Skip to content

Extortioner Evan Chandler, the $60mln.case

Thanks to my correspondent Shelly we now have the full text of a complaint filed by Evan Chandler against Michael Jackson and other parties on May 7, 1996 for the alleged breach of their Confidentiality agreement.

It wasn’t only the interview with Diane Sawyer which was the subject of Evan’s complaint. According to Metropolitan News Company Evan Chandler “sited the Prime Time Live segment, Jackson’s HIStory album, an article in GQ magazine (the one by Mary Fischer), and Jackson’s alleged solicitation of radio personality Howard Stern “to resurrect Jackson’s public image by exploiting the events relation to Plaintiff and the Underlying Action” (http://community.mjeol.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2153)

The main ‘culprit’ was of course Michael Jackson whom Evan Chandler accused of violating their 1994 settlement by denying the molestation allegations. Does this mean that Michael had no right to deny them? How absurd – when Evan Chandler was putting his signature under the document he acknowledged the fact that no wrong had been done to his son and agreed that Michael was innocent, stating that the settlement was for formal negligence only (this was specifically worded in several clauses of the agreement).

No one forced Evan to sign it – he could have gone to court instead both before and after the agreement – so why complain now? The man must have been completely crazy….

In his rage over Michael’s words, which were fully consistent with what both of them said in the agreement, Evan Chandler started suing everyone in sight: Michael JacksonLisa-Maria Presley, Diane Sawyer as a host of the show and the ABC TV company in general, Walt Disney company (because they purchased ABC), the Sony and Warner corporations (because of HIStory songs), and some mysterious “DOES 1 through 300” of whose “true names and capacities Plaintiff is ignorant of and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names”. These “DOES 1 through 300” evidently formed a list of 300 names with whom Evan Chandler was finding fault in connection with Michael’s denial of any molestation (Mary Fischer must have been among them).

Now, if you read the text of Evan’s complaint any person with a little bit of brains with say that the complaint is absolutely, utterly, completely, wholly RIDICULOUS in its every respect and from beginning to end.

The hardest Michael’s hater will have to admit that the general and even abstract remarks Michael made about his innocence during the interview with Diane Sawyer could never be considered reason enough for claiming a breach of their Agreement and for the amount of $60 million too. Michael didn’t accuse anyone – the most he said in his defense was that the stories told about him were lies, lies, lies, and there were no markings or other evidence found to substantiate those lies and that he couldn’t do any harm to a child (or anyone at all if you ask me).

The songs were much heavier in emotion but were as non-committal as the interview as to identifying his torturers – the closest Michael came to it was when he named the Jewish origin of some of them by “Jew me, kike me” (he admitted it to be too much and rerecorded it a year before Evan Chandler’s claim) and naming his plague of a prosecutor Tom Sneddon as “D.S.”  If Tom Sneddon was unhappy with such an allegory it wasn’t Evan Chandler’s business to speak for him in that complaint, was it? Or was Evan acting on Tom Sneddon’s behalf?

Actually the fact that Michael Jackson was so emotional in his songs testifies to him being absolutely sincere in his anger at the terrible injustice he had gone through.

Emotions are a very tricky thing and can tell a lot.  When I was reading the secretly recorded conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz it was solely Evan’s emotions which convinced me that he was genuine in his suspicions against Michael (with a reservation that his suspicions were no proof that any wrong had ever taken place). Yes, Evan did believe in what he was saying, I said to myself…

But Michael also believes and even KNOWS about his complete innocence as the fury of his songs shows it. What is remarkable about emotions is that THEY CANNOT BE FAKED – and Michael’s genuine anger at having been thrashed for nothing is the best proof of him being innocent of any crime.

How come Evan Chandler’s tape looks so convincing to some doubters as to Evan’s sincerity and is paraded as proof of I don’t know what (suspicions only), while Michael Jackson’s tapes are completely disregarded as a remarkable proof of his genuine feelings and his sincerity? The feelings which were based not on some vague suspicions but on real harassment which he knew for a fact after being maliciously persecuted for so long and no reason at all?

Evan Chandler’s complaint, filed two years after Michael’s ordeal was supposed to stop, was only adding to all this injustice. As we know now there was not a single piece of evidence to prove the outrageous lies told by the Chandlers. This fact was clear even at the moment of filing the complaint – the 12-months long criminal investigation had been over (though remained open in case Jordan changed his mind or someone else stepped in),  the prosecution had laid all their cards on the table and the two grand juries scrutinized them under a microscope which resulted in NO indictment (one of the jurors even confided in journalists and said there was no damaging evidence found at all).

Both then and during the interview Michael had the full right not only say, but shout at every corner that he was completely innocent and was a victim of a scam… Instead, due to that damned Agreement, he had to check each and every word of his and confine himself to indefinite statements like “these are lies, lies, lies”.

But if Evan’s complaint was such nonsense why did it take so long to consider? It was filed on May 7, 1996 but was resolved only four years later, in the summer of 2000. Evidently the lawyers of Michael Jackson had a hard time fighting this absurdity – and all of this  because of some omissions made when making the Agreement.

The Agreement stated Michael’s denial of any wrongdoing towards the Chandlers in general terms but didn’t include a short and plain sentence that Michael Jackson had the right to speak of his innocence at public forums and this important omission gave a formal pretext to our nasty guy to find fault with every Michael’s word said in his defense. No wonder that things went downhill for the married life of Michael and Lisa-Maria after the interview – what relationship will survive all this incessant suing and dealing with a near-professional extortioner?

You didn’t like me calling Evan Chandler an extortioner? Well, the initial 1993 case could have given some grounds for doubting Evan’s real motives, but THIS breach-of-agreement complaint dispels any remaining illusions some of us could still have.

EVAN CHANDLER IS THE NASTIEST TYPE OF AN EXTORTIONER – the man who is either pathologically crazy for money or is pathological and crazy in the direct and clinical meaning of these words.

His ability to blow things out of proportion is unrivalled. Evan Chandler is a genius, a complete genius in distorting things and using them to his advantage. If he managed to make a $60mln. case out of a couple of innocent Michael’s words in that interview, it does not leave a single doubt that he could make a formidable mountain out of a molehill in the “molestation” 1993 case too. It is a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR which is important and even crucial here.

By making this complaint Evan Chandler has shown us the METHOD he is using and the TECHNIQUE he is employing. In this respect it is simply a gift from God that such a masterpiece of a document has come our way. This complaint is the best monument to Evan Chandler as the man who was able to turn a mere suspicion into ‘evidence’, ‘evidence’ into a sensation, sensation into a massacre, and massacre into a bunch of millions.

To see how masterful  Evan Chandler is in creating a marvel of a case out of thin air only let’s check up some points of his 122-clause complaint quoted below. Please note that a team of lawyers managed to beat this document only four years later (and could have lost it, in my opinion, if it hadn’t been for giants like Sony, Warner and Walt Disney who were fighting our genius of an extortioner alongside Michael Jackson):

  • From the date of the agreement “and continuing thereafter, Defendant Jackson and DOES 1 through 100, developed, orchestrated, participated and carried out a scheme to falsely accuse the minor of lying about his claims that Defendant Jackson had sexually molested and assaulted the minor” (So everyone conspired to accuse the minor of lies though Evan himself signed the agreement that there had been no molestation and no wrong done to the boy).
  • By making that interview “Defendant Jackson obtained a financial benefit of a value equal to the cost of 40 minutes of advertising on that program. (Evan prepared well and didn’t miss a single detail)
  • As a consequence of Defendant Jackson’s breach of the Agreement in appearing on “Prime Time Live” the sales of Defendant Jackson’s records soared and the total economic benefit from the “Prime Time  Live” Interview, earned Defendant Jackson, and others in excess of  $60,000,000.00. (Records have probably soared, but what does that have to do with Evan Chandler? )
  • Plaintiff demands all economic benefits gained by Defendant Jackson and other Defendants from the commercial exploitation of the facts of the “Underlying Action” in an amount in excess of $60,000,000.00(So here we go with it….)
  • During the Interview Defendant Jackson uttered and published false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff, which were reasonably understood by those who viewed the Interview as referring to Plaintiff. (Defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff Evan Chandler? OMG, where did he see that? Did I miss something in the interview? Can anyone give me a lead as any moments where Michael is supposed to be talking about Evan?)
  • Defendants deliberately and maliciously disseminated these false denials about Plaintiff and his minor son with the intent of damaging and destroying the reputation of Plaintiff and his minor son (Is Evanattributing his own intentions to another person here thus giving away his own plans and methods?)
  • The words uttered by Defendant Jackson were slanderous per se because they made false statements regarding Plaintiff’s reputation, business reputation, and by innuendo by impliedly accusing Plaintiff of committing the crime of extortion. (Where did Michael say that??? I definitely missed something and must reread the interview…)
  • As a direct proximate result of the above-described words, Plaintiff has  suffered the following special damages: Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and injury to his feelings, while suffering and continuing to suffer general and special damages as set forth herein. (So the damages are divided into general and special now… Are both of them to be paid on top of the initial $60 mln. I wonder?)
  • Plaintiff has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises under the  Agreement on his part to be performed as herein alleged. (Look at this innocent little sheep! It was Evan who immediately upon signing the agreement approached various publishers though his brother Ray Chandler to make a book of lies about Jackson as if not knowing he was breaching the agreement this way! Ray Chandler said it himself that Evan was participating in that project!)
  • Defendant Jackson, in conjunction with Defendant Sony, wrote and caused to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “HIStory Past, Present, and Future – Book 1” (“HIStory”). The recordings of the musical compositions  contained therein, by innuendo, is Defendant Jackson’s expression of his feelings of ill will regarding Plaintiff and his minor son. (He really thinks that everything Michael does is about him only! Evan here, Evan there, Evan, Evan everywhere…)
  • Defendant Jackson made derogatory, harmful, malicious and fraudulent public statements in the lyrics of the “HIStory” album, including, but not limited to the song entitled “They Don’t Care About Us”. Defendant Jackson’s lyrics, inter alia,  state: “Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/Kick me, kike me, don’t you black or white me;
    “Tell me about what has become of my life?
    “Children who love me, I’m a victim of police brutality/ I’m tired of being a
    victim of hate. . .”
    “Tell me, what has become of my rights/ Am I in reason because you know me, defamation from speak free liberty (no, please)””I’m tired of being a victim machine, they’re throwin’ me in a class with a bad name . . .”

(the angry lyrics about Michael’s ruined life are regarded as a weapon of Evan’s mass destruction)

  • In the song entitled “This Time Around”, Defendant Jackson’s lyrics, inter alia, state:”. . . This time around, I’ll bet though you really wanna fix me . . . you’re makin’ me sick, though you really wanna get me . . Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to get me, they really wanna fix me, hit me . . . I’m takin’ no shit though you really wanna get me . . .””. . . He really thought, he really had a hold on me, he really thought, he really could control me . . .””I’m takin shit though you really wanna fix . . . Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me, they really wanna use me, they falsely accused me . . .””Somebody’s out to use me/ They really want to use me, they falsely accuse me;” 

(So what? Michael is right – they really wanted to use him and falsely accuse him. And if Evan applies it to himself he has only himself to blame for it)

  • In the song entitled “Money”, Defendant Jackson’s lyrics inter alia, state: “If you show me the cash then I will take it/ If you tell me to cry, then I will
    fake it/ Lie for it, Spy for it, kill for it, die for it””So you gonna trust what I say is just in the Devil’s game… They don’t care, they do me for the money, they don’t care, they use me for the money . . .””. . . I’ll never betray or deceive you my friend, but if you . . . you sue it for the money, want your pot of gold, need the micas touch, but you sell your soul, because your God is such . . . are you infected with the same disease of lust, glutony, and greed. They watch the ones with the widest smiles . . .”

(How terribly true it is of some people and Evan knows it every well as he again readily applies it to himself)

  • In the song entitled “They Used Me For The Money/They Don’t Care” and in the song entitled “2 Bad” Defendant Jackson’s lyrics, inter alia, state: “I’m tired of you hustling me”. 

(So what? What is so important about this sentence? Does Evan see himself even here?)

  • In the song entitled “D.S.”, Defendant Jackson’s lyrics, inter alia, state: “They wanna get my ass/ Dead or alive/ You know he really tried to take me/ Down by surprise/I bet he missioned with the CIA/ He don’t do half what he say””Dom Sheldon is a cold man . . .””He out shock in every single way/ He’ll stop at nothing just to get his political say/ He think he bad cause he’s BSTA/ I bet he never had a social life anyway””You think he brother with the KKK?/ I know his mother never taught him right anyway/ He want your vote just to remain TA/ He don’t do half what he say” “Does he send letters to the FBI?/ Did he say to either do it or die”

(I didn’t know that Don Sheldon was also about Evan… By the way a great song. How did Michael manage to make it both angry and so melodic? Pure genius. Time we listened to some music instead of reading this gibberish)

  • And, in the song entitled “Tabloid Junky”, Defendant Jackson’s lyrics, inter alia, state:“It’s slander, you say it like a sword, but your pen you torture me . . . Just because you read it in a magazine, or see it on a T.V. screen, don’t make factual/ They say he’s homosexual . . . it’s slander,. . .”  

(So Tabloid Junky is about Evan too. Well, if he says so…)

  • Because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will  include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”: “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs. (Oh, I always knew Evan was a tender father caring for the well-being of his son)
  • Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Jackson and Defendant Sony, uttered and published false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff, which were reasonably understood by those who listened to the “HIStory” music as referring to Plaintiff. (There is no doubt now that everything Michael ever says was, is and will be about Evan only)
  • The conduct of Defendant Jackson was done with the intent to cause Plaintiff severe and extreme emotional distress. Such extreme and outrageous conduct exceeds all bounds of decency. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover damages according to proof. (It is this Evan’s claim which exceeds all bounds of decency. Nothing can be more decent than calling a liar a liar, though Michael never called Evan that. Evan probably thinks that the desire to ruin another person and turn his life into a massacre is gracious and well-mannered these days)
  • The above-described words were spoken by Defendant Jackson because of his feelings of  hatred and ill will toward the Plaintiff and with a desire to oppress Plaintiff, and thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to law (I am bored….. Who knows at which rate punitive damages are charged now? In these hard days of crisis every extra million counts!)
  • “The continual denial by Defendant Jackson, and others, of the truth of the facts of the “Underlying Action”, and in the continual playing of his album HIStory, (the allegorical denial of the true facts), causes continuing emotional suffering by Plaintiff who is also commercially exploited by Defendant Jackson. Plaintiff continues to suffer damages and will suffer damages in the future in an amount presently unascertainable. (What continual suffering… and all it comes to is money again…Always money… Why doesn’t anyone talk of the truth instead? Has anyone seen this rare species? Or is it extinct already?)
  • The purpose of Defendants’ conspiring to breach Plaintiff and Defendant  Jackson’s agreement was to enhance the commercial value and image of  Defendant Jackson. The conspirators intended to influence the public’s perception of Defendant Jackson as a victim to induce sympathy in the public to cause the public to purchase Defendant Jackson’s music album  “HIStory” and video, thus exploiting Defendant Jackson’s unlawful acts for commercial gain. The attempt to induce sympathy was disguised in the Interview by asking the manufactured lingering questions as to Defendant Jackson’s guilt, or in the words of Defendant Saywer: “unequaled injustice and hell”, as the victim of the Plaintiff. (The “Defendants’ conspiring”, “the conspirators intended to influence the public’s perception”…. I always knew that Michael was the leader of world Illuminati conspiring to kill the reputation of one poor Jewish dentist by inducing unlawful sympathy for himself and his organization)
  • As a direct and proximate result of Defendant “ABC’s” wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Jackson was unjustly! enriched in a sum in excess of $60,000.000.00. (Evan is jealous of Michael’s success? Michael was unjustly enriched and should share with Evan now? How come Michael makes money and Evan doesn’t get anything from him? That exclamation mark should be something meaningful)
  • As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant “ABC’s” wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, general and special damages and special damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. (Did we define the rates for special damages last time? No, those were punitive ones… Where is my calculator?)
  • As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered panic, trauma, humiliation, disgrace, worry, anxiety, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, all to his damage in a sum in excess of $750,000.00. (All that vocabulary is being converted into a clear cut figure at last. Let me see, so much suffering must cost at least $60,000,000 + $750,000 + the unidentified punitive damages + special damages too … Is it all and will there be anything else?)
  • As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant Presley and Defendant “ABC”, Does 101 through 200, Plaintiff was required to expend his time and energy to gather facts, seeking and conferring with legal counsel, and filing a legal action to redress said  Defendants’ tortious conduct, all to Plaintiff’s detriment in a sum to be proved at  the time of trial. (No, it isn’t all yet. Also his time and energy will have to be added. How much does Evan charge per hour?)
  • As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Does 101 through 200, and the matters discussed on “Prime Time Live”, Plaintiff suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and injury to his feelings, in a sum according to proof at the time of trial. (I am afraid to think of the cost of Evan’s loss of reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress and injury to his feelings… Michael doesn’t have that much money!)
  • The above-described words were spoken by Defendant Jackson because of his feelings of hatred and ill will toward the Plaintiff and with a desire to oppress Plaintiff, and thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to law. (And we are not even  through half of the text yet…)
  • Defendants “ABC” and Sawyer …stated during the Interview that they had called everyone they could call and checked everything they could check… Defendant “ABC” knew that Defendant Jackson had not been cleared of all criminal charges. (Something new for a change. Well, Defendant Jackson wasn’t cleared because he was NEVER CHARGED. Our ‘D.S’ spoke about it at his press-conference on Nov 19, 2003:  “As you all know, or most of you know, either from being involved or knowing about that investigation, there were never any charges brought in that investigation, no warrant issued.” So it was natural for a hater like D.S. to leave the case open in anticipation of new con-artists coming in)
  • Within the last two years, or since July 14, 1995, Defendant Jackson, “ABC”, Sony, became indebted to Plaintiff in a sum in excess of $60,000,000.00 for money had and received by Defendants for the use and benefit of Plaintiff. (Don’t understand why they are TWO years between 1995 and 1996. Unless Evan wants to increase the amount of the “damages” of course…)
  • Neither the whole nor part of this sum has been paid, although demand therefore has been made by this Complaint, and there is now due and owing, and unpaid a sum in excess of $60,000,000.00, with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent per annum from June 14, 1995. (Yes, paying an interest is the answer. If there are TWO years between 1995 and 1996, the cumulative interest rate will be 20% of $60mln. which amounts to the additional $12mln. on top of the basic sum)
  • Defendants’ sale of any album, audio cassette, containing the “HIStory” music, or the playing of such music by unknown third parties constitutes a continuous breach of the Agreement as set forth herein. (“Continuous” is a key word here. Am I wrong in my guess or is it really coming?)
  • Defendants’ past and present wrongful conduct, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff in that Plaintiff will continue to suffer slander to his name and emotional and physical distress caused by Defendants’ breach of the Agreement. (No, I wasn’t wrong – we are almost there. The poor guy will continue to suffer from every type of distress, even a physical one, FOREVER)
  • It will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount of damage which he will suffer if Defendants’ conduct is not restrained and Plaintiff may be forced to institute a multiplicity of suits to obtain adequate compensation for his injuries. (Yes, here we are! Michael will have to pay Evan Chandler FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE because “is impossible to determine the precise amount of damage” now and Evan will have sue Michael on a continuous basis!)

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

So what will be your diagnosis of the case? 

Is it a pathological greed or a pathological mind in the clinical meaning of the word?

Or both?

44 Comments leave one →
  1. August 15, 2012 12:42 am

    Truth Prevail, here is a post containing the text of the confidential agreement: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/mjagreement/
    The post was made rather early in the history of this blog, and I haven’t checked it for a long time (probably now I would write about it in a different way), however the text is there, in the second part of the post and you can check it up yourself.

    Bye for now guys, hope to get back tomorrow. It is well past midnight here.

    Like

  2. Truth Prevail permalink
    August 14, 2012 11:28 pm

    Wow thanks knowing that i don’t know how haters can still think Jordan was molested.

    Like

  3. August 14, 2012 11:20 pm

    “Guys have I got this right i read here a while back that the chandler settlement did NOT stop them from taking further action against Michael if so where was this information from/found and if its true it debunks the haters myth that MJ silenced them.” – Truth Prevail

    Oh, the agreement prevented the Chandlers from talking to the media ONLY. But it never stopped them from taking further action against Michael! The only thing they were obliged to do under the agreement was to notify Michael’s lawyers about further action and that’s it!

    By the way we have proof that all of them could testify in a criminal trial – Jordan Chandler was invited to testify in 2005 (but declined), but June Chandler did and had no problem whatsoever in doing it.

    Like

  4. Truth Prevail permalink
    August 14, 2012 10:57 pm

    Guys have I got this right i read here a while back that the chandler settlement did NOT stop them from taking further action against Michael if so where was this information from/found and if its true it debunks the haters myth that MJ silenced them.

    Like

  5. nannorris permalink
    April 20, 2012 8:35 pm

    If I was Tom Sneddon , I think the last people I would want to show up for that trial is Evan or Jordan after that conversation with the FBI.
    If you start looking at the conversation Jordan had with Dr Gardner, the fact that the pictures of MJ privates didnt match his description and all the rest..
    Tom Mesereau would have ripped him apart.
    I would think the prosecutors could have forced Jordan to testify if they really wanted him..
    Jordan said he would fight it , but so what??
    The prosecutors werent spending their own money..
    They had already spent a ton of money , what is a little more to make this kid show up..

    Even how Sneddon wanted the pictures of mj privates or JC description brought into court….but not both I believe….
    They had to have known the Chandlers were lying…..I dont think they wanted him or Evan , or Ray Chandler for matter either… in court

    Like

  6. nannorris permalink
    April 20, 2012 8:18 pm

    JMO..but I think JC had to become a willing participant..
    that is why, imo JORDAN makes a point of bringing up he wanted to be sedated for his tooth..
    Like it was his idea , not his dads as I recall…, ..
    If Evan is making these allegations and MJ side is saying it is extortion….
    and JC says it never happened..
    Then Evan could go to jail..
    From what I remember about the Redemption book, JC would be just a normal kid hanging out in the lawyers office, until he would hear Evan going off…Then he would get upset..

    Evan was afraid of jail..
    That is why the Chandlers consulted with Robt Shapiro..a criminal atty..
    Remember June Chandler said in court she couldnt recall meeting with him??
    Even though , he later was part of the famous OJ Simpson team…

    If JC went in and testified in 2005 and embarrassed Sneddon by saying it was BS..
    I am quite sure Sneddon would have gone after Evan to save face..
    I wouldnt be surprised if that was made clear to Jordan, because I just cant believe that these prosecutors didnt know this was bs by the time they were heading to trial..
    JC told Ron Zonen and the FBI , that he did his part..
    Naturally the next question is “your part in what?”
    the FBi didnt pursue it because I think they got the message..
    But Sneddon and company had too much tax money and pride invested…….. they kept going imo..
    To me , that is why they put all the smut up on a screen for all to see ..to make MJ look bad..
    How could they not have known Ralph Chacon was full of it , or Jason Francia and the rest ..
    They just pushed this thing through , hoping for one guilty..even if it was only on serving alcohol to a minor..
    I wouldnt put anything past Sneddon… , even kinda strong arming JC to stay OUT of court , to save face..

    Like

  7. April 20, 2012 3:34 pm

    “Evan might have convinced himself that his suspicions were right (or Gutierrez convinced him…), so when he sedated Jordan on July 16 and drugged up Michael on May 28 he might have genuinely thought he would be able to extract some kind of confession out of them. He obviously failed at both times, otherwise he would have reported on his “success” in their book and in their story. Instead he admitted that even under the influence of drugs Michael denied being gay, let alone anything worse. And he obviously failed with Jordan as well, otherwise he would not have needed to threaten Jordan into “confession”. IMO some drug was used out of shady reasons but it wasn’t SA and hypnosis in either case (Michael and Jordan)”

    Suzy, you should not take my words about hypnosis literally. I am not saying it was used for Michael or Jordan.

    But since some drug was used on both of them it shows, firstly, that Evan was very much inclined to resort to “unconventional” methods of obtaining information, and secondly, this other drug could also be used for “relaxing” Jordan’s mind and giving Evan a chance for manipulating with it. This is why I recalled hypnosis – because the mechanism of affecting the brain is similar.

    And hypnosis is also used for obtaining information despite a person’s will – you remember that Michael’s “friend” Uri Geller used it once on Michael to ask him about “boys” and Michael answered him that he never behaved inappropriately with children and that his interest was not sexual. Uri Geller spoke about it himself. It is totally amazing how all these so-called friends were doubting Michael and subjecting him to various procedures to extract information from him!

    You don’t have to agree with what I say here, as my thoughts were just a continuation of what you’ve mentioned – so take it or leave it. The only reason why I raised hypnosis is because I have seen people behave under it, but never saw people behave under sodium amytal or any other drug. And what I saw of hypnotized people impressed me very much – they walk with their eyes open, they speak, they sing songs, they share their various life stories with the audience – but when they “wake up” they don’t remember a thing. If anything like that happens under all those drugs it is no small thing and should not be brushed off as “some sedation”. Anything can happen when people are subjected to these drugs!

    By the way if a person is suggestible to hypnosis he will not even notice how he falls asleep. Michael was evidently suggestible to it as Uri Geller did put him to sleep, and most probably Michael did not even know of it (I doubt that he underwent it willingly). That’s how it works!

    And Jordan was of course a liar who never believed in the molestation stories he was telling.

    P.S.
    In case people do not know that Michael denied any inappropriate interest in children even under hypnosis here is the proof of it. Please remember that under hypnosis people are unable to lie:

    Posted 1/18/2004 12:09 PM

    Hypnotized Michael Jackson denied abuse, psychic says

    JERUSALEM (AP) — Psychic Uri Geller defended his friend Michael Jackson on Sunday, saying the pop singer denied under hypnosis three years ago that he had sexually abused children.

    Geller, best known for his claimed telekinetic ability to bend spoons, told Israel’s Army Radio that he hypnotized Jackson when the two were alone in a recording studio at an undisclosed location.

    The hypnosis would have taken place before Jackson is alleged to have molested a cancer-stricken boy invited to his Neverland Ranch.

    “I told him that that if he would let me, I would hypnotize him,” Geller told the radio. “He said, ‘Okay, let’s give it a try.'”

    He said he asked Jackson about persistent rumors that he had abused children.

    “He answered me under deep hypnosis that he had never touched a child in a sexual way,” Geller said. “He said — and here I’m using his exact words — ‘My relations with children are very beautiful.'”

    Geller said he was convinced Jackson was telling him the truth.

    “I’m a good hypnotist, and I know who is trying to mislead me … ” he said. “I can see straight into the subject’s eyes … (Jackson) didn’t fool me, I’m absolutely sure of it.”

    Geller said he did not seek Jackson’s permission to ask about the abuse allegations during the hypnosis, but that he posed the question because he was about to introduce Jackson to his family and wanted to be sure the singer was innocent.

    Geller was born and raised in Israel and has lived in Europe since 1972.

    Jackson faces seven counts alleging lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent. He has pleaded innocent.
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/2004-01-18-psychic-jackson_x.htm

    Like

  8. April 20, 2012 12:07 pm

    “in my opinion, if I read the Gardner interview I don’t think Jordan was molested, nor I think he thought he was molested. He knew he was lying. That’s why he said the only thing he’s afraid of was cross-examination.”

    Suzy, since this blog is a collective effort of many authors who want to clear Michael of the dirt (and is now a sort of a journal for everyone to contribute to) I am sure that our readers will be grateful to you if you make a post about it. It will not impose on you any obligations in terms of continuing writing here, but since you have already said so much it will be a shame if these things eventually get lost in the comments. You can use my information about hypnosis if you want to.

    I know you have a blog of your own, and writing here will absolutely not preclude you from repeating the same there. The post will be all yours.

    Like

  9. Suzy permalink
    April 20, 2012 11:58 am

    @ Helena

    Evan might have convinced himself that his suspicions were right (or Gutierrez convinced him…), so when he sedated Jordan on July 16 and drugged up Michael on May 28 he might have genuinely thought he would be able to extract some kind of confession out of them. He obviously failed at both times, otherwise he would have reported on his “success” in their book and in their story. Instead he admitted that even under the influence of drugs Michael denied being gay, let alone anything worse.

    And he obviously failed with Jordan as well, otherwise he would not have needed to threaten Jordan into “confession”.

    IMO some drug was used out of shady reasons but it wasn’t SA and hypnosis in either case (Michael and Jordan). It was to extract information out of them by putting them in a state where they’d let down their guard. I think that was the purpose of it, not hypnosis. Evan was not a psychiatrist, I don’t even know if he knew how to hypnotize.

    Nothing in Jordan’s behaviour suggests he ever believed he was molested but there are plenty of signs of him knowing he was simply lying. (His behaviour with Pellicano, his fear of cross-examination, his later admission to peers that Michael never molested him etc. etc.)

    Like

  10. April 20, 2012 11:15 am

    “That Jordan was sedated is not disputed. It’s the drug that was used is disputed. And I don’t think it was SA. It’s a bit too convenient that this story suddenly pops up out of nowhere just when in another case it was proven that SA makes memories unreliable and just when the Chandlers were running scared from the prosecution and from having to testify. And the origin of the story isn’t reliable either (Harvey Levin and his source possibly Evan).”- Suzy

    Oh, I see – this is possible! I mean it was quite possible that Evan gave something else to Jordan – which also meddled with his mind and made it more adaptable to his persuasion, but didn’t change his memories. And Sodium Amytal was just a good pretext for running from the need to testify. This version is indeed very good and explains it all (thank you for it!).

    But as regards sedation in the dental office, which was attended by an anesthesiologist, it also took place and its purpose was of course not extracting the tooth (which is laughable) but interrogating Jordan in his sleep. And if it was not sodium amytal which is very quick in action and difficult to administer, then it was something else which also affected Jordan’s way of thinking.

    I’ll explain. Some drugs may have the same effect as hypnosis and hypnosis is a very tricky thing. Some people are very suggestible to hypnosis and if a hypnotist (usually a psychiatrist) tells them to do something after they wake up they do it though they are fully awake! When asked to explain their actions they answer “I just felt that way” or “I wanted to do it” though in fact the instruction to do something was implanted into their minds by a hypnotist.

    When I was young I attended an open seminar for those who stammer. These people were treated by means of hypnosis and it was astonishing to see them speak totally free in a hypnotized state. I myself do not stammer but shake all over when speaking before big audiences and my mother, a psychologist, wanted to rid me of the “stage panic” by hypnosis. However I turned out not to be suggestible to it and nothing worked.

    Instead I was able to see with my own eyes what people are capable of doing during and after the hypnotic session. The whole idea of treating stammer by hypnosis is based on the fact that people are able to remember the pattern of how they spoke in their hypnotic sleep which they later on take into their usual life.

    If during hypnosis patients are told to remember certain things they will remember them even after the session. If they are told not to recall what was discussed they will forget it. Forgetting always works, while remembering sometimes does not, and that is why the effect of treating people of stammering is not stable. But generally hypnosis is a very powerful tool and no wonder it is considered dangerous. If a person is suggestible to it incredible things can be done to him.

    Who knows WHAT they did to Jordan when he was put under sedation? It could be anything! I for example was very much alarmed when I read that immediately after the sedation Evan asked Jordan questions whether Michael “touched him” – it looked toooo much like hypnotists checking on their patients whether they remember things after the session!

    And it is the fact of sedation itself which is screaming a crime here. WHAT NORMAL PERSON WILL SPECIALLY INVITE AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST TO SEDATE HIS SON TO TAKE HIS BABY TOOTH??? And even the anesthesiologist himself confirmed the fact of sedation though it was absolutely going against his interests. So the sedation was there!

    Like I said if Sodium Amytal was used then you have to question Anthony Pellicano’s account about Jordan acting the way he did on August 4 (which not even Ray Chandler questioned!). You also have to question accounts that later Jordan admitted to people that he was not molested. How, if false memories of molestation have been implanted in his mind?

    If it was a different type of a drug or manner of influencing him then all this range of reactions was possible. They could have “worked” on Jordan simply to convince him that so close an association with Michael (copying his manner of dressing, staying by his side all the time, etc.) was detrimental to his own individuality and could be harmful even for his future “manhood”. Psychologists will tell you a thousand theories (some of which are true) how at a certain age boys should associate with their own sex and how at a certain age they should associate with the opposite sex to be able to become “normal” men.

    Evan could have implanted all these ideas and fears into Jordan’s mind and Jordan could have believed them without understanding them – that is why he repeated these stereotypes later like a parrot not knowing what stands behind them. Evan surely “molded” his mind and this alone was a crime. And once this process started it was sheer technicality to develop it further.

    Like

  11. Suzy permalink
    April 20, 2012 11:06 am

    Here are some infos on the Ramona case: http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/santafe.html

    “The case was a landmark for a number of reasons, but principally for establishing, for the first time, a parent’s right to sue therapists for planting false memories of sexual abuse in a childs mind.
    […]
    She then heard from another patient of a “truth serum,” sodium amytal, that could be used to aid memory recovery, and asked Isabella about it. “Yes, it could help uncover hidden memories, but she felt that Holly didn’t need it now.”

    Other flashbacks came, more detailed, more explicit, and finally involving her father. She confided with her mother, Stephanie. Divorce proceedings were initiated. Dr. Rose injected Holly with sodium amytal and “confirmed” rape by her father (though in the trial it came out that the drug was unreliable).”

    This was the high profile case when the whole “SA used on Jordan” thing first popped up! It’s a bit odd coincidence in my opinion.

    Also, in my opinion, if I read the Gardner interview I don’t think Jordan was molested, nor I think he thought he was molested. He knew he was lying. That’s why he said the only thing he’s afraid of was cross-examination.

    Like

  12. Suzy permalink
    April 20, 2012 10:42 am

    @ Lynette

    You can say that SA was used only it didn’t work (since Evan and Torbiner weren’t psychiatrists who could hypnotize), but then it was just an attempt that didn’t work and thus didn’t have any effect on the allegations. Also I think repressed memory cases don’t work like that. Repressed memory cases usually involve adults and “memories” those would have happened decades before when they were children. Not fresh “memories”.

    Jordan didn’t have “repressed memories” – neither real nor implanted. At first he “confessed” because his father threatened to bring down Michael if he doesn’t (it’s much like Jason Francia’s interrogation by the police in terms of threatening and cajoling the boy into “confessing”), and then went along with the story willingly after he spent time in Rothman’s office. (Maybe he was told his father is in danger of going to jail if he doesn’t play along. Maybe he realized his friendship with Michael was over anyway and he became “pragmatic” that then at least they will get some money out of it. There could be many reasons.)

    “Doing that and later knowing that anything he would have said under the influence of the drug would make his testimony inadmissable just gave them the out that they needed to get out of the criminal trial.Then we need to look at why Larry Feldman asked to have Jordan sent to Dr. Richard Gardner. Feldman knew his testimony would be questioned if that came out and it was part of the original statement by Jordan to the police.”

