Monday, January 2, 2012

The Jordie Chandler Settlement revisited


The analysis of the 1994 Settlement below underscores the point that if Jackson willingly paid millions of dollars to Jordie Chandler over claims of sexual abuse, a reasonable person could conclude he was guilty of said crimes. The extended entry homes in on this conclusion by using the actual Settlement Agreement documents and statements by the parties involved.

The [liability] crimes the Settlement Agreement resolved were claims of negligence that Jackson agreed were “offensive” and “explicitly sexual or otherwise”. Jackson even agreed to a “confession of judgment,” an absolutely binding stipulation that promised there would be no complications in his paying Jordie the millions the boy was due; if complications did arise, Jackson agreed to have his assets seized without complaint.

Contrarian arguments by Jackson supporters surround the idea that if it could be proven Jackson not only did not agree to the Settlement but also did not pay it, it was proof of his innocence. As proof of this, fans held up the Oxman memo, an argumentative legal document filed prior to the start of Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial, that sought to preclude any Prosecution discussion of Jackson’s settlement with the Chandlers in front of the jury.

The Oxman memo (links and more details in the extended entry below) was the first of its kind to suggest Jackson was forced to pay the Chandlers, that force acted upon him by his insurance company. More specifically, Brian Oxman argued that unless the Prosecution could prove Jackson paid “every dime” of the Settlement Agreement without the nudge of an insurance carrier seeking to override his wishes for a trial, it would be dangerously prejudicial for them to introduce the theory of it being proof of Jackson having abused Jordie Chandler.

I noted below that that was quite interesting language on Oxman’s part: again, Oxman agreed that if some kind of evidence did exist to prove Jackson paid the Settlement Agreement on his own accord (the Prosecution believed the unredacted copy in Larry Feldman’s possession would provide those details), it would be relevant for the Prosecution to use it to advance the theory that Jackson paid because he was guilty of child molestation.

The Prosecution never did get the document nor were they permitted a detailed discussion of its implications. In that way, the allegations levied against Jackson’s insurance company within the Oxman memo--that they were looking for a quick resolution in spite of Jackson’s proclamations of innocence and the damage a tacit guilty plea could do to his reputation--had yet to be challenged.

However, roughly two months ago, Jackson defense attorney Tom Mesereau gave a Blogtalkradio interview with Jackson sympathizer King Jordan, in which he clarified the Settlement Agreement. The pertinent portion begins at 64:45 and a transcription of Mesereau's exchange with a caller says the following:
CALLER: Hi. Hello? Hi. My name is Lynette, and I'm calling from Minnesota. I spoke with Tom in May about Wade, and, um, I'm a psychiatric nurse. I have a couple of questions about the '93 settlement. Um, was there ever any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company, or paid by them?
TOM MESEREAU: Ah, my understanding was that an insurance company did not pay. Now, the settlement agreement was written, in my opinion--and again, I was not involved in that settlement, ah, you should ask Cap Weitzman about the settlement, or John Branca about it--I was not involved in it. I didn't even know Michael at the time, I wasn't, I didn't meet him until eleven years later, um, but... 
CALLER: Right. 
TOM MESEREAU: My understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to, um, permit the possibility that an insurance company would step in and pay, but I was also told that an insurance company did not pay.
TOM MESEREAU: And that's why there were some people running around saying an insurance company paid it, and that's why it was settled, and uh, my understanding is that's not correct.
CALLER: Well, I think they base that on, um, one of the motions that were filed by Brian Oxman...
TOM MESEREAU: I'm well aware of that.
CALLER: Mmmm. And so they're under the impression that it was paid by an insurance company, and if that's the wrong impression, that's the wrong impression.
TOM MESEREAU: I understand. 
Mesereau, as we heard, dismantled the fan argument of Jackson’s innocence being proven by his not paying the Settlement Agreement. Jackson did pay the Settlement, especially since California has an insurance code that prohibits insurance companies--even if they wanted to (and there is no evidence of that in this case)--from settling criminal conduct.

Mesereau should also be commended for admitting he was not involved whatsoever in the 1993 case and, therefore, would know very little of the goings-on during the affair. This was underscored during his pitiful cross-examinations of June Chandler and Larry Feldman.

As I stated before and I shall state again,
the 1994 Settlement Agreement--and the chronology of events leading to it--provide more than enough reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson was guilty of sexually abusing Jordie Chandler. 

On January 25, 1994, the nightmare of the Jordie Chandler scandal officially came to a close for Michael Jackson. In exchange for that closure, Jackson signed off on the payment of a handsome sum to Jordie and his parents, said to be, in total, about $25 million.

The sum was staggering--at the time, it would have been about one-tenth of Jackson's net worth. Today, adjusting for inflation, Jordie's settlement would be equivalent to just about $39.2 million.

Certainly not chump change.

To the intelligent observer, that incredible amount of money paid to one's young boy accuser (Jordie Chandler alleged that various sex acts had occurred between he and Jackson, including kissing, lying on top of each other with erections, and nipple-sucking, as well as numerous sessions of masturbation and Jackson's performing fellatio upon the boy, at least fifteen times, all over the globe, followed by the consumption of Jordie's semen) would seem to suggest something needed to be hidden, and hidden fast

For those still defending Jackson, they recognize, quite acutely, what intelligent observers have always noted: settling over, instead of fighting against, claims of child molestation does not tend to be conducive to a position of innocence. Fair or not, it is a fact that paying a settlement looks like an admission of guilt, a clandestine way of maintaining one's reputation without incurring (further) public or even legal scrutiny.  

It is because Jackson apologists know this that they have steadfastly held on to the belief, against all evidence suggesting otherwise, that two things occurred:
  1. Michael Jackson had been forced against his will by his insurance carrier to settle the Chandler civil suit, and;
  2. Jackson was not the payer of the settlement.
Their position is as such: "Michael would've fought the Chandlers in court had the insurance company not settled against his wishes!"

If Jackson did not pay off Jordie Chandler over the boy's abuse claims against Jackson--settling for an obscene and suspicious amount of clams--his defenders can maintain the belief that Jackson was not a child-molesting pedophile, effectively absolving him of all guilt attendant to the misgivings aroused by his behaviors with other people's young sons.

Now, it should be noted that Jackson has paid off at least two other boys and/or families. (And by "paid off", this is a differentiation--arguably a small one--between his giving of gifts to the parents of boys, even if they are million-dollar checks.)

One such recipient was a Latino youth named Jason Francia, the son of former Jackson personal chamber maid, Blanca Francia. Jason's allegations consisted of Jackson touching his crotch area and testicles, "tickling" his genital region surreptitiously during an 'innocent' tickling session and then, more overtly, as they shared a sleeping bag while watching TV at his 'Hideout' apartment in Century City. Jason was around eight-years-old at the time and the second incident was said to have been the duration of "two cartoons"--at least five to ten minutes worth of Jackson touching that area. Jason stated that each of the fondling incidents resulted in Jackson handing him $100 bills. The final straw for Jason was when Jackson reached beneath his shorts and touched his testicles at Neverland Ranch, according to his April 4, 2005 testimony in Jackson's molestation trial:
20 Q. On what part of the arcade were you at the
21 time this happened?
22 A. I was in the loft.
23 Q. Upstairs?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Was anybody else up there with you?
26 A. No.
27 Q. Was Mr. Jackson there?
28 A. Yeah. 
1 Q. By “other people,” I mean other people than
2 you and Mr. Jackson.
3 A. It was just him and I.
4 Q. Do you recall approximately what time of day
5 or evening it was?
6 A. No. Nighttime.
Further on in the testimony, Jason describes the event of his molestation by Jackson:
3 Q. Okay. And what happened when you were in
4 the arcade.
5 A. In the loft?
6 Q. Yes, please.
7 A. I think I was playing Sega Genesis.
8 Q. Tell us what that is, please.
9 A. It’s -- it’s a video game. I was just a
10 video-game-playing kid.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. There was a video game. There was a T.V. up
13 there, I believe. It was a really big T.V., and I
14 was playing, and then he started tickling me, and I
15 think there was -- there was a couch up there,
16 because we somehow managed to end up on the couch.
17 It took a lot of counseling to get over,
18 just to let you know.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;
20 nonresponsive.
21 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
22 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Let’s see if we can restrict
23 our answers just to the questions, if we can. I’ll
24 ask you some questions about that later.
25 You were on the couch. Do you know if both
26 of you were sitting on the couch?
27 A. Hold on.
28 We were laying down on the couch. 
Q. Okay. How were you laying down? How were
you positioned relative to Mr. Jackson?
A. Probably about -- no, it was in the spooning
position again.
Q. Okay. Was he behind you or in front of you?
A. Behind me.
Q. And then what happened?
A. We were tickling -- well, he was tickling
and I was laughing. And -- and -- and we -- it
10 was -- he was -- he was tickling me in the....
11 So much happening right now. Can we take a
12 break or something?
13 MR. ZONEN: Can we take just a moment, Your
14 Honor?
15 THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
16 MR. ZONEN: Just a break for a moment or
17 two?
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. All right.
20 Q. You were on the couch, and you said in the
21 spooning position?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Tell us what happened, please, the best you
24 can.
25 A. He was tickling me. And then I was wearing
26 shorts again, I’m pretty sure, and, yeah, because he
27 had to have reached under. We were tickling; I was
28 laughing. He reached on my leg, and I’m still
laughing, and he’s tickling. And then he reached up
and -- and to my privates, yeah.
Q. Did he actually touch your --
4 A. Yeah.
Q. Touch you?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did he touch your penis or your testicles?
A. I think option two, yeah.
Q. Your testicles?
10 A. Yeah, that one.
11 Q. For what period of time?
12 A. I don’t remember. Three minutes, two
13 minutes.
14 Q. Was it tickling?
15 A. Probably, because I think I was still
16 laughing. But, you know, it may have been the other
17 hand.
18 Q. Were you mindful of it at the time? Were
19 you aware at the time he was doing it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What were you thinking at the time? You’re
22 now ten and a half years old. What were you
23 thinking?
24 A. “I should probably go.”
25 Q. How did it end; do you know?
26 A. Either my mom -- I don’t -- I don’t remember
27 how it ended.
28 Q. Do you have a sense of it?
1 A. Huh-uh.
2 Q. Do you remember getting up?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you think about it afterward?
5 A. Yeah. No, well, not instantly right
6 afterwards. You’re ten. You don’t want to think
7 about that stuff.
8 Q. Was Mr. Jackson still giving you money at
9 that time?
10 A. That time I didn’t get any money.
11 Q. Did you tell anybody about that right
12 afterward?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you tell your mother, ever?
15 A. No. I don’t even think to this day she
16 knows.
Jackson apologists often minimize Jason's abuse, citing that he'd only been 'tickled'--possibly misconstruing innocent play for something sinister--and even the jurors that eventually acquitted Jackson had laughed at him during a break, suggesting he was unbelievable as he'd cried from the witness box; from Maureen Orth's  July 2005 Vanity Fair article "C.S.I. Neverland":
During a break the judge took for a conference at the bench in the middle of Francia’s testimony, I was alarmed by the indifference of the jurors. The young man sitting in the witness-box before them had just gone through one of the most humiliating ordeals of his life, but they did not exhibit the slightest sign of empathy. They ignored him as they laughed and talked together. I suddenly wondered if we have not all watched so much Dr. Phil and Oprah that we can no longer distinguish between real pain and entertainment.
At the extreme end of this, they call Jason's molestation a complete scam because of the fact Jason finally revealed it to police after what Jackson's defenders characterize as a 'bullying' and overzealous interrogation of the then-teen; some fans even go as far as believing the unverifiable claims of marginal characters who'd stated Jason Francia had 'lied' about the entire thing. Unfortunately, what Jason revealed to detectives was felt as not being enough to criminally prosecute Jackson but it would have been corroborating testimony to support Jordie's claims of abuse.

Regardless if Jason's revelations were deemed by authorities as not 'actionable' on their own, Michael Jackson deemed Jason's claims significant enough to pay he and his mother a whopping $2.4 million.

Again, a lot of clams for so-called innocent tickling.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Jason Francia never exactly had a lawsuit filed on his behalf against Jackson. According to the April 5, 2005 testimony of his attorney Kris Kallman, contact to Jackson's attorneys Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas was made sometime between late 1994 and mid-1995 (Jason was around fourteen-years-old), telling them that another boy accuser had an abuse complaint against their client; what followed was a settlement, now known to be a seven-figure sum.
19 Q. And who did you make contact with?

20 A. Initially our contacts were with Johnnie

21 Cochran and his associate, Carl Douglas.

22 Q. Do you recall approximately when it was when

23 you first made contact with Mr. -- or when contact

24 was made between you and Mr. Cochran and Mr.

25 Douglas?

26 A. It was either late ‘94 or early ‘95.

27 Q. Did you, after your conversations with those

28 individuals, file the civil lawsuit?

1 A. No.

2 Q. At some point in time later, were you then

3 dealing with other lawyers with regard to the

4 proposed filing of that civil lawsuit?

5 A. Yes. At some point, Mr. Jackson’s

6 representation was assumed by a lawyer named Zia

7 Modabber, and a lawyer named Howard Weitzman.

8 Q. And do you recall approximately when it was

9 that you then began contact with those particular

10 individuals?

11 A. I believe it was in mid 1995.

12 Q. And the purpose of those contacts?

13 A. Well, the --

14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague;

15 foundation.

16 THE COURT: Overruled.

17 You may answer.

18 THE WITNESS: The purpose of the contacts

19 was that they knew that we had a Complaint that we

20 were about to file in Santa Barbara County Superior

21 Court, and they didn’t want us to do that.

22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

23 foundation.

24 THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

25 Sustained.

26 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of the

27 conversations between these individuals, did you

28 pursue your lawsuit?

1 A. Well, we never filed the lawsuit.

2 Q. Did you reach an agreement, a settlement

3 agreement?

4 A. Yes, we did.
The other boy receiving a settlement--or some other mysterious payment--was David Martinez.

Not much is known about David, or his mother Ruby Martinez, only that they'd received $300,000 from Jackson around the time Santa Barbara county police were investigating him for allegedly molesting Gavin Arvizo; the payment to the Martinezes emerged during Jackson's financial trial against former business associate and close friend, F. Marc Schaffel, a man with a history in the gay pornography business of which Jackson had been keenly aware

As the story goes, the hush money was paid to the Martinezes about ten days following Jackson's arrest from funds within one of Schaffel's personal accounts and Schaffel fully expected to be reimbursed.

In fact, the payment to the family had been corroborated by three of Jackson's associates: friend and business associate attorney Al Malnik and Jackson's accountant Alan Whitman testified under oath in the trial that the payment had indeed occurred; additionally, emails from former Jackson defense attorney Mark Geragos also verified the payment: he'd approved travel expenses for Schaffel "related to that transaction" even though he was not familiar with the details of the matter itself.

Furthermore, the judge presiding over the case restricted discussion of the payment and ordered it to be referred to as simply "a private matter" in front of the jury. 

Whatever the payment was for (it was allegedly 'relocation money' for this family, who'd supposedly had information about Jackson abusing another child or that David was abused by Jackson, and were the recipients of payments over some time), the jury believed it had occurred, according to one member's anonymous interview following the verdict:
But the jurors were never told during the trial what the top-secret payment was for and didn't speculate about it during deliberations, they said.
"We didn't discuss that. We just believed he'd paid someone because Mr. Malnik and the accountant corroborated it," said Juror No. 1, a 38-year-old man who did not want to give his name.
But neither the multimillion-dollar settlement to Jason Francia nor the six-figure payment given to the Martinezes--both of which are fully recognized to have been made--matter to Jackson's defenders, despite the fact that they suggest a pattern of Jackson's paying people to be quiet about his criminal behavior which would corroborate a willful settlement with the Chandlers. 

The only settlement deemed to be of pertinent discussion is the one with Jordie.

What follows as a part of this entry is a page from the website, MJ Facts (, discussing, at length, details of that 1994 settlement Michael Jackson undertook with the Chandlers and how there is no evidence supporting the claim that Jackson was forced to settle by his insurance carrier. 

The article was re-posted with permission.

To note: additional info and discussion from me will be interspersed into the MJ Facts article.

Was Michael Jackson Forced to Settle by an Insurance Company? How Jackson's lawyers lied and got away with it
Written by MJ Facts

When Michael Jackson was sued by the Chandler family for molestation, some people will have you believe that Jackson, even though he would have liked to have fought the case in court, was somehow forced by his insurance company to settle - thereby implying that Jackson was totally innocent. These people include fans, some sections of the media and even his own lawyers.

This is a complete fabrication.

First and foremost, let's look at the main evidence that these people put forward - the motions presented in court during Jackson's 2005 molestation trial.

First is "Mr Jackson's Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Civil Settlement Amounts and Accompanying Documents", filed by the defense on January 18, 2005. Upon reading the motion, you will notice that the defence were eager to keep the information about the settlements out of the trial.

Desiree's note: Specifically, Jackson's defense lawyers wanted all mentioning of the amounts of his previous settlements to Jordie and Jason Francia, by the Prosecution or any of their witnesses, to be disallowed. Their fear was palpable and somewhat legitimate: had jurors heard the staggering amounts both boys received over so-called 'false' accusations of sex abuse--similar to the claims made by alleged molestation victim Gavin Arvizo--they could have reasonably assumed Jackson was guilty (because people accept the notion of men being guilty when they choose to settle claims against them, especially after he'd vowed many times in public to 'fight' the 'false' allegations), as it had 'happened before'.

Insurance is mentioned on page 5 of the document where it is stated (in a footnote):
In addition, settlements are often involuntary and dictated by insurance companies [quoting precedent]. Unless the plaintiff (i.e. Prosecution) is prepared to prove Mr. Jackson paid every dime of these settlements and that no insurance company was involved, plaintiff's claim of conscious state or proof of criminality lacks foundation and is irrelevant.
OK, what do we have here? Certainly not any claim by Jackson's lawyers that an insurance company forced Jackson to pay, just a vague statement that "settlements are often involuntary and dictated by insurance companies". So, we can't use that to prove Jackson's insurance company forced him to settle, can we? One has to remember that it would have been easy for the prosecution to subpoena Jackson's insurance company for the relevant documents, but the Prosecution knew that it was merely a ploy by the defence, and it was ridiculous to assert that Jackson was "forced" to pay by his insurance company.

The prosecution replied ["Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Civil Settlement Amounts and Accompanying Documents"], quite rightly, that on the Confidential Agreement and Mutual General Release, it was Jackson's name and not an insurance company's. It is clearly Jackson's signature on the document, not the signature of a representative of Jackson's (or any) insurance company. It is an agreement between Jackson and the Chandlers only.

Desiree's note: In addition to what I'd previously mentioned, the Prosecution's argument for introduction of the amounts of Jackson's settlement with Jordie Chandler was prudent and common sensical, noting how any previous settlements entered into and/or made by Jackson with alleged victims would be reasonably corroborative to the idea that he'd had a propensity to molest young boys. 

As stated in the prosecution's motion, page 3: "If that lawsuit [the Chandler civil suit] alleged sexual misconduct by defendant that is substantially similar to the sexual misconduct alleged in Counts Two through Six of the pending indictment, and if that lawsuit was settled by defendant for in excess of $20,000,000 less than five months later [following the filing of the lawsuit], a reasonable person would conclude that the settlement was at least a tacit admission that there was merit to the lawsuit. Evidence of that settlement could not be "inflammatory" unless it was reasonably perceived as defendant's admission of wrongdoing."

" carriers rarely if ever sign civil settlements involving their insured because their only interest is to get a release from the claimant, and the issue here is not who signed the settlement, but who paid for the settlement."
Very crafty lawyer speak, don't you agree? Once again, there is no claim that Jackson was forced to settle, just a general claim about insurers. Even that general claim could not apply to Jackson's signature being on the document because insurance companies do sign releases and what was the document in question? A Confidential Agreement and Mutual General Release.

Desiree's note: For more clarity, if the Defense's reply claims that insurance companies are interested in releases but not settlements (the argument being used as an 'out' to explain why there was no attorney for or representative of an insurance company as a signee of the settlement documents), and if the document in question was a release, it'd be expected that some signature from the insurance company that had allegedly muscled Jackson into settling would have been on that release. Taking the Defense's argument, without the signature on the 'release' denoting the insurance company, it is reasonable to say that Jackson was the payer of the settlement, not the insurance company, thus validating the Prosecution's desire to use the settlement, in the event that it is provable that Jackson willfully entered into that agreement and paid the Chandlers, as proof of Jackson having molested Jordie Chandler. 

Let's go back to the main point about the settlement - "Unless the prosecution is prepared to prove Mr. Jackson paid every dime of these settlements and that no insurance company was involved, plaintiff's claim of conscious state or proof of criminality lacks foundation and is irrelevant". This is the defence's point, not the prosecution's, and the defence is implying (not coming straight out and saying so) that Jackson was forced to settle by his insurance company and thus cannot be held accountable. What the prosecution says is that no insurance company can force anybody to sign something they don't want to sign (and especially if they are a celebrity worth hundreds of millions of dollars at the time). Who is right? Use common sense based on the facts.

Desiree's note: Let's return to the italicized segment in the above paragraph. Here's a snippet of that portion from the original Defense motion.

What is underlined in red is an interesting admission by Jackson's Defense team. They say--quite plainly--that if, and only if, the Prosecution can prove that Michael Jackson paid the settlement amount, in part or in whole (an amount, let's recall, that the Defense specifically wanted barred from being mentioned in front of the jury by the Prosecution and/or any of their witnesses), and paid it of his own volition with no pressure from any insurance company to pay, then their claim that an eight-figure settlement is, in fact, proof of guilt would be both foundational (prudent, reasonable, not baseless) and relevant to their case, which sought to establish evidence of prior pedophilic behavior on the part of Jackson as a way to corroborate Gavin Arvizo's claims of being sexually abused.

Simpler still, had the DAs been able to show to the jury by way of a tangible exhibit (i.e., the document which details the "who" and "how" of the payment) that Jackson paid money to a boy accusing him of sexual abuse, the Defense believed it would not only be reasonable but also acceptable for the Prosecution to state, in open court, that Jackson's payment to Jordie Chandler was proof of his molestation of the boy!

Essentially, the Defense was in full agreement with the Prosecution (as well as most intelligent observers) that had Jackson paid out using his own money (and of his own decision) it would provide more than enough reasonable suspicion that Jackson was guilty in that 1993 case.

Now, let's further discuss the notion of 'forced settling'. Given Jackson's financial resources, it is highly unlikely that Jackson could be muscled into signing off on a settlement against his will by his insurance carrier, especially if said settlement makes it reasonable and prudent to assume he'd had something to hide and the agreement was an admission of guilt; after all, Jackson had at stake his career and his legacy--he could have easily sued his insurance company for ruining his image (as we know, Jackson's career following the scandal and the settlement, even when he'd still maintained his innocence, never recovered).

Jackson apologists will often state settling was more wise on Jackson's part than fighting for his reputation and proving his innocence, despite the fact settling makes one look 'guilty' of the settled claim. This argument, of course, is inexplicably maintained alongside the belief that Jackson was forced to settle with the Chandlers and did not pay that settlement, the contradictions being a silent admission by Jackson defenders that settling for and paying out $25 million would, in fact, make Jackson look guilty of sexually abusing Jordie Chandler.

In other words, Jackson's Defense and his apologists fully accept the argument that it is reasonable to maintain the belief that settling molestation claims is an admission of having molested. It seems that this is a FACT with which most intelligent people are in agreement.

So far we have no evidence that Jackson was forced to settle, and there is no evidence that anybody lied, but we have one more document to look at. This is "Mr Jackson's Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena to Larry Feldman for Settlement Documents", filed on March 22nd, 2005, and it is where we come to the lie. This memorandum was authored by Brian Oxman, who after writing this memorandum was fired from the trial by the lead lawyers (although not directly over this document, they say). The relevant sections read [note the underlined portions from pages 3 and 4]:

Incredibly, Mr Oxman failed to check any press reports from that time, where no mention or inference of any pressure from any third party, especially any insurance company, was stated or inferred. Oxman was taking the court, and later the public and the media when this motion was unsealed, for a ride. Fans take this document seriously enough to build an entire case that Jackson had no control over this suit and was railroaded. That suits their purposes as once again, it makes Jackson out to be a victim - a common theme for those who want to whitewash Jackson's past behaviour - but it is built on a lie.

Desiree's note: Jackson apologists use the Oxman memo as their coup de grace when arguing the obviously fallacious position that Jackson was forced by his insurance carrier into the 1994 settlement agreement which had the effect, when all payments were completed, of ending the actionability of all of Jordie Chandler's claims of sexual abuse, quieting he and his parents. After all, they contend, if it appeared in a court motion written by Jackson's Defense team and if it was especially signed off on by Tom Mesereau, it must be true, despite the fact no evidence exists to support Oxman's position that Jackson was forced to settle by anyone.

But let's note the timing of Oxman's memo.

Interestingly, this motion followed those earlier arguments that the payers of Jordie Chandler's settlement were nebulous, unknowable, and speculative and could have been made by anyone--be it an insurance company or third party--other than Jackson himself. And, recall, they'd also stated that had the Prosecution been able to prove Jackson paid in whole or any part of that settlement--a sure sign that no force was involved in his agreement to the contract with the Chandlers--it would have been legitimate, foundational, and relevant for them to state that Jackson's agreement to the terms in that document was reasonable proof of guilt on his part. All of this, of course, disregards the fact that Michael Jackson owned a copy of the settlement papers--as he'd signed off on them--and could easily provide the answer to "who" paid and "how" it was paid; perhaps Jackson already knew, and knew full well how it looked, hence the repetitive motions from his Defense which tried to bar the document from being entered into the Prosecution's case. 

Simply, had Jackson been forced into anything with regard to settling  with Jordie Chandler for an enormous eight-figure sum, he could have presented the settlement documents--or any piece of evidence--demonstrating this fact. Jackson had the keys to proving himself to be a victim by showing that, despite the fact the settlement amount with Jordie Chandler (which they'd wanted barred) was large, it was not of his own decision nor was it from his own pocket.

Surely, Jackson would have had evidence showing this, correct? After all, his Defense team apparently must have had something on which to base their memorandum?

None of this can be known; the Defense fought hard to prevent discovery of those settlement documents that they claimed had no bearing on his guilt in that 1993 case. 

But noteworthy is the title of the Oxman memo. Filed March 22, it came almost at the Eleventh Hour before former Chandler attorney and signee of that settlement agreement Larry Feldman would take the stand on April 1, 2005. So, not only did they want to bar discussion of the amounts, they'd also wanted to prevent the Prosecution from subpoenaing the agreement from Feldman--certainly he owned a copy, and one that was unredacted (note: the 22-page redacted copy, instead of the 31-page original which detailed for nine pages the pay-off plan, had been available in the media for the Prosecution to see since June 2004). 

Let's look at this closely because it is quite significant: the Defense jostles to keep the details of the settlement out because they believe it to be inflammatory, among other things; however, they agreed with the Prosecution's stance that, if provable in terms of the "how" and the "who paid" aspects of the settlement, the settlement was a foundational and relevant part of their claim that Michael Jackson was guilty of molesting Jordie Chandler, as agreeing to such terms of his own accord--the opposite of force--would show he'd had something to hide.

By blocking the discovery of and the subpoenaing of Larry Feldman for the unredacted 31-page settlement papers, Jackson's team would have been successful in preventing the Prosecution from reasonably (and they agreed) pointing out that Michael Jackson had molested Jordie (which tended to corroborate the allegation by Gavin Arvizo that he, too, had been sexually abused by the self-anointed King of Pop) as virtually confessed to by subscribing to the terms of and pay-off plan elucidated within the agreement.

The Defense knew that the unredacted settlement proved Jackson was not forced to pay but willingly paid off his young boy accuser. That was provable from the documents and synonymous with a confession of guilt!

All of the above should be crystal clear by just looking at the sequence and timing of these motions and the positions held within.

Let's look at what Jackson's lawyer at the time, Johnnie Cochran, said at the press conference announcing the settlement:
"In the past 10 days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and, by and large, have been false and outrageous. As Mr. (Larry R.) Feldman (the boy's lawyer) has correctly indicated, Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence.
"The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumors and innuendoes. Throughout this ordeal, he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy, especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and has paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson.
"So today, the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time, Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months."
Desiree's note: Interestingly, as part of the settlement agreement, Jackson's and Chandler's attorneys agreed to make a joint statement, part of which is listed above, and there was no mention of Jackson being muscled into any agreement against his will.

Notice the final line from Cochran's public statement: "At the appropriate time, Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months." Even though Jackson had also been bound by the confidentiality clause within the settlement agreement, he flagrantly planned to violate his part of the contract. He did just that when he'd sat down for his roundly criticized (and unintentionally revealing) Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer, which precipitated Evan Chandler's breach of contract lawsuit against him. This is hugely demonstrative of the arrogance of this accused child molester and that he'd fully intended to disregard his part of the deal all the while his settlement quieted Jordie Chandler and ensured the boy's lack of cooperation with those investigating his abuse.

