Welcome to the Main Hater´s site. WHO IS IT?

  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com

July 6th, 2010 The numerous references made in the comments to the formidable Hater’s site http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/ are forcing me to run a little ahead and forget about Ray Chandler’s interview for a time being. To be frank with you I tried to shield innocent Michael’s fans from the venom of that site and wanted to introduce it here only when enough antidote (evidence) against it was collected. But my young and reckless investigative partner David changed these plans again and suddenly broke this site upon all of us. I don’t mind it very much though – it is probably only for the better, as now we will be able to do this work together and have more opportunity to analyze its content and the author’s identity. The job was started in a post devoted to Ray Chandler and I suggest we continue it here.

The site is big and deserves our full attention as it is widely referred to by all Michael’s haters as their MAIN source of information . Everything in the site speaks to it being an effort of one person only – the style of the author, his manner of writing as well as the way of his thinking. Besides provision of some invaluable documents (like a transcript of Evan-David’s taped conversation) the site focuses on a thorough and super-meticulous analysis of major articles and books written in support of Michael Jackson (by Mary Fischer’s and Geraldine Hughes) and the dismissal of Evan Chandler’s $60mln. lawsuit against Jackson et al. by the California court. The site is quite an enigma – it does not give a single date for a single post, but the sources quoted by the author testify to him being very well familiar not only with the Chandler case but the events around the 2005 trial too, so it is safe to assume that the site spans the period of 1993-2005 or longer, up to probably even today.

There is no name of the author either. There are some clues dropped here and there to it though and in his “rebuttal of Mary Fischer’s article” the author speaks of his identity quite openly. Yes, it is RAY CHANDLER judging by his reference to the book All that Glitters where he discusses certain points not covered in the article and to his former work in developing estate projects (which had been Ray Chandler’s profession before he began studying for a lawyer soon after 1993). This is what Ray Chandler says of himself in the ”rebuttal” article

“The following analysis offers a persuasive argument that Mary Fischer created a report that was at best extremely sloppy, and at worst intentionally false. One of the prime examples of Fischer’s ineptitude is her manipulation of the dialogue found on the secret tape recording of Evan Chandler. This was discussed in All That Glitters and will not be repeated here.” “In 1980 he [Evan] bought a home in Santa Monica and became immersed in a major remodel, which he hoped to parlay into additional real estate projects. I worked with him for one year on that remodel.

Finding Ray Chandler’s site in the very midst of the Internet providing malicious and distorted information on every single point about Michael Jackson is quite a discovery on its own. However when you read the way the author meticulously explains some personal matters regarding Evan Chandler you start wondering whether it is ONLY Ray Chandler who is standing behind that text. Some of its passages look and sound to me too personal and too self-centered to be written just by a ’third party’. And the rate with which these personal points are repeated and their overall totally absurd number suggest that the authorship may be somebody else’s – someone who is simply obsessed with explaining his motives and his behavior to those who are supporting his cause…. Here are several examples only - please decide for yourselves: About Evan changing his last name into Chandler:

“According to Fischer, a “former colleague” of Evan’s stated that in 1973 Evan changed his last name to Chandler because his original name “sounded too Jewish.” In a phone call initiated by Anthony Pellicano, Evan’s mother (then 79 years old) told the PI that many of Evan’s patients found the name difficult to pronounce and spell. She further stated that Evan’s father, a dentist as well, also considered changing his name.

Yes, Evan did not like his original name, but had Fischer bothered to contact Evan’s family she would have learned that although Evan wasn’t religious, he was not ashamed of being Jewish. At the outbreak of war in 1968he called the Israeli embassy and volunteered to fight”.

About Evan’s love-hate relationship with dentistry:

“Fischer next quoted “a family friend” who allegedly said that Evan “hated being a dentist” and “always wanted to be a writer.” Fischer followed this by claiming that Evan moved to Los Angeles in the late 1970s because he wanted to become a screenwriter, and that in 1978 he wrote a script but couldn’t sell it.
It is true that by 1993 Evan Chandler had a love-hate relationship with dentistry, like many men do with their profession after practicing for twenty years. It is false that Evan always wanted to be a screenwriter and that he moved to Los Angeles for that purpose. In the early eighties, Evan’s goal was to develop real estate. In 1980 he bought a home in Santa Monica and became immersed in a major remodel, which he hoped to parlay into additional real estate projects. I worked with him for one year on that remodel”.

