Or What happened in Chandlers’ house on July 11-16, 1993
1. What was going on in Evan Chandler’s house on July 11-16, 1993
In their book «All That Glitters» (ATG) the Chandler brothers tell us the following story about the events of July 11-16 1993:
July 11, at 10:00 pm, Jordan was brought to Evan’s house; Evan «was determined to find out the truth» began by telling his son that he should not lie… but on that, according to Evan, the conversation abruptly ended.
July 12, Evan Chandler and his lawyer Barry Rothman, who without signing any contracts had been plotting together for a month by then (that’s according to Evan, but could be longer), suddenly signed a retainer (work-for-hire contract) on July 12. Then, in the afternoon of that day, Evan and Barry Rothman sent a stipulation to the custody agreement with a messenger to the Pellicano’s office for June Chandler to sign.
July 13, June signs the stipulation to the custody agreement.
July 14, Barry calls psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and asks him to see an anonymous father. According to Chandlers, Evan only wanted to «understand what was going on between Jordan and Michael.» However, Gutierrez in his book presents a copy of Abrams’ letter, and it is clear from it, that Rothman and Chandler asked Abrams to give his opinion on the specific question: is this story a sufficient reason to report it to authorities?
The subject of Abrams’ letter: «Consultation Re applicability of Penal Code from paragraph 11165 onwards». THAT was the question Rothman asked from Abrams. The paragraph 11165 onwards is a part of Article 2.5. “Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act”, which does not explain “what happened between Jordan and Michael», but explains when, how and who must report their suspicions to authorities.
July 15 (apparently, it was 15th, not the 14th, as they say in ATG) Evan goes to see Mathis Abrams in person (no “hypothetical questions” were asked). Judging by the copy of Abrams letter in VG’s book, the doctor concluded that the situation IS a sufficient reason to report it to the authorities… but instead of reporting it to authorities, Evan begins to drivel: he decides that he “lost his son”, so Jordan would go on tour with Michael, and Evan “will return to his normal life”, and the only Evan’s worry left is that he needs to attend the boy’s teeth, so that Jordy could go on the tour with healthy teeth.
July 16, according to Evan, he brought his son to his dental office, where anesthetist Mark Torbiner put the boy to sleep, Evan pulled a baby tooth, Jordan came to his senses and after some struggle answered “Yes” to Evan’s question «Did Michael touch your penis?» (the very same and only point, btw, Dr. Abrams discussed in his letter). After that, Evan goes to Rothman, happily brags to him that Jordan «confessed». Rothman receives a letter from Abrams with the conclusion, simply speaking: «Yes, the story of this father is enough reason to report to the authorities.»
(Gutierrez, who had the draft of the Chandler’s book in his hands, says that Abrams’s letter came before Evan took his son to his office, not after, as Chandlers claim in their book)
And here’s what seems to have actually happened:
July 11, at 10:00 pm, Jordan was brought to Evan’s house. Evan, «determined” to get Jordan to agree to participate in his venture, told Jordan about Gutierrez tales of «other boys», turned Jordan against Michael and persuaded him to lie against Michael. Evan’s two conversations with his son, that Chandlers cite in their book (on July 11 and 16), were actually one long conversation, that took place on July 11.
July 12, Evan goes to Rothman, happily brags to him that Jordan «confessed» (what he describes in his book as happened on July 16). After that, Evan and Barry signed a retainer. The text of Rothman’s 1994 lawsuit against MJ described that retainer: «In July 1993, Rothman was hired by Mr C. and his minor son to seek redress in court against popular singer Michael Jackson for alleged wrongdoing against the boy.»
Then Evan and Barry Rothman send June Chandler a stipulation of the custody agreement to Pellicano’s office.
July 13, June signs the stipulation of the custody agreement.
July 14, Barry calls psychiatrist Mathis Abrams with a request to see «anonymous father», to listen to his story and give his opinion on the question: is this story a sufficient reason to report to the authorities? The REAL purpose of that was to get an official looking piece of paper from a licensed psychologist & lawyer (Abrams was both) with the words «sexual harassment of a minor» on it, in order to have something to threaten Michael with (this is exactly how that letter was used on August 4).
July 15, Evan goes to see Mathis Abrams.
July 16, Rothman receives a letter from Abrams with the conclusion: «Yes, this father’s story is a sufficient reason to report to the authorities». The final quote of Abrams’ letter in ATG:
(and Gutierrez writes, that Evan took his son to his dental office after the letter from Abrams arrived, because the story with the “dental office confession” was invented after they had got the letter.)
Now, to the details. WHAT FACTS POINT TO ALL THAT:
1. The first thing we should consider, is that no one has ever molested Jordan Chandler. Not only Jackson, but we can safely say that no one ever — because, judging by his conversation with Gardner, Jordan had no idea how being a real victim of abuse feels.
The fact, that Michael Jackson did nothing wrong to Jordan is proven here (an article in Russian). There are, of course, much more facts to prove Chandlers’ lies: the very chronology of the case proves it — i.e., Evan begins to «suspect» for no reason at all, right after Michael refused to cooperate with him on movies, then, in May-June, Jordy is asked about his relationship with MJ )by Evan, by Dave, by his mother), then for an hour he was interrogated by Anthony Pellicano – and he denies any wrongdoing.
Evan Chandler, May 29 (ATG, p. 46):
«Hey, Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?»
«That’s disgusting!» Jordie reacted. «I’m not into that.»
Dave Schwartz, after Evan told him about his “suspicions’ in June 1993 (ATG, p. 75):
[Dave] testified that prior to July 1993 … he ( asked June if she thought Michael was sexually abusing the boy. She did not think so, Dave said, and he believed her.
But several weeks later, Dave asked again. June still did not think so, so again he believed her. Then he asked again. And again. And again.
…Dave also testified, «I’d kid Jordie, ‘Who’s on top?’ … I’d be kidding him, but checking him out.»
June Chandler, after Evan told her about his “suspicions’ in June 1993 (June’s words in ATG, p. 183).
«And Jordie’s saying, ‘But, Mom, there’s nothing going on.’ And I’m saying, ‘Okay, you’re my son, I believe you.’ And Michael’s looking at me and saying the same thing.
Anthony Pellicano, July 9 (recording of Pellicano’s telephone conversation with Jim Mitteager in September 1994, published in the blog of Aphrodite Jones)
“… actually, he [Jordan] couldn’t wait to jump in and go play video games. I said, “You don’t understand how serious this is. Your father is going to accuse Michael of sexual harassment. He’s going to say a bunch of stuff. » He says, «Yes, my father is trying to get money.» … I combed this boy with a fine comb. … and if you sat and spoke with this boy, you too would have no doubts. … We discussed it over and over again. I tried to make him sit, and he wanted to play video games while I was sitting there . »
…then on August 4, Evan demanded 20 million from Michael, and Michael refused to pay anything. Then June goes to court to take his son back from Evan, and Evan doesn’t go to the court and doesn’t say to the judge about his «suspicion», but acts through a psychiatrist … and so on. A lot of things point to Chandlers’ lies, but the story linked at the beginning of this paragraph (about how Jordan’s story do not fit into the actual calendar), is the simplest and most obvious evidence of his lies, just like Safechuck’s «railway station» and Robson’s «Grand Canyon».
And since no one really abused Jordan, the story Jordan told the police and psychiatrists could be only one of the two things: either a false memory, or a memorized script.
2. Jordan’s story is not a false memory – it’s way too detailed for that.
We can read the story, that Jordan told in detail, in his conversation with Gardner. That is a real transcript of the conversation, and here is what confirms its authenticity:
1) the statement by Jordy Chandler of December 28, 1993 (typed by Larry Feldman) follows exactly the logic of Jordy-Gardner interview, and many phrases even coincide word for word – when writing the statement, Feldman used the transcript of JC’s conversation with Gardner (but Feldman corrected some chronology mistakes, presumably noticed by Gardner);
2) everything we know from other sources about Jordan’s interviews with DCFS and police (from 17th of August till 1st of September) matches perfectly with that transcript;
3) some of Jordan’s phrases from the transcript are almost exact copies of Evan’s phrases in his conversation with Dave on July 8, 1993, as well as of Evan’s phrases from various parts in the Chandlers book. Could Ray deliberately take Evan’s lines and insert them into Jordan’s speech? Of course not, it would show Jordan as a liar, speaking from Evan’s words!
4) Ray Chandler showed excerpts from the audio recording of Jordy-Gardner interview in Peretti’s film «Michael Jackson: What Really Happened». Everything Jordan says there matches his phrases from the transcript;
5) when Ray Chandler started giving interviews about his book in 2004, he promised to post «interviews with psychiatrists» on his website — and the date of the transcript on the hater’s site, where we found it, coincides with what Ray promised then;
6) and, finally, not even the most talented of writers is capable of inventing such a natural dialogue — a professional speech of a psychiatrist, «unkempt logic» (that is, from time to time the conversation veers off the topic, they dwell on trifles — such as where the toilet is, and what «Century City» is – and sometimes, on the contrary, they skim too superficially on essential points), Jordan does not remember the dates and his confusion of dates is not in his favor (although Ray knows the dates very well), some of Gardner’s questions obviously confuse Jordan… and so on.
And since the interview with Gardner is real, then everything, that Jordan said there, cannot be a false memory. Because, as Ray Chandler once rightly remarked, «Where did all these details come from?»