    Just saying they were doing that would be enough for inadmissability as well. The paperwork doesn’t say it was SA that was administered and this claim only popped up out of nowhere in May, 1994 under the circumstances I described (Ramona case, Chandlers needing an excuse to not to testify). This makes it extremely suspicious.

    I think it is odd that Jordan was sedated for a 30-second procedure (pulling a baby tooth) and I think something shady was going on there, as well as on May 28 when they drugged up Michael. Whatever they attempted to do, it obviously failed on both occasions. But I don’t think it was SA that was used. That came about just when they saw the Ramona case and how there memories were deemed unreliable because of SA.

    Like

  13. lynande51 permalink
    April 20, 2012 8:56 am

    @Suzy and tatum
    Evan giving Jordan Sodium Amytal and him saying later that Evan made him lie are not mutually exclusive. You can have both if you know the way that the drug works. There are other things that people need to take into account and that is the timing of it.They say this happened on July 16th,1993. That was the day that Mathis Abrams sent a letter in response to Barry Rothman’s query to him regarding the facts as they stated them.
    The tape that Dave Schwartz made came on July 8th,1993. In his lawsuit against Evan after the settlement he stated in his declaration that the reason that he taped Evan was because the day before on July7th Evan had threatened to kill the whole family and Michael if they didn’t start listening to him.That is in Geraldine Hughes book Redemption in the Chapter titled Legally Speaking.So there was a reason for him to do it because of the threat.
    Now if Jordan had been afraid of Evan and Evan lied to him about having tapes he would have done what he could have done to stop Evan. That does not mean that he wasn’t given SA in an attempt to make him compliant. Doing that and later knowing that anything he would have said under the influence of the drug would make his testimony inadmissable just gave them the out that they needed to get out of the criminal trial.Then we need to look at why Larry Feldman asked to have Jordan sent to Dr. Richard Gardner. Feldman knew his testimony would be questioned if that came out and it was part of the original statement by Jordan to the police.

    Like

  14. TatumMarie permalink
    April 20, 2012 8:31 am

    @Suzy
    I agree with you on the Sodium Amytal theory because you would have to question Tom Mesereau’s statements at the Harvard discussion where he admitted that he had witnesses who would testify that Jordan told them it never happened. Then you would also have to question what drug had been used to make Jordan constantly lie over and over again in such detail. It really doesn’t corroborate and the story did kind of just pop up out of nowhere.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    April 20, 2012 7:52 am

    @ Helena

    “However one thing does not rule out the other.”

    Like I said if Sodium Amytal was used then you have to question Anthony Pellicano’s account about Jordan acting the way he did on August 4 (which not even Ray Chandler questioned!). You also have to question accounts that later Jordan admitted to people that he was not molested. How, if false memories of molestation have been implanted in his mind?

    That Jordan was sedated is not disputed. It’s the drug that was used is disputed. And I don’t think it was SA. It’s a bit too convenient that this story suddenly pops up out of nowhere just when in another case it was proven that SA makes memories unreliable and just when the Chandlers were running scared from the prosecution and from having to testify. And the origin of the story isn’t reliable either (Harvey Levin and his source possibly Evan).

    Like

  16. April 19, 2012 11:49 pm

    I don’t think Sodium Amytal was used. I think that’s a red herring thrown in by the Chandlers to distract. The whole story originates from Harvey Levin (now TMZ owner) and first popped up as late as May, 1994. Nothing was mentioned about SA before that. Later they denied it but in 1994 when they threw it in they had a good reason: the prosecution was still pursuing Jordan to testify in a criminal case. Just then there was another high profile case in which a 23-year old woman, Holly Ramona accused her father of sexually molesting her when she was a child. But the father, Gary Ramona counter-sued Holly’s pyschiatrist who used SA on her to “recover repressed memories”. And in May 1994 Gary Ramona won the case and memories recovered with the help of SA were deemed unreliable. And it’s then when this whole story about Jordan and SA popped up for the first time! Isn’t that strange? IMO this was the Chandlers’ way to get the prosecution off their back.

    Suzy, the timing indeed is telling it all. The verdict at Gary Ramona’s trial could be a very good pretext for Jordan not to testify.

    However one thing does not rule out the other. I mean Evan Chandler could use Sodium Amytal on Jordan to break his will and implant some ideas into his mind, and afterwards keep silent about it. It is criminal to use this drug for dental purposes (it is not a painkiller and may involve death in case of negligence) and surely Evan did not want to publicize the fact.

    But when a graver danger appeared in the form of Tom Sneddon’s insistence that Jordan should testify (in spring 1994 Sneddon claimed he had found another “victim” Jason Francia who “confirmed” Jordan Chandler’s credibility), then Evan could very well take the sodium amytal story out of his pocket as a means to release Jordan from the need to testify – though initially he wanted to hide this fact. Neither of them wanted a court trial from the very beginning of it and sodium amytal was a sure way to get out of it.

    Why do I think Evan used the drug on Jordan?

    – It was very much in line with his character. Evan was an extremely suspicious guy, however all his attempts to find proof of “molestation” brought him no result. I am more than sure that he listened to all Jordan’s phone conversations, he probably wire-taped his bedroom when Michael stayed there (and this is why he invited Michael to his home at all) and still he had nothing.

    Could he miss a chance of interrogating his son under sodium amytal? No, he couldn’t. If you ask me Evan was so crazy that he could pull a totally health tooth out of Jordan’s mouth in order to get something from him.

    – The second reason is that in the interview with Dr. Richard Gardner (in October 1993) Jordan also mentioned that he had been put to sleep during a dental procedure. However here we have only Ray Chandler’s word for it – the transcript comes from his book and the date is given by him too. Both may be fake. I think that the transcript is genuine while the date may be completely arbitrary. For all we know sodium amytal could be given to Jordan at any time – and not necessarily in July or August.

    – There is another, indirect point in favor of the “drug theory”. In his book Ray Chandler says that when Michael was in Evan’s home Michael had a terrible headache and Evan made Michael an injection of some mysterious drug after which Michael felt very groggy, and they even took him to bed after that (in Jordan’s room!). This episode shows that Evan was very much “into drugs” in general and could probably even use that injection for interrogating Michael as well (if I remember it right he did indeed ask him whether he was homosexual and Michael said he wasn’t but he knew someone in Hollywood who was).

    In short since Evan had no chance to get any ‘evidence’ in the direct way he favored non-standard, sleuth-like methods of obtaining information. And sodium amytal could be one of the ways.

    The matter of whether Jordan was or wasn’t given sodium amytal is not that important after all. Its only importance is in the fact whether Jordan cooperated with his father willingly or not, and how Evan managed to bring Jordan over to his side. My personal opinion is that Jordan was a very ‘reasonable’ boy and once he realized that his friendship with Michael was over and all his hopes were ruined (after his father’s interference), he decided to derive at least some profit from it.

    Jordan had a choice of being labelled a poor or rich “victim” of MJ for the rest of his life and decided that being rich in the circumstances was more preferable. I think that at a later stage he was a willing participant in the scheme.

    Like

  17. Suzy permalink
    April 19, 2012 7:00 pm

    @ Shelly

    I guess he knew the original report. It’s not like it was something secretly said. It was on the news on that channel. And if Evan talked to Levin they would remember the name all the more.

    Like

  18. shellywebstere permalink
    April 19, 2012 5:44 pm

    Yes, I know it came from Ray Chandler but he never said how he came to the conclusion that Fischer talked to Levin, he wasn’t the only journalist working for that TV station.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    April 19, 2012 2:50 pm

    @ Shelly

    Ray Chandler gives his name in his “rebuttal” of Fischer’s article that appeared on his website in 2005. BTW, just like in his book also in this article Ray manages to dig themselves into a bigger hole, when you know about the facts of this case!

    There’s one thing he is right about though. When he brings up Pellicano’s account against the Sodium Amytal story:

    ““Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer’s drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie’s behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows:

    The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. “Jordie was looking down,” [Pellicano said] “and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, ‘I didn’t say that.'”

    According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn’t brainwashed at all! He was acting embarrassed and guilty about the accusations his father had made.”

    He probably didn’t realize it, but “ironically” by this defense against the Sodium Amytal story he acknowledged the credibility of Pellicano’s account. You can only use Pellicano’s account against the SA story if you acknowledge its credibility! There’s no other way!

    So thanks Ray, for confirming this story about how Jordan looked at Michael as his father read the Abrams letter! But he is right in that if this happened (and there’s no reason to believe it didn’t, since Ray just acknowledges it indirectly in this paragraph) then he was not brainwashed.

    The SA thing is not pivotal in Michael’s defense at all. In fact, when you read the Chandlers’ account on how Jordan “came out” (or rather, how he was emotionally blackmailed into saying what his father wanted him to say) then that makes his “coming out” more problematic than any amount of SA!

    Ray Chandler in his article speculates that the SA story came from the Jackson camp. However in her article Fischer gave her sources and none of those belong to the Jackson camp: once the KCBS-TV newsman, about whom now we know was Levin, and she also asked Mark Torbiner who gave an ambigious answer: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes”

    I think this is why Fischer ran with the story. Because Torbiner didn’t deny it. BTW, Torbiner didn’t even deny it in 2005! Ray Chandler writes in his article: “Fischer claimed that she spoke to Torbiner and that he told her “If I used it [the drug], it was for dental purposes.” Dr. Torbiner would not respond to inquiries about what, if anything, he told Fischer. His attorney stated that Torbiner was bound by the doctor-patient privilege and could not discuss the issue without written consent from his patient.”

    Given the close relationship between the Chandlers and Torbiner this answer is at least odd. But I don’t think SA was used. They had a good reason to throw in this myth in 1994 and that is to get the prosecution off their back at the time. That’s why Torbiner was so ambigious about it to Fischer IMO. The whole thing came from them!

    How it’s worded in Fischer’s article indicates that too:

    „A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations.”

    “The dentist claimed” and “only to pull his tooth”. If it came from the Jackson camp why would they put such an emphasis on “only to pull his tooth” (and it’s the same as what Torbiner said)? Michael’s camp obviously wouldn’t make any excuses for Evan for using this drug.

    Like

  20. shellywebstere permalink
    April 19, 2012 2:11 pm

    Just a question, how do we know the Sodium amytal story came from Levin, Fischer never gave the name of the journalist in her article.

    Like

  21. Suzy permalink
    April 19, 2012 7:44 am

    @ Helena

    I don’t think Sodium Amytal was used. I think that’s a red herring thrown in by the Chandlers to distract. The whole story originates from Harvey Levin (now TMZ owner) and first popped up as late as May, 1994. Nothing was mentioned about SA before that. He indicated that the story came from Evan (at least according to Mary Fischer’s article) and I don’t think we can trust it.

    Later they denied it but in 1994 when they threw it in they had a good reason: the prosecution was still pursuing Jordan to testify in a criminal case. Just then there was another high profile case in which a 23-year old woman, Holly Ramona accused her father of sexually molesting her when she was a child. But the father, Gary Ramona counter-sued Holly’s pyschiatrist who used SA on her to “recover repressed memories”. And in May 1994 Gary Ramona won the case and memories recovered with the help of SA were deemed unreliable. And it’s then when this whole story about Jordan and SA popped up for the first time! Isn’t that strange? IMO this was the Chandlers’ way to get the prosecution off their back. They were always scared of having to testify in a criminal case. So they could then say to the prosecutors: SA was used on Jordan, his memories aren’t reliable. Remember, they already had their settlement money.

    Like

  22. April 19, 2012 12:17 am

    “Evan cleaned his son’s teeth while Mark set up his equipment, and when the boy was sedated Evan performed the thirty-second procedure. When Jordie was safely out of sedation, Mark packed up and left.
    “That was great,” Jordie said, fully awake. “I didn’t feel a thing? Can we go eat now?”
    “In a minute,” Evan answered.” (etc. for another hour or so)

    This episode is extremely strange. Fistly, Jordan and Ray Chandler didn’t agree between themselves on how long the episode lasted. Ray Chandler describes a very long conversation where Jordan even leaves for the kitchen and comes “strolling” back, etc. while in Jordan’s story to the psychiatrist it looks like one question only:

    “And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright – a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said – and his friend was gone, it was just him and me – and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”

    Another extremely strange thing is that the procedure was only half a minute according to Ray Chandler. And during this time Jordan was not just lightly sedated but was put into a deep sleep – so deep that he had to “awaken”.

    Well, when was the last time we heard of patients being put to sleep in dental offices?

    Okay, let’s assume he was put to sleep. What dosage was given to Jordan within this half a minute? And sodium is no small thing, by the way! First of all, to be able to produce sleep it should be given intravenously only, as it is “difficult to achieve and maintain the proper dose using the oral route” (as the CIA source says). Second, the dosage should be very accurate as in case of overdosage it can end in the patient’s … death.

    The CIA manual describes the following stages through which a patient goes when given sodium amytal (none of these stages are suitable for dental purposes of course):

    I. SEDATIVE STAGE
    II. UNCONSCIOUSNESS, WITH EXAGGERATED REFLEXES (hyperactive stage).
    III. UNCONSCIOUSNESS, WITHOUT REFLEX EVEN TO PAINFUL STIMULI. At this stage consciousness is lost and coma follows. The subject no longer responds even to noxious stimuli, and cannot be roused.
    IV. DEATH. In the last stage, respiration ceases. https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/sodium-amytal-for-jordan-chandler/

    So who is lying here? Was sodium amytal given at all?
    Probably it was as Evan Chandler was simply dying of suspicion and could not hold himself, despite all the dangers of this drug.

    But did it last for some thirty seconds only?
    I doubt it as Jordan was to go past the sedative stage into a full-time sleep and reach stage 3 not to show “hyperactive” reflexes and then still to return back.

    So how long did the procedure last? Wasn’t it long enough for Evan Chandler to thoroughly wash Jordan’s brains?

    And what ideas did Evan Chandler plant it into Jordan’s head within that time? Even if he was only asking suggestive questions about “touching penis”?

    And even after all this brainwashing of Jordan now Ray Chandler says that Jordan “confessed” only after the interrogation had lasted for an hour or so judging by his own description of it?

    Like

  23. April 18, 2012 11:34 pm

    “You know what’s this “robbing of individuality”? That Jordan dressed like Michael! The Chandlers for some reason act as if it’s a horrible thing that a 13-year-old boy would dress like his favourite pop star who happens to be also his friend and that somehow it’s an indication of molestation.”

    Suzy, yes, I remember Evan ranting about it in his telephone conversation with David Schwartz. All of them (Gutierrez and Chandler in their books) and the Prosecutors during June Chandler’s testimony in 2005 made a terrible fuss over “the way Jordan started dressing when he met MJ”. But Jordan dressed that way well before he met Michael! He had a full Michael Jackson attire and imitated Michael’s dance so well that even his grandmother was so impressed that she promised him a glove like Michael’s to make the outfit complete. It is in Ray Chandler’s book:

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

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

    “…these are clearly Evan’s thoughts, but Jordan echos them in the Gardner interview! When asked why molestation is wrong, he cannot really tell. He just says “everybody thinks…” and “otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime” and “it seperates you from other people”. But he can’t tell why! He is clearly parrotting Evan’s feelings that Michael somehow separated them! He was supposedly a victim of molestation but this is all he can say about why it’s wrong?”

    The transcript with Dr. Richard Gardner (if it is true) may look “damaging” only to those who gladly take Jordan’s lies at their face value. When you dig a little deeper you see that Jordan was heavily coached and indeed repeated like a parrot what no normal child will ever say.

    A quote from the interview with Dr. Gardner about another boy (does it sound like a 13 year old?):

    “Because in public, when he’s with Tommy, they’re very close together physically and verbally and relationship-wise. And if one were to observe things in public, how they acted to each other, one would come to that conclusion, that it was more then just a friendly relationship.”

    And here Jordan first says that Michael was “overwhelming” and then contradicts himself by saying he was not “in awe” of Michael as he was just a “regular person”. The first phrase is clearly not Jordan’s, while the second is:

    “…he’s an adult, he’s overwhelming, he’s famous, he’s powerful.”
    “Were you in awe of him? Do you know what I mean by awe?”
    “No.”
    “In awe of somebody means that you look up to them like they’re almost a god, or something like that.”
    “No. Actually when our relationship got closer and closer I thought less of that. Like most people think that, wow, he’s great, because he can dance and sing. But you know, he’s just like, a regular person.”

    And some of these crazy ideas could be conceived only in Evan Chandler’s crazy mind (or Jordan could be “improvising” on his own):

    “…You say it’s a crime. Why is it a crime?”
    “Because, like I said before, he’s using his experience, power, age – – ”
    “How could this have left you? If this had gone on and not been interrupted, how could you have ended up?”
    “According to his pattern, I believe he would have left me and, sort of dumped me, I guess you could call it. And I would be, sort of, a vegetable.”
    “Why a vegetable?”
    “Because he would continue to do those things and I would have no knowing of what else is out there.”

    I think that Dr. Richard Gardner made a negative report about Jordan’s interview in October 1993, and we have indirect proof of it – Larry Feldman had to go to another doctor (Dr. Katz) to seek his opinion about this conversation. Given that Dr. Gardner was considered the best specialist on false molestation accusations, why would Feldman seek another doctor to consult him if the first report from the best expert suited him all right?

    Like

  24. nannorris permalink
    April 18, 2012 6:03 pm

    @ Suzy…from Ray Chandler book

    back in 1993, when the scandal first broke, Pellicano denied making any offer.

    As a parent, I consider it an odd choice of words to describe the molestation of a child as a scandal..
    Its a crime….
    thats because, they knew he was never molested..it was just ..
    these people creating a scandal…
    All for money….
    The more you look at this stuff…the easier it is to see the truth…

    Like

  25. shellywebstere permalink
    April 18, 2012 10:47 am

    “PS: Funny how documents always “got stolen” and got leaked to tabloids from the Chandlers…”

    I wonder how he explains how Gutierrez got Jordan’s bank account ?

    Like

  26. Suzy permalink
    April 18, 2012 8:26 am

    And just to show you how much Evan cared of Jordan financially: in June’s 2005 testimony she tells that Evan promised Jordan $5000 for writing that Robin Hood movie together, but he never paid it. Ray too addresses the story in his book. Of course, making excuses for Evan. June called Evan a terrible father for promising the money to the boy and never paying it. Evan’s excuse is (in Ray’s book) that he would put it in the bank instead of paying it to the boy directly and that Jordie’s contribution wasn’t that big after all and he didn’t really deserve it… So Evan was well capable of betraying his own son over money!

    Like

  27. Suzy permalink
    April 18, 2012 7:53 am

    @ Kaarin & Rodrigo

    “Then most of the money went to Jordan in a trust”

    In the book Ray says that it was was Evan’s intention with the money, to make a trust for Jordan. However Bert Fields testified years later that it was Pellicano’s idea and that Evan protested against it and wanted the money for himself. Ray Chandler addresses this in his book like this (he’s trying to deny it with totally illogical and irrelevant things):

    “Several years later Bert Fields testified it was Pellicano who offered the money in trust
    for Jordie, and that Evan refused, saying he wanted it for himself. Yet if Fields’ account
    was true, it seems odd that neither he nor anyone else on Michael’s team leveled this
    damning claim while the battle was in progress. Fields also seems to have forgotten that
    back in 1993, when the scandal first broke, Pellicano denied making any offer.
    Fields, finally under oath for die first time in this matter, was attempting to plug the
    holes in his original story. While it took him three years to come up with his version,
    Evan had relayed his story to the police one week after the events took place, and
    documented them two months later when he submitted his entire story in writing to
    Jordie’s attorney. Though the document was later stolen and made public by the British
    tabloids, at the time he wrote it, Evan could not have known it would become public.
    Further, it was a privileged document between attorney and client that could not be
    used against him in a court of law. There was no reason for Evan to lie.”

    PS: Funny how documents always “got stolen” and got leaked to tabloids from the Chandlers…

    Like

  28. Rodrigo permalink
    April 18, 2012 5:52 am

    Question. If Evan had gotten his way and got the money without all the trouble, it wouldn’t have gone into a trust fund for Jordan would it? Wouldn’t it have just gone straight in to his pocket?

    Like I wondered before, if it had gone Evan’s way, how would have things worked out then, in terms of keeping everything under wraps? He probably would have still had his finger on the button, never leaving Michael alone. Remember, he threatened Michael with something completely life shattering and extorted him with the threats of revealing these crippling lies to the whole world. Do you think Evan would have left him after business was concluded? Of course not.

    They probably hoped he would go away if he got what he wanted, they had to take his word for it.

    People still go on about the negotiations between both parties. Haters say
    ¨If Michael was innocent, then why didn’t he go public and fight for the truth, instead of making offers to Chandler?¨

    Umm…Because it was too big of thing to let out the bag. Especially if you’re innocent, but your accuser has done such a good job at making up these lies that he’s got professionals on his side to back up his claims, and God knows what awaited if you didn’t give in to demands.

    But the fact that Michael didn’t take this to heart shows he had nothing to get worked up about. He knew the truth and had hoped it would be revealed. But Evan came up tactics so damaging, no one could have foreseen them coming. Michael was backed into a corner, he had nowhere to run…But even then, he still didn’t give in, until he was forced to by his ‘great’ advisors

    No such determination to personally fight would have come from a guilty man. Michael endured so much to prove his innocence and was willing to endure even more, but he knew it was killing him and his career. He listened, and gave in. Honest to God, I think any one of us would have, surely?

    Like

  29. kaarin22 permalink
    April 18, 2012 3:37 am

    Evan hugged Michael at a time when he still hoped to share the money Michael was getting, 40 mli. wasn´t it?He refused the offer of 350.000.oo.He desperately wanted to stop working as a dentist and saw himself as a future film director.What a wonderful future was in store for him!And the frustration and rage when this was not going to happen. Throughout the first round of extortion he was already hypomanic and worked out a vile plan to destroy Michael.Then most of the money went to Jordan in a trust and what he got went to pay all the expert help he had enlisted.He wasn´t bad at manouvering the case and avoiding a criminal trial at all cost.Both June and Evan´s marriages fell apart and soon Jordan asked for emancipation..I don´t recall the exact dates for all this.More anger and frustration.And how painful that Michael was successful in his career and got a lot of money too.Evan started on his next project. He must have done really much research on the lyrics of Michaels songs and picked out every word that he was sure was aimed at him personally..He knew he was guilty alright,but never mind that now. So much money that he was going to sue everybody and everything he could think of.The second round of extortion was large in scope and he hoped for 60.000.000.oo.This time he over rated his
    possibilities. Was it during this time everyone divorced or just got away from him? Certainly
    his mania was driving him tomsuch exesses and he must have been unbearable to live with.

    Like

  30. shellywebstere permalink
    April 18, 2012 12:09 am

    By the way, the toradol story and the story about MJ having toilet problems are in Chris Andersen book: Michael Jackson unauthorized. According to Andersen, Blanca Francia claimed MJ would pee in his pant instead of going to the toilet.

    Like

  31. shellywebstere permalink
    April 18, 2012 12:06 am

    The Chandler book is exactly the same book as the Gutierrez book without the pro pedophilia stuff and the Neverland Five. I think Gutierrez got the diary from Ray Chandler.

    Like

  32. shellywebstere permalink
    April 17, 2012 11:48 pm

    I doubt there is one state in the US which allows psychiatrist to not report child abuse.

    Like

  33. nannorris permalink
    April 17, 2012 11:47 pm

    I believe June Chandler had been letting him dress up since he was a little kid like MJ..LONG before he ever met MJ..Same with a lot of kids at that time..
    I saw a kids at tribute shows dressed like him too imitating his dance.
    June was looking for her next meal ticket and so was Evan for that matter.

    This family is just so completely full of sh@t.
    It is disgusting

    Like

  34. April 17, 2012 11:40 pm

    “My post that I am going to put up on later this week will go into all of this. I am waitng for David to post his second post on Authur Wright and then mine will be next. Helena I have read the book several times over and everything that has been written about the case all ties together on timeline with the opposing books written.”

    Lynande, we will be looking forward both to David’s second part and your post about the Chandlers. I also want to read All that Glitters (David has sent me a copy) and compare it with Victor Gutierrez’s. It was my dream to do it from the very beginning of it.

    Like

  35. Suzy permalink
    April 17, 2012 8:48 pm

    After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Andiony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.”

    It’s interesting that they put the word molestation in quotation marks. Freudian slip? And they distance themselves from the using of that word by saying it were Pellicano and Fields who first used that term. They distance themselves from the “idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy”.

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    April 17, 2012 8:45 pm

    In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting. “If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.” Supposedly this means that because Evan didn’t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn’t believe the molestation occurred.

    Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing.
    But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn’t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael’s audio expert/private investigator present as a witness.

    That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn’t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Andiony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.”

    The lies are stacked in this portion alone look at them now trying to tell us that Evan didn’t believe that Jordan was molested when according to them the first words he said to Michael in May when he met him for the first time were to ask him “are you fucking my son up the ass”. The one thing that I will say is that Barry Rothman didn’t even know the extent of that whole thing because Evan spent quite a bit of time convincing even him that he wasn’t extorting Michael.I have the words he sent to Rothman after Pellicano went on TV and accused them of extortion and he is the one that is putting that kind of spin on it even then and Rothman was not the kind of man that needed help thinking of something.

    Like

  37. Rodrigo permalink
    April 17, 2012 8:39 pm

    No decent parent would hug a man who molested their child.
    No decent parent would let a child molester of the hook so more children would be at risk.

    Evan was no decent parent. Nor was he the parent of a molested child. What he was a tremendous actor and writer, and a parent to a son who shared his tremendous skills.

    That entire ‘act’, was to put the scares on Michael once and for all. He threatened to ruin him, which was just done to strong arm Michael into submission.

    Michael and the rest knew he was full of ****, at the beginning. But Evan made it all as convincing as he could, getting others on his side, getting them to believe his views on the situation, which wasn’t hard to do. Some may have believed Michael was guilty, others followed thinking it would lead them to fame and fortune.

    The entire downfall of Michael Jackson wasn’t orchestrated by a parent wanting justice for his son…it was orchestrated by a man who wanted revenge and money.

    Like

  38. lynande51 permalink
    April 17, 2012 8:38 pm

    @ Suzy and Helena
    My post that I am going to put up on later this week will go into all of this. I am waitng for David to post his second post on Authur Wright and then mine will be next. Helena I have read the book several times over and everything that has been written about the case all ties together on timeline with the opposing books written.Once you become very familiar with it you be able to recognize where all of the lies are in those words written by Evan Chandler and put the story together .I will also be able to bring new light on Chandler’s suicide at the end of it because of a court document that someone sent me.

    Like

  39. Suzy permalink
    April 17, 2012 8:06 pm

    And look at this sharp, logical reasoning!

    “In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting. “If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.” Supposedly this means that because Evan didn’t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn’t believe the molestation occurred.

    Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing.
    But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn’t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael’s audio expert/private investigator present as a witness!

    That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn’t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Andiony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.”

    The meeting in question is the one on August 4 after which Evan and Rothman make their $20 million demand and in which Evan reads Dr. Abrams’s letter. It was pretty clear at that meating for everybody what they were threatening with. It’s also more than two weeks AFTER Jordan allegedly came out in his father’s dental office (July 16, the story described below). And Evan says he had “the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie” and that’s why he hugged him?

    And no, when your son has been molested you don’t have to pretend you are angry with the molester because normally you ARE! No you don’t have to kill him, but you don’t hug him either!

    Like

  40. Suzy permalink
    April 17, 2012 7:40 pm

    You gotta also love the Chandler’s story on how it came out:

    Jordie and Evan met Mark at Evan’s office at 8:30 AM. As it turned out, the x-rays showed that Jordie had no cavities, just the overretained baby tooth that was causing the permanent one underneath to come in crooked.
    Evan cleaned his son’s teeth while Mark set up his equipment, and when the boy was sedated Evan performed the thirty-second procedure. When Jordie was safely out of sedation, Mark packed up and left.
    “That was great,” Jordie said, fully awake. “I didn’t feel a thing? Can we go eat now?”
    “In a minute,” Evan answered.
    Jordie sat quietly in the chair while his father cleaned up around the operatory.
    “Hey, Jordie,” Evan said, trying to sound nonchalant. “Since this is our last day together, is there anything you want to tell me before we go?”
    “Yeah,” Jordie replied. (Evan prayed for a miracle.) “I’m thirsty.”
    “Uh, okay. You can get up and walk now. Go to the kitchen, there’s some bottled water in the fridge.”
    Evan had waited all week for the right moment to talk to his son, but he was concerned that forcing him to speak before he was ready would drive him further away. The end result was that the right moment never came. Or that Evan had passed it up.
    “I was standing there drinking, Oh, well, I guess that’s it, he’s not going to talk. But while he was out in the kitchen it hit me that I’d been taking the wrong approach. Here I was tiptoeing around him because Dr. Abrams has scared the hell out of me. But Jordie was about to go away with Michael for five months, so how much worse could it get! If he wasn’t totally screwed up yet, going on tour was sure to finish the job. That realization changed my whole way of thinking. I could be as tough on him as I wanted. I had nothing to lose.”
    When Jordie came strolling back from the kitchen, Evan went on the attack. “Have a seat, and listen very carefully to what I’m about to say. Do you remember when you came over to the house I told you that if you lie to me I was going to destroy Michael?” Jordie nodded that he did. “Good. Keep that in mind, because I’m going to ask you a question. Do you care about Michael?”
    “Yes,” the boy answered.
    ‘You could say you love him, right?”
    “Yes.”
    “And you wouldn’t want to hurt him?”
    “No.”
    “Okay then, let me remind you of something. Remember I told you I bugged your bedroom?” Jordie nodded. “Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it.”
    The boy remained silent, seemingly unimpressed by his father’s strong arm approach. Sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack.
    “Look, Jordie, lots of famous people are bisexual and nobody gives a shit. They’re not embarrassed. It’s sorta cool, in a way.”
    After ten minutes of meandering monologue Evan had elicited nothing from his son but a blank stare. Frustrated, he switched back to his original approach. “I’m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I’m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it’ll be all your fault because you’re the one person who could have saved him.”
    Nothing.
    In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn’t need Jordie to confirm it. But he believed if his son could just hear himself say it, if he could just spurt it out quickly and painlessly like the tooth, it would release him from the prison in his mind. Without a plan, Evan began babbling away again, saying whatever came to mind in the hope of eventually hitting on something that would push a button in his son and free him.
    “I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,” Evan lied. “This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie. So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me die truth and you save him.”
    Jordie remained silent for what seemed to Evan a hopeless amount of time. Then, “Promise?”
    “Have I ever lied to you?”
    “No.”
    And I never will.”
    “You won’t hurt Michael, right?”
    “Right.”
    “And I don t want anyone to know. Promise me you won’t ever tell anyone.”
    “I swear,no one.”
    “Okay. What’s the question?”
    “Did Michael touch your penis?”
    Jordie hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered “Yes.”
    Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged back, tight.
    “We never talked about it again,” Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn’t matter. “The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.”

    Like

  41. Suzy permalink
    April 17, 2012 7:33 pm

    @ Helena

    You know what’s this “robbing of individuality”? That Jordan dressed like Michael! The Chandlers for some reason act as if it’s a horrible thing that a 13-year-old boy would dress like his favourite pop star who happens to be also his friend and that somehow it’s an indication of molestation. How, I don’t know. Another part from ATG:

    “Monique reiterated her opinion that Michael was taking up too much of Jordie’s life. But this time she offered an additional observation. “Jordie doesn’t even know you’re in the room, Evan. Can’t you see what’s going on? They’re in love!”

    The minute the L word left Monique’s mouth, Evan believed she was right. “It should have been a dead giveaway,” Evan recalled weeks later, when Jordie came walking in the house that night wearing tight black pants, white socks, black loafers and a black fedora, and Michael came walking in right behind him wearing the same thing. Or when they ran off into the living room together after dinner and closed the door behind them, leaving me to work alone on the history paper.”

    And yes, of course the “isolation from family” was that Evan felt left out and that Jordan prefered to be with Michael than with him.

    And these are clearly Evan’s thoughts, but Jordan echos them in the Gardner interview! When asked why molestation is wrong, he cannot really tell. He just says “everybody thinks…” and “otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime” and “it seperates you from other people”. But he can’t tell why! He is clearly parrotting Evan’s feelings that Michael somehow separated them! He was supposedly a victim of molestation but this is all he can say about why it’s wrong?

    “When you say it could have hurt you, how could it have hurt you?”
    “Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt, otherwise it wouldn’t be a crime.”
    “Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?”
    “Because – that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.”
    “How?”
    “I don’t know.”
    “Just your own guess.”
    “It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.”
    “Well, this is important. You say it’s a crime. Why is it a crime?”
    “Because, like I said before, he’s using his experience, power, age – – “

    As for the book, I sent you an e-mail.

    Like

  42. sanemjfan permalink
    April 17, 2012 7:32 pm

    Helena,
    I can send you the PDF copy of the book.

    Like

  43. April 17, 2012 7:04 pm

    “I’m reading All That Glitters. It’s an amazing book in terms of how the Chandlers are telling on themselves at every turn!”

    Suzy, is it anywhere on the Internet? I’ve read only the parts sent to me by David but would be interested to read the whole of it. Could you provide a link please?

    The paragraph you quoted shows that Evan himself did not believe in the “sex” story. A parent whose child was supposedly molested will never speak of totally secondary things like “robbing Jordie of his individuality”. He will cry with horror and worry for his child and will regard it as the biggest and irreparable catastrophy in his life. Instead Evan is reflecting on Jordie simply being “isolated from his family” (meaning Evan Chandler of course) and this was to cost Michael $20 mln!

    Evan could not even force himself to lie more convincinly! With all his creative writer’s mind he could not think of anything else but some fictional “taking over the boy’s mind” by Michael!

    Like

  44. Suzy permalink
    April 17, 2012 5:40 pm

    I didn’t know where to post this. I’m reading All That Glitters. It’s an amazing book in terms of how the Chandlers are telling on themselves at every turn!

    This their reasoning of the $20 million demand:

    “Evan had two goals. First and foremost was the welfare of his son. On the surface Jordie seemed fine, but this wasn’t surface stuff. Dr. Abrams had expressed deep concern for the boy and left Evan with the impression that serious damage might already have occurred. Evan hoped for the best but needed to prepare for the worst.

    If Jordie needed long-term counseling it could be expensive, and they would have to find a state that did not require psychotherapists to report child abuse to the authorities. That could mean relocating and closing his dental practice. How would he support his family? A worst case scenario to be sure, but possible.

    Soured by his experience with Pellicano and Michael — in particular “Michael looking into Jordie’s eyes and denying their intimacy” — Evan’s second goal was to punish Michael. “I didn’t want him to get off scot-free. But a few million is chump change to him. I figured twenty million was definitely a punishing amount. At the very least it would give him something to think about. If it turned out that Jordie was okay and didn’t need a lot of counseling (surprise, surprise, he did not need a lot of counseling and so the money didn’t have to be spent on counseling – Suzy ), so much the better. He’d be set for life. He deserved it after what Michael did to him.

    “And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: