NEW: Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar

[HIStory]

There are a lot of people assume they "know" the truth about Michael in their hearts. many don't. A lot of people go "um er we'll never really know what happened", including people who knew him. The only way to change hearts and minds is to batter them over the head with the facts, and that as fans we are more informed and knowledgeable about him than anyone else; because there are people out there who are "informed" on trashy things about him, and if we don't know as much as they do, they can easily try and manipulate or distort information to smear Michael's name, which they still attempt to do. We have to turn this information into common knowledge, we're the only ones who can do that. His family have almost a zero belief in achieving that, and most of his supposed friends are the same. It's up to us.

Exactly.

 

[144000]

I'm glad if you are educated about the facts of the case. But in your previous post you talked about how people only need to know it in their heart that he was innocent. No, that's not enough. People also need to know the facts of why he was innocent. Many people won't buy into any "just know it in your heart" argument, sorry. That's not too convincing from the outside.

I'm glad if many young people see through the lies, but many people do not. Until this day the allegations are being brought up in most articles written about Michael. Should fans just ignore the lies and not point out that they are lies and be able to show why they are lies? As far as I am concerned we owe that to Michael.

Beleive me: the allegations are the single biggest stumbling block for many people when it comes to MJ. If you don't see it, maybe you are in a lucky environment. I see it almost every day.

i know there are people out there who use hate speech against Michael. That's why I used the term 'haters'. And I know there are people out there who love him.

It says this is in the original, unedited format. I'm guessing she had to edit things down for her GQ article. I'm curious what she removed or GQ edited out, little things can turn out to be very useful later.

I also want to read her foreword, and see what her thoughts were on everything that happened in the trial. I wonder if she still follows what goes on with MJ/the allegations. Like the 1996 Evan lawsuit, Evan attacking Jordan, Evan's suicide. A lot of what she wrote predicted the Chandler's behavior.

I hope she DOES profit from this. I hope everything positive about Michael is viewed as being marketable and profitable, it's the only way we'll ever finally see an end to the endless crappy negative biographies and articles, if they realize there's money in actually telling the truth.

And there's a lot of naivety in the assumption people "know" the truth about Michael in their hearts. They don't. A lot of people go "um er we'll never really know what happened", including people who knew him. The only way to change hearts and minds is to batter them over the head with the facts, and that as fans we are more informed and knowledgeable about him than anyone else; because there are people out there who are "informed" on trashy things about him, and if we don't know as much as they do, they can easily try and manipulate or distort information to smear Michael's name, which they still attempt to do. We have to turn this information into common knowledge, we're the only ones who can do that. His family have almost a zero belief in achieving that, and most of his supposed friends are the same. It's up to us.

you said 'batter them over the head'

Let me ask you both this question...can you really tell the uninformed from the spam personalities, who will come back at you, no matter what you say, because of the decided eternal hate in their hearts? How do you deal with them? How many times are you going to inform them, and 'batter them over the head'?

and, by the way, if someone genuinely comes to me, and asks me about Michael and the case against him, i am not going to walk away from them. i Will tell them the informed truth. my mind was made up about that before this thread was put up. but if it starts to occur to me that the person that i am talking to is a spammer personality, i'm not going to keep going back and forth with them, until i end up in a physical fight or something. i made that mistake before..and i never will, again, because, like i said before, if somebody has their mind made up, it's made up.

 

[HIStory]

^^ Noone is talking about engaging in debates with spammers/trolls/haters (whatever one calls them). I agree there's no use arguing with those types. But there are a lot of people out there who believe Michael was a child molester, not because they are spammers/trolls/haters but simply because they have been mislead by media lies. Those are the people that can be reached and their minds be changed with facts.

 

[144000]

all that said, to me, Michael's name and rep are not tarnished.

 

[joanna48]

I am buying two copies of this book. One will be for my collection and one will be donated to my local library. That is one way to get
the facts about Michael out to more people.

 

[la_cienega]

Michael's name is tarnished to great many people, especially in the mainstream, he most definitely is.

As far as I'm concerned these lies killed him. It's only justice for him to me if the truth about what happened can be known to people now.

Personally I engage in any opportunity to inform people about Michael. I probably get into about 3-4 arguments about it a week online, and I'm fine with that. I know I've seen people change their minds or at least come away wondering if what they were so sure about is actually not so certain after all. And the more people these people engage with who are reasonable but informed, the more chance there is of more people learning and knowing more and spreading that info and rethinking their mindset. I've seen MANY people have their minds change over this. People can say the most angry hateful thing about him and then you come in and correct them and say "Actually his insurance paid off in January 1994, some 7 months after Evan Chandler threatened Michael privately...etc" and that what these people assumed were facts, stuff like MJ paying them off with his own money as soon as he was threatened, which is how the media portrays it, they're forced to reconsider. I've seen people apologize to me for being uninformed. I've seen people say how sorry they felt for Michael about what happened. Just because info has been posted.

