u/Emotional_Ball_5181

Gather ‘round, everyone. It’s time for another case file.

Last time, we left off with questionable investigative tactics, disappearing evidence, and detectives who seemed more interested in getting the “right” answer than the truthful one.

Surely things calm down from here…Right?

🚨 Before we begin, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–7 first!

…thank me later.

Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

…back already? Perfect!

Let’s go.

Well…apparently one raid wasn’t enough.

After searching Neverland and failing to uncover the “smoking gun” investigators seemed convinced existed, law enforcement decided to try somewhere else.

This time, they went to Hayvenhurst, the Jackson family home in Encino.

On November 8th, 1993, the LAPD executed another search warrant at the Jackson family compound.

As the Los Angeles Times reported the following day:

“Armed with a search warrant, Los Angeles police have searched the Encino residential compound of pop superstar Michael Jackson’s family, but whether any evidence was seized has not been revealed.”

Here’s what makes this search particularly interesting.

By late 1993, Michael hadn’t actually lived at Hayvenhurst for roughly five or six years. His primary residence had long since become Neverland Ranch, the very property investigators had already searched extensively.

So…

If they had already searched the place where he actually lived and came up empty handed, why conduct another raid at a residence he had moved out of years earlier?

At this stage, it certainly appears investigators were continuing to cast an increasingly wide net in hopes of finding something, anything, that could strengthen their case.

And almost immediately after the Hayvenhurst search, another familiar story appeared.

Remember how back in Case File: Chandler — Part 5, I mentioned the Associated Press report claiming investigators had found a nude photograph of a young boy?

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

According to that original report, this was the search where that claim supposedly originated.

Hmm…I sense a pattern here.

A dramatic allegation gets leaked to the press…

The headlines explode.

Everyone talks about it…and then, when it’s finally time for prosecutors to produce their actual evidence?

Nothing.

No photograph.

No exhibit.

Even more interesting, by the time of the 2005 trial, the story had changed yet again. Instead of claiming the photograph had been discovered at Hayvenhurst, prosecutors were now alleging similar photographs had been recovered from Neverland.

Different location.

Same mysterious “evidence”.

The exact same result.

It never showed up in the court room.

If evidence truly exists, it shouldn’t keep changing addresses, just sayin’.

With another search failing to produce the decisive evidence investigators appeared to be searching for, the timeline moves to another event that has become heavily misunderstood over the years:

Michael’s rehabilitation stay.

Before we talk about the rehab itself, we need to rewind for a minute.

Because this story didn’t begin with the Chandler allegations.

It began nearly a decade earlier.

Ever since his scalp was severely burned during the 1984 Pepsi commercial accident, Michael had undergone multiple surgeries and lived with chronic pain.

Michael underwent another scalp procedure in the spring of 1993.

When Michael spent the weekend at Evan Chandler’s house, he reportedly complained of an intense migraine and accepted medication from Evan.

Viewed in isolation, that weekend raises questions.

Viewed in the context of someone who had endured years of scalp surgeries, chronic pain, and prescription pain medication…it becomes much less mysterious.

Hell, you want even more context?

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

By November 1993, Michael had spent nearly ten years managing severe pain.

Now add everything else happening simultaneously.

A worldwide tour.

Relentless media attention.

Criminal investigations.

Civil litigation.

Constant public scrutiny.

Whether someone believes the allegations or not, that’s an extraordinary amount of physical and psychological pressure for anyone to carry.

Eventually, something had to give.

And it did.

After completing what would become his final performance of the second leg of the Dangerous Tour in Mexico City on November 11th, 1993, the remaining tour dates were cancelled so he could seek treatment for his dependency on prescription pain medication.

Just a few days later, on November 15th, attorney Bertram Fields publicly confirmed both the cancellation and Michael’s treatment.

The Los Angeles Times reported:

“Entertainer Michael Jackson vanished from public view… saying he would seek treatment for an addiction to painkillers.”

Let’s stop here for a second…

Time to debunk a myth.

You’ve probably heard it before.

“Michael fled to rehab because he knew he was about to be arrested the moment he returned to the United States.”

Here comes the issue…it doesn’t line up with the tour schedule.

…yeah.

The Dangerous Tour wasn’t scheduled to be in the United States at all.

According to a November 13th, 1993 Los Angeles Times report, Michael still had performances scheduled in:

• Jakarta
• Kuala Lumpur
• Dubai
• New Delhi
• Singapore
• Puerto Rico

…with additional concerts still being added.

In other words, the plan wasn’t to fly back to America.

The plan was to continue touring internationally.

The same report also noted that multiple performances had already been cancelled because of illness and scheduling complications before the remaining dates were ultimately scrapped.

Which matters.

Because it shows the tour was already becoming increasingly difficult to complete before the rehabilitation announcement.

So, the popular narrative that Michael abruptly cancelled everything because he feared immediate arrest upon returning to the U.S. isn’t true.

In reality, Michael had been struggling physically for months, was dealing with longstanding chronic pain, and eventually reached the point where continuing the tour simply wasn’t realistic.

Okay, onto the next myth…

One argument I’ve seen over the years goes something like this:

“Michael only cancelled the tour because Puerto Rico was next, and since Puerto Rico is U.S. territory, he knew he’d be arrested the moment he landed.”