Ray says in his “Mary Fischer GQ Magazine Rebuttal” (and I totally agree with his ironic comment):
“Two dentists [Evan and Mark Torbiner], with no knowledge of the brainwashing technique, so cleverly injected fake information into a child’s head, that over a period of more than four months the child fooled every professional who interviewed him, including psychiatrists, experienced investigators, social workers, attorneys and district attorneys?»
Under the influence of sodium amytal, it would probably be possible to plant a couple of false images into someone’s mind. But no drug is able to plant in anyone’s head a smooth and coherent three-hour legend with a lot of specific details and names. More importantly, Jordan does not only describe specific events, but also gives his own assessment of them, explains what he «thought» about this and that “while it happened”, and mentions Spence and Safechuck, whom he himself he did not know and never saw in his life, and so on.
So, the version of «false memories» is out of the question.
The version that Jordan was forced to lie — for example, under the threat of Evan to kill him, kick him out of the house, etc., if he refused to comply — is also ruled out. If Jordan had told this story against his will, he would not have learned it so diligently and in so many detail, and would not have tried to find the right answers to unexpected questions from Gardner.
Hence the conclusions:
a) Jordan was a voluntary participant, fully conscious and in sound mind,
b) a certain period of time, that Jordan was in Evan’s house was devoted to creating and memorizing the script — Evan, of course, omits that period in his book.
3. Evan and Jordan provably LIE that they «never talked about it again.»
According to Evan and Jordan, in the dentist’s chair, barely coming out of anesthesia, Jordan answered “yes” to Evan’s question “did Michael touch his penis”. And they “never talked about it again”.
And Jordan asked his father to promise, that he would not tell anyone.
But when Evan took Jordan to the psychiatrist Dr. Abrams, Jordan suddenly became so talkative, that he told a stranger everything in detail? Between «pulling a tooth» on July 16 and visiting the psychiatrist a month later, there must have been at least a period, when Evan urged his son to speak openly against Michael. Which makes their claim “they never talked about it again» a lie.
There was definitely such a period. First, Evan himself describes how Jordan did not want to «confess», and how Jordan did not want anyone to know «about it» — and then the boy easily told Abrams everything? Second, in any case (was there an abuse or wasn’t) 13-year-old heterosexual boy would not so easy tell all this about himself and betray a friend, even a former friend. Third, Evan let it slip himself that he urged Jordan to openly oppose Michael:
“…my son wants this to go forward, he wants to protect other kids in the future and because I promised him if he told me the truth … that in the end he would be a hero” (ATG, p. 141)
And fourth, in a conversation with Gardner, Jordan often uses Evan’s phrases, which means that there must have been a period when these phrases managed to get into Jordan’s speech:
Evan, in ATG, about Jordy’s “confession”: «The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.», “it would release him from the prison in his mind«,
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “[After I confessed to my father I felt] like a prisoner being released from prison.”
Evan in a conversation with Dave: «…he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his own selfish reasons.»
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “…he loved me selfishly. Like, regardless of the fact that what he was doing might hurt me, he continued.”
Evan in conversation with Dave: “Extremely harmful to him. … Everybody agrees with that. I mean, they — it’s their opinions that have convinced me to not stay away.”
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt…”
Evan in a conversation with Dave: “…and in some ways Michael is using his age and experience and his money and his power to great advantage to Jordy.”
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “…he’s using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don’t have as much experience as him, and don’t have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He’s using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness – to get what he wants.”
That kind of reasoning could not have been planted in the boy’s head under any drug. And the boy could not even have remembered such words, if he heard them only once. Jordan remembered them, because he heard it many times, and/or learned them by heart.
Fifth, there are clear indications that Evan discussed the chronology of the case with Jordan. In Gutierrez’s book, the caption to one of the pages of the Chandlers’ draft pages reads: «Jordie’s chronology, that he did with his father,» and on another page of the draft, Evan himself directly states (about April, 18): «NOTE: Jordan is not sure about the exact date of the following events … » .
Plus, Evan and Ray constantly talk in their book about how Jordan told them what had been happening in Michael’s camp before Jordan came to live with his father:
«But according to Jordie Dave not only brought [the tape] home, he played it for June and Michael.. » (Page 66, Jordan told Evan and Ray about how they listened to a tape recording of Evan-Dave telephone conversation at Dave’s house late on the evening of July 8)
«Don’t worry,» Dave said to Michael that evening [July,8], «I’ll deal with Evan.» (in a footnote to this dialogue, Ray explains: “Dave and Michael’s conversation, as quoted by Jordie” (p. 67)
«Jordie stated that when he arrived, Michael took him aside…» and «Michael scared me,» Jordie later recalled…» (p. 78-79, Jordan tells Evan and Ray about his talk with Pellicano on July, 9)
So the story that after his dental treatment Jordan only said “Yes” and they never talked about anything else, is an obvious lie. They had a lot to discuss and to agree on. And in that case, a simple «yes» after anesthesia would not be of any use for Evan, anyway.
4. Fourth thing, that points to the fact that «the confession of Jordan on July, 16 in the dentist’s office» never happened, is a complete mess of that dental story.
The Chandlers’ version in their book is as follows:
On the first day, July 11, when Jordan arrives at his father’s house, Evan demands that his son “should not lie”, the conversation ends abruptly, and for the next three days Evan and his son do not even speak about that topic at all – nevertheless, Evan says that in those three days his “level of suspicion was rising rapidly”. Evan literally admits that his “level of suspicion” grew all by itself, unrelated to any events.
On July 14, Evan “suddenly” decides to go to a psychiatrist «to understand what is happening between Jordan and Michael”. So, Evan is not that enthusiastic to «learn the truth” from Jordan himself, but, at the same time, wants to «learn the truth» from a stranger, who does not know neither the boy, nor the «adult» in question.
The Chandlers write that Evan went to Dr. Abrams on July 14, and the doctor allegedly said that Evan had “lost his son already” (which is BS, no doctor would say that, besides – what does that “loosing his son” even mean?). Evan decided that since he “lost his son already”, then he, Evan, would «get back to normal life,» and let Jordan go on tour with Michael, and Evan just have to make sure Jordan goes on tour with healthy teeth. Evan says, that on the evening of the same day (July, 14) he told Jordan to come to his office tomorrow (i.e., July 15). Tomorrow morning they go to Evan’s office — and it is suddenly July, 16!
(Evan simply forgot that Rothman called Abrams on the 14th, and Evan went to Abrams, apparently on the 15th — and there is nothing criminal in such forgetfulness. The “crime” is that they are adjusting the logic of events to their erroneous dates, which means they deliberately lie).
But the main indicator, that the dental story is false, is that Evan’s explanation of why they allegedly went to the dentist’s office, is far beyond the logic of human behavior: during the whole month Evan is so worried about his son that he is “ready to ruin his own life” (as he told Dave on July, 8), then Evan goes to the psychiatrist «to understand what is happening between his son and Michael», the psychiatrist allegedly tells Evan that he “had lost his son”. “Dr. Abram’s warning penetrated Evan to the core, leaving him even more frightened for his son than before, and more despondent about the eventual outcome.” But, at the very same time “a strange peace came over Evan”, he «accepted that his son was lost to him”, and «this acceptance brought Evan great relief, because now he, too, could go back to a normal life”, and that is why he’ll give Jordan to his mother tomorrow, and Jordan will go on tour with Michael, and Evan’s only concern left is that the boy needs to get his teeth treated before the tour:
“You know what, Jordie,” he said, before going to bed that night. “I think you should come into the office tomorrow. You’re going to be gone a long time and I haven’t checked your teeth in ages.» (ATG, p. 88-89)
In addition, in their book Chandlers mention a letter, typed by Geraldine Huges, which Barry Rothman delivered to Evan on July, 16 with a messenger. But Evan assures us that after the dentist’s office, he went to Barry’s office to brag about Jordie’s “confession”. Why would Rothman sent the letter with a messenger, if Evan, as he says, visited Rothman that day, and could have taken the letter himself? Is Evan lying about visiting Rothman that day?
Plus, if Jordan had really «confessed» on July 16 — exactly as the Chandlers tell us — Evan would have reported it to June. But they kept silent until mid-August.
Such confusion, lack of logic and such inconsistencies indicate that the «dental story» is false. Either partially false, or completely (that is, it didn’t happen at all).
5. Strangeness of the document — «consent to anesthesia»
This document, signed by Evan, we have found in Gutierrez’s book:
The first peculiarity of it, is that Chandlers don’t mention this document in their book. Why would not Chandlers show us the document, that seemingly proves part of their story about Jordan’s «confession» after the anesthesia?
The second peculiarity is the very fact, that this document came into Gutierrez’ possession. If the document about Jordan’s consent to anesthesia had been written for actual medical reasons, as Chandlers claim — rather than had been concocted solely for the story of Jordan’s «confession» — then the document would have remained either with anesthetist Mark Torbiner or in Evan’s office. Or Evan would have kept it at his home, but with his personal papers, not together with a draft of his book. This document does not say anything like «anesthesia when Jordan confessed» — then where did Gutierrez find it and why did he take it?
