Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

[crazychick!!!]

Thank you Annelise for not making me feel like I was crazy or hating, when I am neither. I too read Jordan's report, and if true it was a revelation. Sad, but nevertheless a revelation. It kinda explains what I could never understand which is the unrelenting witch hunt of Sneddon and Diane Dimond.

I know fans don't like to have these kinds of discussions, but honestly we must. If we should ever cross swords with a hater online we should be armed with all the facts, and know what they know; otherwise, we look like what they think we are ....foolish. I started off thinking Michael could never have done these things, but I don't know him, and how can I refute the claims of this child.. Charles Thompson said it was Evan that accused Michael of molesting his boy, but actually it was Jordan that did the accusing.

I know some of the profiling that they used to make MJ out to be a pedophile is ridiculous, like having exotic animals and an amusment park, but the Chandlers had him by the b@lls in 1993. I don't know if things got out of hand with Jordan, and they had an affair, it is plausible. I know people settle cases out of court when they are innocent just to get on with their lives, but 20 million? That's alot of lives. Why not 2 million to make it end. Something is not right about this case. I will say something that sounds crazy and sick, but even if Michael did molest Jordan I cannot bring myself to hate him (cried a river).

Another thing I don't understand is Mesereau. He must have read Jordan's Psychiatric report, but yet he insists that Michael could never have done these things to a child. What does he know that we don't. Do you think he was only talking about Gavin and not Jordan?

I understand where you are coming from. Child abuse is such a sensitive issue, and reading an alleged account of abuse by an allege child victim is difficult, but it still doesn't make it true. You have to remember both Evan Chandler and Jordan Chandler are professional screenwriters. It is totally plausible that they are capable of coming up with a story that sounds believable. But to me some part of his tale sound ridiculous. Like the part about duck butter, lights=erection, and Jordan claiming he felt like a vegetable (an obvious reference to "wanna be startin' something") when he was with Michael are laughable.

Yes, 15.3 million dollars is a lot of money, but remember MJ had an opportunity to give the Chandlers the money before the allegations were reported, but didn't. If he was guilty, then he would have. But instead he hired Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano and began finding incriminating evidence against Evan Chandler. The sum is high, but I think there's more to the story. There's something we don't know. The high sum doesn't mean he's guilty. There was a five in half month investigation before the settlement, and still there was no arrest.

Evan was the first to accused Michael not Jordan. He asked Michael if he was "f@cking his son" Michael, of course, said no. Jordan hadn't told his father anything yet. In fact, Evan hired his attorney one month before Jordan supposedly told him of the alleged abuse. The transcript gives the impression that Jordan doesn't know what's going on yet. Evan never says Jordan told me this or I saw that. He has a lot of what if's, and when asked directly does he think something sexual is going on with his son he answers with a "I don't know." Evan is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The conversation is filled with contradictions on his part.

According to the psychologist interview, Jordan Chandler is given a drug to go to sleep in order to get a tooth pull, and while under this drug is when he claim he told his Father of the alleged abuse. Harvey Levin, reported in the 90's that Evan Chandler admitted to him that he did use this drug on his son. I really am tempted to ask Harvey whether this is true or not on one of TMZ's live chats, but I always chicken out.

Tom Mesereau knows more about this case than perhaps anyone. He researched Jordan claims throughly, and discovered he had told old college friends that the allegations were false, and he hated his parents and would never talk to them again for making him lie. He got emancipated from both of his parents in the mid 90's, and moved in with his step-mother, who is the only adult person in his immediate family who didn't get or try to get money from Michael Jackson. June testified she hadn't spoken to him in 11 years, since the settlement.

I don't think you have the full facts about the case. Get all the facts, and then form an opinion.

 

[Teva]

Thank you Shelly you make alot of sense, but don't you have an uneasiness about this case in the pit of your stomach? I will read the links you sent.

One of the reasons I am so concern is, MJ's one year death anniversary is fast approaching. I know the media machinery has the coils oiled for sleaze. It is the 1993 case that never went to trial that has everyone talking, for some reason the 2005 doesn't grab their attention as much. I can see persons trying to contact Jordan for a book deal, or exclusive interview. MJ's kids are getting more mature, and you imagine them online one day casually looking up their dad, and seeing the words child molester, and pedophile in the same sentence?!!

Every story has 3 sides: yours, mine and the truth. I guess it all comes down to whose truth you choose to believe. I love MJ, but I wish he gave us more details.

 

[shelly]

Let's not forget, lots of lawyers said the settlement was at least partially paid by an insurance.

 

[annelise]

I think the situation was very different in 1993 and in 2003. In 1993, he was on tour and he didn't need to come back to the US to be interviewed, nobody asked him to do it. He went to rehab in Europe. He could have stayed in a rehab clinic in the US but it would have been more difficult for him to recover from the addiction because of the media circus. He went back to the US at the beginning of December.

For the pictures, if they matched why wasn't he arrested. It didn't take one month to know the results but only a few days and it was for the criminal investigation not the civil one. The settlement was not at the beginning of January but at the end around the 25. It was only a civil trial. In 2003, it was a criminal trial. You can't settle a criminal case and he had no choice but to surrender. Nobody asked him to surrender in 1993. The prosecution team never asked for an indictment in 1993.

I don't think you are labelled a hater if you want to have a reasonnable discussion. The problem with people we call hater is they use tabloids and not court documents, insult people and make jokes about molestation. I will never understand people who make molestation jokes, there is nothing funny about it, a kid's life is destroyed.

Yes you're right Michael was on tour at that time but it was alledged that they couldn't issue an arrest warrant because the country he was in didn't have any agreement with United states, can anybody confirm that? another good question is why Michael was not arrested when he came back to the US in december? i didn't know there was no indictment against him? how come?

It was also a media circus in 1993 in 2003 as well but it was the first time that year and that sure didn(t help with all those employees on TV which when you actually listem to them a lot don't say more that they saw Michael with a boy and the tabloids create something dirty and sinister out of that.

 

[shelly]

Yes you're right Michael was on tour at that time but it was alledged that they couldn't issue an arrest warrant because the country he was in didn't have any agreement with United states, can anybody confirm that? another good question is why Michael was not arrested when he came back to the US in december? i didn't know there was no indictment against him? how come?

He was in a country which didn't have an agreement with the US when the story broke but if he was there because of that he would have stayed there. Instead of that he went to rehab in England in November. England has agreement with the US.

Yes in 1993, the prosecution team never asked for an indictment or an arrest. There is an article (I don't remember the name of the newspaper) which said there was an interview with Jordan in April 1994. There were 2 grand jury who worked for 4 or 5 months on this case and the prosecution team never asked for an indictment. Sneddon said it himself in a court document. He said he had strong evidence but never asked for an indictment. In 1994, there was a story on CNN and one of the journalist interviewed a member of one of the grand jury and that person said there was no damaging testimony. Mesereau said he spoke to member of the 1994 grand jury and they said the same thing to him. There is even an article from USA Today which said that one of their sources told them Jackson was only guilty of bad judgement.

 

[shelly]

It was also a media circus in 1993 in 2003 as well but it was the first time that year and that sure didn(t help with all those employees on TV which when you actually listem to them a lot don't say more that they saw Michael with a boy and the tabloids create something dirty and sinister out of that.

I think with the media circus come the question of is it possible to have a fair trial. It was a civil trial which means the prosecution team has to convince only 51% of the jurors and there is no reasonable doubt. It's a lot of problems specially when there is a media circus with ex employee telling lies on TV, newspapers, radio. Jurors would have probably started the trial with the idea he was guilty because of months of media circus and lies. It made the trial even more risky. I think the jackson's lawyer said right at the beginning of the story they'll do everything to avaoid a civil trial. Jackson wanted to have a criminal trial before the civil trial. Why would he do that if he was guilty? Why would he screamed to go to jail?

 

[Teva]

Okay, but can anyone explain Diane Dimond's, Maureen Orth's and Sneddon's persecution? why?

 

[annelise]

But to me some part of his tale sound ridiculous. Like the part about duck butter, lights=erection, and Jordan claiming he felt like a vegetable (an obvious reference to "wanna be startin' something") when he was with Michael are laughable.

Yes, 15.3 million dollars is a lot of money, but remember MJ had an opportunity to give the Chandlers the money before the allegations were reported, but didn't. If he was guilty, then he would have. But instead he hired Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano and began finding incriminating evidence against Evan Chandler.

What do you mean by vegetable and stuff? what does Jordan say?

Also about the fact that Michael didn't wanna pay before well he did say no to 20 millions but Pellicano said (confirmed by Geraldine Hughes) that they offered 500 000 after the meeting they had at the hotel on the 4th of august 93 so it is not that Michael didn't want to pay per se but he didn't wanna pay 20 000 000 dollars. But it is true that if Michael was molesting Jordan his main goal would be to not pissed off Evan and what did Michael do? he stop calling him, got a detective on his ass and refused to pay 20 000 000 when he could have, taking the risks to be exposed and have other victims to come forward.

I was also surprised when I heard in June's testimony in 2005 that Evan owned 5000 dollars to Jordan because he hepled him write "robin hood: men in thights" and I thought it was a lot of money for a 12 y.o and that implied that Jordan was really in the project. What do you guys think?

 

[shelly]

Okay, but can anyone explain Diane Dimond's, Maureen Orth's and Sneddon's persecution? why?

For Sneddon, I don't know but I think he likes the media too much. Did you hear of Gil Garcetti after the 1993 allegation. He had the same evidence against Jackson but he never went on a witch hunt. Jackson made a song about Sneddon not about Garcetti. I don't think he has moral. If he had he would never have used the name of Barnes, Culkin, Robson in the trial. he should have been prosecuted for that. The sheriffs and detectives were far from bein perfect in that story. They lied to kids, said they had nude pictures of them, said others kids were going to die of drugs overdose if they didn't say something against him.

Diane Dimond is a personal friend of Sneddon and a very big liar. He saved her during the lawsuit she has with Jackson in the nineties.

Orth relied on people who were proven liars on court, by the FBI and the SBPD. If you read her article she is willing to write anything bad about him even though her stories are not credible. Remember the Voodoo story in Genova?
She is also a personal friend of Sneddon and let's not forget she has to sell newspapers.
If she really found something incriminating against Jackson why didn't she tell Sneddon about that. Why the FBI didn't find anything?

 

[Teva]

@Annelise

I do not know what to think. Firstly I did not know about the $5000.00 Evan owed Jordan. But I am not sure how it ties in. Why I am inclined to believe there was an extortion attempt is, why didn't the prosecution put Evan on the stand in 2005, Evan & June. Since Evan had all this incriminating information, and he was the one Jordan confessed to he should have been a natural choice as a prosecution witness. IMHO I think he would have been more detrimental to the prosecution's case than Debbie Rowe.

 

[Teva]

Think about it. Why didn't the prosecution call Evan to the stand?

 

[shelly]

Thank you Shelly you make alot of sense, but don't you have an uneasiness about this case in the pit of your stomach? I will read the links you sent.

One of the reasons I am so concern is, MJ's one year death anniversary is fast approaching. I know the media machinery has the coils oiled for sleaze. It is the 1993 case that never went to trial that has everyone talking, for some reason the 2005 doesn't grab their attention as much. I can see persons trying to contact Jordan for a book deal, or exclusive interview. MJ's kids are getting more mature, and you imagine them online one day casually looking up their dad, and seeing the words child molester, and pedophile in the same sentence?!!

Every story has 3 sides: yours, mine and the truth. I guess it all comes down to whose truth you choose to believe. I love MJ, but I wish he gave us more details.

Yes I have an uneasiness in the pit of my stomach because I think we will never know for sure. I am really waiting for the Ian Halperin's documentary because he said he had court documents about the 1993 allegation which were never shown. I know the fans hate him but if it's true it's going to be very interesting. It could be a good thing because he said he believed MJ was a child molestor but now he said he doesnt believe it. Maybe we will have what we all hope. Who knows?

 

[shelly]

@Annelise

I do not know what to think. Firstly I did not know about the $5000.00 Evan owed Jordan. But I am not sure how it ties in. Why I am inclined to believe there was an extortion attempt is, why didn't the prosecution put Evan on the stand in 2005, Evan & June. Since Evan had all this incriminating information, and he was the one Jordan confessed to he should have been a natural choice as a prosecution witness. IMHO I think he would have been more detrimental to the prosecution's case than Debbie Rowe.

Maybe they couldn't find him. Ray Chandler said Jordan left the US at that time. Maybe he did the same thing?

 

[annelise]

He was in a country which didn't have an agreement with the US when the story broke but if he was there because of that he would have stayed there. Instead of that he went to rehab in England in November. England has agreement with the US.

very good point.

Sneddon is an idiot he had strong evidence but didn't asked for an indictment?? he just wanted to be sure that this would go public and then every newspapers would speculate about the strong evidences

 

[shelly]

very good point.

Sneddon is an idiot he had strong evidence but didn't asked for an indictment?? he just wanted to be sure that this would go public and then every newspapers would speculate about the strong evidences

I think that whole story is fishy. At one point, they had strong evidence, a willing witness and he didn't ask for an indictment?

 

[annelise]

@Annelise

I do not know what to think. Firstly I did not know about the $5000.00 Evan owed Jordan. But I am not sure how it ties in. Why I am inclined to believe there was an extortion attempt is, why didn't the prosecution put Evan on the stand in 2005, Evan & June. Since Evan had all this incriminating information, and he was the one Jordan confessed to he should have been a natural choice as a prosecution witness. IMHO I think he would have been more detrimental to the prosecution's case than Debbie Rowe.

well it is a huge amount of money and you don't owe that to a 12 yo unless you have a very good reason, and Jordan wrote the script with Evan, could he have written another one? i was speculating because Shelly said they were screenwriters but then the whole drug don't make sense

edit: i can't believe ian halperin is gonna make a documentary, it's gonna be talked about everywhere!

 

[shelly]

edit: i can't believe ian halperin is gonna make a documentary, it's gonna be talked about everywhere!

I really think it can be a good think, at least for the molestation part.
For June Chandler, according to Mesereau she asked 4 millions dollar to MJ before the allegation started.

 

[Teva]

Ian Halperin and a documentary. For me it could go either way. For starters most of the documents turned over to the court during the 1993 case were from the prosecutor. I never read of any exonerating defense documents.

 

[crazychick!!!]

What do you mean by vegetable and stuff? what does Jordan say?

Also about the fact that Michael didn't wanna pay before well he did say no to 20 millions but Pellicano said (confirmed by Geraldine Hughes) that they offered 500 000 after the meeting they had at the hotel on the 4th of august 93 so it is not that Michael didn't want to pay per se but he didn't wanna pay 20 000 000 dollars. But it is true that if Michael was molesting Jordan his main goal would be to not pissed off Evan and what did Michael do? he stop calling him, got a detective on his ass and refused to pay 20 000 000 when he could have, taking the risks to be exposed and have other victims to come forward.

Taken from Jordan Chandler's interview with Dr. Gardner.

"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."

"Say that again. You wouldn't know what else is out there?"

"Right. Like, he didn't like it if I would want to call a girl or something. You know, I wouldn't

know, like, there were other options."

"Are you saying that he would pull you off the track of going out with girls."

"Right."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041018171341/atgbook.net/jordie.html

And you're right. MJ was willing to negotiate with Evan, but not for 20 mil.

I was also surprised when I heard in June's testimony in 2005 that Evan owned 5000 dollars to Jordan because he hepled him write "robin hood: men in thights" and I thought it was a lot of money for a 12 y.o and that implied that Jordan was really in the project. What do you guys think?

Jordan's involvement in Robin Hood Men in Tights proves that he is a talented and experienced writer. And I think he used that experience and talent to help Evan write the script for the allegations. He was a willing participant in the extortion, at least in the beginning.

 

[oldschoolfan]

Was Jordan really involved in that movie? I freaking love that movie and it would kind of ruin it for me. I've looked for a name in the credits but found nothing, is he using an alias?

But anyway, I am glad people are talking openly about their feelings of the allegations. I know there are a lot of fans including people on here that refuse to believe otherwise and don't even want to hear about it. For me, I can only look at this sort of thing with an unbiased mind, I can't let my love for Michael blind me into and illusion.
Yes there have definitely been times where I've thought 'God please just make this stop', if I ever found out Michael really did those things I'd just die. It would break my heart in so many aspects, to think someone was hurt, to think I'd supported and stood by someone who'd done these things, to think of a legacy that would just be destroyed. Being a former victim of child abuse myself it is incredibly touchy for me, it scares me to think I'd stood by an abusers side all this time, cried for him, fought for him, believed in him.

Although I am just repeating myself, these are the aspects I go by-

1. They took the money. They could have had him locked up and then SUED him $20 million in psychological damages, they could have EARNED $20 million in the fame they recieved from destroying the most famous person on the planet. They could have kept the $20 million they got and testified against him in court the second time over, but Jordan threatened legal action against the prosecution.

2. Evan was more than happy to spend years in court to sue Michael $60 million, 3 times the original payment, yet he never went to court at all for the fact his own son had been molested.

3. There are books including 'All That Glitters' and Michael Jackson Was My Lover' (a book I used to own actually and have read), if you have that much evidence, right down to sexual encounters and conversations, if you hate someone that much and really want to make them look bad, don't write a book about it, take them to court. Otherwise it will just make you look like you're after money.

4. Evan topped himself a few months after Michael died.

5. Evans demeanour is suss

6. Sneddons demeanour is suss

7. Janets demeanour is suss

8. Gavins demeanour is suss

9. *Long list of other names* is suss

10. Jordan said Michael was circumcised, which he was not. It doesn't take 3 seconds let alone 3 months to work out that a guy is circumcised or not. The question of wether or not he was to young to know the difference is bullshit, if he didn't understand the concepts of circumcised and uncircumcised he wouldn't have made such a specific statement.
In regards to spots, ANYONE can easily make that presumption if they have a remote clue as to what vitiligo is. And Michael was African American, it's not hard to make the presumption that he may have been a little bigger, plus the same goes for pubic hair. Therefore it is not incredibly hard to make a guess at what he would have looked like and for that guess to be similar. What's not so easy to guess- circumcision.

11. Michael was not actually FORCED to be invloved in a strip search at all, but he did it anyway.

12. Although LaToya made a statement saying she knew he was a paedophile, her way of announcing that was at a press conference in the middle of the night (not going to the police, going to the media). She also said she had never actually saw anything.

13. There was involvement with 2 police departments and the FBI, 3 house raids and over 500 wittnesses overall just for the prosecution, and they came up with- no DNA evidence, no video evidence, no child pornography, no written confessions, no verbal confessions, no wittness who wasn't in some way or another suss, no wittneness story that made complete sense... The only real EVIDENCE they had was people claiming they'd been abused or saw abuse of knew of abuse.

14. Of the people who claimed they saw Michael abuse, none of them went to the police to inform them of it.

15. The prosecution tried to use the names of people Michael had apparently molested including Macauley (sp?) and Wade. They totally denied anything had ever happened.

16. They tried to use regular pornography as evidence. They tried to claim that the fingerprint on the page was from when Michael showed them the magazine. During cross examination (after Star was adamant that was the magazine he'd been shown), it was pointed out that the date on the mgazine was august 2003. They were not at Michael's house in August of 2003.

17. A lot of the prosecution including Sneddon worked on both cases. Why?

18. Sneddon was up cracking jokes during the press conference after Michael arrest, including calling Michael J**ko, announcing 'we got him!' before any investigation had even begun, and making fun of Michael's music. If you are are working on a case of child abuse, it is NO time to crack a joke. It is a serious crime. If any police officer was cracking in that way it would not be accepted, but of course, it's Michael Jackson. It seemed to me as though Sneddon was trying to get into people's heads right from the very start that Michael was guilty.

19. It wasn't actually MICHAEL'S decision to pay the Chandlers off, it was his attourneys who came up with the idea.

20. During the time Michael knew the Chandlers he was suffering from a tooth problem and subsiquently became addicted to the painkillers used to treat his pain after the opperation. Evan was a dentist, and as far as I know, treated Michael a few times.

Oooh a lightbulb has just gone off in my head! Theory-

During this time, could Evan have enabled Michael in any way with painkillers and fed his addiction, tried to manipulate Michael while he was under the influence of blackmailed Michael with drugs (i.e. telling him if he didn't give him what he wanted he wouldn't get more drugs, he'd accuse him of stuff, etc.), then Michael decided to distance himself from Evan, Evan got upset (hence the comment to David about why Michael had stopped contacting him). Perhaps June and Jordan had distanced themselves from Evan because of his attitude (there is no denying he's a bit nuts), and Evan got vengeful against Michael for 'taking his family', no longer contacting him and not giving him what he wanted so inevitably he filed child abuse charges.

21. Michael's ex-employees who said they'd known of child abuse had to admit they'd actually stolen some of Michael's belongings and sold them, plus sold their stories.

22. One of Michael's ex-friends wrote a book and released it during the trial, even handing out free copies to the media, yet he then had to admit in court that he'd lied in the book.

23. The Chandlers had years to go back on the case and re-open it but they didn't.

24. The Arvizo's could have appealed, but they didn't.

25. The Arvizo's had been involved in false abuse charges before.

26. One guy who says he had phone sex with Michael years ago says it came out because of a friend, yet he was more than happy to sell his story to the media, and has done a few interviews. His demeanour of his thoughts of Michael also change, one minute he has no hard feelings for Michael and wishes they are still friends, the next Michael's a danger and should be locked up, the next he misses Michael.

27. It was claimed in court that Prince was involved, that they were looking at porn on the net and Michael told Prince he was missing out on some *****. Only time will tell if Prince will admit to any involvment.


I could keep going but this is taking forever to write with my fake nails. All I can come down to is this- I can only judge Michael based on proof, not presumption. There is NO proof that Michael has done everything therefore innocent until proven guilty. Michael is the most famous, most watched person on the planet. Yes he had some issues (and I don't mean that in the hater way, I mean he was very hurt by his childhood etc. and it made him who he was, seeking what he never had), but that doesn't mean he was a bad guy, although it can easliy be twisted that way. To me, if he really did those things, surely he would have had to have slipped up SOMEWHERE. There would have to be SOMETHING. But there isn't.
Michael was not perfect, I won't put him on a pedistal and brush away his flaws, but if you are going to try and make me believe something, PROVE it. Otherwise there is nothing for me to go by other than innocence.