Well, this tells me one thing:

You don’t understand the law, which fine.

Let me break this down for you.

Michael was scheduled to perform in Puerto Rico on November 14th and November 16th, 1993. It’s true that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory.

But that fact alone doesn’t mean investigators could simply wait at the airport and arrest him.

For starters, there was one very important problem:

There was no arrest warrant.

Not on November 11th, when the tour was cancelled.

Not on November 14th, when the Puerto Rico concerts were supposed to happen.

In fact, there was never an arrest warrant issued in the Chandler case. That alone should stop this theory in its tracks.

Now, let’s go one step further.

Even if investigators had wanted to arrest Michael, law enforcement doesn’t just decide to fly somewhere and pick someone up because they feel like it.

Jurisdictions exist for a reason.

Although Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, it has its own law enforcement agencies and judicial processes. Any attempt to arrest someone there would still require the proper legal authority, beginning with an arrest warrant. Depending on the circumstances, coordination between the authorities would also be required.

In other words…

This wasn’t a case of detectives waiting at the gate the second Michael’s plane touched down.

It doesn’t work like that.

Extradition and provisional arrest procedures are formal legal processes. Even in urgent situations involving fugitives, authorities must follow specific legal requirements, including obtaining the appropriate warrants and submitting the required documentation.

And here’s another important detail.

Those procedures apply to people who are actually being sought for arrest.

Michael was not.

He wasn’t a fugitive, nor fleeing prosecution.

And again, there was no arrest warrant waiting for him.

So, the idea that he cancelled the tour because he was about to be arrested in Puerto Rico isn’t true.

Here’s what actually happened:

A little over one month later, investigators obtained a search warrant to conduct the now famous body search.

That will be covered in a different Case File.

But…did you notice that?

I said search warrant, not an arrest warrant.

Two completely different things. One very big difference.

According to a December 14th, 1993 report from The New York Times, Michael had returned to the United States around that time.

If the theory were true, that investigators were simply waiting to arrest him the moment he set foot on U.S. soil, then that would have been the moment to do it?

Instead…

He wasn’t arrested.

…do I really need to say it again?

Moving on,

On November 16th, 1993, the timeline took another major turn.

The Chandlers’ attorney, Larry Feldman, filed a Motion for Trial Preference. In simple terms, he was asking the court to move the civil lawsuit to the front of the line and have it heard within 120 days because Jordan Chandler was under the age of fourteen.

Keep that little detail in the back of your mind.

We’re going to come back to it when we reach the settlement because it’s one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle.

At the same time this was happening, Michael’s legal team was asking for the exact opposite.

According to a Los Angeles Times report published on November 2nd, 1993, Michael’s attorneys asked the court to postpone the civil case until after the criminal investigation had run its course.

Why?

Because Michael wanted to fight the criminal allegations first.

Bertram Fields argued that Michael wanted the opportunity to testify in a criminal proceeding and clear his name before facing the civil lawsuit. As the Los Angeles Times summarized, Michael was seeking to delay the civil action until the criminal matter had been resolved.

Let’s stop here for a second.

This is one of those moments that often gets glossed over in documentaries, but it’s incredibly important.

If someone were simply trying to “buy their way out” of criminal charges, asking for the criminal case to happen first would be a pretty strange strategy.

Michael wasn’t asking to avoid court.

He was asking for the criminal investigation, the one that could actually send him to prison, to be resolved before the civil lawsuit over money moved forward.

Now friends, does this not tell you something?

Read it again.

…exactly.

Anyway,

On November 23rd, 1993, Superior Court Judge David Rothman denied Michael’s request.

Instead, the judge ruled that Jordan Chandler’s statutory right to a speedy civil trial took priority. Because Jordan was under fourteen, California law required the case to proceed within approximately 120 days, and the court set a trial date of March 21st, 1994.

In other words, the civil case was now on a fast track.

Remember that.

It’s going to matter later.

Once the civil case started moving first, Michael found himself in an almost impossible legal position.

If he testified extensively in the civil proceedings, anything he said could potentially be used against him in the ongoing criminal investigation.

If he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to protect himself in the criminal case, that decision could be used against him in the civil case, where juries are permitted to draw adverse inferences from a party’s refusal to testify.

That’s the dilemma his attorneys were trying to avoid.

And the court said no.

This is exactly why the order of the two cases became such a massive issue throughout the remainder of the Chandler litigation.

Let’s continue,

On November 23rd, 1993, Bert Fields made a public statement that turned out to be completely incorrect.

Speaking to reporters, Fields suggested that criminal charges against Jackson appeared to be just around the corner:

“A grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and they are about to take evidence… we should have a charging decision very, very soon.”

The problem?

That wasn’t actually what was happening.

Fields later had to walk back his comments after it became clear that no grand jury had been sworn in. Instead, the hearing involved subpoenas for two witnesses, not a grand jury preparing to indict Michael.

Needless to say…that was a pretty significant difference.

Howard Weitzman, who was handling Jackson’s criminal defense, publicly corrected the record, explaining that Fields had simply “misspoke.” Reports from outside the courthouse described a tense exchange between Weitzman and reporters as he tried to clean up the confusion.