(And VG stole Chandlers’ docs, Chandlers didn’t just give them to him. Chandlers claim in their book that the docs were stolen from Larry Feldman’s office, but, judging from the fact, that VG shows in his book a photo of a file-cabinet in Chandlers house and adds to it that “in Jordie’s house you would find safes filled with files, photographs, documents of the case and the boy’s diary”, he took them from that particular cabinet in Chandler’s house).
The fact that Gutierrez took the «consent to anesthesia» along with other documents relating to the abuse story, shows that this paper was being kept with the rest of Chandlers’ “abuse story” papers — which means that the Chandlers viewed the «consent to anesthesia» as part of their “abuse story”.
The third peculiarity is that the «consent» does not name the specific drug that Jordan was supposedly injected with. It’s only indicated that it was «intravenous». But what was injected? Sodium amytal? Glucose solution? Saline? What did Evan agree to inject his son with? The document looks phoney.
The fourth peculiarity is that the document has three different handwritings on it, and none of them belongs to Jordan. Which means, that in addition to Evan, Mark Torbiner, and Jordan (as they describe), someone else had to be present in the dentist’s office (if they drew up this document in the dentist’s office at all).
The fifth peculiarity: the time on «agreement» — 8:31 am.
From ATG, p. 89:
«Jordie and Evan met Mark at Evan’s office at 8:30 am. As it turned out, the x-rays showed that Jordie had no cavities, just the overretained baby tooth that was causing the permanent one underneath to come in crooked. Evan cleaned his son’s teeth while Mark set up his equipment, and when the boy was sedated Evan performed the thirty-second procedure».
So, they came at 8:30 in the morning, did an x-ray, examined an x-ray image, did an examination and cleaning the boy’s teeth — and all this was done in one minute?
I think this “one minute” shows, that the dental story was invented later. If the decision to use anesthesia came up as Evan describes, then they would have first examined the teeth and take an x-ray, and only then would have decided whether anesthesia is really necessary, and, probably, once again would have suggested to Jordan to endure the “30-second operation» without general anesthesia. Then they would have indicated the later time in the «consent». In another variant — if they really came to Evan’s office on July 16, to stage a «confession» (if they thought that Pellicano installed a wiretap there) – then, being there, they would have realized that it’s illogical to sign the «consent to anesthesia» immediately, right as they came.
Another peculiarities are contradictions and inconsistencies in the stories of other people who communicated with Chandlers. For example, Gutierrez writes that “…Dr. MarkTorbiner, an anesthesiologist and a friend of Evan’s, administered gas to put Jordie to sleep”, not an intravenous drug. And in Taraborrelli’s book, although he speaks of an intravenous drug, it happened on August 2, not July 16 — given that Taraborrelli communicated with Evan, was this date given him by Evan? Mostly, Taraborrelli is copying the Chandlers story from Gutierrez’s book, and it is strange that Taraborrelli did not use the “July, 16” version of Gutierrez.
6. Gutierrez almost directly states that Jordan’s consent to participate in Evan’s venture was not obtained while pulling the boy’s tooth.
In his book, Gutierrez describes the dental story the same way as Chandlers do – i.e, Jordan confessed on July, 16 after anesthesia and pulling a baby tooth. As a «confirmation» of this, Gutierrez gives a photocopy of the «consent to anesthesia.» However, while writing the captures to this document, Gutierrez could not resist the urge and boasted of his insider knowledge:
«The other document show when Evan administered anesthesia to his son. For many this is how he got the information about the abuse»
The story of “Jordan’s confession after the anesthesia” is given “for many” – i.e., for other people. But Gutierrez himself knows that it happened quite differently.
7. Evan already knew Gutierrez’s tales by the time he spoke to Jordan on July, 11.
VG was undoubtedly already present in Evan’s life and undoubtedly told him his tales about the «other boys» — including Spence and Safechuck, whom Jordan could not have known himself. And since Evan had heard these stories already, he, of course, told them to Jordan. (Something like “See what is your friend! I got the information from reliable sources!»)
Evan tells us, that on July 11, he told his son that he should not lie, the boy did not reveal anything … and that was all. We could have believed this, if we assumed that Evan tried to make his son talk, did not succeed, got tired, and just gave up… if not for VG. Since Evan already knew the VG stories, then, being «determined to find out the truth», as he says, Evan would have told those stories to Jordan. And if Jordan heard VG tales from Evan that day, then Jordan, naturally, would have been impressed by them — which means that their conversation could not have ended the way Evan describes.
8. Evan’s two conversations with Jordan was actually one conversation, and it happened on July, 11.
Below are the two of Evan’s conversations with Jordan (July, 11 and July, 16) that the Chandlers cite in their book. Pay attention to the points that indicate that this was ONE conversation:
1) About July 11, Evan says that he was «determined» — why then the conversation ended almost in mid-sentence?
2) in the first conversation Evan “wondered if his suspicions were wrong” — wondered only “for a moment”, but nothing happened after that moment?
3) in both conversations Evan talks about «wiretapping the room», in almost the same words,
4) in both conversations Evan talks about how «it’s all about lies”, in almost the same words,
5) the second conversation begins with Evan’s words «Do you remember when you arrived at my house, I told you that if you lie to me, I will destroy Michael?» However, describing the first conversation, he did not tell us this part of the conversation,
6) the first conversation ends with Evan «praying», and the second conversation begins with Evan «praying» — this is clearly a «cutting line», the part where the dialogue was divided into two parts,
7) no new ideas appeared in the second conversation — for example, Evan didn’t use Dr. Abrams’ “revelations’. All the arguments that Evan gives in the second conversation, have already been used in the first one, or have already sounded in the telephone conversation between Evan and Dave on July 8 (like, «I will destroy Michael»). And if all these arguments were already in Evan’s head before July, 11, then what would have prevented him from using them on July, 11? Nothing would. Of course, he used them all in their first conversation.
Conversation on July 11, from ATG.
Jordie was dropped off at 10 pm, Sunday night. Evan would have one week with him and was determined to find out the truth before he gave the boy back. <…>
«Don’t even think about lying to me,» Evan cautioned his son. «This whole thing is about lying, nothing else. If someone lies to you, then you can’t trust them. And if you can’t trust them there’s no sense having a relationship. Just so you know, I had your bedroom at Mom’s house bugged and your phone tapped. I know everything you and Michael did. This isn’t about that, this is about lying. Do you understand?»
Evan had done none of those things. «I was sitting there lecturing him about lying and then proceeded to lie to him. But I was desperate. What choice did I have? I knew he wasn’t going to come right out and tell me. I prayed he would, but I knew he wouldn’t. As far as I was concerned it was a matter of life and death for my son — emotionally speaking.»
Jordan listened to his father politely, as he always did, and then nodded yes, he understood. “He gave no indication he was even remotely concerned,” Evan remembered. “His performance was spectacular. For a moment, I wondered if my suspicions were wrong.»
Over the next few days…
I.e., the conversation allegedly was over at that. And that is ALL, that Evan tells us of the ‘first’ conversation”, when he was so “determined”.
Gutierrez in his book also ends the conversation at this exact point, but in a slightly different way: “Jordie’s “performance» was amazing. «If my son had taken a lie detector test right then and there he would have passed it. For a moment, I thought my suspicions were wrong.» «
So, Evan considered, that his suspicions could be erroneous, only «for a moment», but nothing happened after that moment? The conversation is over?
(Btw, in Aug. 26 1993 “LA Times” article they say: “The next month, the boy went to visit his father for a week. A police source said the two apparently had a long discussion July 11. The next day the father presented the mother with the stipulation barring contact with Jackson.”)
Conversation on July 16 (in Evan’s office after the anesthesia), from ATG:
“Hey, Jordie,” Evan said, trying to sound nonchalant. “Since this is our last day together, is there anything you want to tell me before we go?
“Yeah,” Jordan replied. (Evan prayed for a miracle). “I’m thirsty.”
“Have a sit, and listen very carefully to what I’m about to say. Do you remember when you came over to the house I told you that if you lie to me, I will destroy Michael?” Jordie nodded that he did. “Good. Keep that in mind, because I’m going to ask you a question. Do you care about Michael?
“Yes,” the boy answered.
“You could say you love him, right?”
“And you would not want to hurt him?”
“Okay, then, let me remind you of something. Remember I told you I bugged your bedroom?” Jordie nodded. “Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it.”
The boy remained silent, seemingly unimpressed by his father’s strong arm approach. Sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack.
“Look, Jordie, lots of famous people are bisexual and nobody gives a shit. They’re not embarrassed. It’s sorta cool, in a way.”
Addition from VG: «I told him not to feel ashamed.» remembers Evan, «that everyone knew that the rock singer Mick Jagger was bisexual and that nobody cared and that it was no big deal.»
After ten minutes of meandering monologue Evan had elicited nothing from his son but a blank stare. Frustrated, he switched back to his original approach. «I’m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I’m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it’ll be all your fault because you’re the one person who could have saved him.»
Addition from VG: «And you will see it on television and you’ll be to blame, because you were the only one who could have saved him.»
Without a plan, Evan began babbling away again, saying whatever came to mind in the hope of eventually hitting on something that would push a button in his son and free him.
«I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,» Evan lied. «This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie. So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him.»
Jordie remained silent for what seemed to Evan a hopeless amount of time.
