I presented Part I of this comprehensive study yesterday, into the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson in 1993. As promised, here is Part II of the study done by Christy the Writer and Lisa the Attorney. I encourage Michael Jackson fans and non-fans alike to read these two pieces of incredible research and writing thoroughly and to share them with anyone who has any doubts about Michael’s innocence regarding these allegations.
Much evidence is presented in Part I and below – not against Michael, but rather against Evan Chandler and others who were out for their own interests against Michael Jackson. To call Evan Chandler, the media, and other self-interested parties involved in what amounts to a veritable lynching “maggots” is a compliment. Continue reading and you’ll understand why I make such a harsh statement. This folks,is a picture-window into how the lowest bottom-feeders in our society operate. . .especially when there’s money to be made from their crimes.
Coming Out of the Woodwork
In an effort to feed the media’s insatiable appetite for a story, the Quindoys and LeMarques, former domestic workers at Neverland, came forward.
“Just three days after the Jackson story broke, ABC’s Primetime sent a freelance producer to Manila to talk to the Quindoys . . . But the network was offering only star power; a chat with Diane Sawyer . . . For this kind of story, money talks.” According to Diane Dimond, the “Quindoys at first wanted $900,000. Where they got that figure I have no idea. It came down to half a million [dollars].” The Quindoys accepted an offer from the News of the World and sat down for an interview with Stuart White. However, after a few days with the Quindoys, News of the World pulled Mr. White from the story and told him to return to his London office. News of the World did not pay the Quindoys, but their story headlined the paper’s cover. As it turned out, just three years before the Chandler story broke, the Quindoys and The Sun had entered into a contractual agreement where, for $25,000, the Quindoys would provides exclusives about Michael’s life at Neverland. The Sun and News of the World were both owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Story.
According to Allan Hall of the Sun, the original interviewer:
The Sun drew up a contract for $25,000 and I spent some time with them in Los Angeles doing the Life and Times with Michael Jackson . . . [They] didn’t have a bad word to say about the guy, not one bad thing . . . Nothing, absolutely nothing. That he was just a kind man with children. They had signed a contract to say they would tell the full and frank account of their lives and clearly, from what later transpired they didn’t, if what they are telling right now is the truth.
They are two people that I would not trust at all. And I think that they have really gone to town to do Michael Jackson down for the mighty dollar. Now, they see money being offered around again and they want some more.
According to Stuart White, “the Quindoys were not, unfortunately, acting totally in good faith.” In fact, the Quindoys appeared on Geraldo on July 24, 1992 praising him.
Another couple, Phillippe and Stella LeMarques also came forward. They had worked for Michael for ten months but ceased that relationship in 1991. However, rather than going directly to media outlets with their tales of abuse to Macaulay Culkin, they retained former porn star, Paul Barresi to act as an agent or go-between to sell their story. Mr. Barresi’s only interest was in the percentage he would recover for the sale of the story.
Mr. Barresi eventually recorded the LeMarques and sold their story for $15,000. He turned the tape over to the District Attorney while cameras from the Globe rolled. He later said, “[t]he first time I heard the story about Jackson, his hand was outside of the kid’s pants. They were asking $100,000. As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants, so c’mon.”
On September 21, 1993, officers from the LAPD and Santa Barbara sheriff’s office went to Manila, Philippines to interview former domestic workers Mariano Quindoy and his wife Faye Quindoy regarding claims of child molestation. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) files related to Michael Jackson, the FBI acted as a liaison during this meeting. The police interviewed the Quindoys on September 22nd and 23rd. Although originally scheduled to leave on Saturday September 25, 1993, they returned to Los Angeles on the morning of September 24, 1993.
The Quindoys left Neverland due to disagreements with co-workers and a pay dispute. They claimed that Michael owed them over $283,000 in “overtime” and had tried to get the money from Michael. When he would not pay, they claimed to have seen acts of fondling. Naturally, they failed to report any of this to the police at any time prior to the Chandler story breaking the news. The Quindoys sold their story to the tabloids and never gave sworn testimony.
The FBI files include an inquiry about an alleged prior report that Michael had molested two Mexican boys. However, that inquiry came from an unnamed source and, after a search by the FBI, reports or documents related to the alleged investigation could not be located. Lending to the dubious nature of the report, the unnamed source was writing a book about the allegations and could have been on a fishing expedition to determine what type of information the FBI had.