Let’s be fair here.

This wasn’t the prosecution misleading the public…this time.

This was Michael’s own attorney making a statement that proved to be inaccurate.

Stupid move, Fields. Very stupid.

Unfortunately though, inaccurate headlines have a habit of taking on a life of their own. Even though no indictment followed, and we now know one never would, the damage from statements like this was already done.

To the public, hearing that charges appeared “imminent” only added to the growing media frenzy surrounding the case.

A little over a week later, on December 3rd, 1993, Fields resigned from Jackson’s legal team altogether, leaving Howard Weitzman and newly retained attorney Johnnie Cochran to take over Jackson’s defense moving forward.

Which brings us to the end of Part 8.

Now, does anyone want a coffee? Maybe tea?

Cause over time, I’ll be serving some up on—

…shit. Spoiler.

That’ll be much later.

Anyway,

See you in Part 9. 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler – Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler – Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler – Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler – Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler – Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler – Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler – Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Sources and additional information:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-november-1993-another-failed-raid-a-tour-3c88e093659f

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-10-me-55231-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-14-me-56905-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/14/us/michael-jackson-returns-to-fight-sex-accusation.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-02-me-52303-story.html

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-15000-international-extradition-and-related-matters

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/corey-feldmans-tapes-about-michael-jackson-jon-grissom-sergeant-deborah-linden-and-other-characters/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tzylaq/talking_in_circles/

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

I feel like I don’t talk about Leaving Neverland enough.

Okay, that’s not entirely true. I have talked about it before.I’ve mentioned it, written posts on it, and definitely have opinions about it.

But I realized I’ve never really sat down and examined the documentary itself, and more importantly, the way people discuss it.

So…here we are.

Before we get into Leaving Neverland itself, I think there is an important piece of context that needs to be discussed first:

The Me Too movement.

The movement gained widespread attention in 2017, although the phrase itself existed long before that. It brought important conversations about sexual abuse, harassment, and the experiences of people who often felt ignored or unheard.

Those conversations are important.

However, serious conversations also require balance.

One of the problems that emerged, especially online, was that nuance was sometimes lost. The difference between taking allegations seriously and determining facts became extremely blurred.

Taking allegations seriously does not mean removing the need for evidence, context, or examination.

Those three things are important.

…and they in court too.

Because in any legal system, allegations are the beginning of an investigation, not the conclusion.

A claim can be important, yes, but when a case enters a court of law, decisions are not made solely based on the existence of an accusation. Evidence, testimony, credibility, and facts all matter.

That is how the legal system is designed to work.

Personally, I also think the timing of Leaving Neverland cannot be ignored.

While many people discuss Wade Robson and James Safechuck’s allegations as if they appeared alongside the Me Too movement, that is not accurate.

Not even close.

Their allegations became public years before Leaving Neverland was released in 2019 and before the movement reached its peak.

However, the “documentary” was released during a moment when conversations surrounding abuse, accountability, and blindly believing allegations were already receiving significant public attention.

And in my opinion, that cultural moment influenced how LN was received.

I believe Dan Reed, Wade Robson, and James Safechuck were able to reach a much larger audience because the "documentary" arrived at a time when these discussions were already at the forefront of public conversation.

For many viewers, the broader conversation surrounding Me Too influenced the way they approached the "documentary" before examining the details presented within it.

And that is exactly why context matters.

Suddenly, people became afraid to ask questions, examine inconsistencies, and discuss conflicting information.

The conversation was never about finding the truth, it was about defending a narrative.

That’s the problem with Leaving Neverland. There are many aspects of the claims that deserve examination.

Such as timelines, statements, documented events, and countless inconsistencies.

Which brings me to the title of this post…

The power of a story.

Stories are powerful.

In fact, they are one of the most powerful ways human beings communicate with one another.

Stories make us laugh, cry, and feel anger. They allow us to empathize with people we have never met.

It is simply human nature.

Filmmakers know that.

A documentary is not just someone pressing “record” and hoping for the best.

Every interview, camera angle, piece of music, pause, emotional moment, and editing decision is chosen for a reason.

They shape how an audience experiences the story being told.

Again, there is nothing necessary wrong with that.

That is what storytelling is, but this is where I think people tend to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Emotional impact is not the same thing as factual accuracy.

A story can be incredibly convincing and still be false.

Let's all remember, emotion is not evidence.

Never has been.

Never will be.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen people respond to questions about Leaving Neverland with:

“Just watch it!”

…okay, I did.

Was that supposed to settle the discussion once and for all?

Nope.

If anything, it should make you examine the details even more. Because since when did careful editing become the same thing as truth?

That is not how evidence works.

A documentary can present claims, sure, but it cannot replace an investigation.

Which is exactly why it is called a story.

So, with that in mind, may I present to you…

The inconsistencies.

Starting with my personal favourite:

The train station.

In Leaving Neverland, James Safechuck describes the train station at Neverland as a location where he alleges abuse occurred during the beginning of his friendship with Michael.

According to his account, the abuse at the train station happened between approximately 1987 and 1990.

He described the location in detail, including an upstairs room where he claimed the abuse took place.

But this is where the timeline becomes extremely important.

The issue is simple:

The train station did not exist during the timeframe he described.