Addition from VG:
Jordie continue to listen in total silence. Evan indicated that at that time he had thought: «Jordie has learned his lesson well from Michael. Michael had done a very good job of brainwashing him. Anyway, in my heart I knew the truth. I didn’t need Jordie to tell me. I wanted to know if Jordie was already that far from me, if we had lost contact with each other forever. Or if, perhaps, there was some sign indicating that there was hope to recuperate the relationship with my son, as we had before Michael entered our lives.»
Evan was persistent. To achieve his objective, he had to continue the interrogation of Jordie. He had to hear it from Jordie’s mouth to be able to negotiate.
«I know about the kisses, the masturbation and oral sex. So you’re not going to tell me something 1 don’t already know,» said Evan, intimidating his son.
(… Evan had a lot of suspicions, but he needed more confirmation. «I just mentioned everything that came into my head, thinking that some of it might be true.»)
Jordie gave him a surprised look, but did not say anything. Evan continued …
…Jordan remained silent for so long that it seemed to Evan a hopeless amount of time.
“Have I ever lied to you?”
“And I never will.”
«You won’t hurt Michael, right?»
“And I don’t want anyone to know. Promise me you won’t ever tell anyone.”
“I swear, no one.”
“Okay. What’s the question?”
“Did Michael touch your penis?”
Jordan hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered “Yes.”
Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged him back, tight.
“We never talked about it again,” Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn’t matter. “The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.»
Addition from VG:
«Yes…,» responded Jordie in a voice so soft that he could barely be heard.
«Say it louder!»
Evan hugged Jordie. He could now begin to fulfill his goals, goals which had nothing to do with justice or going to the police, but rather to negotiate.
Now consider the fact, that Jordan himself describes the situation very differently.
According to Jordan’s interview to Dr. Gardner (October, 6), no conversations on July 11 or 16 ever happened. Jordan also “didn’t remember” his father asking him about “the sex” earlier, on May, 29. In Jordie’s version, his father only asked him once, only one question after the anesthesia, and he just answered it straight away:
Gardner: “Who was the first adult you told?”
Jordan: “My father.”
Gardner: “How many times did he have to ask you before you told him?”
Jordan: “Once. … And he had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright – a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said – and his friend was gone, it was just him and me – and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”
9. Rothman’s retainer
The Chandlers write in ATG, that from June, 13, Rothman had worked with Evan totally for free, and the official contract between Rothman and Evan (“retainer agreement”) had been signed only on July, 12. Gutierrez adds in his book, that the retainer was titled: «Civil suits against Michael Jackson and other parties … for damages inflicted to you and your son». And Gutierrez is not lying here at all, because Rothman himself confirmed this in his lawsuit.
On July 29, 1994, Barry Rothman filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson, MJJ Productions, Bertram Fields, Fields Law Office, Anthony Pellicano, and the Pellicano Detective Agency, seeking monetary compensation for “defamation, tortious interference with business relationships and intentional infliction of emotional distress”.
His claim was dismissed by a judge, and on October 1, 1996, Rothman filed an appeal. Excerpts from that Rothman’s appeal:
“While negotiations were proceeding, a psychological evaluation of the boy, which had been filed with the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services … was «leaked» by a person or persons unknown. … whoever caused the leak, its result was what Rothman characterizes as a «firestorm» of publicity, for Jackson is a celebrity among celebrities, and the charges contained in the psychological evaluation were sensational.
The defendants responded to this negative public exposure by calling a press conference on August 29, 1993, and by making other statements to the media thereafter, in which the defendants not only denied the charges against Jackson, but made countercharges that Rothman and his clients had knowingly and intentionally made false accusations against Jackson in order to extort money from him. Extortion is, of course, a crime (Pen. Code, § 518 et seq.), and the charge was inevitably damaging to Rothman’s professional reputation. Moreover, as an additional consequence of the extortion charges, Rothman felt compelled to withdraw from his representation of the C[handler] family, causing him significant economic damage, as the C[handler]’s eventually retained other counsel who negotiated a settlement with Jackson that was never disclosed to the public, but was reputed to be over $25 million.”
In short, Rothman complains, that because Fields and Pellicano publicly accused him of extortion, he, Rothman, had to leave the case, Chandlers hired Feldman, and Feldman got all the money, and not Rothman.
Only that isn’t true. Rothman went into the shadows even before Pellicano voiced his accusations of extortion. Because Gloria Allred was hired by Chandlers to replace Rothman on August 21 (proof), and Pellicano first spoke publicly about the extortion on August 24.
But right now we are more interested in the text of the retainer, signed by Evan and Rothman on July 12, and Rothman himself refers to it in his appeal:
“In July of 1993, Rothman was retained by Mr. C. and his son, a minor, to seek redress against the popular singer, Michael Jackson, for alleged torts against the boy. Rothman contacted Jackson and began to negotiate on behalf of the C. family, but did not immediately file a lawsuit, as the family wished the matter kept confidential.”
Evan and Rothman signed that retainer on July 12, because Jordan agreed to cooperate on July 11. Otherwise, they would have signed the contract earlier. Why was the contract signed on July 12, not earlier, and not later? What had changed? Just that Jordan was brought to his father’s home. But the mere change of Jordie’s residence, and only for one week, did not change anything for Evan and Rothman. What did? Jordan’s consent.
Let’s look at the chronology:
June 13 (or earlier) Evan and Rothman begin to cooperate — but not officially, without signing any documents.
Evan put efforts into taking Jordan away from her mother.
Evan takes Jordan away, and on the first evening, July 11, asks him questions…
And the very next day “Rothman was retained by Mr. C. and his son, a minor, to seek redress against the popular singer, Michael Jackson, for alleged torts against the boy.”
Obviously, such an agreement was signed on July 12th, because Jordan agreed to take part in it on July 11th.
R.I.P. Sodium Amytal
First, let’s summarize the above analysis on what evidence suggests Jordan agreed on July, 11:
— Rothman’s contract with “Mr. C. and his son to seek redress against Michael Jackson, for alleged torts against the boy” wassigned on July, 12. They would not have been able to sign such a contract on July 12, if at that time, as Evan says, Jordan had categorically denied everything.
— The dialogue, which Evan divided for us into 2 parts (July 11 and 16) was clearly one dialogue. And judging by the fact, that Evan was so «determined» that first day, the dialogue happened on 11th of July, not 16th.
— By July, 11, Evan already knew VG’s stories, and since he knew them, he undoubtedly used them, trying to convince Jordan to «tell the truth.» And since Jordan heard these stories on July 11, he at least doubted his defense of Michael. Evan also undoubtedly cited the opinion of «experts». Remember Jordie’s words: «everyone says that this is harmful»?
— In the captures to the «consent to anesthesia» document, VG spills that “the dental story” was intended only «for many», which means it wasn’t true,
— «consent to anesthesia» signed by Evan, looks phoney,
— The reasons why they allegedly went to the dentist’s office on July 16, look extremely illogical and contrived,
— Evan is lying that he and his son didn’t discuss anything else. Obviously they discussed Gutierrez’s tales, especially about the «other boys,» and memorized the script, while Jordan was telling his father the chronology as he remembered it.
— Judging by how smoothly Jordan tells the story to Gardner, he memorized the entire script voluntarily, and, I would say, even eagerly.
And if Jordan agreed to take part in Evan’s scam on July 11, then Evan simply did not need any sodium amytals on July 16, and didn’t need any additional interrogations after any anesthesias.
Then what is the role of sodium amytal (SA) in this story? To understand this, I looked into original sources of SA story. After a couple of dozen articles and three books, after comparing all the stories from these texts with each other, it turned out that the myth about sodium amytal arose as a result of a simple misreading of one phrase from Mary Fisher’s 1994 article:
The phrase actually says: «A newsman [reported that] Chandler had used the drug on his son, [and that newsman also reported that] the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth.»
Mary Fischer didn’t make herself crystal clear, and as a result, her phrase was read as if Evan Chandler himself was personally involved in that report, and he himself personally stated that he used sodium amytal to extract a tooth. That is wrong.
After Fischer article, a broken phone started working. In various articles and books, authors began to write that “Chandler gave an interview by telephone on the radio,” or, in Taraborrelli’s book: “Evan has since confirmed that his son was given the drug, but only as a part of the dental procedure.” Or, in Ian Halperin’s book: “… the reporter asked Evan Chandler whether he had used the drug on his son. Rather than denying sodium amytal was involved, Chandler claimed he had used a drug only to pull his son’s tooth out and that while under that drug’s influence, the boy came out with the allegations. «
The story grew and flourished, but all of that was just an artistic representation of a misunderstood sentence from Mary Fisher’s article.
Ray Chandler posted «Mary Fischer GQ Magazine Rebuttal» on his website. Currently, this text can be found on the MJFacts website. We know that its author is Ray, because he refers to it in ATG.
“According to Fischer, a newsman at KCBS-TV (actually Harvey Levin who went on to create TMZ) in LA reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth. <…>
To purchase sodium Amytal legally, Torbiner would have been required to fill out a triplicate DEA form. No such form is on file with that agency. To obtain the drug illegally is difficult; there is no demand for it on the street.
Given the list of experts Fischer quoted about how the use of this drug would have been highly unethical and dangerous, it seems unlikely that Evan or Torbiner would have said anything to a reporter that might be construed as if they had actually used the drug. Their livelihoods and professional licenses were at risk, not to mention potential criminal charges«.
