Skip to content

Ray Chandler SUBPOENA: Happy End for the dear old uncle?

August 14, 2010

When you read the ton of Ray Chandler’s papers against the subpoena he received from Michael Jackson’s defense team, you have to occasionally pinch yourself to remind you that it is the DEFENSE which insists on the Accuser coming to court and accusing the Defendant there.

Since the idea is difficult to grasp, I’ll repeat it.

Michael Jackson’s Defense team knows that Accuser Ray Chandler has written a tell-all book All That Glitters  where he describes the Defendant’s alleged crimes. They also know that the Accuser claims that the book is based on authentic documents, and that is why ask him to come to court and accuse the Defendant there (and not in the book).

The previous two parts of this post however showed to us that the Accuser didn’t like the idea and categorically refused to go to court and present his documents there, saying that they were ‘irrelevant’, and that the same information could be obtained ‘from other sources’ like Evan and Jordan Chandler (who didn’t want to go to court either), and that it was ‘invasion of his privacy’ and that Ray Chandler was a ‘journalist’ who was protected from testifying in court and disclosing his sources by the Shield law.

This was followed by a sort of a tug of war between the parties where the Defense insisted that Ray Chandler wasn’t a journalist while he insisted that he was. So this is exactly where we are at the moment.

The next document in this tug of war is Michael Jackson’s objection to Ray Chandler’s objection to the Subpoena which is dated November 5, 2004 and called  “MR. JACKSON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH CHANDER SUBPOENA AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL”.

The full document is here and I will cite only some excerpts from this 24-page document which is trying to persuade Ray Chandler to be so kind to come and make his accusations against Michael Jackson in court:

“Mr. Jackson’s Objection and Opposition is based on the following grounds:

(1)  Petitioner is not a journalist nor engaged in any news gathering activities as a reporter, editor, publisher, or person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, and he is not entitled to protection under the Shield law.

(2)  Petitioner is a ‘witness’ to the 1993-94 events who cannot withhold unpublished information, and he is acting as a recently admitted attorney who is promoting his brother and nephew.

(3)  Petitioner’s objections to Mr. Jackson’s subpoena are without foundation because there is no invasion of privacy, no overbreath, and no undue burden in requiring petitioner to respond to the subpoena”.

…. “On September 19, 2004, Mr. Jackson served the subpoenaed party with two (2) subpoenas. The first was a Subpoena Duces Tecum where the response was due on October 5, 2004. The second was a subpoena for personal appearance at trial, and the production of documents where the response is due on January 31, 2005.

On October 25, 2004, the subpoenaed party served a Motion to Quash and Application for In Camera Review. The motion challenged the subpoena because the subpoenaed party seeks protection under the California Shield Law contained in Evidence Code section 1070. However, Petitioner is not a journalist. He is an attorney who has never engaged in news gathering or otherwise worked for a news organization… and he doesn’t satisfy section 1070’s definition of a journalist..”

“In addition, petitioner was a witness to the events in 1993 and 1994 when his brother, Evan Chandler, and his nephew, Jordan Chandler, made claims against Michael Jackson. By his own admission he does not gather news because he is a recently licensed attorney who practices law in Santa Barbara, and on both the cover of his book and his self-promotion web site, he states he was a witness to the events of which he writes.”

“Petitioner’s own web site states that he is a witness to the events:

“The 1993 Michael Jackson scandal has remained a closely held secret for over ten years. Other than speculation and innuendo, the facts have never been revealed – until now. Inside All That Glitters, Ray Chandler, the boy’s uncle, provides the hard evidence. From the day the boy met Michael, through six months of frenzied publicity, and into the scarring years that followed, this is a story told by one who witnesses the events as they unfolded, and he has the proof to back it up.

Did the King of Pop sexually molest a thirteen-year-old boy in 1993? In this account, the master of invention is unmasked” (Exhibit “2”) (emphasis added)”.

“In his declaration attached to his motion, petitioner states:

“From late August 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”

Petitioner is a witness to the events of which are relevant to this legal proceeding”… “As a witness, he cannot withhold unpublished information regarding the events he witnessed”

Pinch yourselves, guys – you are reading the paper provided by the DEFENSE, not prosecution.

It is the Defense which is demanding the Accuser’s documents.

And it is the Defense which is using the Accuser’s own words to prove to him that he qualifies for an accuser.

And it is the Accuser who fiercely denies such a fact.

The situation is completely absurd and now that you have awakened to the absurdity of it, let’s move on.

“In his Memorandum, petitioner requests the court to delay ruling on his motion until it determines the admissibility of the allegations involving the 1993 case. While petitioner is correct there has been no determination by the court regarding whether such matters will be admissible, Mr. Jackson is in the position of having to prepare for trial. In the past two (2) weeks, the government has disclosed approximately 22, 000 documents relating to 1993 case, and it is necessary for Mr. Jackson to conduct his defense in a reasonable manner, which necessitates information from petitioner”.

“Petitioner challenges the relevance of the subpoenaed documents by claiming they have nothing to do with the current case. However, with the government disclosing 22,000 pages of information regarding the case, with petitioner being a witness to the events involving that case, and petitioner having documents and statements from the persons involved in that case, the subpoenaed documents are beyond question relevant and material to the proceeding”.

So the government already disclosed a mammoth amount of documents about the 1993 case even there had been no ruling about it from the judge yet… no surprise though… when it comes to Michael Jackson no one really expects things to be fair…

“Petitioner contends there are other sources who might be an equal source of information that is in petitioner’s possession such as his website or Jordan Chandler. However, the unpublished information which the petitioner seeks to withhold is, by definition, not published on his website. Further, he makes no showing of what Jordan Chandler does or does not have in his possession or whether Jordan Chandler is amenable to process”.

“Petitioner states that newspapers, public pleadings, and magazine articles are not necessary to be produced. Mr. Jackson agrees, and he does not seek such documents. Rather, he seeks information that is not publicly available”.

Wait, guys,so the Defense team does NOT even know what incriminating documents Ray Chandler may have on Michael Jackson?

And in spite of it they still insist that he discloses EVERYTHING he has?

Which means that they are SO sure of Michael’s innocence that they feel they can handle ANY document he might have in his closet?

Because only a COMPLETELY innocent man will behave in a confident and insistent manner like that?

And this is just another of our proofs of his total innocence adding to the MOUNTAIN we already have?

“Petitioner claims such documents “are not relevant to the subject matter at hand and none of these documents contain any information regarding any claims of child molestation or defenses of such claims’.

No, we really have to pinch ourselves again… Is it me who is dumb, or is something terribly wrong going on here?

Why do the papers to which Ray Chandler refers in his book as ‘hard evidence’ and ‘proof to back up the events as they unfolded’ all of a sudden become ‘irrelevant’ and not containing ‘any claims of molestation or defenses of such claims’?

What do they contain then? Anecdotes on the issue of ‘child molestation’?

Let us make a mental note of it and move on – if we stop at every paragraph the way this text compells us to it will be a never-ending story…

“Petitioner claims the documents would invade his privacy and reveal personal financial information. Michael Jackson is not interested in his personal financial information. …  He is only interested in documents that have a “reasonable possibility the information will materially assist his defense,” which outweighs petitioner’s privacy concerns.”

This ‘material assistance to the defense’ issue was cunningly interpreted by Ray Chandler as positive statements by Jordan or Evan Chandler in support of Michael Jackson which he said they would not find in his portfolio.

However we know that there is only one way in which the accuser’s information can materially assist the Defense – if it turns out to be false and the Defense proves it.

And in this respect the Defense was looking for Ray Chandler’s documents not because they hoped to find Michael Jackson’s glorification there but because they wanted to check their AUTHENTICITY and overall importance.

THIS was the only reason why they wanted to see Ray Chandler in court.

Same as theonlyreason why the Defense was so incredibly fearless in their demand for the Accuser’s documents was their confidence in Michael’s complete INNOCENCE.

*  *  *


This was found out in the reply to the Defense’s Opposition paper which Ray Chandler’s team made three days later, on November 8, 2004. The document is called THIRD PARTY RAYMOND CHANLER’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH.

It may be  found here and it presents undeniable proof that Ray Chandler was indeed protected by the California Shield Law and was therefore immune to the Defense’s pleas to come to court and accuse Michael Jackson there.

Ray Chandler finally laid out his last card which had remained hidden until the very last moment:

  • “The protection of the California shield law are not restricted to a journalist “employed” by a media outlet. The Code uses the phrase “or other person connected with or employed (by the media) (underline added), and it specifically included publishers as well as reporters. Defendant has incorrectly identified the publisher of Raymond Chandler’s book as Windsong Press Ltd. of Gurnee, Illinois. The correct publisher is Nevada Corporation (doing business in California) that is also named Windsong Press. Raymond Chandler is the sole owner of this publishing company, which holds the copyright of his book. As such Chandler is not only a journalist by way of authorship of a non-fiction book, he is also “connected with or employed by” the publisher.”

