mjinnocent

[mjinnocent]

After MJ Passing

1.As part of this litigation, Robson was ordered to produce all correspondence between himself and others in which he mentioned his abuse allegations. He claimed he only possessed one piece of correspondence, which was not exempt under attorney-client privilege, which was an email to some family and friends

(6.1). The Jackson Estate later learned independently that Robson had been shopping a book to publishers during the period in question and brought this to the attention of the court. This discovery revealed Robson had withheld extensive correspondence about the book, as well as withholding the book itself, all of which would have been material evidence (6.2). (1.1) Details of Robson withholding all evidence of his book and having to be forced to produce it appear in a Superior Court document from February 2, 2017, seeking to ‘compel Wade Robson’s compliance in producing documents’: SOURCE IMAGE (1.2a) In a deposition on December 12, 2016, Robson had denied any publishers had read his book: SOURCE IMAGE (1.2b) Yet an email sent by Robson on February 23, 2013, showed him asking about publishers reading the book: SOURCE IMAGE (1.2c) That sparked an email chain which, on February 27, 2013, resulted in confirmation that two publishers had read it and a third was reading it: SOURCE IMAGE 2.These accusations have been made after Michael Jackson passed away. The law does not currently protect the deceased from defamation and, therefore, Robson and Safechuck are free to attack Michael Jackson and make whatever claims they want against him without fear of legal repercussions for defaming him. It also means any media outlet can repeat the allegations without making any attempt to investigate or corroborate them and Jackson’s family and Estate have absolutely no redress. 3. Safechuck has also been amending his own sworn statements. He claimed that he first told his mother in 2005 that he was abused, and actually went into some detail about how his mother knew he was abused, as he said “When he (Michael Jackson) called my mother, she pretended that she was not aware of his earlier threatening call or about the abuse” (3.1a). But then later amended his statement claiming that he simply told his mother that Jackson was a “bad man” and that “something had happened”. (3.1b). Another sworn statement amendment. In Leaving Neverland, Safechucks mother mentioned that she danced when she heard of Michael’s death as he could no longer harm children (in 2009). However on Oprah Winfrey’s “After Leaving Neverland” show in 2019 she asked Safechuck “So when did you realize it was abuse? You all use the word freely now as adult men, but when did you start to think of it as abuse?” Safechuck replied with “It wasn’t until Wade came out.” Safechuck saw Wade Robson come out in 2013. Why would Safechucks mother know of abuse in 2009 if it wasnt known as abuse until 2013. More inconsistencies in Safechucks versions. (3.1a) In his initial sworn statement on May 2, 2014, he said he knew he had been abused in 2005. SOURCE IMAGE (3.1b) On March 12, 2015, Safechuck filed a ‘supplemental’ sworn declaration in which he rewrote the section on his supposed confession to his mother, to erase any mention of the word ‘abuse’. SOURCE IMAGE 4. After seeing Robson on TV in 2013 discussing his allegations against Michael Jackson, Safechuck hired the same attorneys as Robson and filed copycat claims against the Michael Jackson Estate. Safechuck filed his complaint just weeks after his family’s business (James Safechuck Senior’s) was sued for $1 million. Robson and Safechuck refuse to say how much money they are demanding from Jackson’s Estate , but legal papers have estimated the figure as being hundreds of millions of dollars. As the Michael Jackson Estate pointed out, they therefore have hundreds of millions of reasons to lie. (5.1) (5.1a) In his sworn statement on April 30, 2013, Wade Robson outlines his successful career but says damages will be estimated by experts: SOURCE IMAGE (5.1b) In his creditor’s claim, of April 30, 2013, he gives a methodology for calculating compensatory damages, and is seeking punitive damages on top: SOURCE IMAGE Robson has been caught lying repeatedly during these lawsuits and has concealed evidence not only from the court, but even from his own lawyers. Summary judgment was awarded to the Jackson Estate on the basis that no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statement. Robson has provably lied about several things, including: i) when he learned of the Estate’s existence; ii) the amount he earned from auctioning his MJ memorabilia; and iii) saying he had only discussed his alleged abuse with lawyers when he was actually trying to sell a book about his alleged abuse. Before suing MJ’s companies, Robson brought a creditor’s claim against the Estate. His claim was three years out of time, so he had to present arguments justifying the lateness. His excuses were, i) I didn’t realise I was abused until years after MJ died; and ii) I didn’t know the Estate existed until 2013. There is definitive evidence that the second argument is bogus. After discovery, where evidence undermining Robson’s story was produced, the Michael Jackson Estate made a request for the case to be dealt with by way of a summary judgment. Summary judgment means a judge makes the decision with no need for a trial or a jury. In a summary judgement, a judge must assume that everything the plaintiff says is true, as long as a ‘rational trier of fact’ could also conclude that it was true. In other words, if there is any chance that a right-minded juror could believe it was true, the judge must assume it to be true. (8.1) But the judge was unable to do so. Definitive evidence showed Robson had not only known about, but had corresponded with, negotiated with and even met with Jackson’s Estate in 2011, two years prior to when he claims to have learned of the Estate’s existence. such, the judge ruled a rational trier of fact could not believe Robson’s account and awarded the summary judgment to the Estate, not to Robson and, as is explained in source (8.2), it is extremely difficult for a defendant moving party to win a motion for summary judgment. (8.1) This article explains the ‘rational juror’ standard for summary judgements: (13.2) The difficulty of winning a motion for summary judgment as a defendant. In his summary judgment on May 26, 2015, Judge Mitchell Beckloff found undisputed facts meant Robson’s story could not be true (9.1) (9.1) SOURCE IMAGE Safechuck has also lied during his lawsuit. Safechuck says that Jackson’s attorneys and assistant (Evvy Tavasci) phoned him to pressure him to testify in the 2005 criminal trial. Safechuck says he refused. However, testimony regarding Safechuck had been excluded by the judge early on in the proceedings and, as such, he was never called on to testify by the defense. This is also confirmed by Tom Mesereau’s private investigator, Scott Ross (10.1). (10.1) SOURCE IMAGE Safechuck claims he was abused from 1988 to 1992. In the documentary, he states that one of the places that he was abused was in the upstairs room of the main train station at Neverland (and images of the station are displayed). However, this train station was not constructed until 1994, two years after Safechuck (in his sworn testimony) states the abuse ended. In order to try and “explain” this lie, Dan Reed has claimed that Safechuck was not lying about being abused in a place that quite literally did not exist but that Safechuck got his dates wrong and was still being abused in 1994 and therefore could have been abused in the train station. Not only does this mean that Dan Reed is suggesting that Safechuck has perjured himself but also means that, according to Dan Reed (as opposed to Safechuck himself) Safechuck was being abused at the age of 15/16 (long after the age Dan Reed claims Michael Jackson lost interest in his victims) when he was physically bigger than Michael Jackson and during the period of time that Michael Jackson was being investigated by the authorities in relation to the Jordan Chandler allegations and whilst he was married to Lisa Marie Presley. In the ‘documentary’, Wade claims that his first abuse started when he was left alone with Michael when his family went to the Grand Canyon. However, in Joy Robson’s deposition in 1993 and 2016, she mentions that her whole family went. Joy had no reason to lie as she was open about Wade being alone with Michael during other times. So far four different lawsuits have failed but they continue to pursue their claims and are appealing the dismissal of their lawsuits. Dan Reed, director of “Leaving Neverland”, has admitted several times that he chose not to interview anyone who could have provided a different take on these stories. He did not want anyone to be able to discredit the story he wanted to tell. He also did not do any investigation to determine the veracity of the claims made by Robson and Safechuck nor does he provide any evidence whatsoever other than the word of two admitted perjurers. It is clear that the intention of this film is to present Michael Jackson as a paedophile without reference to any of the mountains of exculpatory evidence, all of which the Michael Jackson Estate has said it would have been happy to share. In the “documentary”, Robson suggests that Michael Jackson abused another of his friends, Brett Barnes. Barnes was never provided with an opportunity to participate in this documentary or to comment on the claims made about him. He vehemently denies that he was ever abused by Michael Jackson and to this day maintains that Michael Jackson was one of the best friends he ever had. Brett Barnes’s attorneys have threatened to sue HBO unless they remove all references to Brett Barnes from this documentary. Over a period of more than 10 years, Michael Jackson was extensively investigated by numerous agencies including the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles Department for Children and Family Services, the Santa Barbara Police Department, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office and almost 20 different service areas of the FBI. These investigations included at least three surprise raids on Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, plus raids on those who worked for him (and one illegal raid on his attorney’s private investigator). Jackson was therefore one of the most harassed and scrutinised men in America and yet no agency was ever able to find any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. When, after years of lurid tabloid innuendo had completely stained Jackson’s reputation, a prosecutor finally convinced a grand jury to allow a trial, Jackson was unanimously acquitted by an impartial jury on every single charge after they heard all the evidence. The above doesn’t even scrape the surface of the many inconsistencies, contradictions and outright lies being told about Michael Jackson, all of which are being completely ignored by the media. There is so much more to this story and once the true facts are laid bare, it is clear that the only victim here is Michael Jackson.

[mjinnocent]

TRAIN STATION LIE

3 years after Safechuck first introduced his allegations in court he suddenly realized that he was molested all over Neverland including in places which didn’t even exist.

While Safechuck is the only accuser who claims this and you can’t find this in his 2014-2016 petition, complaints or declaration, in a scene of Leaving Neverland, shot in 2017 he described how he and Jackson “had sex” “every day” in various Neverland spots, including in the upstairs room of the iconic train station.

Putting aside that that room was actually a loft without a door or even four walls where employees and guests, including the parents, could enter any time thus any abuse there would contradict Safechuck’s story of how careful and even paranoid Jackson was, supposedly setting up a secure place with an alarm and locks because “not getting caught was fundamental”,

there’s irrefutable proof the abuse in that train station could not have happened as it was built long after Safechuck’s alleged abuse ended, at a time when Safechuck was almost 16 years old, postpubescent and in fact already bigger than Jackson.

14 years old Safechuck and Jackson in 1992 on the set of the Jam video and 16 years old Safechuck and Jackson Aug 1994

Safechuck repeatedly stated in his court documents , including a sworn declaration, that his “abuse” ended in 1992, when he was 14 and when he fully reached puberty.

Safechuck declaration March 18 2015

Safechuck civil complaint, July 27 2015 

Safechuck second amended complaint, Sept 19 2016

In Leaving Neverland the “abuse” in the station is put between 1987 and 1990

Safechuck compares it to when couples are first dating, meaning it happened at the beginning of their relationship which would be 1988-1989 not 1993-1994. He also complains that in September 1992 Brett Barnes replaced him as the next victim. (Brett Barnes consistently defended Jackson and denounced Leaving Neverland)

In this BBC interview Safechuck again claimed he was abused until around 14. That was in 1992. By Dec 1993 he was almost 16.

This photo showing the station still under construction was taken by AP photographer Louis Bernstein on December 13, 1993.

The photo shows trees without leaves. Allan Scanlan, who worked in Neverland full time between 1990 and 2007, confirmed that some trees lost their leaves during the colder winter months.

AP confirmed the date, December 13 1993, as accurate

and Louis Bernstein confirmed she started to work for AP in Los Angeles in November 1993 and the photo was taken after that.

This aerial photo on Getty Images was taken on August 25, 1993 and it shows only the flower clock existed at that time, the train station did not.

The photo was taken by Steve Starr who confirmed the date is accurate.

He confirmed it to Jackson biographer and British journalist Mike Smallcombe too.

Allan Scanlan also confirmed that the train station was built in 1993.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Safechuck lied various efforts have been made by Jackson’s detractors to somehow make his story work.

1. Dan Reed first acknowledged the station date but now insisted that Safechuck was abused even in 1994. ( He turned 16 years old in February 1994.)

After the Sun reported that Reed changed his story Reed said Safechuck was molested into his teen and that is in the film.

He also insisted that Safechuck was molested in multiple places as if that would somehow prove he didn’t lie about abuse in the train station.

In reality just like Safechuck made it clear in court and in the BBC interview that his alleged abuse ended when he was 14, in 1992, in an interview with Queerty on March 4, Dan Reed himself claimed:

“He liked prepubescent boys, and he did have sex with Wade and James up to about the age of 14. Beyond that, I haven’t heard of a victim older than 14.”

After Aaron Carter defended Jackson Dan Reed said in an interview on the Australian breakfast show 2DayFM Breakfast that at age 15 he was too old for Jackson as the age that Michael routinely lost interest in boys was around 14/15.

But after it was proven that any abuse in the iconic station was only possible after Safechuck was almost 16 suddenly the 16 year old Safechuck was not too old for Jackson.

Reed admitted that these photos used in his film were taken by Safechuck himself

And it’s true he could take them in 1994-1996. But that in no way proves he was on the ranch with Jackson when he took those photos let alone that he was molested at that time. In fact, Jackson as stated in a sworn declaration in November 1997 didn’t live in Neverland in 1994 -1996, but in New York and overseas and only occasionally visited the ranch.