Many many times people who I wasn't directly talking to will end up responding and say they had no idea about this - there are many many lurkers on forums, comments sections in articles, and so on, and if you're not changing the person you're talking to's mind, then you have no idea how many other people passing by may instead learn something from you, but they can't learn anything if we aren't willing to share the information we know. Sometimes I'm aggressive, but I try and be really matter of fact and simple about it, and I never try and put in any emotion about what kind of a person MJ was because people who believe he's a pedophile don't care about that, I've never ever seen anyone change their minds about Michael because someone told them he was a good person. Never. The only thing I've seen change people's minds is facts and a willingness to explain and engage in a reasonable way. So if someone asks you, "What about this Jesus Juice thing?" you can explain it in a reasonable way and not get angry, so they come away knowing more. But if fans don't know the answer and just say, "It's a lie, the whole thing was lies!" then nobody comes away knowing anything more than they did, and they will assume if you as a fan don't know why he's innocent of some thing, then it makes them suspect that you're afraid to find out the truth, which must mean the truth is bad.

I've seen it affect journalists. I've seen other people learn from the info posted and then spread it themselves.

But the only people who can share that information, who can be informed, who can inform others is us. And if we don't care because our hearts already know the truth, then we'll never change the perception about Michael and will just have to shrug and look away the next time some terrible article is written about him where they use Diane Dimond info or rehash proven lies about him and then we shouldn't complain. Because if we're not informing people, if we can't accurately state why something someone has said is a lie beyond "Michael had a good heart", then it'll just remain a lie that many, many people believe, and why should they reconsider if nobody else knows any better to correct them?


So yeah, I hope people really support articles like Fischer and any other future things like this too.

 

[144000]

Michael's name is tarnished to great many people, especially in the mainstream, he most definitely is.

As far as I'm concerned these lies killed him. It's only justice for him to me if the truth about what happened can be known to people now.

Personally I engage in any opportunity to inform people about Michael. I probably get into about 3-4 arguments about it a week online, and I'm fine with that. I know I've seen people change their minds or at least come away wondering if what they were so sure about is actually not so certain after all. And the more people these people engage with who are reasonable but informed, the more chance there is of more people learning and knowing more and spreading that info and rethinking their mindset. I've seen MANY people have their minds change over this. People can say the most angry hateful thing about him and then you come in and correct them and say "Actually his insurance paid off in January 1994, some 7 months after Evan Chandler threatened Michael privately...etc" and that what these people assumed were facts, stuff like MJ paying them off with his own money as soon as he was threatened, which is how the media portrays it, they're forced to reconsider. I've seen people apologize to me for being uninformed. I've seen people say how sorry they felt for Michael about what happened. Just because info has been posted.

Many many times people who I wasn't directly talking to will end up responding and say they had no idea about this - there are many many lurkers on forums, comments sections in articles, and so on, and if you're not changing the person you're talking to's mind, then you have no idea how many other people passing by may instead learn something from you, but they can't learn anything if we aren't willing to share the information we know. Sometimes I'm aggressive, but I try and be really matter of fact and simple about it, and I never try and put in any emotion about what kind of a person MJ was because people who believe he's a pedophile don't care about that, I've never ever seen anyone change their minds about Michael because someone told them he was a good person. Never. The only thing I've seen change people's minds is facts and a willingness to explain and engage in a reasonable way. So if someone asks you, "What about this Jesus Juice thing?" you can explain it in a reasonable way and not get angry, so they come away knowing more. But if fans don't know the answer and just say, "It's a lie, the whole thing was lies!" then nobody comes away knowing anything more than they did, and they will assume if you as a fan don't know why he's innocent of some thing, then it makes them suspect that you're afraid to find out the truth, which must mean the truth is bad.

I've seen it affect journalists. I've seen other people learn from the info posted and then spread it themselves.

But the only people who can share that information, who can be informed, who can inform others is us. And if we don't care because our hearts already know the truth, then we'll never change the perception about Michael and will just have to shrug and look away the next time some terrible article is written about him where they use Diane Dimond info or rehash proven lies about him and then we shouldn't complain. Because if we're not informing people, if we can't accurately state why something someone has said is a lie beyond "Michael had a good heart", then it'll just remain a lie that many, many people believe, and why should they reconsider if nobody else knows any better to correct them?


So yeah, I hope people really support articles like Fischer and any other future things like this too.

To me, I may represent the people you say you approach, that you feel are uninformed. And i'm studying how you approach that. And just like me, those people have emotions, and so you have to consider that, when you speak to them. And you have to carefully consider Everything your conversant says, and battering over the head seems aggresive and may not be be the best approach. I hope you give a fair and balanced response to them. Otherwise, it's just being contrarian, and frustrating the whole process.

If anyone thinks I feel the fight is totally futile with everybody You can't be further from the truth, I am a Michael Jackson fan.

Your post gave me the the impression you think the number of people that see Michael in a good light is miniscule. That would make me wonder how Michael has lasted this long in lore, in the hearts of people, and how in the hell is his music still selling?

I have come into many threads with an opinion about fact. There have been others who convinced me, in a respectful nice way, that I was wrong. without beating me over the head or being aggressive and I told them they were right.

I'm no different from anybody else and they are no different from me in the respect that how a person approaches them, makes all the difference. Not just words, but the use of them, and the spirit behind them.

 

[morinen]

Preparing a book for publication and printing it costs money, and putting it up on Amazon costs money too, because they take a comission. So even if somebody's doing a completely pro bono work, it'll still cost something to the end customer.
Besides, the lady is a professional journalist who is used to selling her work. She wrote 40 pages worth of well-researched informative material, why is she supposed to distribute it for free? Forget about the subject for a moment, think about this in professional terms.
It's not fair for fans to point at every book and every piece of merchandise and accuse the producer of greed at Michael's expence. Not everything that costs money is done to exploit Michael, okay? Michael Jackson is not a charity that people should donate their work to.


On a different note, buying a copy for the local library is a great idea. I'll do that too.

 

[144000]

no...not everything exploits Michael. just an enormous amount of things exploit Michael. This forum in different sections talks about a lot of them. And Michael is who i'm concentrating on, right now, since this is a Michael forum. And as far as Michael being a charity..why not? He dedicated his life to charity. It's ok for some people. at least, to return the favor on his behalf. This is what i'm talking about.

 

[morinen]

When I have my issues with the majority of the fandom, I feel at liberty to voice them (as long as they are not aimed at any person in particular)

In fact, speaking about that, I co-sign everything la_cienega said about educating people. In addition to explaining things to people online, in my country I managed to find a publisher for 2 positive important books about Michael and his art, and I'll put my efforts to get more of such books published. I think spreading objective factual information is the most important thing we can do for him.

 

[qbee]

Mod note _ Thread cleaned
Hey guys please Stop arguing talking down, berating and being condensending over how you want to approach or promote this this book _ Everyone is welcome to their opinion but be respectuful to one another if you disagree. Best to try to discuss the book and not each other so we can get back on topic _ If your post was deleted most likely was a reply to a deleted or edited post. If you want to re address your points do it without making it so personal toward each other. Thanks.

Carry on

 

[Ashtanga]

 

[qbee]

:girl_smile:

 

[mjbunny]

I'm reading the foreword right now on Kindle and I have to say I'm very disappointed that she mentions the fake internet confession like it's fact. :doh: That doesn't help things, darnit.

"Jordan Chandler, now 33, admitted publicly in 2009 that he had lied about the allegations and that he was deeply sorry. But by then, four years after the second Jackson molestation case ended in a trial acquittal, it was too late to restore Jackson's public image."

Will keep reading...

 

[HIStory]

I'm reading the foreword right now on Kindle and I have to say I'm very disappointed that she mentions the fake internet confession like it's fact. :doh: That doesn't help things, darnit.


Will keep reading...

Pretty disappointing.

The problem with such mistakes is that haters will gladly try do discredit the author and the whole article because of this. I also have to say I think Fischer is not right about her Sodium Amytal theory, still I think the article has very valuable and true informations.

 

[Tinkerbell88]

^Agree with you both. It's obvious that she didn't do her own research on where the key players are now and that she just used reports and unsubstantiated ones at that. I think some of the fans have dug up more reliable info on them - I wish she would have contacted JC's friends who were potential witnesses at the trial.

But then she does say this:

"Today, given the sweeping changes in journalism and cutbacks in investigative reporting, I doubt whether either of these stories— McMartin or Michael Jackson— would see the light of day. Few media organizations today can afford to support the time it often takes to report investigative stories. That leaves me wondering, and worried, about the stories that need and deserve to be told, but aren’t getting out because of cost.

Fischer, Mary A. (2012-10-04). Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar (Kindle Locations 75-78). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. "

...that's probably why she didn't do her own research.


And a lot of fans over the year have said they don't believe the sodium amytal angle - this is interesting:

"Another source, a lawyer connected to the Chandler family, had dodged my calls for weeks and then, one day, he finally agreed to meet. During our lunch, he wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know about Evan Chandler and his attorney, and then, just as I got ready to pay the check, he dropped the bombshell. Do you know about the drug given to Jordie, in a dentist’s office, the lawyer casually asked? I hadn’t known about it— the drug turned out to be sodium Amytal— and that piece of information, confirmed by a second knowledgeable source, eventually led to my uncovering the evidence I presented in the GQ story.

Fischer, Mary A. (2012-10-04). Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar (Kindle Locations 70-74). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. "

Isn't it weird that an attorney working for a party agrees to talk to the media and then just drops the sodium amytal story. It's like the Chandlers wanted that story out there.

 

[shelly_webster]

"Agree with you both. It's obvious that she didn't do her own research on where the key players are now and that she just used reports and unsubstantiated ones at that."

She said it, she said only knows what the public knows.