No mention of any mysterious insurance company! Just an admission that Jackson wanted to "move on" and "get on with his life". How Jackson thought that he could "move his career forward to even greater heights" after settling a claim of child molestation, instead of fighting in court for his reputation, shows the hubris and total lack of remorse he had over his behaviour with boys. In this interview with Cochran in People Magazine, published in June 1994, Cochran said it was he and Larry Feldman who negotiated the settlement, not an insurance company:
[Cochran] was negotiating with Larry Feldman, the 13-year-old boy's attorney, a courthouse colleague. In the end, he and Feldman hammered out a settlement in which the boy received an undisclosed sum and Jackson did not admit any guilt. "It was the only way to get the case off the front pages," says Cochran. "I wanted Michael to be able to go on with his career."
Larry Feldman, attorney for Jordan Chandler, described signing the settlement:
"We signed off on the deal; that was it," said Mr. Feldman, after a private afternoon meeting in the chambers of Judge David Rothman of Santa Monica Superior Court. Mr. Jackson's two lawyers, Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran Jr., were also at the meeting.
No insurance company representatives mentioned, of course. Michael Jackson was not at that meeting as he had signed the documents earlier in Las Vegas (as we will read later).

Mark Geragos, Jacksons attorney in late 2003, had this to say when Jackson was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Ed Bradley:
"I mean remember what happened to him ten years ago. He was humiliated. He was - he went through where somebody - was examining him. Was photographing him. Was having him - humiliating him in the worst way in terms of looking at his private parts and photographing his private parts. And - and he was subjected to some of the most, just intrusive kinds of things that you could ever imagine. I can only try to put myself into that situation and - and say look, if money could make that situation go away, maybe that - that was the calculus then."
Luckily for us, the 1993 case was discussed at some length by participants in a seminar hosted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association in 2010*, where one of Jackson's defence attorneys spoke about the negotiations.
Carl Douglas: "I remember sitting in private negotiations with Larry and three judges trying to work out some resolution to this case. I remember the sage words of one of the judges "It's not about how much this case is worth; it's about what it's worth to Michael Jackson!" And ultimately that was an argument that had resonance as we bandied about some extraordinary numbers in 1993. The numbers were extraordinary for even 2010, but in 1993 they were really some fabulous numbers that were being bandied about."*
The opposing lawyer, Carl Douglas and three judges? It's worth to Michael Jackson? Where is the insurance company representative?

Larry Feldman was "also correct that the decision that was hotly contested, in terms of having a trial in that case, set in 120 days was a devastating tactical loss for our team, and it was significantly powering efforts in trying to resolve the case."*

The insurance company wasn't "powering efforts in trying to resolve the case"?
"I was able to find some statements in my records of both a version of the facts that Larry was going to read, that all parties signed off on. And there was a version that Johnnie was going to read that all parties signed off on."*
Where was the insurance company's version of the facts that all parties signed off on? Of course, there were none. There was no insurance company involved.

Let's not forget Carl's strongest statement as to why a settlement needed to be reached:
" our [Jackson's defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to "silence" the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of "If we don't get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson"*
Desiree's note: It cannot be understated that there was a direct correlation between the photographs of Jackson's spotty penis and blotched testicles and buttocks and the settlement agreement with Jordie Chandler. Douglas--Johnnie Cochran's right hand man and an attorney privy to the Jackson case--stated unequivocally that the resultant pictures from the body search caused significant worry for Jackson's team criminally and the only way to effectively de-emphasize the weight of those photographs was to make sure Jordie Chandler would not testify against Jackson in criminal court.

Douglas' account not only proves that Jackson and his lawyers were in full control (the opposite of force as alleged in the Oxman memo) of the "mediation" of Jordie's claims with Chandler attorney and Cochran friend Larry Feldman, but also that the photos matched to such a significant degree as to be corroborative of Jordie's allegations that he'd been sexually abused by Michael Jackson, a crime that would lead to Jackson's incarceration.

Noteworthy is Douglas' use of the word obviate, meaning "to do away with; to prevent the occurrence of; to prevent from happening". Douglas admitted that the goal of Jackson's lawyers at the time was 'silencing' the boy, and when that was achieved, through whatever capacity, it would, at the very least, lessen and, at the most, completely eliminate the fear of Jackson having to face any criminal charges in relation to Jordie's claims of abuse.

Taking Jordie Chandler out of the equation by paying him a substantial settlement and getting him to sign, via his Guardian ad Litem, an agreement to be silent about the molestation (i.e. there would be no complaining witness and no cooperation with the criminal investigation) would render the cases of the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara county district attorneys moot.

Carl also said "I remember travelling to Las Vegas, and the Mirage hotel in January 1994, because I was the one that presented the settlement agreement to Michael."*

Desiree's note: Carl Douglas' account--and we shall note that he was directly involved in the defense of Jackson back in 1993-1994--stands in stark contrast to the account given in 'special friend' and nebulous business associate Frank Cascio's book My Friend Michael, who recycles the stock "the insurance company did it!"-type explanation of the settlement with Jordie Chandler; from pages 72-73:
Because the legal fees of a trial would cost far more than any settlement, his insurance company, who would bear those losses [to profit and income], was determined to settle. .... And so Michael agreed to settle for what I believe was something in the range of $30 million. As I would later understand, he didn't have much choice in the matter. At the end of the day, the decision to fight it out in court or to settle out of court was in the insurance company's hands. The settlement was in the works before we arrived in England, and it was finalized while we were there. Michael was now free to return to the United States, and he was eager to return home.
Cascio's recollection is patently false.

According to Douglas, as well as testified to by the date of January 20, 1994 near Jackson's signature on the settlement papers, Jackson was presented with the documents in January of 1994, not while he was in England during his 'rehab' stay, which Cascio described as being around the Thanksgiving holiday in November 1993.

Let's also note these lines by Cascio specifically, "...and it was finalized while we were there. Michael was now free to return to the United States, and he was eager to return home." This is chronologically impossible. It is also in direct disagreement with Douglas' admission that the Jackson defense team considered the body search photos to be a "part of the 300-lb gorilla in the mediation room," and the body search that captured the images of Jackson's two-toned penis and blotchy testicles and buttocks had not been undergone until December 20, 1993.

Michael Jackson was not 'free' to return home--he'd fled under the guise of 'drug addiction'--because a settlement deal had been made, as no such deal had been made. Jackson was 'free' to return home December 10, 1993 after authorities from both counties agreed not to arrest him on the condition that he'd agree to submit to a body search.

Simply, Frank Cascio wrote a complete fabrication about the case. He was not privy to any information about the settlement, as he was only a 13- or 14-year-old at the time.

What? The settlement agreement had to be presented to Jackson personally by one of his lawyers? Weren't we told by Brian Oxman that it was out of Michael's control and was being negotiated by an insurance company?

Of course, let's not forget what Jackson himself said. In his interview with Diane Sawyer in 1995 he gave his reason for settling:
So what I said...I have got to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies. So what I did - we got together again with my advisors and they advised me, it was hands down, a unanimous decision - resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years.
When the settlement documents were leaked in June 2004, he released a statement:
Jackson did not deny the amount that he reportedly paid, and said he settled the case only so he could move on with his life.
"I have always maintained my innocence, and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career."
Larry Feldman, the boy's lawyer also spoke at the seminar:
So at some point, Johnnie and Carl came into the case. Johnnie and I go back a long way. I had the distinct privilege of representing Johnnie a lot of times in his life, and we were able to trust one another along with the help of three judges who sat in on a very secretive settlement, and we were ultimately able to get the case settled, and work with all of the problems, and all of the details for their benefit. And they trusted me, and I trusted them, and it was able to get settled.*
Seth Hufstedler, the seminar's host, chimed in:
I thought that the two of them did a fabulous job establishing one other thing: that first Jackson one was settled, and the settlement did both sides a great deal of good, and it illustrates one of the important principles that we all have to deal with as lawyers, and that is: if the lawyers can trust each other, and work together, it works out very much better for their clients. They come out with some sensible answers, they have less hassle, and that's one way to get things done.
As you can see, everyone who was involved is in agreeance that the settlement was negotiated by the two parties and there was no other influence on the decision to settle! Brian Oxman lied about an insurance company negotiating the settlement.**

Then again, perhaps Oxman was confused by press reports from January of 1994 that negotiations were taking place between Jackson's insurance company, Transamerica, and Jackson's lawyers to pay the settlement? This story, published by Associated Press referred an article which originally appeared in the now defunct British newspaper Today.

As you can see, the article references letters sent by Jackson's attorney Johnnie Cochran to Transamerica, Jackson's insurers, requesting they cover the settlement amount. It also details Transamerica's replies, including, even though Jackson wasn't covered, a one time offer by Transamerica's lawyer Jordan Harriman on January 13 1994 (which was rejected by Jackson). The article states that negotiations were continuing, however the same day the one time offer was made, Transamerica's claims analyst also wrote a letter to Jackson's lawyer Howard Weitzman to inform him that Jackson's policy only covered Jackson for "accidental bodily injury", but according to the settlement document the settlement was ostensibly paid for claims of bodily injury due to negligence, so it would not be covered.

Desiree's note: The aforementioned article clearly states that it would have been legally difficult for Jackson's insurance company to settle the claims leveled in the Chandler civil suit. That legal difficulty is underscored by a California insurance code section 533, which states, quite plainly, that no coverage will be granted by the insurer to the insured over claims of a criminal nature:
An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others.
As stated by the claims analyst for Transamerica, Russ Wardrip, to Howard Weitzman, from page 387 of Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson Unauthorized,
That same day, claims analyst Russ Wardrip fired off a letter to Howard Weitzman, informing him that Michael's policy covered him only in the event that he was injured in an accident. "Acts of sexual activity," Wardrip stated, "do not constitute an accident." The letter went on to point out that "Transamerica declines coverage for any damages flowing from the allegations of sexual conduct in the complaint. Further, acts of sexual activity, especially those committed against a minor, are inherently intentional, wrongful, and harmful. Coverage for such acts is precluded from California Insurance Code Section 533. On that basis, as well, coverage is denied under the Transamerica policy for the allegations in the [Chandler] lawsuit."
That letter was precipitated by an angry one sent to the company by Johnnie Cochran which read, in part, according to pages 386-387 of Andersen's book, "I believe it is imperative that the matter be resolved immediately.... Transamerica has thus fallen woefully short of its obligation to cooperate in the defense of this matter.... In the event that this matter is settled without any participation by Transamerica, please be advised Mr. Jackson will pursue all civil remedies available to him against Transamerica for a host of claims, including failure to pay defense costs, failure to contribute towards settlement costs..." The insurance statute further delineates:
(a) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine, penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding this type of coverage or indemnity is expressly stated in the policy.
   (b) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any duty to defend, as defined in subdivision (c), any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the recovery of a fine, penalty, or restitution is sought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding the duty to defend this type of claim is expressly stated in the policy.
   (c) For the purpose of this section, "duty to defend" means the insurer's right or obligation to investigate, contest, defend, control the defense of, compromise, settle, negotiate the compromise or settlement of, or indemnify for the cost of any aspect of defending any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the insured expects or contends that (1) the insurer is liable or is potentially liable to make any payment on behalf of the insured or (2) the insurer will provide a defense for a claim even though the insurer is precluded by law from indemnifying that claim.
   (d) Any provision in a policy of insurance which is in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is contrary to public policy and void.
(To clarify, what is detailed in subdivison (c) of the statute regarding the meaning of "duty to defend" is what the insurer is not supposed to do, as well as what the insured cannot expect the insurer to do or what the insured cannot claim or contend that the insurer can do, as had been outlined in the previous subdivisions. Specifically, no insurance company practicing in California state and dealing with a client restricted to the laws governing the state of California can "settle, negotiate the compromise or settlement of" anything that is criminal because that would be a violation of California law; Jackson was accused of crimes that were both wrongful and intentional, inherently not covered by any insurance policy.)

Because of the statutes, there is no possible way Transamerica would have ever initiated or offered, of their own accord, any settlement to resolve the claims within the Chandler civil suit, let alone veto the protestations of Michael Jackson in the event he'd wanted nothing more than to fight it out in the courtroom. The Transamerica claims analyst, as mentioned in the article, specifically stated that Jackson's policy only covered him for bodily injuries resulting from an accident. Although claim seven in the Chandler suit dealt with bodily injuries resulting from negligence--"both explicitly sexual and otherwise"--the claims analyst was referring to the entire suit when coverage was denied; claims one through six (sexual battery, battery, seduction of a minor, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud) clearly specify acts that are intentional, not acts that are negligent or accidental. They would have been breaking the law.

Let's remember the attempt by Johnnie Cochran to strong-arm the Transamerica insurance company into footing the bill for the settlement. Not only does this indicate, when taking into account Jackson's rejection of Transamerica's one-time only settlement offer, that no insurance company was involved in any of the negotiations up until that point, it also is highly suggestive of the dynamic between Jackson, his lawyers, and his insurance carrier: Jackson was in full control. From pages 387-388 of Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson Unauthorized:
...a meeting was hastily arranged at Feldman's Santa Monica office before the three retired judges. In addition to Feldman, Transamerica attorney Lane Ashley attended the meeting, as did three Jackson attorneys--Cochran, Weitzman, and Allan Goldman. As [Chandler]'s lawyer, Feldman was committed to seeing that there was hard cash behind any settlement offer. The Transamerica lawyer reported back in a memo: "At the outset (and as is typical) counsel for Jackson 'beat up' on Transamerica for its denial of coverage." Incredibly...Transamerica, without acknowledging any legal obligation to do so, agreed to pay a certain amount. Even more incredibly, the Jackson team turned it down. "An offer was made on behalf of Transamerica on a one-time only basis to resolve the claim," the memo stated. "This offer was rejected by the insured." Evidently, Michael wanted his insurance company the whole cost and nothing less.
So there we have it. Jackson was not forced by any insurance company to settle, it was the lawyers for both parties which negotiated the settlement. Perhaps the insurance company paid the settlement, however the obvious conclusion is that if they did, it is likely that the prosecution would have discovered that during the trial as it was an important point for them.


That concludes the discussion as it appeared on MJ Facts but my discussion is not yet finished. 

It should be quite obvious by now that the only evidence in existence surrounding the conclusion of Jordie Chandler's settlement is that Michael Jackson entered into that contract of his own conscious mind and free will. It was resolved in the nick of time before Jackson was scheduled to give a court-sworn deposition to the boy's attorney Larry Feldman; let's note that Jackson would have had to tell the truth or risk perjury charges or having to invoke the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thereby making himself look as though he'd had something to hide. To most intelligent people, Jackson's willful payment of the settlement can be reasonably perceived as an admission of guilt.

In fact, that is the point of contention, whether Jackson agreed to the settlement and signed off on it without any external force. As the Prosecution stated and as the Defense agreed, Jackson's defenders also recognize that a dispute of the Oxman memo, whereby Jackson's defense claimed Jackson's "insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel", would represent a more than reasonable implication that Jackson was guilty of molesting Jordie Chandler.

For Jackson apologists, there should be no question that Jackson used the settlement to end the progress of the Chandler civil suit, as well as stymie the efforts of criminal investigators to get Jordie Chandler's allegations before a jury (as confirmed by Carl Douglas)***

That is what the evidence suggests, and all of it contradicts that widely praised Oxman memo. 

All of the lawyers themselves were both the negotiators and writers of that settlement agreement (as per the statements of Feldman, Cochran, and Douglas illuminated herein), and there is no evidence of any involvement of any insurance reps or companies by anyone as being either present or being a part of the negotiations; the only mention of an insurance company is the one-time offer--most likely to pay his legal fees or something else not deemed illegal according to statute--that Jackson rejected. Jackson's rejection of the offer suggests that the offer did not sufficiently cover the payments decided upon in negotiations.

Most importantly, Jackson was never forced against his will to settle. Had he wanted to fight, he could have freely chosen to do so. He did not choose to fight. 

His actions and the actions of his attorneys are in complete contradiction with the Oxman memo.

Tom Mesereau, lead counsel for Jackson's 2005 Defense team, has also contradicted the Oxman memorandum more than once. In September 2004, Mesereau made the following statement to the media (months before any of the aforementioned documents used by Jackson apologists to suggest that Jackson had been forced to settle had been filed in court):

Note underlined portions.

Mesereau did not mention any insurance company; he mentioned that Jackson himself settled, albeit it with the advice of his attorneys, and "hoped to buy peace"--all of this contradicts the claim in that March 22, 2005 memorandum that asserted, as a reason for keeping out the settlement papers as well as barring any discussion of the details within them, that "[t]he insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel." Interestingly, Mesereau characterized the amounts given to both Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia as "very small sums"; it is a wonder, then, why Jackson's team would fight so stridently (and resort to fabrications) in order to keep the amounts of these settlements from being mentioned before a jury if they had been so small and inconsequential.

Additionally, Mesereau gave another explanation as to why Jackson settled with Jordie and Jason that mentioned no insurance carriers and, more importantly, no force, as stated in his June 2, 2005 closing argument:
17 And he has been a target for years,
18 particularly after he settled with Chandler and
19 Francia, because he doesn’t like courtrooms, he
20 doesn’t like lawyers particularly, he doesn’t like
21 litigation. He’s known to be childlike, and
22 different, and creative, and offbeat. He’s known
23 not to trust adults.
Nothing in that part of Mesereau's arguments, either, uphold the brazen make believe within the Oxman memo, just the point that Jackson disliked the process that he could have used to vindicate himself.

Paragraph 12.b. and the final lines of the Jordie Chandler settlement itself confirm all that has been written above and dispute the claims by Jackson's 2005 Defense team that the insurance company wanted to settle against the wishes of Jackson and his attorneys.

Jackson was never forced into anything and everyone, except his Defense team when it appeared expedient, agrees with that fact. Again, had Jackson wanted to clear his name, he was fully capable of doing so. Had he wanted to expose the Chandlers as liars, he could have done it. But he chose not to do it; instead, he chose to settle the claims.

He chose to silence Jordie Chandler, and not to show a judge and jury why the boy's accusations were baseless and flimsy.

As previously noted, Jackson's defenders have maintained the contradictory positions of a (now-disproved) forced settlement and that Jackson's settlement was no admission of guilt; let's discuss what that multimillion-dollar agreement really revealed.

Firstly, let's recall the seven 'Causes of Action' leveled against Jackson from that original Chandler civil suit:
  1. Sexual battery;
  2. Battery;
  3. Seduction (of a minor);
  4. Willful misconduct;
  5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
  6. Fraud;
  7. Negligence
Although the final agreement contained several paragraphs (¶2 and ¶3.g.) that allowed Jackson to 'deny' any guilt stemming from the allegations he'd molested Jordie Chandler, Michael Jackson did admit to being responsible for the 'negligence' claims in that civil suit. Specifically, Jackson admitted being responsible for negligence involving "offensive contacts" that were "explicitly sexual and otherwise". It is an interesting acceptance on Jackson's part: 'negligence', legally speaking, denotes behavior and/or actions a reasonably prudent person would not have displayed and/or undertaken, respectively, in an identical circumstance.

In other words, Jackson accepted the charge that while in ambiguous situations with Jordie Chandler—be they in the bed watching The Exorcist or finding themselves in a bath together—he, without being careful, attentive to Jordie's age, or reasonably prudent, engaged in "explicitly sexual" "offensive contacts" with the boy. Noting that the reason for the filing of the Chandler civil suit was because of actions emerging from Jordie's sexual abuse, Jackson agreed to incur that guilt which implicated him in sexual acts.

The negligence that Jackson displayed and agreed to have displayed which led to those "offensive contacts" that were of an "explicitly sexual" nature occurred because Jackson failed in his duty to Jordie. The duty Jackson had to Jordie was expectedly incurred due to the fact Jordie was a minor and, as a minor (and, additionally, as a 'special friend'), Jordie had a blind, child-like faith and trust in Jackson, who was an adult, regardless of his own self-proclamations of being Peter Pan.

Because Jackson was an adult, it was Jackson's duty to Jordie Chandler not to behave in any way (the suit specifies "offensive contacts" that were "explicitly sexual and otherwise") that could have brought harm to Jordie. Jackson's negligent "offensive contacts" that were of an "explicitly sexual" nature done to Jordie caused him harm.

All of the above was what Jackson expressly admitted to having done to the boy by his willful signing and paying of the settlement.

According to the documents, Jackson's payment to Jordie was over "alleged compensatory damages for alleged injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation" (emphasis is mine). Michael Jackson apologists often point out Jackson's overt disclamation of having violated Jordie 'intentionally' or 'wrongfully' as if either were meaningful or significant.

Intentional and wrongful do differ from negligent but Jackson's admission only to the latter does not absolve him from the "explicitly sexual" "offensive contacts" as mentioned in the Seventh Cause of Action to which he'd subscribed. Intentional and wrongful simply mean that Jackson was explicitly disclaiming the acts that would have required and, indeed, implied a 'complete consciousness' to do them; Jackson would've, thus, been admitting ('tacitly') to crimes actionable in a criminal court--it was easier for him to simply admit to the negligence.

Michael Jackson's overt admission to the negligence claim but not the "intentional and wrongful acts of molestation" does not mean the negligence was not wrong nor harmful nor exceedingly foul in the eyes of the public. It does not mean he was not guilty of pedophilic behaviors with that young boy. What Jackson did admit to, however, was having had contact with Jordie that was damaging to Jordie because of its very nature of being negligent, offensive, and explicitly sexual.

But was that really all Jackson admitted to?

According to paragraph 4 of the settlement, "[t]he Settlement Payment shall constitute full and complete satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims" (emphasis is mine). So, although Jackson had overtly accepted liability for the claims of "explicitly sexual" negligence, it is reasonable to assume that by settling for any and all claims made by Jordie or his parents, Jackson also, but implicitly, admitted liability for Counts One through Six of the Chandler lawsuit.

We will return to this point later.

Beyond Michael Jackson's overt admission to the "explicitly sexual" negligence in the Chandler lawsuit, more telling than that is the very nature of the settlement agreement itself. Although merely thought to be as Jackson had described it (he'd wanted to get out from "under the nightmare" of the scandal and paying the Chandlers to go away [practically] was not an admission of guilt but something of a payment towards his own emancipation), the agreement took the form of a confession of judgement.

Larry Feldman, former Chandler attorney and signee of that confidential settlement, explained, in his April 1, 2005 testimony, the type of agreement Jackson had with his clients.
20 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. I’m -- you’re
21 far more capable than I am of delineating the
22 differences, but is there a difference between a
23 civil settlement that results from a contract and
24 one that results from a confession of judgment?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. All right. Would you explain to the jury
27 what the difference is and what the legal effect is?
28 A. Yes. In a confession of judgment, it is as
1 though we went to trial and had a lawsuit and the
2 jury came back with a verdict and we had a judgment,
3 or the Judge came back with a finding.
4 And when the Judge says somebody’s at fault,
5 and “Here’s your damages,” you put it into a
6 judgment. And when you have a judgment, you can
7 file that judgment in the county and then you can
8 execute on that judgment, so that if -- and just as
9 an example, and I’ll just make this number up, let’s
10 say you had it for one dollar, a judgment for a
11 dollar. Well, if you have a judgment, you could
12 just go and take somebody’s house or take somebody’s
13 car, or go to their bank account and literally take
14 that dollar out to satisfy the judgment.
15 If you just have a release or a contract,
16 then you -- all you get left with, if the person
17 doesn’t pay you the dollar, is a something that
18 says, “I promise to pay you a dollar.” And then you
19 got to start all over and prove that person breached
20 that contract.
21 So in the Michael Jackson case, because
22 there were payments going to take place --
23 Q. Let’s stay away from all that area, okay?
24 Just tell us about --
25 A. All right. Well, that’s the best I can tell
26 you the difference.
27 Q. All right. So -- but in the Michael Jackson
28 case, you got a confession of judgment? 
1 A. I got a confession of judgment.
Moments later in Feldman's testimony, he remarked that the consummation of the scandal was a win for his client, not for Jackson.
19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, I guess the last
20 question I have, and I’m probably taking it too much
21 for granted, but with regard to the lawsuit
22 involving Chandler versus Jackson, was that resolved
23 in Chandler’s favor?
24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: It was -- oop.
26 MR. MESEREAU: Move to strike. Vague; no
27 foundation; calls for speculation.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 
1 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You may answer.
2 A. It was absolutely resolved in Mr. -- in
3 Jordie Chandler’s favor.
For the sake of clarification, let's expand on Feldman's explanation of Jackson's confession of judgment and how it is meaningful. It was a significant and telling aspect of Jackson's settlement with Jordie Chandler and one that completely stifled the criminal investigation into the molestation claims.

In law, a "confession of judgment" is an agreement whereby the defendant in a lawsuit submits to the factuality of the plaintiff's claims. With regard to Michael Jackson, he agreed to the validity of ('confessed to') the seventh Cause of Action as noted in J. Chandler v. Jackson, which was that he "negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise." With a confession of judgment, a defendant agrees that he is liable for the claims against him and, notably, agrees to this liability without any legal protestations otherwise.

Simply, Jackson entering a confession of judgment means he acknowledged the truthfulness of and did not dispute the accuracy of facts regarding the Chandler allegations for which he'd settled. A "confession of judgment" is the same as if Jackson had been taken to court by the Chandlers and the jury found him liable (or guilty).
A confession of judgment is a written agreement in which the defendant in a lawsuit admits liability and accepts the amount of agreed-upon damages that must be paid to the plaintiff. A confession of judgment may be filed as a court judgment against the defendant who does not pay or perform as agreed. Such an agreement attempts to minimize the need to resort to legal proceedings to resolve a dispute. Careful consideration needs to be given to signing an agreement for confession of judgment, since doing so signs away rights to contest a claim in a future dispute. (source)
The most significant aspect of Jackson's agreement to the confession of judgment is the inviolability of his payment to Jordie Chandler; according to paragraph 3.f., "Jackson's obligation to make the Settlement Payment as provided in this paragraph when due is absolute" (emphasis is mine).

This meant that Jackson, because he'd agreed to a confession of judgement, was totally and irrevocably bound to paying the boy that total sum of $15,331,250. An absolute obligation to pay, according to the laws surrounding confessions of judgment, signified that had Jackson, in any way, shape, or form, failed in paying Jordie Chandler the payments agreed to in the settlement and in a timely manner as provided, Jordie Chandler had the absolute authority, as Jackson himself authorized, to seize Jackson's assets to assuage the debt.

It should be noted that this confession of judgment agreed to by Michael Jackson is contradictory to his own protestations of innocence.

It is disregarding the fact Jackson virtually admitted to the offensive, explicitly sexual negligent contacts with Jordie Chandler by signing a confession of judgment (he had no objections to Cause of Action seven of the lawsuit); rather, it is purely taking into account Jackson's allowance of the seizure of his property, assets, or anything else that could have gone to relieve any debt accrued from a missed or late payment.

Jackson's defenders maintain Michael Jackson was innocent and that his settlement with Jordie Chandler and his parents was never an admission of guilt. Though they maintain the position that Jackson was forced (which has since been completely discredited), it is hard to imagine Michael Jackson would have allowed himself to be pushed against his will into a confession of judgment which would have not only prevented him from ever legally objecting to the monies designated to Jordie Chandler in the agreement, but also gave so-called 'liars' and 'extortionists' an absolute right to seize his assets in the event he failed to pay in accordance to the schedule!

But Jackson was not forced; astoundingly, Jackson himself agreed to waive his due process rights (which hold that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the ability to have a legal say or protection from such seizure) and his ability to defend himself against any such sequestration of his assets in the event Jordie did not receive his settlement rewards.

The question that becomes prominent is why would Michael Jackson have agreed to such extreme and absolute measures, which seems to be in accordance with the goal of ending the Chandler civil suit and, as stated by Carl Douglas, obviating the fear of a criminal investigation into Jordie's claims, if  he was innocent of the claims against him?

In the following testimony of Feldman's during his cross-examination by Jackson's defense attorney, Tom Mesereau, the notion of a "confession of judgment" is further clarified.
3 Q. Okay. And typically, in a settlement like
4 the one described by Prosecutor Sneddon, if someone
5 agrees to pay money to the other side, the other
6 side would like the payment of that money secured by
7 what is called a confession of judgment, correct?
8 A. That’s right. When it’s paid over time,
9 that’s correct.
10 Q. Okay. And the purpose of a confession of
11 judgment is that if the paying party stops paying,
12 you can run into civil court and obtain what is
13 called a certified judgment so you can then collect
14 on their assets?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Right?
17 A. That’s right.
18 Q. And if you didn’t have that confession of
19 judgment, your only remedy would be to then file
20 another lawsuit for breach of contract, correct?
21 A. That’s right.
22 Q. So what Mr. Sneddon was talking to you about
23 was ways that you have to collect money that you’re
24 owed in a settlement, true?
25 A. I don’t know what he was talking to me
26 about. He asked me questions, and I answered the
27 best I could. What you’ve said is true, and that’s
28 what I thought I just said. 
1 Q. And typically in a civil settlement, and
2 you’ve done many of them, obviously, there is a
3 provision in the settlement agreement which says
4 that neither side admits liability, or words to that
5 effect, correct?
6 A. Generally. Not every one, but generally
7 that’s true.
8 Q. And essentially what that means is neither
9 side admits wrongdoing, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And the confession of judgment has nothing
12 to do with an admission of wrongdoing or liability?
13 A. Well, it would have the same impact if you
14 had to file it. It would be a judgment for that
15 amount. I don’t know what impact it’s going to
16 later be. I’ve never handled a case where you filed
17 a confession of judgment, and then somebody tried to
18 use that in another case to say you admitted
19 something. I frankly don’t know the answer.
20 Q. It’s never used to say someone admitted
21 something. It’s simply used to collect the money
22 you’re owed, right?
23 A. Sir, I just told you, I’ve never researched
24 that issue, and -- so you can’t -- you got the wrong
25 person. I’ve never had someone where I had to go
26 use it.
27 I didn’t have to use it with Mr. Jackson, so
28 I can’t tell you the answer. I know it’s -- it 
1 is -- my concern was the making sure, if the money
2 wasn’t paid by Mr. Jackson, we could go into court
3 and start seizing his assets. That didn’t happen.
4 He paid. It never happened.
5 Q. Would you agree that in many civil
6 settlements of civil cases, you will have both the
7 provision that says neither side admits wrongdoing
8 or liability as well as a confession of judgment?
9 A. It’s rare you get a confession of judgment.
A confession of judgment is, in fact, rare due to the controversy surrounding the defendant's agreement to waive any and all rights they have protecting their assets, property, or anything of value so that a creditor may have the absolute right to take what is the defendant's.

But Mesereau's tactics in the cross-examination of Feldman ought to be noted.

In direct contradiction to the absoluteness of a confession of judgment and the voluntary relinquishing of due process rights by the defendant, Mesereau attempts to suggest that the provisions within the settlement agreement allowing for Jackson to admit no wrongdoing with regard to Counts One through Six of the Chandler lawsuit (acts of an intentional and wrongful nature) means that Jackson was innocent and that, despite signing a confession of judgment to Jordie Chandler, he could continue to maintain his innocence. This, again, is disregarding the nature of confessions of judgment.

A defendant's signature on a confession of judgment, which, and it bears repeating, means that he cannot object to any immediate seizure of his assets by the plaintiff, provides more than enough reasonable suspicion that the defendant was guilty of the claims for which he'd settled, so much so that he'd go to the lengths of allowing the plaintiff to be able to take from him anything of value in order to not only satisfy a debt in the event he defaults on a payment but also keep any legal proceeding with regard to the plaintiff's claims from occurring.

Worth remembering is the basis of the Prosecution's argument for wanting the unredacted settlement documents to be allowed into trial as a corroboration of Gavin Arvizo's allegations of abuse against Jackson: they believed that Jackson's settlement with Jordie Chandler so soon after the file date of the lawsuit was reasonable evidence of the lawsuit being meritorious; because the lawsuit was meritorious, the enormous settlement of that lawsuit could be seen as Jackson's admission of guilt over molesting Jordie Chandler.

Jackson's entering into a settlement agreement that is expressly understood to be absolutely binding does appear to conform to the aforementioned reasoning: Jackson's settlement with Jordie Chandler, and the Jackson-approved drama that could've ensued had he missed a payment, was, at least, a tacit admission on Jackson's part that he'd molested the boy.

That was the reality beyond a standard and expected provision between the parties enabling defendant Jackson to absolve himself of liability. Simply, Jackson's disclaiming of liability for sexual abuse means very little in the face of giving Jordie Chandler a confession of judgment.

Also revealing from Larry Feldman's testimony was his confession of "who paid"; according to Feldman, "my concern was the making sure, if the money wasn't paid by Mr. Jackson, we could go into court and start seizing his assets. That didn't happen. He paid. It never happened."

Larry Feldman, an attorney privy to and a signee of the settlement agreement, stated Michael Jackson paid.

Like all previous assertions by attorneys handling the case in 1993-1994, who stated no insurance company was involved in the mediation and settlement of the Chandler lawsuit, Feldman mentioned nothing about any third party or insurance carrier footing the bill of those payments to Jordie Chandler, which had been stated in the Oxman memo. And this, in fact, makes perfect sense, when it is taken into account, that the nature of the agreement between Jackson and Jordie was such that any default on payment would have been to the detriment of Jackson, not anyone else.

It is a reasonable assumption to make that if Jackson hadn't been the person funding the settlement to the Chandlers, he would also not be at risk of asset sequestration. But since that is not the case, one must assume that Jackson was the one paying that enormous Settlement Payment.

The publicly available version of Jackson's Confidential Settlement and Mutual General Release has been redacted from the original 31 pages; missing are nine pages describing how the multimillion-dollar payment would be divvied to Jordie Chandler. Because of the redaction, the finer points of the schedule are left unknown.

However, paragraph 5.b.--part of the settlement agreement detailing the "Dismissal of the Action" (the Chandler's lawsuit)--does reveal much.

Paragraph 5.b. seems to specify a total of four payments to Jordie Chandler, which suggested that Jackson's settlement with the boy was a structured one. Perhaps it spanned the entire statute of limitations of the charge of child molestation (Jordie's claims of abuse would have expired in the year 2000), which would mean that Jordie could have feasibly received four payments from Michael Jackson of roughly $3.8 million every 1.5 years until the total $15,331,250 was acquired.

In essence, the 'extended release' of the monies would've had the effect of quieting the boy until the expiration date of the criminal allegation. 

As it followed the previous paragraphs of the settlement, Jackson would have been the payer of these four payments.

The Oxman memorandum contained the suggestion that "[t]he insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement". We know now that Jackson's insurance company was never involved in the negotiation of Jackson's settlement with the Chandlers. Also, Larry Feldman stated it was Jackson who paid.

One of the two possible payment options detailed in paragraph 5.b. deserves mention, as it also confirms that Jackson, not someone else, funded the multimillion-dollar settlement payments to Jordie Chandler. 

It is easy to become confused by the mentioning of "Qualified Assignments" and "Qualified Funding Asset Premiums"; both sound manifestly like insurance company language. However, neither has anything to do with what was claimed by Jackson's defense in the Oxman memorandum, that Jackson's insurance carrier footed the bill of the settlement.

Had Jackson opted to make use of a qualified assignment, instead of organizing and divvying out the settlement payments himself, it would have simply meant that Jackson had handed over to a third-party the obligation to orchestrate and keep track of the payments to the Chandlers. To note, obligation does not mean "funding". In Jackson's case, had he chose this process, he would have purchased an annuity--a fancy word for a device stipulating a series of payments--for the amount he owed to the Chandlers as ordained in the settlement agreement. That annuity would then be used by an agreed-upon third-party (the qualified assignee) to fund the payments to the Chandlers, freeing Jackson of the 'bookkeeping' involved with that settlement. The "Qualified Funding Asset Premiums" mentioned in the settlement agreement would be the fee charged to Jackson for turning his lump sum (which he'd used to purchase the 'qualified funding asset') into the annuity that would go to fund the Chandlers' settlement payments.

Simply, this other option would've been the hiring of a middleman to control and monitor the process of payments. 

A Qualified Assignment can, in fact, be to a life insurance company, but, as it relates to Jackson's settlement, it has nothing to do with an insurance company paying out a settlement to Jordie Chandler under a liability policy. The insurance company would only be there to handout the payments using the qualified funding asset purchased by Jackson

There is no evidence that Jackson used a qualified assignment to manage the nitty-gritty of his settlement with the Chandlers. But had he done so, it would be understandable: given that Jackson gave Jordie Chandler a confession of judgment with the penalty being a risk of asset seizure if payments to the boy or his parents were missed, late, or otherwise compromised, as well as coupling that with Michael Jackson's notorious propensity to incur debts and stiff people of money, a third-party handling the fine details of the affair would have greatly reduced Jackson's risk of losing his assets to the Chandlers.

In other words, it was Jackson who paid; it was his money going to the Chandlers in the settlement of Jordie's lawsuit, not his insurance company's. 

Jackson defenders maintain that a settlement does not equal guilt, or, rather, it would be inappropriate to assume guilt on the basis of a settlement alone. However, we know that, according to Jackson Defense filings, his Defense team did, in fact, agree that had Michael Jackson himself paid the settlement to Jordie Chandler, and evidence thereof tangibly existed, it would then have been a relevant and foundational piece of evidence to use to suggest that Michael Jackson was guilty of molesting the boy. 

Jackson's Defense, of course, wanted to prevent the 'discovery' of the nine redacted pages of the settlement agreement describing the payments to the Chandlers because it not only revealed that the Confidential Agreement and Mutual General Release was a telling confession of judgment, but also because it, undoubtedly, showed that Michael Jackson was the payer of his settlement to Jordie.

In his testimony, Feldman revealed more than just the fact Michael Jackson had funded his own settlement; he added to the reasonable suspicion that that 1994 settlement was, for lack of a better term, a 'silencer':
20 Q. Well, without going into the amount of any
21 settlement, isn’t it true that both parents wanted
22 money for themselves as well?
23 A. They didn’t want it. The defense wanted
24 them to have it, and they accepted it, because the
25 defendant -- that was the defendant’s idea.
26 Q. Did the parents -- without going into the
27 amounts --
28 A. Sure. 
1 Q. -- did the parents for Mr. Chandler accept
2 money in the settlement?
3 A. They did accept money. That’s a fair
4 statement.
Jackson's attorney, Tom Mesereau, wanted people to note how Evan and June Chandler also received money in the settlement of their son's lawsuit in the quest to convince jurors and courtroom observers that the Chandler parents were grifters, like the Arvizo family, looking to swindle a child-like pop icon. However, what should be underscored is the fact Jackson and his attorneys offered these alleged 'extortionists' money.

Oxman's claim was that neither Jackson nor his attorneys were considered when Jackson's insurance company settled with the Chandlers; but, according to Feldman, a party to the negotiations of that settlement agreement, Jackson also insisted on fattening Evan and June's pockets, as well.

But why give money to 'extortionists'?

Feldman continues on with District Attorney Sneddon:
21 Q. Let me just ask you a couple other
22 questions, or at least one other question about the
23 Chandler versus Jackson lawsuit.
24 You indicated in response to one of Mr.
25 Mesereau’s questions that the defendant in that
26 case, which would have been Mr. Jackson, were the
27 ones who wanted the parents to share in the
28 financial or monetary settlement of the case? 
1 A. That’s right.
2 Q. Now, that seems counterintuitive. Can you
3 explain to us why that happened?
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
5 foundation; move to strike.
6 THE COURT: Overruled.
7 THE WITNESS: The reason it happened was
8 because Mr. Jackson’s legal team wanted
9 confidentiality. They didn’t want anybody ever
10 talking about this. And they were concerned if, in
11 fact, the parents weren’t getting money --
12 MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object, this is
13 nonresponsive. And move to strike.
14 THE WITNESS: They said this, Your Honor.
15 MR. MESEREAU: And calls for speculation and
16 it’s hearsay.
17 THE COURT: No, the question was, “Can you
18 explain why that happened,” and that’s what he’s
19 explaining. So --
20 THE WITNESS: They told us that they wanted
21 the parents to get the money so that the parents
22 would be bound by the settlement agreement, so that
23 the parents couldn’t talk, that the parents couldn’t
24 write a book, the parents couldn’t go -- I mean, we
25 weren’t precluded from talking to the police. We
26 were just -- they weren’t able to write a book.
27 They weren’t able to go on television. They weren’t
28 able to do anything. And they wanted the parents 
1 bound.
2 And it’s because of that that I brought in a
3 retired Court of Appeal Judge to become the new
4 guardian ad litems, because I didn’t want the
5 parents taking anything away from the child.
Larry Feldman stated under oath that Jackson included Evan and June Chandler as parties to the settlement agreement because Jackson did not want them to talk to anyone about the alleged sexual abuse of their son, the alleged seduction process that led up to the alleged repeated molestations around the globe, and the pop star's alleged acute interest--"cosmic" interest--in the pre-teen that had set everything into motion.

Noteworthy is Mesereau's objection to the topic he'd brought up; understandably, Jackson's paying, quite literally, 'hush money' to individuals Mesereau had just tried to insinuate were grifters is the antithesis of that goal.

It seems strange that Jackson would worry about "confidentiality" if he'd claimed he'd had nothing to hide and, as Oxman insisted in his memo, that Jackson's wanting to vindicate himself in a court of law was vetoed by his insurance company.

Because Jackson wanted confidentiality--'silence'--and bought it from Jordie's parents (the amount was said to be at least $1 million each), it tends to corroborate the idea that the entire settlement agreement--all $25 million of it--was about 'silencing' the claims of sexual abuse which posed a threat to his livelihood and his freedom instead of wanting to 'vindicate' himself.

And the aforementioned adds up well when it is considered, once again, that Jackson's settlement was preceded by the photographing of his spotty penis and blotched testicles, pictures that Carl Douglas viewed as a "part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room" and stated 'silencing' Jordie Chandler would have 'obviated' any fear of the looming criminal trial.

This 'silencing' is well corroborated by many details within the settlement agreement.

As a tangent to the payments, let's note the "Dismissal of the Action":

According to the dismissal schedule, upon signing the documents, Jordie Chandler and his parents agreed to dismiss all of the causes of action in the suit that explicitly implicated Jackson in the molestation of the boy, leaving only the negligence charge pending. Counts one through six would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the Chandlers did have the opportunity to re-file the case at a later date if they decided to, which was unlikely: paragraph 12.c. contained a provision in which Evan and June Chandler would agree, upon signing, that a settlement, but not a trial, was in the "best interest" of Jordie.

Perhaps choosing to settle was in the best interests of Jordie because, during the scandal, Jordie's therapist reported in a November 11 court declaration that she worried about the "extremely harmful" effects prolonged legal proceedings would have had on the boy; Jordie also reportedly drew a picture of himself committing suicide and handed it to his father. Even a year following the settlement, Larry Feldman stated Jordie Chandler was having a hard time adjusting.

The child's suffering notwithstanding, undoubtedly a settlement was in the best interest of Michael Jackson, too.

But even more is that upon a completion of all payments, there was the agreement that J. Chandler v. Jackson would be dismissed with prejudice. In other words, Jackson would never have to worry about any of the Chandlers suing him over Jordie Chandler's 1993 allegations of abuse. Because the settlement payments were spaced so that they would be at lengthy enough intervals as to span the entire statute of limitations, Jackson thereby guaranteed himself that the Chandlers would never become witnesses in a civil or criminal trial against him. 

All of this is underscored by paragraph 11.f.

The settlement agreement specifically barred any of the Chandlers from cooperating with anyone, save law enforcement. Theoretically, according to the settlement, even if the Chandlers had changed their minds about staying mum regarding Jordie Chandler's allegations, they would have had their hands tied: the agreement on which they'd signed off forbade them from discussing any information with regard to those allegations with anyone. 

Furthermore, if any other member of the Chandler clan wanted to take Jackson to court for sexual abuse on behalf of Jordie, for example, that person's case would essentially be 'dead on arrival': they'd be unable to get any information from the victim or his parents.

Jackson's attorneys had drafted an agreement that crushed any possibility of their client facing courtroom scrutiny.

But a civil route was not the only one blocked by the settlement. Jackson apologists often bring up the fact that Jackson never prevented the Chandlers from talking to police with regard to the criminal investigation into Jordie's claims. It is true: it would have been against the law for Jackson to forbid the Chandlers or their attorneys from talking to police about the allegations. However, just because it was illegal did not mean Jackson couldn't make cooperating with police so tedious and stifling as to discourage the process.

Note the underlined portions of paragraph 11.g. above, specifically, "...they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson's attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information.... notice shall be given before responding to the request in any manner other than objections or a refusal to respond..." 

So while Jackson could not preclude anyone from talking to law enforcement, Jackson did want to keep a close eye on them to the point that if any of his accusers did agree to speak about the allegations to anyone, including law enforcement, he'd be able to plan a defense even before they themselves were questioned.

It is noteworthy that Jason Francia--Jackson's other boy accuser who went on to receive a multimillion dollar settlement--also had a similar clause in his agreement with Jackson, according to the testimony of his attorney, Kris Kallman:
23 Q. Now, at some point in time was Jason

24 required to sign some kind of documents in

25 conjunction with the settlement?

26 A. Yes. When he turned 18, part of the

27 condition was that he sign a confidentiality

28 agreement. 

1 Q. Now, with regard to the confidentiality --

2 and to your knowledge, did he sign that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And with regard to the confidentiality

5 agreement, did it have a provision that required

6 notice to Mr. Jackson in the event that Jason

7 Francia talked to anybody?

8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; move to

9 strike.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 You may answer.

12 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.

13 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And what was the

14 requirement notice in the confidentiality agreement

15 with regard to notice to the defense?

16 A. I believe it’s five days.

17 Q. And were you at some point contacted by Mr.

18 Zonen of our department with regard to interviewing

19 your -- Jason Francia?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And in that particular case, did you

22 indicate to Mr. Zonen that you would have to do

23 something before you could agree with that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was that?

26 A. Well, I’d have to notify somebody on Mr.

27 Jackson’s legal staff that they wanted to talk to

28 him.

1 Q. And did you do that?

2 A. Yeah. Yes. Excuse me.

3 Q. And did you then grant permission for Mr.

4 Zonen to have a conversation with your -- with Jason

5 Francia?

6 A. Yes.
Kallman referred to it as a "notice requirement" in later testimony, and it relates to confidentiality; given the similarity, the "notice requirement" in the Chandler settlement can reasonably be considered as the same provision as the one required of the Francias.

All of the previous clauses understandably had the effect of explicitly and implicitly 'silencing' the Chandlers along a broad spectrum--paragraph 11.b. also forbade any of them from speaking in a public forum as well--regardless if Jackson was unable to prevent them from talking to police.

And if the settlement agreement between all parties does not yet seem an apparent 'quieting' of Jordie Chandler, note paragraph 12.e. toward the very end of the document:

It is interesting that Jackson wanted all discovery that led up to and validated J. Chandler v. Jackson (the "Action") to be kept completely sealed and hidden, especially when, not long following the September 13, 1993 file date of the Chandler suit, Jackson's attorneys also wanted to block all discovery (encompassing evidence gathering and witness statements) for seven years, essentially stagnating the progress of that civil suit. 

Notice, too, that 'hiding' discovery is not illegal nor is it an obstruction of justice; it would be as simple as not assisting any entity--be it media, civil, or criminal--in finding information about Jordie's claims or telling them where to look. It would be as easy as feigning a lost memory! It should be noted that the sharing of evidence between Chandler civil attorneys and prosecutors was a major hurdle for Jackson's side:
Cochran and Howard Weitzman, two of Jackson's lawyers, fought vigorously to prevent information obtained during the discovery process in the boy's lawsuit from being turned over to prosecutors. They argued that investigators were trying to use the suit to advance their criminal investigation, a technique that Jackson's lawyers said should not be allowed.
But Lauren Weis, who heads the sex crimes unit of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said investigators should be able to review that material to assist them in deciding whether criminal charges are warranted against Jackson. Although law enforcement sources previously said a decision about whether to file charges could be reached by January, Cochran said he was recently notified that it will not be concluded before February.
"We have a right to know if these witnesses made contrary statements at other times," Weis said, in arguing for access to the civil discovery material, which includes sworn statements by possible witnesses.
But why hide discovery from anyone if Jackson himself had nothing to hide and was innocent? Wouldn't whatever was seized, obtained, or learned in discovery be so superfluous as to not impact Jackson's freedom at all?

Or, perhaps, because the discovery that was the basis of and supported Jordie Chandler's lawsuit led to the need of a settlement--a settlement which 'obviated' the fear of a criminal proceeding--could have, in fact, strengthened the case of prosecutors, as Jackson's lawyers knew well.

Jackson's confidential settlement with the Chandler family, given the clauses within and the enormous sum resulting from it, was nothing more than a 'nod and wink' for the boy's claims of sexual abuse to disappear into thin air.

Furthermore, as evidence to that, the Oxman memo itself helpfully revealed the aftermath of the settlement  by showing that police could obtain nothing of substance from Jordie Chandler during an interview after the settlement agreement was made and no charges were filed as a result; from pages 9 and 10, lines 25-28, 1-4:
Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview." This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607.613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional. In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support molestation charges against Michael Jackson, to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations.
By "thereafter", Oxman means that following the signing of the settlement, Jordie Chandler, who had beforehand been interviewed by countless therapists, social workers, detectives, a false child abuse claims expert--all of whom found him credible--as well as supplied investigators with a drawn description of what he knew of Jackson's discolored genitalia, was no longer as helpful.

One would have to be dense not to consider it a reasonable conclusion that the settlement, with its multitude of clauses designating silence, was what fostered that lack of cooperation.

But it is no surprise because that was the goal of the document.

It's noteworthy to mention the continued assertions by Michael Jackson and his attorneys that, following the resolution of the Chandler lawsuit with the $25 million settlement, Jackson would now be able to move on with his life and get back to making music, in a nutshell returning to his role as the King of Pop.

These assertions, strangely, disregard the fact that prosecutors and police were still continuing on in their criminal investigations into the claims! How would that allow for Jackson to truly sleep easy?

Jackson's brazen confidence can only be best and fully described as the result of totally securing with a multimillion dollar check Jordie Chandler's complete and binding silence.

The March 22, 2005 Oxman memorandum--upheld by Jackson's defenders as some proof of Jackson's 'innocence' in the face of his own contradictory behavior--was complete lies, nothing more than his Defense team's best effort to keep out a 31-paged, unredacted document that proved--tacitly--that their client had a history of sexually abusing young boys.

Most importantly, the Oxman memo's claim that Jackson was somehow an innocent Peter Pan left spinning over his insurance company's inconsiderate settling over his protests to fight has been utterly dismantled. Who was Oxman kidding? Michael Jackson, the showman, the Grammy winner, the seasoned musician, could never be told what to do. That settlement was under Jackson's control.

Settlements are telling little documents, drafted in the nick of time to act as blockades to legal progress or to prevent career-ending revelations from seeing the light of day. It is no surprise, then, that they are considered reasonable proofs of guilt. In Michael Jackson's case, his guilt was entirely obvious.

*  Frozen in Time seminar held on 15th of September 2010, featured a panel of those most closely involved with the Michael Jackson molestation cases: the judge, Honorable Rodney Melville (Retired); the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Ronald Zonen; defense attorney Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr. who represented Jackson in the Santa Barbara County criminal trial; attorney Larry Feldman who represented the alleged victim in the civil case; and attorney Carl E. Douglas who represented Jackson in the criminal investigation of the civil case. 
Now available on Youtube as at 30th November 2011.

**   Of course, this wasn't the only time the defence lied. They also lied, for instance, about the blood spot in Jackson's underpants being due to injections for his "vitiligo" when of course no such injections existed; and Mesereau's patently false claim that Jimmy Safechuck had got married at Neverland.

***  In terms of stymieing the efforts of law enforcement (again, as confirmed by Johnnie Cochran cohort Carl Douglas), there is a such thing as "The Cochran Defense", as described in the book The Proper Criticism of Some Decent People by Dr. Theophilus Green, pages 199-200:
The Cochran Defense was a practice that the late Johnnie Cochran developed to have third party entities financially compensate victims of his entertainment and pro sport clients to persuade them not to cooperate with criminal prosecutors.... most of Cochrans's high profile trials ended with witnesses changing their testimony or victims refusing to cooperate to document criminal charges they originally filed.
The so-called "Cochran Defense" is also amplified by a 2009 interview with a veteran private investigator, David Corbett, who worked for the firm Palladino & Sutherland  hired by Larry Feldman during the investigation into Jordie Chandler's claims:
"We worked for the fourteen-year-old boy and his family in the child molestation case, and we tried the best we could to help the police, but we kept finding out from the sergeant who was out liaison at LAPD that they would assemble a witness list from our reports, pass it up the chain of command, and it would inevitably come back with certain key witnesses cross off. The suspicion was that, with Johnny Cochran at the helm of Jackson's defense, he was pulling strings with old contacts in the DA's office or with cops he knew. We could never prove this, and it was just a suspicion. But it all became moot when Cochran, fearing his investigators has been taped trying to tamper with witnesses - they'd been instructed by Cochran to go out and find ex-employees, tell them,"Michael loves you," and offer them their jobs back at salaries they could hardly refuse - Cochran had a high-power conclave with his client and promptly pitched almost $20 million at the kid and his family. An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know."


Frenchie said...

Excellent entry, Desiree...and I'm not just saying that because I'm your sock-puppet, I truly mean it. LOL.

It's absurd to believe that Michael was "forced" to settle by a secret unnamed insurance company when there is zero evidence to corroborate that claim. As you and Alby both brilliantly pointed out, there were no insurance company representatives present during the settlement negotiation, MJ signed the agreement of his own free will--not some insurance company, and MJ's own attorney specifically spoke about what the case was "worth to Michael Jackson." The gullibility of the average f'loon never ceases to amaze me. Great job putting it all together!

Sock Puppet Number 5 said...

Very good Desiree. Well structured, well thought out and good sources. The f'loons will hate you even more. I bet London to a brick that they will still try to argue that Wacko was innocent even when all the facts are served to them on a gilded platter like you have done above. Yes, they really are that thick.

Great job.


Desiree said...


"and I'm not just saying that because I'm your sock-puppet, I truly mean it. LOL."

LOL; yes, when I don you as my pseudo, I do, in fact, turn into a white woman to make the character more believable. LOL.

Oops, that lighting is really dim--could be a black girl if you squint your left eye, stick out your tongue, and tilt your head to the right. ;-)

"It's absurd to believe that Michael was "forced" to settle by a secret unnamed insurance company when there is zero evidence to corroborate that claim."

Exactly. When I was researching into this settlement business (I've been planning to write about it since Oct. 2010, but, thanks to the post I was allowed to use with permission of MJ Facts, I was able to take a great angle I would've never explored), it was the bit about the "confession of judgment" that really got me.

I wore that aspect out to death in the entry but it was pretty damned shocking: why would an innocent man agree to, in the case of a payment default, allow so-called 'liars' to be able to seize his assets WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HIS BEING ABLE TO LEGALLY FIGHT BACK?

Liars being able to take his hard-earned property? Waiving away his Due Process rights?

No way, an innocent man wouldn't do that, and if an insurance company footed the bill, I doubt any provision like that would have been in the settlement.

What I'm thinking is that the Chandlers and Larry Feldman demanded that they'd get a "confession of judgment" from Jacko (ie. he had to confess to something along the tangent of molestation--'explicitly sexual negligence') or else they wouldn't have settled Jordie's case. In fact, Feldman stated they'd demanded it and got it. It was Jacko who'd wanted to settle but the ball was firmly in the Chandlers court; had they not agreed to settle the case, the trial was coming in March, I believe, and Jacko was still scheduled to give a court-sworn deposition to Feldman, which Jacko repeatedly pushed back: the final date was set between Jan 25-Feb 1, 1994.

Perfect timing, right? LOL. Carl Douglas said, didn't he, that the looming trial date was a 'devastating tactical loss' for Team Jackson.

So, basically, putting everything together, what you had was Jacko utterly petrified that the case would move forward and his signing the "confession of judgment" was his way of 'promising', as if on bended knee, that Jordie would be well taken care of because of the trauma he'd experienced as long as he disappears.

Jordie Chandler opened the Box of Secrets and Jacko wanted him to go away; this settlement agreement proves Jacko's guilt in the absence of having seen him abuse Jordie. Innocent men fight; they don't settle.

And, by the way, I would suggest that MJ Realists discuss the settlement in terms of 2012 money, not 1994 money. But since f'loons are so dirt dumb, it might confuse them. But let's just say no one gives $39 million to liars.

Desiree said...


I am so grateful to you for your input during my writing this, as long as it took! Thank you so much. :-)

"I bet London to a brick that they will still try to argue that Wacko was innocent even when all the facts are served to them on a gilded platter like you have done above. Yes, they really are that thick."

LOL. Isn't that the truth? But, as I always say, there is no point in debating the f'loons because they are not interested in revelation but obfuscation and subterfuge. I try to revert back to the thinking (and I use the word loosely) I'd employed as a fan gobbling the garbage from the fan sites when I write my postings but, other than that, I don't think about the f'loons. They are a waste of time.

I tend to believe that discovery and enlightenment is personal; when Jacko is no longer news, fans may have the time to reflect, do some googling, and find DSSL, MJ Facts, the Santa Barbara document website then read, read, read and, at the very least, come to the realization that they aren't sure.

Think of it as Jacko agnosticism. ;-)

There are so many things within this leviathan here that I don't want people to forget about just because it is so lengthy, such as let's not forget that Jacko wanted Jordie's parents to have money to stay silent; let's not forget Jacko's own attorneys confirming that they were worried about Jordie.

As you'd said to me privately, everything else was plausibly deniable but if they'd had the boy to corroborate the facts and be something of an Exhibit A in front of the jury, they'd be screwed. And since the prosecutors were allowed to obtain Feldman's discovery, a civil judgment against Jacko with Jordie Chandler on the stand would have all but guaranteed a criminal conviction.

But silencing Jordie 'obviated' the concern for all of that. Thanks Carl!