Ray’s arguments look convincing, especially the last one, which I have highlighted. Even more convincing is the very fact that Ray denies SA so strongly. After all, if Evan’s story was tied to the SA, then Ray would have known and support that story (as it happens with the other parts of the Chandler’s story).
Interestingly, in his “rebuttal” Ray says KCBS report was «this year», which could mean that Ray wrote a rebuttal to the «amytal theory» immediately after Fischer’s article was published in October of 1994. Which would be very illogical, if his brother was talking about SA just 5 months before that. Other parts of his «rebuttal» mention later events, such as Michael covering his children’s faces with masks and veils. But other parts could have been written later. The first to be written was the rebuttal to amytal story. (But it could be that Ray simply copypasted that part of Fischer’s text).
Now, remember that in the «consent to anesthesia» (a document from Gutierrez’s book), no drug is indicated at all, we see only the letters IV (intravenous). So, that document does not corroborate the amytal story. And VG writes in the book, that some gas was used, contradicting his own “evidence” of IV-anesthesia use.
The Chandlers’ book only says that Mark Torbiner «set up his equipment», then Jordan “was sedated», then Evan performed “the thirty-second procedure» to pull the tooth. When Jordan woke up, Mark Torbiner packed up and left. And Jordie says in a conversation with Gardner: “when I woke up … I was alright – a little out of it but conscious”. What described here doesn’t look like the effect form SA, which is said to last for several hours.
In a conversation with Gardner, Jordan only says that he was «put to sleep» and doesn’t mention HOW.
So the Chandlers in fact claim the «confession after anesthesia» story, but apparently no one of them ever said that sodium amytal was used for that.
Mary Fisher, in her 1994 article, not only talks about sodium amytal (it’s a mystery where she got that information from), but also sets out the theory that under the sodium amytal false memories could have been implanted in Jordan’s head. Thus, the theory of «false memories under amytal» is an absolutely unconfirmed hypothesis of Mary Fisher herself.
Diane Diamond writes in her book:
“Questions about whether or not Dr. Chandler “planted” the molestation in Jordie’s subconscious while the boy was under the influence of the anesthesia first surfaced in a story that ran in GQ magazine in October 1995 [actually 1994] written by Mary Fisher. In that report, Fischer stated: “In the presence of [Dr.] Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug [sodium} Amytal. It was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.»
Fisher’s allegation that the molestation story was “planted” in Jordie’s mind later became a mainstay on pro-Michael Jackson Internet sites, many of which offered up Fisher’s article as proof that their idol was innocent.
But information from several confidential sources, interviews with the boy’s uncle, Raymond Chandler, and documents including the anesthesiologist’s own report, clearly show that Jordie Chandler was not given sodium amytal that day.
Dr. Torbiner’s own written records from July 16, 1993, state that the boy was given a combination of Robinul and Vistaril. Contrary to what Fischer suggested, there is no reference in Dr. Torbiner’s records to the barbiturate sodium Amytal.
Further, the purchase of sodium Amytal requires the filling of specific forms with the DEA. No such forms were ever located by anyone in law enforcement or the media. Sodium Amytal also does not appear to be available on the black market.
Evan Chandler’s brother, Ray, argues that the claims in the GQ story made no sense.»
Of course, the mere fact that there was no mention of SA in Torbiner’s notes, does not prove anything. Torbiner was known for the illegal use of drugs, so he could easily get and use amytal illegally.
But Diamond could not get «the combination of Robinul and Vistaril» out of nowhere. I think we can believe her here, that these drugs were in Torbiner’s notes of July, 16. But those drugs are used in the form of tablets, suspensions or intramuscular injections, and not intravenously.
One of Michael’s fans and advocates, Willa, talks in her blog about her efforts to find the KCBS-TV footage, mentioned in Fisher’s article.
Willa writes: «On May 3, 1994, KCBS-TV broadcast a short news segment in which a reporter asked Evan Chandler if he had sedated his son with sodium Amytal…» Next Willa admits, that this information is based on Mary Fisher’s article, but, again, Fisher’s article does not say that «a reporter asked Evan Chandler», nor does it say that a reporter named the drug as «sodium amytal.»
Willa called KCBS-TV, and, after a long adventure, was able to speak with their librarian named Alan. Alan found a tape with the footage in question — it was “two-minute video segment dated May 3, 1994, with a label saying that it’s “about Michael Jackson and drugs”. Such a description makes the story of an interview with Evan and about SA highly unlikely. An episode just two minutes long? And the label says nothing about Chandler or SA, just “drugs”.
Willa could not get a copy of the tape — it required a permission of a certain Mr. Paul Button, who could not be reached and did not respond to emails.
Then, Willa wrote to Mary Fisher and Ian Halperin, asking if they had seen the footage themselves, and if they had a copy. Halperin did not answer (btw, he probably wrote the part about KCBS report, based on Fischer’s article plus Taraborrelli’s book). Fischer answered in short phrase, «I saw the tape, but I don’t have a copy.»
If all above didn’t convince you, that Evan Chandler didn’t take any part in KCBS-TV report, remember this: January, 25, 1994 Evan signed the Settlement which included confidentiality clause. Would he, right after that, be risking his money for a 2-minute TV-interview in May of the same year?
Now let’s take a closer look at what Fischer wrote in her article published in October 1994:
“In the presence of Chandler and Mark Thorbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.
A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth, and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations.
Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: «If I used it, it was for dental purposes.»
Let’s analyze what has been said here:
1) First, Fischer writes: «the boy was administered the sodium amytal», and she says nothing about where that information comes from.
2) Then Fischer talks about the TV report of May 3, 1994: “A newsman … reported … that Chandler had used the drug … but … only to pull his son’s tooth” It is not clear why Fischer writes «the drug», not “a drug” — because a newsman was talking about sodium amytal specifically? Or because a newsman just said “a drug”, and Fischer herself assumed that it was about sodium amytal, because she had heard about SA from someone else?
3) «for this article» – i.e., in a personal interview with Mary Fisher, Mark Torbiner answered the question about the sodium amytal, that «if he used it, it was for dental purposes.» Here it looks more specific: according to Fischer, she asked the question about SA specifically, and Torbiner did not directly deny this. However, there are no words “sodium amytal” in Torbiner’s direct quote. Again, it could well be that Fischer asked: «Is in true, that some anesthesia was used that day?» Torbiner answered evasively “if I used it…”, and Fischer later assumed that «it» was SA…
In the 1994 article, Fischer did not mention who was the source of her information about SA, she did not even say if there was such a source at all! Some investigators of Michael’s case believed her source to be the KCBS-TV report — but she describes it as if she had already heard about SA before the report appeared.
In 2012, Fischer published her article as a book, and added a “Foreword” to it, which said:
“Another source, a lawyer connected to the Chandler family, had dodged my calls for weeks and then, one day, he finally agreed to meet. During our lunch, he wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know about Evan Chandler and his attorney, and then, just as I got ready to pay the check, he dropped the bombshell. Do you know about the drug given to Jordie, in a dentist’s office, the lawyer casually asked? I hadn’t known about it — the drug turned out to be sodium Amytal — and that piece of information, confirmed by a second knowledgeable source, eventually led to my uncovering the evidence I presented in the GQ story”.
The lawyer connected to the Chandler family may have been Michael Freeman, June’s lawyer. Of all the Chandlers’ lawyers, he is the only one talkative, because he does not support their lies. In her 1994 article, Fischer openly named Freeman, when citing his other information, not related to SA, but in 2012, when writing the «Foreword» to her book, she could well have decided to do differently.
It looks like that lawyer only told her about a «drug», without a name. How exactly that drug «turned out to be sodium Amytal” is a complete mystery. Fischer says, SA was confirmed by a «second knowledgeable source», but she does not explain anything about that «knowledgeable source». What exactly did this source «know»? Did he know the Chandlers? Was he in any way connected to the Chandler case at all? Or it was some anesthesia and psychiatric drug experts, that Fischer cites in her article, who only suggested that the «drug» could be sodium amytal? Fischer writes that this «knowledgeable source» confirmed sodium amytal — but where did Fischer get the original information about SA to confirm it?
Thus, according to Fischer’s text, neither the lawyer connected to the Chandlers, nor the KCBS newsman, nor Mark Torbiner uttered the words «sodium amytal». All three of them talked about «drug». Only Mary Fisher herself speaks about sodium amytal in her article:
— “…a lawyer connected to the Chandler family [asked]: Do you know about the drug given to Jordie?”
— “A newsman … reported … that Chandler had used the drug on his son,”
— “Torbiner replied: «If I used it, it was for dental purposes.» (“it” could be about the «drug», about the «anesthesia» etc.)
It is only in the «Foreword” to her book in 2012, that she mentions the sources of her information about SA, but talks of them extremely vaguely:
“…the drug turned out to be sodium Amytal…”
“…that piece of information, confirmed by a second knowledgeable source…”
It could be, that there was only one source. If, for example, the lawyer told her about “a drug” and then someone else talked about SA, then Fischer might have mistakenly assume that the lawyer also meant sodium amytal. And then she could regard the lawyer as the first source, and the “knowledgeable” as the second one.
Note, that Fischer does not say that the KCBS newsman was her source. Nor does she say Evan Chandler was her source. She heard that report with her own ears. If she had heard Evan Chandler himself confirming the use of SA, wouldn’t she have named Evan Chandler as the main source?