 

[144000]

edit. if anyone caught what i initially wanted to post, here, my hope is they didn't quote it. it was late at night for me, and i had combined curiosity with extreme tiredness and didn't really read it. but i'll go out on a limb and say, it's nice that it's available, immediately for me without effort. different time zones, many fans....can't hurt.

considering the immediacy, and my current financial situation..it's beneficial to me, so i hope to find time to truly read it soon, before i say what i would think i really want to say. Thanks.

 

[HIStory]

And a lot of fans over the year have said they don't believe the sodium amytal angle - this is interesting:

"Another source, a lawyer connected to the Chandler family, had dodged my calls for weeks and then, one day, he finally agreed to meet. During our lunch, he wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know about Evan Chandler and his attorney, and then, just as I got ready to pay the check, he dropped the bombshell. Do you know about the drug given to Jordie, in a dentist’s office, the lawyer casually asked? I hadn’t known about it— the drug turned out to be sodium Amytal— and that piece of information, confirmed by a second knowledgeable source, eventually led to my uncovering the evidence I presented in the GQ story.

Fischer, Mary A. (2012-10-04). Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar (Kindle Locations 70-74). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. "

Isn't it weird that an attorney working for a party agrees to talk to the media and then just drops the sodium amytal story. It's like the Chandlers wanted that story out there.

That's a great piece of info. I don't believe the Sodium Amytal story and one of the reasons is that while I researched that I got the feeling this was something thrown in by the Chandlers themselves to have an excuse for Jordan not testifying.

A reminder of the context of how the SA angle emerged:

It was first reported in May 1994 by Harvey Levin (now TMZ founder) who worked for a radio at the time. The settlement was already done in January, but the criminal process was ongoing and the prosecution pressured the Chandlers to testify in a criminal court, which they did not want to. Actually LA DA, Gil Garcetti even wanted to change the law to make the Chandlers testify in a criminal court.

Meanwhile in the spring of 1994 there was another high profile molestation case in the media, the Holly Ramona case, in which Ramona accused her father of molesting her when she was a child. At that trial it came out that SA was administered to Ramona and her memories were "recalled" under its influence. It came out at that trial that with the help of that drug unreliable and false memories could be planted in someone's mind, therefore Ramona's memories were deemed unreliable and the charges against her father were dropped. It's a bit suspicious that the SA rumour in the MJ case emerged exactly at that time.

Although in a 2005 article Ray Chandler tried to imply that the SA claim came from the Jackson camp, it did not. All traces of this story lead back to the Chandlers.

Mary Fischer wrote in her 1994 GQ article:

„A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations.”

The newsman was Harvey Levin. Pay attention to the wording! "The dentist claimed" - this indicates Evan Chandler as the source. Also the fact that it is emphasized that it was "only to pull his son's tooth" indicates the source is the Chandlers. Why would it be important for the Jackson camp to emphasize this so much?

Fischer asked Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist friend of Evan, who allegedly sedated Jordan that day. He was pretty ambiguous: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes."

If it's not a story that the Chandlers endorse then why did not he deny it flat-out? It's odd, to say the least. Torbiner is another source close to the Chandler camp, not the Jackson camp. It seems to be there was intent by the Chandlers to fuel the SA story - at least at the time.

Why would the Chandlers want to fuel such a story and basically say that Jordan's memories are unreliable? Well, based on the Ramona case they could have said Jordan's testimony was not admissible to court. Don't forget this was at a time when the prosecution put a big pressure on them to testify in a criminal court, but they did not want to! This could have been their excuse (or at least could have been prepared as an excuse, just in case the prosecution's pressure on them becomes too big).

For the record, in his book Ray Chandler does say that Jordan was sedated for a dental procedure before his "confession". But in a 2005 article he disputed the drug used was SA. Of course, in 2005 he did not have an interest in fueling the SA rumours, but in 1994 they did have an interest in that. And while the Chandlers never publicly claimed SA was used, but still the story points back to them. Levin's source seems to be Evan, Trobiner's lack of denial and ambiguity and now Fischer discloses that one of her sources for this story was Chandler's lawyer!

My conviction is that the SA story came from the Chandlers and it was something they wanted to plant in the media at the time for some reason (and I presented one theory about what that reason was).

Either way, the SA angle is not a pivotal part of Michael's defense. If you read the Chandlers' own account in Ray's book of how Jordan allegedly "confessed" to his father, that's a very problematic one as well. Based on their own story Evan bascially threatened and blackmailed Jordan into a "confession". But I have doubts that even under those circumstances a "confession" really happened on July 16, 1993. Why? That would take another few paragraphs to explain.

 

[shelly_webster]

That's a great piece of info. I don't believe the Sodium Amytal story and one of the reasons is that while I researched that I got the feeling this was something thrown in by the Chandlers themselves to have an excuse for Jordan not testifying.

A reminder of the context of how the SA angle emerged:

It was first reported in May 1994 by Harvey Levin (now TMZ founder) who worked for a radio at the time. The settlement was already done in January, but the criminal process was ongoing and the prosecution pressured the Chandlers to testify in a criminal court, which they did not want to. Actually LA DA, Gil Garcetti even wanted to change the law to make the Chandlers testify in a criminal court.