So instead of taking his ‘documents’ to court and having an honest talk there, our good old uncle turned them into a fiction book and set up a publishing company to hide behind its walls – with the only purpose to say whatever he wanted and never have to prove his lies in court…

How very prudent and cowardly… How very intricate and simple…  And how very effective…  Killing two or more birds with one stone…  Openly telling lies and never having to answer for them in such a terribly legal way…. Fantastic… No wonder he was a lawyer and knew how to bypass law…

The rest of his revelations in this final document (which, as you remember, he never expected to be made public) are also sensational but can in no way surpass the blow he has just delivered to Michael Jackson and his team. Speaking about gathering information about the 1993 case, Ray Chandler reveals that:

  • he purposefully placed himself in the position to gather such information with the intent to disseminate it” – which turns his story about Evan Chandler’s sobbing on the phone and imploring Ray to come after he was attacked by a journalist into a blatant lie. Now he says that he purposefully placed  himself in the position of a resident in Evan’s house (what a troupe of clowns these Chandlers are).
  • the issues raised in his book “include unethical and possibly criminal activities among members of the bar and other state-licensed professionals, unethical and possibly criminal activities on the part of certain media, and information on child abuse”. Which means that there are certain lawyers and media outlets which may be equally slandered by Ray Chandler in his book and they cannot sue him either as the good old uncle is covered by the shield law (those who have the book please check it for his other victims – you’ll surely find Mary Fischer there, as well as Geraldine Hughes).
  • “even after the publication of the book he has continued to gather information regarding the molestation of his nephew”. This way he admits he dedicated his whole life to harassing Michael Jackson and unwittingly discloses that he and the other members of the gang did not have any direct evidence of Michael’s ‘guilt’ – otherwise he wouldn’t have spent ten or more years of his life gathering newspaper clips about his alleged misconduct (it is absolutely incredible that so many people have chased Michael for decades – Tom Sneddon, Ray and Evan Chandler and Diane Dimond to name only a few!)
  • Ray Chandler also reveals that thoughhe harassed Michael Jackson all his life “he was not, and has never claimed to be, a witness to either the molestation of Jordan Chandler or the alleged extortion attempt by Evan Chandler against Michael Jackson. This explains why defendant has subpoenaed Raymond Chandler only as a custodian of records, and not as a percipient witness”. Well, this statement of Ray never being a witness naturally contradicts his own words in numerous TV interviews and on the cover of the book saying that “this is a story told by one who witnessed the events as they unfolded”. But adding just one more lie to the whole pile of them is no longer significant to many of us here …
  • Finally he sneers at Jackson and his defense team by accepting the fact that “the only way that the documents may reasonably assist the defense is to “impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness”. So he knows that this is the only way, but feels quite relaxed and sure of himself as he knows equally well that the Defense will not have access to him and his ‘documents’ now and will therefore never be able to ‘impeach his credibility’ in court.

After hearing both sides and finding out that Ray Chandler was actually a publisher and was covered by the Shield law, the judge put an end to his subpoena the same day (Nov.8, 2004) and sealed all the documents pertaining to it by this order.

And since Ray Chandler was also covered by the Protective order of July 9, 2004 regarding Defendant’s Subpoenaes, which allowed the subpoenaed people not to disclose the fact of the subpoena to anyone at all, he shamelessly applied for that status and immediately received it – as it was the Defense which subpoenaed him, not Prosecution.

Reviewing the battlefield we can say that:

  1. Everything is quiet now
  2. No one really knows that Ray Chandler refused to come to court and produce his “hard evidence” against Michael Jackson which laid the basis for his slanderous All That Glitters book
  3. The good old uncle can safely go on with his lies on every TV, radio and media channel
  4. He should not be afraid to answer for what he says as he is protected by the California Shield law
  5. His book can still be on sale making profit for the author and publisher and can still disseminate lies about Michael Jackson.

Happy end for Ray Chandler?

YES, except that he never thought these documents would be unsealed and somebody would look in…

73 Comments leave one →
  1. lcpledwards permalink
    August 14, 2010 8:10 pm

    It’s a shame that Mesereau didn’t get a book deal after the trial because he surely would have mentioned this scandalous episode! It’s very discouraging that for the past 6 years this information has been suppressed b the media. Can you imagine if there was a witness who was going on TV proclaiming MJ’s innocence, but refused Sneddon’s subpoena? The media would be all over it, and they would say that the person obviously doesn’t have any faith in MJ’s innocence if he won’t testify in court.

    The fact that Sneddon did NOT subpoena either Ray, Evan, or Jordie Chandler should confirm to everyone that he knew MJ was being extorted, but wanted to prosecute him anyway in 1993. It’s just unfathomable that Sneddon would NOT subpoena someone who claimed that they could prove MJ was ever guilty of molestation. Same thing applies to Victor Guitterez. Both he and Ray should have been called as 1108 witnesses! And he didn’t have to “ask” Jordie to testify. Even if Jordie threatened legal action, he still could have been subpoenaed, and maybe Sneddon would have won and forced him into court. But I think the reason he wasn’t subpoenaed is because if Jordie won, and the media found out about it, then it would have been a major embarrassment to Sneddon and would have undermined his case.

    The fact that the media didn’t report on any of this is further proof of their role in MJ’s persecution, especially Diane Dimond. Ray Chandler revealed to HER that he was subpoenaed, but of course she never made any attempt to report on what came about from that subpoena. Where are all of these so-called “investigative journalists”? Where is “Dateline NBC” or “20/20”? Why did we have to stumble upon these documents by ourselves 6 years later?

    One last thing: when you include Martin Bashir, Diane Dimond, and Ray Chandler, that makes at least 3 people who have hid behind the “shield law” to slander MJ in public and become speechless under oath (Bashir), or to not even have to go to court at all (Dimond and Chandler). There may have been others who used the shield law to avoid court that we don’t know about.

    I guess Bashir must have had bad counsel, since his lawyers couldn’t keep him out of the courtroom the way Dimond and Chandler’s lawyers did! They have all abused “freedom of the press”!!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. lynande51 permalink
    August 15, 2010 1:02 am

    Hey David do you know how to add another article on my person page? I’ not to savvy about this yet?


  3. Truth permalink
    August 15, 2010 1:19 am

    Very interesting Helena. Ray knew that he would lose credibility if people found out he had a chance to testify against Michael but did his utmost to make sure that never happened. You know how he always said that he wished Jordan testified.

    I suspect he isn’t a very happy man – because at the end of the day – he hasn’t got very much for his book or himself but when Michael Jackson died – everyone had a reaction one way or another. His music was the years’ best seller – in a way he outsold the industry once again. Whether any of us agree with what Michael did sometimes – I remember just nearly everyone listening to his music the next day thinking ‘wow – someone great is gone’. Even before his death – 3 years ago – I remember being at clubs – and his music would come on – and without fail, people used get up on the dancefloor and these people are 18 year old students – born long after Thriller. So all of these people have tried and failed to ruin this man’s legacy – because when I think of Michael Jackson – I think of the music, dancing and the guy that would go visit hospitals and help the patients in every country he toured, and i’m sure i’m not alone in that thinking.

    I agree with you, there must be so many things Mesereau knows about the Chandlers’ – I would really like to hear what he has to say about them.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. ares permalink
    August 15, 2010 1:29 am

    I think you should read this aricle ( if you don’t have read it already).It’s about how MJ was treated by the media.

    “The Lynching of Michael Jackson”


  5. lynande51 permalink
    August 15, 2010 1:34 am

    Yes they had many opportunites to go to court and tell their story but they didn’t want the actual truth to get out. It was much more profitable for them and damaging to Michael to keep their version of the truth going. In the tape of Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz when he wants to destroy him, humilitate him beyond his wildest dreams if he didn’t get what he wanted, he says it all. Things were supposed to go according to a certain plan and they did right up until the foreskin.


  6. lcpledwards permalink
    August 15, 2010 2:46 am

    @ Lynette
    No, I don’t know how to do that. I tried to play around with it, but I didn’t see an option for adding additional posts to a personal page. And when you go to “add new post”, I think they go to the “home” page, as I didn’t see an option to select which page it goes to.

    Helena, can you help her out?


  7. Hayat permalink
    August 15, 2010 10:37 am

    I don’t understand how the residing Judge Melvine could just let this ridiculous motion of Chandler ‘s refusal to testify just pass by.
    The fact that Bashir also got ‘away’ with loads of things on court – among others on the trail, is beyond me.
    Did you guys know there wasn’t ONE black man/woman on the witness stand?
    All white’s, I think two lation’s?
    Not one young person?
    Thank God they could see the truth.
    It s just really really heartbreaking.
    I hope they’ll film everything in the correct manner that it went trough.
    I hope it gets released everywhere and people will get to see for themselves what to think.
    (Of course,the movie has to be based on ‘fictional characters’ – but I think y’all know what I mean… )


  8. ares permalink
    August 15, 2010 10:52 am

    @ Hayat
    I am afraid that they are not going to do anything.Michael jackon was tried and found guilty by the media and then by the public opinion. Even though he was found NOT guilty by the law unfortunately by the media he is continued to be portraid as a criminal that got away with it because he paid.

    The Lynching of Michael Jackson

    Does Bill O’Reilly have more power to foment hate than we thought?

    By Jeff Koopersmith

    Feb. 20, 2003 — NEW YORK ( — Bill O’Reilly, master hatemonger for Rupert Murdoch’s/Roger Ailes’ FOX News Channel, should be proud of himself this week.

    His vicious, nonstop attacks on Michael Jackson have come to fruition in the massively frenzied media lynching of the once-innocent, now-trampled persona of the little boy who led the Jackson Five, and later lost himself to what I call “The American Nightmare”: reaching the pinnacle of success only to be gunned down from the envy of it.

    O’Reilly, who claims to be master of a “No Spin Zone,” spent months gnawing away and grinding his gnashing teeth at Jackson — almost certainly because O’Reilly was sentient that ABC, NBC and FOX were working on outsized pieces slamming Jackson, his regrettable childhood, his plastic surgery, and most notably his conspicuous and seemingly unwholesome empathy for children.

    O’Reilly wanted to cash in on it, take credit for it, and pretend that he actually has “The Power.”

    Yet what is loathsome about Bill O’Reilly is shared, in spades, by Stone Phillips, Barbara Walters, Josh Mankiewicz, and the producers of NBC’s prime-time ersatz-news program “Dateline” and ABC’s awful “20/20″. To be honest, if I woke up as any of these so-called journalists, I would commit ritual suicide rather than look in the mirror.

    Of course, television broadcasters excuse their near-pornographic slaughter of Jackson’s reputation by playing up the sub-theme, “We must save the children” – specifically, “the children” with whom Jackson admits having sleepovers in his bedroom at the Santa Barbara ranch he has named “Neverland.”

    Under the guise of “policemen of the electronic age,” these large corporate broadcasters offer and re-offer, over and over and over again, Michael Jackson’s head on a bloody platter for viewers of all stripes to consume.

    Now, it is true that Mr. Jackson settled litigation brought against him by the parents of a 13-year-old boy claiming to have been sexually seduced by the “King of Pop”, but both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara District Attorneys declined to prosecute Mr. Jackson because of lack of evidence to do so.

