Evan Chandler's vendetta against Michael: Enter Ray Chandler

  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com

After having a look at the Settlement Agreement between the Chandlers and Michael Jackson it is interesting to see how well it was observed by both parties.

(for text of the agreement see here: Confidential Settlement )

As soon as the Chandlers agreed not to ruin Michael’s life any further (the grace which cost Michael or his insurance company some $15 mln.) Evan Chandler and his brother Ray Chandler started looking for an opportunity to break this agreement. As Ray considered he was not bound by it he immediately began negotiations about publishing his version of Jordan’s saga.

I wonder why Ray was not bound by the agreement… It is strange that Michael’s lawyers included there almost everyone in sight but overlooked Evan’s immediate kin – his brother Ray. The brother, however could still be regarded as a ‘representative’ of the family, so who knows how the arbitration court would have looked upon it if it came to a dispute? You will remember that the sum of the agreement was to be paid in full in any case – even if the contract was breached - but there was still a danger that Michael could take some money back if the arbitration court ruled in his favor. However even despite a possible claim from Michael’s side the Chandlers’ desire to break the agreement was simply too strong to overcome

The story Ray Chandler told various publishers clearly points to Evan Chandler being part of the project. An American editor and book publisher Judith Regan says she was approached by Ray Chandler within days of the family settling the case:

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. ($15,3 mln. to be exact). And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”

Let me post the tape again in case someone missed it:

Indeed, first they sign an agreement and snatch the money, and the next moment they break it without even batting an eye? Well, well… whatever each of us thinks of the reasons why such an agreement was signed at all, this gross violation of its obligations and the easy manner in which it was done speak volumes about Evan Chandler’s beautiful character, decent behavior and overall integrity…

One of the steps the Chandlers took was to refute Mary Fischer’s article “Was Michael Framed?” which was published by the GQ Magazine in October 1994. Michael’s haters refer to it as a “persuasive argument that M. Fischer’s article is at best extremely sloppy and at worst intentionally false”.

The author of the article is said to be Ray Chandler and he does often refer to the book “All that glitters” as his doing – which clearly identifies him as Evan Chandler’s brother.

However the name of the author, the source where the article comes from and the date on which it was published are still enveloped in some mystery. The October 1994 date in the headline actually refers to Mary Fischer’s article. Some haters claim that Ray Chandler’s rebuttal of it was printed in the very next issue of GQ magazine – which should be November 1994 (?). Well, this mess with the dates wouldn’t be that annoying if the author didn’t refer to his book “All that glitters” which was published in 2005 only or claim that Mary Fischer had “a change of heart” in September 2004 and asked for her article to be removed by then.

Firstly, she did not have a “change of heart” as only recently she allowed her article to be reprinted at AboveTopSecret.com (I saw her consent with my own eyes there), and secondly, it would still be nice to know the date of the article as the time factor is always an important thing to learn – as well as the exact identity of the author. Why the need to create all this mystery? Is it the way the truth should be told? Or is it Evan Chandler who is hiding somewhere in-between the lines here and is afraid to be caught?

Whatever the case let us see what this highly mysterious author has to say. The article is a well-structured mass of details where important (Jason Francia) and unimportant (the number of scripts Evan Chandler wrote) issues are mixed together to create the general impression of a serious research made with not a single detail overlooked or non-analyzed.

The main idea of the article is to disprove the fact that any extortion took place and replace it by the idea that the parties were involved in negotiations usual for all out-of-court settlements. While raking through the 22 pages of all those innumerable details I searched for an answer to an important question which is really crucial to the matter - WHO WAS THE FIRST TO SUGGEST THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT? If it was Michael who offered the money, it could give some grounds for thinking that he was indeed ‘buying the Chandlers’ silence’, but if it were the Chandlers who were the first to demand it, this would point into a totally different direction …

The matter was not quite clear to me especially since this same article vaguely implied that it was “Pellicano who suggested the movie deals”. I really did not expect to find an answer to my question in this particular article and was pleasantly surprised when I did – which is all the more precious as this is firsthand information coming from the original source (Ray or Evan Chandler).

After some 12 pages of dwelling on this and that the author finally asks Mary Fischer in a somewhat defiant manner “so when did the extortion occur?” and answers the question himself a couple of paragraphs further: “after the August 4, 1993 Westwood Marquis meeting between Evan, Jordan, Michael and Pellicano ended with no resolution, Pellicano and Rothman met at Rothman’s office later that day, at which point Rothman made a demand for $20 million”.

So it was Rothman! And consequently Evan Chandler who raised the question of money! Even ‘demanded’ it as the author puts it… Thank God Michael didn’t have anything to do with it…

To prove the point that the whole thing was nothing but negotiations the author says: “Pellicano did not reject the $20 million demand outright. He stated he would talk to his client and get back to Rothman. Pellicano’s secretly recorded tape of Rothman reveals that Pellicano made a counteroffer of $1 million on August 9, which was rejected by Evan. To punish Evan for arguing with him, Pellicano came back with a $350,000 offer on August 13. On August 17, as evidenced by Pellicano’s recording, the two men were still negotiating”.

”The negotiations took over a period of two weeks and were cited by authorities as just one of the reasons they concluded that no extortion had occurred. Another reason was that the police did not hear any words of extortion on the two recordings offered by the Jackson camp. Neither did the press.”

Now are they serious about that? What a laughable thing to say! The police did not hear the exact word and it hindered them from seeing the true nature of Evan Chandler’s project? Didn’t know the police were so naïve and needed the press to prompt them how to put two and two together…

The author goes on: “According to the official statement made by the LAPD, the evidence revealed that the parties were involved in legitimate negotiations to settle legal claims out of court – something the law encourages, the police spokesman said”.

I agree that such negotiations may sometimes be legitimate and the law might even encourage things like that – for example, if the party accused of any wrongdoing offers money of their own free will, but having your arms twisted the way it was done in this particular case is adding a totally different dimension to the whole story…. No wonder that the author devoted only half a page of his 22 page narration to this uncomfortable issue he clearly feels uneasy about.

The fact that Michael did not settle then – when it was still possible to avoid all the horror of criminal investigation and harassment from the press – is proof enough he did not feel guilty of any wrongdoing and was still facing the future with a hope to get some justice and fair treatment…

What else is interesting about the Chandler article?

Well, it tells and repeats at least twice an outrageous lie that the boy gave an “accurate description of the distinctive marks on Michael’s genitals” though the author knows it for sure both in 1994, 2005 or whatever the year of the article is that it is a complete lie and that the description and photos were as similar and ‘matching’ as black and white are.

The author also alleges there was child pornography found in Jackson’s home which is a completely ridiculous thing to say - if it had been that way this fact alone would have been enough to indict Michael, try him and put him into jail (without any Chandler’s accusations) as keeping child pornography is a criminal offence in itself.

The article also says that one of the bodyguards alleged that Michael had ordered him to destroy a picture of a naked young boy that was taped to the mirror in his private bathroom. I incidentally happen to know that name of that body guard – it was Leroy Thomas who told this lie and even recklessly submitted himself to a polygraph test to prove it. In her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” Lisa Campbell says that “the results showed he was truthful on some questions but he failed other questions, most notably that Michael had asked him to destroy a photo of a nude boy” (which was not there in the first place, not to mention the need to destroy it).

The author also refutes the sodium amytal story which says that the truth was extracted from Jordan together with his tooth. This refutation was however denied again by the author himself who gave a completely different account of the same circumstances in his “All that glitters” book. There he says that the boy was put to sleep to have his tooth pulled out and the first question his father asked him was about Jackson’s wrongdoing to him and it was the first time he said “yes”.

This boring enumeration can go on…. Just the usual tedious mixture of lies and half-lies sprinkled with some truth to be taken by a spoonful at night by an average tabloid reader…

The ending of the story is extremely impressive though – see how hypocrisy and falsehood are dripping from every word of the author’s thunderous conclusion: “Time and time again history has taught us that a free and unfettered press is essential for a democratic society to thrive. So self-evident was this to our Founding Fathers that they protected the press in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

Since that time, particularly in recent years, The Supreme Court has continued to safeguard the media’s vital role by awarding reporters increasing protection for refusing to reveal sources, and increasing immunity from liability for reporting what they believed to be the truth, even it turned out to be false and defamatory”….

The passage goes on to dwell on the responsibility to report the truth, but since it does not have any bearing on Chandler’s article we shall just leave it at that.

Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!