Meanwhile in the spring of 1994 there was another high profile molestation case in the media, the Holly Ramona case, in which Ramona accused her father of molesting her when she was a child. At that trial it came out that SA was administered to Ramona and her memories were "recalled" under its influence. It came out at that trial that with the help of that drug unreliable and false memories could be planted in someone's mind, therefore Ramona's memories were deemed unreliable and the charges against her father were dropped. It's a bit suspicious that the SA rumour in the MJ case emerged exactly at that time.

Although in a 2005 article Ray Chandler tried to imply that the SA claim came from the Jackson camp, it did not. All traces of this story lead back to the Chandlers.

Mary Fischer wrote in her 1994 GQ article:

„A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations.”

The newsman was Harvey Levin. Pay attention to the wording! "The dentist claimed" - this indicates Evan Chandler as the source. Also the fact that it is emphasized that it was "only to pull his son's tooth" indicates the source is the Chandlers. Why would it be important for the Jackson camp to emphasize this so much?

Fischer asked Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist friend of Evan, who allegedly sedated Jordan that day. He was pretty ambiguous: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes."

If it's not a story that the Chandlers endorse then why did not he deny it flat-out? It's odd, to say the least. Torbiner is another source close to the Chandler camp, not the Jackson camp. It seems to be there was intent by the Chandlers to fuel the SA story - at least at the time.

Why would the Chandlers want to fuel such a story and basically say that Jordan's memories are unreliable? Well, based on the Ramona case they could have said Jordan's testimony was not admissible to court. Don't forget this was at a time when the prosecution put a big pressure on them to testify in a criminal court, but they did not want to! This could have been their excuse (or at least could have been prepared as an excuse, just in case the prosecution's pressure on them becomes too big).

For the record, in his book Ray Chandler does say that Jordan was sedated for a dental procedure before his "confession". But in a 2005 article he disputed the drug used was SA. Of course, in 2005 he did not have an interest in fueling the SA rumours, but in 1994 they did have an interest in that. And while the Chandlers never publicly claimed SA was used, but still the story points back to them. Levin's source seems to be Evan, Trobiner's lack of denial and ambiguity and now Fischer discloses that one of her sources for this story was Chandler's lawyer!

My conviction is that the SA story came from the Chandlers and it was something they wanted to plant in the media at the time for some reason (and I presented one theory about what that reason was).

Either way, the SA angle is not a pivotal part of Michael's defense. If you read the Chandlers' own account in Ray's book of how Jordan allegedly "confessed" to his father, that's a very problematic one as well. Based on their own story Evan bascially threatened and blackmailed Jordan into a "confession". But I have doubts that even under those circumstances a "confession" really happened on July 16, 1993. Why? That would take another few paragraphs to explain.

How do we know it was Levin. I know Levin was working for KCBS-TV and Ray Chandler said it, but what evidence do we have of that?

 

[HIStory]

^^ Ray Chandler identified this KCBS-TV newsman as Harvey Levin in his 2005 article. BTW, isn't it also suspicious a bit that he knew who this newsman was, although Fischer did not name him in her article? That too points to that Levin's source were the Chandlers. Of course, another possibility could be that they simply heard the news report in May 1994 and also remembered the newsman's name and that's how they knew him by name (though Fischer did not give the name), but IMO everything taken together it does look like very much that the Chandlers were the source of the SA story.

 

[shelly_webster]

I believe the source is from the Chandler, but Ray never said how he knew it was Levin.

 

[HIStory]

I believe the source is from the Chandler, but Ray never said how he knew it was Levin.

He did not say how he knew, but he knew. Do you think he just made that up? Why would he throw in the name of a relatively well known journalist, who could object, if it wasn't really him?

 

[Tinkerbell88]

Thanks for that information. I haven't read Ray's book but have seen a few excerpts. At one point he admits they didn't want to participate in a criminal trial and gives this as the very reason as to why they fired Gloria Alred:

"Feldman’s strategy was diametrically opposed to Allred's. A civil attorney by trade, his goal was to sue for money, not push for a criminal prosecution."

http://allthatglittersbyrchandlerreview.wikispaces.com/All+That+Glitters+by+Raymond+Chandler+Review

Either way, the SA angle is not a pivotal part of Michael's defense. If you read the Chandlers' own account in Ray's book of how Jordan allegedly "confessed" to his father, that's a very problematic one as well. Based on their own story Evan bascially threatened and blackmailed Jordan into a "confession". But I have doubts that even under those circumstances a "confession" really happened on July 16, 1993. Why? That would take another few paragraphs to explain.

I'd like to here you're take on this if you have time to explain.

 

[HIStory]

^^ Yes, they never wanted a criminal trial - in fact, they were scared of it! This is also from Ray's book:

"Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. "Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don't want your deposition, or June's deposition. They don't want to preserve anything. If they're gonna make a deal they don't want anything on the record about Jackson."

No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess."

