The civil lawsuit in the Chandler 1993 case ended
in a financial settlement signed on January 25, 1994. Let me
make a short summary of the case for those who don´t like
1) It wasn´t Michael Jackson but his insurance company
who paid to the Chandlers.
2) The claim was for ´negligence´ only (no molestation
charges) which was withdrawn after reaching the financial settlement.
Michael always maintained his complete innocence.
3) The settlement had absolutely no limitations for Jordan
Chandler to testify in court in case the family wanted justice
for their son and insisted on taking the case to a criminal
court. They could go on with it while still keeping the money.
4) This opportunity was open to the Chandlers up to the year
2000 but Tom Sheddon prolonged it as he wanted Jordan to show
up in the 2005 court. However each time the prosecutors demanded
a testimony from Jordan he left the country.
5) Michael later regretted the Chandler case had been
settled out of court.
Do you still have any questions about it? In case you
do here is an allinclusive report
MJJRepository which answers the most common questions about
the agreement in minute detail.
WAS THE SETTLEMENT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT BY MICHAEL JACKSON?
No. In fact, the official settlement agreement clearly
states that Michael Jackson specifically disclaims
any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Chandlers.
At another point it is written that the civil settlement is
explicitly for alleged compensatory damages for alleged
personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and NOT
for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.
As part of the civil case, the Chandlers also announced within
the settlement agreement that the first through sixth causes
of actions (consisting of: sexual battery, seduction, willful
misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
fraud) would be dismissed without prejudice which left only
the last cause of civil action (negligence) in place, which
the Chandlers likewise agreed to drop once the money was received.
Quotes: Jackson specifically disclaims any liability
to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor [Jordan
Chandler], [Evan Chandler] or [June Chandler] or any other persons.
The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and
that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and
are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties
acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle
the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has
had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential
The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment are in
settlement of claims by [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] and
[June Chandler] for alleged compensatory damages for alleged
personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not
for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.
DID THE SETTLEMENT PREVENT JORDAN CHANDLER FROM TESTIFYING
Absolutely not. One of the most commonly misconstrued
beliefs of the settlement agreement is that it somehow prevented
Jordan Chandler from testifying against Jackson in criminal
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The 1993 settlement dealt exclusively with the civil
case brought against Michael Jackson by the Chandlers, not the
then on-going criminal investigation. A civil case, in
this perspective, is one that is filed with the single goal
of obtaining monetary gain via a judgment against the defendant.
Thus, when the Chandlers and their high-profile civil attorney
Larry Feldman filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, they did
so with the sole intent of acquiring a certain degree of wealth;
NOTHING within the settlement documents in any way prohibited
the Chandlers from pressing criminal charges and pursuing the
matter in criminal court, REGARDLESS of any financial settlement
in the civil case. The Chandlers had every RIGHT to carry the
case over to CRIMINAL COURT, even after obtaining the financial
In fact, Jordan Chandler was given more years to testify
against Michael Jackson in a criminal court system than virtually
any other alleged molestation victim, and was even granted a
rare second opportunity to come forward during the 2005 criminal
trial but refused. (Reports from his uncle, Ray Chandler, indicated
that he had left the country in both 1998 at the age of 18 and
again in 2005 to avoid having to testify).
By law, Jordan Chandler was permitted to testify at any time
against Michael Jackson in court up through August of 2000.
However, Tom Sneddon announced in 2001 that he had actually
extended the statute of limitations of the 1993 case so that
it can be reopened at any time.
According to Sneddon, the statute of limitations was frozen
in time because Jackson was living out of the country
for much of that time. On February 6, 2003, Tom Sneddon
echoed a similar statement in a press release: the 1993
case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible
evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed.
The investigation remains ´open, but inactive.´
Between 1993 and 1994, the criminal allegations were investigated
for over 12 months by Gil Garcetti of Los Angeles and
Tom Sneddon of Santa Barbara.
TWO grand juries from both jurisdictions convened and spent
months listening to the prosecution´s evidence and third
party witnesses. At the end, each grand jury agreed that there
was not enough evidence to indict.
Both district attorneys insisted that the reason they could
not indict Michael Jackson on criminal charges is due to the
unavailability of the primary alleged victim. It
was made clear that Jordan Chandler could have come forward
to testify at any point, but he never did.
DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEGOTIATE THE SETTLEMENT?
Ever since the initial leak of the settlement documents in 2004,
speculation has spread that it was in fact an Insurer Carrier
that ultimately negotiated and paid for the settlement, not
Michael Jackson himself.
In a 2005 legal document filed in court by Michael Jackson´s
defense, this theory grew feet.
On a Web chat conducted by Diane Dimond on June 16, 2004, among
the questions discussed was the following one:
QUESTION from Incognito: Did you say that an insurance
company paid the money? What kind of insurance would that be?
DIANE DIMOND: Note that Jackson agreed to pay on the
allegation of negligence. Check out your homeowner´s policy.
If you negligently leave out a banana peel that someone trips
and falls over, your insurance company will pay out for your
negligence. They will not, however, pay out if you committed
a crime. That´s probably why he agreed only to
the negligence claim.
Little more was said about the insurance settlement theory until
the trial of 2005.
On March 22, 2005, a motion was filed in court on behalf of
Michael Jackson and within the said court document, numerous
statements were made that an insurance carrier had negotiated
and settled the 1993 civil case. The relevant section from the
document is transcribed below:
The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson´s
Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson´s control.
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 unfair for an insurance company´s settlement to
be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement
to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson´s prior conduct
or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his
insurance carrier´s demand to settle the dispute.
WHY WOULD AN INNOCENT MAN SETTLE A CASE?
Since the 1993 settlement, Michael Jackson has spoken very little
about the conditions set forth within the agreement due in part
to the confidentiality of said agreement. However, he and his
attorneys have spoken numerous times, in general terms, about
the motives behind the civil settlement.
While many people ask why an innocent many would settle a civil
case as such, few ask why an alleged victim and his family would
push for a civil settlement with a high profile attorney and
then refuse to testify criminally against said abuser in a court
of law. As Katherine Jackson asked, If you think about
it yourself, and Michael molested your son, would you ask for
money? Would you?
The general reasons that Michael and at least one of his attorneys
has given as to why the civil case was settled in 1993, was
that he just wanted to put the nightmare behind him. At the
time, his attorneys advised him that the proceedings could drag
on for seven years and that there was no guaranteed outcome
in the court of law.
This reason, combined with the fact that Michael Jackson was
on tour and bringing in huge amounts of money at the time (enough
to make any personal or insured settlement amount look small
in comparison), is why Michael Jackson has stated he agreed
to settle the civil portion of the case.
On the Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer (which aired
in the United States on June 14, 1995), Diane Sawyer asked Michael
Jackson about the 1993 civil settlement. The conversation went
SAWYER: Why did you settle the case, then? Why did you
settle the case? And, it looks to everyone as if you paid a
huge amount of money, to get silence.
JACKSON: Well, most of that´s folklore. I talked
to my lawyers, and I said, Can you guarantee me that justice
will prevail? And they said, Michael, we cannot
guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything. And
with that, I was like catatonic. I was outraged. Totally outraged!
So what I said, I have got to do something to get out
from under this nightmare. All these lies, and all of
these people coming forward to get paid. And these tabloid shows.
Just lies. Lies, lies, lies!
So, what I didwe got together again with my advisers,
and they advised me; it was handsdown a unanimous decision,
Resolve the [civil] case. This could be something that
could go on for seven years! He said, Let´s
get it behind us. Get it
SAWYER: Can you say how much?
JACKSON: It´s not what the tabloids have printed.
It´s not all of this crazy, outlandish no, it´s
not at all. The terms of the agreement are very confidential
The idea, it just isn´t fair what they put me through.
Because there wasn´t one piece of information that said
I did that in any way. They turned my room upside down, went
through all my books, all my video tapes, all my private things,
and they found nothing. Nothing, nothing that could say,
Michael Jackson did this. Nothing! To this day,
nothing. Still, nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Thank you Helena for your generosity
sharing your investigation!