July 6th, 2010 The numerous references made
in the comments to the formidable Haters site http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/
are forcing me to run a little ahead and forget about Ray Chandlers
interview for a time being. To be frank with you I tried to
shield innocent Michaels 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 dont 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 authors 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 Michaels 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-Davids 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 Fischers
and Geraldine Hughes) and the dismissal of Evan Chandlers
$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 Fischers 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 Chandlers
profession before he began studying for a lawyer soon after
1993). This is what Ray Chandler says of himself in the rebuttal
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 Fischers 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
Finding Ray Chandlers 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 elses 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 Evans 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,
Evans mother (then 79 years old) told the PI that many
of Evans patients found the name difficult to pronounce
and spell. She further stated that Evans father, a dentist
as well, also considered changing his name.
Yes, Evan did not like his original name,
but had Fischer bothered to contact Evans family she would
have learned that although Evan wasnt religious, he was
not ashamed of being Jewish. At the outbreak of war in 1968he
called the Israeli embassy and volunteered to fight.
About Evans 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 couldnt 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, Evans 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
About Evans successful career as a screen writer:
True, in 1993 a nod from Michael Jackson could advance
anyones 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 Evans violence mentioned
by Mary Fischer:
When asked in a 1994 deposition about Evans 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
Evans 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
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 Fischers
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, Fischers
choice of words could suggest that the court agreed Evan was
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 Junes
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 fathers 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:
Chandlers troubles began years earlier, even
before Jordie met Jackson, according to Victor Gutierrez, author
The Secret Diary of Jordan Chandler: This
family did not fall apart right after the settlement,
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 fathers
refusal to buy a (second) computer for his child signify that
he doesnt care about the child? Does placing a mask over
your childs face or dangling him over a railing for a
few seconds signify that a father doesnt love his child?
Nonsense About beating up David Schwartz (Jordans
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 lawyers office
in 1993. According to the sources, Evan started hitting Dave
after Dave said that he believed the extortion claim against
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
In any event, heres what actually
occurred in the lawyers 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
The extent of the violence was that Evan
slapped Daves 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 Evans 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. Jordies
bed and the trundle were not connected. Jordies little
brother slept on the top berth every night that Michael stayed
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 Michaels 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 boys
body was pressed against the front of Michaels. Michaels
hand was resting over the boys crotch, outside the covers.
These facts were not in Fischers article.
About Evans concerns:
Fischer mentioned a confrontation
between Evan and June on June 9. But she did not mention that
Evans expressions of concern about Jordies 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 shouldnt talk to him. (See All
That Glitters for details about the all-important month
About the purpose of meeting Michael and June about which
Evan talked to David Schwartz on the tape:
Evans 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 wouldnt be going on tour,
not because he was planning to renege on an agreement that he
didnt even know would be made.
About Evan being interviewed by the police:
Regarding Fischers 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 isnt ONLY Ray Chandler who is
providing all these details about Evans inner motives
and thoughts about this and that?
If the above excerpts didnt 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 Chandles
$60mln. lawsuit against Jackson in the year 2000. To refresh
your memory about the essence of the lawsuit here are the respective
to Michaels interview
with Diane Sawyer (which was the reason for Evans
fury and consequent lawsuit). To sum up the whole thing the
most Michael ventured in that interview was: The police
photographs didnt match
There was not one iota of
information that was found
I could never harm a child
whole thing is a lie
Most of that is folklore
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
- 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 Plaintiffs
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
in excess of $60 million.
- The Plaintiff alsosuffered 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
This was the summary of the lawsuit. Please compare it with
some excerpts from the angry retort by the author of the Haters
site made to the outside world in reply to the courts
decision to dismiss the case. Will you also have a déjà
vu feeling? A vague reminiscence that youve 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 Jacksons 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
Jordies claims against Jackson as allegations,
she did not describe the claims against Evan as Jacksons
allegations. She described them as problems for the prosecution.
ABC claimed that Sawyers 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 boys 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 boys 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 Pellicanos
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
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 didnt PrimeTime
present Evans comment about winning big time
in context? Why didnt they report the district attorneys
statement that Evan had committed no crime? Why did they fail
to report Jacksons withdrawal of the extortion charge?
The answer to these questions cannot be found in ABCs
legal briefs. In fact, they ignored the specifics and argued
instead that Sawyer was not legally obligated to report any
of these facts.
Accordingly, plaintiffs argument
that ABC and Sawyer failed to include in their report a prosecutors
assertion that pornography had been found at Jacksons
home (LIE, it was never found there), or
failed to report a prosecutors assertion that the description
by plaintiffs son of Jacksons genitalia matched
police photographs (the prosecutor did assert it, but
the assertion is neverthelss an OUTRAGEOUS LIE),
or failed to report that prosecutors 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 Jacksons
version, they were not legally obligated to investigate the
truth of that version. Now they were arguing they had no obligation
to report Evans version or the district attorneys
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.
ABCs 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 Evans
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.
Jacksons 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 Jacksons allegations in the first
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
Michaels guilt and Evans 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 Im trying to think of how to phrase it, though I can
hear out in the country people saying and youve
been cleared of all charges and we want to make that clear
people saying, look, heres 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 DAs 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 prosecutions problems with Evan? In the publics
mind the claims were mutually exclusive: if Michael was innocent,
then Evan was guilty, and vice versa.
Contrary to ABCs 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 boys 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 Haters 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 Fischers 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 medias financial
bottom line. They are privileges granted in recognition of the
medias 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 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 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 dont 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!