…yes, this is why it’s my favourite claim.

Construction records for the Neverland train station indicate that permits were approved in 1993, with construction completed later, around 1994.

https://preview.redd.it/wdj5iag4jneh1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40ea0ed050d9ba454a564b6fd4105714d79427bd

https://preview.redd.it/pgb2fag4jneh1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de4da5b5ccb88492692814b46fcbd80700b647bf

https://preview.redd.it/8gwz9bg4jneh1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6727915d513fa57e5c7d7a53adb4d072fe3244f

Meaning the location Safechuck describes appears inconsistent with the years he specifically places these events.

And this is not a minor detail.

A person can misremember a date, that happens.

But a building is much different.

And of course, the argument often presented in response is:

“He forgot.”

But this is not about forgetting a birthday or mixing up whether something happened in 1988 or 1990.

This concerns alleged abuse and the timeline surrounding those allegations.

Hell, I've even heard "There was a different train station!"

...c'mon people, get serious.

And, no, the train station is not the only example where the locations described in Leaving Neverland have been questioned.

Another example involves Safechuck’s descriptions of other areas of Neverland, including the castle and arcade.

According to several people who worked at Neverland, some of these descriptions do not match their recollections of those locations.

Alan Scanlan, who worked as the maintenance manager at Neverland, stated that there were no beds in those areas.

Brad Sundberg, who worked as a sound engineer, also described the castle area as having large windows and an open layout, without beds.

Rob Swinson, who worked as a ride consultant and developer at Neverland, similarly described the castle as having limited furnishings, including a television and little else.

These accounts matter because the castle itself was not completed until around 1991, meaning it also did not exist during some of the earliest years Safechuck described.

Again, the issue is not simply whether someone remembers every detail perfectly decades later.

The issue is whether the details of the timeline and locations align with documented information.

I've said it before, and I'll gladly say it again: You cannot be abused at a location that didn’t even exist at the time that you specifically claimed you were abused at.

Just saying it makes me sound like I’m speaking in riddles. That’s how little sense it makes.

But…that’s not all.

In Safechuck’s civil lawsuit against Michael’s estate and related companies, he described being flown to New York to attend Michael Jackson’s Grammy performance in February 1989.

According to the complaint, Safechuck was alone with Jackson during this trip, and he alleges that abuse occurred during that time.

However, there is a significant timeline issue…again.

Michael did not attend the 1989 Grammy Awards.

The 1989 ceremony was held in Los Angeles, and Michael did not perform at that event.

Michael did attend and perform at the 1988 Grammy Awards, which took place in New York.

According to Safechuck’s own complaint, James and his mother attended the 1988 Grammy trip together, and his mother did not allow him to sleep in Michael’s room.

He instead slept separately with his mother.

Safechuck’s allegations also place the beginning of the abuse later, in June 1988, during a hotel stay in Paris.

Inconsistency after inconsistency...

The year.

The location.

The circumstances of the trip.

The timeline of when the alleged abuse supposedly began.

Like I said, this is exactly why timelines matter.

Next, Safechuck describes alleged abuse occurring in places around Neverland that were not exactly private or hidden.

One example is the swimming pool.

But…the pool at Neverland was located in a central area of the property, visible from surrounding areas where visitors, employees, and security could potentially be present.

Another example involves the movie theater.

Safechuck described an incident where he alleges that he and Michael were in private rooms inside the theater with glass windows, and that his mother almost discovered them.

His mother also described an incident where she attempted to enter the theater while Michael and her son were inside, but claimed the doors were locked.

However, according to Alan Scanlan, the doors contained panic exit devices, also known as crash bars.

He stated that they could not be locked from the inside in the way described, and that locking the doors was only possible from the outside with access controlled by security.

Anyway,

In LN, the Robson family presents a version of events in which, after their first two day visit to Neverland in 1990, the rest of the family left for a trip to the Grand Canyon while Wade stayed behind with Michael.

According to this account, this period alone at Neverland is when the alleged abuse was able to continue.

However, when you compare that version with previous statements, sworn testimony, and later accounts, the timeline makes no sense.

During the legal proceedings involving Michael’s companies, several members of the Robson family gave depositions under oath regarding the events of 1990.

Those statements revealed differences between earlier accounts and the version later presented.

One significant example involves Wade’s own writing.

Before filing his 2013 lawsuit, Wade Robson was working on a book about his alleged experiences.

Those original manuscripts eventually became part of the discovery process.

In those earlier writings, Robson described the alleged abuse as beginning after his family left him alone with Jackson during their Grand Canyon trip.

However, in his later lawsuit, the timeline changed.

...what else is new with these two?

The allegation became that the abuse had already begun during the family’s second night at Neverland.

That difference matters because it concerns the alleged beginning of the abuse itself.

When questioned about the change, Robson stated that he did not remember and that his memories had “evolved.”

Now, yes…

Memory can change over time.

That is true.

However, when everything keeps changing…what does that tell you?

Another important piece of information comes from Wade’s mother, Joy Robson.

In previous testimony, including her testimony during the 2005 trial, Joy stated that after their first visit to Neverland, the entire family went on a four day Grand Canyon trip before returning to the ranch.