I will say that I think it's interesting that Jacko paid Jason Francia $2.4 million on the basis of a complaint alone--he never even had a lawsuit. Sure, that's not as much money as what Jordie Chandler received but it's a lot for three incidents of genital tickling.

What's so sick is that fans make fun of Jason's abuse. Even during Mez's cross-exam of Jason, Judge Melville told him that he was "being unfair to the witness".

Desiree said...

This is off-topic but while I was doing the research for this post and writing it, I found an article dated to Aug 27 1993 from Britain's "The Independent" featuring Brett Barnes. It was a write up of the early parts of the scandal but it mentioned that little TV shindig he and Wade Robson did in order to 'defend' (not quite) Jacko, where they accidentally let the world know (the police didn't know) that 35-year-old Jacko slept in the bed with young boys.

So Brett, as an eleven-year-old, told the world that 35-year-old Jacko would 'hug him, kiss him, and nuzzle up to him' in bed. Brett called all of that "fun stuff".

Poor Brett. And, sadly, his abuse started when he was just nine-years-old, even though he'd been groomed by Jacko since age 5. You'd think his mother would have had the moral standing to say "No!" to a 35-year-old stranger wanting her 9YO to sleep alone in his bedroom during the first visit... :-(

You can read the full article at the link within the 1-1-2012 ETA of the "Brett Barnes redux" entry. I linked it there just so, if anyone wanted, they could re-read that post while this one about the settlement is still fresh. I imagine Brett Barnes could've gotten a $50 million settlement from Jacko.

Alby said...

Re the mothers, it is classic pedophile MO to gain the trust of parents. It is crucial for pedophiles to do this, any parental suspicion makes it difficult for pedophiles to get that all important alone time with their targets. Mike, the master manipulator, put on his fake sotto voce voice, fluttered his eyelashes and babbled about trust - of course most parents wouldn't be fooled, but naive parents like Lisbeth Barnes and Joy Robson had their heart strings tugged (as a lot of fans have) and trusted Mike completely. Once Mike had the parents on side, he could get to work on manipulating his boys. Once again, not all of them fell for it, but the ones that did fell hard.

The truth is, if a boy's parents are extolling Mike's virtues to their son, and saying they trust him completely, of course the boy is going to be more compliant for Mike (and less likely to voice any concerns about what they might feel is inappropriate behaviour to their parents). The sad thing is that parents, and their children, are still falling for the same tricks from pedophiles even as you read this. It's sad and totally unnecessary because parents should be aware of pedophile MOs.

J-M-H said...

Seriously, this post and the Safechuck one should, in the very least, stop f'loons from perpetuating the falsehoods about Mike being out of control of the settlement and Jimmy Safechuck getting hitched at Neverland, respectively. F'loons should really take a step back and seriously contemplate the man they have chosen to worship. How many PR lies (well in the case of the settlement Mike never denied he paid) have to be thoroughly exposed as bullshit before they see him for the sick child molester he was? I think fans don't realize how much energy they've invested in attempting to "fact check haters' lies" about Michael Jackson. You would think that they would see that at certain point there is nothing left go defend.

You and MJ Facts have shown without a shadow of a doubt, IMO, that he not only wasn't forced to settle but he wanted to do it; he was petrified of the photos leading to criminal trial. And the law prevented the insurance company from doing everything from investigating to settling a suit based on sex abuse. Do you think that the Catholic Church asked an insurance company, a la Johnnie Cochran, to help with their payouts? Do you think an I.c. ever said, "You know, Catholic Church, although you want to vigorously defend you organization from these sex abuse claims, we're gonna go ahead and settle, even though it will make your church look horrible with something to hide." I don't think so, it doesn't work like that, especially if the defendant is a well known celebrity or entity. Oxman threw everything but the kitchen sink into bid argument to keep the document out. Little did he know that the settlement said only the parties and their lawyers were involved in the whole process.

I wonder how the f'loons will take this info? We say how they attempted to maintain the Jimmy Safechuck fallacy, but I bet you they will never flippantly say he was married there again, LOL! Blaine said he'd "annihilate" you if you wrote a settlement post since he believes that his screed was the shit even though he couldn't see the suspiciousness of the notification clause about "5 days in advance". That's what's so funny, the floons are so dense about the settlement that even though they plaster the document all over their sites, they clearly can't see what is written in back and white in front off them.

J-M-H said...

Oh snap sorry for the typos, I'm using my smartphone. I meant "to defend", "your organization", "his argument", "we saw", and "in front of them". LMAO.

Elena said...

Good post, especially because it’s very well documented. But, unfortunately, I can assure you it will do nothing for the f’loons, they’re a lost cause. I’ve discussed this same topic on the IMDB boards with some fans and they kept saying the insurance company somehow forced poor innocent MJ to pay the settlement, even when I showed them the freaking official document that says otherwise. Actually, for any rational person, just the fact that a man paid a significant amount of money to keep this boy silenced after sexual abuse accusations it’s enough to think with at least a 90% probability he was guilty. Even if you don’t know all of these details, the fact that he did the same with other boys the same age, the multiple obvious signs around him, and the fact that he fits the pedophile profile to a T. And the f’loons would probably agree with that IF it was any guy other than Michael Jackson. This post should only serve to convince anyone even more of his guilt. The settlement was the easiest way out, and his reputation was already damaged so why take the time to go through a trial and the risk of going jail when he could just make it all go away by paying a big amount of money that wasn’t really all that much to a rich guy like him? Like I said, the damage was already done, so the settlement was the best choice, anyone would’ve done that in his place. Actually, it has already been done lots of times, priests have been paying families off since a long long time ago, so it’s nothing new. I don’t know how it is in the US but in my country it’s always been like that. A priest molests a boy (usually from a poor dysfunctional family), the church gives the family a good amount of money if they keep quiet and don’t report it, and the priest is just transferred to a different church or school where there are more boys for him to molest and nobody knows nothing about him, and it happens again and again and again. Of course the priest are usually trusted by parents, especially if they’re religious (and poor uneducated families usually are) so a lot of times they don’t even believe it when their son says what happened, if they say anything at all. For me, all this is the same that happened with Michael Jackson. You just have to change priest for singer, church for insurance company, and religious for f’loons and there you got it.

On another note, I saw this clip from the private home movies (or something like that): (the part where Michael is saying his lines of Thriller stars at 1:13)

And there was this comment on YouTube:

“The part where Mj is in the bedroom and wearing a sweater is from October 1983. There appears to be a boy filming Michael and at 2:05 MJ calls this boy RUBBA. The same nickname we later found out he gave to boys like Jordan Chandler and Gavin many many years later. Coincidence....I think not.”

I’d seen it before but I hadn’t realized that. And, like another comment pointed out, the voice does indeed sound like a teenage boy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was one of his special friends. He did call him “rubber” too, like he did with the other boys (for obvious reasons…). He used to hang out with Jonathan Spence in the 80s but that was later, around the time when he was doing ‘Captain EO’. I don’t know any other special friends in the early 80s.

By the way, I thought it was funny when Michael says that line “I’m not like other guys. I mean…I’m different” and the boy says “that’s for sure!” That’s what I think every time I see that part LOL.

Frenchie said...

"I wouldn’t be surprised if it was one of his special friends."

I can't seem to find the comment on here, but a man named Robert contacted Desiree before claiming to have been MJ's special friend in the early 80s. If he's telling the truth, he might be the one filming the video.

Desiree said...

The guy who left that comment was definitely Robert who'd contacted me; he seemed to be on a mission to let the world know that there were 'special friends' out there who weren't known. He always maintained he wasn't abused but he'd said Jacko was a pedophile.

J-M-H and Elena:

Regardless of this post or any others, there will still be fans who will not consider that Jacko ever wanted to settle because it makes him look like a pedophile. They know that people who settle cases are usually guilty. In fact, if it had been any other person settling child sex abuse, they would think the person was guilty of it. Jacko's defense knew it made him look guilty; they couldn't keep out the fact he had settled before but they could at least try to bar any mentioning of the amounts, which were substantial for both Jordie and Jason.

It's a little crazy to me that Jacko gets so much benefit of doubt when he, as an individual, was several orders of magnitude more conspicuous with his boys than the Catholic Church--it's actually a good comparison, Elena. People have taken the Catholic Church's settlements as indications of pedophile priests truly existing but Jacko did the same thing twice (disregarding David Martinez) and people still want to laud his 'great music'.

He should be shunned; there's no reason anyone should idolize him. He was guilty--the settlement proved that. Had he been innocent, he would've fought in court. Period. He had enough money to do so; he just knew a judgment was eminent and that would've led to a criminal conviction.

In fact, I actually think had the case went to a trial, he would've ended up paying much more than $25 million in total. With a punitive judgment, the payment even before legal bills could have topped $50 million in 1994 money. What he did to Jordie Chandler was horrible.

I, too, hope this entry can give fans pause before they want to parrot the PR spin of the Oxman memo. All of that was a lie. Everyone involved in the Chandler settlement said so, Jacko included.

Elena, feel free to link this to the f'loons at IMDB. LOL. They out to read something more substantial than "Dancing the Dream" or that idiotic Mary Fischer piece. Funnily enough, I don't think Fischer ever mentioned an insurance company. She said he just got bad advice from Johnnie Cochran.

Alby said...

I think the most laughable aspect of all this is that fans will still persist in calling it "extortion" by Evan, even though it has clearly been shown that Jordie received the bulk of the settlement money and it was Mike's idea to push money to the parents.

Congratulations Desiree, in addition to debunking the absurd fan stance that this wasn't a "payoff", you've also given yet another reason why the Mary Fischer and Geraldine Hughes pieces are unadulterated bullshit.

J-M-H said...

It seems to me that Robert says the same thing all over the internet, about the Rubba usage and that part in the home movie special. I think that he was a special friend of sorts and now he perhaps is looking back on the whole thing and realizing that Mike's behavior is indicative of a predatory pedophile. He seems to want people to see what he now sees and that's why he's spreading it everywhere.

I think this post should be linked; the two main MJ realists have broken it down into easily understandable language. It will just be the "obstinate to reason" folks out there that will still cling to this dismantled delusion. And IMdB has to be one of the largest cradles of idiocy, having one of the highest concentrations of f'loonery on the web, LOL. I doubt anything will persuade them from their beliefs, although just using the settlement document probably wouldn't work as well seeing that, as I've said, they have plastered it on their sites as proof of innocence. I think they need to see actual quotes from the parties involved and that's what Desiree and MJ Facts have shown.

I did read the post on MJ Facts, and while it was convincing to anyone with a brain, I could still see f'loons being able to harp on insignificant things, like they always do. This collaboration however is much much more solid, and only an idiot delusional freak wouldn't see the proof. I bet Blaine hasn't even read it, and although I think he's as far gone as the other two losers on the site, he perhaps is capable of some clarity. But who knows.

Oh and the part about Frank Cascio was hilarious. Of course he lied in his book. He must have did some research on fansites to come up with that cock and bull story, LMAO. He blindly believed the insurance company BS and used it as the basis of his lie. Now I wonder what other lies are in his book? I think the one about Mike being straight and not a pedo rank high on the list, LOL.

you've also given yet another reason why the Mary Fischer and Geraldine Hughes pieces are unadulterated bullshit.

Well Fischer was paid to write that piece I guarantee you. And Geraldine Hughes basically cut and pasted most of her sorry excuse of a book from Fischer's article, right down to the Evan Chandler misquotes. But wasn't she one of the main sources used in Fischer's article? Weird, she should then have her own info in her book. Plus, Hughes called Jordie Chandler a white boy even those she claimed to see him at least twice. Tangled webs...

S.U. said...

One more time, an excellent post! I like to see you still write here!

"secret insurance..." lol f´loons like too much the word "secret", didn´t they? Secret women, secret children, secret life...LMAO

btw a new book defending MJ will be released. Guess who recommend the book?! Talk about the devil!

Lady C said...


"I wore that aspect out to death in the entry but it was pretty damned shocking: why would an innocent man agree to, in the case of a payment default, allow so-called 'liars' to be able to seize his assets WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HIS BEING ABLE TO LEGALLY FIGHT BACK?

That is so right on; LOL! The f'loons are so SILLY and IGNORANT. Did they ever stop to think that if it had been their rights that were infringed upon by being forced to settle a case against their own will, would they think twice about legally fighting back to protect them self? They wouldn't take that crap lying down and they know it...So, why wouldn't a well known entertainer like Michael Jackson not do the very same? I mean it's not like he didn't have the "know how" on how to take legal action when he felt he was wronged by someone; the man 'literally' lived in the courtroom and lawyers were basically his "next of kin"; LOL.

Entertainers such as Elton John couldn't be fooled by MJ's BS. Elton put it out there, plain and say that he couldn't understand how MJ could throw himself to the dogs like he did if he was indeed truly innocent of the accusations made by the Chandlers...He would have fought; even if meant giving the last of everything he had to prove his innocence and save his reputation and self worth. I just wonder how many other "Elton Johns" out in Tinseltown thought the very same thing? Surely he wasn't the only one; lol. Michael Jackson definitely had something to hide and it was very obvious.

If I had been a brain cell in that head of Michael's, I would have to say that the man TRULY thought that the public was extremely dumb and had no brain cells of their own, yet along common sense to figure him out and all what he was up to...not just only with his molestation accusations, but everything else from A-Z. But I suppose I answered part of that correctly...MJ actually was right in his thinking--it was aimed directly at the f'loons; a population who can't rub two brain cells together when it comes to their beloved messiah. All sense of reasoning completely vanishes and stupidity sets in. IF they had to use any kind of logical reasoning on MJ, their little pea brains would actually cramp. It kind of reminds me of those "I'm with stupid" t-shirts; theirs is a 'sharing bond' of one MJ f'loon mentality to another. People like that, there's no hope for; a lost cause. lol

As always, good post Desiree, and btw, Happy New Year!

Desiree said...


Thanks for that link.

If T-Mez is recommending that book, you know it's suspect. LOL. Mez is such a greasy, sleazy guy... typical high-paid defense lawyer. *shudders*

I just wonder who are these people putting out some of these books about Jacko, claiming to know inside information that seems to contradict every single aspect of the public persona he maintained. It does not make any sense to me why Jacko would hide his so-called heterosexuality in the face of constant accusations of pedophilia.

I don't know if anyone has read the item I'd linked about Brett Barnes but can someone please explain why a 35-year-old man would 'nuzzle up' to a 11-12-year-old boy in bed, hugging him and kissing him even though the child is unrelated?

No heterosexual man--especially a heterosexual black man--would do something like that. Just compare Michael Jackson to his obviously heterosexual siblings. The argument can be made that since Joe (the father), Jackie, Jermaine, and Randy (who are the best characterized womanizers), as well as stints by Tito, who'd cheated on his wife on a boat, coupled with Janet Jackson's own admission that she's very sexual, Jacko's own heterosexuality would be obvious.

From his own semen stains on his mattress and in his sheets, we know that he had, at least, a high sex drive. Yet, he liked to pretend he was asexual.

And why?

Because Michael Jackson knew his sexuality--his attractions--were unpalatable to the world and his fans: he desired young boys and could take the occasional legal adult male.

My goodness, was it just that every boy who accused him of abuse had picked the perfect target who did have a theme park in his backyard, who did have sleepovers with young boys, who did own "The Boy" and "Boys Will Be Boys", which were made by convicted pedophiles featuring images of young boys' genitalia and buttocks?

These 'accusers' were just 'lucky'? Every employee who saw disturbing behavior--even if it wasn't outright abuse like Chacon witnessed--is just a 'liar'?

Really? The argument is as flimsy as demonizing someone as a gossiper and a teller of falsehoods?

No, it doesn't work like that. People wouldn't put themselves out there and risk so much scorn unless they absolutely had too; Jacko had too many people calling him a pedophile for it not to be true. It hurts me so deeply that there are people who want to whitewash every creepy thing about Michael Jackson just because he was a talented musician and dancer.

It isn't right.

This Dr. Karen Moriarty person needs to join all of the other Jacko apologists and shut the hell up. It's not fair to Jacko's sex abuse victims or any victim of a beloved, respected person who got it in the teeth when they spoke out.

Alby said...

Lord spare us - another Mike as terrible victim story. Have fans no respect? They just keep running him down and emphasising that he was pathetic.

Of course, he was pathetic, but I never thought fans would be the ones to get that message across instead of Realists.

Desiree said...

""secret insurance..." lol f´loons like too much the word "secret", didn´t they? Secret women, secret children, secret life...LMAO"

Suzy, the reason everything is argued from the standpoint of 'secret' is because it is so convenient: in the face of there being no evidence in support, these arms of Jacko's propaganda machine can just say some woman was hidden and call it a day.

And let's consider this 'secret' nonsense.

First of all, Jacko fits nearly every single MO of an acquaintance molester, a so-called 'nice guy' pedophile. And because of his semen sheets and his family's high sex drives, it's obvious that a robust sexuality is genetic for the Jacksons.

Jacko paraded his little 'special friends' around like a business man would his Eastern European-model trophy wife. He wouldn't go anywhere without those boys and was always snapped by a photog with his arm around them. He lavished them with gifts, just like a man gives to the woman he loves (or wants to screw).

He apparently had no qualms whatsoever about Jordie Chandler sitting in his lap at the World Music Awards. Bob Jones wanted to get extra chairs for Jordie and his little sister but Jacko wouldn't take them. Jordie just sat right between Michael Jackson's legs.

None of that is normal behavior, especially if the argument to be made is that he was heterosexual, and a heterosexual black man to boot. Simply, Jacko was displaying every behavior of a man in love--his love interest just happened to be boys.

So, beating the 'secret' drum is so overplayed and ineffectual; it is just so unbelievable. Yawn.


LMAO. That's such a good point, which makes all of this nonsense so boring. Jacko--pre-drug haze--was an accomplished businessman and a great performer; he was obsessed with his image and controlled everything we saw right down to a tendril of jheri curl. Given that, it makes no sense whatsoever that he'd just allow himself to be beaten down by 'lies'... or insurance companies who wanted to settle against his wishes, effectively making him look like a pedophile wanting to hide his dirty deeds.

All of the bad things that happened to Jacko was of his own making. He did it to himself. The fans need to stop blaming people for his personal demons and his terrible choices.

J-M-H said...

Lady C, good to see you again! I agree, if Mike wanted to fight he would have. Look how he reacted to the Bashir doc; he rounded up people to give interviews to showing him the best possible light (don't know if it really was believable LOL). I guess some could argue that it's possible that the Arvizo case could have been a lie because he didn't settle, like he did with all his other accusers. But at any rate, I feel Mike wouldn't have allowed the Chandlers to get approximately $39 million in today's money out of him for something that was completely false and could be proven as such. And the settlement documents prove that Mike settled of his own free will. I personally think that the fact that Johnnie Cochran didn't even try to defend him is telling. He defended OJ and IMO, OJ was guilty. Cochran even defended P. Diddy, he was most definitely guilty, LOL. The old Cochran defense couldn't work for Mike.

What is so messed up about this whole thing is the way everyone always is scrutinizing the victims but Mike's actions are virtually ignored. The fans always talk about how Evan negotiated with Pellicano and at the end, the Chandlers agreed to a settlement. But why would Mike ever offer money in the first place? Pellicano called everyone extortionists and cockroaches, yet he is offering money for at least two weeks before the cops became involved, and they never even file a police report until they are called out in the media. Mike had always been interested in quieting these allegations with cash; he just never thought it would get out. He never fathomed that his "boy ride" would end he just thought it would go on forever without anyone saying anything. That's why he always intended to throw money at the situation because it had always worked before.

Desiree, it's true. If Mike had been all the things that these books are alleging, there would be no haters, except perhaps over his slightly craptastic music, LOL. It's tiring to always have these people claiming shit that isn't even remotely likely. Frank Cascio knew Mike for a long time and he was barely able to make the King of Pop into a ladykiller; he barely even tried. So why does this floon shrink think she will be more successful? It is almost funny.

S.U. said...

That´s kinda of off-topic but something hit me with the "secret child".
We all know that f´loons believe that PPB are Michael´s bio child. Along that there´s the secret sons rumors. I thought they secretly believe they´re not his real children so they need to talk about that hypothetical secret children of his...I noticed that pics of "secret children" are always from black children.
I wish another anedocte like Aaron´s, Pelicano´s or Jason to surface that year LOL

S.U. said...


Frank couldn´t even set the record straight about the kids paternity. He only said that they´re his kids and when asked if they´re biologically, he just repeated the same thing lol.

Alby said...


"On another note, I saw this clip from the private home movies (or something like that): (the part where Michael is saying his lines of Thriller stars at 1:13)

And there was this comment on YouTube:

“The part where Mj is in the bedroom and wearing a sweater is from October 1983. There appears to be a boy filming Michael and at 2:05 MJ calls this boy RUBBA. The same nickname we later found out he gave to boys like Jordan Chandler and Gavin many many years later. Coincidence....I think not.”

I finally got a moment to watch the relevant part of the video, and it doesn't sound like "Rubba" to me but "Rob" at 2.05. Not sure if I'm right though, I haven't got the best speakers on this computer. I note that Mike was arrogant to the boy filming though.

Lady C.

It seems that everyone but f'loons realise that Mike was a 'nice guy' pedophile - they are like the people with the confused look on their faces while everyone around them are laughing at the joke that just been told... all sections of the media definitely know it, everyone in the music biz know it (the ones who deny it have made or want to make money from Mike's name), and every intelligent, rational person knows. I noted that VMJ are so devoid of ideas they wrote a piece "debunking" Daniel Kapon, who alleged some very, very unbelievable crap about Mike molesting and torturing him. F'loons have neither the wit nor the intelligence to discuss the issues around Mike with any sort of clarity or deductive skills, and never will.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

Happy New Year to you, too! It's just like what Alby had said: the fans make Jacko look so utterly pathetic, as if he could never defend himself against every bad thing that happened to him. Jacko is a musical genius in one capacity and a total witless wonder in the next. It makes little sense. Jacko was a part of every bad thing that ever happened to him. Think karma.

No one can ever convince the f'loons that Jacko was the single common denominator in every mishap, misfortune, catastrophe that shaped his life and career. But admitting that would open up a can of worms. They've spent too many hours, days, months, years of their lives defending him; making him responsible for his own actions would expose that they'd been duped.

But, at least with regard to the settlement, hopefully they will accept the facts: Jacko wasn't forced and Jacko wanted it. There's no way some insurance lawyer could force the King of Pop into doing anything he doesn't want to do.


"I noted that VMJ are so devoid of ideas they wrote a piece "debunking" Daniel Kapon, who alleged some very, very unbelievable crap about Mike molesting and torturing him. F'loons have neither the wit nor the intelligence to discuss the issues around Mike with any sort of clarity or deductive skills, and never will."

LOL. Why does someone who is obviously fabricating a story need to be 'debunked'? What it shows to me is that the fans feel any accusation against Jacko--credible or outrageous-- taken in conjunction with Jacko's own long-standing behavior, will be 'believable' to the masses not (completely) brainwashed by spin.

Their posts act as talking points for confused fans (alternately ones suffering from dissonance, the tell-tale signs of doubt). Can't have that! LOL.

And how are postings like that one even important? I'm embarrassed for them. Why can't they just write their pieces allegedly 'vindicating' him every so often and leave the blog standing in cyberspace for a few weeks or months?

It makes me think of a cult newsletter...

Alby said...


Why can't they just write their pieces allegedly 'vindicating' him every so often and leave the blog standing in cyberspace for a few weeks or months?"

So much of themselves is tied up in his image that they can't leave it alone. Michael Jackson is the sore they pick at constantly, to keep it front and centre so that they can show off the sore to others and say "See? See how much this affects me?". Their lives, for whatever reason, are intertwined with Mike's - I guess they have low self esteem. I am getting to the stage now of feeling slightly grubby when I read about Mike, seriously. If it weren't for the intelligence displayed by the great people commenting here, I would be done discussing him. Then again, fan sites can be very amusing (in small doses of course!).

I am truly embarrassed for VMJ too, they are now "debunking" the most trivial and inconsequential issues which frankly only make themselves, and Mike, look ridiculous. They are just arguing for argument's sake, which means they have lost already.

The current trend to portray Mike as some weak minded creature who was too dumb to figure out when someone was trying to con him is just so far from the truth, and is a totally disrespectful opinion to voice if you are a true fan. If they want to press the line that he wasn't the architect of his failures, they will also have to accept he wasn't the architect of his successes either, and is thus unworthy of their admiration. Someone needs to snap their fingers in their faces and tell them to wake up. I know you are trying, Desiree :-)

Frenchie said...

"naive parents like Lisbeth Barnes and Joy Robson had their heart strings tugged (as a lot of fans have) and trusted Mike completely."

I agree with you. I know many people here believe Joy Robson knowingly "pimped" Wade out to a child molester, but I'm doubtful of that. More than once Joy went into hysterics because she couldn't reach her son. That's not the behavior of someone indifferent to her child's well-being. She was concerned about him. When Joy told June that MJ would move onto another boy, it didn't necessarily mean that she was aware of his sexual interest in them. It only meant that she knew MJ could be callous. Joy may have said it out of frustration as she watched her own son lose favor with Michael. She may have also said it out of bitterness--she wanted June to know that Jordan was the favorite for now, but those days were numbered. It was pretty clear from Joy's 2005 testimony that she didn't care for June, so I wouldn't put it past Joy to act a bit catty towards her.

Looking at it from a 2012 perspective, it's obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, but this was in the early 90s. It happened before the internet exploded and people started to become aware of how many child predators are out there. Most parents were more naive back then, not just the Barneses and Robsons.

Desiree said...


"I know many people here believe Joy Robson knowingly "pimped" Wade out to a child molester, but I'm doubtful of that. More than once Joy went into hysterics because she couldn't reach her son. That's not the behavior of someone indifferent to her child's well-being."

I can see the line of reasoning from both you and Alby but I have to respectfully disagree. My thing is that there is no way Joy Robson--and I think she is a different case than the other well-known 'special friend' moms--was that naive; her actions prove this.

We have to remember that Joy's sole goal for Wade was for him to have a dance career, and if anything positive emerged from Joy's 'hustle', Wade is successful because Jacko helped him out.

I think Joy did know, at the very least, that something was up with Jacko and boys. Her 1990s deposition proved that. However, her tactic was to dangle this boy in front of Jacko like one would a slab of meat in front of a tiger but hope the tiger--Jacko--wouldn't get the meat from her, or bite her hand off with it.

That's always been my perspective. It would take a lot for me, personally, to believe that this woman was a La-di-da naive innocent who saw nothing suspicious about her 7-year-old sleeping in bed with a man in his 30s on the first visit at the Ranch, or how Jacko would pick up the phone in the middle of the night and she'd come trotting little Wade across the street for a sleepover.

MJ Realists mock f'loons for being so naive as to think something was kosher about those situations but it is different if it isn't your child doing that; fans can, stupidly, think it's innocent because it wasn't them--they see it from the outside. But there's just no way she didn't have the suspicion something was up with the man. After all, this is a woman who, by her testimony alone, comes off as someone who really did have a good game going on there: get kid to befriend superstar and superstar helps not only kid but family, too.

To me, Joy's displays of fear and emotion when she couldn't find Wade, her sobbing to Charli Michaels, was because she'd known she'd played with fire and was scared that she'd get burned.

We really have no idea the private conversations between Wade and his mother; perhaps she never told him to join in on sex acts but I wouldn't be surprised she told him to "make sure Michael doesn't get too close."

That she walked her kid across the damned street destroys any belief that she was stupid; that was someone who know what she was doing!

Both extremes--all pimps or all completely duped--are too simplistic, in my opinion, because I really don't think Jacko was that good of a manipulator to completely dissolve the fundamental protective instinct in a mother. Sure, he was good enough--that's all that's needed, really--but not good enough to have drones with smiles on their faces. No, these people had suspicions; it was the life, the fame, the money that prevented them from acting.

I also think that we are of the opinion that if Joy was a pimp, it means that she has to all but strip Wade naked, tie a big bow around his waist, and lay him on Jacko's sequin bedspread. No, I think there are subtleties to her position. She could still be fully committed to the 'meat dangle' but still love her son.

Ultimately, these people came over from Australia with little money and relied on Jacko for everything; naturally, Joy's single-minded goal was to make what caused them to come over happen: Jacko was going to further Wade's career. If Wade would have to be a special 'special friend', then so be it; just don't get too hurt.

Desiree said...


So, I think Joy was a pimp; she just may not have been the heartless pimp we've all come to know, hence why she used the 'meat dangle' technique in the first place.

I've said before that I think Joy was the opposite of June Chandler. With June, I think she was completely duped. Joy was working class whereas June was upper class, used to fine things and money. I've noticed that poorer people tend, on average, to be more street smart, have a little less gilded view of the world. June was spoiled with money--she didn't know the 'evils' of the world because she was entirely insulated. Jacko was rich, so there could've been an 'understanding', but he was also a celebrity; to someone like June, he would be able to do no wrong. While I definitely don't think Jacko was a good manipulator, I'm sure his tantrums wore June down; being as sheltered as she was, she just folded and trusted him completely.

