Jordan Chandler Admits he Lied about Michael Jackson - Or did he?

[LarBrd33]

Shocking news.  Supposedly Jordan Chandler (the boy who originally accused Michael Jackson of molesting him in 1993) has now come out with the following statement:  "I lied for my father.  I'm sorry Michael". 

http://www.techbanyan.com/4554/jordan-chandler-admits-lied-about-michael-jackson/

It's all over the internet.  It's spreading like wild fire.  People are twittering it.  Several of my facebook friends have posted it as status updates.  What a sick and twisted turn of events!  OMGOMGOMG.  How could he?  A little late, huh?? 

Only problem... it's an obvious hoax.  Slightly interesting and clever (with obvious motives), but poorly executed.   It took me 5 minutes to trace it back to a blog that was so poorly written that they actually mixed up the boy's name with his father's name.  That's just lazy.   And yet, it's spread all over the internet.  Maybe it'll continue to spread.  Simply google "Jordan Chandler lied" and you'll see blog after blog after blog posting it as fact, accepting it as fact... and you'll see countless sheep below commenting with outrage that the boy would wait until Jackson died to come out with the comments.   Fascinating.   

And that was the entire point...

That was the basis for the entire public perception of Michael Jackson's for the last 20 years.   Word-of-mouth retardation that was accepted at face value, because our society is ignorant, lazy... and frankly... stupid.  I'm surprised it took this long for someone to attempt and reverse the perpetual fake facts.

I wanted to offshoot this discussion from the two previous MJ-related threads that were created to discuss and appreciate the man's life and legacy.  Unfortunately, any time Michael Jackson's name comes up in any discussion... the hovering cloud of "pedophilia" is sure to follow.  And this, to me, is the saddest part of his passing.  That even in death, a large percentage of our society was literally happy, because they had bought into the media's force-fed lynch mob inaccurate representation of his life.  This is sad, pitiful and a little sickening to me.

I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!!...   Seriously I'm not.  I just wanted to get that out of the way.  I'm not a whackadoo.  I'm not some nut who sits around talking about UFO's, Bigfoot or the Lochness Monster.   I can't claim to be an expert on ANY of the following subjects, but if you were to ask me at gun point my best guesstimation... I'd say that OJ probably murdered his wife, George Bush probably wasn't behind 9-11,  Stern probably didn't freeze the envelope, Tyson probably raped that girl, Kobe probably didn't (but was a little rough), JFK was probably killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and Kevin McHale probably traded KG for reasons other than a friendship with Danny Ainge.  Of course, I could never claim to be certain on any of this, because I could never claim to have full knowledge of the events.  I merely go off what I have heard from other people.  If someone had unquestionable indisputable evidence, a well-researched document or article that clearly proved any of my guesstimations inaccurate... I'd probably be willing to read it.   Otherwise, I'd be massively ignorant to continue believing otherwise.

And that brings me to the 1994 article written in GQ magazine by Mary Fischer on the 1993 Molestation Scandal:  http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

I've tried sharing this article in both threads.  I've sent this article to a couple people on this forum who made ignorant comments about Jackson being a pedophile.  I've also sent this article to a number of people over the last 10 years.  In almost every instance it's met with the same dismissive attitude without having ever read a sentence of it.  "Oh come on... it's probably some pro-Michael Jackson propaganda".   I assure you, it isn't.  It never picks a side.    It's long.  People typically don't have the patience to read it.  But it is merely a matter-of-fact representation of all of the facts of that scandal in detail.  It HAS to be long.   At no point has anyone from either side ever questioned the authenticity of the facts presented in the article.  You can easily find this article all over the internet.  It doesn't make excuses for Jackson's "odd" relationship with children.  You could certainly read this article and still come away believing that Jackson molested Jordy Chandler.  However, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that anyone with a lick of common sense or rationality could read that entire article and still have the same perception of that 1993 scandal regardless of how deep your hatred is of Michael Jackson...