    And it is true that Jackson openly and oh-so-naively admits that he invites kids to sleep in his bedroom — but claims he sleeps on the floor and bewails the sexual overtones that television plants.

    This did not stop a retired detective from leading both NBC and ABC through a litany of “proof” that Jackson was an evil child molester who used his Disneyesque home-cum-theme-park as bait to bed young boys.

    Put aside any preconceptions you may have about the “Michael Jackson scandals” and ask yourself a simple question: what is wrong with this picture?

    That’s not a tough question to answer. What is wrong is the same thing that is wrong with America in general these days.

    We have forgotten about who we are, and what we stand for.

    We have forgotten about the law.

    We have forgotten about common decency.

    And let me be the first to say that if Michael Jackson is indeed molesting children by the dozens, as powerful broadcasters would have us believe, then he should be arrested, perhaps jailed, and certainly treated for his mental illness.

    But Michael Jackson has not been proved to be a child molester in a criminal or civil court. He has not even been charged with such an offense and one must believe, if we are truly a nation of laws, that he is, IS, innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of his peers.

    Certainly he is altered, he is poles apart from you and I, but this doesn’t prove that his love of children is not innocent or that his longing for his own mislaid-in-greed childhood results in perversion.

    Perhaps the networks should spend as much time documenting proven pedophiles instead of “suspected” ones. That way they would less apt to be accused, as I am accusing them, of being nothing better than the Hitlers or Milosevics of this world who piled those they hated into mass graves much as the broadcast industry kills the reputations of celebrities gone off beam.

    It’s not enough for O’Reilly, Walters, Phillips, Mankiewicz, and the others working this celebrity “story” to trump up a case against Jackson. The power of network television has destroyed dozens of others — only recently another black American superstar and her husband, Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown. And before that, we saw the virtual demonization of Robert Downey Jr., Nick Nolte and Paul “Pee Wee Herman” Reubens. And let’s not ever forget what they did to President Bill Clinton and his wife.

    It was Bill O’Reilly, again, who led the charge against Ms. Houston when she admitted to a drug problem. It is as if O’Reilly is acting as a “special prosecutor” trying to wrest custody of Ms. Houston’s children from her. To listen to this phony pseudo-intellectual moralizer one cannot help but wonder how American families would take in another 30 million kids whose parents might light up a joint after a tough day on the construction site.

    On just one night earlier this week, television viewers across the nation were treated to four hours (three on ABC and one on NBC) of contemptible “revelations” concerning Michael Jackson’s troubles with growing up and his increasing age. Last week FOX Television did a “Special” lynching of Jackson which seemed to whet the appetite of a viewing public with a near-insatiable desire to see the powerful crushed, no matter the expense, no matter the lack of substantiated evidence.

    To say these were American networks’ sorriest hours would be an understatement.

    For three hours, ABC — The “American” Broadcasting Network, owned largely and ironically by the Disney Corporation who created the Magic Kingdom upon which Mr. Jackson seems to have modeled his “ranch” — exploited and abused the “King of Pop” so ferociously that one might think it was endeavoring to force the man who won’t grow up toward suicide, much as the editorialists as the Wall Street Journal drove Vince Foster to snuff out his own life on a park bench.

    On NBC, the “General Electric Network,” the Jackson story was likewise presented in as revolting a manner as could be slipped by their increasingly lax “censors”, with that network choosing to go nose to nose with ABC in a sordid contest to see who could capture more avaricious and covetous American viewers while torching a pitiable little man who gave us all such great musical pleasure for most of his life.

    I don’t think I have ever been quite so riveted by a display of insufferable heartlessness.

    Many, from the e-mail these programs have generated, did not watch to learn about Jackson, but sought to gloat and rejoice over what at least appeared to be his psychological instability, the terror of his childhood, his loneliness, and his desolation.

    All three networks featured ghastly interviews with plastic surgeons studying only photographs of Michael Jackson’s face and giving their “expert” opinions on how many surgeries he’d undergone, and how botched they were in a contemptible flaunt of the Hippocratic Oath: “Do no harm.”

    Martin Bashir

    America was treated to hours of Martin Bashir, the British “journalist” who was fortunate enough to “get” Princess Diana to talk about how she cheated on her husband, Prince Charles — himself “a little odd.”

    It seems Mr. Bashir is fond of ingratiating himself with the famous, and more so the super wealthy, so that he can use them and abuse them — and of course, cash in.

    Bashir was at his most repellent pretending to take Mr. Jackson into his confidence, feigning concern for the singer, protecting Jackson’s children from the paparazzi, and then humiliating him repeatedly — for nothing more than money.

    ABC, in cahoots with REAL Video, is offering up video of the Bashir interview — the only catch being that you have to subscribe — again for more money — in order to wallow in the heartbreak that is Jackson’s life.

    Dateline, at, featured a ghostly Flash Film of Jackson’s face morphing eerily using six pictures taken over 30 years of the singing star’s life making him appear as a monster to excite its Web surfers.

    After all is said, Mr. Bashir — who seems not to be a journalist at all but merely a pig wallowing in the mud of another’s broken life — and the network executives who participated in this modern Anglo-American lynching should be put in stocks and mocked in Times Square.

    Bill O’Reilly would shout me down if I were across from him on “The Factor.” He would yell “What about the children, Mr. Koopersmith? What about the children?”

    I might answer — “Yes, what about the children?”

    I must add that Barbara Walter’s participation in this dreadfulness was deplorable. I thought at least she had reached a zenith, where she like the others could have just said “No!”

    Sadly, she chose to participate in this high-tech lynching.

    She — and all the other pilers-on — should hang their heads in shame.


  9. Suzy permalink
    August 15, 2010 12:00 pm

    I have a legal question. Not important, I’m just ignorant about how it works. So why was the trial named “People vs. Jackson” instead of “Arvizo vs. Jackson”?


  10. August 15, 2010 5:33 pm

    Ares, thank you for the article – I’d love to include it into our list of best list of articles about Michael.

    But in connection with this article let me draw your attention to one sentence of it which has suddenly become vital again: “Perhaps the networks should spend as much time documenting proven pedophiles instead of “suspected” ones”.

    As regards the above, guys, I have very bad news for you – the book by a REAL PEDOPHILE Carl Toms “Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons…” has been published though we thought its publication cancelled. I found it in the Amazon list together with some readers’ remarks and some pages open for readers to have a closer look:

    It seems that convicted pedophiles are fully allowed to express their precious views on other human beings and no one in the media is in the least interested.

    But when journalists like Charles Thomson start telling the truth about an innocent man accused of this crime everyone is agog with agitation and is trying to eradicate his effort as some sort of heresy on the part of a journalist.


  11. Suzy permalink
    August 15, 2010 5:48 pm

    Helena, that’s sad! Though I’m not surprised. I expected that they won’t give up easily. I think now giving them any more attention could prove to be counter-productive. I think they definitely want controversy around the book because that would bring attention. So now that the book is published – and it seems the media haven’t picked it up at all, and by the number of comments on Amazon, only few people at all did -, I think we should just leave it at that and let it sink into obscurity.


  12. ares permalink
    August 15, 2010 5:55 pm

    OK MJ’s family SHOULD really move their ass. This is Ridiculous !!!! Here are you people who have never met the guy and spending so much time doing researches in order to vindicate him and HIS FAMILY allowS this book that is written by a pedophile and clearly slam Michael to be published?? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM?? My god i am so mad right now. Why don’t they do something in order to clear Michael’s name?? Enough with the public appearences in order to promote movies or cd’s or reality shows. THis is their brother’s good name GOD Damn it. I am sorry for the insults but i am furious.


  13. lcpledwards permalink
    August 15, 2010 7:17 pm

    @ Hayat
    Actually, there was at least one black person who testified. It was Bob Jones, MJ’s former publicist who was fired in 2004, and retaliated by writing the “tell-all” book “The Man Behind the Mask”. (Or perhaps he started writing the book, and then MJ found out about it and fired him? I’ve heard both of those explanations, and I don’t know which one is true.)

    It was co-written by Stacey Brown, a former Jackson family “friend” who did a 180 on them for whatever reason. Not only did he help write that sensationalized piece of garbage, but he also helped write the manuscript for Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook’s book about how they were forced to acquit MJ. But they lost their book deal when he was caught plagiarizing Maureen Orth’s articles, which is an indication of how terrible her articles really are! (In a few weeks, I’m going to write a report refuting everything she has written on MJ!)

    On top of that, Brown was hired by -you guessed it!- MSNBC as an “analyst” during the trial as well! Like I said before, MSNBC is INFESTED with MJ haters! How you can provide fair coverage to someone when you are hiring his sworn enemies? (Brown, Dimond, Sheriff Jim Thomas, Victor Guiterrez, etc.)

    In his book, Bob Jones stated that he caught MJ licking Jordie Chandler’s head while on an airplane, but on the witness stand he said he “couldn’t remember” if he saw it. Typical! I wish his entire testimony was available online, but unfortunately it’s not. Here is a transcript of the “Dan Abrams Show” where they discuss Jones. First, go to the bottom and click “Show More Text”, and then do a search on “lick” and you’ll see it.

    Some more info on Jones:,2933,158669,00.html


  14. lcpledwards permalink
    August 15, 2010 7:50 pm

    @ Suzy

    I don’t know if you are an American, but here in America there are two forms of law: criminal and civil law. In a criminal trial, it is the government who prosecutes a defendant for the crimes that they are charged with. So when MJ was on trial, his case was titled “The People of the State of California vs. Michael Joseph Jackson”. You CANNOT settle a criminal case out of court once the prosecution decides to go to trial, and once they get an indictment (either through a grand jury or preliminary hearing).

    A civil trial involves one party (the plaintiff) suing the other party (the defendant). A defendant CANNOT be sentenced to jail or execution if found liable for a civil trial; he can only be ordered to pay money. This is why Evan Chandler sued MJ in 1993, and had the civil case scheduled to take place before the criminal investigation was completed. MJ’s insurance company settled the lawsuit out of court, thus avoiding the negative publicity a trial would have brought. This is EXACTLY what Evan wanted all along, and it is stated SPECIFICALLY in “All That Glitters”, from page 167:

    By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.”

