The Michael Jackson Case for Innocence Podcast. THE CHANDLER ALLEGATIONS
Let me introduce to you a new podcast series made by relative newcomers to researching the Michael Jackson story – a teenager named June, a fan of Michael Jackson, and her mother Sheryl, who is no fan but is an exemplary mother who didn’t want to leave her daughter alone to deal with the “Leaving Neverland” mess and its aftermath, and who undertook a thorough investigation of the allegations against Michael Jackson to see whether they are true or not.
Here is the lovely June who first talks about why she became a Michael Jackson fan and how confused and upset she was by the “Leaving Neverland” film – especially when everyone believed the allegations so quickly and turned their back on Michael Jackson, and even her favorite counselor in a summer camp said to her about Michael: “Great music, horrible man”.
That was like a punch to a gut for June and this is when her mother Sheryl came to her rescue.
With a background of a Master’s and Doctoral degrees behind her she always taught her daughter to do research before believing anything she heard from others, but considering the graphic nature of the allegations and numerous legal matters involved, the mother took it upon herself to do the investigation.
June says,
“…when my mom sat down with me to talk about these recent allegations, I trusted her warnings. My mom explained to me that I hadn’t researched enough about these recent allegations to be confident in Michael’s innocence. She said that confidence needed to be earned through fact checking each of the claims of the accusers.”
“If the evidence my mom found had pointed towards his guilt, I would have stopped supporting him. I could never be a fan of someone who committed such crimes.”
But to the girl’s great relief the deeper her mother looked, the more evidence accumulated to point to Michael Jackson’s innocence.
In fact the hard-working Sheryl found the evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence overwhelming. And mind you, she did not only look into the stories of the two “Leaving Neverland” characters but also into the 1993 and 2005 cases, thus covering four accusers all in all.
I personally was especially struck by the fact that Sheryl went exactly the same road I stepped on 13 years ago when I first started researching the allegations against Michael Jackson and that she underwent the same metamorphosis as I did – from being cautious about Michael Jackson and (half) believing the allegations against him to a big shock and astonishment at discovering that the evidence of his innocence was indeed overwhelming, and that it was all there, in everyone’s view, and all you needed to do was just look, but most people didn’t notice it or didn’t want to know.
To make the long story short here is a 20-minute introduction to Sheryl’s and June’s podcast series called “Mom and the Michael Jackson Fan” without which their story about Michael Jackson would be incomplete:
And next comes the first part of the Chandler series. The authors describe it as follows:
“In this episode, you’ll hear how the Chandlers begin and develop their friendship with Michael Jackson. The accounts presented in this case primarily come from the Chandlers themselves. The Chandler family first visits Neverland Ranch in February 1993, and Jordan will later say the abuse began a few months later. The controversy over the reliability of Jordan’s confession is detailed and his father’s questionable motives and behavior are explored. The episode concludes in August 1993 with the surprise raids on Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s L.A. apartment.”
Website: www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com
Twitter: @Case4Innocence
Content Advisory: Sex abuse allegations involving minors are discussed in this episode.
Let me say that the Chandler story comes in 5 parts and in my view it is a pretty good and comprehensive summary of the case.
Those who are deeply involved in the MJ studies could certainly find something to add here and there, but to all those who are new to the subject it is the most up-to-date summary of the case which is also presented in a very compact and concise way.
P.S.
The first part was recorded on 10/18/2022 and it is only due to my tardiness and current lack of focus that I am bringing it to your attention only now (sorry for that). New episodes are presented weekly and by now the two authors are already well into the Arvizo case. They are so fast that I myself have a hard time keeping up with them.
P.P.S.
On second thought I decided to post here the links to the remaining parts of the Chandler story here too, just to keep them in one place. So here is PART 2 of the Chandler case:
In part 2 of the Chandler allegations, you’ll hear about the media frenzy after Jordan’s allegation becomes public. District Attorney Tom Sneddon and police are convinced of Michael Jackson’s guilt before any real investigation begins, which biases their later interviews with children who knew Jackson. The Chandlers and their lawyers take thoughtfully planned steps to pressure Jackson into settling the civil lawsuit that’s filed in September 1993. The episode concludes by covering the steps that lead to Jackson’s settlement with the Chandlers.
This episode focuses on the psychiatrist interview of Jordan Chandler from October 1993. As arranged by their lawyer, Jordan and his parents flew to New York from Los Angeles to be interviewed by Dr. Richard Gardner, who was known at the time as an expert in false allegations of abuse. This step was likely taken to help the Chandlers prepare for questioning if their civil case went to trial. Highlights from the interview are detailed, including direct quotes from the exchanges between Jordan and Dr. Gardner.
In this final chapter on the Chandler Allegations timeline, you’ll hear about how District Attorney Tom Sneddon takes his criminal case against Michael Jackson to 2 grand juries. Despite failing to get an indictment, Sneddon doesn’t close the case against Jackson, and continues to make media appearances where he lets it be known that all he needs is a willing victim to come forward. Hard copy reporter Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez are involved in promoting the scandal that there is a secret tape of Jackson abusing a boy. Evan Chandler continues to try and litigate against his own family and Michael Jackson.
In this final episode of the Chandler Allegations series, the cumulative evidence from the past 4 episodes is combined and sorted to make the case that the evidence supports Michael Jackson’s innocence in this first sex abuse claim against him.
All source material can be found on our podcast website: www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com
Vindicating Michael 
Christine Herman about Michael Jackson’s personality disorders? I’ve followed your link and read a bit of her findings and am amazed that anyone can take her seriously. Are you kidding? What an incredible idiot. I wonder how she worked as a nurse at all.
If anyone is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder it is definitely her. She thinks she can make diagnoses without ever seeing the person, knowing nothing about him and, more importantly, being guided solely by the media lies? Her “evaluation” of MJ is crammed with rumors, falsifications, manipulations and whatnot.
A mere enumeration of her statements is a joke. Look at what she thinks about Jackson:
• Emotionally flat or controlled. (MJ emotionally flat??? He cried bitter tears when he saw victims of famine on TV and laughed his guts out at a good joke. Crazy stuff!)
• He was known for being a control freak (??? He didnt even know what his finances were! He was so trusting that he gave powers of attorney to every new crook that came his way. Not to mention that everyone who came into his room raked in his closet – even Macauley Culkin was disapproving of it. And what about allowing Joy Robson to take money from his safe when he was away? And this is called a “control freak”???)
• “suspicion of the loyalty or trustworthiness of others”, MICHAEL HAD BEEN BETRAYED BY THE Chandlers and Arvizos but was not able to cope with that stressor. (Oh, my God. If he had never been betrayed by anyone and was still suspicious of people, that would have been unusual, but what’s strange about being on your guard if you are betrayed by everyone around you and every minute of your life? Nearly everyone wanted to take advantage of Michael! Even Thomas Mesereau said «Why work if you can sue Michal Jackson?»)
• Limited range of emotion (Again the same crazy stuff. She is repeating herself)
• Little or no interest in having sex with another person. (Really??? And how does she know it?)
• Peculiar dress, thinking, beliefs, speech or behavior (If anyone is peculiar here it’s her)
• Michael believed god was on his side (All people who believe in God think that he is on their side, but this is beyond her understanding, of course)
• He wore the number 7 which he considered his personal magic sewn somewhere in his Clothing. (Out of all her trash this is my favorite. And Pavarotti kept a bent nail in his pocket for every performance, so what?)
This “nurse” is a totally narcissistic personality, who is just taking advantage of Michael’s name to draw attention to herself. Like a million others who are still trying to capitalize on his name. I wish I hadn’t spent my time on her nonsense. She is probably just a troll.
And by the way, she has nothing to do with medicine, she specializes in «arts».
LikeLike
Hi, well, it’s the first time I’ve commented on the blog and I wanted to ask for an opinion about a comment. But first I want to thank you for this blog, it was very helpful, let’s say in my search for Jackson’s innocence (I remember that I had also seen one or another anti-Jackson blog), but the difference between them is that you offered me supporting evidence and also despite the fact that originally my language is Latin Spanish (I had help from the translator), in conclusion thank you. This is the comment of the web page, I would like your opinion regarding this, please. Answer to What was Michael Jackson’s disorders? by Christine Herman https://www.quora.com/What-was-Michael-Jacksons-disorders/answer/Christine-Herman-2?ch=15&oid=94146244&share=3f46e904&srid=hzcscg&target_type=answer Thank you
LikeLike
Helena I too would like to know what Bert Field (may he RIP) had to say in that biased podcast. Please make post when you find out.
LikeLike
The good thing I’ve learned from Lucy Coe (who commented here) is the existence of ‘GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS’ movement.
This is a very, very optimistic and long-awaited turn of events. The job they are doing is fantastic.
I wholeheartedly support these courageous people.
BRAVO TO ‘GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS’!
#GaysAgainstGroomers
Merry Christmas to everyone except groomers!
LikeLike
Yes, Nan. May it be peaceful and victorious for those who are fighting against evil.
And may the New Year bring an end to all lies.
Lies are the root of all evil.
LikeLike
Merry Christmas Helena.