When asked who went on the trip, she answered:

“My family.”

She also clarified that Michael did not accompany them.

Joy further testified that Wade had never stayed alone at Neverland without his family prior to later years.

https://preview.redd.it/nag8h731pneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efc93e1fa69090765119116a8ac1b560c9deee96

Which is significant because it differs from the version later presented in Leaving Neverland.

There are also emails entered into evidence showing Wade contacting his mother while preparing his case and asking about details from the 1990 trip.

He asked:

“That first trip to Neverland. You guys left for RV trip to Grand Canyon. About how long was I with Michael alone before I was back with you guys?”

Joy replied that she would look through what she had written and added:

“I have several versions.”

…

Really, Joy?

https://preview.redd.it/hmc2tqk1oneh1.jpg?width=1169&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7542221a17659da4d0732e17d607f31b80d18356

Honestly, sometimes it feels like they grabbed a map of Neverland, pointed at random locations, and went:

“Here. I’ll just say it happened here.”

“This seems believable, right?”

Except…that’s kind of the problem. The details still have to match the timeline.

Now…here’s a “wait a second” moment for ya.

One of the ideas presented throughout Leaving Neverland is that Michael supposedly made sure his alleged victims never knew one another.

The implication is that they were deliberately kept apart.

That they never crossed paths.

Never spent time together.

Never had the opportunity to compare experiences.

Okay.

Let’s test that idea.

https://preview.redd.it/yxtnx199pneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdaf5a38f8deb21ae89a9f88c8810ffddef16d6d

…

Alright.

Explain this one.

https://preview.redd.it/yp9ft7sopneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a6a7a3dcfaa20ff13bd56b961743842fba1d495

Still with me?

One more.

https://preview.redd.it/gdqia6ivpneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f4cbeb06938f073d663771499e52f8967d12d22

…Yeah.

I laughed too.

Apparently everyone was “being kept apart”…while standing next to each other.

Okay, jokes aside.

This is another example of why details matter.

There are numerous publicly available photographs and videos showing many of the children associated with Neverland together.

Wade Robson.

James Safechuck.

Brett Barnes.

Frank Cascio (and the rest of ‘em)

Jordan Chandler.

Wade Robson also testified in 2005 that he spent a night at Neverland with both Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler.

So if the claim is that Michael went to great lengths to ensure these children never knew one another...why are there photos of them together?

Next, 

Because, of course…there’s more.

Another major theme throughout Leaving Neverland is the idea that Michael isolated children from their families in order to control them.

It is one of the “documentary’s“ central themes.

But once again…the picture becomes more complicated when you compare that narrative with testimony from people who were actually there.

According to several people who worked for Jackson and at Neverland, James Safechuck was frequently accompanied by his parents during visits and trips.

Michael's former personal assistant, Evvy Tavasci, testified during a 2016 deposition that the Safechuck family visited Neverland numerous times during the early 1990s.

According to her testimony, Michael was often not even on the property during many of those visits, despite continuing to be generous toward the family.

Former Neverland employee Judi Brisse also publicly stated after Leaving Neverland aired that she remembered the Safechucks visiting when Jackson was not there.

https://preview.redd.it/6ka6pmwvqneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8831db60447444f65e8ec32dc8299ab21b1b308c

Also, hey James...what's this?

https://preview.redd.it/gg1yt5nurneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a8d2b74b6a955bc8aaa3257979bf10692e95956

Then there’s Joy Robson...again.

Like I mentioned earlier, Joy consistently stated that she was present during Wade’s visits to Neverland, with one later exception.

She also testified that she never felt she was being prevented from accessing Michael Jackson’s bedroom or being kept away from her son.

She further stated that her family continued visiting Neverland dozens of times even when Jackson himself was not there.

Alright, now...if you read Dan Karaty’s article, you already know exactly where I’m going with this.

If you haven’t…

Here’s the link:

https://medium.com/@d.karaty/michaeljacksonbetrayed-c9a9b773151b

Karaty wrote about Joy openly admiring Michael and described a conversation in which she reportedly expressed romantic feelings toward him.

According to Karaty, Michael responded:

“Are you trying to tell me you like me? That you like, like me?”

After Joy admitted she did, he reportedly replied:

“It’s okay. It happens to everybody.”

…oh, Michael.

I’m stealing that line.

Thank you!

Another aspect that often gets overlooked is the way both Wade Robson and James Safechuck spoke about Neverland for years afterward.

Throughout Leaving Neverland, Neverland is presented as the primary setting of deeply traumatic experiences.

However, prior to filing their lawsuits, both Robson and Safechuck repeatedly returned to the ranch as adults.

According to Wade Robson’s own testimony, he and his family visited Neverland dozens of times in Jackson’s absence.

When asked about the ranch in interviews, Robson described it enthusiastically, saying:

“It’s like Disneyland. It’s the best thing in the world.”

In 2008, Wade and his wife Amanda even filmed a movie at Neverland.

During the credits, they thanked Michael Jackson for allowing them to use what they described as his “sacred land.”

James Safechuck also filmed a project at Neverland, and many of the photographs shown throughout Leaving Neverland were reportedly taken during that visit.

But don't worry, it gets better, or...worse.