There was also a report by a passenger who claimed to have observed Michael being overly protective of a young cousin in the FBI files. This is significant because as of the time of this particular report, 1992, the FBI was investigating threats against Mr. Jackson by a Janet Jackson fan/stalker. The ‘witness’ claimed to have heard strange sounds coming from an adjacent room. While it is highly unlikely that she would have been able to hear anything, or for that matter identify the actual parties involved, the fact is, the FBI looked into this claim and determined that it had no merit.
Despite assisting the District Attorney, as early as September 8, 1993, the FBI declined to pursue federal claims against Michael Jackson under the Mann Act.
Congress, as a means to address prostitution and immorality in general, enacted the Mann Act. It has been used to punish the transportation of women across state lines for sexual purposes. Since Jordie had traveled across state lines with Michael, prosecution under the Mann Act would have been viable, had there been any immoral conduct. The authorities may have suggested that the FBI prosecute under the Mann Act due to allegations in the Abrams letter. According to Mathis Abrams’ letter, “the minor is in danger whether the relationship continues or ends…These circumstances create the possibility that there exists negligence towards the child…even as far as prostitution.” In fact, Jordie Chandler claimed that acts of molestation occurred in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Monaco. Yet none of the authorities in any of those jurisdictions investigated or prosecuted him and the FBI declined to prosecute under the Mann Act.
This is particularly relevant when Hard Copy paid Michael Jackson’s former security guards $100,000 for their televised story that they “smuggled” boys for Michael Jackson. Certainly child trafficking is a federal and state offense and the security guards would have been prosecuted as criminals.
Police also traveled on taxpayer dollars to Australia to question Michael’s friend Brett Barnes for a second time. Although Barnes said he had slept in the same bed as Michael, he denied that anything untoward occurred.
The FBI also assisted the London Bureau office in looking into tabloid reports of disc jockey, Terry George, who purportedly had several long distance telephone conversations with Michael Jackson in 1983. During one such telephone conversation, he claimed that Michael masturbated while on the phone. Neither the FBI, under authority of the 1984 Telecommunications Act, or authorities in England pursued the claim. After their son made several long distance phone calls to Michael Jackson, Mr. George’s parents disconnected their phone. While Mr. George stands by his tabloid story, he is an avowed fan and never considered himself a “victim.” He did not report the story until 1993 after the Chandler story broke.
Meanwhile, Michael remained on tour promoting the Dangerous album. His final performance was on November 11, 1993, in Mexico City; at that time, Elizabeth Taylor and her husband Larry Fortensky joined him. On November 12, 1993, Michael announced that he was seeking treatment for an addiction to painkillers. Pepsi Co. severed its relationship with Michael on November 14, 1993; Pepsi claimed that the relationship was severed because Michael’s tour had ended. Disney continued its support of Michael, noting that he was still a hot commodity in November 1993.
Michael’s fans continued their support. Biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli was quoted saying, “[c]ertainly if the worst-case scenario happens and he’s found guilty of any of these ridiculous charges, it would be the end of his recording career. But, if it’s not true, I have a sense that his fans, who are such an incredibly loyal bunch of people, will still support him. I also have a feeling that this may even bring a new artistic depth to his music that would command respect from critics that he has hoped for.”
The Body Search
As early as October 1993, there was talk of obtaining a warrant for a strip search. According to USA Today, on November24, 1993 Larry Feldman said he wanted a doctor “to examine [Michael Jackson],” presumably to corroborate the boy’s descriptions of Jackson’s genitalia. Since no acts of penetration were alleged, this was the only way to substantiate the boy’s claims.
In October 1993, while the Jacksons were in Arizona attending the funeral of Joseph Jackson’s father, the police raided the Hayvenhurst home located in Encino. They seized a videotape labeled “Chicks” and were certain that this was evidence of child pornography. Upon returning to their office, the police confirmed that the video contained chicks, as in fowl.