"Yeah, they fucked this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I'm going forward. We're going to push on. So far there ain't a button I've missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don't want them going first."

Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.

"You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
"Yeah."
"Jesus Christ!"
"Right! So we don't want that."

Don't forget that it's the criminal trial that can put a criminal behind bars, the civil is only about money. The Chandlers pushed for the civil and never wanted a criminal...

I'd like to here you're take on this if you have time to explain.

My suspicion that it never happened was also raised when reading Ray's book. For a start this is what Ray writes about how Jordan allegedly "confessed" about being molested on July 16, 1993:

Jordie and Evan met Mark at Evan's office at 8:30 AM. As it turned out, the x-rays showed that Jordie had no cavities, just the overretained baby tooth that was causing the permanent one underneath to come in crooked.
Evan cleaned his son's teeth while Mark set up his equipment, and when the boy was sedated Evan performed the thirty-second procedure. When Jordie was safely out of sedation, Mark packed up and left.
"That was great," Jordie said, fully awake. "I didn't feel a thing? Can we go eat now?"
"In a minute," Evan answered.
Jordie sat quietly in the chair while his father cleaned up around the operatory.
"Hey, Jordie," Evan said, trying to sound nonchalant. "Since this is our last day together, is there anything you want to tell me before we go?"
"Yeah," Jordie replied. (Evan prayed for a miracle.) "I'm thirsty."
"Uh, okay. You can get up and walk now. Go to the kitchen, there's some bottled water in the fridge."
Evan had waited all week for the right moment to talk to his son, but he was concerned that forcing him to speak before he was ready would drive him further away. The end result was that the right moment never came. Or that Evan had passed it up.
"I was standing there drinking, Oh, well, I guess that's it, he's not going to talk. But while he was out in the kitchen it hit me that I'd been taking the wrong approach. Here I was tiptoeing around him because Dr. Abrams has scared the hell out of me. But Jordie was about to go away with Michael for five months, so how much worse could it get! If he wasn't totally screwed up yet, going on tour was sure to finish the job. That realization changed my whole way of thinking. I could be as tough on him as I wanted. I had nothing to lose."
When Jordie came strolling back from the kitchen, Evan went on the attack. "Have a seat, and listen very carefully to what I'm about to say. Do you remember when you came over to the house I told you that if you lie to me I was going to destroy Michael?" Jordie nodded that he did. "Good. Keep that in mind, because I'm going to ask you a question. Do you care about Michael?"
"Yes," the boy answered.
'You could say you love him, right?"
"Yes."
"And you wouldn't want to hurt him?"
"No."
"Okay then, let me remind you of something. Remember I told you I bugged your bedroom?" Jordie nodded. "Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it."
The boy remained silent, seemingly unimpressed by his father's strong arm approach. Sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack.

"Look, Jordie, lots of famous people are bisexual and nobody gives a shit. They're not embarrassed. It's sorta cool, in a way."
After ten minutes of meandering monologue Evan had elicited nothing from his son but a blank stare. Frustrated, he switched back to his original approach. "I'm going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I'm going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it'll be all your fault because you're the one person who could have saved him."
Nothing.
In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn't need Jordie to confirm it. But he believed if his son could just hear himself say it, if he could just spurt it out quickly and painlessly like the tooth, it would release him from the prison in his mind. Without a plan, Evan began babbling away again, saying whatever came to mind in the hope of eventually hitting on something that would push a button in his son and free him.
"I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you're not telling me anything I don't already know," Evan lied. "This isn't about me finding anything out. It's about lying. And you know what's going to happen if you lie. So I'm going to make it very easy for you. I'm going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That's it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me die truth and you save him."
Jordie remained silent for what seemed to Evan a hopeless amount of time. Then, "Promise?"
"Have I ever lied to you?"
"No."
And I never will."
"You won't hurt Michael, right?"
"Right."
"And I don t want anyone to know. Promise me you won't ever tell anyone."
"I swear,no one."
"Okay. What's the question?"
"Did Michael touch your penis?"
Jordie hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered "Yes."
Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged back, tight.
"We never talked about it again," Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn't matter. "The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself."

This would already be highly problematic - the way Jordan was pushed into a "confession" that was hardly even a confession: an almost inaudible "yes"... According to their own story Jordan was basically blackmailed into it. On top of that isn't it a bit odd that after an almost inaudible "yes" Evan would not ask him anything more? The whole scene is just not realistic, if you really suspect your son was molested. But this is not yet the reason why I think no "confession", not even an almost inaudible "yes", happened on July 16, 1993.

My reason is, that when I read the book further it is written that Evan desperately tried to convince June that their son was molested by Michael and June did not believe him. Evan is described as desperate, yet he never mentions Jordan's alleged confession to her. Evan's sole reference is the Abrams letter, which was based on a hypothetical situation without Abrams meeting Jordan. So if Evan is so desperate to convince June, why doesn't he mention to her Jordan's alleged confession? According to the book as of August 6, June is still not told about this alleged confession. The reason given in the book is that Evan did not want to betray Jordan's trust. But it doesn't make sense, because Evan was telling June that their son was molested - only not that Jordan allegedly confessed to him about it on July 16.

