviews, and affidavits to the public it was to overwhelm the defense. Instead of the prosecution having to prove molestation happened the defense now had to prove it didn’t. It was set up to make it a foregone conclusion in everyone’s mind what took place.

    “I don’t know why people say he never came out and said he didn’t do it. He did when he called them liars.”-lynande51

    He did say he didn’t do it. Tarraborelli interviewed Michael before and after the settlement agreement, and on both occassions he said he didn’t do it. Also when the allegation first broke Tarraborelli said on TV that journalist should show some restraint and wait to hear all sides, after that interview MJ called T to thank him for his comment. I have read JRT’s books, I don’t think he is a hater, or a fan he tries to present both sides. If you haven’t read JRT’s 2003 and 2009 editions you should. To the best of my knowledge it is the only behind the scene MJ source.

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    August 7, 2010 11:50 pm

    And you know what else about their reaction to his Diane Sawyer interview and why they lost that on appeal don’t you. The settlement that was leaked is missing several pages. I figured it out one time when I was trying to go back to a paragraph that wasn’t included; it had been taken out and found that several pages are missing from that which we can find. If anyone knows a lawyer ask what might possibly be on those pages. That was the agreement on Michael’s side to drop the extortion charge, how the money was to be divided and the name or names of the insurance company that was covering the claim of liability. It would have had to include everything but the world has only gotten to see their side of the settlement. Those pages also spell out that they agreed to drop the allegations of sexual misconduct and agreed to settle on liability. I think the haters would all be shocked if they knew the whole story? How could they explain that the family actually agreed to drop those allegations for a monetary settlement? As for their claim that they just wanted to be left alone how come they wanted to write a book about it? The other thing that happened when they never let the public see the other pages was the myth surrounding the settlement amount. They would have had to spell that out exactly. What we see is $15,331,250.00 with 1.5 going to each parent. Well, when an insurance company settles for an amount that is the amount, that is the absolute, they don’t usually agree to more for the lawyers the lawyer gets his percentage from the Settlement. Figuring it out by 25 percent young Jordan, excuse me daddy Evan was left with 8 million give or take a few hundred thousand. Not what he wanted in the first place was it?
    The first place that the heavily Redacted settlement was seen was on court TV and guess who it was leaked to DD. I found the original document on an archive that I found once and am looking for again. Do you think she wanted people to know the truth and lose her Golden Goose as a Michael Jackson expert? Probably not. So anyway, the reason that they lost the second lawsuit isn’t because of the pages that we can see it is because of the pages that we can’t. Michael could call them liars if he wanted but he couldn’t call them extortionists and he doesn’t in the interview, he calls them liars plain and simple. I don’t know why people say he never came out and said he didn’t do it. He did when he called them liars.

    Like

  37. August 7, 2010 9:54 am

    Lynande: “it would seem that they thought Michael paid them so HE could never speak publicly about it”

    So HE could never speak publicly about it. Lynande, exactly! As usual you’ve added a very important point which I overlooked at first. Why didn’t I think of it before?

    This constant threatening of publishing a book was meant to keep Michael from talking and telling his side of the story. They were terribly afraid he would explain a couple of things and would look innocent in the eyes of the general public which would automatically make them look guilty.

    That is why the Chandler brothers were watching his every step, were covertly undermining Michael by throwing in more and more ‘facts’ into the media (so that no one should ever, ever think him to be innocent) and this is why they reacted in such a nervous and incredibly exaggerated way to his interview with Diane Sawyer (when Evan demanded $60 mln. for the ‘damage’ done to him).

    As Ray Chandler is actually a cover up for Evan both brothers were terribly afraid to look the extortioners they were – and this is probably why THEIR SIDE wanted the confidentiality agreement and THEY didn’t want to go to court. They were afraid that the court hearings would not turn into their favor, that Michael would be exonerated and they would be accused of the extortion instead. To a certain extent the confidentiality agreement was THEIR way to hush up Michael, so who hushed up whom with that insurance company’s money is really a big question now….

    This explains why the extortion theme is constantly raised by the Chandlers in that “yola” site and the furious report about the failure of the $60mln. suit listed there – extortion was a nagging thought with them. They didn’t know that everyone had forgotten about the extortion theme and fully refocused on Michael’s ‘guilt’ and that is why raised extortion again and again themselves. Which is by the way usual for all those who are really guilty of a crime.

    OMG, this adds a totally new dimension to the whole story…

    Like

  38. August 7, 2010 8:32 am

    David, before I run away for a couple of days just a few things to say:

    Yes, I received the ‘phantom victims’ information (thank you) and think I will talk about it when it comes to deal with D.Dimond, because this problem is not so much connected with Michael but with journalists like DD.

    Considering the kind of person she is we could have hundreds of ‘victims’ like that German one. What I mean is that the only source of information about him is DD and Ray Chandler (even Tom Sneddon did not stoop to raise the subject, not to mention the FBI) and having the word of only these two people for it is simply laughable – especially now that we know what piece of fruit is Ray Chandler too.

    As to doubledutch blog I know about them and have just added them to the blogroll – as well as MJJ-777. Both are very reliable sources.

    Like

  39. lynande51 permalink
    August 7, 2010 1:51 am

    So if we are all journalists can we now tell J. Randy Taraborrelli, Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and Martin Bashir to stand down? Will we soon be able to consider ourselves Michael Jackson experts?

    Like

  40. lynande51 permalink
    August 7, 2010 1:30 am

    Great job Helena! I have been reading all those court briefs as well. This is probably the single most damning evidence there is to their original intent. He moved in with them 2 days after the scandal broke with the intent to write a book about it. Still no mention of wanting to prosecute Michael for their allegations just making more money from the allegations. If he indeed had made it known to Michael that they were going to write a book why then would Michael not be able to write and record songs and appear in an interview with his wife telling his side of the story?. With the statement that Michael withdrew the charge of extortion on January 24th and we now know that the lawsuit was paid for damages in a liability case not for abuse, it would seem that they thought Michael paid them so HE could never speak publicly about it doesn’t it. This is just more eveidence that the Chandlers had greedy intentions from the beginning. What a family full of cowards and liars.

    Like

  41. David permalink
    August 7, 2010 12:23 am

    1. Amazing post Helena! I’m glad that we’re getting to the bottom of this! You can’t do” too many” posts on Ray Chandler!

    2. I re-sent you the email about the other “phantom victim” from Germany. Did you get it? I understand if you have to put it in the back-burner for now, but I just want to be sure that you got it. We’ve got to get to the bottom of it, since that is the last “phantom victim” we have to discredit.

    3. Here is a website that has the definitive timeline of the events that happened in 2003-2005. I think you should add it to your blog roll so that newer MJ fans can use it to see exactly what led up to the trial. It’s very easy to follow, and it includes the Bashir debacle and MJ’s “Take Two” rebuttal for easy reference.

    http://doubledutchblogs.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/events-prior-to-the-trial-2/

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: