.There has been some discussion here of Ray Chandlers
All that glitters book. The author (whoever he is
Ray or Evan Chandler) claims that the book is based on
authentic documents. This claim was taken advantage
of by Michael Jacksons defense team who subpoenaed Ray
Chandler to testify in court as a custodian of documents.
Here is a marvellous article about it from mjeol.com:
Ray Chandler Subpoenaed by the Defense?
MJEOL Bullet #205 (shortened)
30 September 2004
It looks like Ray Chandlers (Charmatz) mouth may have
written a check that his proverbial ass cant cash. Appearing
on Crier Live yesterday (Sept 29 2004), tabloid reporter Diane
Dimond says that the 1993 accusers uncle, Ray Chandler,
has been subpoenaed by the defense as a custodian of documents.
She insinuated that he is being intimidated by the
defense. Observers of the case say that Chandler
has inserted himself into this case by doubtlessly
trying to taint the jury pool and it has totally backfired
The tabloid reporter claims that Chandler told her hes
being intimidated because, he says, thats
what happened in 1993. This is preposterous. In his zeal to
trash Jackson, he has inserted himself into this situation.
He has allegedly credible, documented infoif the documents
arent forgeriesdirectly regarding the 1993 investigation.
He has also made numerous statements, most of which couldnt
possibly be true, to the public about that investigation as
well. He claimed that police found commercial produced child
pornography at Jacksons ranch in 1993. This is a complete
lie because possession of child pornography is a FEDERAL offense.
And had this have been true, Jackson would have been charged
with a crime in federal court 11 years ago. There are other
examples of ridiculous claims as well.
But now Chandler is whining and playing the victim because he
has been called to the floor as a result of such statements.
Cue the violins!
Its quite clear that Uncle Ray could have
only gotten certain information and documents related to the
1993 investigation from a very small number of places. Those
documents are simply the unchallenged, un-cross-examined, unfounded
allegation that initially started the 93 investigation.
Prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation
when its convenient to them. They actually alleged in
court during one of the pretrial hearings that they werent
sure if they were going to use the 93 investigation. And
called it irrelevant when defense attorneys asked
the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information)
from the 93 investigation! We learned from court documents
that the defense is hot on the prosecutions tail in trying
to get them to hand-over documents from the 93 investigation
every since Mark Geragos was Jacksons attorney.
His attorneys say that the information from 1993 is necessary
to preserve Mr. Jacksons right to a fair trial.
Now, remember, this is the defense talking. Thus, they
either have information themselves or knowledge of the existence
of material that something was discovered during the 1993 investigation
that will likely be exculpatory to Jackson. What
is also astonishing is the admission that law enforcement found
information which indicates the 93 allegation was not true.
From the defenses motion: Mr. Jacksons right
to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also
requires production of materials from the prior investigation.
Ray Chandler has specific knowledge and documents about the
93 investigation which definitely should be challenged
in court. His information, and that big mouth of his, makes
him a REAL witness in this case and not an impeaching
witness as prosecutors have disingenuously tried to claim with
other people around this case.
What has always been a problem with the 1993 gang is that NEITHER
one of them have ever actually come to court to testify to any
of the things they have been sayingeither directly or
through sourcesin a court of law where their
shady stories can be challenged.
Chandler has had it very easy from the media because everyone
who has interviewed him, from the Today Show to Diane Dimond,
have absolutely NOT asked him any hard questions about some
of the outrageous claims he has made in his book or in previous
interviews. On second thought, Geraldo Rivera (Fox) got to ask
one zinger of a question about whether or not the 1993 accusers
father pimped the accusers allegation for
money. We didnt get a straight answer from Chandler because
he claimed his audio wasnt working properly.
One of the issues which may be addressed concern the documents
Chandler cites in his book and posted on his website. Questions
may be raised about the origin of these documents and who gave
them to Chandler. Did he get them from Evan Chandler, the 93
accusers father? If so, can E. Chandler be sued for breaking
the confidentiality agreement? Did he get the documents from
leaks in the prosecutions office or the sheriffs
department? If so, who? And what sanctions can be sought as
a result? ETC.
Another issue revolves around the authenticity of at
least some of the memos cited by Chandler. In MJEOL Bullet #197,
Geraldine Hughess response to Chandlers book was
discussed. Hughes was a sole legal secretary to Barry Rothman,
the 93 accusers first attorney. Hughes asserts that
several of the documents appearing on Chandlers website
seem to have forged signatures at the bottom. The documents
show her initials, gh, at the bottom as the typists but she
says she never typed some of them. She also reveals that her
then-bosss signature doesnt even match from document
Geraldine Hughs: When I review the documents that he has
on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents,
even though they bear my initials as the typist, I did not type
that particular document. Several of these documents have been
manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature
of my attorney Barry Rothman.
As a matter of fact, one of the documents has no signature at
the bottom at all. These types of documents, again, had to be
given to Chandler for the specific purpose of either writing
his book to cash-in on the latest news or to try to taint the
jury pool because more than one source has said he probably
wasnt privy to any of this information during the 93
Now the defense wants a chance to ask Chandler some highly
important questions, and hes trying to wrap himself up
in this victim nonsense.
Either put up or shut up. Its quite easy to make unchallenged
claims via a media who normally eats up unfounded trash about
Jackson. It is quite another to have to answer, with a degree
of responsibility, to the things hes been saying concerning
the 93 investigation.
MJEOL Bullet #205
* * * * *
After reading this true masterpiece of an article from the
Mjeol website I searched the internet for information whether
Ray Chandler did give his testimony at the 2005 trial or not
but couldnt find a single scrap of it
did not discourage me from making my own conclusions though.
Correct me if Im wrong:
That simple and easy to prove?
1) Ray Chandler SAYS his accusations of Michael Jackson are
based on authentic documents. Right?
2) Michaels DEFENSE team (just think of this paradox!)
subpoenaes him to testify in 2005 as a custodian of those
3) If not defense, then PROSECUTION should be summoning such
a key witness to state his case in court. Right?
4) If they didnt insist on his testimony they must have
known there was something FISHY about his evidence. They probably
insisted on it though (?).
5) If Ray Chandler HAD appeared in court as a custodian of priceless
documents the mere fact of it would have been blasted all over
the media. It wouldnt be so hush-hush now and we wouldnt
have to check each piece of the 2005 court transcripts in search
for his name. Right?
6) If there had been no hue and cry in the media over Ray Chandlers
evidence it means he NEVER testified in court. And never proved
his documents to be really authentic. Right?
7) NOTHING prevented him from disclosing his documents in court
except the fact that they were false and fabricated. If the
family refrained from using them in the 1993 case (though they
could have) it was Ray Chandlers last chance to shine
and get the culprit finally nailed down in the year
8) The fear of Michaels fans could be absolutely no pretext
for his not showing up in court as publishing lies about Michael
in a BOOK is no less dangerous than telling the same lies in
9) So we dont even have to read the Redemption
book to see that Ray Chandler is a LIAR and has NO incriminating
documents against Michael, do we?
10) And we didnt even move our little finger to make sure
that Ray Chandlers All that glitters is a
Am I delusional or is it really THAT easy and simple to prove?
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!