Safechuck and Reed so far did not name any date in 1993-1996 when Safechuck and Jackson were on the ranch together and Judi Brisse, a maid working in Neverland between 1991-1997, tweeted that when the Safechucks were there Jackson never was.

2. Reed’s admission that Safechuck gave those photos to him proves that he knew exactly which building he was talking about. Despite that there have been efforts to explain Safechuck’s lie away pointing to other train stations on the ranch. The idea is that Safechuck confused one of those with the station shown in Leaving Neverland. Beyond Safechuck’s photos and a drone footage over the main train station at the end of that scene making it clear they were talking about that station, there is the fact that the only station on the ranch with an upstairs room was the one built in December 1993. The Flamigo station:

Diane Dimond went so far as to argue that a 10-12 year old kid can’t tell the difference between a complex , two-storey building and a mere stops without any room.

3. On April 22, 2019, after Reed admitted that the station indeed did not exist before Jan 1994 he changed his tune again, tweeting an interview with Harrison Funk where Funk said that Jackson didn’t want him to photograph the train station because “he put it up without a permit initially”.

But Funk did not say the station was completed before 1993 and nowhere does he mention construction permit either. He said the photoshoot took place in June 1994 and Jackson could refer to an occupancy permit which is issued after a final inspection or revision permits which could still be needed since the actual building that was built was not the same approved by the original Sept 1993 permit, which becomes obvious when one compares it to the drawing on the land use permit plan.

In fact on the original plan the bay window looks different , hence a new permit was issued for the new version in 1994.

Funk responded to Reed and clarified that that conversation between him and Jackson happened in June 1994

Whether in June 1994 Jackson indeed needed additional permits or was not well-informed about the process and believed he needed them is unclear but of course Reed could not explain why he would first build the station then get a permit for one that looks different than what was actually built.

4. In April 2019 the British tabloids, The Daily Mirror and The Sun ran stories claiming there was “bombshell evidence” that Safechuck was telling the truth. This supposed evidence were two books, “Remember the Time – Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days” by Javon Beard and Bill Whitfield and Jackson’s two bodyguards and “Untouchable – The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson” by Randall Sullivan.

The first book only gives a general description of how Neverland looked but does not specify when it looked that way. And the two authors never visited Neverland, they started working for Jackson in December 2006, after Jackson left the ranch. The book was ghostwritten by Tanner Colby who most probably wrote this passage. Colby never visited Neverland either.

Whitfiled confirmed that he doesn’t know how Neverland looked and what building existed in the early 90s and he accused the media of twisting his book to suite their agenda.

As for Sullivan, he assumed the station was there then but his description of Neverland was actually based on a Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department video made during the 2003 raid. The book has many factual errors, this is just one of them in Chapter 6:

Those who desperately try to legitimize this scene know if people learned the truth how Safechuck was acting here and performed a calculated lie most would dismiss his allegations altogether.

If he was willing to lie about this why couldn’t he easily lie about any other abuse in any other location? The goal of the filmmakers was to make it as shocking and as detailed as possible. As it is often the case with false accusers, they failed to fact check each and every aspect of every detail and those aspects expose that the story was fabricated.

[mjinnocent]

GRAND CANYON LIE

In a 2017 interview shot for Leaving Neverland Robson described how he was first abused for 5 days while his family went to the Grand Canyon. But just a few months earlier his mother swore that the whole family, including Wade, left Neverland.

Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.

Joy Robson’s September 30, 2016 sworn deposition:

versus

Leaving Neverland:

The first one was stated under oath while Joy Robson supported her son’s allegations. Why would she lie about this there when at the same time she had no problem admitting that she left Wade alone with Jackson on other occasions? If she told the truth in 2016 then none of those graphic sex acts Robson alleged could possibly happen as he was simply not with Jackson.

But if Joy lied in 2016 it shows how effortlessly she can lie even under oath and then why should we believe anything she says in Leaving Neverland?

In her 1993 deposition she also said her family went on the Grand Canyon trip, no mention of Wade being left behind, and she also said her son had never been to the ranch without her before 1993.

There Joy had no problem with admitting that she left Wade alone with Jackson either. Admitting that she did that in February 1990 too wouldn’t have made any difference.

In 2005, under oath, Wade Robson corroborated the 1993 and 2016 version of events. He said he remembered only one occasion of him being there without his mother: when other people were there. That would be 1993 when Robson was there along with the Culkins and Chandlers.

Wade Robson’s testimony, May 5, 2005 :

26 A. Yeah. That first time, I think a couple 27 times, sometimes I would stay by myself. Always — 28 I think — sometimes — most of the time my mother 1 and I went to the ranch together. I think once I 2 was there by myself without my mother. There was 3 other people there.

In his 2005 testimony Robson remembered that he stayed in Neverland for a week and his family was there too, with his sister sleeping in the same bed.

22 Q. When do you think you first went to 23 Neverland? 24 A. It was right after that visit. I’m pretty 25 sure it was that night that we went, my whole family 26 went to the ranch. And, you know, we stayed for, I 27 don’t know, about a week or something like that.

He even said that he slept in a bed with Jackson and his sister for a week:

13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr. 14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your 15 seventh year; is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during 18 that week as well? 19 A. Yes.

In this 2007 interview, recalling that first trip to Neverland in Feb 1990, he said they stayed on the ranch for a week. No mention of him being left alone.

It’s possible Wade didn’t remember correctly in 2005 and 2007 where he was or who he was with when he was just 7, after all he was only 7. Which makes his performance in Leaving Neverland even less believable: there he talks like he vividly remembers not only when and where everyone was but what Jackson supposedly told him, quoting him verbatim, how he felt, how Jackson supposedly cried, and how he felt about that, what was in the room, what position he was in during the “abuse”, where Jackson touched him even how Jackson’s hair felt.

But his 2012 emails reveal that he actually remembered very little about that first visit and had to interrogate his mother for the details.

In an exchange on July 23 , 2012 Robson asked her mother about a book she was writing because he wanted to learn the details of how “stuff went down in the past.” Joy responded that she had several versions and will let him know if she thinks it’s something that can benefit him.

Then Robson asked her how long he stayed with Jackson before the rest of the family returned from the Grand Canyon.

In an email on Sept 12, 2012 Robson asked, among many other questions,

How did it happen that I ended up staying with Michael and you guys went to the grand canyon? How did that decision get made? Can you explain all that you remember of that first night at Neverland? What happened when we drove in, what did we do? And that first weekend at Neverland?