However, all this does not exclude the presence of SA in the Chandlers’ case — at least, for example, so that Evan could interrogate Michael on May, 29. And, perhaps, that information leaked somewhere and got to Fisher.
It would be great to find out about that KCBS-TV report to put an end to this matter. The information might be known to Michael Freeman (perhaps it was him, who told Fisher about SA), the reporter Harvey Levin (Ray Chandler gave his name — apparently, Ray saw the report on TV), or Mary Fisher herself could clarify where she got that from. Taraborrelli met Evan in person — it is possible, that he asked Evan questions about SA.
This is my temporary theory of how the amytal myth was born:
First, Mary Fisher hears from a lawyer connected to the Chandlers, that Jordan “confessed” after being subjected to some kind of a drug — it was no secret to the lawyers, because Jordan and Evan talked about “confession after dental anesthesia” to the police and to Dr. Gardner.
At the same time, the trial of the Gary Ramon case happens (about false memories induced under SA), and in late December or early January the film about another case with SA was released. So, “false memory under sodium amytal” was a well known and discussed topic at the time.
Then, it is unclear: either someone, who really knew the Chandler case from the inside, told Fisher that there was SA in the Chandlers case, or maybe someone only suggested, that the drug after which Jordan confessed, could be SA.
Now let’s recall, that on May 9, Victor Gutierrez was in “Hard Copy” with the Chandlers’ documents in his hands, including “consent to anesthesia”. Surely, at the end of April, he was running around the news studios in an attempt to sell his story. Harvey Levin was probably the first to report on May, 3 that Jordan’s «confession» occurred after anesthesia. Previously, that was not reported in the press.
The KCBS report confirmed for Fischer what the lawyer, connected to Chandlers, said to her, and what was previously an unverified new information about «confession under anesthesia» became a fact for Fischer. At the same time, perhaps, her assumption about sodium amytal became a «fact» automatically: «since it is true about anesthesia, then it is also true about amytal.»
Such a «leap of thought» — from anesthesia to amytal — seems strange, but, interestingly, almost every one of Michael’s defenders made exactly the same mistake, i.e., after seeing the confirmation of dental anesthesia in the books of Chandlers and VG, they decided that this proves the use of SA specifically. For example, «Veritas Project», the first investigators of Michael’s case, after they compared the information from Fisher’s article about SA with the information from Jordan-Gardner interview, decided that the interview confirms the SA, though Jordan only says he was «put to sleep» and does not say HOW.
Veritas write: «While the boy never specified the name of the drug, it is likely that it was in fact sodium amytal because every other detail from Fischer’s report turned out to be accurate.»
Even if Fischer didn’t make mistakes in other parts of the story (which is not a sure thing), it does not mean that she was not mistaken about sodium amytal. She could have reasoned in the exact same way as Veritas themselves reason here. She might have thought, «While the KCBS newsman never specified the name of the drug, it is likely that it was in fact sodium amytal because every other detail from “anesthesia story” turned out to be accurate.»
It all depends on the first source where she first heard about sodium amytal, and how reliable the information of this person was. It is also important, when she heard about sodium amytal — before Harvey Levin’s report and her interview with Mark Torbiner, or after.
I am convinced, that Evan brainwashed Jordan enough on July 11, so that he and Rothman could have signed a retainer «against Michael Jackson for alleged torts against the boy” on July 12. And Evan didn’t need any anesthesia for questioning his son after that.
However, they still came up with the story of «confession after dental anesthesia». Why?
Even if such a chain of amazing events happened — Evan decided to give up and allow Jordie to go on tour with Michael, and for that he only needed to pull Jordie’s tooth on the last day, before he was supposed to give Jordie to his mother, and on the same day Jordie confessed — then all these medical procedures were to be considered a personal matter, not related to a story of “abuse”. However, they obviously emphasize the story of “confession after anesthesia”, they stick it out in every possible way and give very contrived reasons to it (like the fact that the tooth had to be urgently pulled because Evan decided to allow Jordan go on tour).
Why did they come up with this story and why do they stick it out? I cannot find an answer to this question yet.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the anesthetist Mark Torbiner was involved in this case. And he took very active part in it.
Chandlers write in their book, that it was Mark Torbiner who, back in April, was preoccupied with “sleeping in the same bed” question, and allegedly it was him, who insisted that Evan ask Carrie Fisher if it was safe for his son to hang around with Michael:
“…Mark suggested Evan ask her opinion of Jackson. Mark believed it was unhealthy for any child to be spending that much time with Michael, and he was hoping Carrie would concur. «You respect her, right?» Torbiner urged. «Why not see what she thinks?» (ATG, p. 19)
And in the same passage Ray says:
“…Mark, who over the next several weeks would become Evan’s Jiminy Cricket…»
Jiminy Cricket is the name of the cricket from Disney’s Pinocchio cartoon. In the cartoon, Jiminy Cricket became a constant companion, advisor and mentor for the protagonist. However, while basically calling Torbiner Evan’s «constant advisor», Ray does not tell us about any advice that Evan received from Torbiner «over the next several weeks». Apparently the advice was not of the sort that suited their version of the story. And, most probably, Torbiner’s advice related to his professional sphere – anesthesia and drugs.
Mark Torbiner took part in an episode of Evan’s interrogation of Michael on May, 29. He even came to Evan’s house, despite that day being a weekend and a holiday:
“Evan … called Mark Torbiner for advice. The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan’s office and bring it to his house.” (ATG, p. 47)
And Michael’s reaction to that «non-narcotic equivalent» is very similar to the effect of sodium amytal:
«When I went back to check on him, maybe ten minutes later,» Evan recalled,» he was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring his speech. Toradol is a pretty safe drug, and I thought that either he was having a rare reaction or had taken another drug and was having a combination reaction.»
Other than the drunk-like symptoms, Michael’s pulse and respirations were normal and he appeared to be in no real danger. So Evan took no further action.
Don t worry,» Evan assured his son, «Right now Michael’s the happiest person in the world. All we need to do is keep him awake and talking until the drug wears off.»
Four hours and a serious case of cottonmouth later, Michael began to sober up. While Jordie was downstairs fetching water, Evan decided to take advantage of Michael’s still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition…”
And, as you can see, Evan seems to be wondering where this behavior comes from, if he did NOT inject a narcotic. However, at the same time, he is sure that Michael is now the happiest person in the world, which happens under narcotics.
Torbiner also took part in a very strange story with Michael’s dental chart. (Here is the article in Russian about it, the story itself is in ATG, p. 50-52)
Mary Fisher researched the illegal activities of Torbiner with drugs, which she described in the article. If we suppose that she received that information from some of Torbiner’s partners, then they could have told her that at that time Torbiner was obtaining sodium amytal… Perhaps, it was for their interrogation of Michael, but Fischer linked it to «Jordan’s confession after anesthesia.» In that case Torbiner, of course, was safer to answer her question about the SA, that «if he used it, it was only for dental purposes.» See, how logical Torbiner’s answer looks in that case?
In that case (if Evan and Torbiner injected Michael with SA to interrogate him), it is also looks more understandable, why Ray would so zealously rushed to deny SA immediately after Fisher’s article was published.
(But remember that this is just my hypothesis, which needs to be checked with facts. I do not want to introduce another myth into the investigation of the Jackson case. It all depends on how Fisher heard about SA. If, when she was wondering what drug could Evan use to get the boy to confess (falsely or not), someone completely unrelated to the Chandler case told her that «it could have been sodium amytal,» then we should simply scratch SA out of the equation).
If the “confession after dental anesthesia story” was Mark Torbiner’s idea, then we need to think about the situation from the anesthesiologist’s point of view. Why and for what purposes would he suggest such an idea? May be, to justify the «confession» itself — given the fact, that Jordan didn’t want to «confess» for so long. May be, they wanted to make it look like the anesthesia weakened his resistance… Although, this is too complicated an idea for such a simple situation. Besides, Evan describes how Jordan remained silent for a long time even after the anesthesia, despite his father’s intimidation.
By the way, I suspect Ray is still trying to refute SA myth. Here, in the haters’ blog, we can read a correspondence of the author of the blog with Charles Thomson on this issue.
And it seems to me, that the author of that haters blog is Ray Chandler. He is operating too fluently with all the information about the Chandlers’ case. And just like Ray in “Mary Fischer GQ Magazine Rebuttal”, vehemently denies SA story.
Charles Thomson writes to him:
“The story of the sodium amytal does not originate with Mary Fischer. It originates with Evan Chandler, who confirmed he had administered the drug in a statement to a Los Angeles television station. Mary Fischer mentions that statement in her article, which was published in GQ and Esquire after undergoing several rounds of editing and fact-checking.»
No, Charles, Mary Fisher actually said: «A newsman … reported … that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth.» And of course, her article successfully underwent the fact-checking. because “a newsman” actually reported that. The newsman himself. Not Evan Chandler. About the «drug». Not about «sodium amytal».
Curiously, the author of the blog seems to know very well, what the newsman did or didn’t report in a 2-minute episode in May 1994, although the author of the blog says he began investigating the case only after Jackson’s death in 2009. The author of the blog says in his letter to Charles:
«In fact, Harvey Levin never claims to have had personal communication with Evan…»
That is correct. Harvey Levin simply reported that some kind of anesthesia was used in Evan’s office that day, when, as they claim, Jordan “confessed”.
How and why Jordan Chandler agreed to take part in Evan’s scheme
An excerpt from Ian Halperin’s “Unmasked”, p. 35:
“By the time I had finished reading Jordan Chandler’s affidavit for the first time, I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Jackson was a sick pedophile. Children don’t make that kind of thing up. I immediately vowed to redouble my efforts to prove his guilt. That was before I had ever heard of sodium amytal.”
(Note: Jordan Chandler never gave any affidavits. Halperin means Jordan Chandler’s “Declaration”, typed by Larry Feldman on a base of Jordan-Gardner interview, and signed by Jordan on December, 28, 1993)
Halperin’s quote above explains very well, why many of Michael’s defenders do not question the sodium amytal theory. It is hard to believe, that the 13-year-old boy came up with this whole story of molestation himself — not only with the «graphic details», but this whole long, coherent, rather logical legend. More importantly, what motive would a child have, so he would need to invent such a story? A 13-year-old boy from a wealthy family creates a plan of extortion? But if we assume that this story was put into his head under sodium amytal, then the situation with false accusations looks more believable… However, in this explanation of the Chandler’s case, sodium amytal is not the main ingredient. The main ingredient is that the story came from an adult and was invented by an adult — this is what makes the picture «more believable», not the SA itself.
If you are ready to consider the possibility, that the story was invented by an adult, then sodium amytal is not the only way for an adult to «put» the story into their child’s head. A lot of other ways are possible: a child can be forced, persuaded, deceived, bribed, and so on.
Now that we have scratched the SA out of the Chandlers’ dental story, the fact that Evan put the story into Jordan’s head remains unchanged, only that did not happen with the help of a drug, but in the most common human way – lies and persuasion.
In short, here’s how Evan persuaded Jordan: he convinced his son that Michael abused «other children», that Michael only pretends to be a friend to «manipulate him for his own purposes». Evan convinced his son, that the fate of «other children» was waiting for Jordan (and his father saved him from that ugly fate), that Michael hang around with him only for that sinister reasons, that Michael’s words about friendship were not real, but pursued a specific goal. Evan instilled hatred in his son for Michael, convincing his son, that Michael was never sincere with him, in fact, betrayed him.
It was because of the alleged betrayal that Jordan not only believed that Michael was «bad», but agreed to confront MJ and lie. When you only saw good things from a person, and then found out that that person was bad for someone else, this is not a reason to lie that he/she was bad to you. But «to betray someone who betrayed you», to take revenge on the traitor, is quite a reason. Moreover, if Jordan believed that Michael was «preparing him for a terrible fate» — then if he’d say that the events that «should have happened» have already happened, then it would be, in his opinion, not entirely a lie.
In addition, Evan convinced his son that this way «he will learn to stand up for himself in front of anyone who tries to push him around» and «will become a hero» (Evan’s own words from ATG). On top of that, parental authority worked. When you are 13 years old, and your parent confidently and ardently convinces you that this is the right thing to do, then the parent’s confidence and decisive intonations work even better than any magical drugs.
Now let’s take a closer look at the arguments Evan used. We have three «data clouds», so to speak:
1) Victor Gutierrez’ arguments. VG undoubtedly told Evan his stories, and Evan, of course, told them to his son;
2) Evan’s arguments for his son, which he described in the «conversations on July 11 and July 16” in his book;
3) other Evan’s arguments, which Evan blurted out in a conversation with Dave and then in his book.
1) Victor Gutierrez’ arguments:
What VG told Evan, is clear from what he told other people. A year before he met Evan Chandler, Gutierrez had this to say for Joy Robson:
“I told her that the basic idea of the book was to speak about Jackson’s friendships with minors… I told her that the truth was going to come out one day. I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now… I told her about the cases involving other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys. I gave details about how he went about persuading minors… I told her about Jackson’s employees, who had seen Jackson with her son in compromising positions.» (From the VG’s book).
Evan had heard all the same from VG. So, after talking with Gutierrez, Evan had the following arguments for his son:
Argument 1 «People know he abused other boys»
That such an argument was voiced by Evan for his son is proved by the fact that “other boys” appeared in Jordan’s story, and all of them are characters of Gutierrez’s book: Spence, Lewis, Culkin, Safechuck, Robson, Barnes.
In addition, Evan himself blurts out in his book that he did speak to his son about «other boys»:
“…my son wants this to go forward, he wants to protect other kids in the future…” (ATG, p. 141)
It was a very large part of Evan’s conversation with his son, it was not only about «other boys», but also about «people who know» — about » Jackson’s former employees», about «people in Hollywood» and about «experts».
Argument 2 «Look how he behaves with boys»
Here is what Jordan said to Gardner when asked why he (Jordan) thinks Brett Barnes is lying when defending Michael:
“Because in public, when he’s with Tommy [Brett Barnes], they’re very close together physically and verbally and relationship-wise. And if one were to observe things in public, how they acted to each other, one would come to that conclusion, that it was more than just a friendly relationship.”
It is quite obvious that the 13-boy could not carry out such «observations» and make such «analysis», and he could not express it himself in such phrases. These are the words of an adult – Evan’s. And Evan, since he himself had never seen Barnes, said this from the words of VG.
2) The second data cloud are the arguments, which Evan himself presents to us in ATG (and in his drafts in VG’s book), describing the conversations with his son, allegedly taking place on July 11 and 16.
Argument 3 «I know everything»
Although Evan admits to us, that he did not know anything, but simply lied to his son.
«I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,» Evan lied. … Jordie remained silent for what seemed to Evan a hopeless amount of time.
«I had your bedroom at Mom’s house bugged and your phone tapped. I know everything you and Michael did. …» (Evan had done none of those things.)
Argument 4 “If you answer «no», I take it for a lie.»
«This whole thing is about lying, nothing else. If someone lies to you, then you can’t trust them. And if you can’t trust them there’s no sense having a relationship. … I know everything you and Michael did. This isn’t about that, this is about lying. Do you understand?»
“It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie.”
Evan himself admits that Jordan “gave no indication he was even remotely concerned”, and «for a moment” he wondered if his “suspicions were wrong.»
Argument 5 «Say yes, or I will ruin Michael»
“…if you lie to me, I will destroy Michael…” <…>
“Do you care about Michael?” — “Yes,” the boy answered.
“You could say you love him, right?” — “Yes.”
“And you would not want to hurt him?” — “No.” <…>
«I’m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I’m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it’ll be all your fault because you’re the one person who could have saved him.» (VG: «And you will see it on television and you’ll be to blame, because you were the only one who could have saved him.»)
All you have to do is say yes, or no. That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him.»
It’s amazing that the Chandler brothers openly describe Evan’s conversation with his son this way. Evan is literally forcing his son to answer «yes», leaving him no other choice. The whole conversation can be boiled down to one phrase: «Tell me that Michael abused you, otherwise I will destroy Michael, and it will be all your fault.»
When I’m trying to understand the logic of this threat, my brain just explodes. What should Jordan have thought? “So, Dad, if I say Michael abused me, then you will be happy, and you will not destroy Michael. Hmm… but why? Is the fact that he abused me something good? And if I say, that Michael never abused me, then you will destroy him (for no one reason, apparently), and somehow I will be to blame for that?»
It seems unlikely to me, that Evan made such a threat. Arguments like this would have turned Jordan against her father, and he would not have cooperated.
Argument 6 «There is nothing to be ashamed of»
“Look, Jordie, lots of famous people are bisexual and nobody gives a shit. They’re not embarassed. It’s sorta cool, in a way.”
VG: «I told him not to feel ashamed.» remembers Evan, «that everyone knew that the rock singer Mick Jagger was bisexual and that nobody cared and that it was no big deal.»
3) The third “data cloud” are the moments when Evan (in a conversation with Dave, and then throughout the ATG text) blurts out what other arguments he basically had, or what arguments he actually used.
Argument 7 «I have evidence, you will believe it when you see it»
I came to the conclusion that Evan’s «evidence» was the fake “hush money agreements”, that Gutierrez had concocted in 1992 and was selling to tabloids through Taylea Shea in September of 1993.
From conversations with Dave:
MR. CHANDLER: I have the evidence to prove it. … You’ll believe it, too, when you hear — You show up in court and you’ll see it on the big fucking screen — and then you’ll know what I’m talking about.
And if Evan was talking about the «evidence» to Dave on July, 8, then he certainly was talking about the «evidence» to Jordan three days later, on July, 11. Something like, “He paid the parents off, I saw the agreements with my own eyes!”
Argument 8 «Michael is not your friend; he is using you for his selfish interests.»
Evan in a conversation with Dave:
MR. CHANDLER: … The problem is he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his own selfish reasons. He’s not the altruistic, kind human being that he appears to be.
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner:
“…he loved me selfishly. Like, regardless of the fact that what he was doing might hurt me, he continued.”
Argument 9 «Michael is manipulating you»
Evan in a conversation with Dave:
MR. CHANDLER: “…and in some ways Michael is using his age and experience and his money and his power to great advantage to Jordy.”
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “…he’s using his experience, of his age in manipulating and coercing … He’s using his power, his experience, his age … to get what he wants.”