In November, the District Attorney was able to obtain a search warrant allowing Michael Jackson to be photographed in the nude to determine whether descriptions of Michael’s penis and buttocks area matched descriptions provided by Jordie. The Smoking Gun claimed that it had an affidavit by a police officer describing Jordie’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis. There are extensive legal technicalities of that form of double hearsay, but suffice it to say that the affidavit indicated that Jordie’s description included that Michael was circumcised. Jordie also provided details about discolorations on Michael’s penis and buttocks area, presumably the result of his vitiligo. In addition to the affidavit, Jordie drew a picture of what he claimed to be Michael’s genitalia. The drawing expressly stated, “Michael is circumcised.”
The body search took place on December 20, 1993. Prior to the body search, Jackson’s attorneys were not given a copy of the affidavit indicating the reason for “probable cause.” At the time of the search, Michael’s attorney Howard Weitzman requested a copy of the affidavit. It has been reported that in response to the request, Detective Russ Birchim of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, stated, “I don’t think so.” Weitzman laughed and said, “[i]t never hurts to try.”
Michael Jackson requested that everyone leave the room except his physician, Dr. Arnold Klein; his personal photographer, Louis Swayne; Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s office photographer; and the DA’s dermatologist, Dr. Richard Strick.
The first aspect of the body examination that contradicted Jordie’s descriptive affidavit and drawing was the issue of whether Michael Jackson was circumcised. Evan Chandler was Jewish and his son was 13 years old when the affidavit and drawing were created. It is possible that with both Evan and Jordie having been circumcised themselves, Evan had not thought of the possibility that a poor, black child born in Indiana in 1958 would not have been circumcised. In either case, it is simply not possible that someone who provided a detailed affidavit and drawing in which circumcision is expressly identified, would have missed so critical a fact if he had actually seen Michael Jackson’s penis. However, as confirmed during the body search and noted by Dr. Strick, Michael Jackson was not circumcised. This detail is also corroborated in the recently released autopsy report on Michael Jackson.
In addition, it is claimed that Jordie described a spot present on an area just under Michael’s penis. Sergeant Spiegel was a police photographer who had read the affidavit and was familiar with the descriptions. Therefore, he asked that Michael re-arrange his anatomy so that he could view the area in question. Sergeant Spiegel claims that the mark was present. Interestingly, while the photographer himself claimed that the mark was present, that same photographer neglected to take a single photograph or video of the alleged mark. Sergeant Spiegel—a police photographer presumably familiar with what would be required when photographing a body search—explained his inability to capture the spot because he did not have assistants to help him hold flash and close-up photography equipment. One wonders why Sergeant Spiegel and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s office would not have had all the resources needed on hand, since all of them had presumably read the affidavit and knew that such a spot would need to be photographed. However, the affidavit is the only evidence that Jordie’s description was remotely accurate.
It is important to rebut the later claims of policemen that Michael Jackson may have bleached his skin in an attempt to remove any conspicuous markings. However, as described above, prior to the viewing, the policemen and District Attorney’s office did not provide Michael Jackson or his attorneys with Jordie Chandler’s affidavit or drawing of what he described to be Michael Jackson’s penis. In addition, he certainly did not re-grow a foreskin. Of course, had the discolored spot existed where Jordie said it would be (just under the penis), how could Jordie have seen it, while at the same time missing the very obvious fact of the lack of a circumcision?
It is also significant to note that Jordie claims that the first sexual act occurred in Morocco after he and Michael took a bath together. Certainly, there was ample opportunity to make an accurate description.
The media perpetuated the erroneous belief that Jordie Chandler accurately described Michael’s genitalia by printing and reporting that the examining physicians stated that the description bore “striking similarities” but was not a definitive match. Of course, there is a gaping hole in that statement.
In October 2009, Geraldo Rivera interviewed Dr. Strick who said, “the genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the description and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described.” There were only two doctors in the room, Dr. Strick and Dr. Arnold Klein; Dr. Strick was there to make the determination on behalf of the sheriff’s office. The fact that Dr. Strick admitted that he was told that there was a match confirmed that he did not make the determination and contradicted media reports that he had made such a determination. The question remains: who determined that there was a similarity?
In 2005, the answer to that question was Tom Sneddon. In an attempt to introduce the photographs taken from the December 20, 1993, body search into the 2005 trial in order to demonstrate that Michael was not shy, Mr. Sneddon signed an attorney affirmation indicating that he observed Jordie Chandler’s affidavit and drawing of Michael’s erect penis, and determined that it was a match with the subsequently taken photographs. It is significant to note that the photographs were to be introduced solely on the issue of whether Michael’s penis was blemished, not whether the original description was accurate. However, Judge Melville, in an unusual ruling in favor of the defense in this case, denied admission of the photographs, noting that they would be too prejudicial given the defense’s inability to cross-examine Jordie Chandler who refused to testify.
In the 1995 Prime Time Live interview with Diane Sawyer Michael denied that the description matched and Lisa Marie said that when the description did not match, the newspapers only printed a tiny article detailing that fact.
JACKSON: There was nothing that matched me to those charges…Nothing.
SAWYER: So when we heard there was a marking of some kind?
JACKSON: No marking.
SAWYER: No marking?
JACKSON: No. Why am I still here then?
PRESLEY: You’re not going to ask me about that are you? About the markings?
SAWYER: You can volunteer.
PRESLEY: No. The point is when that finally got concluded that there was no matchup, then it was printed this big [she makes the tiny sign with two fingers] as opposed to how big it was, what the matchup was supposed to be.
Diane Sawyer ignored their statements completely.
On December 22, 1993, Michael issued a statement declaring his innocence. In that statement he advised the public that he had in fact undergone a body search during which photographs were taken of his buttocks and penis.
As of January 2, 1994, the District Attorney’s office had spent two million dollars investigating the child molestation claims, a heretofore unheard of use of state funds. Keep in mind that this money was spent over a five-month period, which means more than $400,000 per month was spent on this investigation alone. Did the taxpayers of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara county know this was how their tax dollars were being used?
Settlement: Why Innocent People Agree to Settlements
On January 25, 1994, the L.A. District Attorney’s office decided that it would not probe Chandler’s alleged criminal extortion attempts of Michael Jackson. This decision sets the stage for settlement. The reason for this decision is clear: it would be absurd for a District Attorney to build a case for molestation against a defendant while simultaneously bringing charges against the complainant for extortion. “Notably, few in the media reported Michael’s claims of extortion.” USA Today reported “information leaked in the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson and the public record of the unnamed 13-year-old boy’s father’s custody fight raise questions about the accuser’s motivation,” [and] “the media’s failure to treat the alleged extortion plot seriously from the beginning unfairly damaged Jackson’s image.”
Based upon the advice of his friends, Michael Jackson agreed to settle the Chandler lawsuit.
A lot of people think that Michael settled the 1993 suit with money from his own pocket. However, when informed that the money was actually paid by Michael’s insurer, the payout made a lot more sense. While most of the claims filed against Michael were intentional in nature, intentional claims such as battery, willful misconduct fraud, etc. would not have been covered under an insurance policy. The inclusion of a negligence claim guaranteed that Michael’s insurance company would have been involved to fund a settlement. In doing a quick mathematical calculation, we can estimate that in 1993, assuming six attorneys at eight hours a day, it would have cost the insurer over ten million dollars to defend Michael for 365 days. (The 2005 investigation and trial lasted 572 days). In 1993, there was a pending civil suit and a counterclaim where Jackson claimed extortion by the Chandlers. Civil suits can drag on for years. A conservative estimate would be 3-5 years. In addition, it was anticipated that a criminal proceeding would also soon be commenced. Given the diversity of the cases, two legal teams would have been necessary. No insurance company is going to pay twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) annually for defense when it can settle and be done. Keep in mind that this estimate does not include investigators, paralegals or other litigation costs.
While detractors claim that there is no proof that Michael Jackson’s insurance company paid the Chandler settlement, evidence by virtue of an attorney memorandum was submitted to the Court on March 22, 2005. Michael Jackson’s defense attorneys filed legal papers seeking to preclude evidence of the 1993 settlement amount specifically because Michael did not have control over the settlement. The memorandum of law submitted by Tom Mesereau in 2005 stated:
The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the civil settlement of the 1993 lawsuit through the testimony of Larry Feldman, attorney for the current complaining family and attorney for the plaintiff in the 1993 matter. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.
It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference. Shapero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Cal. App.3d 433, 438 (1971); Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 156 Cal. App.2d 652, 660 (1958)(the insured is precluded from interfering with settlement procedures). Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added). Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co., 34 Cal. App.3d 858, 870 (1973). An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements. 44 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, sec. 1392, at 326-27 (rev. ed 2002).
It would be unethical for an attorney to make false statements to the Court; and in such a highly publicized case, it would be professional suicide.
Non-lawyers seem to think that an insurance company cannot make you settle a lawsuit. However, insurance is to provide you with an attorney and pay for a judgment up to the policy limits. In fact, the standard language in an indemnity policy provides: “We may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.” Nowhere in that language does a standard liability policy allow you to consent to a settlement made at the insurance company’s discretion. Contrary to popular belief, insurance of this type does not exist to guarantee a day in Court. Therefore, once the insured is sued, the insurer can make any settlements that are in its best interests. Since insurance companies are in the business of making money, settling for less than defense costs is in their best interests. If the insured does not agree to settle within the policy limits, an insurer can rescind the policy for failure to cooperate, leaving the insured without coverage.
If you have ever been involved in a car accident, you may not even realize that a claim was brought against you because it was investigated and settled by your insurance company.
As part of this settlement, all of the parties signed a confidential settlement agreement, not a confidentiality agreement. (The agreement has been widely available online for years.) It is important to mention that the agreement dismissed the first six causes of action without prejudice. When actions are settled with prejudice, all claims asserted in the action are forever barred from being brought again. When actions are settled without prejudice, it allows the plaintiff to revive those claims— should they want to do so—at a later time. Since Jordie was a minor at the time of the settlement, his rights to bring an action against Michael until his age of majority were expressly preserved. Therefore, had Jordie decided to pursue claims against Michael, he would have been able to do so up until the statute of limitations expired. Since he was a minor, the statute of limitations would have been tolled to add additional time for him to achieve the age of majority and bring a suit.
In 1993, the existing law prevented authorities from compelling an alleged victim of child abuse to testify. Therefore, when Jordie Chandler accepted the settlement money, he was permitted to refuse to testify in a criminal matter, and he did so. In fact, he left the state of California, which simultaneously removed him from state’s subpoena power.
However, had he re-commenced his claims, he would then have been compelled to testify in a criminal trial. In other words, the door was left open for Jordie to pursue civil claims against Michael, but had he done so, Jordie would have simultaneously been forced to testify had the state decided to pursue criminal charges.
Referring to the settlement, the Chandlers’ attorney Larry Feldman stated, “nobody’s bought anybody’s silence.” Under the terms of the agreement, the parties were to seek Court approval of the document. In fact, the settlement was not binding until the Court approved of the document. Since it is unlawful to obstruct justice by requiring another’s silence of a crime, the Court could not have permitted a settlement that required Jordie Chandler to refuse to testify or in essence, obstruct justice.
Notably, on January 28, 1994, USA Today printed that Reuters News Service was reporting that, “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.” The Orlando Sun Sentinel also reported, “[p]olice photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals, which the pop superstar said deeply embarrassed him, may end up being his salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestation, a source close to the pop star said Thursday.” Therefore, given the totality of the media reports, Jordie’s description did not match the body search.
It’s interesting to note that many people who have not learned the facts about Jordie Chandler’s inability to accurately describe Michael’s penis also claim that Michael Jackson settled after the body search because of the description. However, it behooves us to pose this question: If there was going to be a match, why not settle before the body search? Michael Jackson was always a very private person. He had been shy and religiously observant. Why would he allow photographs of his penis to be taken if a settlement could have prevented the body search that so embarrassed him? Remember, the body search was prompted by the Chandlers’ allegations; without their cooperation, there would be no body search. In addition, the Chandlers’ lawyer began asking for a body search a month before the subpoena was issued. Therefore, Michael had adequate notice that the Chandlers would request such a search.
However, if you believed that by allowing the body search you could get the District Attorney to drop the charges if there was no match, wouldn’t you consent to a body search? In my own experience, defendants always think that they can get out of a case by telling the authorities the whole story and showing them the proof. In fact, they have to be told that they cannot win their case by explaining the facts, but they can lose it. Needless to say, Michael Jackson was not the first—and will not be the last—defendant to learn that, even if you show authorities they are wrong, they are not likely to simply abandon a case.
One has to question the motives of the Chandlers. What parent in the whole world would accept money if their child was truly molested? In addition, there would have been absolutely nothing to prevent bringing the civil suit after a criminal trial if Michael had been convicted. According to the civil attorney at the time, quite a bit of money had been spent in preparing the civil case; the obvious risk to the Chandlers and their attorney, had they proceeded with the criminal case prior to the civil case, would have been an acquittal in the criminal case. Such an acquittal would have—as it did for the Arvizos—stopped any movement toward a subsequent civil law suit. This is the only justification we can find for going ahead with the civil suit first: money.
The violation of Michael Jackson’s Constitutional rights was a second aspect motivating the Chandler settlement. The Fifth Amendment guarantees to every American the right not to testify against himself in a criminal matter; however, the District Attorney’s office set a course to deny Michael Jackson those rights. Soon after the Chandler civil action was commenced, Larry Feldman, Jordie’s attorney, made a motion seeking an expedited trial due to Jordie’s age. The would-be prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties supported the motion and sought any discovery obtained during that civil action. The discovery would have included a deposition of Michael, something the prosecutors were absolutely barred from obtaining in a criminal matter. In opposing the motion, Michael’s new counsel, Johnnie Cochran, sought to delay the civil action until the criminal statute of limitations expired as to all potential claims. This was a mistake.
As an attorney, if you ask for too much, you’ll usually get nothing. (It’s of note that this same argument has been used to defend the Los Angeles District Attorney’s decision to charge Conrad Murray with only one count of involuntary manslaughter in the homicide of Michael Jackson.) The defense should have merely asked that criminal charges related to Jordie Chandler as complainant be prosecuted prior to the civil action. Such an argument would have also preserved Michael’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. However, this was not done.
In fact, in discussing the tactic, Michael’s business attorney John Branca told Michael, “people here think you’re trying to delay the trial for six years.” Michael said, “[s]ix years? What are you talking about Branca? I don’t want to delay the trial, not even a day.” Michael criticized his defense attorneys for the move.
This became moot when, denying Michael’s right to a speedy trial, the judge granted Mr. Feldman’s motion and on January 14, 1994, ordered that Michael Jackson appear for a deposition in the civil matter between January 25 and February 2, 1994. The judge also set a trial date for March 21, 1994.
Upon reaching a settlement, Jordie Chandler’s attorney publicly stated:
We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware, the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson. And from the inception of those allegations, Mr. Jackson has maintained his innocence. However, the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with this litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. While Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence, he withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner.
Much of the suffering these parties have been put through was caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that the members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter of their lives with dignity.
After the settlement, Evan’s brother, Raymond Chandler stated that his brother and nephew bear Jackson no ill will: “[t]hey all loved him — that was why it was so hard to come to grips with what was going on. It’s too bad to see his career take the hit it did and we all hope he gets it back. They don’t hold any malice in their hearts toward Michael. I think they understand what’s happened in his life and how he’s an even bigger victim of abuse.”
Evidence Presented to Two Grand Juries
Jordie Chandler named several other boys who he claimed were also “victims.” Those boys included actor Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson. The Sexually Exploited Child Unit of the LAPD interviewed the boys. None of the boys corroborated Jordie Chandler’s allegations. In fact, the DCFS interviewed Macaulay Culkin who exonerated Michael.But that didn’t stop the Police Departments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara from searching for evidence after the civil settlement. Among those interviewed were Emmanuel Lewis, Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence.
DeWayne Wickham quipped in USA Today, “[i]f you haven’t figured it out yet, this case is about money – and nothing else. Having been duped into launching their criminal investigations, [Gil Garcetti] and Sneddon spent tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars looking for evidence while the singer’s accusers remained focused on their money grab.”The District Attorneys scoured the earth—literally—looking for another witness to corroborate molestation claims in 1993 and came up with nothing.
Following the settlement, criminal claims against Michael Jackson were brought to two grand juries. Neither one would indict. It is important to note that grand juries hear the evidence that the prosecution intends to present; typically, there is no cross-examination or questioning, and the defense presents no case at all. Therefore it is the prosecution’s evidence without any opportunity to rebut any of the claims. Even though this one-sided form of evidence was presented to two different grand juries, Michael was not indicted.
On May 2, 1994, the Los Angeles grand jury was disbanded. One juror commented that he did not hear any damaging testimony and the panel was never asked to render an indictment. The FBI followed up and on August 8, 1994 the agent was told that the Los Angeles District Attorney had not yet decided whether he would file charges.
Ultimately, by September 1994, Prosecutors Gil Garcetti (L.A.) and Tom Sneddon (Santa Barbara) were willing to announce that, “after an exhaustive probe involving more than 400 witnesses, including 30 called before grand juries, they were left with only Jackson’s principal accuser, who refused to testify in court and could not be compelled to by law.”Therefore, neither District Attorney would file charges.
The District Attorney found the Quindoys and the LeMarques useless as witnesses. The Quindoys later tried to shop around a book deal. In connection with their attempts to find a buyer, they claimed to have secret witnesses that they withheld from the District Attorney.
The statute of limitations on the case had another five years to expire, which allowed Jordie or Evan to change their minds and offer testimony in support of criminal charges. That never occurred. Once Evan Chandler obtained the money noted in his diary months earlier, if the allegations were true, he did not seek justice for his son.
June Chandler’s former attorney Michael Freeman said, “I think [Michael Jackson] was wrongly accused. I think that Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman saw an opportunity and went for it. That’s my personally held belief. I believe it was all about money, and their strategy obviously worked.”
Settlement Not Enough
In 1996, Evan Chandler sued Michael Jackson, seeking sixty million dollars, claiming that Michael had violated the terms of the confidential settlement agreement by denying the molestation claims. The claims arose from Michael Jackson’s appearance on ABC’s Prime Time Live when Michael and Lisa Marie Presley told Diane Sawyer the molestation charges were “lies, lies, lies, lies.” Evan Chandler claimed that Michael’s statement violated the terms of the settlement agreement and, as if it were possible, damaged his family’s reputation. The May 7, 1996, complaint alleged 16 causes of action including breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander-libel and conspiracy. Evan Chandler’s suit claimed that when Michael wrote “They Don’t Care About Us,” the song portrayed him in a bad light because the lines “Jew me, sue me” and “Kick me, kike me” referred to him; since he was Jewish, the statements were derogatory. (Of note, Evan Chandler changed his last name from ‘Charmatz’ to Chandler purportedly because he thought it was too Jewish sounding.) The matter was submitted to arbitration. On July 26, 1999, the arbitrator ruled that the confidentiality agreement specifically provided that neither party was guilty of any crime or had committed any wrongdoing. Therefore, Michael did not damage the Chandler’s reputation by declaring his innocence. The Supreme Court in California confirmed the arbitrator’s decision in October 2000. The matter was disposed in June 2001, when the arbitrator ordered Evan Chandler to pay Michael Jackson’s attorneys’ fees.
On August 5, 2005, Jordie and his father were living together in a high-rise luxury building overlooking the Hudson River in New York City when, from behind, Evan hit Jordie with a 12 ½ -pound dumb bell. For good measure, Evan then sprayed Jordie in the face with mace. Jordie obtained a temporary restraining order against Evan under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The restraints were continued by an order dated August 19, 2005; however, Jordie sought a permanent restraining order against his father. At trial, after Jordie rested his case, Evan’s counsel moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b). In dismissing Jordie’s claims, the judge found that the men were members of the same household when the abusive act occurred. The judge also found that the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death. Thus, the judge was satisfied that Jordie had provided evidence, which if believed, would support a finding of aggravated assault. However, despite that finding, the judge refused to issue a final restraining order, reasoning as follows:
“I’m persuaded, at this point, that the allegation . . . while serious in and of itself, is not a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior [Emphasis added].”
The case was initially dismissed, but on appeal, the appeals court in New Jersey determined that Jordie presented enough evidence to warrant a trial to determine if Evan Chandler represented enough of a danger to warrant a permanent restraining Order. The Appellate Court’s decision was rendered on June 8, 2006 (DOCKET NO. A-0422-05T10422-05T1). In June 2006, Jordie finally obtained a permanent restraining order against his father.
On November 17, 2009, it was widely reported that the body of Evan Chandler was found in his luxury apartment in Jersey City after he missed a doctor’s appointment. He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head on November 5, 2009. He was cremated without a single friend or family member in attendance. It’s somewhat surprising that someone who claimed he had so much to say about Michael Jackson—and purportedly relished an opportunity to testify against Michael—did not leave a suicide note.