I will say it is interesting that June told Jordie to "never do that again" when he'd spent the night in Jacko's bed without her knowledge. It could be argued that she thought it was inappropriate or that she was worried that her son had 'imposed'. I know she did have trust issues but that does not imply street smarts or a lack of naivete.

I will say I find it utterly bizarre that there are f'loons out there who, stupidly, think Jacko was totally innocent but also call the moms 'pimps' for accepting gifts. It's a little contradictory: you can't be a 'pimp' if you aren't soliciting someone you know would 'bite' the bait. Idiots...

"Most parents were more naive back then, not just the Barneses and Robsons."

Were most parents naive, or was it a facade of naivete for some of them? Evidently, Manny Lewis' mother wasn't naive--she ended the relationship right then and there when Jacko took him to a hotel as 'father' and 'son'. That Liz Barnes lowered her head when told of Jacko performing oral sex on Brett is a strong indicator to me that she'd had suspicions at least at one point.

I just can't accept the 'naivete' argument completely. I remember being 5-years-old and at a presentation in kindergarten telling kids to, but with more subtlety, watch out for molesters. I can still remember the 'jingle': "Don't let them touch your mouth, your chest, in between your legs, or your bottom." That was 1994-1995. If a 5YO kid can be instructed thusly (and, apparently, the organizers believed a kid would remember it) how can't a mother--an adult--know enough to protect her kids?

Again, June Chandler notwithstanding, there is no way these moms didn't know anything. I don't blame them for being swept up by Jacko's celebrity magnetism (he was socially retarded with everyone who wasn't small enough to worship him) or his money. Jacko was the pedophile, the abuser. But there's no way they were that ignorant. It's just really slim, in my opinion.

Desiree said...

Were most parents naive, or was it a facade of naivete for some of them?

I meant to say, "were most parents MORE naive..."

Let's not forget the 80s sitcom 'specials'! On "Diff'rent Strokes", for example, the bike shop owner was a pedophile. And if anyone watched Lifetime Network out here in the US (like I did too much as a kid), the late 80s-early 90s 'movie-of-the-week' were all about child abuse and other domestic catastrophes.

Simply, there was was just too much information out there. A child can get duped by a molester for certain--and that's where the negligence came from in the Chandler civil suit--but not an adult.

I think those situations where a mother's new husband or boyfriend molests the child, she doesn't not know, she just denies. That was obviously the case with many of the moms...

Desiree said...


"The current trend to portray Mike as some weak minded creature who was too dumb to figure out when someone was trying to con him is just so far from the truth, and is a totally disrespectful opinion to voice if you are a true fan."

The thing is that I don't think they think it is disrespectful. You're a guy, Alby, so you may see it as challenges to a man's masculinity. But most of Jacko's fans are female. Most women have an intrinsic desire to coddle and nurture and protect a man; hell, I know that I can see a man on TV, for example, acting like a wounded animal with another woman, and it just pulls at my heartstrings. Lisa Marie Presley actually voiced this: Jacko was to be her little broken-winged birdie that she was going to save, dammit! LOL. I believe that that is how most of Jacko's (female) fans see him.

If Jacko is some weak thing they can protect, then he is unconsciously more attractive to them. So, making him out to be this witless loser (which is far from the truth) fulfills two goals:

(1) He becomes even more of their fantasy by needing saving, and it enables it to be an odd reciprocal relationship despite the fact they do not know him, and;
(2) If he's a weak, dim-witted angel (think this settlement nonsense, for example), he looks more innocent--and thus more likable--which is like a confirmation to them that is okay to be rabid and obsessed.

"If they want to press the line that he wasn't the architect of his failures, they will also have to accept he wasn't the architect of his successes either, and is thus unworthy of their admiration."

This is such a great point. Nothing can exist without an opposite. If Jacko was so weak-minded that he could be duped into settling, not to mention signing a "confession of judgment", which ruined his career, then he certainly was smart enough to be a master marketer of his craft.

In other words, it is such nonsense. Jacko was an evil genius with moments of complete social retardation.

Frenchie said...

"Let's not forget the 80s sitcom 'specials'! On "Diff'rent Strokes", for example, the bike shop owner was a pedophile. And if anyone watched Lifetime Network out here in the US (like I did too much as a kid), the late 80s-early 90s 'movie-of-the-week' were all about child abuse and other domestic catastrophes."

I'm certainly not suggesting that people were oblivious to the existence of child predators then, just that they didn't seem to be as aware of how common they actually are. I remember the way my mother and everyone else's would leave us in the school parking lot unattended (in unlocked cars, mind you) while they waited around in an entirely different area to pick up our siblings. That's practically and invitation to have your child kidnapped. I never see that at the school anymore. Parents just don't seem as trusting when it comes to their children. Of course the oldest I was in the early 90s was five, so I'm not an authority on the subject.

Regarding Joy and Liz, I do suspect there were times that they had their misgivings about Michael Jackson and his intentions with their sons, but if they allowed themselves to acknowledge that he molested them, they would also be forced to acknowledge that they failed to protect them. It's much easier to just deny their boys were harmed than to admit it to themselves and live with the guilt. Look at how long it took to convince June that Jordan was abused. She kept finding ways to blame Evan rather than just listening to what Jordan had to say. It's not easy for a parent to accept that something terrible happened to their child right under their nose, and they did nothing to prevent it.

Desiree said...

If Jacko was so weak-minded that he could be duped into settling, not to mention signing a "confession of judgment", which ruined his career, then he certainly was smart enough to be a master marketer of his craft.

Oops... I meant to say, "he certainly was NOT smart enough to be a master marketer of his craft."


I see your angle. I know there was a time when people believed all molesters wore trench coats and had yellow eyes when, in reality, most sexual predators look like your friendly Good Humor man handing out ice cream. In other words, the predators are the ones, like Jackson, who have like a sixth sense when it comes to children.

It's probably why it is so hard for people to accept that about Jacko.

I also think it's sort of different, in my opinion, to have suspicions Jacko was a molester than to have suspicions that he'd already molested the boys. Like I said before, for people like Joy Robson, she knew, at the very least, Jacko was fixated on boys and had some odd interest in them that could border on nefarious. But she seemed to be of the mindset that she wanted to see how far she could take it before 'something happens'.

I think denial came after all of the initial suspicions, or rather after quieting the suspicions and compartmentalizing them from revelation, which can be denied. With Liz Barnes, she heard the DAs telling her that someone they deemed credible saw Jacko sexually abuse Brett and it caused her anguish that she'd went silent and lowered her head; but then she probably asked Brett about it, who'd--no doubt--been instructed by Jacko to keep the Box of Secrets closed, and when he denied it, she believed him. And when she asked Jacko--if she did--he denied it, too. It was then easy for her to make the police and Ralph Chacon, who was just a witness finally telling what he'd seen, into 'Others' who were antagonists to the 'fun' the Barneses had with the King of Pop.

I think that is when the brainwashing comes. I always wonder if he ever paid the Barneses a little something-something. We know he finally drew up a dance contract for Joy when the scandal was heating up. I think I mentioned it before: Brett Barnes could've got a $50M settlement.

J-M-H said...

Alby, that's really funny about the sore analogy. I just read this post again and it's so damn convincing (you two should have been paralegals for the prosecution; I'm sure the document would have been allowed in and Brian Oxman would have been reprimanded for perjury, LOL), how could any fan still believe in this whole lie? I wonder if any of them will finally just sit down with a clear head and just seriously contemplate what Mike not being forced to settle and footing the entire bill really means... guilt. We're not saying any of this to cause mass hysteria among the f'loons but there should be some point in the whole Wacko Jacko saga where a fan says "Ok if [insert issue] is proven with enough logical evidence, I will think maybe something was up with Michael Jackson and these boys". It's the only logical response after reading a post like this one, in my opinion.

The fallacy of the insurance company has been completely exposed for the lie it is. So where do the floons go from here if some of the bedrock of their belief has been pulverized?

Desiree and Frenchie, I agree with you both. For the most part, the parents were hoodwinked. How could anyone think anything negative or have any suspicions about a beloved global icon? Mike didn't even need to try that hard but clearly he homed in on the mothers for "material seduction"; he obviously knew that the fathers would be hard to manipulate. With that being said, I think Joy Robson was doing what she felt was what would please Mike enough so that she could secure the deal for her son. I think it's too simplistic to say that she was pimping Wade, but she "knew" what could be done to secure her goal. There had to be at least some implicit understanding of what she was doing when Mike would call for a middle of the night "Wade delivery" and there she was walking him across the street. Of course she may have thought nothing of this request but in my opinion it's doubtful, although I can never be sure. Perhaps Mike ran the same scheme on her about how it's ok for men and boys to have sleepovers like he did with Wade.

To me, at the end of the day, the parents are of secondary importance if they did not explicitly hand over their sons. I challenge any single mother to not get swept away by a sweet and gentle seeming man that (at least initially) acts like a positive male role model for their son and forms by all appearances a deep bond of friendship with them as well. That's what these molesters bank on, and Mike banked on it too. They're ultimately responsible for their own actions, not the parents.

Frenchie said...

"With Liz Barnes, she heard the DAs telling her that someone they deemed credible saw Jacko sexually abuse Brett and it caused her anguish that she'd went silent and lowered her head; but then she probably asked Brett about it, who'd--no doubt--been instructed by Jacko to keep the Box of Secrets closed, and when he denied it, she believed him."

According to Liz Barnes' testimony, this is how she questioned Brett about his abuse:

"Look me in the eyes and tell me that nothing has happened to you, that Michael has never done anything inappropriate to you."

That's pretty much one of the worst ways she could have approached the subject. It's a command--she told her son precisely how to respond to her and he complied. Even if he wanted to open up to his mother, how could he? Poor Brett. :-/

Lady C said...


"Jacko was a part of every bad thing that ever happened to him. Think karma."

Right, but the only problem with that is, Michael didn't think favorably of karma, and for him that was too damn bad. In his conversation with Rabbi Schmuley, he told him that karma was nothing but a bunch of crap. My guess is that he felt that way because it was something that sounded "too much like right", and he probably felt that it was from the mentality of the 'levitators'. LOL What comes around goes around, and the fact that when it does eventually come around, it can be a real bitch and hurt twice as bad, was an idea that MJ wouldn't accept because it was something that would show to be very true in his own life; coming back and pointing the finger at him...not only once but many, many times over. Also since he probably thought it was part of the levitator mentality and they were in a class of their own, he couldn't be a part of it. For him a belief in karma would "contaminate" his innocence and would cause him to gravitate to the other side.

Karma was a word that didn't exist in his vocabulary. Hell to the no, lol.

J-M-H & Alby:

"What is so messed up about this whole thing is the way everyone always is scrutinizing the victims but Mike's actions are virtually ignored."

The "everyone" who is scrutinizing the victims instead of MJ are the ones who are in absolute and total DENIAL of what is in front of them but refuse to acknowledge. Here's a scenario....Take two people; one who is a rabid/f'loon of MJ and another person, let's just pretend,someone who has never heard or doesn't know much about MJ--I know, that's almost impossible, but what the heck, LOL! . Well, as far as the f'loon is concerned, we already know what their mentality about MJ is. The other person, we'll call him "Lone Ranger", has at least average common sense like you and I and knows right from wrong. You take both of these people and have them to read most, if not all of MJ's books written by him...reading books written about him by others would be okay too, that way they can see that it's not just them that think the way they do about MJ but others like them. Anyway, they would listen to all of his television interviews, and read all the newspaper/magazine articles about him and everything else in between, follow all of his legalities and in the end you will end up with two very different outcomes...The f'loon will most likely be very defensive of their beloved icon and make all kinds of excuses for him ; if, ands, buts, you name it.. They will think that something "sinister" is going on to bring MJ down and that the media is out to get him. Why? Because according to their icon, he could never do any wrong, and if MJ said he did/didn't do anything, then there was absolutely no mistaking it...his word was his bond regardless. lol Now Lone Ranger on the other hand, who has average common sense and knows what's right from wrong, sees things A LOT differently. The first thing that would probably run through their mind is that the man has got some very serious issues; he's not working with a full deck. One of the things that will stand out tremedously is MJ's very extreme and unusual fondness for children, especially young boys; they would find this very unsettling. Children are likeable pepole, but this kind of obsession is very unhealthy. Constantly parading boys in the public eye sends out a red flag. Second, you never see MJ with a woman or better yet, a woman who is his romantic partner--you may hear about her, but you never see them together in public. Also his "woman/women" NEVER came to his public defense when all the shit in his life hit the fan--this is especially true for the homosexual and pedophile rumors.

Lady C said...

J-M-H & Alby (cont.)

Third, when listening to his interviews, there were more times than not a lot of inconsistencies; nothing ever really added up. MJ must have thought that he was a good liar, but in reality he wasn't; he had a very poor memory because he seemed to have had a hard time remembering what said to someone in the last interview he gave...liar liar pants on fire; lol. Not only was it in the interviews, but the inconsistencies were in the very books he wrote himself. Fourth, we come to the "mysterious" case of vitiligo that he acquired...a case so unique, that he didn't know that the public knew something weird was going on with his skin way before he decided to come out publicly with it in his live interview with Oprah...I mean, he was "only" about 10 years many, WTF's came from that one? Perhaps he should've invested his time in vitiligo awareness as much as he did with children, LOL. Last but not least, we come to all the child molestation accusations/pedophilia. Now Lone Ranger, seeing the "troubled" Michael and his unique fondness for children, with simple common sense will be able to put two and two together and pretty much figure out that MJ's not right...If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Also the fact that he chose not to fight the accusations made by the Chandlers but instead settle the case is a really BIG indicator that something is very wrong. But it doesn't stop there; the parading with boys, his bizarre comments about children and killing himself if children disappeared off the planet, admissions to sleeping with children and sharing his bed, still continue; even up to the point of being accused again of child molestation and having to go to trial. Lone Ranger who has probably figured it all out by now, realizes that the lyrics in his music now really make sense...And if they are like me, they probably can't stomach much of his music anymore--it just isn't the same, lol. The end result will be that the f'loon will continue to be duped and wallow in their stupidity and ignorance, lacking any common sense; they'll continue to see MJ as the angel that can never do any wrong/harm; while on the other hand, Lone Ranger who has some common sense will come to the conclusion that MJ was a very troubled person who by far missed the mark in being any kind of angelic person, was for the most part a very untruthful person, he didn't have any indication of what was/wasn't a healthy relationship with others--especially where children were concerned, hated his own identity/race, believed that playing games was the way to manipulate the circumstances or others for his own benefit and not think twice about it, pretty much couldn't stay out of trouble, and was an attention whore.

This is the vast difference between the f'loons and the realists in the world of MJ. I' m glad that I'm on the side of the realists, lol. We can go back and forth until the cows come home talking about MJ's floony floons and their pathetic mentality, but anyone with any real sense would be able to see all the holes in MJ; there are too many of them. Regardless of what he said/didn't say, his actions spoke louder than words. Okay! Desiree summed it up well, "No one can ever convince the f'loons that Jacko was the single common denominator in every mishap, misfortune, catastrophe that shaped his life and career. But admitting that would open up a can of worms."

Lady C said...


"Look me in the eyes and tell me that nothing has happened to you, that Michael has never done anything inappropriate to you."

I agree, Liz Barnes' question to her son, Brett, is quite contradictory. I was always told that you never ask a question with a command, but to ask in a manner that requires a yes, no, or elaborating answer. A command question hardly ever yields a truthful response--only the response you want to hear, and Liz Barnes walked into that one with her eyes wide open because in reality she really didn't want to face the truth about Michael and what he was up to.

Alby said...

There are so many interesting posts I am going to expand on when I get a chance, but for the moment let's just recap what Joy Robson received in that critical time at the end of 1993 - a $10,000 "loan" from Anthony Pellicano* (one she can't remember repaying at any particular time LOL), a $10,000 "loan" for a car from Mike (which she never repaid), and a $100,000 recording contract from MJJ Productions. Looks like she got her cut of the Chandler settlement too :-)

*The "loan" from Pellicano came at the same time Wade appeared on TV saying "nothing happened" between him and Mike. Red flag, anyone? They are at a discount today ;-)

Lady C said...


A little off topic, but I see that Nutri-system has a new spokes person for their television ads, Miss Janet...have to keep bringing in that money some how,lol. I thought she looked good, but the commercial itself isn't anything to get excited about. Well, I suppose MJ would've been pleased about that; especially going back some years ago when he saw that his baby sister was getting a little chubby and called her a fat cow. Didn't seem to bother him. However when one of his 'special friends'--can't remember which, told him that his vitiligo made him look like a spotted cow, he was not amused. He could dish it, but couldn't take it, lol.

J-M-H said...

Alby, I stand corrected, all those sound like payments for services rendered. Maybe she did know what was going on more than we hope she did. I mean it's possible that she was doing her good friend Mike a favor and accepted unwittingly hush money. But then I think of her's all so tragic; the lady most likely knew what she was doing. Still, I have to agree with Frenchie; I don't think the mothers would have willingly allowed molestation and i would think that they'd certainly not get on the stand and defend him, if they knew. I think for some reason that the Robsons may have not wanted to bite the hand that fed them. Mike was integral to Wade's career getting off the ground. They might feel in debt to him regardless if they knew he was a pedo.

Lady C, you're right. The only people that focus on solely the victims are the floons. I think people outside the world of rabid floondom realize his bizarre behavior and they don't immediately try to come up with a rationalization that makes him look like a harmless angel. But since our legal system puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff, the scrutiny is harsher for the accuser sometimes, which is ok because it is innocent until proven guilty. However, I'm of the opinion that most people accused of a crime did it since it is more than simple to avoid criminal behavior. So when it comes to the real world, outside the standards and rules of a court of law, both sides are equal and both sides need to prove themselves innocent (or the other person guilty). There is no beyond reasonable doubt that often gets guilty people off; there's just common sense. And in the case of Michael Jackson, there is more than enough reasonable and common sense evidence that proves he was guilty, when you look at both sides equally. The fans at best provide reasonable doubt that may or may not hold up in a court room, but I think I'm being too generous with their abilities, LOL. But since the real world doesn't involve court room "better to let 10 guilty men go free than have one innocent man in jail" standards, no one buys their bullshit "explanations"; most people don't by the BS from his lawyers either. It just doesn't hold any weight to anyone with common sense; lost childhood is not good enough to explain why a grown man insists on sleeping with pubescent boys he's not related to.

Sbibak said...

Happy New Year everyone!

Excellent article, Desiree. Thank you (and Alby) very much for the great analysis.

So as we have figured out long time ago it was actually Jacko who tried to force the insurance company to pay the bills of the molestation, LOL.

The Carl Douglas comments are priceless... the bit of the gorilla in the room is gold. Anyway, such revelation or the implicit admission of guilt in the settlement are not going to wake-up consciences in f'loonky town.

I'm about to sound as simple as the mechanism of a baby's rattle, but following the rabid fans dogma, Jacko had in his hands (gratia Tom Sneddon) the objective and irrefutable proof of his innocence in the form of a set of pictures that did not matched, but he chose, as the shrewd business man they say he was to complicate matters and settle for an astronomical amount of money and screw up his career forever. Yeah right.

Hey, f'loons, I have a question for you "Sesame Street style". Why the settlement took place if the photographs did not matched the depiction Jordie Chandler gave? Jacko had the definitive ace up his sleeve to expose the Chandlers as the consummate liars and extortionist you claim they are, and on top of that, with the inestimable collaboration of the police department and the DA. He could have stopped any attempt of a criminal trial and the investigation machinery by the weight of this proof alone.

Regarding this issue, is funny how MJ lied about that in the past. If you remember the public statement he gave from Neverland after the body search... (the one where he speaks of the "pinis", the buttocks and the "lo...wer" all the while he is fanning the cameramen with his long fake eyelashes) well, in this instance he mentions all the world knew before he had vitiligo, as a mean to explain how the Chandlers could have figured out his penis was splotched. Ridiculous since there is no rules of where a person suffering from vitiligo (which Mj did not suffer) should have markings in his body. Anyway, he was trying to justify how they knew it, once the information of the depiction and the existence of the spots hit the press. But Jacko wasn't a consistent liar, and in the Diane Sawyer interview he and Lisa Marie said there were no markings. I'm sure Lisa did not saw his penis in its lifeless state, let alone in full display, LOL.

Same for the story of the circumcised penis, which origin is "uncertain"... or perhaps a lie spread by Jacko's camp.

S.U. said...

When I thought I had seen everything from f´loons...

French fans sue Jackson doctor for distress

RENNES, France — French fans of Michael Jackson are suing the late pop star's doctor for "emotional damage" they suffered over his death, their lawyer said Friday.
The case against Conrad Murray, who was jailed in November over the star's 2009 death, is due to be heard in the city of Orleans on April 11, lawyer Emmanuel Ludot said.
"It's similar to losing a childhood friend in a traffic accident. Because this death affects you, you have the possibility to file a suit and seek compensation," Ludot said.
The lawyer is acting for around 100 fans who are members of an association that calls itself the "Michael Jackson Community".
He said that while each fan could be awarded damages of up to 10,000 euros (13,000 dollars), they were seeking only a symbolic euro.
Jackson, aged 50 at the time of his death, had hired Murray at a salary of $150,000 a month to look after him as he rehearsed and embarked on a series of "This is It" planned comeback shows in London.
The star died on June 25, 2009 at his Los Angeles home of an overdose of anaesthetic propofol, taken to help him battle insomnia.
Murray was found guilty in November of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to the maximum four years in prison.


S.U. said...


So really Klein was telling privately that the kids are his. Read that excerpt from Carrie´s interview today.

"Another close friend of yours is Arnold Klein, Jackson’s longtime dermatologist. What do you think of the persistent rumor that he’s the biological father of Jackson’s elder children?"

I don’t talk about it with Arnie, but it has never made sense to me. Why would Michael pay Debbie Roe $6 million for a child that wasn’t his? But I have said to Arnie, “Please don’t say you’re the father anymore.”

"I didn’t realize Klein was the source of the rumor."

No, no, no. But what he doesn’t say is “I’m not.” Arnie’s desire and enjoyment of publicity has caused some discomfort.

Desiree said...


What you've posted is the reason I believe Joy Robson was a pimp (of sorts). I agree with others that the word seems simplistic but I don't mean that she told Wade to, "let Michael abuse you," but that doesn't mean that she didn't know Jacko had an interest in young boys and used it to her advantage, as awful as that sounds.

I think she knew. She freaked out because she'd played with fire and was afraid she'd got burned--I just believe that is the simplest explanation. With the other moms, it seems much more grey.

Desiree said...


Happy New Year!

"Why the settlement took place if the photographs did not matched the depiction Jordie Chandler gave? Jacko had the definitive ace up his sleeve to expose the Chandlers as the consummate liars and extortionist you claim they are, and on top of that, with the inestimable collaboration of the police department and the DA. He could have stopped any attempt of a criminal trial and the investigation machinery by the weight of this proof alone."

It's fairly obvious why Jacko settled the case: photos of his spotty penis + Jordie's corroboration of those photos = up the river for the King of Pop.

However, I don't believe Jacko ever had a copy of those photos that were taken from the body search. Technically, that is police evidence; we do know that for many years, Jacko attempted to try to get those photos, only to be rebuffed by the Santa Barbara county sheriff's department.

There are several articles following the body search that state that Jacko's attorneys were fighting hard to keep the photos out of the civil trial, especially since Feldman wanted them. The numbskull f'loons always mention that Feldman filed a 3-choice motion about either (a) getting the photos from Jacko; (b) Jacko submitting to a new body search; or (c) barring the photos from evidence as some sort of 'proof' that they didn't match.

There are times you are left scratching your head about the illogic of fan thinking!

You'd be right: if Jacko had copies of the photos from the body search and they didn't match Jordie's description, then he'd definitely had the opportunity to prove that they lied.

But that is handily disproved by the words of Carl Douglas who pretty much confirmed that the photos from that search matched Jordie's description to such a significant degree as to convince a jury that the boy had seen Jacko's penis in a sexually aroused state.

The f'loons cling to an article from USA Today generated by the Jacko PR Machine saying that the photos of Jacko's disfigured penis and testicles did not match Jordie's description. (Again, Carl Douglas--one of Jacko's lawyers--says they were worried about the damned photos!) However, one must note the date of that hogwash article: Jan 28, 1994, only three days after the Chandlers signed the settlement docs agreeing to stay silent about the molestation.

First of all, Jacko's camp didn't have photos: that's police evidence. Second of all, and most importantly, they didn't know what Jordie Chandler described exactly; they just knew the boy had described spots in the genital region. According to Diane Dimond's book, it was Howard Weitzman, I believe, who'd asked a detective for a copy of the search warrant and was denied. All Jacko's team knew was that the police wanted him to submit to a body search to corroborate the boy's description given of Jacko's genitalia.

Police wanting to do a body search of Jacko for that purpose had been in dozens of newspapers since mid-November 1993!

Seeing that the photos were such a significant fear for Jacko's side in terms of the criminal case (thanks again for letting us know, Carl!), that is good reasonable evidence that the report clung onto by fans is total bunkum, nothing more than a very timely PR move since it was those photos, corroborated by Jordie Chandler and his description given, that would have sent The Bleached One to jail where he belonged.

If Jacko had the keys to proving that the boy was a liar and that his family were extortionists, he would never had settled for multimillions of dollars.

It's that simple.

The settlement--in the form of a confession of judgment--happened because Jordie could send him to jail with those photos and his description. Period.

Fans will never accept this most obvious conclusion. And it is Sesame Street stuff.

Desiree said...


About Carrie Fisher and Klein, my friend, Pippa, who gave me the 411 on Klein for my post about Jason Pfeiffer, said that Klein would tell her that he was the father of those children. She told me that Klein would say that he had DNA all over his house from Paris and Prince that he could use at any time to show the world he was the father. He called it his 'trump card'.

The question is whether or not it is true. But for someone who is as much of a famewhore as Klein is, it doesn't surprise me that he'd gab to anyone who listened that he was the father of "Michael Jackson's kids".

Jason Pfeiffer told me that if Klein really was the father, he would have went after them for custody, money, etc. But Jason said that Klein always told him he wasn't the father. Seems like there are a lot of differing stories; Klein just liked the attention. I am curious, though, who started the rumor. It wasn't Klein.

By the way, Suzy, I emailed that woman who wrote the "Defending MJ" book and told her that what she is doing in writing a book 'defending' him is calling his victims liars. Now, we know that this person was never in the room with Jacko and Jordie; we also know that Jordie got a HUGE settlement over his claims. So, she should have the decency to shut it because there is an enormous chance that she is wrong.

She never replied. That woman is just another kooky, middle-aged f'loon and her book is the same PR nonsense we've heard since the Bleached One croaked.

Desiree said...


"how could any fan still believe in this whole lie? I wonder if any of them will finally just sit down with a clear head and just seriously contemplate what Mike not being forced to settle and footing the entire bill really means... guilt. We're not saying any of this to cause mass hysteria among the f'loons but there should be some point in the whole Wacko Jacko saga where a fan says "Ok if [insert issue] is proven with enough logical evidence, I will think maybe something was up with Michael Jackson and these boys". It's the only logical response after reading a post like this one, in my opinion."

I sent Blaine Edwards of Vindicate MJ an email about two days ago giving him a link to this post. Blaine had been constantly harping on the fact that his "Analyzing the Media's Hypocrisy..." settlement posts are the be all-end all and that if I'd write anything on the topic in the future, he'd be able to thoroughly rebut it.

Those are pretty lofty claims from someone who will screech at any linking of my posts on their website. And we all recall the trailer f'loon's attempts to rebut my "Jacko was gay" posts by calling semen 'saliva'.

Obviously a dearth of rational thought and intelligence over there. No posts on my website has ever been successfully refuted by anyone--they try but all have yet to succeed. Why? Because the truth can be covered up, denied, and shitted on but not refuted. It is absolute.

So, I am wondering to myself what Blaine will say; I should clarify that 'wondering' is not the same as 'caring'. If he was reasonably intelligent--and I truly doubt he is--he will admit that this post on the settlement (1) explains the meaning of the settlement docs with clarity and accuracy, and (2) proves that Jacko was never forced and that he was the payer of the settlement to Jordie, both things fans have always denied.

Simply, this entry is so damned solid and only someone who's completely delusional would deny the proofs within it.

Funnily enough, if Jacko's fans are so convinced that he was innocent, Jacko paying a settlement to Jordie shouldn't really matter, should it? And I have no problem with them continuing in that delusion if they'd like. HOWEVER, just like with Jimmy Safechuck's fake Neverland wedding (I bet many of them don't believe that tripe with as much gusto), they should, at the very least, have the intelligence to relinquish all previous and now discredited beliefs and never argue them again. From this post, it means never again saying Jacko was forced into a settlement by his insurance company and never again suggesting that they footed the bill.

I just doubt they can admit to those points because they lack honesty and, generally, are fucking stupid with low IQs.

Desiree said...

I just looked at the Primetime Live interview and, as Sbibak mentioned, Jacko and Lisa Marie stated there were 'no markings'. It is a funny contradiction, isn't it?