Argument 10 «Michael is harming you»
Evan in conversation with Dave:
MR. CHANDLER: «…he’s also harming him, greatly harming him, for his own selfish reasons.» “Extremely harmful to him. … Everybody agrees with that. I mean, they — it’s their opinions that have convinced me to not stay away.”
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner: “what he was doing might hurt me”, «Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt…”
Argument 11 «All experts agree»
Evan in conversation with Dave:
“Extremely harmful to him. … Everybody agrees with that. — it’s their opinions that have convinced me…”
Jordan in a conversation with Gardner:
«Everybody thinks what he was doing could hurt…”
Now, the arguments from the ATG book.
I don’t think highly of Evan’s intellect, but even a child would realize that in order to win a person over to your side, you need to turn him against the opposite side. The following ATG excerpt show, that Evan considered this point:
Argument 12 «Michael and your mother are enemies»
(July 12) “The most critical, as far as Evan was concerned, was Jordie’s reaction. He had given no indication that he wanted his relationship with Michael to end. If forced to give it up, he might be resentful, which could drive him further from his father and deeper under Michael’s influence.” (p. 85)
In order to neutralize the «resentment against the father», Evan had to set his son up against Michael and June (as not to lose influence). So one of the episodes of their conversation was dedicated to Evan turning his son against both Michael and June.
This is further confirmed by another phrase from their book, which refers to September 1: «Though still undecided about the role his mother had played in all of this, Jordie…» (ATG, p. 143) This “still undecided” shows that Evan tried to turn Jordan against his mother, but as of September 1, he didn’t succeed — although in a conversation with social workers and police on August 17 and 18, Jordan did say that his mother «was seduced by glitzy life.»
Argument 13 «Michael doesn’t really love you»:
That first of all he needs to destroy Jordan’s trust in Michael, Evan thought back on June, 9, on the day of graduation at Nicky’s school:
Evan wanted to tell Jordie about Dr. Saunders, and Michael’s lies. He wanted Jordie to say, «Oh my God, Pops, he doesn’t really love me!» But painful as it was to admit, Evan believed that his son’s loyalty now belonged to Michael (ATG, p. 54)
Argument 14 «He’s lying to you, so you don’t need a relationship with him»:
Describing his conversation with his son on July 11 in ATG, Evan claims that he told his son something like: “don’t lie to me, son, otherwise I will stop communicating with you”. But I doubt even Evan is stupid enough to expect such a threat to take the effect he needed. Most likely, that argument was used against Michael:
“If someone lies to you, then you can’t trust them. And if you can’t trust them, then there’s no sense having a relationship.» (ATG, p. 84)
Argument 15 «We need to protect other children»
Argument 16 «No one will laugh at you»
Argument 17 «You will be a hero»
Argument 18 «You must learn to resist the one who tries to push you around»
These four arguments follow from one paragraph on page 141, where Evan tells us that his lawyer Richard Hirsch advised him to drop the accusations against Michael in exchange for Jackson’s lawyers pulling back their extortion accusations against Evan and Rothman. It happened as early as on September 1st. Evan went to seek additional advice from criminal defense attorney Arthur Baren. Among other things, Evan told Baren:
“My motive for wanting to go ahead with this is because my son wants this to go forward, he wants to protect other kids in the future and because I promised him if he told me the truth that nobody would ridicule him — that in the end he would be a hero. And he has to learn at this point in his life to stand up to anybody who tries to push him around. He believed me when I told him that…” (ATG, p. 141)
Almost every time Evan takes Jordan with him — to negotiations with Michael or to a meeting with lawyers — he explains this by saying that he supposedly wants Jordan «to learn to stand up to anybody who tries to push him around.»
In describing his meeting with lawyers on September 6, Evan and Ray reiterate this:
“They met at Shapiro’s office in Century City: Evan, Monique, Jordie and Richard Hirsch. Evan believed that Jordie should attend as many discussions as possible. After all, it was his life they were talking about. «I wanted him to see how the game is played and how each player operates, so he would never again be duped.» But most of all, Evan wanted Jordie «to learn to stand up for himself, even in the face of overwhelming adversity.» (ATG, p. 152)
And right after the dialogue with Arthur Baren on September 1, Evan informs us that that day Barry Rothman was terribly frightened by the accusations of extortion, and begged Evan to end this case. Further:
“Barry Rothman was not the only one experiencing a change of heart. Though still undecided about the role his mother had played in all of this, Jordie was now crystal clear that his father had saved him from an ugly fate, and that instead of being praised by the media and the public, Evan had been vilified. The injustice angered the boy to the point where his fear of public exposure had transformed into a desire to do whatever it took to clear his father’s name.» (ATG, p. 143)
From this paragraph, we learn that:
— On September 1, Barry Rothman «experienced a change of heart», he did not want to sue Jackson anymore. On the same day, Jordan also experienced a change of heart, but for a different reason: now he wanted to go forward against Jackson in order to «clear his father’s name.» Naturally, this shift in mind did not come without Evan’s effort. Jordan did not draw such conclusions himself, but Evan «helped» him to draw them. “The injustice angered the boy to the point where his fear of public exposure had transformed into a desire to do whatever it took to clear his father’s name.»
— Jordan was still not sure about his mother’s role in all of this. (we talked about this above).
— » Jordie was now crystal clear that his father had saved him from an ugly fate.»
— » instead of being praised by the media and the public, Evan had been vilified»
— Jordan had no desire and was afraid to speak out against Michael in public: «..,his fear of public exposure…»
This leads to four more arguments, used by Evan:
Argument 19 «You faced an ugly fate»
Argument 20 «It’s your mother’s fault, that you faced an ugly fate «
Argument 21 «I am saving you from an ugly fate «
Argument 22 «You must speak in court (and where else will be necessary) to clear the name of your unjustly vilified father»
So, given the VG stories, after carefully reading Evan’s conversation with Dave, Jordan’s conversation with Gardner, and the Chandlers book, we found 21 arguments that Evan used to convince Jordan. These arguments were used from July 11 to at least September 6 — in more than one conversation.
In what sequence Evan used these arguments, is difficult to say. There can be a lot of different variants. My current version is this:
First of all, I doubt Evan had any real suspicions. As awful as it sounds, Evan had hope that Michael abused his son — and this is perfectly illustrated by the example of how happily Evan informed Barry Rothman that his son «confessed.» (see ATG, p. 92-93)
On July 11, Evan probably began by trying to pull a “confession” out of his son, saying “I know everything,” “don’t lie to me,” and so on. And Jordan, in response to all this, of course, was not silent, as the Chandlers describe. Jordan was never a silent person, and, no doubt, he vehemently denied that such a thing happened to him. And Evan eventually had to accept it.
Then Evan told his son VG’s stories, convinced him that Michael abused “other children” (which is «known to experts» and «there is evidence”). Evan convinced Jordan that Michael was not a sincere friend to him, but was only pretending for his «selfish reasons», that Michael was «manipulating him», «fooled him» — thus Evan ignited hatred for Michael in Jordan.
I think, on July 11, Evan asked Jordan for some kind of simple involvement — like «you just have to answer “yes” to the psychologist, and that is all» – and that is where their story “I just said yes and we never discussed it again” came from. Evan himself still hoped the thing would not go public, and that it would be enough to threaten Michael with Dr. Abrams’s letter. I think, at first Evan hid from Jordan how far this could go. Gutierrez confirms that when he writes about September 1, before Jordan’s meeting with the LA Deputy District attorney Lauren Weiss: «[Jordie] asked himself how things got so far.»
Apparently, Jordan was not told what would happen next (especially since Evan wasn’t sure of that yet). The main thing Evan needed from Jordan for July 11, was for Jordan to believe that Michael was «bad» and for him to not want to return to June and Michael, where «an ugly fate» was waiting for him. And for Jordan to agree to answer «yes» when it will be necessary.
All week while Jordan was with Evan, and later, after Evan did not return him to his mother on July 17, the brainwashing continued, and Jordan told Evan all the events and all the conversations between him, Michael and June, that he remembered.
On August 1, Evan asked Jordan to call Michael on the phone, and set up a meeting with him for August 4. I have no idea how Evan explained this to his son — why, if Michael is «bad,» Jordan should call him and why they should meet. For us, Evan explained it in the following crazy way:
“Although Evan was certain Michael’s actions toward Jordie were harmful, he still did not believe them to be intentional. As twisted as Michael was, Evan believed Michael genuinely cared about Jordie, and that if he could talk to Michael alone and explain his concerns, Michael would understand and together they could work out a solution, «without the damn lawyers.» (ATG, p. 99)
On the day of the meeting, August 4, Evan and Rothman demanded $20 million from Michael, but Michael refused to pay anything. So, no matter what twisted phrases the Chandler brothers use to explain Evan’s desire to meet MJ, the above paragraph can be shortened to: «It doesn’t matter what Michael did or did not do to other children or his son, Evan wanted to meet him to demand 20 million.»
The refusal angered Evan, and the brainwashing of his son continued. Here, the arguments «I saved you from an ugly fate», «We need to protect other children», «Nobody will laugh at you», «You will become a hero» and «You must learn to resist the one who tries to push you around» came into play.
As a result, Jordan’s consent to say a simple «yes» turned into the consent to tell the psychiatrist a whole 3-hour legend. And Evan and his son began writing and memorizing their script.