About Evan’s successful career as a screen writer:

“True, in 1993 a nod from Michael Jackson could advance anyone’s career. But the suggestion that Evan extorted Michael to launch a screenwriting career is belied by the fact that Evan was a successful screenwriter before he met Jackson. He had not only sold his first screenplay, a rare accomplishment, but it had been made into a profitable movie, an even rarer accomplishment”
About Evan’s violence mentioned by Mary Fischer:

“When asked in a 1994 deposition about Evan’s violence, June said that in January of 1992 she had heard of an argument between Evan and his then wife, Monique that became physical (why is this guy so overprotective of Evan’s wife Natalie that he calls her only Monique – even here?). But June never mentioned any violence by Evan toward her. And she stated that other than the 1992 incident she knew of no reason why Evan presented a danger to Jordie.

Fischer went on to say that when Evan and June were divorced in 1985, “the court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support,” but court documents showed that in 1993 Evan still owed June $68,000 dollars in back child support.

The facts of the divorce are as follows. The divorce documents showed that it was a do-it-yourself divorce with no attorneys involved. (Evan personally filled in the forms and made the selections.) In other words, all provisions were uncontested, including the custody and child support arrangements.

As with all uncontested divorces, the court was nothing more than a rubberstamp. But Fischer’s use of the phrase “The court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother” implies that the court was actively involved in handing down the custody and child support provisions, and that it may have been the result of weighing the fitness of the parents. In the context of her story, Fischer’s choice of words could suggest that the court agreed Evan was violent”.

About custody problems in the Chandler family before Michael entered their life:

“Fischer, who according to her own report had seen the divorce file, failed to mention that June’s claim for back child-support was not filed until August,1993, after Evan demanded that she end the relationship with Jackson. There was not one document in the divorce file referring to child custody or child support prior to that time. June and Dave would later testify that there were no custody problems until Jackson came into their lives. Fischer cast doubt on the molestation charge because it supposedly came in the middle of “a fierce custody battle.” Yet anyone taking an objective look at the custody issue would know that Jackson did not get innocently caught up in a custody dispute; he was the cause of it.

June testified that the relationship between Evan and Jordie was “good,” and she confirmed that they talked every other day by phone on weekdays. (Jordie would spend most weekends at his father’s house.)”

The idyllic picture of the family life described by the Author reminded me of what the Chandlers’ biographer Victor Gutierrez told his fellow journalists:

“Chandler’s troubles began years earlier, even before Jordie met Jackson, according to Victor Gutierrez, author of “…The Secret Diary of Jordan Chandler”: “This family did not fall apart right after the settlement,” Gutierrez told ABCnews.com. “This family was dysfunctional way before.”

About lack of computer:

“As for the lack of a computer, Evan had promised Jordie a laptop and had not bought it for him by the time Jackson entered their lives. But there was always a desktop computer in the house for Jordie to use. Does a father’s refusal to buy a (second) computer for his child signify that he doesn’t care about the child? Does placing a mask over your child’s face or dangling him over a railing for a few seconds signify that a father doesn’t love his child? Nonsense” About beating up David Schwartz (Jordan’s stepfather):

“Toward the end of her article Fischer reported that two anonymous sources told her that Evan beat up Dave Schwartz during a meeting in their lawyer’s office in 1993. According to the sources, Evan started hitting Dave after Dave said that he believed the extortion claim against Evan.

Here we have two anonymous sources reporting about a single event. There were six people at the meeting: Evan, Monique, Dave, June and attorneys Larry Feldman and Richard Hirsch. Evan, Monique, Feldman and Hirsch were not interviewed by Fischer. Whether June talked to Fischer is unknown, but June was forbidden by the settlement agreement to do so. Dave, however, did not sign any agreement and was free to talk. So if anyone with firsthand knowledge did speak to Fischer it was probably Dave.

In any event, here’s what actually occurred in the lawyer’s office (how does the author know it if there were only 6 people in the room?). When Dave was told he could not receive money from any future settlement, he became argumentative and demanded millions. At that point Evan laid into Dave verbally, accusing him of having created the problem in the first place (by making the tape and helping Pellicano), and accusing him of being greedy for demanding money at a point when no one knew if there was even going to be a settlement.

The extent of the violence was that Evan slapped Dave’s face once, whereupon Feldman and Hirsch stepped between the two men. Dave testified that it was “a one punch fight” and that he and Evan hugged and cried afterward. Evan, in fact, apologized to Dave.