    Allred meant well; no one doubted her sincerity and concern. And had the defendant been other than Michael Jackson, her strategy might have been more appealing. But Larry and Bob’s insights made a lot of sense. Getting a conviction against Michael would be near impossible without a second victim.

    It may be said that Gloria was more concerned with the larger issue of child abuse, and that bringing the truth to light via a criminal trial was a nobler goal than getting a lot of money and sweeping the entire affair under the rug. But as Evan commented months later, “The overriding consideration in every decision had to be what was best for Jordie, and Larry’s way was more consistent with that goal. Doing anything that might bring additional fear and anxiety was the last thing Jordie needed. Or any of us.”

    Eliminating the horror of worldwide exposure from a protracted trial was not only the best thing for Jordie, it was best for Michael as well. The money it would cost him to settle with his accuser was incidental. Keeping his career intact was what really mattered. Shapiro knew all this from the start. By steering Evan and June toward Larry Feldman and away from Gloria Allred, he was doing everyone a mitzvah, including Michael Jackson.

    That passage should eradicate the idea that the Chandlers wanted justice, or even considered testifying in either civil court or criminal court. This is why it’s so important to cross examine “All That Glitters”, because that book is the key to vindicating MJ. It shows the true intentions of the Chandlers, and if you believe that MJ was guilty, that means you must believe EVERYTHING written in that book. The Chandlers basically say that “yeah, MJ molested Jordie, but all we wanted was money instead of justice, and we let is slide because he paid us.” If you think MJ was guilty, then these are the slimeballs that you have to defend!

    The Arvizos originally wanted to blackmail MJ into settling out of court, the same way Chandler and Francia did. But Sneddon had the law changed to where you can’t sue someone before they are tried in criminal court on the same charge. So that FORCED them to have to prosecute MJ in criminal court, and we all know what happened! Once he was acquitted, the lost their opportunity to sue. This is what the Chandlers wanted to avoid in 1993, hence they successfully moved up the civil trial before the criminal trial.

    By the way, I will discuss criminal vs civil law in more detail in my new report, which is coming soon!


  15. Suzy permalink
    August 16, 2010 4:18 am

    Thank you, David. I’m not American.

    What hypocricy from the Chandlers again in that extract from ATG! Oh the concern for Jordie’s well-being and protecting him from the trauma of a trial! Interesting that they weren’t so eager to protect him from the trauma of books that they published about him (ATG and the Gutierrez book) or the trauma of Evan wanting to make a music record on the case….

    And for someone who wants the whole case just go away and not stay in the public, Ray Chandler appeared a lot on TV over the years (and Evan only didn’t because he wasn’t allowed by the settlement)…..

    “Getting a conviction against Michael would be near impossible without a second victim.”

    That’s interesting too. Why did they think they wouldn’t have convicted MJ for molesting just one boy? It seems they weren’t too convinced of the strength of their own case! It’s odd if Jordie’s description was a match. But we all know it wasn’t. Plus I think they would have had a “second boy” in Jason Francia, like the Arvizos had him, so this excuse doesn’t really work either. They simply didn’t want to go to court, just wanted money. It’s obvious.

    I like it when they play David against this big Goliath MJ against whom it’s impossible for them to get a fair trial. In fact, it was the other way around as everybody could see that how the DA and how the media treated MJ.


  16. August 16, 2010 9:23 pm

    This is good stuff – really! Maureen Orth – her crap started back in 1994, way over a decade – I don’t think she had anything to do with the Shield Law – but she sure has been against Michael Jackson from day one – all the way up to her June 26, 2009 article, the witch, and others like her won’t give up.

    All of this is so perplexing and troubles my soul to no end. I think this ALL should go public – and apologies made, public apologies should be demanded, I demand one!!! Don’t they make newspapers put retractions in the next day paper?

    (a public statement, by the author of an earlier statement, that withdraws, cancels, refutes, or diametrically reverses the original statement)

    No wait – don’t tell me, let me guess…. Michael Jackson is no longer with us and so blah blah blah… all the freakin pedophiles get to claim HIM AS THEIR OWN AND PUBLISH 600 PAGE BOOKS ABOUT IT – while every other person on the street spits out the word “child molester” at the mere mention of his name!!!

    W h a t is u p with a ll t h a t !!

    I’m so angry I could spit nails!



  17. August 16, 2010 10:17 pm

    It seems to me they wanted to prosecute Michael, but their way in the court of public opinion. They also had no concern for his career and why should they? I wouldn’t have for someone who M my child. So why pretend it is just phony, or mental. I knew it all along they did everything to avoid stepping into a court of law be it civil or criminal, including leaking damaging documents to the public. The REASON? Extortion. Evan is no dummy he knew if he had gone to court MJ’s lawyers were going to call extortion as part of their defense, and Evan did not want to be cross-examined on that!

    Another interesting thing is the involvement of Pellicano. Let pretend we know beyond a reasonable doubt that MJ did it. Why involve a PI? Michael Jackson is no dummy either. Negotiate between lawyers and arrive at a speedy settlement. Why the need for a PI? Unless …….

    Michael Jackson is not the only person to be strung up and lynched by the media. Remember the Ramseys? As I recall the mother of Jon-Benet Ramsey died of cancer while being accused for years in the media of having killed, or known what happened to her daughter. It was only years later that the family was cleared of any involvement, but the damage was already done. There were no apologies there either.


  18. lcpledwards permalink
    August 17, 2010 8:20 am

    Isn’t it ironic that Judge Melville allowed Ray to avoid coming to court, yet allowed the 1108 witnesses to testify? If he allowed them to testify, then why couldn’t Ray testify as well? Wasn’t he saying that MJ was guilty like the rest of them?

    If Melville had used a few brain cells, then he should have figured out the fact that Ray was trying so hard to avoid testifying was indicative of MJ’s complete innocence in 1993, and he should have taken that into consideration when Mesereau objected to the 1108 witnesses because their testimony would be more prejudicial than probative. Obviously, Mesereau didn’t object because he felt MJ was guilty!

    If Melville allowed Ray to weasel his way out of testifying, then he should NOT have allowed the Neverland 5 to testify as well. The 1108 rule isn’t meant to allow prosecutors to use prior bad acts to back up a weak case, and that’s EXACTLY what Sneddon did!


  19. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2010 8:33 am

    @ David

    Another legal question if you don’t mind. You wrote: “Once he (MJ) was acquitted, they (the Arvizos) lost their opportunity to sue (in a civil court).”

    I was wondering about it regarding the OJ Simpson case. Simpson was acquitted in a criminal court, but then he was found guilty in a civil court. From that to me it seems the families of his victims didn’t automatically lose their right to sue in a civil court just because they lost in a criminal court.


  20. lcpledwards permalink
    August 17, 2010 9:21 am

    @ Suzy

    Well, techincally Janet Arvizo could have sued MJ in civil court after his acquittal, but what lawyer in their right mind would want to represent her? Any honest lawyer who did their due diligence would see that she was lying about anything, and it would be a waste of time to even try suing. The only hope that Janet had of suing was to find some scumbag lawyer who would take the case with the hope that MJ would settle out of court to avoid further bad publicity. Remember, Janet’s story was so bad that not even Larry Feldman would represent her! Larry King was going to testify that Feldman told him that Janet was a “whacko” or something like that, but Melvelle wouldn’t allow his testimony.

    (Personally, I think the insurance company made the right decision in settling the Chandler case, and MJ himself made the right decision is settling with Blanca Francia. If he had gone to civil court and won, he STILL would have lost in the court of public opinion because the media would rip him to shreds, and they would do everything in their power to undermine his acquittal by saying that “just because he’s not guilty, doesn’t mean he’s innocent”, “he got away with it because he’s a celebrity”, etc. He was in a lose/lose situation, so settling was the lesser of two evils. Think about this: let’s say Janet was able to sue MJ in 2003, as she originally intended. In retrospect, don’t you think it would have been better for him to just settle than fight it in court?)

    As for OJ Simpson, the Goldman family sued him for wrongful death, and won. They sued because they knew he was guilty, and the evidence proved it, even though he was acquitted because that racist cop Mark Furhman gave them reasonable doubt. So to answer your question, losing in criminal court doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY prevent you from suing, but in most cases it will SEVERELY hurt your chances of winning a judgement in civil court.

    In fact, here is attorney Robert Shapiro (one of OJ’s lawyer’s) giving that same advice to Evan Chandler. From “All That Glitters”, page 159:

    Since it was clear to everyone that Gloria’s strategy was to force a criminal proceeding against Michael, Bob Shapiro began by explaining what would happen if criminal charges were brought.

    “It’s my opinion that in a case of this magnitude, even though the law offers protection for juveniles, there will be leaks. And the way they do the leaks is, they go to Europe, and then the press here picks up what’s reported in Europe. That’s how they get around the laws protecting children. Jordie would have to testify in public before the jury, and be subject to virtually unlimited cross-examination, as would anyone else involved in this case. And as I’ve already described to Jordie, we call the witness stand the most uncomfortable chair in the world.

    For a child to sit out there alone and be cross-examined by a defense attorney is a traumatic experience, something you have to look down the road and see what kind of scars it’s going to leave, whether you’re vindicated or not. Because even if you are vindicated you were still a participant. And though you were psychologically coerced into doing this, it’s an act that a lot of people might find embarrassing, especially young boys. The problem with a criminal trial is twofold: not only does Jordie and everybody else go through a traumatic experience, but at the end of the day, if there’s no conviction, your civil case is shot. There’s no chance of anybody getting a civil recovery.”

    Sharpiro’s last point had been on Evan’s mind for some time. “Bob, I just want to emphasize one thing that hit me hard the other day. All it takes to have no conviction is one of the twelve jurors to say I have a doubt. That’s it. He’s off scot-free.


  21. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2010 12:09 pm

    @ David

    Thank you for clarifying that.

    As for your question about whether it would have been better to settle the second case as well or whether it was wise or not to settle in 1993. I think he shouldn’t have settled in 1993 and I think it’s good that he didn’t (couldn’t) settle in 2003.

    There are a lot of people who think the Arvizos were con artists, but MJ was guilty in 1993. Why do you think that is? That’s because of the settlement! And I don’t just talk about the fact that a lot of people (wrongly) take it as an admission of guilt, but rather the fact that it’s the court where you can get to know the accusers and realize if they look honest or look like con artists! It’s what happened to the Arvizos as well. Before the trial a lot of people thought they were telling the truth. However when people saw their testimonies before the court many were starting to look at them differently than before…. People realized something was fishy there. And I think this would have happened to the Chandlers as well. The Chandlers are given more credibility by the public and the media exactly because there was never a chance to expose them on court, because they were never on court! I think had it gone to trial their failure would have been even bigger than that of the Arvizos! I honestly think so! They would have been exposed and torn apart BIG TIME! And then there would have been no Arvizo case in 2005….

    Apparently, the Chandlers knew this. That’s why they didn’t want to go to court, especially not to a criminal court – as this latest extract from ATG shows as well. I remember how Jordan said in his police interview the only thing he was afraid of was cross-examination. Why, if you are telling the truth? Ray here trying to explain it by talking about the trauma it would mean for poor Jordan and so on. I don’t know, but by his police interview he didn’t seem to be traumatized by having to tell about it AT ALL! And what about the trauma that books like ATG, “MJ was my lover” caused to the boy? What about the trauma that records like “EVANstory” would cause to the boy? Or what about the trauma that Ray himself causes by appearing on TV and talking about the case all the time? The Chandlers didn’t seem too concerned about those traumas. They were only concerned about the “trauma” of a criminal trial….


  22. ares permalink
    August 17, 2010 3:24 pm

    I have some questions, if anyone knows to answer me. 1) When MJ was ordered to be striped down and photographed could he refuse to do that? 2) When he learn about that order had he time to prepare himself or the police went to his house and told him about the order without warning?? 3) Is it a common practice to have someone striped down in cases that involves child molestation accusations ??


  23. lcpledwards permalink
    August 17, 2010 6:45 pm

    @ Ares
    1. Yes, he could have refused the strip search, but he said in his 1993 statement from Neverland that it would have been used against him as a sign of guilt in the civil case. MJ knew he was innocent, so he had no reason to refuse. Why should he? And if he really WAS guilty, don’t you think he would have settled the civil case BEFORE the search in order to avoid the embarrassment? As a matter of fact, if he was guilty, don’t you think he would have paid them in August 1993? In “All That Glitters”, the Chandlers explicitly state that they would have let the whole thing slide if MJ would have paid them. From page 128:

    “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.”

    2. As far as the police are concerned, in civil cases the police usually don’t gather evidence for either party. Instead, according to the following website: “The state plays no role in civil cases, unless the government launches a lawsuit or is the party being sued. Parties retain a lawyer – or may choose to represent themselves – to gather evidence and present the case in court.” But Sneddon and his cops conducted the strip search as evidence that could be used in the CIVIL trial, with the hope that they could also use the photos in the criminal trial.

    I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how the police were able to assist Feldman in gathering this evidence. But this whole fiasco is exactly why MJ’s lawyers tried to get the civil case delayed for 6 years until after the statute of limitations in the criminal trial runs out. They didn’t want evidence gathered and used in the civil trial to ALSO be used in the criminal trial. I will discuss this topic in much further detail in my new article which coming soon. Diane Dimond’s book talks in great detail about the strip search……..except for when she says the description matched! J. Randy Taraborreli’s book also talks about it in detail, although I haven’t read it yet.

    3. I’m sure it is common, but I think it’s usually AFTER an arrest, and not before. Once again, I’m not a law enforcement expert, so I don’t know in what % of cases the person is strip searched. I’m sure because Jordie LIED and said he saw MJ’s penis on multiple occasions, that is what motivated Sneddon to do the search. I think another reason was because of MJ’s vitiligo, and his rumored “skin bleaching”. They thought that while he was away in rehab, that he was really getting his penis bleached in order to hide any splotches that could be identified. This is why they raided Dr. Arnie Klein’s office to find his medical records (which Dr. Klein wisely never kept at his office, because he didn’t want them leaked.) Also, in “All That Glitters” Feldman gleefully states that his case is a slam dunk because if Jordie’s description doesn’t match, they’ll just blame it on the vitiligo’s changing splotches. (But one little itty bitty thing that they forgot to consider is the fact that MJ wasn’t circumcised! That’s where their case fell apart!) From “ATG”, page 201, where Feldman explains to Evan how they have a win/win situation in regards to Jordie’s description:

    “I’m sure of that……..Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that’s it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”

    “Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

    “No, that’s good for us!”


    Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”


    “Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”


  24. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2010 7:13 pm

    @ David

    So ATG says absolutely about the circumcision? They don’t even mention it? Don’t even try to explain it?


  25. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2010 7:22 pm

    BTW, it’s funny how they use the argument that the vitiligo spots can change in favour of themselves (in case Jordan’s description doesn’t match), but then the same would have applied to Michael as well! In case it matched who tells if the spots were at the same places half a year ago? (There was half a year between the alleged molestation and the strip search.)

    That’s why the circumcision is a lot more important! It’s interesting that in a lot of articles that is not even mentioned. They go on about spots and blotches but say NOTHING about the circumcision! How very typical!


  26. ares permalink
    August 17, 2010 7:24 pm

    @ lcpledwards
    Thank you. I KNOW that MJ didn’t do anything to that kid but when it comes to Michael there are people that always searching the less detail in order to feed their belief that he was guilty and i think that, if you are coping with those kind of people you should know detail that even a lawyer doesn’t in order to deal with them.


  27. lcpledwards permalink
    August 17, 2010 7:29 pm

    @ Suzy

    I think we’re both right. Yes, had he gone to court against Evan Chandler and Blanca Francia he would have won, but at what cost? The media would have undermined the acquittals, and the general public (i.e. people who don’t do their own research and rely 100% on the media) would be skeptical, same way they were in 2005. It was a lose/lose situation! MJ’s insurance (and Sony) didn’t want to have MJ testify in civil court, because he would have been GRILLED on his lifestyle, primarily his sharing beds with children. Sneddon would have painted the picture of MJ being some vile sexual predator, and the public reaction to such questioning would have destroyed MJ. Remember, Bashir DID NOT interrogate MJ on the whole “bed sharing” thing, he merely asked a few questions, and MJ gave a few answers, and that’s it. BUt look at all of the controversy that caused. Feldman would have endlessly interrogated MJ about every aspect of his relationships with children over the course of several days, and there’s no way Sony and his insurance company would allow their cash cow to go through that, especially with Sneddon literally taking notes and plotting on how to sink MJ’s defense strategy.

    And remember, in the civil case, if MJ took the 5th and didn’t testify, that would have been used against him by the jury, and it would have looked like he had something to hide in the court of public opinion. In a criminal case, you can take the 5th, or not testify at all, and it CANNOT be used against you. I think this is probably the #1 reason why the insurance company settled, despite MJ’s objections.

    MJ was NOT good at answering tough questions and explaining himself, especially when asked in an aggressive matter. He was a shy person, sheltered himself, and didn’t understand why his letting kids sleep in his bed was so controversial. He thought that since it was 100% pure and innocent, that there was no reason for anyone to be suspicious. This is what Macaulay Culkin said to Larry King when he was interviewed in 2004. You can watch it in the post below. Notice how Macaulay also blasts Evan Chandler for taking the money and running!

    By the way, I’m going to THOROUGHLY analyze MJ’s settlement, and the settlements and extortion attempts of other celebrities, so be on the lookout!


  28. Suzy permalink
    August 17, 2010 7:55 pm

    @ David

    I see your point and I agree that MJ was not good at explaining himself.

    I didn’t know this thing about having to testify at a civil trial. Still I think the Chandler case was weak, at least as weak as the Arvizo case – heck even the Chandlers didn’t trust in their own case and preferred not to go on trial! People think the Chandler case was stronger than the Arvizo case, but that’s only until you don’t start to investigate it!


  29. August 17, 2010 8:03 pm

    David: “From “ATG”, page 201, where Feldman explains to Evan how they have a win/win situation in regards to Jordie’s description:

    “I’m sure of that……..Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that’s it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”

    “Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

    “No, that’s good for us!”


    “Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”


    “Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

    @David, I never stop marvelling at this great conversation between Larry Feldman and Evan – we should find a place in the blog for “best quotations” like this one for everyone to see and enjoy them (and learn by heart).

    As regards the question whether a strip search is a standard procedure or not, I’ve read on the internet that it is not and that it was actually a rather usual and shocking thing to do. Sorry I cannot provide the corresponding link at the moment – hope to find it later.


  30. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2010 12:27 am

    Hi I am working again on an article that will tie all of this together. I posted my work on DD and am moving on to Larry Feldman. I can tell you this. What is redacted in the agreement that we do see is a name, not Jordan because he is always called the Minor, and it is not Evan or June. Sometime in early January of 1994 Larry Feldman petitioned the court for a guardian ad litem for Jordan, someone who would work in his best interest. This was a retired judge and that is whose name is missing. This was done I am sure because Larry actually worked for Jordan and because he could not make the decision to settle without his clients consent his hands were tied. Of course until the guardian ad litem came on board all of the decisions reguarding the decision to settle were in Evan’s hands, that alone should tell us something.


  31. August 19, 2010 8:22 am

    Lynette: “I posted my work on DD and am moving on to Larry Feldman.”

    Lynette, before you look into Larry Feldman’s contribution into Michael’s nightmare can I ask you to repost in the Home page the information about Larry Feldman asking for Michael’s photographs after the strip search, which clearly show that the pictures were not a match (as he wanted them BARRED from the civil court?)

    I know that this piece also concerns Larry but it is so crucial that it should come separate and in EVERY page of this blog too for EVERYONE to see.


  32. August 19, 2010 12:52 pm

    Ares: “I have some questions, if anyone knows to answer me. 1) When MJ was ordered to be striped down and photographed could he refuse to do that? 2) When he learn about that order had he time to prepare himself or the police went to his house and told him about the order without warning?? 3) Is it a common practice to have someone striped down in cases that involves child molestation accusations ?”

    @Ares, I had a short look into that strip search issue and find it much more complex than I expected. Here is a definition of a strip search from a Canadian Legal Dictionary:

    Strip search is properly defined as … the removal or rearrangement of some or all of the clothing of a person so as to permit a visual inspection of a person’s private areas, namely genitals, buttocks, breasts (in the case of a female), or undergarments. This definition in essence reflects the definition of a strip search that has been adopted in various statutory materials and policy manuals in Canada and other jurisdictions.

    “This definition distinguishes strip searches from less intrusive frisk or pat-down searches, which do not involve the removal of clothing, and from more intrusive body cavity searches, which involve a physical inspection of the detainee’s genital or anal regions.

    They represent a significant invasion of privacy and are often a humiliating, degrading and traumatic experience for individuals subject to them. Clearly, the negative effects of a strip search can be minimized by the way in which they are carried out, but even the most sensitively conducted strip search is highly intrusive.”

    So firstly, it seems that the procedure they arranged for Michael was something in-between the strip search and a horrific body cavity search (done in prisons) – they didn’t touch him, but he himself had to ‘adjust’ his private parts for them to have a better look.

    And secondly, the above text refers to detainees. The same references are made by ALL legal texts I’ve found on this issue – it seems that first a person should be detained or arrested, and then he can be strip searched.

    Even in cases when a woman complains of a clear case of a rape there should be reasonable suspicion that this particular suspect committed this crime and he should be detained on reasonable grounds – otherwise the case will be too open for slander as it is only the victim’s word against the word of the accused. So even in case of a rape they are taking precaution not to traumatize the wrong person! And over here we talk of a much less serious and much more dubious case.

    Michael was neither detained, not arrested. Moreover there were never any criminal charges brought against him – it was just one boy who said that there had been some ‘masturbation’ and on that basis alone this humiliating and totally degrading procedure was carried out.

    Just imagine the son of your neighbors coming to your home for birthday parties and then all of a sudden saying horrible things about you. And they will come and strip search you just because of that? And how are you supposed to feel during and after the procedure?

    From the point of view of law Michael’s strip search was ‘legal’ as there was a search warrant issued after the so-called Linden report – this investigator seems to have interviewed Jordan, but as far as I know there are no official documents proving the point – no transcript of their interview, no declaration by Jordan made after that, no nothing. (Can anyone provide a link to the search warrant text or Linden’s report, please?).

    To make things even more confusing Ray Chandler said in his interview with Larry King that they decided to settle because they were tired of waiting as the police ‘never asked them to testify” under the end of the year (1993). So Linden’s interview with Jordan was not a testimony?

    For issues related to strip searches here are some links:

    Click to access 2009_SA_Final_6-9-09.pdf

    Click to access handbook.pdf


  33. August 20, 2010 1:38 am


    I love what you are doing with the website. I’ve learned so much.

    I do have a few question’s. If you do not know, than that’s ok.

    But did jimmy safechuck ever testify in court?

    What happened to that ridiculous site that counterparts with Raymond chandler’s book “ATG”?

    Ok, thank you. God bless your site.


  34. lcpledwards permalink
    August 20, 2010 2:23 am

    @ Denise

    Jimmy Safechuck never testified in court. He was always “rumored” to have been a victim of MJ by the media, but then again every young boy that every spent time with MJ was a possible victim!

    As for Ray Chandler’s companion site to “All That Glitters” book, it has been offline for ages now! That site had all off the documents that he claimed his book was based on, but it is no longer available.

    Thanks for the compliments! We all work very hard to get the truth out and vindicate MJ!

    @ Helena

    I have some new info regarding the seminar with Mesearau and Zonen in September. As of right now, they are saying that if all of the participants agree, then they will record the event on DVD or CD. But they must ALL agree to it prior to the event, and personally I’m not too optimistic that Zonen and Feldman will say yes. If they do, they know every syllable that rolls off of their tongues will be thoroughly analyzed by MJ fans, so I doubt they will give permission, but maybe they’ll surprise me. I’ll let you know as soon as I find out.

    But in the meantime, for your viewing pleasure, I have obtained the entire 2 hour video of the November 29th, 2005 Harvard Law School seminar with Mesereau, MSNBC’s Dan Abrahms, and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. It’s amazing! The topics of the seminar not included the MJ trial, but the media’s role in high profile cases, and the role that race and class can play when it comes to prosecution, including MJ. Listen to Mesereau’s speech at the beginning where he gives an AMAZING example of blacks being targets specifically because of their race! You would think he was talking about a case from the Civil Rights movement, but that case happened in the early 1990’s!

    You can download it here, and you must have RealPlayer to view it.

    Here is some analysis of the seminar:


  35. August 20, 2010 3:52 am


    Thanks for responding to my question. I just always wondered those two things. I thought Jimmy didn’t testify, I just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss something.


  36. August 20, 2010 9:22 am


    I just finished watching the 2005 Harvard Law School seminar. That is a amazing piece of video. The whole time Mesereau was speaking, I thinking thank you God for providing this attorney for Michael. Oh when he called out the media and called those talking heads on CourtTV and cable networks clowns, it was simply priceless.

    Dan Abrams just got on my nerves talking. Abrams looked absolutely ridiculous saying that Michael got fair treatment in the media during the trial. Abrams was so dramatic, journalistic MO. Then mentioning how “unprofessional” it was for Geraldo to declare he would shave off his mustache vs the thousands of other journalists who screamed their propaganda of guilty all up and down their shows and papers. I’m like give me a break!

    Even, a gentleman from the audience called Abrams on mentioning Geraldo. He asked Abrams for more examples of supposed “unprofessional” journalists (who just happened to be the ones defending Michael in the media.) Abrams of course didn’t have answer for that. Then to say Michael got fair treatment in the media, because the media used the term accuser. Please every word or every other word from the media was calling Michael every name in the book. I completely disagree with Abrams about opinion in the media is good. That’s what’s wrong with the media now, all slathered up opinion and not the simple presenting of the facts and truth.

    To me it was like Abram’s was trying to sway the opinion in that audience by reading his statement he said on the air and saying (i’m paraphrasing) “in this case and this boy (he really emphasized ‘this boy’) no his not guilty blah blah blah. But oh the 93 settlements, oh boys looked the same (that made me laugh) and oh the girlie magazines.”

    Mesereau calmly and gracefully knocked the wind out of Abrams’ defense of the media tactics. While Abrams went on and on in his big speech defending the media. Mesereau drove the point home even more at the end with his simple statement, that speaks volumes to me. “A lot of things that the media picked on and gave you a surface impression about, were Not at all what they were made to seem.”


  37. August 20, 2010 8:54 pm

    David, the video you’ve provided is priceless – thank you so much for this great find! All the trouble of installing the Realplayer was well worth it! I watched only Mesereau’s part of the video and same as Gigi also thanked God for providing him as an attorney for Michael. By the way Randy’s part in Michael’s acquittal should not be underestimated either – it was him who invited Mesereau (and I hear he also had to mortgage his house to pay legal expenses).

    Mesereau is not only a professional – he is a very honorable person and this seems to me the decisive factor in him winning the case. Never in my life have I heard a lawyer saying that it is important for trial lawyers to be trained as good people. At around 40:30 of the video he says “Law schools do a disservice when they don’t train trial lawyers to be good people. I often talk about the value of pro bona work as I thoroughly believe in it and I do it. I can’t tell anybody how to live their lives. Only you can figure out what is good for you…”

    He speaks about the great satisfaction in doing something meaningful in one’s life: “I love making an impact. Even if you have to represent someone that looks guilty, to make the system work and make these arrogant prosecutors not abuse the law, not abuse the facts and not take advantage of people who appear defenseless, is a wonderful feeling… In fact I chose a life like this…”

    AMAZING words for a lawyer. And he also repeatedly emphasizes that a lawyer shouldn’t be thinking of his reputation – the primary objective is the client’s welfare and freedom. By the way listening to him I realized that everything he said there had a direct bearing upon us here – we should employ absolutely the same tactics in vindicating Michael in the court of public opinion as he is describing to the Harvard law students. (I’ll probably write about it this weekend as I am staying in town again).

    We could very well consider ourselves Michael’s advocates presenting our case to the jury (the public) – examining evidence, examining and cross-examining witnesses, and what he explains as a trial tactics (at around 51:40) is a direct practical help for all of us here.

    It seems that the September seminar will be a groundbreaking event and I hope there will be a way to find out what will be going on there.

    David, thanks again for the great work you are doing!


  38. lcpledwards permalink
    August 20, 2010 9:56 pm

    @ Helena
    Someone replied to me in the comments section of the MJ777 blog after I mentioned that only Mesereau’s comment about the previous accusers was posted on youtube, and not the entire program. After watching the entire program, it puts Mesereau’s answer into context, because Dan Abrahms said that Mesereau didn’t address the previous accusers in his closing statements, thus giving the jurors the option of convicting MJ based on the previous allegations (but not the current.) So Mesereau brilliantly set the record straight for the audience, and for Abrhams! (Man, what is it with these MSNBC people? He actually had the audacity to say that the media’s coverage of MJ was FAIR? ROTFL!!)

    I think you should do a post on this seminar just summarizing some of the points that were talked about, if you have time. But at the minimum, we need to add that link to your blogroll, so that our readers will know it’s there. That video has been available for 5 years, and yet I haven’t seen it on ANY MJ websites or blogs, so I’m gonna try to put an end to that!


  39. August 20, 2010 11:09 pm


    I’m laughing right along with you over Abrams’ ridiculous comments. The man was literally foaming at the mouth with his statement about Geraldo. Abrams’ whole demeanor while he was talking just gave off a bad vibe to me. I just went back and read the analysis on the mjeoel site. I was saying amen the whole time. I found it so funny how I had picked up on the same things the author’s said in their analysis regrading Abrams. They said exactly what I was trying to express myself, in my post from this morning.


    When you said: “Never in my life have I heard a lawyer saying that it is important for trial lawyers to be trained as good people.”

    I never heard a lawyer say that in my life either. The same needs to apply to journalists. The way journalists are these days not only do they need to be trained as professional journalists. They need to be trained as good people as well, cause a lot of them are seriously lacking in the both departments.