May the New Year be a more peaceful one
LikeLike
Thank you, dear Des. Let me also add to it – and victory of the forces of light over the dark.
Victory of the light!
LikeLike
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year my dear friend love and peace to the world
LikeLike
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU, dear Michael Jackson’s friends!
And as we gain more daylight with every new day,
May our sorrows go away together with the dark
And the forces of light win their fight…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, firstly, the podcast is not “paltry” at all and is actually a good summary of the main facts refuting the Chandler allegations against Michael Jackson. Yes, it covers only the basic facts and does not go into much detail, and this is why it is meant only for people who are still under the spell of anti-Michael propaganda and need a general overview of the facts to be able to at least get interested in what the other side has to say. I myself did not expect to hear anything “new” from that podcast because its purpose is completely different. And as an up-to-date summary it is excellent.
As to Marlon Brando, he didn’t speak to the jury but was only interviewed by the prosecutors in 1994. And the transcript of it was allegedly made available to those “Telephone Story-tellers” who, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill.
According to the LATimes Marlon Brando said the following:
Mind you that the latter statement is not a direct quote from the transcript and we don’t know under what circumstances it could (or could not) be said by Brando.
It is only a conclusion made by the two people who are certainly up to no good with regard to Jackson.
Here are the quacky story-tellers – Omar Crook, left, and Brandon Ogborn:
But having said that I do not rule out that Marlon Brando could say something of the kind, especially if he was pressed to.
The thing is that to be able to truly evaluate the story it is important to know the personality who tells it.
The Telephone Story-tellers view Brando as a rich person who didn’t want or need anything from Jackson, and could therefore “speak out” against MJ.
My view is that the matter of wealth is totally irrelevant, but what’s essential is that Marlon Brando (after I read about his lifestyle) was a complete opposite of Michael Jackson.
– He was a bisexual guy with an enormous libido who could have sex nearly non-stop with anyone around and thinking nothing of it.
– And Michael was a Jehovah Witness who never had a birthday party and considered it a grave sin to celebrate Christmas, not to mention discussing sex with anyone at all.
In other words, Brando speaking with Michael Jackson about sex affairs is the same as having a sex worker discuss sex with a nun.
– Will they ever find common language? Certainly not.
– Will they understand each other? Never.
– And what will be their accounts of one and the same conversation? You will hear two completely different interpretations, because their starting grounds are like poles apart – they had a different lifestyle, different life experience, and different, if not opposite moral values after all.
And the impression that conversation will make on them will be certainly different too. The lover of sex in its every form and shape will consider it weird that the other is “acting fussy and embarrassed” because his own views on love and normality have long been distorted by his own loose morals.
And the other side will be demoralized and crushed by the very fact of that conversation at all – maybe up to the point of crying as MJ did.
So the first question is: Does anyone here care about a streetwalker’s views on the lifestyle of a nun? As to me, I don’t. Then what should I care about Marlon Brando’s alleged words about MJ?
And my second point is that the conclusion made by those “Telephone story-tellers” sounds like a big fabrication on their part.
Remember that Brando’s answer is not a direct quote from the transcript and could be taken out of context – for example, from some hypothetical questions which are so much loved by prosecutors like, “Will it be pretty reasonable to conclude this and that if you knew this and that?”. We’ve seen lots and lots of questions like that which practically squeeze “correct” answers from those interviewed.
Actually, the wording itself suggests that it comes from a prosecutor and is not a spontaneous answer from Brando. Somehow it doesn’t sound like his style at all 🙂
No wonder Marlon Brando’s son slammed the report and called it a cheap publicity stunt.
And by the way, Michael did not cry when asked about his “sexuality” as most of the media allege.
He cried because of hard feelings towards his father.
The media headlines cannot resist lying even when their own text provides a direct quote from the transcript refuting their lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Helena, I don’t think Marlon Brando said anything bad about Michael to the jury in 1994, because he was Michael’s friend until his death in 2004. And his son Miko said that this is clearly not true. If you listen to something interesting from this paltry podcast, please tell us…
LikeLike
Thank you for the short summary of that Telephone crap. Actually, this is what I expected it to be judging by the list of speakers invited. The only person I am interested in is Bert Fields. I’ve read that he has recently died, so there will no other chance to hear him speak about MJ.
Bert Fields was a dedicated Michael Jackson’s DEFENDER who fully believed in Michael Jackson’s innocence, and that is why he – like MJ himself – wanted to take Jordan Chandler to a criminal trial to expose the boy’s lies there once and for all.
Moreover, he intended to depose Jordan and under the rules of civil litigation the boy could not refuse it. So in those “Telephone Stories” Bert Fields could mention some details that could be of interest, and if you send me the respective file I’ll be very grateful to you.
LikeLike
Oh, you are the one who emailed me to claim that I am “demonizing the LGBTQ community that is doing nothing wrong and seeks only to exist”….
You also asked me “to STOP linking Michael Jackson, the very iteration of love and peace, a messenger of tolerance, to hateful and despicable ideologies that seek to erase and eradicate people’s existence”.
My short answers to you were:
Why do you claim things like this about me?
I am NOT demonizing anyone.
The only thing I disagree with is teaching kids that they can choose their gender according to their will.
This is simply a lie.
A LIE.
If kids are not pressed into thinking things like that and are not sexualized at an age when they are truly innocent, all others can perfectly live the way they like to.
To this I replied:
If you want to exist – please do.
Do whatever you like but DO NOT TOUCH CHILDREN.
Don’t teach them SEX.
Sex is not for children.
Leave these small people to their innocence.
When they grow up they will decide for themselves what to do and which way to take.
JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE.
I am also 100% sure that Michael Jackson would support the idea that children should be left to their innocence and should not learn too early about adult matters like sex. All his behavior speaks to that.
For example, when he stayed in the houses of his friends who had nude pictures on the walls with some sexual implications to them he covered them with pieces of cloth or paper so that his children didn’t see them – which was a matter of laughter and much fun among his friends.
You simply have to take the fact for what it is – yes, Michael Jackson was the epitome of a proverbial Victorian old maid. This is how Kit Culkin, Macauley’s father, described him in his book.
Michael didn’t like strip clubs, sex parties, drag queens or whatever. He said to Madonna that under no circumstances he would accompany her to a strip club to see people who “crossdressed”. He said that he had seen so much of it when he was a child that he didn’t find it attractive in any way. He avoided all that like the plague.
This is simply a fact. You can like or dislike it, but Michael Jackson was just like that…
LikeLike
Telephone Stories is nothing more than another extension to the ever growing pile of crap that is hit pieces on Michael Jackson. The whole podcast follows the same formula followed for years. Hearsay, using Taraborelli’s book as the main basis for the story, Diane Diamond, saying that the genitalia description matched, bringing people to only speak one side of the story that suits them, and many more familiar detractors all cramped together in a 13 episode format. Also it’s starts with the hosts playing eerie music while Bert Fields is describing Michael. But if you ever wanted to listen this crap, I can send you files.
LikeLike
Helena’s ultimate hypocrisy about “Keeping children safe” and sexuality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbmYvFeTAHU
LikeLike
alexc444, I cannot listen to these “telephone stories” because Instagram, Twitter and Facebook are all banned and blocked in Russia – besides many other sites that are not to the liking of our regime.
VPN is of course a way out on some occasions, but VPNs are banned too – so if I find one that is still workable it is used only for the most urgent cases.
But I’ve come upon a list of those who were invited to those “telephone stories” in 2019 and found Carl Douglas, Diane Dimond (!) and Marlon Brando among their sources.
This is already a telltale sign that the hosts of the show cannot be reliable journalists and are doing it for dubious purposes.
Marlon Brando? He himself was an utterly depraved person, so his views on Michael Jackson’s sexuality are skewed in their very basics and are completely irrelevant with regard to the God-abiding Jackson. These two people were like worlds apart and the only link between them was Michael’s desire to get into pictures and the acting lessons for which Michael paid Marlon huge sums, sometimes in millions.
Carl Douglas? He is virtually a nobody, an assistant to Johnnie Cochran (who himself was completely disinterested in the Chandler case) whose only contribution to MJ’s “defense” was that he got from MJ so much money that it gave him a chance to buy a new car. He openly bragged about it as if this was his biggest life achievement. As an attorney he never ever even looked into the details of the Chandler case because Cochran wanted a settlement from the moment he was hired and all they did was negotiate with Larry Feldman who represented the other side. Both were in so much admiration for Feldman that Cochran immediately made him his own attorney, and Douglas is still in awe with him.
And Diane Dimond is of course the easiest test for this “telephone” show. She told so many lies about Michael Jackson that by listening to her you insult yourself and your common sense. However to each his own…. This reminds me of a proverb: “If someone lies to you once, shame on him. If someone lies to you twice, shame on you”.
The only person I would like to listen to (among those listed) is Bert Fields, Michael’s defense lawyer, who – like Michael Jackson himself – insisted on taking the case to a trial as he was completely sure of Michael’s innocence, so if you provide me with a link to a podcast with him or the transcript that may be still available to me I will very much welcome it.
I may have missed a lot of other people, but my access to some media is very limited now.
LikeLike
Hi helena have you listened to the telephone stories? It’s on Luminary
LikeLike