In another email on Oct 4, 2012 he asked his mother what they were doing after returning from the RV trip.

But in Leaving Neverland he presents all these as his independent memories, no sign that he had to ask for the details. Is it believable that he remembers so many of his precise thoughts and feelings, Jackson’s complete statements, where Jackson’s hand was, how the parents had no direct access to him and how many days he had ahead of him being alone with Jackson? 

Then he goes into even greater details about what they were doing during the day and how exactly he was molested at nights. 50 very specific details from a man who in 2012 didn’t remember at all what they did during that first weekend and who in 2005 incorrectly remembered his sister sleeping in the same bed with him during the very nights he now claimed all these happened:

1.The days were filled with playing tag , 2. watching movies, 3. he taught me how to do the Moonwalk. 4. We were going to sleep in his bed. 5. The first thing I remember Michael moving his hand across my legs, 6. we’re both clothed in PJs 7. and then his hand got to, you know, my crotch area. 8. Fondling my penis over the top of my pants. 9. And then his hands went underneath my pants 10. and started touching my penis underneath my pants. 11. There was nothing aggressive about it nothing abrasive 12. I never felt scared, anything like that. 13. It just didn’t seemed that strange. 14. And then him guiding me to do the same thing with him. 15. So moving my hands to touch his penis which was, you know, erect. 16. Him talking to me “you and I were brought together by God. 17. We were meant to be together 18. And this is us showing each other that we love each other. 19. This is how we show our love. 20. It escalated rapidly. 21. So taking showers together 22. and fondling and kissing so him kissing me, 23. I mean like full open mouth tongue in mouth kissing. 24. He would put my fingers on his nipples 25. and tell me to squeeze them 26. He would moan and react to that like it felt good 27. I liked the feeling that was making him happy that was pleasing him 28. And then Michael pulling my pants and my underwear down, pulling them off 29. and going down and starting to perform oral sex on me. 30. And I remember him putting my hands on his head when he was down there 31. I’ll not forget the feeling of his hair, 32. almost like a brillo pad, this roughness” 33. It quickly turn to having me perform oral sex on him too. 34. He didn’t ejaculate when he had me perform oral sex on him 35. but he would masturbate in front of me. 36. He would have me go to the far corner of the bed 37. so he would be laying back on a pillow 38. and have me go to the far corner of the bed 39. and be on all fours and have me just bend over 40. so he could look at my anus while he was masturbating 41. and I was just kind of on display 42. and then periodically he would come up and stick his tongue in my anus. 43. Right in front of me there was this big kind of elaborate Peter Pan cardboard cut out 44. so I was either looking back at him masturbating or looking forward at Peter Pan. 45. And then we get up in the morning like nothing had every happened 46. and go have another day filled with childhood magical games and adventures.” 47. When my parents came back at the end of the week I definitely remember a feeling of us and them. 48. Our relationship has evolved in so many ways 49. and he had done so much talking to me about not trusting people, any people. Especially women. 50. He started calling me son.

Can you remember complex sentences anyone told you when you were seven? Or complex feelings Robson claims to remember here?

In September 2009 in an interview with Dance Magazine Robson described his experience of learning the moonwalk. Was he fabricating these details too or he told the truth and then we should believe his mind was on the moonwalk all night after being brutally molested?

“I remember the first time he taught me the moonwalk at the dance studio at Neverland. I was 7, I think. I remember standing at the ballet barre and him teaching me to push back one foot at a time, teaching me the weight distribution on the balls of the feet. “Now just go, push off, and fly!” he said. That night I couldn’t sleep. I had to get up every 15 minutes and do it again.”

How much we can trust Robson’s memory when what Jackson supposedly told him after the first alleged abuse was different in his complaint and in Leaving Neverland?

In his complain there is no mention of God bringing them together or them being meant to be together. And in Leaving Neverland there is no mention of people being ignorant and therefore not understanding this is how they show their love to each other. Notice all these are between quotes.

In 2005 Joy Robson testified that during that first weekend they talked about Wade going with Jackson to Japan. The prosecutor tried to make it look like Jackson didn’t want to go to Japan but rather spend time with Wade. But Joy said it was Wade who wanted to stay in Neverland.

23 Q. Okay. Now, during that first visit, the 24 first weekend that you were at the ranch, did the 25 subject of your son going on a trip to Japan come 26 up? 27 A. Yes. 28 Q. So this would have been on the first day or 1 the second day? 2 A. I don’t recall, I’m sorry. 3 Q. One of those two days, in any case? 4 A. Possibly. 5 Q. And the subject of the conversation was that 6 you had agreed to allow your son to accompany Mr. 7 Jackson on a trip to Japan if they wanted to go, 8 correct? 9 A. I think we talked about it. 10 Q. Well, did you agree to allow him to go with 11 Mr. Jackson on a trip to Japan? 12 A. I can’t remember really. I think I may 13 have, but we decided not to. 14 Q. Mr. Jackson decided he would rather spend 15 time with your son than go to Japan? 16 A. I think the decision was Wade preferred to 17 stay here. Stay at Neverland. 18 Q. So it wasn’t Mr. Jackson’s decision. It was 19 Wade’s decision? 20 A. It was Wade’s decision.

15 Q. Having read that, does that refresh your 16 recollection as to whose idea it was to cancel the 17 trip to Japan? 18 A. Well, it says that Wade was given the 19 choice, and Wade preferred to stay at Neverland. 20 Q. It says, “After the first weekend that we 21 were there, he cancelled the trip because he wanted 22 to stay and spend some time with us,” does it not? 23 A. If you read further down. 24 Q. Yeah, it says, “But he asked to go on this 25 trip with your son,” and “I offered to let Wade go 26 with him”? 27 A. Further. 28 Q. Do you want me to read the whole thing? 1 A. No, just a couple, few more lines. 2 Q. It doesn’t get any better. 3 A. Just a few more lines. It will say exactly 4 what I said. 5 Q. And then Wade had a choice of going to Japan 6 or staying at Neverland, and he chose to stay? 7 A. Yeah. That’s what I said, Wade was given 8 the choice. And he decided to stay at Neverland. 9 Q. But it was the defendant’s choice not to go 10 to Japan, as you testified. 11 A. He had a business trip and he cancelled it, 12 and because Wade decided to stay at Neverland, but 13 it was Wade’s choice.

There is no mention of the canceled trip to Japan in Leaving Neverland. Joy’s testimony shows that if Robson did stay in Neverland it was because he wanted to and Jackson did whatever the Robsons wished to do. In the film Joy Robson mentioned Los Angeles not Japan as a possible place to go.

“I remember going Michael’s room to talk about it and he said to Wade we can stay here, we can go to Los Angeles we can go whereever you want do whatever you want. Wade wanted to stay at Neverland.”

Of course Jackson simply trying to be kind and do whatever the Robsons wanted would not be consistent with the predatory image they wanted to sell. So to convince the viewer that Jackson manipulated Robson into staying with him he added a scene to his story: that Jackson was upset and crying and telling Wade he didn’t want to be alone and he didn’t want them to leave. He never mentioned this in his petition, complaints, declaration, the 2018 Inside Edition interview or the 2013 Today show interview let alone at any time before.

Here Robson pretends to remember 8 more intricate details:

1. how he fell asleep and woke up 2. that he heard Jackson crying 3. that he saw a figure in the corner scrunched up 4. that it was hard for Jackson to get words out 5. that Jackson said “I’m just so sad that you guys are going to leave me . I don’t want to be alone I don’t want you guys to leave” 6. that he felt the same way 7. that he felt a burden and guilt and thought “If I leave like what’s going to happen to him” 8. that Jackson was so upset

Which begs the questions:

1. Is that really how a seven year old would think? Feel a “burden and guilt”?

2. Did Robson really think that Michael Jackson as busy as he was and as many people he knew somehow would not know what to do if he, Wade Robson of all people, is not around him?

Robson’s current version that Jackson manipulated him to stay in Neverland and his entire family left is not corroborate by any testimony by employees who worked in Neverland at that time. Not even hostile employees like Mark Quindoy or Blanca Francia said that they saw the boy alone in Neverland for 5 days. And in Leaving Neverland they don’t show any photo or video of the Robson family at the Grand Canyon even though the film has many such family photos and videos from other locations. They only use a stock footage to illustrate the Grand Canyon trip.

Is it plausible that they go to the Grand Canyon and don’t take any photos there? Or is it possible the only photos they have also show Robson there, which of course would ruin the current version of their story?

In Leaving Neverland Joy Robson serves us another implausible story in and one she never mentioned before:

“I somewhat regretted it as we were traveling. I became a little anxious, at times, about it. And I remember calling once, and I couldn’t get through. I remember being absolutely hysterical on the phone at one point because I couldn’t get through, and I couldn’t find him.”

Is it believable that neither Joy Robson, nor Dennis Robson nor the grandparents thought about making sure they had a phone number they can call any time and reach Jackson while their son/grandson was on his ranch? Why doesn’t Joy explain why she “couldn’t get through”? What does that mean exactly?

They also felt the need to add this comment to Joy’s original interview:

“I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.”

It was a staged reshoot. Given that not only her hair but the outline of her face also changed and she doesn’t look as slim as in the rest of the film chances are this scene was shot months if not more later. She wore the same clothes and sat on the same furniture to fool the viewer that all this was continuous and spontaneous when in fact it was staged and deceptively edited: Joy Robson version 2 actually appears before Joy Robson version 1.

[mjinnocent]

Contradictions under oath

1.  Robson and Safechuck have sworn under oath that Michael Jackson NEVER did anything inappropriate. Both Robson and Safechuck signed sworn declarations in 1993 to defend Michael Jackson against the Jordan Chandler allegations. Robson testified under oath at Jackson’s 2005 trial defending Michael Jackson. A TV show is a TV show. They are either lying under oath (which is a criminal offence), or they are lying on a TV show (not a criminal offence).

2. Robson was questioned in detail during Michael Jackson’s criminal trial in 2005 and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by Michael Jackson despite being pressed about this topic by seasoned prosecutors.

3. In 2011, Robson was rejected for the lead choreography job in the Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. (3.1). It was following this rejection that he realised he had been abused.

4. Robson has repeatedly changed his story about why he testified in Jackson’s defence in 2005 as an adult. He initially claimed that he didn’t understand at the time that it was abuse (4.1) and had only had this epiphany after undergoing therapy in 2012/13. He later changed his story, saying he had felt sorry for Jackson’s children after seeing them at a dinner at Neverland and had not wanted to be responsible for effectively orphaning them by sending their father to jail (4.2). However, Taj Jackson has confirmed that this dinner took place after Wade had already testified (4.3), thereby debunking yet another of Wade’s stories. Wade later changed his story again and said he had been threatened and bullied by Jackson’s legal team (4.4) into testifying for the defence.

5. After losing out on the Cirque Du Soleil job, Wade Robson wrote a book claiming Michael Jackson had abused him and shopped it to multiple publishers, all of whom rejected it. He then filed a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s Estate under seal, followed by a lawsuit against Jackson’s companies. These claims were extensively litigated.    ———————–    ALL SOURCES: (3.1) SOURCE IMAGE and Declaration of John Branca at Robson Case (4.1) Story one – ‘I still did not believe I was sexually abused’ – Robson’s sworn declaration, May 1, 2013: SOURCE IMAGE (4.2) Story two – Did not want to orphan MJ’s kids – Leaving Neverland. Wade says in the film: “His mind was just in a whole other place. I remember all of us sitting at dinner and Paris, his daughter, just wanting to… wanting her dad’s attention. Kind of like, pulling on his arms and pulling on his fingers and, ‘Daddy, Daddy, Daddy’. And he was… I mean he just wasn’t there. I remember that. Just feeling really sad. What if he loses? What if he goes to jail? You know, and these are the last couple of times that they see their daddy? You know? Which built my conviction even that much more to save him.” (4.3) Taj Jackson has confirmed that this dinner took place after Wade had already testified (4.4) Story three – Bullied by the defence team – Los Angeles Times interview, Feb 20, 2019 and SOURCE IMAGE

[mjinnocent]

KEY FACTS: 1993 ALLEGATIONS

How did Michael Jackson meet Jordan Chandler?

Michael Jackson met Jordan Chandler in May 1992. Michael’s car broke down in Los Angeles and he went to a nearby car rental agency which was owned by Jordan Chandler’s stepfather, David Schwartz. Schwartz called his wife, June Chandler, and told her to bring Jordan who was a huge fan of the star. Schwartz also offered to rent a car to Michael at no charge if Michael would agree to take Jordan’s number and call him.

Michael accepted the offer and kept his promise, calling Jordan a couple of days later. Following this encounter, Michael struck up a friendship with the whole Schwartz-Chandler family. The Chandler family spent time with Michael at Neverland and also travelled with him from time to time and Michael visited the family at their home, too.

When did Jordan first make allegations of abuse against Michael Jackson

The allegations of abuse did not originate with Jordan Chandler. In fact, it was Evan Chandler (Jordan’s father) who first made the claims of abuse, even when Jordan denied them strongly. Following his divorce from June when Jordan was about 5 years old, Evan did not play much of a role in Jordan’s life. He took little interest in his son, until he learned that Jordan had struck up a friendship with Michael Jackson. It was at this point that he suddenly wanted to be greatly involved in Jordan’s life and wanted to meet Jordan’s new friend. Evan quickly became jealous of Jordan’s relationship with Michael and of the fact that Jordan preferred to spend time with Michael rather than him. Shortly after meeting Michael, Evan suggested to him that Michael should build (and pay for) a new wing on Evan’s house or build him a new home entirely so Michael could come and stay more frequently. Michael declined to do this. Evan also had ambitions of being a Hollywood screenwriter and wanted Michael to fund his projects, including a 50/50 partnership with Michael to create a film production company which Michael also declined. In July 1993, Jordan went to visit his father for a week. At the end of this week, Evan refused to return him to his mother who had legal custody. It was during this week that Evan, under the guise of performing a minor dental procedure, sedated his son and Jordan allegedly confessed. Between this time and 17 August, Evan made repeated financial demands to Michael but all were refused (see point 4 for further information). Evan was required, by a court order, to return Jordan to June by 17 August but he did not want to lose control over the boy. In order to avoid having to comply with the court order and angered by Michael’s refusal to pay him off, Evan took Jordan to a psychiatrist and Jordan alleged abuse. The psychiatrist was obligated to report these allegations and Michael thus became the subject of a criminal investigation.

Did Evan Chandler drug his own son to extract a confession?

We know that Evan Chandler administered a drug to Jordan in July 1993 to pull a retained baby tooth. It has been strongly suggested that the drug used was Sodium Amytal, a drug which makes the user highly susceptible to false memories and suggestions. It is worth noting that prior to this, Jordan consistently denied that Michael had behaved inappropriately with him in any way whatsoever. Although there are some questions as to the exact drug used, the Chandlers themselves confirm that Jordan was indeed sedated and that after Jordan emerged from his sedation he “confessed” to have being abused. According to Ray Chandler ‘s (Evan Chandler’s brother) book, the “confession” was obtained as a result of Evan pressuring and lying to his son and blackmailing him that he would destroy Michael and it would be Jordan’s fault.  This confession was made on 16 July 1993. However, on 14 July 1993 (before Jordan confessed to anything), Evan Chandler and his attorney had already contacted a psychiatrist who, without having met or examined either Jordan or Michael, determined that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred”. This letter was used by Evan to try and blackmail Michael into a financial payout in return for not going public with the allegations. Michael refused to pay.

What evidence is there that Evan Chandler was trying to extort Michael Jackson?

There is a significant amount of evidence that Evan was simply seeking a financial payout and was using his son’s friendship with Michael as the means to achieve this. From his initial demands that Michael build him a home and finance his screenwriting career to the way in which he approached the entire episode, it is clear that Evan’s primary motive was money. One of the most significant pieces of evidence are the recordings of phone conversations between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (June’s husband). Importantly, these conversations took place on 8 July 1993 (again, before Jordan’s alleged confession). During these calls, Evan explicitly stated that there was a plan in place and that he had been “told what to do” and what he could say. Evan told David that even his then wife thought he was “out of control” and that it would be satisfying for him to “see everybody get destroyed”. Evan was furious that “they” (we can assume he meant Michael, June and Jordan) wouldn’t talk to him and told David “I mean, once I make that phone call, this guy’s [Evan’s attorney] just going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”  In a later conversation that day, Evan went on to say that Michael was “evil” for coming between “this family of June, me and Jordan” and that “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.” When asked by David if this would help Jordan, Evan’s response was “It’s irrelevant to me”.  At one point, David directly asked Evan if Evan thinks “that he’s [Michael] f****** him?” and Evan’s response was “I don’t know. I have no idea”.

Furthermore, in August 1993, Evan demanded that Michael pay him $20 million. Michael refused and his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, countered with an offer of $1 million to fund three screenplays written by Evan and Jordan.  Pellicano later stated that he made this offer to have a record of the Chandlers negotiating a financial payout. Evan refused this offer, expecting that a bigger offer would follow. However, on 13 August, an offer of $350,000 was made by Pellicano. Evan’s lawyer tried to get the original offer of $1 million reinstated but Michael refused, showing that he had no intention of paying to silence Evan or Jordan. Michael had plenty of opportunities to prevent the allegations from going public but he chose not to do this. Indeed, Ray Chandler wrote in his book that “had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

What happened after Jordan “confessed” to the psychiatrist in August 1993?

As soon as Jordan alleged that he had been abused by Michael, the psychiatrist was legally obligated to report this to the authorities. This triggered a criminal investigation and also meant that Evan did not have to return Jordan to June. Authorities begin investigating, including carrying out search warrants on Michael’s homes and hotels in which he stayed. Despite the extensive nature of these searches and the seizure of videotapes and computers, investigators were unable to find anything incriminating at all. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported on 27 August 1993 that a high ranking police source said “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing”.

In late August 1993, Evan’s lawyer withdrew from representing the Chandlers after Michael filed extortion charges against him and the Chandlers. Evan subsequently hired Gloria Allred but fired her two days later after she held a press conference stating that the accuser was willing to testify in court. Evan, still pursuing a financial payout, replaced her with Larry Feldman, a civil attorney. Ray Chandler confirms that this was because the Chandlers wanted to steer the case toward “a highly profitable settlement” rather than a Grand Jury indictment and a criminal trial. In September 1993, Feldman filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Michael on behalf of the Chandlers.

During the course of the investigation, police interviewed dozens of children who had spent time with Michael. They employed highly aggressive tactics, seeking to pressure young children into making allegations of abuse against Michael. This included telling these children lies (such as falsely telling them they had nude photos of them) and pressing them for hours to make accusations against Michael. All the children stated that Michael had never behaved inappropriately with them, apart from one: Jason Francia (see point 6 for further information). Police also raided the offices of Michael’s dermatologist and seized his medical records.

Michael returned to the USA on 10 December 1993 (he had been abroad on tour and then recovering from an addiction to painkillers). On 20 December 1993, he was subjected to a humiliating full body strip search (see point 7 for more information).

On 25 January 1994, the Chandlers and Michael reached an out of court settlement in relation to the civil case only (see point 9 for more information about the settlement). As part of this settlement, Michael was made to agree to withdraw the extortion charge against Evan Chandler.  The criminal case continued to progress and the settlement did not – and could not – impact that at all.

Between February and March 1994, two grand juries were convened to review the evidence and determine whether there was enough evidence to charge Michael with a crime. During grand jury proceedings, only the prosecution team is present; the defence is not even allowed to attend. Thus the jurors hear evidence only from the prosecution. Although the prosecution is obliged to put forward any exculpatory evidence they often do not present it fully or to best advantage for the defendant. It is widely accepted that grand jury proceedings are unfair and are a tool for the prosecution to ensure the result they want. It is said that when a grand jury is used it would be possible to “indict a ham sandwich”.  Despite this, both grand juries failed to return an indictment. Nonetheless, prosecutors refused to close the case.

In September 1994, prosecutors announced that they were unable to file any charges against Michael because Jordan refused to testify. The Los Angeles District Attorney confirmed that the over-a-year long investigation did not yield anything incriminating against Michael and that he was not being charged with a crime. Sneddon, however, maintained that despite not charging Michael with anything, the investigation would remain open. He continued to make such statements until 2001.

Did anyone else allege that they were abused by Michael in 1993?

Of all the children that were questioned by the police only one, Jason Francia, eventually succumbed to the interrogations (after initially maintaining there was no improper behaviour) and alleged that Michael had touched him inappropriately whilst tickling him. This allegation came off the back of highly unethical and improper questioning from the police including the police telling the child that Michael was abusing Macauley Culkin and that Corey Feldman had a drug problem because he was abused by Michael and that he would die by the time he was 22 because of this.  During the course of the interviews, Jason said: “They [the interrogators] made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn’t want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head”. During Michael’s 2005 trial, Jason admitted that he said things during the police interviews because he was “trying to figure out how to get out of there”.

Towards the end of 1994, having seen that the Chandlers received a settlement, Jason’s mother, Blanca, threatened to file a civil lawsuit against Michael (she had indicated her intention of suing Michael for money as early as March 1994). Having just put the Chandler saga behind him and getting ready to release a new album a few months later, Michael settled with both Blanca and Jason. The settlement documents emphasized that there had been no wrong-doing on the part of Michael and it is worth noting that no criminal charges were ever filed against Michael on the basis of the claims made by Jason. Michael settled to avoid civil litigation not to prevent any criminal proceedings.

In fact, Jason’s allegations were heard in detail during Michael’s 2005 trial during which both Jason and his mother were called to testify. However, his claims were contradictory and unreliable and following the trial, the jury foreman stated in an interview that the jury “had a hard time believing him” and that “he just didn’t seem that credible”.

Did Jordan’s description of Michael’s genitalia match the pictures taken by the authorities?

On 20 December 1993, Michael was strip searched and his entire body, including his genitalia, was photographed and videotaped to compare against the description of Michael’s body given by Jordan.

During Michael’s 2005 trial, Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney, tried to claim there was a match between the photographs and the description solely on the basis of a single mark on the right side of Michael’s penis being at the same “relative” location as a blemish located by Jordan in his drawing (note the use of the word “relative” and not exact. It was never made clear what “relative” meant in this context). Sneddon goes on to say that he did not believe that Jordan would have been able to guess that Michael had any discoloration.  However, this is not true. Firstly, in February 1993, Michael revealed to the world in an interview that he suffered with vitiligo, a skin condition which causes discoloration of the skin and Jordan would have seen the discoloration on Michael’s arms and legs etc and, therefore, would be able to make an educated guess that his penis was also affected. Secondly, when Michael stayed at Evan’s house for the weekend in May 1993, Evan injected medication into Michael’s buttocks so knew what his buttocks looked like. In his book, Ray Chandler quotes a conversation between Evan and his attorney on this issue as follows:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“

“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”

“Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

Furthermore, Jordan described Michael as being circumcised but we know from his autopsy that he was not, in fact, circumcised. Given the acts of molestation alleged by the Chandlers, Jordan should have known whether or not Michael was circumcised.

Additionally, the news reports in the immediate aftermath of the strip search reported (citing law enforcement sources) that the photographs did not match the description given by Jordan. It was only later that the narrative changed after Sneddon alluded to a match in a press interview. In fact, during the Grand Jury proceedings in spring 1994, Katherine Jackson (Michaels’ mother) was called to testify as to whether or not Michael had altered the appearance of his genitalia so that it would not match the description given by Jordan! Had the photographs matched the description, such a question would have been irrelevant.

Ultimately, if the photographs had matched the description, it is highly likely Michael would have been arrested and charged. He was never charged with anything in relation to the Jordan Chandler allegations.

What about the Neverland staff that allegedly witnessed abuse?

In November 1993, five former bodyguards of the Jackson family file a civil lawsuit against Michael claiming $10 million for being fired because they “knew too much” about Michael’s relationship with young boys. In fact, the bodyguards who made these claims on the TV show Hard Copy never worked for Michael and documents later revealed that they had negotiated a fee of $100,000 for appearing on the show. Furthermore, they never reported any inappropriate behaviour to the police and, in depositions given to investigators, they admitted they had never seen anything inappropriate. Their case was thrown out of court in 1995.

Five Neverland employees (known as the “Neverland 5”) sued Michael in the 1990s for wrongful termination, seeking $16 million in compensation. The five claimed that they had witnessed inappropriate behaviour by Michael. None of these people ever reported this inappropriate behaviour to the authorities at the time these acts allegedly occurred.

One of the five, former maid Adrian McManus, claimed to have witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately with Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin (both Brett and Macauley have consistently maintained to this date that Michael never behaved inappropriately with them or harmed them in any way and even testified in his defence in 2005). However, in December 1993, Mcmanus testified under oath that she never observed any inappropriate behaviour or any form of sexual behaviour by Jackson towards Jordan Chandler or any other child. She even said she trusted Jackson so much that she would have no problem with leaving her son alone with him. During Jackson’s trial in 2005, she changed her story again and claimed she lied whilst under oath in 1993.

Another two of the five, Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool first made allegations against Michael during the grand jury proceedings in February/March 1994. However, in January 1994, Abdool had signed a statement stating that he had never seen Michael touch a child in a sexually inappropriate manner. During his deposition, Chacon asked the Detective to help him with money and a gun permit, both of which were provided. It was also revealed that in 1994, Chacon was in severe financial difficulties for several reasons: he owed money on a lost lawsuit, owned money in child support and owed money   on missed rent payments.

The Neverland 5 lost their lawsuit (Chacon and McManus were even found guilty of stealing from Michael). During their case, the Neverland 5 and their attorney were sanctioned $66,000 for lying during their depositions and on the stand and for discovery violations. Judge Zel Canter, who presided over the civil trial, left the bench after stating he was disgusted. The jury rejected the wrongful termination lawsuit against Michael and ordered the Neverland 5 to pay him damages. The court also imposed attorney’s fees and costs of $1.4 million against the five. As of the time of their testimony in 2005 none of them had paid the damages to Michael. It is also worth noting that prior to their lawsuit, these five employees had also sold stories to tabloids.

It also emerged during the 2005 trial that McManus and her husband were ordered to pay $17,000 each in another lawsuit, in which it was ascertained that they stole money from an estate that was set-up for minor relatives of McManus.

Phillip LeMarque and his wife Stella Marcroft who worked at Neverland for approximately 10 months in 1991 also claimed to have witnessed inappropriate behaviour, including seeing Michael put his hand into Macauley Culkin’s pants (Macauley denied this during his 2005 testimony in defence of Michael). Neither went to the authorities but, instead, sought to sell their story to the tabloids. They were offered $100,000 but tried to negotiate for $500,000. The LeMarques were also in financial difficulty; the restaurant they opened after they had left Neverland went bankrupt and they were in significant debt. Later they went into the adult industry.

Why did Michael “pay off” the Chandlers and settle if he was innocent?

It is widely believed that Michael bought his way out of criminal prosecution by settling with the Chandlers on 25 January 1994. This is factually incorrect. The settlement put an end to the civil proceedings and not the criminal proceedings. Criminal cases cannot, by law, be settled in this way. The criminal investigation into Michael Jackson continued after the settlement was concluded and the settlement document itself expressly states that Jordan was free to testify in any criminal proceedings. Indeed, in a press conference after the settlement was signed, the Chandlers’ lawyer said that Jordan would continue to cooperate with the criminal investigation and that “nobody’s bought anybody’s silence”.

So why did Michael settle? It was clear from the outset that the Chandlers’ sole aim was a financial payout. Less than a month after the criminal investigation began, the Chandlers filed a civil lawsuit, seeking $30 million.

Michael had no interest in settling with the Chandlers. As discussed in point 4 above, the Chandlers had previously sought a payout of $20 million. Michael refused to pay this and had his investigator counter with an offer of $1 million. Evan Chandler refused this but, instead of coming back with a higher offer as was expected by Evan and his lawyer, Michael’s camp offered $350,000. Even when Evan’s lawyer tried to get the offer of $1 million reinstated, Michael refused to pay. His investigator later revealed that they only engaged in the negotiations to show that Evan was negotiating for money. Had Michael wanted to buy the accusers’ silence, he could have paid them off at this stage and prevented the whole saga from ever becoming public.

Civil complaints are usually filed/heard following the completion of criminal cases. In this case, the Chandlers were pushing for the civil case to be heard before the criminal case. Michael’s team filed four motions arguing that the civil trial should be heard after the conclusion of the criminal trial. The order in which these cases are heard is extremely important for several reasons. Firstly, if the civil trial went before the criminal trial, it would give the prosecutors in the criminal case a huge advantage because they would be given the opportunity to study Michael’s defence and tailor their case accordingly. Michael would have had to defend himself in civil proceedings and this would have revealed his strategy and defence to the waiting prosecution team. Secondly, the burden of proof is significantly lower in civil proceedings and therefore, it is easier to secure a ”win” in civil cases than in criminal cases. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in civil cases it is only the “preponderance of evidence” i.e. there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. Therefore, a civil trial is risky even if the defendant is innocent. Michael and his team were concerned that if he was found liable in a civil trial, it could prejudice a jury in any criminal trial. Furthermore, the rules of evidence are far more relaxed in civil proceedings than in criminal trials, again making it risky to allow the civil trial to precede the criminal trial. All of these reasons show that Michael’s constitutional right to a fair trial would have been severely compromised had the civil trial gone first.

Michael lost all four motions requesting that the civil trial be heard after the criminal trial and he was therefore caught in an extremely difficult position. Furthermore, the Chandlers filed a motion requesting that the civil trial be held within 120 days of the motion being granted. This would have meant that Michael and his team had only 120 days to prepare for the civil trial whilst also dealing with the criminal investigation at the same time. This too at a time when the police had seized all of Michael’s personal records and refused to hand over copies of them or even a list of what had been taken. According to Geraldine Hughes, the Chandlers’ lawyer’s legal secretary, “The District Attorney’s office was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights, and the Court was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy”.

As a result of this and to enable the criminal trial to proceed as fairly as possible, Michael reluctantly agreed to settle the civil case. As stated above, this did not prevent Jordan from cooperating with the criminal investigation; he chosenot to. The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money and pursued justice but they chose to simply take the money and refuse to cooperate to with the authorities to put away an alleged child molester.  

Ironically, the law that allowed the civil case to be heard ahead of the criminal case was changed as a direct result of what happened in this case. An accuser now cannot pursue a civil case before the criminal case.

What happened to the Chandler family after the Settlement?

The settlement was signed on 25 January 1994. In July 1994, Jordan informed investigators that he was not willing to testify. In September 1994, investigators announced that they would not be filing charges against Michael.

In July 1995, it was reported that Jordan (aged 15) was seeking to legally emancipate himself from both his parents. His emancipation became final in November and he went to live with his stepmother (who had, by this time, divorced Evan).

In May 1996, Evan filed a lawsuit against Michael (and others) for $60 million alleging that Michael had breached the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement by asserting his innocent during an interview. He also wanted a record deal so that he could release an album called “Evanstory” about the alleged sexual abuse of his son in response to Michael’s “HIStory” album. The lawsuit was thrown out of court in 2000.

In 2004, Ray Chandler self-published his book “All that Glitters” about the child abuse allegations against Michael which he had been shopping around since days after the 1994 settlement.  

In September 2004, prosecutors in the Arvizo trial against Michael visit Jordan Chandler in New York to ask him to testify against Michael in the upcoming trial. Jordan refused and stated that he would “legally fight any attempt” to make him testify.

In April 2005, June Chandler testified in the criminal trial against Michael. She was the only member of the Chandler family to do so and she admitted she had not spoken to her son, Jordan, for 11 years.

In August 2005, obtained a temporary restraining order against his father, claiming that while they were living in the same household Evan “struck him on the head from behind with a twelve and one-half pound weight and then sprayed his eyes with mace or pepper spray and tried to choke him.” The judge also found that the weight could cause “serious bodily injury or death.”

In November 2009, only 4 months after Michael’s own death, Evan Chandler committed suicide. In his will, Evan explicitly provided that “For reasons best known between us, I purposefully make no provision in this, my Last Will and Testament, for any of my children or their issue.”