That Jordie could describe any spots on Jacko's penis is already out-of-order; fans know this intuitively: a boy being able to describe a 35-year-old man's penis with at least 50% accuracy is a huge red flag. But to assuage their feelings of cognitive dissonance, they claim that Jordie and Evan Chandler saw Jacko on Oprah talking about vitiligo and just 'guessed' spots were down there, too.


Just as you said, Sbibak, there is no rules regarding where vitiligo spots will be. And to many people, Jacko's uniformly snow white complexion would make anyone believe that he was all white everywhere. If Jordie and Evan were just 'guessing', they could have easily 'guessed' his penis was white.

So, it is funny as all hell to me that Jacko, too, would use the same line the f'loons use: that Jordie 'knew' because he 'guessed' correctly that the Bleached One had spots on his penis and testicles. I don't think people realize how incredibly unlikely that is to guess that Jacko had a spot that moved in a certain direction when he had an erection with a high degree of accuracy. The probability of a guess being correct is very small.

Also, if they had just 'guessed', how would Jordie have known that his testicles were brown and pink-white, not white, reflective of the highly vascularized scrotum? Jordie made a distinction, for Christ's Sake! That much detail is not the result of guessing games. It's like if a kid describes a red room with accuracy: he's either describing it because someone else who'd seen the room told him about it OR because he's been there and seen it firsthand. Evan Chandler hadn't seen Jacko's penis so the next most logical explanation is that Jordie had seen it.

Although I wouldn't ever accept it as the most rational and simplest explanation (or true), had Evan been a dermatologist not a dentist, maybe they could have guessed. But even the success would be sketchy. Eh, not buying it.

The f'loons, knowing how stupid their logic is, will then move to the circumcision detail even though Jordie was describing an erect penis. Like I've always maintained: that Jacko made a distinction between his penis and Jordie's penis versus the uncircumcised penis of Brett Barnes, coupled with the use of 'appears' to describe Jacko's uncircumcision in the autopsy report (why not use the definitive 'is'?), makes me believe that Jacko's foreskin was inconsequential.

It is also possible that Jacko got his foreskin reattached, although I don't generally accept that.

Simply, since Jordie was describing an erection, that 'mistake' does not override the fact the boy had accurately described the spots and the cow-like testicles.

I thank Tom Sneddon, Gary Spiegel, Dr. Strick, and Carl Douglas for confirming that the photos matched enough, which is all the matters. Jordie Chandler was a little boy, not a porn star.

S.U. said...

So Klein told Jason a different story? And call me crazy but sometimes I can see Klein in Prince, I´m being serious here. The others I don´t know. Blanket definitively not.
Carrie had already said when Michael died that she didn´t believe that rumors and she admitted the kids didn´t resemble him but maybe "there was some explanation" lol I bet she knows the kids aren´t Michael´s.
If course the woman didn´t replied you. If she was sure of Michael´s innocence she would rebut you.
I confess I began to be a bit "cruel",I´m having enough and I talked to some people who were part of Michael´s life. I claim to know some aspects of Michael´s life, saying they´re liars, just to test them. I never received a rebuttal and I can be really mean. I said things that anyone who had had a close and even loving relationship would get very angry for. I took their silence by confirmation.

Frenchie said...


Speaking of Jason Pfeiffer, a while ago you mentioned that you might base a brief blog entry on your conversations with him. Do you think you'll have the opportunity to do that at some point? It sounds like it would be pretty interesting.

Sbibak said...

However, I don't believe Jacko ever had a copy of those photos that were taken from the body search. Technically, that is police evidence; we do know that for many years, Jacko attempted to try to get those photos, only to be rebuffed by the Santa Barbara county sheriff's department.

I think you are referring to the specific set of pictures the Police had, but he had another one or that is the notion I ever had. The first constitutes evidence of course, the second maybe was demanded by Mjs lawyers to prevent manipulations or whatever.

I'm not aware of the legal terms in which the body search was conducted, but apparently Michael Jackson was treated with “kid gloves” and got away with almost everything. His own photographer was present to take the pictures himself (the DA didn't allowed it) and Jacko ran away when he decided it was enough.

They accused the Chandlers of extortion, so why didn't they used the “wrong” depiction then? The content of Jordie deposition had been filtered to the press, the lawyers had the pictures, the Police was investigating... there was no legal impediment to it.

Yes, Michael demanded the pictures the police have for obvious reasons... look at how close they were to ruin Mj in the Arvizo's case, had Judge Melville allowed it.

I've found an article that confirms they had the photos:

Feldman told reporters he had been denied access to the photos by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and Jackson's lawyers, who were supplied with copies of the pictures.,1467906

J-M-H said...

Desiree, Stephen King wrote in his book "Thinner" that the definition of an asshole is someone who doesn't believe what they see. Apparently, the fans are big gaping brown ones, LOL. Of course we all had a good laugh at the "semen into saliva" alchemy that was preceded by the massive freak out the floons had over scientific evidence of Mike's rolls with males. A hearty laugh at their devastation at the Aaron Carter revelations, and even one at their searching for Jimmy Safechuck's nonexistent Neverland wedding. But if they even try to rebut an actual document that is plain as day in its proof of Jacko footing the bill and the players involved who have clearly spoken and/or testified to the fact no one but the parties mentioned in the settlement, there is no hope for them. Maybe because two "haters" put it all together so it would make them resistant to the unavoidable truth, but they should be able to see it for what it, my god.

As for Mike's spotted dick, LOL, I had no clue he denied its spotted nature in the Prime-time Live interview. He absolutely tried to tell the world in his Neverland statement that although he did have spots down in his nether regions, and the police were looking for them because Jordie told them about it, he didn't want to be treated like a criminal because he was innocent. And then over a year later, he denies their existence? LOL! Perhaps he had them removed and he forgot how it was before? LOL, tangled webs. He was so scared they'd get out and be the key to lock the latch on his jail cell. Remember he what the "case [was] worth to Michael Jackson": $39 million in today's money. That's a lot of greenbacks to pay liars. That price tag alone should tell anyone that the photos matched, outside of the declarations of Tom Sneddon and police photographer Gary Spiegal.

S.U. I see Klein in Prince too, and I when I first heard the rumor about him being the father, I wasn't surprised and thought I saw him in Paris too. That was my first reaction.

If I could ask Jason a question, Desiree, if I had had the opportunity like you did, I would have asked him if Mike was circumcised, assuming he's seen the dreadful thing, LOL. If he has, he has the key to shutting the floons up for good so they will leave victims alone. You are right, Mike did make a distinction between his penis and Brett's, as written in Evan Chandler's chronology seen in Gutierrez's book. Even if he wasn't cut, something made Mike think he was different.

Desiree said...


Thank you for correcting me; I'd always been under the impression that there was only one set of photos, most likely because Jacko wanted the police copy so badly! According to Gary Spiegel's declaration of the body search, he was the only photographer in the room. So, it was just a copy.

You are so right: since Jacko had the copies of the photographs, and they didn't match, according to him, why didn't he use that to show Jordie to be a liar? Was it because he didn't have a copy of the description and wasn't sure exactly what Jordie had described, only that he'd described spots and discolorations, which Jacko had on his genitalia?

Maybe Jacko did have a copy of the search warrant. If it didn't match, then why settle over the photographs?

It's odd behavior, definitely. That little USA Today report clung onto by fans was timely PR spin. If it didn't match, he wouldn't have settled. But Carl Douglas said Jacko was scared shitless about those photographs, they were a part of the 300-lb gorilla in the mediation room. Why do fans discount Carl?

I've asked fans this countless times, "Why would the Prosecution want to bring in the evidence of the photos AND Jordie's description if they didn't match?" F'loons are of the opinion Sneddon lied (how is anyone's guess) but why would someone want to expose, in open court, in front of the media, that he'd been witch-hunting Jacko for over a decade?

It doesn't make sense.


"But if they even try to rebut an actual document that is plain as day in its proof of Jacko footing the bill and the players involved who have clearly spoken and/or testified to the fact no one but the parties mentioned in the settlement, there is no hope for them."

It's not about winning but I have wondered what will knock them from their delusions. These f'loons will continue to believe in Jacko's innocence even if they are down to but one final position. Really, the only thing they have is faith--Jacko said he was innocent; they have no proof because they only operate by creating 'reasonable doubt', and their doubt is not even reasonable.

With this settlement, it has been unequivocally shown that Jacko wanted it and paid it.

Like I've said before, if they are so gung-ho in their belief that Jacko's innocent, they shouldn't have a problem with the fact that Jacko wanted to settle and paid that settlement. They should just accept those facts and go on about their days!

However, just like with the Safechuck post, Jacko f'loons don't like when an argument that makes Jacko look like a victim and an innocent Peter Pan is taken from their Bag 'O Tricks. They also know, just as a I pointed out within this entry, that if Jacko wanted to settle and paid that settlement, then that is a reasonable indication that he was guilty of molesting Jordie. Obviously his damned attorneys agreed with that!

Because innocent men fight--they know this. But because they know this so deeply, they must have some 'argument' to explain why Jacko didn't fight so they can maintain some 'reasonable' belief in his innocence that was challenged by a very large settlement in the first place.

Without their tried-and-true settlement argument, they are back to asking, "Why Michael?" They don't like that; admitting Jacko's guilt would be like killing a part of them--they've wasted so much time on a pedophile.

Blaine Edwards particularly: he writes very long-winded posts that say very little. He spends lots of time on them. I hope he has the intelligence to accept what's written here; he can continue to believe Jacko was innocent--fine--but he better never say Jacko was forced ever again. That would be the definition of an asshole.

Desiree said...


I didn't write anything on Jason in the past because he had a blog. Much of the stuff is about Klein and some of the more interesting stuff about Jacko I am not allowed to repeat with his name attached. I could potentially write something about my conversations with Jason--it would be a good 'update' of sorts on the other posts I'd written about the issue--but it'd be tentative... I do believe him, of course.

Lady C said...


Questioning f'loons "Sesame Street Style"...that's too cute! LOL

"But that is handily disproved by the words of Carl Douglas who pretty much confirmed that the photos from that search matched Jordie's description to such a significant degree as to convince a jury that the boy had seen Jacko's penis in a sexually aroused state."

I'ts quite ridiculous how Desiree practically has to "beat it in" into the hard heads of the f'loons who just can't seem to get it about MJ's genitals during the strip search...just goes to show you how f***'d up in the head they are. The point is, regardless of whether there was/wasn't circumcision, MJ's "Johnson" was accurately described by Jordan Chandler... Circumcision had nothing to do with it-at all. Recall how just prior to the start of the strip search that MJ's team didn't know the 'specifics' of Chandler's description of MJ's genitals - only that he gave a description, but nothing else? They didn't know the specifics until just right before the strip search was to began, and that's when MJ completely lost it--he went ape shit., and from that point on the whole strip search was a complete melt down for him. Call me mean, but I truly wished I was a fly on the wall that day to have seen that, LOL! Every time they asked him to do something for instance, like lift up his penis to expose the underside, he came al unglued. What the floons can't seem to grasp is that not only did Jordan Chandler accurately describe MJ's penis, but he did it with so much accuracy that he basically told the authorities specifically where to find the "magic spot" on MJ--the underside of his penis. That's a very good indication to show that his penis was in an erected state. Michael claiming that he had pictures is complete bull shit. Please! Since when do the police/law authorities hand over evidence over to the accused? Nah, that would jeopardize their case and blow it completely out of the water...anyone with any common sense knows that. Besides, MJ spent years after diligently trying to recover those photos that he so-called said he had; he didn't have them or there would be no need to petition the court for them. Once again another shit lie pulled from the MJ's bag of lies.

The strip search/photos gave the Chandler team a leg up tremendously, and Jackson knew it. Jordan Chandler literally had him by the balls, lol.


About Carrie Fischer, I've never read/seen it it anywhere, but my gut feeling tells me she indeed knows the paternity whereabouts of MJ's kids, Prince and Paris. I think she knows more about the situation than what she is saying.

The fans suing for "emotional damages" against Murry is one of the most ridiculous absurd things I have ever heard of, LMAO! You know what, they all need to be locked up in an asylum somewhere; thay way they can get on going treatment/counseling that they need to help them "come to terms" with the death of their beloved icon. I wonder if those fans who commited suicide upon hearing his death will be compensated as well?...they'll probably be next to follow suit, I sure.

Lady C said...


Forgive me, but I have to admit that I'm now confused...I was really under the impression that there was only one set of photos of MJ's genitals, and that they came from the strip search and no where else. But now as I read the posts it seems to be that MJ may have or did have a set of photos. OR maybe it's like Desiree said, that MJ may have had a "generic" set of photos of himself down there, but did not know any specifics of what Jordan's' description really entailed; so for MJ it was a kind of a gamble-- hit or miss thing. IF that is really the case, then it does make sense to me why he went ballistic the way he did upon hearing what they were really looking for in the photos/strip search...MJ probably did miss the mark and knew right away that he was in shit up to his eye balls because his so-called photos/description didn't match, lol. What I want to know is, if MJ did have photos then why would he be so diligent in pursuing the ones the police had taken that day? It makes no sense to me. This may be way out there, but maybe MJ's set of so-called photos of himself really weren't his to begin with, with all the money he had, he could've easily paid someone under the table to provide pictures of someone else's genitalia with vitiligo and kept it quite...I wouldn't put anything past him. I mean, other than the photos that were taken that day by the police, who else has really ever seen MJ's genitals prior to the search to know where the vitiligo truly was and what his genital look like? We all know that Lisa Marie can't attest to this, LOL. I don't even think Debbie Rowe knows either, although it's been said that she was to have supposedly treated MJ for burns on his testicles when he tried to bleach his scrotum when she worked for Klein. What do you think?

Desiree said...

Lady C:

I agree with you about the photos. I would typically kowtow to a news report like the one Susana linked to but it just seems like such unorthodox procedure. Granted, though, they handled Jacko with kid gloves. The body search wasn't a part of a civil investigation but a criminal one. Usually, just like in Jacko's 2005 case, police and prosecutors will return property to a defendant if he is acquitted. Like I mentioned before: Speigel's declaration said that he was the only photographer in the room.

I just doubt very highly that police would ever give Jacko evidence, even a copy of it, as it could be detrimental to the integrity of their investigation. That Feldman mentioned it as part of his multiple choice document--getting the photos from Jacko's side--could have been just his belief that Jacko had such intimate evidence. But I kind of think that the news reports could possibly be incorrect. I don't see why Jacko would need pictures of the dick he owned. LOL. All we know is that he really wanted the police originals and that Cochran filed motions to disallow Feldman to use them in his case.

The police at the body search didn't give Weitzman a peek at the warrant because they probably didn't want Jacko to freak out. What is telling to me is that Jacko became a violent idiot when he'd known about police seeking a body search warrant since mid-November. Why freak out if you knew it was coming? He knew it was coming since Dec 10 when he returned to the US!

Jacko's violent outburst, which prevented the police from getting all of the shots they wanted, was nothing more than a way for him to hide 'evidence' (ie. his penis). That tantrum was complete bullshit. Anyone else would have been tasered.

When you couple that with the fact the photos were a cause for concern while noting the language within and nature of the settlement, Michael Jackson starts look really guilty.

Lady C said...


I have to admit that I sit at my computer and laugh to myself whenever I read your commentaries; your writing about MJ is so humorous, and I don't know if you really intend for it to come across that way, but it does; at least to me anyway. That's one of the reasons why I like to come to your blog; you tell it like it is, but packed with such humor and punch--you definitely have the talent to write, LOL!

Anyway, you did bring up a good point though about why would Jackson have pictures of his own stuff lying around. Who the hell does that? It's not like he was a porn star who had pictures/movies of himself. Your comment about MJ trying to hide 'evidence' by freaking out is also a good point; especially considering that he knew very well way in advance of what was coming down the pike. You know what? I'm willing to bet that Cochran may have "coached" MJ to play the role of the hysterical drama queen that day when the photos were being taken; just as you said to hide 'evidence. Because he really knew what Michael was really up against if by chance those photos made it to the courtroom even though he filed a motion to disallow Feldman to use them in his case...Cochran didn't want to take any chances by them falling thru the cracks...Cochran needed a way out for his client and retorted to damage control. So the hysterical drama antics was probably staged by both he and Michael. After all, lawyers will play dirty when needed and in MJ's case, desperate times called for desperate measures! LOL Let's face it, Michael had guilty written all over his face in bold capital letters.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

I'm glad you think my commentaries are humorous. It's unintentional but there are definitely aspects of Jacko's story that have their funny moments mainly due to Jacko's own arrogance and stupidity. I was actually doing some cleaning this evening and found some old notes I wrote about him when I was a fan. I had to laugh to myself because none of my conclusions about his behavior made any sense. To note, many of the conclusions I'd came up with and/or believed are displayed by the fans on Vindicate MJ.

For example, I stated that referring to Jacko as a pedophile was unbelievable and similar to just calling a random ice cream man a pedophile because he is around children all day. This doesn't, of course, take into account that an ice cream man as a pedophile would be believable if said ice cream man slept in the bed with the unrelated young boys to whom he'd given ice cream.

I'm sure like most of Jacko's fans, I dismissed the sleepovers as something innocent.

Retrospectively, all of the above are not defenses--many of which are still used by the fans as legitimate defenses of his bizarre behavior--but excuses. An excuse makes me think of something short-term, something that may make sense (and that is being generous) in the present or at the moment but, upon further inspection, is actually a crock of bull.

That is what happened with this settlement nonsense Oxman argued in his brief. Had the prosecutors had eagle-eyed paralegals working with them, they would have been able to call bullshit. Upon closer analysis, the BS about the insurance company settling just falls to pieces. It was an argument that was obviously successful in that moment, of course, but that was about it.

Jacko was full of timely excuses but never, as you would expect a truly innocent man to do, defended himself.

And I saw some old tribute magazines as well and you just have to laugh at how desperately stupid he was. He was a joke. He was already freaky for the skin bleaching so, to me, if he was innocent of pedophilia, he would've fought, not settled. As image conscious as Wacko was, he would never have allowed the public to think worse of him.

Lady C, you're right in that it is sad I have to continue to repeat myself but the thing is this: most people don't like to read, and if you are a desperately deluded f' loon, you definitely don't want to read. The method to my madness is that I will continually repeat the facts because I know the f' loons will very likely read the comments.

I apologize to the people who do read, and read thoroughly. :-)

Sbibak said...

I don't know the legal circumstances regarding the body search, but there was some kind of negotiation for sure. The authorities were too lax to Jacko because he was a high-profile figure. As I said previously, he ran away when he considered it was enough and the search was conducted at Neverland, at Jacko's request, not where the authorities demanded it. Also, they wanted his personal photographer to take the pictures with the police equipment, but the DA did not allowed it. Maybe they tried to do some trick with the lighting to disguise the spots, LOL.

Obviously Mike or his lawyers didn't need the pictures to know how his dick looked like. I think they got the copies because they wanted some guarantee regarding the legitimacy of the pictures taken by the police. They knew (or guessed) what Jordie had described and the copies were intended for preparing his defence, find inconsistencies, etc. Epic fail.

Maybe they hoped Jordie wouldn't recall all the details, or the photographer failed to use the proper lighting to capture the spots in its full glory. His penis was too exotic to forget, lol. The moment Michael whas said to lift his penis, he knew he was fucked up for good. I agree with you, Desiree. He caused a scene to interfere with the detectives work. The only doubt I have is whether he used his deep voice or his primadonna voice.

We should remember that Jacko had some informant inside the Police Department... they knew Neverland was about to be raided, maybe they were informed about other things too.

I think they had the pictures and at some point the exact content of the depiction given by Jordie, that's why they settled. They were sooo sure (look what Carl Douglas says) that it was a perfect match, that Jacko and his lawyers, who until then were reluctant to give the Chandlers the money they demanded, signed in the dotted line right away.

Sbibak said...

On another note, I saw this clip from the private home movies (or something like that): (the part where Michael is saying his lines of Thriller stars at 1:13)

And there was this comment on YouTube:

“The part where Mj is in the bedroom and wearing a sweater is from October 1983. There appears to be a boy filming Michael and at 2:05 MJ calls this boy RUBBA. The same nickname we later found out he gave to boys like Jordan Chandler and Gavin many many years later. Coincidence....I think not.”

Elena, I hear Rob too. Did you noticed the mannequins in the background? LOL. Wacko Jacko was a mess. I wonder if he used the blond wigs when he was alone, LOL.

I posted over a year ago a link where a man called Robert left this message. It seems he is the same Robert someone mentioned:

I can cofirm Michaels obession’ with young boys dating back at least to December 1982. He stalked and was obsessed with a boy named Robert who lived near his Encino home. MJ talks about this person vaguely in the making of beat it video and from a February 1983 interview with Entertainment Tonight.

I wish Robert gives more details about his relationship with Michael.

J-M-H said...

Sbibak, I agree about the police being lax with Mike during the entire investigation leading up to the settlement. But I think that was primarily the Los Angeles district attorney's office and the LAPD, not Santa Barbara law enforcement. It seems to me that the people that were in charge of the body search were folks from the Santa Barbara DA's office and Sheriff's department. Dr. Strick and the photographer Gary Spiegel were under SB county payroll, if I remember correctly. And we all know that the ire Mike voiced in his HIStory album was for Tom Sneddon, not Gil Garcetti. In that case, I guess I would think that SB cops would not kowtow to the demands of Mike and his defense team. Cochran did have chums in the LA DA's office, but not any that we know about in Santa Barbara.

Plus, I think that the fact that the photos were taken as a part of an investigation in order to determine if charges should be filed at all, and not during the actual discovery process that happens when the prosecution and defense are preparing for trial after a defendant is charged, I don't think anyone is privy to that information, and certainly not the suspect. The body search wasn't even done at the request of any civil judge, and the civil trial was what was going on at that time, the discovery process for the civil trial.

I mean anything is possible in Hollyweird, of course. But Mike didn't have the description so obtaining the photos of himself would be fruitless, IMO. He fought so hard to get them excluded, but why if he didn't know Jordie's description but, for argument's sake, he had the police copies? To me, it doesn't make any sense unless, like you said, they had some mole in the police department that gave him the head's up about Jordie's drawings and sworn description; both had been filed and sealed since September 1993. But I personally think it's unlikely.

I think they had the pictures and at some point the exact content of the depiction given by Jordie, that's why they settled. They were sooo sure (look what Carl Douglas says) that it was a perfect match, that Jacko and his lawyers, who until then were reluctant to give the Chandlers the money they demanded, signed in the dotted line right away.

Interesting theory and now that I think about it, it could hold some weight. Perhaps Larry Feldman, who went way back with Johnnie Cochran, during the secret negotiation meetings told Cochran and Douglas what Jordie had sworn to and described. Larry Feldman did say during his Grand Jury testimony something to the effect that if he wanted to Mike to pay up, all he would have to do is call and tell them what they had (I think he was talking about the Arvizos but I'm not positive on it). Perhaps that's how Feldman secures his large payouts; he shows them the goods and the guilty crumble and reach for their checkbooks. It could have happened in the Chandler case too. Mike didn't pay $39 million (in today's money) for a bunch of hot air.

J-M-H said...

Speaking of Robert, I think it's a little strange that he speaks about himself in the third person when he says Mike was obsessed with him, Robert. But in the email that Desiree posted that he had sent her, he said point blank that Mike was into him, and sent him "romantic" notes, which he did to other special friends as well. He didn't seem to mention that he was in the video, even though he did mention the video. Maybe he doesn't want people to track him down so he acts like he was a bystander instead. But why be specific to a blogger? Then he says Brett Barnes was obsessed with Mike so he'd never rat Mike out. It's a little weird, and although I do believe his story, I wonder where he's getting the rest of his information; first hand or is he just compiling it from various public sources? Obviously he's going around various forums, comment threads, etc with his anecdote, suggesting he wants it out there so people can know about it.

A.G. said...

a certain Taymoor Marmarchi claimed 2 years ago on Lipstick Alley that June Chandler set up Jackson. may this be a reason for the settlement as well?

Sbibak said...

Hi Jessica!
Evidently, they didn't have the pictures for informative reasons LOL. I think it was for guarantee the integrity of the process, the same way authorities provide the defendant with a copy of the inventory of items collected from a property and other common rules of investigation proceedings in most countries.

I always had the notion they have a copy, and this is reasonable. They weren't disclosing information to them. I can't tell where I read that, because I have read a lot of information of the case, but I think Feldman wasn't lying when he made those comments to the press.

Plus, I think that the fact that the photos were taken as a part of an investigation in order to determine if charges should be filed at all, and not during the actual discovery process
What I do not understand then is why was Larry Feldman requesting access to the photos at that point.

And regarding the description I can't assure how they obtained it, but judging by the payment, they knew by heart what Jordie said.

J-M-H said...

Sbibak, I get the thing about the inventory of items seized, that probably is standard procedure. But to get pictures, actual pictures? Hey but I've never been a part of a body search warrant, and since it is probably such an intimate procedure, they may have different rules since examining a person's body is seen as a violation of the right to privacy in the 9th amendment.

And Larry Feldman asking the defense for copies is weird if they didn't have them so they must have, but what is weirder is Jacko's demand for the police originals not only in 1994 after the settlement, but also after the 2005 case. He must have wanted no one to ever see what this young boy described, because even if the public never saw the actual description Jordie gave, everyone remembers that he said Mike had a spotted penis. That would be good enough to convince the public he was a pedophile.

Desiree said...


Who is Taymoor Marmarchi, and, more importantly, why would anyone with 'knowledge' of something like that be on Lipstick Alley talking with f'loons? ;-)

Is that the same set-up story that I heard about June Chandler knowing Jacko was a pedophile or gay or whatever (as the story goes) and used her son as 'bait'? A monkey wrench was then thrown into the mix when Jacko actually did take the bait?

That was the story I'd read some time ago (I think it may have been on mjfiles). It's completely ridiculous. I think Sony Music was allegedly in on it, too. LOL.

I am not considering it seriously but why would Jacko pay the Chandlers--and give them a "confession of judgment"--if June was the one setting him up? What about the conversation June Chandler testified to on the witness stand in Jacko's trial, about Jacko crying about her being hesitant to let Jordie sleep in his bed?

And what about the quotes from Carl Douglas about the "300-lb gorilla"?

Where do these f'loons come up with such nonsense? To them, even if Jacko was a pedophile, he still has to be a 'victim' of someone else: a hapless and pathetic pedophile, right? *shakes head*

Can you please elaborate on this tall tale of woe? ;-)

Alby said...


But there's just no way [Joy Robson] didn't have the suspicion something was up with the man. After all, this is a woman who, by her testimony alone, comes off as someone who really did have a good game going on there: get kid to befriend superstar and superstar helps not only kid but family, too.

I agree that Joy did use Mike to further her son's career, it was a cynical exercise on her part despite her testimony at the trial where she says otherwise. Of course she knew Mike like to sleep with children, and later she knew specifically with boys, but on that first night where she allowed her children to sleep with him, Mike had spent the whole day building trust by playing with the parents and children. I think the clincher was when Mike was in their guest room oohing and aahing at Wade's look-a-like costumes and watching videos of Wade's performances. Mike played Joy completely. She was hopelessly starstruck, no mother in her right mind would allow their child to sleep in the bedroom of a man they had met for the first time (other than a meet and greet) that day. If she did have her suspicions, she denied them to herself and decided to build a career for her boy using Mike, no matter the cost to Wade. This is the kind of thinking that was echoed by Evan Chandler years later when he said to Dave Schwartz about whether Jordie would be harmed by Evan's actions in trying to get Jordie away from Mike - 'that's irrelevant to me.'. Not in the case of 'I don't care about my son' but an attitude of 'whatever it takes', if you know what I mean.


Regarding Joy and Liz, I do suspect there were times that they had their misgivings about Michael Jackson and his intentions with their sons, but if they allowed themselves to acknowledge that he molested them, they would also be forced to acknowledge that they failed to protect them. It's much easier to just deny their boys were harmed than to admit it to themselves and live with the guilt.

This is an excellent point and underlines why so little abuse by 'nice guy' molesters goes unreported. If the child ever reports, (which is unlikely because children don't want their 'friend' to get into trouble, the children feel they 'led their friend on' - not true, they were manipulated', the children think they may get into trouble for not following their parent's and society's advice - Just Say No!, etc, etc), the parents just don't want to believe it because the molester is so 'nice' or it would mean they would have to admit to being duped into trusting the molester, and in the rare cases they do, don't want to 'rock the boat' by informing police, or subject their child to the rigors of the legal system which may damage the child further.


The fallacy of the insurance company has been completely exposed for the lie it is. So where do the floons go from here if some of the bedrock of their belief has been pulverized?

Sadly, they are still utterly convinced in their position. They continue to rant about 'outside influence' on the settlement. All the people who were relying on the Jackson money machine pressing for Mike to settle so he could get on with making obscene amounts of money.

It's obvious that fans haven't thought this through - how can someone's career continue to soar with a payout like this dogging them? It's ridiculous that anybody interested in making money from Mike would suggest such a suicidal course of action - they would have wanted Mike to resolve the matter in a positive way so that there was no suspicion at all attached to Mike. Even the most myopic advisers would tell Mike to fight - especially against 'extortionists' and 'liars' who couldn't even get a description of his penis 'wrong'. Of course, we know Mike couldn't have done that :-)

Alby said...