I admit I was a fan when I was little.  After the scandal in 1993 I abandoned my fandom along with most everyone else.  I saw the National Enquirer magazine covers, saw the reports on tabloid-news TV shows like Hard Copy and heard the rumors and jokes at school.  I accepted it along with everyone else.  It honestly wasn't until around 1999 when I first had access to the internet that I even stumbled across any of this.  I was merely curious to see if Jackson was planning any new albums and instead I came across website after website exposing all the inaccuracies and lies surrounding the man's career.  It was shocking to me.  It was fascinating to me.  It is amazing to me that even to this day there are people who will sit here and argue that Jackson literally bleached his skin white with over-the-counter chemicals due to "self hatred" when there are COUNTLESS photographs, interviews, medical records, etc that are available ALL OVER the internet that clearly show the man had both vitiligo AND lupus.  http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/vitiligo-photos-michael-jackson/   It's amazing to me.   But nothing was more damaging than that 1993 situation.  It didn't just ruin his career, but ruined his life.  He dedicated his existence to helping children and entertaining the masses and yet a LARGE percentage of the world adamantly believed he was a pedophile based on the media's borderline criminal presentation of the facts.  The guy was strange, had a J.M. Barrie-esque relationship with children and our society was more than willing to assume the absolute worst.  I don't have much respect for drug addicts.  But I find it hard to fault Jackson for allegedly turning to pain killers given the circumstances.

I understand that the life and death of Michael Jackson is ultimately trivial to most people.  There are certainly far more important things in the world to discuss. I even understand that even posting this (and posts in the other threads) changes the perception of me for a lot of people on this board.  It makes me come across weird.  I tried sharing this article with a couple people here that were calling him a pedophile and one poster went as far as to publicly say it was "creepy" that I pm'd him about Michael Jackson.  Another responded that he was not "obsessed" enough to care.  Look, I don't fault anyone for thinking this is weird.  That warped perception is exactly what I'm talking about.  And that widespread perpetual ignorance is exactly the reason why I feel obligated to share the truth with everyone I possibly can.  Without trying to sound too dramatic, I earnestly believe that the media's handling of Michael Jackson was a modern-day crucifixion.  I turned on the TV yesterday and was greeted with Nancy Grace saying "it's up to god now" and Diane Diamond (of Hard Copy fame) harping on about his addiction to "NARCOTICS!"... beautiful.  If MJ's death isn't all that important, the control the media and public opinion has on our perceptions certainly IS important and is definitely worth being aware of and discussing.       

So here is a thread for discussion.  I am more than willing to debate about whether or not the man was a pedophile.  I am more than willing to answer any questions I might have the answer to.  However, I absolutely will not respect anyone who wants to argue using baseless beliefs.  If you want to have an opinion, first read the facts surrounding that 1993 extortion scheme by Evan Chandler:  http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html .   Refusing to read that article and then continuing to argue a uneducated opinion is by DEFINITION ignorance.

"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."

[RAcker]

I've made the jokes just like everyone else for the record.  But I would never claim to know anything about the man factually.  He was simply accused of something horrific and never did himself any favors by way of his behavior in putting out the flames.  His comments about sharing his bed with children being a show of love alone was shot to his own foot.

That being said...the man is now gone.  I guess the jokes should cease for a while out of respect and his life will be a mystery and yet one of the most documented of anyone who ever lived in our respective generations.

[johnnyrondo]

I will say that I have no idea if Jackson was guilty or not. I can see the possibility that he was innocent  and you definitely have provided evidence (in all the threads), but you seem rather obsessed on the issue LarBrd. Why is that? Just curious...

[LarBrd33]

I've made the jokes just like everyone else for the record.  But I would never claim to know anything about the man factually.  He was simply accused of something horrific and never did himself any favors by way of his behavior in putting out the flames.  His comments about sharing his bed with children being a show of love alone was shot to his own foot.

That being said...the man is now gone.  I guess the jokes should cease for a while out of respect and his life will be a mystery and yet one of the most documented of anyone who ever lived in our respective generations.

It's interesting you bring up the comments about sharing a bed with children.  His comments obviously weren't intended to portray himself as a sick pedophile.  He was trying to be honest about his relationship with his young friends.  He was referring to times in which friends (such as MacauleyCulkin or Wade Robson or even his young nephews and cousins) would stay up all night in his massive bed playing video games.  Eventually someone would pass out.  He was attempting to say it was innocent, but of course the media got ahold of the comment and it turned into mild hysteria.   Lead by people like Gloria Allred, Nancy Grace and Diane Diamond, there was a movement in place to have Jackson's own children taken away and put into protective care.   The boy sitting next to Jackson during that comment was in fact the 2nd accuser (even bigger joke than the 1993 allegations).  

Some facts about the 2005 scandal that you can easily find all over the internet.  It was essentially a continuation of the 1993 scandal.

