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.
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 Chandlers beautiful character, decent behavior and overall integrity
One of the steps the Chandlers took was to refute Mary Fischers article Was Michael Framed? which was published by the GQ Magazine in October 1994. Michaels haters refer to it as a persuasive argument that M. Fischers 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 Chandlers 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 Fischers article. Some haters claim that Ray Chandlers rebuttal of it was printed in the very next issue of GQ magazine which should be November 1994 (?). Well, this mess with the dates wouldnt be that annoying if the author didnt 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 Rothmans 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 didnt 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. Pellicanos 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 Pellicanos 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 Chandlers project? Didnt 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 Michaels 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 Jacksons 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 Chandlers 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 Pops 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 Jacksons 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 authors 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 medias 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 Chandlers article we shall just leave it at that.
Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!