Lady C.

The first thing that would probably run through their mind is that the man has got some very serious issues; he's not working with a full deck. One of the things that will stand out tremedously is MJ's very extreme and unusual fondness for children, especially young boys; they would find this very unsettling. Children are likeable pepole, but this kind of obsession is very unhealthy.

This puts in mind a comment I read some time ago, can't remember where, but paraphrased:

"Some of the extremes some men go to to get sex with a woman are reflected in Michael Jackson's behaviour with boys"

How true that is! Mike went to extraordinary lengths to seduce boys - buying them expensive gifts, buying them clothes, flying them around the world in private jets, sucking up to their families, taking them on dates (albeit to Deisneyland etc), and putting them up in the finest hotels! Mike probably put up with a lot of bullshit from them as well :-)

(Note to stalkers - this does not reflect my personal view on women, haha)


Jacko had in his hands (gratia Tom Sneddon) the objective and irrefutable proof of his innocence in the form of a set of pictures that did not matched, but he chose, as the shrewd business man they say he was to complicate matters and settle for an astronomical amount of money and screw up his career forever.

Yep, Mike held the 'golden keys' but chose not to use them. We know it's because they weren't anything of the sort - fans say he wanted to protect his privacy! As if. Any man would surely handle a bit of awkwardness over displaying a picture of his spotted (or that 'no markings?) penis to clear once and for all allegations of child molestation hanging over his head. Epic fail on Mike's part.


French fans of Michael Jackson are suing the late pop star's doctor for "emotional damage" they suffered over his death

My laugh of the day. Guaranteed. Thanks for that :-)


As far as the photos go, of course Mike wanted them back, he didn't want anything from 1993 floating around that would prove him to be a molester. That's another reason why we know they matched. Mike was a master at suppressing and manipulating evidence. That's why he chose to fight the 2005 charges - he knew there was no solid evidence, like a boy who could recognize his penis markings (remember according to Gavin and Star he always wore underpants whenever he had an erection LOL), or pictures of naked boys in his bedroom, or possible tape recordings of him in his boy friend's bedroom from a smart parent. Mike just had to ride out the trial and try not to look too smug.

Alby said...

This is Taymoor Marmarchi's account:

On one of my trips to Neverland, a Mexican worker who took care of the grounds of Michael's main residence, confided to me in Spanish and shared a fascinating story that both shocked and clarified how people in Michael Jackson's life take advantage, manipulate, twist the truth and create malicious lies about him, all for the sake of money.

The worker began to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world.

He began telling me that one day back in '92/'93 before Michael's heavy scheduled 'Dangerous' Tour, there was a bbq and swimming pool party that Michael hosted for a group of friends, both youngsters and adults at Neverland.

After a couple of hours, Michael got out of the pool and went to shower and dry off. The worker noticed that a young boy also excused himself from the pool after Michael. He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather shockingly spying and scanning Michael's naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom. The worker immediately shouted at him and asked, 'What the hell are you doing up here?' Michael heard the worker yell, discovered the boy in his bathroom and told him to take the boy back down to the pool, thinking nothing of it.

When the boy returned to the pool he glanced over at his mother, who was present and sunbathing by the pool, and gave her a sign of acknowledgement, as if he had accomplished whatever he set out to do. In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit.

That same boy later claimed in Aug '93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler.

Chandler infamously told police vivid details of how Michael Jackson's genitalia appeared, as a certain guarantee to the world, that Michael must have been guilty of these hienous accusations.

Of course he knew how to describe the different skin shades and colour blemishes in Michael's private parts, he was spying on him in the shower that day to prepare for an incredible extortion attempt for millions of dollars, meticulously and carefully planned by a family of professional con artists and scammers.

Here we have one of Mike's employees who only had to speak up and say a few words to save Mike from excruciating embarrassment, the death knell to his career that he never recovered from, and paying out tens of millions of dollars to a bunch of 'extortionists'... but chose to remain silent? Gosh, that 'Mexican worker' must have really hated Mike! :-)

The all important question is, why would the worker feel the need to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world, when it was information that would exonerate his boss? And if it's important information that must be shared with the rest of the world, why would he be telling a nobody flak instead of Mike's lawyers or even better, the press? Just silly details added to an obviously false story to make it seem more believable to gullible people (read: f'loons).

Desiree said...


Thanks for pasting the Tale of Taymoor; it really turned my stomach, and I mean it really did. As usual, these f'loons (and by the language used in that account--'malicious lies', 'professional scammers'--you know this person is a rabid Jacko nutjob with zero credibility) want to blame the child for every thing that Jacko experienced.

Jacko is always the witless wonder, the man who is so easily duped. Blah blah blah. Same song and dance--change the broken record already!

Regarding the account, there is no way in hell Jordie Chandler would have been able to identify the markings on Jacko's spotty penis to the extent that he'd be able to receive a multimillion dollar settlement with a "confession of judgment" agreement by merely 'peeking in' on Jacko's little post swim rinse.

No way in hell.

The only way that would ever be even remotely feasible is if Jacko had an erection while he was showering and was standing on a crystal clear glass floor and Jordie was standing in a level below him looking up.

But we know that never happened. Furthermore, if Jordie was 'peeking in' on Jacko, he must of had the ability to see through perhaps steam from the hot water and has 20/0 vision (ie. he can see at 20 feet what someone sees at zero feet). All of which is virtually impossible.

I will say bravo to Taymoor--in his stupidity, he inadvertently admitted that he does believe Jordie accurately described Jacko's penis. Huzzah... or shall I say, "Oops"?

And, Taymoor, did you ever consider why--if it was not believable behavior on Jacko's part--someone would accuse Jacko of child molestation, their being able to describe his penis if they'd just seen him in the shower?

These silly f'loons... Yes, because Jordie Chandler totally nailed the perfect guy: a man who slept in the bed with little boys; who owned books made by two convicted pedophiles featuring the naked genitals of little boys; and who had little boy 'special friends' (in addition to the female gay icons he hanged with). Let's NOT FORGET that Jacko had a naked photo of a young Jonathan Spence that the cops seized from the Hayvenhurst raid.

It was either that Jordie's accusations fulfilled the 1 in 100,000,000 odds or that Michael Jackson really was a stinkin' pedophile who abused him.

Alby, please tell me you are joking about the fans still believing Jacko didn't have his hand in the settling of Jordie's case, especially after this incredibly solid entry? (To note: BLAINE EDWARDS RECEIVED A LINK TO THIS POST AND NEVER READ THE WHOLE THING--I know because I can see everything that goes on.) Do they lack reading comprehension or is it that they are immeasurably stupid or is it that they are so delusional and it is affecting their ability to accept the facts?

All of the above? The latter? What is it, I am wondering?

Desiree said...

A brief letter to the f'loons...

Dear f'loons:

For those of you who have read this post, clicked all of the links, and read with eyes and minds open, I thank you. If this entry on the Chandler settlement has convinced you, at the very least, that Jacko not only wanted to settle, and of his own decision, but also paid the settlement, I congratulate you more. All of the above is fact.

However, if you still believe that Jacko was somehow 'nudged' by someone into settling, please consider the following:

-Did you understand what was meant by a "confession of judgment"?
A "confession of judgment" means the same as if Feldman was to take the Chandler case to civil court and the judge/jury ruled in favor of Jordie Chandler, finding Michael Jackson liable. IT'S LIKE HAVING A TRIAL, ONLY THAT THE DEFENDANT JACKSON WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ONE AND ACCEPTED LIABILITY.

A "CoJ" would mean that Jacko could never contest, in court, the payments he was to make to Jordie and his parents, as well as he would not be able to contest any seizure of his assets in the case he defaulted on those payments.

A rational and reasonable person would be able to note that no innocent man would consent to waiving his Due Process rights in order to make sure a lying 'scammer' plaintiff will be able to get their settlement rewards AT ALL COSTS.

Doesn't work like that...

-Did you understand that all parties involved in the settlement stated that no outside influence was involved in coming to the agreement?
Please note paragraph 12.b.. Please note the statements from Carl Douglas, Feldman, and Cochran. Please note Michael Jackson's own words.

-Did you notice that Carl Douglas stated the photos of Jacko's penis being used in the criminal case and being corroborated by Jordie Chandler caused the need to "silence" Jordie (ie. by way of a settlement)?

-Did you notice Larry Feldman--one of the writers of the agreement--stated Jacko wanted Evan and June Chandler to get money in order for them to keep confidentiality?

In other words, fans, if you noticed any of the above, there should be no question as to the "why", "who", and "how" of the settlement.

Why then the suspension of belief?

(On behalf of myself and MJ Facts)

Desiree said...

I will say: incredibly, fans are of the belief that if one accepts a settlement reward, it is 'proof' they were only out for money in the first place but if someone pays a settlement in lieu of a trial, it shouldn't 'necessarily' mean that they are guilty.

If they believe that Jacko could have gotten 'outside influence' on settling, can't MJ Realists argue that the Chandlers, too, got outside influence that suggested, "Don't push forward," but, "Let's settle the matter instead"?

If so, then one can argue quite reasonably that that 'outside influence' the Chandlers received was from Jacko's defense.

Yep, makes a lot of sense, actually. They certainly held the keys to putting his bleached butt behind bars...

Lady C said...


"The only doubt I have is whether he used his deep voice or his primadonna voice."

That makes me laugh! Who knows, he may have used both voices; his primadonna voice for pretty much most of the "drama scene" and used his deep voice when he got angry and yelled at his security manger, Bill Bray, telling him never to let something like that happen again. Like Jessica said earlier, a taser, handcuffs or some kind of force would have been used if someone like that had gotten out of control during a strip search. You have to admit that the strip search conducted at N.L. was probably the most 'glorified' strip search ever conducted in the history of law enforcement-- where if you are a well known high profiler, you can call the shots. But I still say that his dramatics that day wasn't something that was only his idea; I think that Cochran had some kind of hand in staging it; to help hide "evidence".

"And regarding the description I can't assure how they obtained it, but judging by the payment, they knew by heart what Jordie said."

I can see that. Perhaps too, that's why the "exact" payment amount was never made public, although there have been various speculations. That would go to show that if it was an astronomical amount, which it was, it had to been kept extremely quite or else it really would show MJ in a horrible light thus indicating that indeed he did have something to hide and it wasn't pretty. LOL


So MJ's consent to the "CoJ" was really his way of signing his" life away" at the hands of the Chandlers. What an ignorant ass, and what's even more are the ignorant ass f'loon who can't seem to pick up on this. NO ONE in their right mind or with any lick of sense would allow such thing if they haven't done anything wrong--no way! F'loons can you spell the word, DUMB?!!!

I know you can see all the activity on your blog, but has any real key person that you've talked about or mentioned stopped by to look at your blog? I'm sure many people have gotten word of it, know about it and what you speak of...after all, your blog I believe is the only one of this kind out there. If there is another blog/website like it, I've never ran across it.

A.G. said...

Thanks to Alby and Desiree for posting the Marmarchi text...that is indeed the one which is splashed around on quite a few fan sites! Interestingly enough, taynoor marmarchi once sent a cease and desist letter to a fan blog (to that nut case Bonnie Cox in fact) to stop her mentioning him in her posts last year. Furthermore T.M. has got a blog under this link:

I just mentioned him in order to leave no little stone unturned! And in addition to that on VMJ is a shitstorm concerning your blog indeed. They are so stupid just mentioning Jason Francia and no word at all about Jordie Chandler there! talk about selective memories or comprehension.....LOL

J-M-H said...

Alby, thanks for Taymoor's "account" of that evil little devil Jordie Chandler and his devilish mother June; I always knew they were up to no good. LMAO. Seriously, when I read this, I got pissed off. Not only is this an absolute egregious lie perpetuated by a seriously sick-in-the-head f'lunatic, it's offensive. Once again, he is following the typical MO of fanatics everywhere, Mike=victim and victim=evil extortionist. I guarantee that if this was a regular Joe Schmo down the street, they wouldn't give two squirrel shits to find out if he was being railroaded. The f'loons are very narrow in their focus.

This account is bullshit. I find it odd that Marmarchi is revealing Jordie Chandler's name at the very end of the story, like it's some narrative with a climax and denoument. I'd think that they'd just say it was Jordie from the beginning, instead of saying "That same boy later claimed in Aug '93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler". It's very dramatic. Also, look at the language. "Rather shockingly" and there's a lot of adverbs. The use of "in fact" in the sentence "In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit." is suspicious. Marmarchi is clearly adding additional information that they forgot to mention earlier. Statement analysis. People don't talk like that in real life. And of course there's the incident itself:

"He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather spying and scanning Michael's naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom."

LMAO. How could this even make sense and be possible? Okay, so Jordie isn't in the shower with Mike, but peeking from a corner of the bathroom? So assuming that Jordie wasn't close enough to Mike that Mike would know he was even in there (also one would have to believe that Mike didn't see him because of an opaque shower curtain as well), how would Jordie be able to see that one particular spot on the under left hand side of his penis from an inconspicuous bathroom corner? I didn't read any mentioning of Jordie wielding binoculars or a telescope, did you? LOL. Actually, I feel a little silly trying to an obvious lie, but it just had to be said. I hope no one actually took this tall tale seriously.

J-M-H said...

Sadly, they are still utterly convinced in their position. They continue to rant about 'outside influence' on the settlement. All the people who were relying on the Jackson money machine pressing for Mike to settle so he could get on with making obscene amounts of money.

Why am I not surprised? I guess I'll admit that I did feel a glimmer of hope that they'd see the light, but alas, they are but silly f'loons. This is not even just an opinion piece, this post; this is irrefutable facts. and I had hoped that they would see these irrefutable facts and see that, as Mike's own lawyers agreed, it would be proof of his criminality. If there exists facts, why run from them? They don't even know him so why do they feel so attached? I don't understand it. It shouldn't be about winning, it should be about condemning and not propping up a person that abused children! Michael Jackson was an abuser, the facts show it. I think they have invested so much time and energy into defending him that if they found out it all was for nothing, they'd have a psychotic break; it's too much a part of their identities as people. I bet if you asked a f'loon three things about them, being a Michael Jackson fan would be one of the three things. I was a fan at one point and I can admit that even though at times I'd seriously question why he seemed to use children as a sort of drug, what was up with the sleepovers, etc, I'd still fall back on the "lost childhood" explanation, among other things. But I couldn't run from the facts. I even at one time said, at the very end of my fandom, that maybe Mike was a pedophile but he never molested anyone and he was a victim of extortion(!!!) but that doesn't even make any logical sense. I was still working through that fan mindset, trying to come up with excuses to legitimize my opinion of him and how much I liked him but in the end, that only works for so long, like a piece of chewing gum plugging up a crack in the Hoover Dam: good for now but you know it will never hold. Thank God I got through it, LOL. Hopefully the fans will have a similar experience.

Alby said...

Let's just reiterate a major point for the confused out there (hi Blaine!).

The Chandlers not only received Confessions of Judgement from Mike, they also had the final say in how the settlement money was to be paid.

3e. Upon court approval of this confidential Settlement, Jackson will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the Minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331.250

The form chosen was a Qualified Funding Asset Premium. This is a Federal government approved way of paying settlements to minimize tax for the payee, and yes, it does involve an insurance company but not as a traditional risk based product where a premium is paid to cover any particular event. A Qualified Funding Asset Premium means the payee (Jackson) pays the total settlement to an insurance company, and the insurance company pays it out to the payee (Chandler) over a number of years.

QSFs are used to ensure that the annuities used to fund the periodic payments to a claimant are and will remain safe, secure and viable.

You can read more about Qualified Funding Asset Premiums here

Bottom line is: Mike paid, NOT an insurance company.

Alby said...

I meant to say welcome to A.G. when I posted the Taymoor info. Sorry about that A.G.!

Desiree said...


So, the fans at Vindicate MJ are only focusing on Jason Francia? LOL. What does he have to do with Jordie Chandler? Yes, Jason got a settlement as well and I find it strange that they would find the time to doubt him when it was Jordie's settlement as the subject of this entry.

Selective memories indeed. Jason should remind them that their beloved Peter Pan settled another child abuse allegation without choosing to vindicate himself. But it was understandable, right, since Jacko was busy making himself look like a heterosexual with Lisa Marie on his arm--Jason would've messed that up completely! LOL.

And, interestingly, Jason only had a complaint, not an actual lawsuit that was filed. But if they want a little leeway with the Francia complaint, unlike Jordie's settlement, Jason's contained an entire paragraph where Jacko got to deny 'wrongdoing'. But, then again, that means virtually nothing.

I'll say it's a bit contradictory to proclaim/maintain your innocence when you are handing out millions of dollars to a fourteen-year-old accusing you of testicle tickling.

What's odd to me is that Jacko would participate in the longest civil trial in Santa Maria history--the case the Neverland 5 filed against him--yet he refused to defend himself against Jason Francia who only alleged he'd been fondled during a tickling session? Surely, if Jacko wants us to buy that he was innocent of that charge despite paying over $2M to this kid, he would have to explain to us why he didn't fight that claim but spent six months fighting Chacon and Friends!

It's laughable... None of that makes any sense whatsoever. Apparently Jacko's deluded fans believe Jason is an imbecilic crybaby liar; was Jacko afraid he couldn't convince a jury of that, too?

If the f' loons want to divert the attention away from the main attraction (Jordie) and focus on Francia, they'd do well to explain why Jacko didn't fight the tickling charge. If he could spend six months fighting the Neverland 5, he could've challenged both Jason and Jordie in court IF he had been innocent...

We know he'd something to hide and was guilty as sin. The public knowing about another boy would've killed his career in a heartbeat after the Jordie settlement, not mention made his sham marriage look even more phony.

Yo, f' loons: it's about Jordie!

Desiree said...

I'll add that Jacko also went after Victor Gutierrez, too, the implication being that he would fight if he was innocent of something. But he didn't fight Jordie or Jason. The f'loons can't say it was because it would've cost lots of money to defend. Jacko didn't care about money or cost with the Neverland 5.

The simplest explanation is Jacko did not vindicate himself against Jordie and Jason because he was guilty. Occam's razor. He had the money and the fame to do so but he chose not to.

F' loons seem to be allergic to the big picture. If they want to argue he was still innocent after paying settlements to boy accusers, thereby tacitly acknowledging the validity of their claims, they better come up with effing better excuses. I don't think people are really stupid enough to believe a superstar can't afford a defense, let alone be muscled into all but ruining his career (the latter has already been thoroughly dismantled).


I don't know how I forgot that segment of paragraph 3.e. for the post. How absentminded of me. In addition to the ”confessions of judgment”, Jacko handed over a lot of authority with regard to the payment itself. We know that in the use of a Qualified Assignment, the plaintiff would have to also agree with the choice of a third-party assignee before the commencement of the payments.

In other words, the silencing of Jordie Chandler came with a lot of ass-kissing on Jacko's part. The rights he lost became gained legal power for the Chandlers.

As I said before, no one is really stupid enough to buy the shuck and jive about this Chandler settlement not being an admission of guilt. Well, unless you're a f' loon...or Blaine.

(It's a riot he calls himself sanemjfan now. Who the hell is he kidding if he doesn't even have the testicular fortitude to read this entire post...)

Lady C said...


Thank you for re-iterating the point that the money of the settlement was paid by Michael thru the insurance company; not the other way around. The insurance company did not pay the settlement to the Chandlers nor did they intend to.

The f'loon's irrationality about the Chandler settlement is so silly and ridiculous that there's no words to describe it--it's off the charts! They just can't face the fact that their beloved Michael majorly fucked up and put his ass in a sling, and for many years to follow, would continue to put his ass in a sling. He needed a way out, and got himself in where he had to pay a settlement to his accusers because they had solid proof on him; something that would've stood up in court, very possibly putting him behind bars. MJ had too much to loose and he knew it. His agreeing to the "CoJ" was of his own doing; NO ONE forced his hand at it--that's another stupid and asinine thing that the floons could come up with. But alas, that's their mentality, LOL!

Like I mentioned to Desiree earlier, MJ agreeing to the "CoJ" was literally his way of signing his "life away"and everything he was worth...that's absolute insanity, especially for someone who claims they're innocent. IMO, at that particular moment in time, MJ was deemed to be the most stupid, ignorant, sad, and pathetic human being on the planet. Stupid/ignorant for getting himself in that pickle in the first place, sad/pathetic because he "really" had no other way out because he knew he was in the wrong, and to have it come to light would have shut him down completely. The settlement to the Chandlers and everything else in between was all of MJ's own doing; he's to blame. IMO, I think his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, had to have thought to himself for MJ to be talented and coined the KOP, he didn't have too much common sense; failing miserably, pathetic his client truly was for getting himself in the trouble that he did, yet alone having to go along with the "CoJ" and it's terms for something that he claimed he was innocent of. Cochran was no fool either--I believe he knew deep down that his client was actually guilty of wrong doing. As a matter of fact, I read in one of my books, "Jacko" I think it was, that Cochran thought that MJ was guilty and believed that he would continue to go down the path he was going only to end right back in court later in the future...He did in 2005.

Michael may have loved kids, but he would've never made it as a contestant on, Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader. I wonder why? LOL

Lady C said...


I have a question...earlier when you mentioned that MJ paid Jordie's parents some money in the settlement, was that something that MJ wanted to do to make sure that not only was Jordie silenced, but they too were silenced as well? Was the money something that Evan/June Chandler could accept or refuse on their own as one of the terms of the settlement or what it something that was more of MJ's doing, at his insistence, knowing that it could purposely serve him some kind of "security net"? My thinking is because MJ wanted to "cover" all his bases and make sure that all of them never spoke a word ever about the case/settlement under any circumstances. Meaning, if they too were under the contract they could be held liable if they reneged. If this is true, then MJ really was an arrogant ass! His mentality was, "shut'em all up, and I'll get to tell my side of the story b'cuz they're gagged from speaking about it". And of course, we all know that MJ took full advantage of it, according to the statement Cochran made and his lie-laden interview with Diane Sawyer. Is that how Ray Chandler was able to write his book, ATG, since he wasn't bound by the contract?

Lady C said...


Michael legally pursued who he wanted, when he wanted, and most importantly when it was convenient for him to do so. Meaning, that if the person who he believed "wronged" him didn't have any proof of criminal activity on him, he would then stand up and try to defend himself. Other wise, if they did have proof on him, he wouldn't fight but wallow in all kinds of excuses and expect the public to believe him and settle. That's such crap! lol In reading Desiree's blog about MJ from beginning to end, one thing has not changed--the f'loons are still looney and completely delusional. Not that one would expect total "success" over night, but to be able to influence some opinions over time based on all the research, documents and logic that she has shown, would have been hopeful. And maybe perhaps she has influenced a few, but they choose to keep it to themselves...out of shame/embarrassment of being duped for so long. For some that's a hard thing to admit. But hey, I think that most of us at some point or another experienced the same thing to some degree...I know I did. I do think that this blog is something resourceful and very interesting for anyone out there wanting to investigate the truth about MJ and come to their own conclusion regardless of popular opinion.

Some authors can write a book about anyone and they will usually write it in one of two ways: the whole-hearted truth no matter how grim it may be or the half truth peppered with some sugar coats to appeal to the masses. IMO, looking back on it I saw a lot of that "sugar coating" in Randy Taraborrelli's book, Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy", and Ian Halperin's "Unmasked", lol. Others such as Chris Andersen, Ray Chandler, Bob Jones, and Diane Dimond to name a few, seem to be the ones who have taken the road "less traveled". I felt that the material in their books, was pretty parallel to the life and actions of the world's most famous entertainer; base on what I all saw with my own eyes for several years. The fact is, regardless of what's said/shown about MJ, there will be those who will never see differently or any possibility of the truth at all; the mind is made up. Sadly If they're not mature enough to bring themselves to be open-minded on any level to any possibilities, then whatever "surprises" of betrayal that comes their way regarding their beloved icon--if and when that happens, may result in them being victims of their own fallacy furthermore...not that it hasn't already happened because their reasoning and comments already proves that. The KOP had much trouble in his life; a lot of it he was responsible for. He wasn't perfect by any means, but the "unrealistics" need to be mindful of that and remember that if a regular everyday person can fall hard so can a well known entertainer like one's invincible.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

The payment the Chandler parents received from Jacko, according to Larry Feldman's testimony, was because Jacko and his attorneys believed that giving them money would guarantee 'confidentiality'. It seems from the testimony alone that the money the Chandler parents received was related to the settlement as a whole, not the money that was received up-front for signing the documents.

The payments mentioned in the settlement were always related to "the Minor" ($15,331,250); no one else was really mentioned that we know of, unless the parts going to the parents was always completely blacked out.

In Victor Guiterrez's book, he has a document relating to Evan Chandler and his then-wife Nathalie's divorce. In the so-called 'What's mine is yours' section under the heading "Chandler v. Jackson", it states:

HUSBAND assigns to WIFE as her sole property (1) $450,000 of the payment due to him on December 15, 1994, and (2) $150,000 of the payment due to him on June 15, 1994 pursuant to the terms of that certain Settlement Agreement between Michael Joseph Jackson, Jordan Chandler, June Chandler, and HUSBAND related to HUSBAND's personal injuries.

Because they live in California state, by law, Nathalie was entitled to half of all of Evan's assets, assuming they did not have a pre-nuptial agreement (most people who are not exceedingly wealthy do not get pre-nups).

According to the math as related to that document, Evan Chandler received a total of $1.2 million from Jackson related to the settlement in two payments. According to Diane Dimond's chapter on the settlement in her book, Evan and June got upwards of $1 million up-front, although it could have been structured as how it appears in the divorce papers between Evan and Nathalie Chandler.

The alternate explanation is that the 'up-front' money, as mentioned in Dimond's book, was separate from the structured payments as delineated in the settlement, and they received $3M in total, each. What we are seeing in the publicly available papers is the agreement, not the nitty gritty 'offer sheet' that is used during a negotiation of a structured settlement. The 'offer sheet' typically lays out what is going to be paid up-front (along with fees) and what is coming to the plaintiffs over time.

All we know for sure is that the monies Larry Feldman was discussing from the witness box was money related to the confidentiality aspect, which could be what came up-front, what came over time, or both, meaning the payments received by the parents were related to their (symbolic) injuries as well.

The main point I think that you want to know, Lady C, is that, yes, by giving the parents money as a part of the agreement settling their son's sex abuse lawsuit, by specific and implicit wording within the agreement itself, they were bound to confidentiality, since that was a substantial aspect of the agreement (no kidding--without it, Jacko was screwed!). We know Jordie Chandler got $2M for signing (via his Guardian ad Litem).

The "confession of judgment"-style agreement is a quid pro quo: the plaintiffs cannot get compensated for their injuries without agreeing to something advantageous to the defendant. In Jacko's case, it was agreeing to never, ever, ever speak about the molestation to anyone, be it legally, conversationally, etc.

The Chandlers legally called the shots but only in accordance to their agreement to the terms of a document written largely by Jacko's lawyers. With their silence came tons of control.

I hope that answers your question. :-)

J-M-H said...

And maybe perhaps she has influenced a few, but they choose to keep it to themselves...out of shame/embarrassment of being duped for so long.

I think this is the reason that many f'loons are still in lala land. It's the aspect of being duped. I've said before that it has got to suck major to have had the realization that you've been unknowingly supporting a pedophile. Thank god I wasn't a fan for that long--a year, tops. Not only that, but they have been defending the indefensible. I think Alby was the one that said it, but the fans are the main people supporting (implicitly) pedophiles. Look how they think; they legitimize everything a pedo would. They think that it's okay to sleep int he bed with young boys one isn't related too when said individual is a grown ass man. They use the old pedo talking point about false memories of child abuse planted by therapists, or in Jordie Chandler's case, planted by his father using hypnotic drugs, knowing that most people don't lie about child sexual abuse. They think it's okay, apparently, for a grown man to own books that feature naked children if said book was previously widely available. Seriously, they haven't even seen the book, Boys Will Be Boys, and the one picture that Desiree did show was extremely graphic.

It's like what the Supreme Court said about pornography, you know it when you see it. Absolutely I've seen pedos legitimize their naked boy photo collections as saying "Nude doesn't mean lewd" and then this is the words of a fan "Art is not porn", remembering that this fan has never seen BWBB. Is it just me or are these the exact same sentiments? These "art books" are called child erotica because the the government can't legally defined them as porn because a) they were published in legally available books (but we all know these books, published in during the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s would never be published today) and b) because the kids aren't actually engaged in sex acts. But they are still naked and thoroughly exposed; pedos don't need to see action to get off. I was at Barnes and Noble and there was a photography book, of course from the 60s-70s, that showed prepubescent and pubescent girls in full frontal nudity, set in nature backgrounds and in trees, etc. I was disgusted when I saw this book because it was so obviously intended not as a "celebration of innocence" but for lewd consumption by adults. I was about 13 or 14 when I saw this book; the girls were my age so it was extra disturbing. Just because the kids aren't "in the act' doesn't mean it isn't child porn, it is. Just imagine if a school principal had that book or BWBB in his desk, you think he wouldn't get fired? He would, esp. since he's around kids all day of the same age.

