2. Why Gloria Allred abandoned the Chandlers’ case
We are going with Larry Feldman’s speech piece by piece, trying to see the real story behind his sterile version of it. Let me remind you that Larry Feldman was a defense attorney for the Chandlers who took over from Gloria Allred in September 1993.
Here is the story of Gloria Allred working for ’36 hours’ on Jordan Chandler’s case
Another thing I just thought of that these cases sort of had in common, although ten years apart, none of the lawyers, I guess except Ron Zonen, were the original lawyers in the case. In the first case, the first young boy’s case that got settled, in that case he was first represented by a lawyer by the name of Rothman, and then Gloria Allred had him for about 24 hours, 36 hours, held her press conference, and that was it (laughter!), and then I had him for the balance of that case.
This is very clever stunt on the part of Larry Feldman. Instead of speaking about the substance of the case, discussing the difference in their strategy and clearing up to the eager audience of lawyers the reasons why he replaced Gloria Allred, Larry Feldman turns the whole matter into a joke and channels the audience’s attention into thinking that Gloria’s services were found unsatisfactory by the Client who preferred Larry Feldman instead.
To make up for the absence of the information let me restore at least some of the truth. From the first day of her taking up the case Gloria Allread spoke about something which is going unnoticed even now – she said she was determined to focus her attention on “the real issues”. Real issues? Doesn’t it imply that there were some other issues which didn’t pertain to the case?
The LA Times said about Gloria Allred’s approach:
“Determined to focus attention on what she called “the real issues,” attorney Gloria Allred on Thursday spoke for the first time on behalf of the boy who has accused superstar Michael Jackson of molesting him, saying the 13-year-old is “courageous” and “wants to have his day in court.”
Allred refused to discuss allegations of extortion Thursday, saying that she represented only the child. “Whatever has happened between or among adults should not affect the rights of this child to be safe, to be protected and to have his day in court,” she said.
“My client wants . . . the truth to come out. He is ready, he is willing, he is able to testify”. Asked whether she planned to file a civil suit on behalf of the boy, Allred said: “I am reserving and preserving all options for the child and not ruling anything in or out.”
A week later the same LA Times reported:
Attorney Gloria Allred, who announced amid great fanfare last week that she was representing a 13-year-old boy allegedly molested by Michael Jackson, said Friday that she is no longer on the case.
“That is correct,” Allred said. She declined to answer any questions about why she was leaving the case, saying only: “I can’t make any further comment, unfortunately.” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-11/local/me-33944_1_jackson-case
Why were her services no longer needed? Larry Feldman knows the big secret of course but he wouldn’t commit himself, so we have nothing else to do but rely on what Ray Chandler tells us in his book “All the Glitters” about the situation. Our David Edwards has read the book:
“From page 167 of “All That Glitters”, here is Ray Chandler describing the agonizing decision that June, Evan, and Dave Schwartz had to make when choosing Feldman over Gloria Allred:
“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.
Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier”.
Is it my eyesight failing me or is it really both Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles and Tom Sneddon in Santa Barbara who had to be pressured according to Ray Chandler? Which is why Gloria Allred needed an all-out media campaign to force them to seek a Grand Jury indictment – as if the media was not already going crazy enough about all those allegations?
Let us put aside these strange excuses on Ray Chandler’s part and focus on the main subject: Gloria Allred wanted justice first and money second, as she didn’t rule out the possibility of a civil suit either, but the problem is that the Chandlers wanted money both first, second and third.
Ray Chandler’s idea of “avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the boy” clearly conveys the idea that the Chandlers didn’t want any court at all – civil or criminal alike – and were interested only in a hush-hush settlement, ‘quick, quiet and highly profitable’ as the text suggests it. This is further confirmed by Ray Chandler on p. 128 who verbatim says it as if rebuking Michael for the mistake made:
“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”
The LA Times also cites Jordan’s words from one of his interviews where the social worker notes it that it was solely a money agreement which was in the minds of the boy’s family:
“In an Aug. 17 report detailing the allegations brought by the 13-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim, a county social worker wrote: “Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy’s father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.”
One can easily take the Chandlers’ bait and buy it that the family and Larry Feldman did care for Jordan’s feelings and didn’t want him to be traumatized by all those ‘details’ discussed in the open.
However after a moment of doubt I remembered that immediately upon signing the agreement Ray Chandler started making rounds of various publishers promoting his ‘tell-all’ book about Michael and Jordan (in violation of all agreements) and bragging that Jordan’s father gave him full authority to speak on his behalf, depicting Jordan as a gay lover of MJ and telling sordid stories about both of them (see here for details)
The next moment I remembered that a certain ‘diary’ attributed to Even Chandler, and never disputed by him, was read on the air in the TV “Hard copy” show in May, 1994 providing salacious details about the ‘relationship’ (for details see here).
As to Larry Feldman we already know of the great care he displayed for the boy when he renewed the media frenzy by releasing his ‘declaration’ ten years after Jordan was supposed to forget about the case.
So much for the true worth of their feigned concern for the boy’s interests and crocodile tears over the trauma the trial would inflict on him if the case was taken to court…
But if Jordan’s interests were a mere pretext for not going to court what could be the real reason for avoiding any kind of trial – criminal or civil?
Now we can be sure of it – it was the total lack of evidence which the Chandlers and Larry Feldman tried to conceal from the general public, making up for its absence by all the media hoopla around the case.
Let me repeat the basics of the case:
- Even Chandler had nothing but suspicions
- the description Jordan made did not match Jackson’s genitalia
- the stark difference was not only in the fact that Michael was not circumcised though the boy said he was
- it was also in the fact that the boy didn’t know the actual color of his genitalia – he spoke of one ‘light splotch which was the color of his face’ (so the rest of the skin being dark), while the photos showed one dark splotch (so the rest of the skin being light).
- not being able to tell that difference is like not being able to tell a white cow from a dark one, which makes the boy’s description a complete joke.
The LA Times says that lack of evidence haunted the case from the very start:
“I have the evidence (against Jackson),” the father said. “You’ll hear it on tape recordings.” Police have said their investigation has not produced physical or medical evidence that would support a criminal filing, but they are still interviewing people and reviewing photographs confiscated from Jackson. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/news/mn-39718_1_michael-jackson
Videotapes seized from homes belonging to Michael Jackson do not incriminate the entertainer, and the lack of physical evidence of alleged sexual molestation has left investigators “scrambling” to get statements from other potential victims, a high-ranking police source said Thursday.
“There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence,” the source said. “The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”
When police executed search warrants at Jackson’s Los Angeles condominium and Santa Barbara County ranch last weekend, they left with a number of videotapes. On Thursday, sources said investigators still were reviewing the tapes for clues about possible victims; a number of the tapes are said to feature Jackson in the company of young admirers.
With little, if any, physical evidence to implicate Jackson in the allegations involving the 13-year-old Los Angeles boy at the center of the inquiry, investigators are interviewing other youngsters close to the entertainer to determine if any of them were sexually abused. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case
Michael’s haters often say that the police had not been quick enough to seize the crucial ‘incriminating’ documents from his ranch. Larry Feldman will say in his speech that he “took a lot of depositions in the case of people who had knowledge about Michael at Neverland”, one of which was from Michael’s driver who does indeed claim he was ordered to pick up some documents.
Okay, let’s see what the LA Times said about it:
“A chauffeur for Michael Jackson has said in a sworn deposition that the entertainer instructed him to take a suitcase and briefcase from Jackson’s Century City apartment on the same day that investigators searched the property for evidence of sexual molestation, sources close to the case said Wednesday.
The chauffeur, Gary Hearne, was questioned by lawyers for more than five hours Tuesday, and some details of his statement were relayed to investigators Wednesday. The statement was videotaped, and a court reporter transcribed the session (this is how a proper sworn deposition is taken).
Hearne, sources said, told the attorneys that he ran the errand to Jackson’s Century City apartment late in the day, suggesting that he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence. Nevertheless, the sources said investigators were following up the chauffeur’s statements to determine whether anyone interfered with the serving of the warrants.
Larry R. Feldman, the lawyer for a 13-year-old … took the deposition from Hearne on Tuesday. Feldman refused to comment Wednesday” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-02/local/me-63136_1_michael-jackson
So “he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence”? No wonder that Larry Feldman refused to comment the next day – the police had already gone through all the documents at Michael’s place and there was absolutely nothing unusual in the fact that Michael’s attorneys requested some documents (probably financial) after the search.
By the way the driver is lying in his official deposition that the “entertainer instructed him to take that suitcase” – Michael had nothing to do with that the driver’s errand, he was on a tour at that time, did not know of the raid and it was someone from his team who later asked for the papers.
The LA Times of September 3, 1993 tries to squeeze a sensation out of the story, however the only thing it proves is that the police search came first, Michael’s assistants learned about it postfactum and the driver’s errand came only after that:
The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.
But if there was no evidence at the beginning of the case could some of it surface at the end of it – for example, after the degrading strip search had been conducted on Michael? Absolutely not, as the mismatch of Michael’s photos and Jordan’s description baffled the police so much that Larry Feldman had to react quick as a lighting to help their case.
Let me repeat here the astonishing fact that Larry Feldman demanded:
- the photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia be shown to his accuser, Jordan Chandler
- a new strip search be arranged after that
- in case his first two requests were not met he demanded that the photos be barred from being used during the forthcoming civil trial
It is interesting that the LA Times made only one and uncharacteristically short publication about this truly SENSATIONAL matter. Here is the full of it:
Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body
Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTY NEWS IN BRIEF
January 05, 1994
The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.
Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.
“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.
Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a “multiple choice” request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.
Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.
Could anyone here explain to me please, why Larry Feldman would demand barring the photos from the future trial ?
- Would he have demanded it if there had been a match?
- Why did he want to see the photos?
- To find out what the genitalia were really like?
- And what was the purpose of the proposed second strip search?
- To examine the photos first, make a declaration later and arrange a new search to confirm those statements?
- So all these maneuvers on his part show that he knew that Jordan’s description did not match the ‘real thing’, didn’t he?
And the mismatch occurred even despite the fact that they had laboriously worked together with Jordan for several hours on their version of the description? So much work and all of it in vain, threatening to bring the case to a deadend?
See how Ray Chandler describes in “All that glitters” the tiring process of making that foolproof drawing:
“Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael’s penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camel’s back that was Michael’s defense. And the poor beast was already swayback” (If it had matched there would have been an immediate arrest)
“It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand (because it is difficult to work out a description which will universally fit).
…But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later. (an accurate match? Since when has a Non-circumcised white penis with a distinctive Dark blotch become similar to a Circumcised dark one with a distinctive Light blotch?)
“On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months.”
Late in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan:
“… Tell me something, Evan. Is Jordie happy? Is he aware of where we are right now?”
“Everybody asks me that question, Larry. He was a lot happier a couple of weeks ago than he is now. I’m beginning to see the effects of time draggin’ on.”
“I’m sure of that….Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that’s it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!“
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
An interesting insight into how the bullet-proof evidence is sometimes made, isn’t it?
Ray Chandler goes on with his disclosures of their never-go-to-trial strategy:
“Allred meant well; no one doubted her sincerity and concern. And had the defendant been other than Michael Jackson, her strategy might have been more appealing. But Larry and Bob’s insights made a lot of sense. Getting a conviction against Michael would be near impossible without a second victim”.
The above statement is very important, though its importance was initially overlooked by all of us. David was the first to notice its true meaning:
“I can’t believe I didn’t notice that last sentence the first time! When you analyze it, you’ll see that the Chandlers are using the fact that there isn’t a second “victim” as an excuse to sue MJ and not prosecute him. Well, how do you think that they knew there wasn’t a second victim? It’s because they knew MJ was INNOCENT, and that there WOULD NOT be any second “victims”! Once again, this flies in the face of common sense! If MJ was truly guilty, then they wouldn’t even NEED a second victim! Nor would they even care!”
Let me emphasize here again that Larry Feldman and the Chandlers knew well in advance that there would be no other ‘victim’ to corroborate their story – so knowing this much it is no wonder that Larry Feldman made jokes at the lawyers’ seminar about poor, poor Gloria Allred who wanted to ‘seek justice’ for the boy while being completely in the dark as to the true state of affairs in the case….
UPDATED Dec.1, 2010 by vindicatemj:
What I like about Michael’s haters is that you can get from their sources invaluable information you are unlikely to find anywhere else. Look at what Maureen Orth is writing in her January 1994 article about the reasons why Gloria Allred abandoned the Chandler case – what a precious piece of information it is:
“The flamboyant feminist attorney Gloria Allred, who briefly represented the boy, promptly called a press conference and announced that her little client was willing to come forward and tell his story. The horrified parents then hired the unimpeachable Feldman, a past president of the L.A. County Bar Association and the L.A. Trial Lawyers’ Association, whose lawyer wife works with sexually abused people. He fired Allred by letter and warned her that if she talked about the case she could be disciplined by the California bar.”
So it was Larry Feldman who fired Gloria Allred! And even restrained her by a warning that she could be disciplined by the California bar whose prominent member he was!
And for what? What misdeed had she committed? She only said that she wanted justice and that her client was willing to testify…
So he was NOT willing to testify? Neither at the beginning, nor in the middle, and nor in the end – in 2005?
And why were the parents so “horrified”? Because what they expected to be a joke was turning into a serious matter where they could be required to answer for slander if it came to a criminal trial ? Yes, I remember Ray Chandler describing his brother Evan practically shaking with fear that he might go to prison for extorting money from Michael….
(to be continuned)