  40. August 20, 2010 11:39 pm


    I sure hope so. I really want to see it……BADLY!


  41. August 21, 2010 1:24 am

    I saw this five years ago, and Dan Abrams annoys me just as much now as they did back then. Why does he and every other hater treat the Chandlers like they are some pristine law abiding citizens. They’re extortionist and child abusers. The Arvizos followed the Chandlers plan to a tee, but because the Chandlers were better at it they must be telling the truth. I don’t understand that logic.

    And I wished someone would of mentioned to Dan that Evan demanded MJ give him $20 million dollars before the allegations were reported, and MJ refused. So, does MJ’s refusal mean that he’s innocent. Cause surely a guilty man would have gave in to Evan’s demands.

    People like Dan never look at the whole puzzle. They rather focus on the little pieces that they can mold to fit their own agenda.


  42. August 21, 2010 9:18 am

    David: “But at the minimum, we need to add that link to your blogroll, so that our readers will know it’s there. That video has been available for 5 years, and yet I haven’t seen it on ANY MJ websites or blogs, so I’m gonna try to put an end to that!”

    Yes, David, I’ve added it to the blogroll though it will require RealPlayer for watching it. (Please don’t be afraid of this small technical problem – if I managed to do it anyone would! Just follow the instructions from MegaUpload to install free Basic Realplayer.)

    And we should make a post about it and probably NOT a single one too. I will talk about one thing, you about another, some of our readers about something else we didn’t notice. There is nothing bad in coming to it again and again as each time we will start from the ‘platform’ of the information newly acquired by then and probably from a new perspective too.


  43. shelly permalink
    August 21, 2010 1:35 pm


    Schafesuck and Jonathan Spence never testified but according to Mesereau’s closing argument they both said nothing happened and the prosecution never called them to testify. The stories about them being molested came from the same people who claimed he molested BARNES, Robson and Culkin. These stories also came from Latoya.


  44. lcpledwards permalink
    August 21, 2010 2:55 pm

    @ Shelly
    So Latoya helped spread those lies as well? I didn’t know she was THAT specific as to name names! I thought her only comments on the charges was at her press conference
    in December 1993, where she and her abusive ex-husband publicly stated that MJ was guilty and “paid off” numerous families. A few years later, she completely recanted after she divorced her husband.

    I don’t know if you’ve heard this in it’s entirety, but listen to it and think of how painful it must have been for not only MJ, but the entire Jackson family, to have to listen to this garbage! And for MJ to completely forgive her speaks volumes about his character! Most people would have permanently disowned her! I know I would have!

    MTV’s coverage of the press conference:

    Press conference in its entirety (or most of it)

    This is an interview with 20/20 during the trial in 2005. She explains that her husband “made” her do the press conference, and that she had to act as if she was being truthful in order to avoid getting beaten. The interviewer rightfully questions her on this. Personally, although it’s sad that she was a victim of domestic violence on many occasions, I just can’t comprehend how she could say those things, although I’m glad she recanted and her family forgave her. But those comments make our job that much harder, because haters try to use them as “proof” that MJ was guilty, and to people who DON’T KNOW THE FACTS, they’ll fall for it hook, line, and sinker!

    In fact, Sneddon wanted to subpoena her to testify about her comments as an 1108 witness, but it was denied!
    2005 interview part 1

    2005 interview part 2


  45. shelly permalink
    August 21, 2010 5:52 pm

    There is a document on the smoking gun where the proscution said they wanted to use a quote where she said she saw a 1 million dollar paiment to the Schafesuck


  46. August 22, 2010 12:54 am

    Has anyone read The Michael Jackson Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones? In the book AJ said Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland. I have read the book, and it is a page turner.


  47. August 22, 2010 2:10 am


    Wow, which chapter was that?

    I read the book, not necessarily in order from first page to last, but I have read the entire book neverless, What chapter was that from? If you don’t remember that’s fine, I’ll just have to go back and read that again.


  48. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2010 2:40 am

    The only one that accused Michael of abusing Mac, Wade and Brett was Jordan/Evan. He told this to the Childrens Services worker during his initial interview.Did you guys know that the social worker who was interviewing Jordan was stopped by LAPD investigators and was never able to interview, Evan, Nathalie, Nicki or Gabrielle. How fishy is that?


  49. August 22, 2010 2:50 am


    Hold up! So that was fabricated by the Chandler’s? I didn’t know that! That explains why Culkin seemed very flabbergasted on the witness stand. Because he knew someone said something, but he just didn’t know who it was. And wasn’t the Chandler stuff leaked only during the trial?? Is it true that the information from 93′ was only released after the second allegations?

    Btw, this is where I discovered that the Chandler case was leaked to the public during the second allegations.


  50. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2010 3:52 am

    Only their ” official” documents. In 1993 the LA Times ran several articles and in one of them it seems that every news outlet in the world got their own copy of the leaked DCFS report. In it he says that Michael abused 3-4 other boys. Wade and Brett even went on TV in 1993 to say yes they had slept in the same bed as him but he had done nothing to them. As a matter of fact either Wade or Brett was at Neverland when it was raided in 1993 for the search. That is probably why Sneddon went to Australia to “interview” Brett again and he wanted Michaels financial records so he could prove that he paid them off. Funny thing is none of them ever said he did it they all swore in court that he hadn’t touched them in any kind of a sexual manner and were angry about the implications. So was Jason francia until his mother told him he got 2.4 million dollars because Michael tickled him. They based all their information on what Jordan said and later when Larry Feldman and Diane Dimond found the Neverland Five, the Havenhurst Five, the Qindloys and LeMarques then they thought they had reliable witnesses. Well these people all wanted money from Michael and when they didn’t get it they sold their stories to tabloids, in fact it was Diane Dimond of Hard copy that paid them as much as one hundred thousand dollars for the Neverland 5 story.


  51. August 22, 2010 4:10 am

    That’s a shame. It seems like everyone always say’s that “Michael’s the celebrity, he got off easy” Is a total Oxy moron. That doesn’t mean nothing. It just simply means that when you are as famous as he was, people feel they can knock you down even harder for being a well known public figure. Thus forgetting that HE WAS TOTALLY HUMAN AS YOU AND ME.

    Thank you for the information. The official one were leaked during that time O.K.

    And Diane, to this day, is still tarnishing his image, by calling him a “Drug Addict”. It was on that E! special, True hollywood story, aired after his death. And this witch is going to call him that.

    I admit, Michael may have had a problem slightly, but he wasn’t no drug addict. He got addicted, but he was hard drug user. His doctor was negligently giving this stuff out of a hospital setting……Michael is not the only one to blame for his death. He loved his kids, his fans, and his Family(namely his mother), he wouldn’t do that on purpose knowing that he was supported during his most hardest time EVER! in his life: THE TRIAL.

    Thank you for your honesty, intelligence, and effort to vindicate mj from public opinion.


  52. August 22, 2010 4:56 am


    “Wow, which chapter was that?I read the book, not necessarily in order from first page to last, but I have read the entire book neverless, What chapter was that from? If you don’t remember that’s fine, I’ll just have to go back and read that again.”- Denise

    It was at the very bottom of page 123. Mesereau was cross examining Kiki. He asked her if “She recalled Jimmy Safechuck had gotten married at Neverland.” She said she didn’t recall it. However, Mez would not pull information like that out of his behind. Obviously Michael, or someonelse must have told him.


  53. August 22, 2010 9:21 am

    “Culkin seemed very flabbergasted on the witness stand. Because he knew someone said something, but he just didn’t know who it was”.

    @Denise, Jordan could have very well assumed that Culkin had been ‘molested’, but the people who claimed they had ‘seen’ Culkin being molested were Lemarques – please see here:

    Culkin was astonished not only that some people were saying a thing like that about him but also by the fact that no one from the police ever approached him to verify their story!

    Yes, it seems that all that ‘data’ about the 1993 case was leaked before the 2005 trial specifically to bias the public (and the jury) against Michael Jackson. The book by Ray Chandler was also published in September 2004 and was scheduled for the same event.


  54. August 22, 2010 10:50 am

    Lynande: “In 1993 the LA Times ran several articles and in one of them it seems that every news outlet in the world got their own copy of the leaked DCFS report”.

    Guys, does any of you happen to have a link to that 1993 DCFS report – if it is available on the internet? Or any other information about the way the interrogation process took place back in 1993/1994? I am looking into that now and need to clarify some details.


  55. August 22, 2010 11:09 am

    It was reported during the trial that Jimmy was married at the ranch. The media mentioned it when the 1108 evidence was being decided on.


  56. August 22, 2010 4:23 pm



    I have to back over that and read it.


  57. Dialdancer permalink
    August 24, 2010 11:10 pm


    I have searched and found numerous references to this DCFS report, but never have I seen so much as an except from it. I’ve check Fan sites who copied almost everything they considered relevant at the time on to posts. I did find another of Ray Chandler’s sites where he provides what is suppose to be a copy of “Psychiatric Interview with Jordie Chandler ” and a copy of what is suppose to be the “DAVID SCHWARTZ – EVAN CHANDLER TRANSCRIPT”

    Is it possible what was labeled by Dimond and touted by the Media as an Official DCFS report was the psychiatric Interview with Jordan? According to Sneddon’s Declaration surrounding Jordan’s drawing and statement there were no one identified as DCFS. Jordan was interviewed by ADA Weis.
    There is no date of when the site was started, contact inform and owner.