About the time when Evan had his first suspicions about the ‘relationship” and the details he saw in the room (see how confident the author is in his description):

“Fischer wrote that Evan became suspicious of sexual misconduct between his son and Jackson when Jackson stayed at his house during the Memorial Day Weekend of May 28, 1993. This is true. She also stated that Evan “admitted that Jackson and the boy always had their clothes on whenever he saw them in bed together.” This is partly true. She then stated that Evan never claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct by Jackson. This is pure spin. Michael stayed at Evan’s house for the last two weekends in May of 1993. He slept in a trundle that pulled out from under the bottom berth of a bunk bed where Jordie slept. Jordie’s bed and the trundle were not connected. Jordie’s little brother slept on the top berth every night that Michael stayed over.

To say that the Jordie and Michael always had their clothes on “whenever” Evan saw them in bed together implies that there may have been more than onetime. Evan saw Michael and Jordie in the same bed only once, at about 3 a.m. on the last night of Michael’s two visits. On that occasion Jordie had moved into the trundle with Michael. Evan found them asleep in the spoon position; the back of the boy’s body was pressed against the front of Michael’s. Michael’s hand was resting over the boy’s crotch, outside the covers. These facts were not in Fischer’s article.

About Evan’s concerns:

“Fischer mentioned a confrontation between Evan and June on June 9. But she did not mention that Evan’s expressions of concern about Jordie’s welfare at that confrontation resulted in him not being permitted to see or talk to his son until July 12. During that four-week period Michael had been telling Jordie that his father was a bad person and that he shouldn’t talk to him. (See All That Glitters for details about the all-important month of June)“

About the purpose of meeting Michael and June about which Evan talked to David Schwartz on the tape:

“Evan’s purpose of bringing the documents to the meeting was to show June and Michael that he was fed up with their continued refusal to talk to him about his son. If they refused to address his concerns at that meeting he was going to file the documents and seek a court order. That was why Evan knew that they wouldn’t be going on tour, not because he was planning to renege on an agreement that he didn’t even know would be made”.

About Evan being interviewed by the police:

“Regarding Fischer’s statement that Evan was unwilling to be interviewed by authorities, he was interviewed by the police on August 17, 1993, the first day of the investigation. (He declined his right to have an attorney present.) He then submitted a written statement to police under penalty of perjury, and sometime thereafter underwent a lengthy oral examination under oath by the district attorney.”
IS MY GUESS CORRECT and it isn’t ONLY Ray Chandler who is providing all these details about Evan’s inner motives and thoughts about this and that?

If the above excerpts didn’t convince you and you are still in doubt as to the identity of the Author please have a look at the furious retort the man is giving to the ABC company, Diane Sawyer, the American legal system in general (and Michael Jackson of course) after the dismissal of Evan Chandle’s $60mln. lawsuit against Jackson in the year 2000. To refresh your memory about the essence of the lawsuit here are the respective links:

to Michael’s interview with Diane Sawyer (which was the reason for Evan’s fury and consequent lawsuit). To sum up the whole thing the most Michael ventured in that interview was: “The police photographs didn’t match… There was not one iota of information that was found… I could never harm a child…The whole thing is a lie… Most of that is folklore… The terms of the agreement are very confidential…” Could THIS be considered a breach of the agreement?

to the lawsuit filed by Evan Chandler which said that by giving that interview Michael Jackson:
- “developed, orchestrated and carried out a scheme to falsely accuse the minor of lying about his claims that Defendant Jackson had sexually molested and assaulted the minor”. - “uttered false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff, which were reasonably understood by those who viewed the Interview as referring to Plaintiff”,

-”the words uttered by Defendant Jackson were slanderous per se because they made false statements regarding Plaintiff’s reputation, business reputation, and by innuendo by impliedly accusing Plaintiff of committing the crime of extortion,

- as a result of those words “Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and injury to his feelings, while suffering general and special damages … in excess of $60 million”.

- The Plaintiff also“suffered panic, trauma, humiliation, disgrace, worry, anxiety, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, all to his damage in a sum of $750,000” (on top of $60mln).

- And since no money was paid to him from the date of the interview (June 14, 1995) to the date he filed his complaint (May 7, 1996) the Plaintiff claimed an additional 10 per cent per annum for experiencing all those terrible sufferings in the period in-between…

This was the summary of the lawsuit. Please compare it with some excerpts from the angry retort by the author of the Hater’s site made to the outside world in reply to the court’s decision to dismiss the case. Will you also have a déjà vu feeling? A vague reminiscence that you’ve read it somewhere already? Who else can be that meticulous, that petty and that thunderous about it, I wonder? Who else but him can repeatedly return to the ‘poor father’ as the main victim of that innocent interview Michael Jackson gave to Diane Sawyer? See for yourself:

“ABC also argued in court that Sawyer was merely repeating Jackson’s allegations, and that she had no legal obligation to investigate the truth of his allegations. But a review of the transcript shows that while Sawyer labeled Jordie’s claims against Jackson as “allegations,” she did not describe the claims against Evan as Jackson’s allegations. She described them as “problems for the prosecution.”

ABC claimed that Sawyer’s monologue was even-handed because her statement that the prosecution had problems with Evan was balanced by her statement, “Whatever the circumstances of the disclosure, authorities say they believe the boy’s story.” On first blush, this assertion appears valid. But a review of the facts shows that while the authorities did believe Jordie, at no point did the authorities state that they believed Evan was talking about money on the tape.

After Pellicano and Weitzman played the tape of Evan to the world, the Los Angeles Times reported that “At no point, however, did the boy’s natural father spell out what he might want from Jackson or detail any allegations against Jackson.” Even GQ reported that “(the father) never mentioned money during their conversation.”

Sawyer mentioned none of this.

Also unreported by Sawyer was Pellicano’s admission that the first mention of money did not occur until August 4, six weeks after the July 8 tape was recorded. “At this point I never heard any extortion, I never heard any demands,” Pellicano said. When money was mentioned for the first time, on August 4, it was part of the talks that both Bert Fields and the police identified as legitimate negotiations to settle civil claims.

But the clearest evidence that Evan was not referring to money on the tape is the tape itself. A review of the transcript indicates that Evan was talking about winning custody of Jordie, not money from Jackson…”

“Why didn’t PrimeTime present Evan’s comment about winning “big time” in context? Why didn’t they report the district attorneys statement that Evan had committed no crime? Why did they fail to report Jackson’s withdrawal of the extortion charge? The answer to these questions cannot be found in ABC’s legal briefs. In fact, they ignored the specifics and argued instead that Sawyer was not legally obligated to report any of these facts.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument that ABC and Sawyer failed to include in their report a prosecutor’s assertion that pornography had been found at Jackson’s home (LIE, it was never found there), or failed to report a prosecutor’s assertion that the description by plaintiff’s son of Jackson’s genitalia matched police photographs (the prosecutor did assert it, but the assertion is neverthelss an OUTRAGEOUS LIE), or failed to report that prosecutor’s had decided not to charge plaintiff with extortion, or failed to contact plaintiff or to explain his position, are all irrelevant”

This is an amazing defense for a network news organization, legally sound or not. ABC previously argued that while they felt no hesitation in reporting Jackson’s version, they were not legally obligated to investigate the truth of that version. Now they were arguing they had no obligation to report Evan’s version or the district attorney’s conclusions. In other words, ABC News believed it was permissible to report only one side of a controversy, regardless of whether that side was true or false.

ABC’s legal position is typical of high-profile defendants who are guilty as charged. Michael Jackson went on international TV to proclaim his innocence and accuse another of a crime (please check up the interview if there was an accusation!).

Both Sawyer and Jackson were experts in using media to influence public opinion. They knew that Evan’s statement, “If I go through with this I win big time,” would have a negative emotional impact on the audience if they believed he was referring to winning “big time” money, especially when the implication is that he was using his child to extort Jackson.

Jackson’s goal was to convince the public that he was innocent so he could resurrect his career. To that end, it would carry less weight with the viewers if Sawyer had made it clear that it was Jackson who alleged that the father was talking about money on the tape. Nor would it be of value to Jackson for Sawyer to say that it was only her personal opinion that the prosecution had problems with the father, especially if she made it clear that her opinion was based solely on Jackson’s allegations in the first place”.

“But it would carry immense weight if a top journalist for a premiere news organization made it sound as if the prosecution had problems with the father because he had talked about winning “big-time” money and then asked Jackson for $20 million.

By the end of the interview, the tag-team of Sawyer/Jackson had eliminated all evidence pointing toward Michael’s guilt and Evan’s innocence.

After failing to report the material evidence, Sawyer made the following statement to Jackson and to the audience:

“I guess — let me ask this, and I’m trying to think of how to phrase it, though I can hear out in the country people saying — and you’ve been cleared of all charges and we want to make that clear — people saying, look, here’s a man who is surrounded by things that children love. Here is a man who spends an inordinate amount of time with these young boys”.

Jackson, of course, had not been cleared of the charges (he was never charged to begin with, as Tom Sneddon said it himself). It is telling that Sawyer made that claim right in the middle of asking the most damaging question, the one everyone asked (and is still asking), why Jackson spent so much time with young boys.

But the district attorneys’ statement, taken as a whole, left no doubt that Jackson had not been cleared. The DAs said they had three boys whom they believed were victims. They said they would have charged Jackson if Jordie had been willing to testify. They said that the decision not to prosecute was not based on the credibility of the victims. And they said the case would be revisited should circumstances change.

The true “gist” of the statement is that the DAs believed Jackson was guilty (of course the prosecutors thought so – it is their job). By no stretch of any reasonable mind does it say they cleared Jackson. Airing one sentence from the DAs’ statement out of context, then twisting it to mean that Jackson was cleared, is the same method ABC used when quoting Evan from the tape. And it suggests that Sawyer did not experience a slip of the tongue when she stated that Jackson had been cleared.

ABC argued in court that even if Sawyer did not capture the gist of the DA’s statement, her claim that Jackson had been cleared of all charges had nothing to do with Evan and he therefore had no valid legal complaint. In legalese, ABC claimed the statement was not “of and concerning” Evan. (For a statement to be defamatory it must refer to the person allegedly defamed, hence the legal phrase “of and concerning.”)

This argument borders on the absurd. Jackson had shouted to the entire planet, “I am innocent, Evan Chandler extorted me!” (reader, please check up the interview again to see that Michael never mentioned any extortion!). And Sawyer told her viewers, “Those were the allegations [against Jackson]. . . but for the prosecution there were problems [with the father].” Later, she falsely exonerated Jackson. Where does that leave the prosecution’s problems with Evan? In the public’s mind the claims were mutually exclusive: if Michael was innocent, then Evan was guilty, and vice versa.

Contrary to ABC’s contention, Sawyer did not offer her personal opinion that the prosecution had problems with Evan; she stated it as a fact, and by doing implied that the authorities believed Evan had engaged in wrongful conduct. Sawyer was therefore obligated (ethically if not legally) to inform the viewers of the authorities’ conclusion that Evan had committed no crime”.

This ardor, this passion, this unnecessary detail in defending Evan Chandler from the slightest suspicion that it could be an extortion after all… And this incessant talking about “the prosecution having problems with the boy’s father” (?) Seems to be a sensitive issue with the author of this text – I wonder if it could be really the case…

DO YOU STILL HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR? I am not giving you his name – but has it also crossed your mind that it was HIM who created this Hater’s site? And if it was HIM it means that he was harassing Michael behind his back ALL HIS LIFE?

The end of the “California court decision” article is as formidable and hypocritical as the end of the “Rebuttal of Mary Fischer’s article” proving that the hand which wrote the texts is THE SAME both here and there:

HERE, referring to the ABC journalists: “ABC was correct when they argued that the law allows the media “a certain amount of literary license” and “flexibility.” In fact, the law provides the widest possible journalistic freedoms. But those freedoms do not exist to serve the media’s financial bottom line. They are privileges granted in recognition of the media’s vital role in keeping a free society informed. And the law should never permit the media to exercise those privileges in a manner inconsistent with its obligation to make a good faith effort to tell the truth”.

THERE, referring to Mary Fischer: “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 if it turned out to be false and defamatory.

But along with these privileges the media assumes a weighty responsibility to make a good faith effort to tell the truth. The courts have been lenient in defining what constitutes a good faith effort, and have made it increasingly difficult to prove that a journalist has done otherwise. Disseminating false facts because of a lack of research or a failure to corroborate, or almost any other reason under the sun, is no longer sufficient. The reporter must have exhibited knowing falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth”.

P.S. If I am not terribly mistaken the site has recently added a new piece – “A behavioral analysis of child molesters”. Or has it always been there and I just don’t remember? This is top important as you understand! If this is a new addition it means someone is going on with the work of the MAIN HATER who is dead by now.

Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!