And actually that's the point with Mike too. he had books that featured naked young boys that were the same age as he boys that he befriended and had sleepovers with. Why would you want a grown man to sleep in the bed with boys if he likes to look at books with naked boys? It's just an "accident" waiting to happen. Ken Lanning makes the important point that just because a person fits the characteristics or a characteristic seen in a preferential child molester doesn't mean he is one. However if these characteristics are seen in said person coupled with an allegation of child molestation, they may very well be a child molester. That was Michael Jackson. he fit the profile to a T and was accused of molestation at least 3 times, and probably more.

J-M-H said...

IMO, looking back on it I saw a lot of that "sugar coating" in Randy Taraborrelli's book, Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy", and Ian Halperin's "Unmasked", lol.

I was think the same thing yesterday, LOL. What I find interesting is that JRT acts like he is the be all end all authority on Michael Jackson's life, and yet he is the only one that has investigated him for years that thinks he's innocent. Diane Dimond investigated him and so did Maureen Orth, and both of them think he's guilty as sin. Even other reporters think that he was guilty; Diane Sawyer, Kurt Loder of MTV News, Christopher Andersen, former bigwig at People magazine. They've all seen the same stuff and only Taraborrelli is the the one still kissing ass. Not to mention all the people here think he was guilty and most were former fans! We've investigated all the publicly available material and we haven't seen the stuff that the big investigative journalists like Orth and Dimond and Taraborrelli were privileged to see, and we came to the same guilty conclusion. There is something not right with this picture if he is the only one thinking, or airing on the side of, Mike was innocent. I think he's in deep with the MJ PR machine, personally.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be about trying to "convert" them to the truth, because really they are non-factors and it's a fruitless battle for the most part. It should just be about putting the truth out there for future generations to find so a child molester will be condemned, regardless if he sold 100 million copies of an album and one 8 Grammys at once, and victims will not be called liars. But the f'loons are still the ones who have the power to harass and malign these men and continue to perpetuate a myth that doesn't exist, at the present, and that's why realists try to convert them.

Alby said...

Let's not forget the rather more insidious aspect to this settlement. Everyone always assumes that the settlement document was leaked around the time of the trial to make Mike look bad, but let's look at another possibility.

Could it not have been leaked by Jackson's side to stymie the testimony of any Chandler that appeared? If any Chandler wanted to accuse Mike of molestation, the defense would merely have to ask "didn't you sign a document acknowledging that Michael Jackson did not molest Jordan?". It would explain the redaction of the payment details too. And who better to leak it to than Diane Dimond to divert all suspicion? It's all actually quite brilliant, really.

Of course, I don't know the full story of how Diane Dimond came in possession of the settlement document, so the whole point may be moot :-)

Desiree said...

The settlement document was released as a result of the Evan Chandler lawsuit, I believe, since Jacko violated the confidentiality agreement as stated in the document. We don't know the exact date it was released (it could have been following the Bashir documentary) but it was released by Lisa Marie Presley's attorney.

And was Dimond the first to get the document?

Desiree said...

"Absolutely I've seen pedos legitimize their naked boy photo collections as saying "Nude doesn't mean lewd" and then this is the words of a fan "Art is not porn", remembering that this fan has never seen BWBB."

Ugh--what bullshit. Not all 'art' is art, but pornography under a thin veil or cleverly disguised erotica made solely to titillate viewers. That's what "Boys Will Be Boys" is: made by two convicted pedophiles for pedophiles!

Why would Michael Jackson be seeking out a book that was made by two convicted pedophiles (and featured the exposed buttocks and genitals of young boys) with the sole purpose of the book being for the titillation other pedophiles, unless he was a pedophile, too?

Who would want that book?

It's true: these f'loons have NEVER seen BWBB. That book is repulsive. Sure, someone can look at the artsy-fartsy photography and the 'prettiness' of the shots (I'm using that as loosely as possible) but you'd have to be a complete idiot not to say that was nothing more than 'high-class child porn'.

Much of the child erotica from the Sexual Revolution era would never be published today in the United States, even as so-called art. It's unfortunate that detectives encounter these materials when searching the homes of accused child molesters and can't charge them with possession of child pornography. Because that is what it is: unabashed child porn.

I told this story privately to Alby but I will repeat it here:

My 51-year-old mother has always believed that Jacko was innocent. Whenever I have discussed Jacko with her, she always defends him in the face of a reasonable argument and the facts (which she knows little about--her belief in his innocence is more heart than brain). However, one evening I brought out "Boys Will Be Boys" to show her with the question, "Why would an innocent man own this?"

At first, she didn't want to look at it and was laughing uncomfortably but when you are flashing giant 11x12 B&W photos of naked little white boys (something we don't see much of in the Black community, LOL), it's hard to take your eyes off the images.

She was resistant in her voice but not in her expression as the photos kept flashing in front of her. I'm like, "What about this? And this? Or this?" etc. And she's like, "Oh God," and "Lord," and, "Boy..." What struck me as so strange is that the book, which is pretty thick and heavy (it's huge), when randomly flipped through, it's like boy penis after boy penis. When you read that the Prosecution said "90% nude, 10% clothed", they are NOT kidding whatsoever.

Desiree said...

So she's looking at this book and saying, "You're right, why would he want this?" and, "That's crazy." Then she says, "Please I don't want to look at it anymore, I get it!" And I say, "This book was made by two convicted pedophiles: one who was a NAMBLA member and convicted of sodomizing boys in a 'sex house' on Long Island in the 80s and the other was convicted of making and peddling images of young boys engaged in sex acts." I told her, "This book only had two printings and Jacko [I do, in fact, use that term conversationally] was hunting for it."

I told my mother the inscription he'd written in BWBB saying he believed the images that were in that book was the type of 'Boyhood' he always 'dreamed of'. My mom said, "Boyhood don't have nothing to do with being naked climbing trees and pitching tents!" LOL. (There's a picture in the book where a little boy is building a tent and his naked butt is 'peeking out' between the flaps of the tent's opening--he's completely nude, even barefoot.)

So, essentially, my mother was a microcosmic example of a f'loon: she believed with no proof whatsoever in support that Jacko was innocent because Jacko said so. But, upon looking at BWBB and knowing who made it (ie. pedophiles), gave her great pause. She was terribly conflicted.

Later on that night, I joked to my mom saying, "What did you think of that book Michael owned?" She'd had a glass of wine and was more loose--she shrieked, "Ugh! I HATE THAT BOOK!" LOL.

Her reaction is the reaction that will occur for f'loons who are still rational; my mom's belief in Jacko was irrational (and annoying) but she couldn't deny the point: "Why would a man want this book?"


(This is the image shown to Wade Robson while he was on the stand 'defending' Jacko. The photographer, Hajo Ortil, is a boy-lover. No shit, right?)

Just as Lanning always said, as J-M-H mentioned: when the MOs are put together and then coupled with accusations against the man of child sexual abuse, it's a strong circumstantial indicator that the man is a pedophile.

Again: Jacko had sleepovers with unrelated young boys, books with naked boys, 'special friends' who were young boys, cops found a picture of a naked Jonathan Spence in Jacko's room from the Hayvenhurst Raid, AND HE WAS ACCUSED 3X OF MOLESTATION!

Ladies and gents, I believe we have ourselves here a Grade A, dyed-in-the-wool pedophile. Prize for that correct answer? The freedom inherent of truth.

Alby said...

What we have are fans afloat in the sea of denial - they started off floating on a giant raft of excuses, but one by one the excuses have been breaking off and the raft has been getting smaller.

Lots of fans have passed over to the "other side" along the way, yet as the raft gets smaller and smaller the remaining fans try desperately to cling on the the only bits left - the denials of Mike and a small handful of boys.

That Mike denies anything untoward happened goes without saying, the boys are understandable if you understand anything about victims of 'nice guy' pedophiles.

Too bad that raft just can't sustain any more people who may want to join Mike's defence... all it will take is one more boy to come forward and what's left of that raft will disappear in a puff of logic :-)

Lady C said...


Thank you for explaining. Yes, you did answer my question. I'm not very savvy when it comes to certain aspects of contracts and legalities, but I figured you would be, lol. If I had to say so myself, that whole case settlement was really f***'d up for the Chandlers from the get go. And the fact that the contract was written up by MJ's lawyers was really messed up; I suppose that's where the quid pro quo creeps them writing up the contract they could use it to MJ's advantage who would come out smelling like a rose with the use of a lot of control/leverage. Of course, this would allow him to pass himself off as being the 'victim' and the Chandlers as being the villains...the KOP comes out on top, LOL. No, seriously that's not right at all; it pisses me off. Advantageous to the defendant, my ass!


"Just because the kids aren't "in the act' doesn't mean it isn't child porn, it is."

That's right. There was this movie that I saw a long time ago called, Snap Decision, starring Mare Winningham. It was a true story where she was a mother with three children and their godmother who was her best friend and a photographer. Anyway, the mother was arrested/charged with child endangerment for taking supposedly pornographic photos of children--the photo was one of the children semi-nude on the bed, and the place where the godmother went to have the film developed turned her in (obviously MJ didn't have this problem to worry about in regards to the nude Polaroid photo that he had of one of his special friends). In the end they were able to prove that she and the godmother didn't take the photo, but it was her other younger daughter who was playing with her godmother's camera who took it; the godmother and the child's mother was preoccupied at the time and didn't see the child snapping pictures; she got her children back and the charges were dropped. But the point being, something as 'mild' as that was not taken lightly for the fact that it looked very suspicious. So all-out nude photos of children--not doing anything, is really something to frown upon and be concerned about. When it comes to such, concern for their safety is serious business. This is something the f'loons know better than to debate. Some of them who I believe are parents, know that if they saw a picture of their own child's nude body plastered in a book, they would s**t bricks; no doubt! This doesn't even include them sleeping with others not related to them or with a full grown adult. It just goes to show you that there are some really screwed up people in this world.

Lady C said...


"And was Dimond the first to get the document?"

I'm not sure if she was the first one, but then again I wasn't even aware that she had any access to it to began with. I know that you confirmed who released the document--Presley's attorney, but I never thought that Diane Dimond would've done that. Let's just say that IF she had "leaked" the information, I don't think that it would've been done to divert suspicion from Jackson; instead she may have done it to remind and protect the Chandlers from the "wrath" of the guilty one, Michael...That's the only reason I can come up with. I can see, however, MJ's camp and defense lawyers doing something that just for their own gain because they knew the provisions of the contract, thus it would hinder and hold the Chandlers liable for testifying in the trial. But then again, I'm not so sure if MJ's defense lawyers would have reminded them. Perhaps they could have kept quite about it, and let the Chandlers testify and "hang" themselves with their own rope; resulting in MJ to look the 'good guy' and the Chandlers more as the villains and extortionists that they were accused to be. After all, MJ had more control than they did, and if he went after them legally, he would have won; despite the fact that Evan Chandler tried to sue him over his violations of the contract in the Primetime interview, and that went nowhere.

But Dimond, nah. She of all people was very adamant from the very beginning that Jackson was guilty of sexually abusing Jordan Chandler and was a bonafide pedophile. IMO, for her to leak the document and divert suspicion, would kind of "hinder" her stance/credibility on MJ's guilt...I think she really was hoping that he was found guilty of molesting Gavin Arvizo in 2005 just to prove that what she really thought of him all along was actually true. Again, I know you explained that it was Presley's lawyer; I was just making a possible scenario.

Lady C said...


Remember a while back when there was the discussion of statement analysis regarding MJ? I was just thinking about the statement he made in the Bashir documentary about killing himself if he was told that there were no longer any children left in existence. I come up with many opinions about his statement...tell me what you think.

1. Jackson said what he did because deep down he knew that he had a very strong addiction to children, especially young boys... He likes them in the way that the normal person does not. His statement could be interpreted as an "implied" statement rather than a direct admittance...No normal person, especially an adult would say such a thing in private, yet alone on public t.v. MJ's statement screams out, PEDOPHILE, loud and clear--children are their "bread and butter".

2. Because of his strong addiction to children, for them to be out of existence, it would tragically stifle his need...His denial to children would be a great hindrance that he couldn't live without...after all they "were" his life.

3. Possibly, Jackson said what he did because in hind sight, he knew that the rumors about him were actually true, and it was something that over time would eventually come to light despite popular opinion about him from some of the masses. Of course he would try to stave off the truth for as long as he could with whatever 'tactics' he could, but somewhere down the line, he would eventually be found out--he couldn't hide it forever. He could fool some of the people, but not all, and they were slowly but surely catching on to him; although he used his "love and innocence" for children as a cover up.

4. Because MJ knew the truth would eventually catch up with him, he kind of 'foretold' the world what would be the result of him if he was alienated from children or denied access to them....Well after the 2005 trial, things changed a lot for him, and life as he knew it wasn't the same. How long he could continue that way without his old 'lifestyle' ? That was something impossible for him to do. At that point he would give up and death/self destruction would soon follow.

Opinionation said...

Lady c, MJ's comment about killing himself if all kids were dead reminds me of the play Romeo & Juliette. When Romeo thought Juliette was dead he killed himself, so MJ felt about children the same way Romeo felt about Juliette. Actually I think it would be the death of all little boys rather than children that would cause MJ to kill himself. If all little girls were dead he probably would have been happy since he would no longer have to put up with sisters tagging along when he was trying to have his sick fun with his special friends.

J-M-H said...

Lady C, your points about young boys being his addiction and the statement being a foreshadow into his fate are interesting. I think Mike was being truthful when he said he'd kill himself if he couldn't be around children. People (read fans) may think this statement is innocent or normal, but really, it isn't. It's very over-the-top and dramatic and I don't even think a great schoolteacher would want to spend the rest of their days around children. Normal people want to interact with their peers, people their same age. Mike was getting his sole fulfillment through being around young boys, and that is not normal. couple that with the other pedo characteristics he fits, and the multiple allegations of child molestation, you got yourself a bonafide boy-lover. Look at this quote from him and look what he is saying to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

"And every time I felt like I'm at the end of my rope, some kind of way, a kid would show up somewhere. That's the truth. Just when I can't take it anymore. And I really want to die. I really do. When I wanted to die, boom, it hits me. And I get on my knees, and I thank God whenever it happens. I do, Shmuley. And so, I believe in it. I really do."

He is telling us that "kids" (boys) are the only thing that keeps him from wanting to die. He's said this before. For example, after the Jordie Chandler scandal, he got "married" to Lisa Marie Presley. We know that was a publicity stunt and that she was hoodwinked into thinking that he truly loved her. Mike was trying to make himself look straight and normal, but I guarantee you that he was feeling like shit. Lisa Marie has said she seen drug use around the time. But guess who pops up in 1996, 2 years after the Chandler scandal resolution? Twelve year old Omer Bhatti. Mike picked him out in front of his hotel in Tunisia and then you see Omer on stage at his HIStory concerts, in South Africa, not to mention Mike has Omer living with him at Neverland while his mother and father are given jobs as a nanny and a chauffeur, respectively. Omer became a "loved boy" for Mike.

J-M-H said...

Another example is right when Mike was accused of child molestation in 1993 and he was evading police by not returning to the States and instead jet-setting across the world. This of course was a time of great stress for him, and what does he do? He brings along 3 young boys, Brett Barnes and Frank and Eddie Cascio. He pulled the Cascio boys out of school so they could be with him. In the DSM IV entry on pedophilia, they say the urges are often magnified during times of emotional or physical stress. is this not what Mike was doing? This was a need-based mistake on his part; he should have had the wits to know that gallivanting with young boys in front of the press was a stupid move, but he needed them there. Again, this is not normal for an adult to get all their emotional needs from non-peers. Even Shmuley asked him in his first book if he had anyone that he could be emotionally vulnerable with, a partner of some sort, and Mike was first confused about what he meant (LOL typical), and then he said Liz Taylor, Mac Culkin. Basically he had no equal, no partner in crime, to be there for him and apparently by his lack of understanding, he never had experienced adult emotional intimacy. But he could wax poetic for hours about children and how they brought him emotional and spiritual happiness...there's a problem with this picture.

Look at his final years, like you've said. Did he not try to replace physical interaction with young boys and children by plastering photos and quotes and banners of children all over his room? Mike was absolutely obsessed with children, and I think that he never, ever recovered from Jordie "opening the Box of Secrets" and ruining what he'd been able to have, full access to "special friends" without people thinking he was up to no good. Not only did it lead to the downfall of his image and the public perception of him, it lead to the downfall of him physically (drug use), emotionally, and musically.

Opinionation, you are right. It is similar to Romeo and Juliet. It's amazing how similar Mike's actions and feelings regarding young boys is so similar to the way a man would feel about a woman (or what two adults would feel about each other). Something is wrong with this picture.

Lady C said...


Very good comparison! I forgot about Romeo and Juliette; that describes it to a T. Yes, the death of all the young girls in the world, would be MJ's way of saying "good-riddance".

Desiree said...

This is random but since Opinionation mentioned ”Romeo and Juliet”, I thought this was pretty funny because it made me think of Jacko... There was a newspaper cartoon featuring Cinderella reading the Once upon a Times newspaper. On the paper, there were the personals. One under ”Alternative Lifestyles” was from Peter Pan: ”Lookin for someone to never grow old with. Lost boys and fairies welcome. Peter 555-0123”

I don't know--it cracked me up because the cartoonist believed Peter Pan was gay. LOL. I've never read the actual play by Barrie but it does make you wonder why anyone would want to spend all of their time around 'lost boys' in a place like Neverland where no one (read: no boys) grows up.

Anyone who identifies with Peter Pan must be looked at with suspicion. Jacko didn't just hold the belief that Pan was a cool literary figure; he believed so deeply that he was Pan that he named his home Neverland. After a couple mg of Demerol and a few bumps of coke, I'm sure he believed his shadow was its own entity and that he could fly. (I remember reading in The National Enquirer about Jacko being high and falling off a balcony, breaking his foot--perhaps he was chasing his shadow and when 'it' leapt, he did, too.)

Now, fans don't contemplate Jacko's words nor do they put anything he says into perspective. J-M-H quoted Jacko's own words about suicide and kids. Whenever he was given any medium through which to communicate, he chose to talk kids. To me, Michael Jackson's own words convict him. Saying he was Peter Pan, who was obviously literature's clearest example of a gay fixated pedophile (a pedophile who identifies as a 'boy' with the boy), and calling his tacky mansion Neverland (a place where no boy will ever get to a stage in growth that the pedophile no longer finds sexually arousing) has always been excellent circumstantial evidence, when considered in conjunction with the accusations and pay-offs, to prove that Jacko was a predatory boy-lover.

Again, listen to ”Stranger in Moscow”: He says a beggar boy calls his name and then sunny days (apparently brought by this boy) will drown out the pain of his loneliness.

Jacko has been a great help to MJ Realists trying to show the obviousness of his 'condition'.

By the way, I hope everyone enjoyed my anecdote featuring my mother. And if you clicked on the picture by Hajo Ortil, I hope you weren't at work! Because I write about Jacko's boy-loving, I frequently have pedophiles looking for naked young boys. As such, I most likely will NOT be showing BWBB. I don't want a million hits from Scandinavian countries.

Yes, f'loons, your pedo angel will not be exposed in graphic detail. However, please note that had you got the opportunity to see that book, assuming you possess a modicum of intelligence, your reaction would be identical to my mother's. BWBB is one of the most powerful indicators of Jacko's perversion. After all, it was made by, and is for, his kin: pedophiles who like to see young boys do young boy things while stark naked.

Alby said...

The mere fact that the book was edited by one man, Martin Swithinbank, who was a NAMBLA member, and another, Ronald Drew, who was arrested for child pornography, and featured photographs by Hajo Ortil, a self professed pedophile, is all I need to know. I have neither the need nor the desire to click through to any images or to see the actual book.

Funny how fans make a big fuss that Dangerous Liaisons was written by Tom O'Carroll, a pedophile, so should be suspect (although in fact it is highly illuminating and after all, just words... even though I don't agree with it's lauding of the boylover lifestyle, it does show plenty of evidence that Mike was a boylover just like the author), yet don't apply the same standard to Mike's so-called "art" books full of titillating pictures of naked boys. It just highlights their duplicity.

Desiree said...

You do not have to click the link, Alby! It's merely there for the curious and dense f'loons who come on to my blog. Along with it is the question, "Why would a non-pedophile want to own a book where at least 90% of the photographs are along that vein?"

That's a good point about "Dangerous Liaisons". Because I've recommended the book as one to read (in the mode of it being another well-researched book about Michael Jackson), the particularly deranged f'loons have labeled me as a pedophilia supporter.

So, let's get this straight: although Jacko was accused three times of child molestation; had an irrational need to share his bed with unrelated young boys; had all-male, youthful 'special friends'; and wrote a 'romantic' song ("speechless") about 14-year-old German boy Anton Schleiter, when he owns a book made by a NAMBLA charter member and a kiddie porn peddler that features the naked genitalia of young boys, he's NOT a pedophile?

But if a person writing a blog about Michael Jackson recommends a well-researched and thorough book about her subject, and the book happens to be written by a boy-lover, she, too, is one. But not the guy accused of molesting boys?


I always consider such name-calling absolutely indicative of a lack of argument. It also shows that fans are so desperate to divert the attention away from Jacko's dirty deeds. Furthermore, it suggests that they are incredibly stupid...

Desiree said...

I remember we'd had a discussion about parents and how much were they complicit in the abuse of their sons. And by 'complicit', I'm talking about the question of whether some of them were 'pimps'.

Joy Robson showed herself to be completely pathetic in this bit of testimony; there's just no doubt she was a 'pimp'--had to be doing this:

3 Q. Now, in December of 1993, after the

4 allegations with Jordan Chandler had surfaced, Mr.

5 Jackson came back to the United States, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And on -- to your knowledge, on the very

8 first night he was back he called your son, correct?

9 A. He called me.

10 Q. He called you?

11 A. I think so. From memory.

12 Q. Do you remember testifying that you weren't

13 at the house when the call was made, that you were

14 out with some ladies?

15 A. I do remember reading that, I'm sorry.

16 Q. So you weren't there?

17 A. Possibly.

18 Q. You came home, and then both of you, late in

19 the night, drove to Neverland Valley Ranch, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. When you got to Neverland Valley Ranch, it

22 was about 1:30 in the morning, correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. When you got there, you went to the guest

25 quarters and your son went to Mr. Jackson's bedroom,

26 correct?

27 A. I don't remember where I slept, but he did

28 go to Michael's bedroom.

What mother would drive down to Neverland Ranch and allow her eleven-year-old son to sleep in Jacko's bedroom when she was fully aware of the charges against him?

Even if Joy believed Jacko was an innocent Peter Pan, you would think she could possess the prudence to at least make sure Jacko and Wade did not go to bed together. More than that, she should have declined this middle-of-the-night trip to Neverland at an accused pedophile's request.

But, then again, this is the same woman who allowed her seven-year-old to sleep with a man in his 30s on his first night at Neverland, as well as walking the boy across the street in the middle of the night.

It's hard not to question her motives. Of course, Jacko utterly duped these parents into thinking her was the nicest man in the world but it seemed like caution took a holiday mostly. Joy's ambition could have very well made the abuse easier.

S.U. said...

Look this.

May it be Debbie Rowe?

She´s writing a book...defending him of course.

As for Taraborrelli, I used to be his friend on facebook. He really likes to get his ass kissed by fans. The man is a hypocrite. In the past he had implied that Michael was gay but now he says otherwise of course. He even mocked Jason when his interview on Extra aired. A f´loon who´s his friend also on fb and is a great fan of Michael and Lisa (lol) commented how Jason was disgusting and asked Taraborrelli if could do something about that...agh that people!!!

If one day all the truth surfaces with evidence, they will wish that Michael was just gay!

J-M-H said...


I can't believe that this "Debbie" nut is Debbie Rowe, she sounds so crazy! LOL. Debbie Rowe didn't seem this crazy/emotional after Mike's death so I doubt this is her. The writer is a looney. Debbie Rowe was a f'loon before she met him, and she fulfilled all fangirls' fantasies when she was allowed to be Mike's brood mare. this person claims that she was never a devout fan but was his twin soul. LMAO, fans are crazy. If this is Debbie Rowe, I don't know why she is speaking about Mike having been murdered now, as opposed to before when the investigation into his death was taking place.

This quote tells me it's a looney tunes fan, and not the mother of Paris and Prince:

"I was linked to him so strongly that at times I performed his very own dance steps before he did.

Did he even talk to her after the 2005 trial? I doubt it.

In the past he had implied that Michael was gay but now he says otherwise of course.

He initially defended Mike on the child molestation in 1993 when it broke, and when his second edition of his book came out in 2003, he did make Mike seem more "suspicious" regarding his relationship with Jordie Chandler. I think JRT had always thought (and still thinks) that Mike was innocent but he goes with wherever the money goes. Same with his feelings about Mike being gay, wherever the most money is. He did however make it seem that Mary Fischer's article was a very important article on the child molestation scandal, when everyone knows she's BS and most likely was hired by Mike's PR team. He was on TV in the mid 90s bashing Mike's relationship with Lisa and then he supports it in 2003. Perhaps his "investigations" led him to a different conclusion about the marriage when he wrote the book? Yea right, LOL. As for Jason and him making fun of him, again, it's like you said, he wants his ass kissed, LOL. What did he say when the fan asked him to "do something about Jason"? Did he zip his lips and say no more?

J-M-H said...

I just read the second article by "Debbie aka Twin Soul" and she is most definitely a grade A nutter and not Debbie Rowe. Why don't these nutjobs get help? LMAO

Alby said...

It's hard not to question her motives. Of course, Jacko utterly duped these parents into thinking her was the nicest man in the world but it seemed like caution took a holiday mostly. Joy's ambition could have very well made the abuse easier.

There can be several answers here...

*The parents were totally duped, blinded by Mike's manipulation, and genuinely believed that the sleepovers were innocent (although this would require a great deal of subconscious suppression of the inner voice); or

*The more sinister scenario where they knew exactly what was going on and were cynically providing their sons in return for something; or

*They had their initial suspicions but saw that their sons were happy, and their sons kept insisting "nothing was happening" so they allowed them to sleep with Mike.

Of course there are more but you get the idea.

S.U. said...


I though in Debbie Rowe because her name and the blue eyes lol.

I don´t know how Taraborreli´s answer was, because I couldn´t stand anymore all that Jason bashing.
But I forget to tell, I answer that fan that she didn´t know Michael so she couldn´t judge Jason. I never saw her answer but a f´loon messaged me saying she saw what I had said to that fan and every fan need to know how Michael was around women, that he wasn´t gay, bla, bla. LOL She wasn´t rude but that was all kind of BS you know.

Something named Unmasked between the sugar coating books but I have to disagree. Though Halperin said he didn´t believe Michael was guilty and claimed in interviews that he was innocent, he wrote other not so sugar things. That he was a druggie, implied that Michael wasn´t the bio father, he hadn´t vitiligo...and so on.
I don´t know if Halperin knows the truth but can´t tell or just believes he´s innocent. But surelly he has more balls than Taraborrelli LMAO At least I didn´t see him changing his story anytime, being it truth or not.

J-M-H said...

S.U., no you are right. Halperin's book wasn't "sugar coating" per se, and he didn't really stray too far from what he said in the book. I think the only thing he did do was over-emphasize the more salacious stuff in interviews, like the gay romps while cross-dressing in Las Vegas, when in reality, the gay thing was like 5 pages total in the book, seriously. More than half of his book was a "cut and paste" of all the "Michael Jackson was innocent" stuff from Mar Fischer and JRT. I think he put that stuff in there to sell books to the fans, and emphasized the gay stuff, etc to sell to non-fans.

Halperin's book was pretty crappy though, LOL. I'm still shock how he'd know that Mike might have had Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. His autopsy fully supports that diagnosis. It makes me think that some of the other stuff he personally "investigated" may be true? Like I know he said he met Mike and Mike was hitting on him, LOL. I don't know.

Regarding the parents, I think that it's a spectrum of what were their motivations. I honestly think that none of them were that blind, so it can't be the first choice of simple ignorance. Perhaps this could explain the beliefs of some of the other families he befriended that contained strong fathers that were in the picture, like the Cascios and the Agajanians (sp?). Even if he did have an interest in their sons, he couldn't do what he was able to do with Brett, Wade, Jonathan, Jordie, etc, because he couldn't take over the father figure role completely.

I believe for the most part, the mothers (and father in Jimmy's case) of the special friends were in category 3. There may be some category 2s, but mostly 3s. Mike spent an inordinate amount of time and money to just be friends with these boys and get close to them. Ken Lanning says that if an adult shows more interest in your child than you do, be wary. There's no way, at least in my mind, that these parents never had a "Hmmm..." moment. Esp. June chandler. Mike went just about apeshit when she chastised Jordie for bunking with him after watching the horror flick. that has to ring some bells. But when you look at Mike, he's so fragile and weak looking you don't expect anything sinister (although the lipstick, false lashes, and eyeliner should tell you something LOL). He banked on that image. And even the over the top generosity could be explained. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing for the most part.

Alby said...

I guess it was better for Mike to pay and have people think he was a child molester, rather than going to court and proving he was.