The boy's mother had been in and out of mental institutions. She had attempted to extort from both Jay Leno and George Lopez.  Her family once got caught shoplifting from JC Penny and she later filed a lawsuit saying that the security guards viciously beat her family and "sexually fondled" her breasts and pelvis area for "up to seven minutes".  She sued for 3 million and it was settled out of court for $137,000.

Following that "share a bed with children" comment the police actually investigated that boy and his mother.  They both denied any wrongdoing at all.  There is tape recordings of them both denying any sexual wrongdoing and praising Michael Jackson.

Jackson responded to the criticism by distancing himself from the boy and his mother.

It was only after Jackson cut ties with them (they moved out of Neverland) that the boy's mother contacted the same lawyer, the same district attorney and the same psychiatrist that were involved in the 1993 scandal. Clearly she was well aware of the results of that case (payout).

The alleged timeframe of the molestation was that it STARTED a week after the documentary (and those "sharing a bed" comments) aired.   Think about that for a second.  That defies all logic.  What kind of pedophile who has only been allegedly accused once in his life... waits another 12 years... waits until a documentary airs... waits until the entire world is bashing... waits until police start investigating him... waits until there is a movement to get his kids taken away... and then says, "know what?  Now might be a good time to start molesting Gavin".  Seriously.... come on...  Also understand that pedophilia is something that progressively worsens as time goes on... typical pedophile has a couple hundred victims in his lifetime.  And yet the 30+ children interviewed by police (including Culkin and Robson) all denied any wrongdoing.  You have 1993... and have 2005.  And both are HIGHLY questionable.

And my favorite... when the woman finally took the stand some of her remarks actually caused the jury to break out into laughter.  Part of her claim was that Jackson was holding her family captive in the Neverland Ranch.  Defense team presented her with several receipts during the reported "kidnapped period" that showed her out on the town using Jackson's credit card at various restaurants and stores.   Outback Steak House, Gucci, Tiffany... here's a receipt for a full body wax.   The woman snapped, "IT WAS A LEG WAX NOT A BODY WAX!!" then turned the jury and accused them of doctoring the receipt.  "HE IS LYING TO YOU!".   She also said Jackson was planning to kidnap her and send her away on in a hot air balloon.  

All of these facts are readily available.  The case should have been thrown out immediately and probably would have if it had been any other district attorney other than Tom Sneddon.  

Nobody wants to pay attention to those facts.   Much more fun to think of him as a child molestor, I guess.

[LarBrd33]

I will say that I have no idea if Jackson was guilty or not. I can see the possibility that he was innocent  and you definitely have provided evidence (in all the threads), but you seem rather obsessed on the issue LarBrd. Why is that? Just curious...

Good question.  I thought I answered it in the first post.

CNN.com, MSNBC.com, Yahoo.com, TMZ.com, etc.   The media has been "obsessed" with Jackson for years.  No more-so than now.  Try checking any magazine stand in the next week and tell me what you see. 

I've always known all of this stuff.  I don't think there is a more appropriate time to bring it to light than now.  If you have been watching any of the media's coverage of his death you'd still be seeing them continue to bring up his "dark past".  It's unfair that they have as big a voice as they do.  It's unfair that they are able to have people who have based their careers on anti-Michael Jackson spin (Nancy Grace, Diane Diamond and Gloria Allred, for example) making negative comments about him even after his death.   

Again, I feel obligated to share the reality of the situation... since nobody else will bother doing it.

Edit:  Johnnyrondo... I found this site yesterday.  whoismichael.com .  It's basically a site dedicated to sharing all of the same things I am sharing here.   His explanation for why he created the site is pretty much an echo of my own thoughts.

I'm not a Michael Jackson fan, at least not in the traditional sense. I own none of his music and have not worn any of the t-shirts, despite being in my 40s and seeing Mr. Jackson's music career peek in my youth.

Years ago I was invited by a friend to the 2005 Santa Maria trial and I went. In 2008 she asked me look at the good, the bad and the ugly of Michael Jackson's life and his detractors and create a quickie website contrasting both sides. And so I did, and my lingering doubts that had put me in two minds about Michael Jackson have all but disappeared!

I'd like to apologize to him in some generic way for not completely examining the details of his accusers' stories; I simply assumed that media reports of multiple abusers might have merit.

But I Have a Strong Sense of Justice

A site tauting the merits of anyone should start off doing just that.
   

But Michael Jackson's image is so closely connected now with the abuse of children I decided that this introduction would view strong exonerating evidence that is apt to make even the ardent Jackson detractor a little less confident that he ever abused a child.

[johnnyrondo]

Hey LarBrd,

I googled that hoax you told me too, but then I was reading the smoking gun and I want to believe your innocence claims, so can you tell me your hypothesis on this part of the evidence:

With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.

It wasn't long after law enforcement's photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim for north of $20 million.

In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler's pre-search description (and a drawing) "corroborated" photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.

Edit: Again I want to believe you, but here's the link http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

[LarBrd33]

Hey LarBrd,

I googled that hoax you told me too, but then I was reading the smoking gun and I want to believe your innocence claims, so can you tell me your hypothesis on this part of the evidence:

With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.

It wasn't long after law enforcement's photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim for north of $20 million.

In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler's pre-search description (and a drawing) "corroborated" photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.

Edit: Again I want to believe you, but here's the link http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

Another good question that always comes up.

Here's what I know about that.  Photos were taken.  Apparently the kid made a drawing.  None of this was ever presented as evidence, because apparently the boy's father was far more concerned about having a civil trial than a criminal trial.  Another logic-defying fact that people dismiss.   Any parents out there?  If you find out tomorrow that your 13 year old boy/girl has been molested by a celebrity or otherwise, do you seek money or try to get the man behind bars?

Anyways...

This goes back to vitiligo.


Essentially... familiarize yourself with the skin disease.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo

It's a disease that does this to skin:



This blog has plenty of photos from Jackson's Thriller years that shows evidence of vitiligo, but also lupus:  http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/vitiligo-photos-michael-jackson/

Here are some thoughts I found on another forum:

Had Jordan’s description matched surely that would have been enough to at least arrest Jackson. I think anyone can agree that the Jordan/Evan’s description very vague. Anyone could come up with a description that’s a vague match to Jackson’s penis too. Ironically, those who are firm believers in Jackson’s pedophilia do not think he has vitiligo, but that he “bleaches his skin”. Isn’t that a tad, just a tiny bit, contradictive? Even I would make a semi accurate description even though I’ve never seen it. As long as you know about Vitiligo you know he’s patched, it easy to come to conclusions that he is patched even around his private areas, because the rest of his body is that way. He didn’t have to be that accurate, as long as he said he had patches here and there the rest can be filled in. Oh, and they also included that he had short pubic hair, didn’t they? He’s a black man, every black man has short pubic hair.

It's an understood part of the man's life that has been dismissed from the general public.  Yes, he likely took medication that helped expedite the depigmentation process.  It's a "pick your poison" for vitiligo sufferers.  Look like a blotchy leper or look like an albino.  For a time his face/body was dominated by pigmented skin enough that he was able to cover up the white with dark makeup.  The photos linked above show that makeup... it wasn't always matching.  When performing sometimes that makeup would run and he blotches would be exposed.   As the disease progressed it became easier to cover the remaining pigmented skin with white makeup... (also the answer to why the man Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. surgical masks, big sunglasses, hats and carried an umbrella around everywhere.... it makes your skin about as sensitive to the sun as an albino.  Also explains why he ever wore the "one glove" in the first place)

But even in his final days parts of his body still had blotches of pigmented skin (like all vitiligo sufferers who go through treatment).  Anyone who had researched the disease would know that parts of his body (such as his penis and fingernails) would still have discoloration.  Also anyone who had ever seen him without a heavy coat of makeup would have seen the blotches.  You aren't going to find a lot of candid pictures of Michael Jackson swimming, for example.  His body continued to have blotches.

Look at his wrist and fingernails in this picture to see the discoloration:  http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9214/017bx0.jpg

Does that 100% prove the supposed drawing inaccurate?  No.   Nobody has seen that drawing.  All we know is that it had both black and white... and we know that Jackson's penis was black and white.  So there you go.   It's up to you to decide.

[LarBrd33]

couple more notes on that.

I'd be highly suspect of how accurate those photos were.  Highly suspect.  The department claimed they were accurate... but it was that department that was trying to put him behind bars.  Read the article I keep mentioning to see what I'm talking about.   They used some "questionable" tactics and it was the same man (Tom Sneddon) and the same department that tried to put Jackson behind bars in 2005 using the same "questionable" tactics.  They basically threw everything out there and hoped something would stick.  If they built enough smoke, people would accept there was a fire.  Same department that first claimed they found a "den of kiddie smut", but in reality it was a couple issues of jugz and some art book.  (they ransacked his massive library and the only book they found was "The Boy, A Photographic essay" ... Google it if you want.  It was what they eventually presented as evidence of pedophilia)

For example.  Some of their "star witnesses" were former bodyguards and housemaids who had been fired by Jackson and then filed "wrongful termination suits" against him in the mid 90s.  Those were eventually thrown out of court a year later and Jackson successfully countersued them (and won).   Those same people then were paid off by the National Enquirer (tabloid rag) to come up with various stories.  One bodyguard, for example, had claimed he had seen Michael Jackson performing oral sex on Macauley Culkin in a shower.   This man was brought in as a witness during the 2005 trial.  His testimony was highly questionable, because Culkin himself continued to deny any wrongdoing... and receipts were presented from the National Enquirer that suggested the story was phony from the start.  Again, you can probably read up on most of this on the wiki page for the 2005 Michael Jackson trial.   

The point is... they attempted to throw ANYTHING out there that might incriminate Jackson.  I continue to believe that if Jackson was healthy enough, wasn't going broke and wasn't emotionally beaten, he could have successfully gone after that police department.

Just because they had claimed the images were a "smoking gun" doesn't essentially mean it was a "smoking gun".  I'm skeptical of the source in this situation.

Another thing... in 1993 it was apparently Jackson's insurance company that paid off the boy against his objections.   They wanted to stop the bleeding, stepped in and negotiated and paid a settlement.  You can read about that here:  http://www.whoismichael.com/insurance-pay-out.htm

[guava_wrench]

I've made the jokes just like everyone else for the record.  But I would never claim to know anything about the man factually.  He was simply accused of something horrific and never did himself any favors by way of his behavior in putting out the flames.  His comments about sharing his bed with children being a show of love alone was shot to his own foot.

That being said...the man is now gone.  I guess the jokes should cease for a while out of respect and his life will be a mystery and yet one of the most documented of anyone who ever lived in our respective generations.

Doesn't it make more sense to not joke when a person is alive? When the person is dead, no harm is being done by making fun of their condition. It is when they are alive that the damage is done.

[illantari]

On a totally random legal note:  (I actually really don't care one way or the other about MJ) It is in fact quite common that the interests of the parent diverge widely from the interests of the child.  MANY parents will do just about anything to get a hold of $20 million, even if it is giving up on punishing someone who molested their own child criminally. In fact, it is so common that courts have a whole system called in loco parentis, where someone else is supposed to take the position of a parent in a court case, just in case the parent's interest conflicts with that of the child's, and it is most often used when there are large sums of money involved.  You'd be surprised at the (low) caliber of some parents out there.

[celticmaestro]

That article was an interesting read. While I never had an opinion on the MJ case because I didn't know enough about it (I also never accused him as he was found innocent) I feel as though I can give an opinion on it now. Thanks for sharing LarBrd33, TP.

[dark_lord]

too much to read

[Roy Hobbs]

I assure you, it isn't.  It never picks a side. . . . But it is merely a matter-of-fact representation of all of the facts of that scandal in detail.

It may be factual, but that doesn't mean it wasn't biased or didn't have an agenda.  I mean, they bring up the fact that the kid's dad had a couple of bad dental cases to undercut his credibility, and yet you think it doesn't pick a side?

[dark_lord]

Any parents out there?  If you find out tomorrow that your 13 year old boy/girl has been molested by a celebrity or otherwise, do you seek money or try to get the man behind bars?

most responsible and respectable parents want justice rather than money.  however, his parents werent either, clearly shown in their decision to allow their son to hang with mj unsupervised.

It's interesting you bring up the comments about sharing a bed with children.  His comments obviously weren't intended to portray himself as a sick pedophile.  He was trying to be honest about his relationship with his young friends.  He was referring to times in which friends (such as MacauleyCulkin or Wade Robson or even his young nephews and cousins) would stay up all night in his massive bed playing video games.

this is kinda creepy.  even if he didnt molest a child, his relationships and boundaries with children were terrible. i attribute it to his messed up childhood, but that does not excuse his own decisions, actions, and boundaries.

i loved the guys music and he is by far the best performer i have seen.....but he clearly had issues and his behaviors should be questioned. 

[JSD]

I think Michael Jackson was a ten year old boy trapped in a grown mans body. That said, I'm with you in that I don't believe he was harming children. I listened to D and C argue about this morning but now I want your take:


Wine and adult materials.