For those interested: NO, Michael Jackson did not pay his accuser's family re: the molestation charges, nor did he "buy" their silence.


------------


<B>First, some back-story:</b>

Evan Chandler -- the bipolar, estranged father who accused Michael Jackson in the first place -- had tried to extort Michael Jackson multiple times in the early 1990s. He originally wanted to be involved with Jackson's movie deal with Sony; when Jackson declined, Chandler began meeting with Barry K. Rothman (an entertainment lawyer of questionable character).

It was around this time that Chandler was secretly taped on the phone by his ex-wife's husband, talking about how he had a "plan" in place that would make him rich; how he was resentful that MJ had stopped talking to him; saying how he wanted to destroy MJ's career; etc.

When he was asked how the "plan" would effect his son, he said he didn't care. Said, and I quote, "there will be hell to pay if I don't get what I want."

Chandler also told his wife's ex-husband that if Jackson, his ex-wife, and co. met up with him and stopped ignoring his calls, he wouldn't go through with his "plan."

Of course, Jackson refused to give in to Chandler extortion attempts, and the rest is history.


------------


<b>Now, regarding the settlement:</b>

The investigation into Jackson's conduct began in 1993 and lasted long into 1994. During this prolonged period -- long before the financial settlement was reached -- Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged. This was due to a complete lack of corroborative evidence.

DA Tom Sneddon took his "case" against Jackson to three separate grand juries -- all three refused to let him bring charges against the star.

Ergo, the media's widespread claim that Jackson bought his way out of a criminal trial is a myth -- he was never going to stand criminal trial in the first place.

When Jackson settled with the Chandler family, he was not being prosecuted. He was being sued. Big difference.

And there's an enormous legal reason behind the settlement of the civil suit in 1994. As I previously stated, Tom Sneddon had so little evidence to support his case in 1993 that three separate grand juries refused to allow him to bring charges against Jackson. The upshot of this was that the civil trial wound up scheduled ahead of any potential criminal trial. This was a violation of Jackson's fifth amendment as it would severely undermine his right to a fair trial.

Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial would give the prosecution unqualified access to Jackson's defense strategy. If Jackson cited an alibi in his civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal trial was to make the civil trial go away.

The settlement agreement did NOT prevent the Chandler family from testifying in a criminal case.

Jackson was prepared to fight the allegations in court but he was not prepared to forfeit his right to a fair criminal trial by wasting his defense on a civil suit.

The Chandlers' decision not to testify in the criminal case was entirely their own and is perhaps the best indication of what they were really about.

Furthermore, documents prove that the settlement was arranged against the star's wishes.

Court documents which came to light in 2005 stated: <B>"The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."</b>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/oCZO2.jpg" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

Jackson's later attorney Thomas Mesereau commented on the settlement, saying, "People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits. …"

Michael Jackson himself filed extortion charges against Evan and his attorney Barry K. Rothman in late August 1993.

In 1996 Evan Chandler tried to sue Jackson for a further $60million after claiming that the star's album "HIStory" was a breach of the settlement's confidentiality clause. In addition to trying to sue Jackson, Chandler requested that the court allow him to produce a rebuttal album called "EVANstory."

Yes, really.

After the settlement, Evan's son, Jordan Chandler, went to court and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson's 2005 trial, he refused to testify against Jackson. Had he taken the stand, Jackson's legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan -- who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name -- had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

Actually, back in September 1994, a private investigator was taped in a private conversation with Jim Metteager (the transcripts of which were given to author crime author Aphrodite Jones by Paul Barresi, a private detective).

During this conversation, the investigator recalled part of his lengthy interview with Jordan Chandler: "I said, 'You don't understand how serious this. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He is going to say all kinds of stuff.' And [Jordie] says, 'Yeah, my dad's trying to get money.' [. . .] I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. [. . .] We went over and over."


------------


<I>Sources:

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/guardian-columnist-insinuates-that.html

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-1/</i>

Reply · Report Post