My opinion is that it was because no "confession" happened on July 16. It was a later invention (at least that Jordan "confessed" to anything - that Evan pressured him to do so might be true) to explain why Evan did not return Jordan to his mother on July 17, when he should have.

Between July 16 and August 17 Evan coached Jordan to lie and what to say to Dr. Abrams on August 17.

 

[Tinkerbell88]

^Thanks, sounds plausible that the conversation didn't happen.

But even if it did happen this way, the whole conversation bugs me:

"Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it."
"I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you're not telling me anything I don't already know," Evan lied. "This isn't about me finding anything out. It's about lying. And you know what's going to happen if you lie. So I'm going to make it very easy for you. I'm going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That's it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me die truth and you save him."

So basically he's saying that he will consider JC lying if he says that nothing happened. He says that if JC lies - he'll 'take Michael down'. JC obviously doesn't want that to happen:

"Do you care about Michael?"
"Yes," the boy answered.
'You could say you love him, right?"
"Yes."
"And you wouldn't want to hurt him?"
"No."

...so then JC decides he better tell him what he wants to hear?

And now that you mention it why would you not ask further questions once your child tells you that he's been abused?? Just sounds so ridiculous.

 

[la_cienega]

And a lot of fans over the year have said they don't believe the sodium amytal angle - this is interesting:

"Another source, a lawyer connected to the Chandler family, had dodged my calls for weeks and then, one day, he finally agreed to meet. During our lunch, he wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know about Evan Chandler and his attorney, and then, just as I got ready to pay the check, he dropped the bombshell. Do you know about the drug given to Jordie, in a dentist’s office, the lawyer casually asked? I hadn’t known about it— the drug turned out to be sodium Amytal— and that piece of information, confirmed by a second knowledgeable source, eventually led to my uncovering the evidence I presented in the GQ story.

Fischer, Mary A. (2012-10-04). Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar (Kindle Locations 70-74). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. "

Isn't it weird that an attorney working for a party agrees to talk to the media and then just drops the sodium amytal story. It's like the Chandlers wanted that story out there.

Yes, this was a useful bit of info - it's further proof this sodium amytal story originates from the Chandler's. They wanted this story out there. They knew what they were doing with it. That it would make Jordan's testimony inadmissible, which is exactly what they wanted. Both Evan and Jordan had stated emphatically, Jordan twice, that they were scared/didn't want to be cross examined. So this further confirms that it's from them, and it's their own story. Which is great.

The amusing thing for me about the Jordan confession on July 16th is that Evan only received that letter from Abrams about a hypothetical situation involving abuse on July 15th. We also know from the taped phonecall on July 8th that Jordan had not confessed, so up until July 15th there's no way it would make sense for Jordan to have confessed - so Evan knew that and the soonest most convenient date for him to claim he was molested was July 16th.

And I agree with @Respect77, this "confession" still wasn't agreed upon until much later in August. They chose that date to claim it retroactively.

 

[Tinkerbell88]

The amusing thing for me about the Jordan confession on July 16th is that Evan only received that letter from Abrams about a hypothetical situation involving abuse on July 15th. We also know from the taped phonecall on July 8th that Jordan had not confessed, so up until July 15th there's no way it would make sense for Jordan to have confessed - so Evan knew that and the soonest most convenient date for him to claim he was molested was July 16th.

So he gets the hypothetical report from Abrams on the 15th, JC confesses on the 16th and he sees a psychiatrist on the 17th - didn't know that - it's like the more you find out about the case, the more unbelievable the story gets.

Does anyone know what date they confronted Michael with the Abrams letter? And wasn't it the case that June got a judgment in her favour to have JC returned to her - what date was this? Wasn't it this judgment that prompted Evan to take JC to a psychiatrist?

 

[HIStory]

So basically he's saying that he will consider JC lying if he says that nothing happened. He says that if JC lies - he'll 'take Michael down'. JC obviously doesn't want that to happen:

Yes, exactly:

"In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn't need Jordie to confirm it."

Evan had this fixed idea that Michael molested Jordan and would not take a "no" for an answer from Jordan. And he made that very clear to Jordan.

 

[HIStory]

So he gets the hypothetical report from Abrams on the 15th, JC confesses on the 16th and he sees a psychiatrist on the 17th - didn't know that - it's like the more you find out about the case, the more unbelievable the story gets.

Jordan saw the psychiatrist a month later, on August 17. Evan and his lawyer, Barry Rothman had a month to coach him.

Does anyone know what date they confronted Michael with the Abrams letter? And wasn't it the case that June got a judgment in her favour to have JC returned to her - what date was this? Wasn't it this judgment that prompted Evan to take JC to a psychiatrist?

Initially Evan should have returned Jordan to June on July 17, but he did not. In the hindsight he cited this alleged "confession" as the reason for that. In reality, he has planned it for a long time. June then went to court and a judge ordered the return of Jordan by August 17 and that's when Jordan was taken to Abrams, yes.

Michael was confronted with the letter on August 4, at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Present were Evan, Jordan, Michael and Anthony Pellicano (who was one of Mary Fischer's sources). Michael took Pellicano with him because it was already clear that Evan was up to something. Some more interesting quotes from Ray's book about it. Evan tried to convince Michael to come alone, without a legal representative...

"I just want to find out what's going on between you two," Evan explained. "You don't need a lawyer. We can work this out ourselves."
Michael wouldn't budge: Pellicano or Fields had to attend.
"We may talk about some embarrassing things for both of you," Evan cautioned.
"Anything you say to me, you can say to Bert," Michael insisted.
"But I don't think anyone else should hear these things. I don't want to get in trouble. I just..." Click.
This phone call was a turning point for Evan. "I understood that a man in Michael's position needed lawyers for everything, but this was not business, not to me. I really thought we could work it out if we could get all the lawyers out of the picture, and I thought Michael would want that too. If I wasn't bringing a lawyer, why did he need one?"

At the August 4 meeting upon seeing Michael Evan goes up to him and hugs him. Is that what you do to the guy who allegedly molested your son? Mary Fischer mentioned this in her article based on Pellicano's account:

“On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist's suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams's letter and began reading passages from it.
When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say "I didn't say that."
As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned "I'm going to ruin you."

Ray Chandler admits to this hug in his book:

“Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend.”

So that's how you greet the alleged molester of your son?

With the explanation for the hug Ray only digs themselves into a bigger hole:

“In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting, Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting."If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I'd be on death row right now." Supposedly this means that because Evan didn't kill Michael right then and there, he really didn't believe the molestation occurred.

Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing.
But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn't he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael's audio expert/private investigator present as a witness!

That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn't done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a "molestation" had occurred — did not originate in Evan's mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term."

1) This is after Jordan allegedly "confessed" to Evan. So how can Evan say he went there with the belief that Michael hadn't done anything intentional to hurt Jordan if he truly believed his son was molested? How can he say that if Jordan truly "confessed" to him?

2) His attempt to distance himself from using the word "molestation" is very interesting. Evan was very careful not to make that allegation himself. At that meeting he "only" read from Abrams' letter - did not make any allegation in his own words, so that he could not be sued for false allegations later on. Actually, Ray writes the following in his book about a phone call between Rothman and Pellicano:

"But Barry was not intimidated. He informed Pellicano that Evan had made no public statements of defamatory remarks about Michael in any way. And further, that Evan, as a dentist, was a mandatory reporter governed by the same requirements as any licensed health professional. Not only was he required to report his suspicions to the proper authorities, but he could not be sued for doing so even if they turned out to be incorrect."

Why did they have to make sure of that if their story was true?

After the August 4 hotel meeting, but the same day, Rothman and Evan met with Pellicano in Rothman's office and they made their $20 million demand.

Their expanation for that? Here:

"Evan had two goals. First and foremost was the welfare of his son. On the surface Jordie seemed fine, but this wasn't surface stuff. Dr. Abrams had expressed deep concern for the boy and left Evan with the impression that serious damage might already have occurred. Evan hoped for the best but needed to prepare for the worst.

If Jordie needed long-term counseling it could be expensive, and they would have to find a state that did not require psychotherapists to report child abuse to the authorities. That could mean relocating and closing his dental practice. How would he support his family? A worst case scenario to be sure, but possible.

Soured by his experience with Pellicano and Michael — in particular, "Michael looking into Jordie's eyes and denying their intimacy" — Evan's second goal was to punish Michael. "I didn't want him to get off scot-free. But a few million is chump change to him. I figured twenty million was definitely punishing amount. At the very least it would give him something to think about. If it turned out Jordie was okay and didn't need a lot of counseling, so much the better. He'd be set for life. He deserved it after what Michael did to him.

"And it wasn't just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex - the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn't the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that's what I wanted Michael to pay for."

Can you believe these people?

According to the book, on August 9 Pellicano came back with a $1 million counter offer, which they declined. Then Pellicano, probably to mock them, came back with a $350,000 offer which shocked them:

"Barry couldn't believe his ears. Pellicano was completely ignoring the rules of the game. Barry started at twenty million, Pellicano had countered with one million, surely the next number should be somewhere in between. And strange as it was that Pellicano had lowered his million dollar offer, it was even crazier that he refused to reinstate it when Barry told him that he had "busted [his] hump for three days...getting Evan to hopefully agree."

"Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. "It's never going to happen," the investigator insisted."

So Michael could have paid off the Chandlers before anything went public or to authorities, if he had really wanted to. He did not want to. The Chandlers were very much shocked by this. LOL.

"Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you've got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money's no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn't work, you can always come out swingin' anyway."

“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.”

Again, can you believe these crazies telling on themselves like that? But that's exactly what they do in Ray's book! Mesereau would have had a field day with them, had they testified! No wonder they did not.