  58. lynande51 permalink
    August 25, 2010 12:08 am

    No the DCFS report was taken on August 17th 1993.When the police started crying foul about the leak every one that had a copy destroyed it. I will show you an article in my next post that supports this. The claimed Psychiatrist interview with Dr. Richard Gardner was supposed to have taken place on October 6th 1993. I say claimed because there is not a single article that supports it’s existence until 2004 following the publication of All That Glitters. It is added to the list of documents that can be purchased from the All That Glitters website for an additional $4.95. There is nothing in any prior to that that states that the interview even took place. I could probably say that in the interest of sensationalism it was added by the Chandlers as “more proof”, when in fact there was no proof to begin with. The closest thing I could find to a reference to it was in an article that quoted Larry Feldman as saying that 2 psychologists already agreed that Jordan would be more damaged by testifying in criminal court. That doesn’t say that they believed he had been molested, just that he was effected by the lawsuit and the tabloid media coverage of the allegations. Also Dr. Gardner was not a psychologist he was a psychiatrist and there is a big difference. A psychiatrist is a MD that specializes in treating mental illness. A phychologist is usually a professional with a Masters or Doctorate in psychology in this case specializing in child behavior and behavior modification.If you Google Dr. Richard Gardner you will find out that he was not as they claim a world renowned psychiatrist in false memory syndrome but an unrespected member of the psychiatric community for his belief in a term PAS or parental allienation syndrome.If they are saying that either Larry Feldman or the police (I have read both) sent Jordan to see him why aren’t we looking at why.To me this is just more of a desperate unsupported attempt to make themselves look credible. If Jordan had gone to see this man and he believed Jordan there would have been supporting documents and the Chandlers would have had it all over the news in 1993 not 2004.


  59. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2010 12:23 am

    @ Lynette

    That’s an interesting info on PAS. I looked it up and this is what Wikipedia says about it (and Gardener):

    As you said, Gardener is widely criticized for this hypothesis and the article even says: “Gardner portrayed PAS as well accepted by the judiciary and having set a variety of precedents, but legal analysis of the actual cases indicates this claim was incorrect.[6]”


  60. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2010 12:29 am

    And the article about Gardener says:

    “There is considerable criticism of Gardner by the medical community, social workers, and those who deal with child abuse cases including many law practitioners. His theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome has been called “junk-science” by some colleagues.”

    “In the same article, Gardner denied that he condoned pedophilia. “I believe that pedophilia is a bad thing for society,” he wrote. “I do believe, however, that pedophilia, like all other forms of atypical sexuality is part of the human repertoire and that all humans are born with the potential to develop any of the forms of atypical sexuality (which are referred to as paraphilias by DSM-IV). My acknowledgment that a form of behavior is part of the human potential is not an endorsement of that behavior. Rape, murder, sexual sadism, and sexual harassment are all part of the human potential. This does not mean I sanction these abominations.”

    Gardner also advocated against mandatory reporting laws for child abuse and immunity from prosecution of individuals reporting child abuse and advocated for the creation of programs with federal funding designed to assist individuals claimed to be falsely accused of child abuse.[1]”



  61. Tom Joyce permalink
    August 25, 2010 3:36 am

    Ray chandler wrote this because Evan and Jordie signed documents agreeing not to discuss the legal agreement. So this was their way around that. They wanted Jackson’s money and wanted to hurt him. But none of them had the balls to face him in court – and Jordie was an adult by then.


  62. August 25, 2010 9:48 am

    “I did find another of Ray Chandler’s sites where he provides what is suppose to be a copy of “Psychiatric Interview with Jordie Chandler ” and a copy of what is suppose to be the “DAVID SCHWARTZ – EVAN CHANDLER TRANSCRIPT”
    There is no date of when the site was started, contact inform and owner.”

    Dialdancer, this is exactly the site I was referring to – I think it is being maintained by Ray Chandler as several articles identify him as the owner of it and all them have the same style.

    ” According to Sneddon’s Declaration surrounding Jordan’s drawing and statement there were no one identified as DCFS. Jordan was interviewed by ADA Weis”.

    Do I remember it right that someone said here something about DCFS not being able to interview Jordan? At least that they had some difficulty to do it? Or am I wrong?


  63. August 25, 2010 10:40 am

    “No the DCFS report was taken on August 17th 1993.When the police started crying foul about the leak every one that had a copy destroyed it. I will show you an article in my next post that supports this. The claimed Psychiatrist interview with Dr. Richard Gardner was supposed to have taken place on October 6th 1993. I say claimed because there is not a single article that supports it’s existence until 2004 following the publication of All That Glitters.”

    Aha, Lynette, so it was you who earlier mentioned that DCFS report the copies of which were later destroyed (you are great in discovering things!). Very interesting.

    And that point about the interview with Dr. Gardner being added later is interesting too. By the way, though I do know that this doctor was criticised for that Parental alienation syndrome I don’t think that everything is that easy here.

    Yesterday I spent all my free time on the findings of the Institute for Psychological Therapies, and their journal (covering 2 decades) to which Dr. Gardner contributed and they are describing numerous cases of wrongful accusations in child molestation there. They provide facts which show that children are extremely suggestible and often mix up lies and truth together. They analyze the most common mistakes of investigators and explain how interviews should be conducted not to imprint false memories into children’s minds.

    There is so much of everything – the way questions are asked (a question: “Did he touch your penis?”, the way Evan asked Jordan according to ATG is out of the question) and the NUMBER of interviews are important too. With each successive interview children tend to add more of their fantasies – especially if the interviewer likes what they are saying. If they listen to adults talking about the case at home they also memorize it too and repeat it later, etc. A wealth of information!

    And getting back to Dr. Gardner – among those numerous doctors in that Institute he was focusing on children lying in very specific situations – when the parents were in a divorce process, where children tell lies about the other parent because they side with the first one. This made me think that they sent Jordan to him for a different reason – to see whether he could be telling lies because he sided with his father and was in confrontation with his mother (just an idea). So I suggest we look into that closer and don’t pass judgement now.

    By the way in the late 90s the institute faced big problems because someone didn’t like what they were saying about false accusations in child molestation. At that time another idea prevailed – that “children can’t lie” and the journal even stopped publishing their articles. And by the way Dr. Gardner died under very strange circumstances at the time – he was stabbed in his chest several times with a knife – and this was later called a suicide.


  64. August 25, 2010 11:01 am

    “There is considerable criticism of Gardner by the medical community, social workers, and those who deal with child abuse cases including many law practitioners. His theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome has been called “junk-science” by some colleagues.”

    Suzy, let us make a note that criticism was from “some” colleagues (only). What I read yesterday about the work of those psychologists, psychiatrists and common investigators is amazing – for example, they analyze why some the children from the McMartin preschool case lied about their teachers.

    I’ll surely make a post about it once I am finished with the Chandlers. And later today will provide you with the links so that all of us can make our own research – there are hundreds of great articles there and so many great conclusions made. It is only when the witch hunt for child molesters started (possibly triggered off by Michael’s 1993 case) that these people had to face a lot of pressure and harassment too.


  65. August 25, 2010 8:02 pm

    Speaking about the Institute for Psychological Therapies and its journal, which I studied yesterday may I give you only several links to the reasons why children often lie about sexual abuse:
    In this article they speak about why some child interviews may be “tainted” ( this technique was surely used for Jason Francia as they drove him to such desperation with their interviews that he wanted “to strike them with something heavy on their heads”):

    The New Jersey Supreme Court found nine factors sufficient to justify a pretrial taint hearing:
    (a) Absence of spontaneous recall; (when children cannot recall anything on their own without lead questions)
    (b) Interviewer bias against defendant – a preconceived idea of what the child should be
    (c) Repeated leading questions;
    (d) Multiple interviews;
    (e) Incessant questioning;
    (f) Vilification of defendant;
    (g) Ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements;
    (h) Use of threats, bribes and cajoling; and
    (i) Failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.
    The above factors were to be considered, if a hearing is held, in determining whether a child’s testimony is tainted and should be suppressed.
    Some answers to questions how children can say something which didn’t happen to them.

    A piece about defending people wrongfully accused of molestation.
    About questioning under amytal.

    An attorney, a victim of wrong accusations himself, is telling his story and gives advice how to fight these lies.
    50 pages by Richard Gardner about Parental Alienation Syndrome (I’ve read only a small bit – the piece is really too big)

    Here is the full list of articles assorted by year (in 2001 they suddenly stopped publishing and then resumed on a lesser scale):


  66. Teva permalink
    June 20, 2011 10:15 pm

    Can someone please tell me the name of the law that allowed Ray Chandler to not testify.


  67. lcpledwards permalink
    June 21, 2011 3:59 am

    @ Teva
    He hid behind the California Shield Law that protects real journalists from revealing their sources. Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez also hid behind it as well. Here is some more info on it:

    Click to access californiashieldlaw.pdf


  68. sanemjfan permalink
    February 14, 2012 1:27 am

    LunaJo67 has added 2 videos for me! They’re interviews of the cowardly Ray Chandler on CBS and NBC promoting “All That Glitters”!!


  69. nan permalink
    February 14, 2012 6:25 am

    I just watched Luna Jo videos too.I notice in one he mentions that the book is self published..That is another thing to hide behind, I think.
    Now how does it make sense, that he woudl publish a book abou this nephews alleged abuse, and yet the accusor wont come in to testify in 2005 because he is tired of being the MJ kid??
    He doesnt sound believable at all..
    Then of course in hindsight you find out he was dodging the courtroom too.
    What a load of trash..


  70. February 14, 2012 7:00 am

    Look at what he said in the first video at 4:16, I guess he forgot the Toradol story.
    He also said he hadn’t spoke to his nephew in years, then how did he know that Jordan left the country.


  71. lynande51 permalink
    February 14, 2012 9:24 am

    Here is a link to lie number one. The documents were free if you paid $4.95 for them and then you had to wait to have them emailed to you on PDF.


  72. February 14, 2012 3:30 pm


    I forgot about that one.


  73. lynande51 permalink
    April 9, 2012 8:42 am

    I just found this Court Document and the title is very interesting. It would seem that Ray Chandler wanted to meet with the Judge In Camera but he also wanted the motion filed under seal and for the PROSECUTION ( the Prosecution is the People) not to be notified. Why would that be? Didn’t he want them to know that he was fighting the supenoa? Why didn’t he want them to know that he was fighting it? What could his reason for that be. According to the Teal Order that was given to the defense prohibited the Prosecution from knowing that a person or records had been served with a supenoa so unless he told them they had no way of knowing that he got it and he wanted it to stay that way? Was he afraid that they would find out he was full of BS and he had nothing but newspaper clippings and notes from his brother that he used to back up that story?

    Click to access 102504appsealwonotpeop.pdf


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: