Many doubts about MJ’s innocence stem from misconceptions to why a settlement was paid if MJ was innocent. The main public assumptions are: 1. that MJ agreed to pay a settlement. 2. paying a settlement was admission of guilt, 3. any settlement payment was “hush money to avoid a criminal trial”. In reality, these assumptions are incorrect.
First, a little history about the 1993 allegations: The truth is that MJ was against paying any mass amount of money to the Chandlers. Evan Chandler, Jordan’s father, asked MJ for 20 million dollars (before any accusations were made) for a screenwriting deal, which MJ turned down. Because MJ refused to go through with the deal, Chandler said in tapes (that were leaked to the internet) that if MJ did not pay, said that MJ would be sorry, and threatened MJ with the downfall of his career. Mr. Chandler believed that MJ “broke up his family”, a untruth used as his fuel to the fire. June and Evan Chandler were already divorced when Jordan met Michael, so there is no possibility that MJ “broke up a family”. David Schwartz was Jordan’s step father when he met MJ. Mr. Chandler used the “family situation” as an excuse to target MJ. Mr. Chandler was heavily in debt, though he was a successful dentist and had some success as a screenwriter.
The day the accusations were made was when Evan Chandler was in court battling custody with June Chandler. Mr. Chandler was ordered to return Jordan to June’s care. Mr. Chandler did not say once during that court meeting that he knew his son was in danger (which if it were true, wouldn’t you say it then?)….Mr. Chandler did not return his son to June, he took Jordan to make accusations against MJ instead. Now seriously, if your son was in danger, nothing else would matter but keeping your child safe and justice from day one- you would not spend many weeks negotiating through attorneys for a payment. Behaviorally speaking, Mr. Chandler’s actions are not of a caring father, but more of a person wanting to extort money when you analyze what he did and said in between. Mr. Chandler used his family’s situation as fuel against MJ more so aggressively when MJ would not agree to his request for money to fund his screenplay.
There were tapes leaked on the internet between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz where Evan discloses the extortion plot against MJ. People have criticized the tapes for being “heavily edited”, however, considering the edit points, it makes more sense that the tape was edited to take out conversation to get to the point regarding admission of extortion rather than editing to fake those statements. There is quite a difference between editing a conversation to get to the point without changing actual sentence content/context/meaning and editing several conversations to devise a fake statement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx8Z9fxxw-U , http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread477059/pg1, http://aboutmichaeljackson.com/m-news+article+storyid-25.html, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx8Z9fxxw-U) Another MJJJP article will follow later on…
Now that you get the gist of the details in a nutshell, let’s analyze the three assumptions.
1. Assumption that MJ agreed to pay a settlement:
MJ did NOT agree to pay a settlement. MJ protested with his lawyers to NOT make a payment, and MJ relied on the lawyer’s advice given, but the insurance company decided to pay against his wishes. MJ decided on his own to not give Mr. Chandler money, even when Mr. Chandler asked him in the beginning when they met and also during “negotiations.” Did anyone ever think that “negotiations” were made to PROVE it was all about money and not justice or the truth? MJ was not stupid. The money paid to the Chandlers was not HIS money, it was insurance money and he had no control over the decision to settle. (http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf) Mr. Mesereau would not have represented the motion as such if it could be proven that money paid was by the insurance carrier. MJ opened his home to certain public, so naturally, he would have protected himself with additional insurance, such as the kind businesses have. Agreeing to make a payment and having no choice in the matter are two different things. People believe the distortions the media has reported. The parties were under the “gag order”, so this aspect made it worse for MJ to make a detailed public statement.
MJ said in an interview with LMP in 1995 the reasons for the settlement was that he wanted to get on with his life and did not want to go through a trial- these are MJ’s emotions about going through a trial that was based on lies. Considering the payout did not cease investigation after the payment was made, it still means the settlement did not make the case “go away” from investigation; civil cases and criminal trials are two separate matters, but MJ knew the case would be in the past, go away, because he knew he was innocent. In the interview, MJ was talking more about the advice he was given SHOULD it go to a criminal trial, how he felt the media would distort it negatively, and said he could not make a clear statement regarding the settlement details due to the “gag order”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzn-lALWwcc&feature=related) MJ himself was trying to say it all but between the lines as best he could. MJ relied on his lawyer’s advice at the time the settlement was made.
MJ realized in 2005 that he should have fought harder in 1993. (please view Mr. Mesereau’s statements here: http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/tom-mesereau/ ) MJ did not know the impact 1993 would influence his future so badly and no one can fault him for wanting to move on at that time – he knew he was innocent, behaviorally, this explains his stance in the interview with LMP.
Should anyone recall the Bill O’Reilly case? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.htm) It is not uncommon for people to “not continue fighting” or to want the nightmare to go away. The O’Reilly case also had a counter-suit regarding extortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29) Just because someone does not want to continue fighting, it does not mean they are guilty. Both O’Rielly and MJ’s settlement cases also include the statement that “no wrongdoing” was committed. Both MJ and O’Reilly did not want any more suffering as more damage could have been done by the media than actually having to fight the allegations. When MJ went through his 2005 trial, we see how much damage was done by the media, even though MJ was found not guilty. The media did not report fairly nor accurately about the details in the testimony to which the jury decided the outcome. Read the article and compare it to the interview MJ had with LMP – the reasoning compared in both cases is not different, so it is not uncommon to “want to move on”.
2. Assumption that paying a settlement was admission of guilt.
It is clearly stated in these court documents that payment was made not as admission of guilt and was stated as such in the writings detailing the settlement. (http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf p.2, lines 12-25)
There was no evidence against MJ to charge him with sexual misconduct to a minor, based on the interview with Jordan Chandler or else MJ would have been charged in 1993. “Jordan Chandler was interviewed after the settlement by detectives seeking evidence of child molestation, but no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview.” (Mesereau, 2005) Jordan Chandler refused to testify and supposedly left the country sometime after the settlement, according to the 2005 transcripts. According to the Chandler family, Jordan is in the US under an assumed identity. Jordan said himself that he feared CROSS-EXAMINATION. If you are telling the truth, there is no reason to fear a cross exam. June Chandler said in the 2005 trial, that Jordan Chandler did not see or speak to his mother since 1993- Mr. Mesereau learned that Jordan emancipated himself legally from his parents. The fact Jordan Chandler would not testify in 2005- all these facts speaks volumes. Furthermore, if Jordan was going to testify, Mr. Mesereau was well prepared for Jordan Chandler and has witnesses lined up to disprove Jordan’s testimony. (Mesereau, 2005)
Several of these facts were under-reported. Mr. Mesereau has maintained consistency every time he has spoken about MJ in the media. Several other Vanguards for MJ have spoken out over the years with the same consistency, however, the truth is still not well known worldwide. We recommend you read the 2005 testimony as well as research from reliable sources.
3. Misconception: Any payment was considered “hush money” to avoid criminal trial.
This statement is incorrect because the settlement money was paid by an insurance against MJ’s wishes. If the settlement payment was “hush money” to avoid persecution, there would be no need for further investigation (whether to charged MJ with a crime or not) after the civil settlement was paid. It was decided during the ongoing investigation that MJ would not be charged with a crime due to lack of evidence, not because the settlement money was paid; there is no possibility that the money paid was “hush money” to avoid a criminal trial because the settlement payment did not cease investigation proceedings. (http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf, pg.9, lines 17-28, p10 lines 27-28, p11, lines 1-5 regarding the “inference to payment” was not meant to imply guilt – MJ was subsequently never charged with a crime)
In response to the settlement, Larry Feldman, Chandler’s lawyer, said that “NO ONE bought anyone’s silence” (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-05/local/me-19273_1_santa-barbara/2) and to do so is a felony according to California Penal Code 138. (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/138.html)
So you see, it is impossible that the settlement “meant MJ wanted to pay out to avoid persecution in a criminal trial” since the civil suit did not cease investigations on the same case and bribery is a felony. It’s really that plain and simple.
The media had a field day in 1993 (and since) reporting only that a settlement was paid and writing speculation to the reasons why. The media once again did not tell the whole story. Public opinion regarding innocence or guilt was already influenced by the media since 1993. The news about the settlement was misrepresented in the media in hundreds of newspapers across the globe, and was repeated in thousands of articles every time MJ’s name was mentioned. These misrepresentations caused people to maintain many assumptions and misconceptions about MJ to this day.
Plain and simple, MJ was and always will be innocent. It’s time the truth is told.
Permission to link two amazing articles written regarding media bias entitled “Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities Parts 1 and 2″ from VindicateMJ:
Our Sincerest thank you, “Vindicating Michael” administrators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhNd3C7dCc&feature=player_embedded#at=19 Mr. Mesereau explains aspects about 1993 in court, civil case and law.
Geraldine Hughes, “Redemption” (synapsis here: http://aboutmichaeljackson.com/m-news+article+storyid-25.html)
Aphrodite Jones: “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, 2007
2005 transcripts -MJ trial (http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq )