Untold Facts from the 1993 Case

In late October 2009, Tanya Gould, a columnist for The Guardian, wrote an article that resulted in hundreds of letters filled with disgust and hatred from Michael fans being sent to the newspaper. Following that, Charles Thomson, a well-known journalist and blogger, shed new light on the untold facts of the 1993 case in a separate article that you can read below:Charles Thomson wrote: After hundreds of people sent messages expressing their disgust and dissatisfaction with The Guardian’s irresponsible and inaccurate article on the newspaper’s website, The Guardian was forced to disable the comments section of the relevant page. Tanya Gould’s nonsense about Michael Jackson—claiming he wasn’t able to write good songs, wasn’t a capable dancer, and that his innovations in music video-making were meaningless—sparked a wave of insults and mockery toward the writer. But the most shocking part of her writing was her claim that Michael Jackson was guilty and that she labeled him as a sexual deviant. Gould supported her claim with false events. She incorrectly claimed that the image drawn by Michael’s 13-year-old accuser of his genitalia and handed over to the police matched reality. For nearly a decade and a half, this myth has been circulating among ramblers and nonsense-spreaders. It is a documented fact that Jordan Chandler that year was unable to provide the police with accurate information about Michael’s genitalia, and the photos taken of Michael did not match the accuser’s statements. In 2007, after another Guardian writer named Jack Pertei in a fake documentary about Michael titled “What Really Happened,” the myth was brought up again, and a wave of criticism was directed at him. The weakness of Jordan in proving the claim formed against Michael by his father, as well as the absence of any evidence or witnesses, meant that no court was formed to address the allegations of sexual abuse made against Michael. While the media would like the public to believe that the reason no trial took place was Michael’s payment of $20 million to the accuser’s father. That payment itself is another lie. Investigations into these allegations began in 1993 and continued into 1994. During this long period—and before any payment was made—Michael Jackson was never prosecuted because the police had no evidence against him. Prosecutor Tom Sneddon brought the case separately before three grand juries for criminal indictment, and all three of those juries refused to allow him to prosecute. But the media have hidden these facts from you. The media’s claim that Michael “escaped” appearing in court by paying money is false. First, there wasn’t even a trial. At the time of the agreement with the accuser’s family, he was not under prosecution. He was only sued. Another myth concerns Michael’s payment to the accuser’s family. In 1994, during the financial agreement with the Chandler family, Michael did not pay them even a single cent. Instead, it was Michael’s insurance company that paid them an amount as damages. Moreover, documents show that Michael personally opposed paying the accuser’s family, and the agreement was carried out despite his wishes. The evidence unveiled in 2005 during Michael’s trial stated that: “The agreement reached with the accuser’s family was based on their claim of Michael’s negligence in caring for Jordan Chandler, and their damages were paid by Michael’s insurance company. The insurance company carried out the agreements and paid the damages against Mr. Jackson’s wishes and the advice of his legal counsel.” The accuser’s family reduced the allegations of sexual abuse against Michael to a claim of negligence in caring for their child, and the agreement in essence was about a complaint they had filed against Michael for failing to keep their son healthy. In the 2005 court case—which also included the 1993 allegations—Michael was acquitted. Michael Jackson died innocent, and no one has the right to say anything other than that. Gould, who wasn’t even present in a single session of the 2005 trial, apparently thinks she knows the story better than the 12 jurors who listened to the testimonies second by second. Such arrogant boasting was a problem that pursued Michael throughout his entire life. The media are used to passing off unsubstantiated storytellers as experienced analysts in matters they don’t understand, and Michael has always been their target. A half-hour of browsing and searching the internet pages showed Gould that the 1993 case was an empty shell.

After the 1993 allegations, journalist Marie E. Fischer wrote an article titled “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” Her investigation results, published in GQ magazine, showed that a frame-up had been set for Michael. Also, the text of the accuser’s father, Evan Chandler’s, phone conversations—describing his extortion scheme against Michael to someone else—was published. In her book, Fischer writes that Jordan Chandler confirmed Evan’s story only after receiving the mind-altering substance sodium amytal, which his father had given him. Evan was a dentist and claimed he used this mind-altering substance to numb his son’s teeth. Sodium amytal is a known substance that leaves false memories in the brain, and the person affected by the drug believes their own hallucinations. In 2006, Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary of the lawyer who represented Jordan Chandler in 1993, wrote a book titled “Redemption.” In this book, she explained how she had been an “inside witness” to the fact that Jordan Chandler’s father and his lawyer planned an extortion scheme to get money from Michael, and agreed that if he refused to pay them, they would destroy him.

In 2005, the prosecutor summoned Jordan to testify against Michael, but he didn’t show up. Instead, his mother, June, came. June, as a witness, said that Jordan was legally separated from her and his father, and that he didn’t speak to either of them and had no relationship with them. Thomas Mesereau later, in a Q&A session at Harvard University, explained why this son had separated from his parents. He said Jordan was extremely angry and believed his parents forced him to lie, and that this destroyed his relationship with Michael. Thomas Mesereau also said that if Jordan had been called as a witness, he would have brought a long line of witnesses to court to testify that Jordan had personally told them many times that Michael Jackson had never sexually abused him, and that it was his parents—and especially his father—who arranged this fabricated story. Michael’s biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli, wrote on his Facebook page a few months before, after Evan Chandler’s suicide: “I knew Evan Chandler closely. I met him several times in the 1990s. I had many secret appointments with him so I could get to the depth of what had happened. I was young and naive, and I wish I had had some of my current experiences back then to use. I have stories from this man that I still haven’t published. His words were very contradictory. He was very determined to attract me to himself. To me, it seemed a bit scary. If you read my book, you’ll understand what I felt / feel about him. When the book was published, he called me, shouting and angry that I hadn’t included his story in my book. He even threatened me, and I told myself: now I know who he is.” A similar story to Tanya Gould’s was published by David Jones in the Daily Mail newspaper, using the ridiculous claims of Diane Diamond as his source. Diane Diamond, who had stated that her main goal was to destroy Michael Jackson, was fired from Court TV in 2005 immediately after Michael’s acquittal due to her fanatical behavior and speech about the Michael Jackson trial. She then wrote a book titled “Be Careful Who You Love,” which David Jones, in his article, referred to as a praised work. Praised by whom? The book, as soon as it was released, suffered a humiliating failure and landed at the bottom of the sales charts. In his article, David Jones used the same method as Jack Pertei. Pertei, in his 2007 documentary titled “What Really Happened?”, used interviews with people he knew only needed money to ruin Michael’s image. Jones calls these same people “impartial experts.” David Jones’s writing is the most irresponsible piece I’ve unfortunately spent time reading. He should be ashamed of himself. Although I doubt he will be. There is no evidence to prove Michael’s guilt. That’s why he was acquitted. In contrast, there is abundant evidence proving his innocence. Every journalist has the right to express their opinion, but they certainly do not have the right to label innocent people. Such articles are irresponsible because, in the internet age, a million people may read these nonsense claims, believe them, and even by publishing them, help them endure. Writers—whether journalists or bloggers—are responsible to their readers. That’s why research and investigation is the most important thing in this profession. Tanya Gould failed in her duty. The Press Complaints Committee, PCC, in response to the ten complaints it received about Tanya Gould’s article, stated that they could not take action against the newspaper for two reasons. First, Michael’s family did not file a complaint. Second, the article reflects the author’s personal opinion. But how should the Jackson family, who live in Los Angeles, read The Guardian newspaper that is printed on the other side of the world? With all that, it’s easy to smear any innocent man in the media and worry about nothing. Source: eMJey / charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com