According to Michael’s former personal assistant and nanny, Grace Rwaramba, Wade Robson also asked whether he could hold his wedding ceremony at Neverland during the 2005 trial.

https://preview.redd.it/u05xutd7tneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fefe814f039d46c2080d626656d57464f187217

Grace later recalled responding:

“Do you seriously expect me to ask Michael, right now—during the trial—if you can use the ranch for Wade’s wedding?”

She then asked a question that many people have since repeated:

“Why would someone who alleges to have been assaulted for over seven years want to have one of the most sacred events in his life on the same property where the attacks allegedly took place?”

Let that sit with you for a moment...

Now, let’s talk about editing, because if there’s one thing Leaving Neverland relies on…

It’s editing.

One example involves an audio recording of Michael discussing a trip to Hawaii with the Safechuck family.

In the “documentary“, viewers hear Michael say:

“The best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy.”

Presented on its own, that line leaves the audience with a very specific impression, right?

But according to court documents containing the full transcript of that recording, the sentence did not end there.

The complete statement continues:

“…love Jimmy’s family and want to spend time with them.”

Them.

Not just James.

His family as a whole.

That missing context changes how the statement is understood.

https://preview.redd.it/x3e7stmutneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9ee1b1925ec3d1789b574316dc661e6847887aa

Also…what the fuck is this?

https://preview.redd.it/gsdneq30uneh1.jpg?width=3464&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=409f88bdc9d7219fbee1dc6188fe46796c4ef2d3

Yeah...that’s what I thought.

Let's continue,

Now here’s something I’ve never really understood.

Throughout Leaving Neverland, Wade Robson and James Safechuck suggest that Michael later “replaced” them with younger boys.

Specific names are even mentioned.

Let’s start with Brett Barnes.

Throughout the years, Brett Barnes has consistently denied that Michael Jackson ever abused him.

Following the release of LN, his legal representatives even sent a letter to HBO objecting to the “documentary’s” portrayal.

The letter described the implication that Barnes had been abused as “outrageous” and criticized the filmmakers for never contacting him before making that suggestion.

He also wrote in 2013, after learning of Wade Robson’s lawsuit:

“I wish people would realize, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will.”

https://preview.redd.it/tc6vhnykuneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cdeab7838bbfa2f2f594a86a46a38531b326bbe

Now, Macaulay Culkin.

Robson has suggested that Michael’s attention shifted to Culkin because he had become the “new boy.”

There’s just one problem.

Macaulay Culkin is actually older than Wade Robson.

Wade…that's literally public information.

How do you get that wrong?

More importantly, Culkin himself has repeatedly denied that anything inappropriate ever happened.

Following the release of Leaving Neverland, he stated:

“He never did anything to me.”

He also added something I think deserves far more attention than it usually receives:

“If I had something to speak up about…I totally would.”

He directly answered the question, yet his answer is often dismissed because it doesn’t fit the narrative many people have already accepted.

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/macaulay-culkin-interview-michael-jackson-8550799/

Then, when egg head—I mean, Dan Reed asked why Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin were never interviewed for the “documentary”, even though both had publicly denied abuse, Reed acknowledged knowing about them.

His explanation was that he didn’t want to pressure them into confronting something they might not want to confront.

I’m sorry…

huh?

If your “documentary” is making implications about identifiable people…

Wouldn’t you want to ask those people what actually happened?

Wouldn’t that be…Journalism?

Another aspect of Leaving Neverland that deserves discussion is the way the documentary addresses the lawsuits.

Throughout the film, Robson and Safechuck are presented as people with “no financial interest” in coming forward.

Dan Reed has also stated publicly, even recently, that Wade Robson and James Safechuck were not seeking financial gain.

But as we already know, that is a lie. Their allegations are connected to civil lawsuits against Michael’s companies seeking millions of dollars.

Speaking of...

Court documents filed during the proceedings, Wade Robson and James Safechuck indicated they were willing to participate in mediation.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs stated that they wanted “the truth” of what they alleged happened to be established by either a jury or a concession from the defendants so they could move forward with their lives.

Michael's team's position was equally clear.

Michael Jackson’s Estate and the associated companies stated that they had “no interest in settling these matters” because they considered the allegations to be “unequivocally false.”

https://preview.redd.it/sy3ez5djxneh1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f505f539220fa4ba1222e6000101fa868d63ac2e

https://preview.redd.it/ztifd6djxneh1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72efa5093713113bdf6aee19d14faf88affb2f8b

...well, the "documentary" tells one story.

The court filings tell another.

Next,

There is one more aspect of Leaving Neverland that I think deserves attention.

Throughout the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck describe a version of Michael Jackson who allegedly discouraged relationships with girls and portrayed girls as something to avoid.

However, that portrayal becomes more complicated when compared with the accounts of other people who knew him.

Over the years, Neverland welcomed boys and girls alike, and numerous visitors have described families spending time together at the ranch.

There is also the account of Brandi Jackson.

In 2019, Brandi publicly responded to the claims made in Leaving Neverland, stating that she and Wade Robson had been in a relationship for more than seven years.

She wrote:

“Wade and I were together for over 7 years, but I bet that isn’t in his ‘documentary’ because it would ruin his timeline.”

She also stated:

“It was my uncle, Michael Jackson, who set us up.”

https://preview.redd.it/9d2px1o8yneh1.jpg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad1a74e6b0ccc318593aeb31cc6d860217214eea

https://preview.redd.it/uukrr1o8yneh1.jpg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ee837f6a5774f7749b1e9303c88cc87110d0e6a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBIRrIZ4n2k

Now let’s talk about the ending of Leaving Neverland.

Because from a filmmaking perspective…It’s probably one of the most emotionally effective scenes in the entire “documentary.”

Wade Robson is shown burning items presented as gifts from Michael.

But according to Julien’s Auctions, the original Michael Jackson memorabilia Robson owned had already been sold years earlier.

In 2011, Robson auctioned numerous authentic Michael Jackson items.

Those items reportedly sold for well over one hundred thousand dollars.

Julien’s Auctions later confirmed that the original collection had already been sold, explaining that Robson said he needed the money.

They also stated that he initially attempted to sell the collection anonymously.

https://preview.redd.it/8en6p3qezneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=263b18f1d2c233d21746b0eebb2a5b15c2b228ca

https://preview.redd.it/zermh4qezneh1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a258b450c0a2d7698ff2ac70b57283675cb81d64

Oh god, it just keeps getting crazier...

And before anyone says…

“You forgot some.”

…I just ran out of room.

If you’re looking for the rest…

Here they are.

https://www.themjstory.com/en/post/leaving-neverland-lies

And there you have it.

A very long look at LN and some of the questions I believe deserve to be asked.

If you somehow made it this far…yay!

You survived.

And trust me…we only scratched the surface.

Let’s just say…

I cannot wait to get into their case files.

Sources and information:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOfz1YkWeA

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-an-outline-of-neverland-a4c3c33085da

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-leaving-neverland-files/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2hkNPmpudpc

Gavin and his wife danced to one of Michael’s songs at their wedding.

You genuinely cannot make this stuff up.

Thanks for the confirmation, Diane. 😂

Babe, wake up! Case File: Chandler — Part 7 just dropped!

And yes…somehow, Evan Chandler is still finding new ways to appear in this series.

🚨 Before we continue this never-ending timeline adventure, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–6.

Context is key, my friends.

Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Part 4:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/

Part 5:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/

Part 6:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uph0gr/case_file_chandler_part_6/

Caught up?

Good.

Let’s begin.

So far, we’ve spent a lot of time examining the Chandler allegations themselves:

The timeline.

The negotiations.

The attorneys.

The settlement discussions…aka, the damn screenplays.

The first raid conducted by the LAPD.

But now, shifting our attention.

Because this story is no longer only about what was being alleged against Michael.

It is also about how the investigation itself was conducted.

And this is where things get…pretty crazy, in my opinion.

By late October 1993, the investigation was no longer taking place behind closed doors.

The allegations had become public.

The media was watching.

And Michael’s legal team began challenging not only the accusations themselves, but also the methods being used by investigators.

…as they should.

According to a November 1993 report from the Los Angeles Times, Michael’s attorney Bertram Fields sent a letter to LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams criticizing the conduct of investigators involved in the case.

Fields alleged that officers were using improper tactics while questioning children connected to the investigation.

In the letter, he stated that he had been advised investigators told children:

“We have nude photos of you”

In an effort to pressure them into making accusations against Michael.

Which is absolutely insane, by the way.

He continued:

“There are, of course, no such photos of these youngsters…”

and accused investigators of being willing to:

“employ any device to generate potential evidence against Mr. Jackson.”

Let’s stop here for a moment.

This is a very significant statement.

Fields wasn’t arguing that investigators should not conduct an investigation. He was challenging the methods he claimed were being used during that investigation.

His argument was that investigators had crossed the line between gathering information and attempting to influence what witnesses said.

And this is where the issue of the alleged photographs becomes important.

What happened to these photographs?

Were they ever presented as evidence?

Because this is where an important distinction has to be made:

What investigators claimed to possess during an investigation is not always the same thing as what was ultimately introduced in court.

Those are two very separate things.

When the 2005 trial took place years later, the prosecution did not present evidence of nude photographs of children as part of its case.

Which matters because public discussions often focus on the most shocking claim first:

The headline.

The accusation.

The most sensational detail.

But courtrooms operate much differently.

Evidence must be presented, authenticated, and entered into the official record.

So one question we have to keep in mind moving forward is:

Were these claims supported by evidence that could withstand legal scrutiny?

Or did some allegations remain part of the investigative narrative without becoming courtroom evidence?

That question becomes even more relevant as we examine the individuals involved in the investigation.

Because next, we need to discuss two LAPD investigators whose names repeatedly appear in connection with this period:

Federico Sicard.

Rosibel Ferrufino.

One of the central questions raised by Fields’ letter involved those alleged photographs.

Were investigators actually in possession of such material?

Or were claims about photographs being used as an investigative tactic?

Years later, during a separate legal proceeding, another person would describe an experience that he believed reflected a similar tactic.

On February 4, 2017, Yoshi Whaley, the son of Jolie Levine, who worked as one of Michael Jackson’s personal assistants during the 80s, gave a deposition in the Robson and Safechuck litigation.

And don’t worry, those case files will be available in the future…😉

For now, what is relevant is that Whaley was questioned about both his relationship with Michael and his interactions with investigators during the 1993 investigation.

And according to Whaley…those investigators certainly left a lasting impression.

When asked whether he remembered being interviewed by police in 1993, he immediately recalled the encounter:

“Yeah. The pair of detective liars…Trying to intimidate and lie to a child. Unbelievable.”

To me, this speaks volumes.

Counsel asked him to explain what he meant.

According to Whaley, two detectives came to speak with him while he was still a minor. He testified that they attempted to convince him they possessed nude photographs of him.

His response?

“I sat there and told them they were liars.”

No notes, Yoshi, no notes.

During the deposition, Whaley acknowledged that investigators questioned him about Michael.

He also testified that he answered those questions truthfully.

Q: “Did you answer them truthfully?”

A: “Yes.”

However, he drew a distinction between his own conduct and what he alleged investigators had done.

According to Whaley:

“As I just stated, the police were lying to me.”

When asked how he knew the alleged photographs did not exist, his answer was simple:

Q: “How do you know that was a lie?”

A: “Because there are none.”

This was the central point of Whaley’s testimony.

He was alleging that they knowingly presented him with information that was false in order to intimidate him.

A clarification is important here:

During the deposition, counsel noted that investigators can, under certain circumstances, legally interview a minor without a parent or guardian present.

Therefore, Whaley’s objection was not simply that the interview happened.

His complaint centred on how the interview was conducted.

According to his testimony, investigators attempted to pressure him by claiming they possessed incriminating photographs that did not exist.

The investigators Whaley identified were LAPD detectives Federico Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino.

And this is where the connection back to 1993 becomes very significant.

Remember what Bertram Fields had alleged in his letter to LAPD Chief Willie Williams.

Fields claimed investigators were telling children:

“We have nude photos of you”

as a way to pressure them into making accusations against Michael.

Years later, Whaley testified under oath that detectives told him essentially the same thing.

Did the pieces finally fall into place for you? They did for me.

Whaley’s testimony mirrors an allegation that had already been publicly raised during the investigation itself.

And that tactic is the issue we need to keep in mind moving forward.

The deposition continued with further questions about Whaley’s interaction with investigators.

Although he acknowledged that he could not remember every detail from an interview that occurred more than two decades earlier, he remained consistent about certain aspects of his recollection.

When asked whether the detectives had been nice to him, his answer was immediate.

Q: “Were they nice to you?”

A: “No.”

When asked what he meant, Whaley explained:

“They were trying to intimidate a child. It’s not being very nice.”

He recalled that the detectives were dressed in plain clothes and that the interview took place while everyone was sitting down, although he could not remember the exact location inside the home.

Beyond those details, his memory became less specific.

He did not recall seeing a tape recorder.

He could not remember exactly how long the interview lasted.

And when asked whether Michael had ever taken photographs of him, his answer was straightforward:

“No.”

The deposition then shifted to a different topic: testimony from former Neverland security guard Leroy Thomas.

According to the questioning, Thomas had previously claimed that Michael instructed him to retrieve and destroy an allegedly nude photograph of a boy with Asian features. The photograph itself was never produced, preserved, or even examined, leaving the existence and contents of the alleged image completely unverified.

Which…in other words, means that it may never have existed in the first place, just saying.

Whaley testified that he had never heard that allegation before.

Counsel then attempted to determine whether Whaley believed the unidentified child described in that testimony could have been him.

Whaley’s response was:

“Well, that only limits it down to the whole Asian race.”

That point is very important.

The description of a child having “Asian features” does not identify a specific person.

It is an extremely broad description.

The discussion became even more complicated when Whaley’s attorney, Jennifer MacIsaac, objected during the questioning.

She argued that the alleged photograph had supposedly been destroyed and that previous testimony was being characterized inaccurately.

When counsel continued suggesting the photograph could have involved Whaley, his response was direct:

“That’s fine. It wasn’t me.”

Let’s all remember, there was no photograph to examine.

Instead, everyone was discussing an alleged image that, according to the account, no longer existed.

That naturally creates an evidentiary question:

If the photograph was allegedly destroyed years earlier, how could anyone determine the identity of the child?

And without the photograph itself, what exactly was Whaley being asked to identify?

Hell, did the photo even exist? I don’t think so.

Anyway,

As the deposition continued, attorneys spent additional time discussing how previous testimony had been characterized before moving on.

Whaley was then shown documentation relating to his 1993 interview.

The document indicated that the interview occurred on October 4th, 1993, at his mother’s residence in Los Angeles, and identified the two investigators involved.

When asked what the detectives had allegedly lied about, Whaley returned to the same concern he had described earlier.

He stated:

“They lied to me saying that things were happening to me that weren’t. They lied to me saying they had photographs that they didn’t have.”

This statement directly connects back to the allegation raised by Michael’s attorney in 1993.

Fields had claimed investigators were using statements about photographs as a way to pressure children during interviews.

Decades later, Whaley described what he believed was a similar experience.

Investigators presented him with claims about evidence they did not actually possess.

According to Whaley, that was the point where he felt the interview crossed a line.

When asked about the interview notes themselves, Whaley was even more direct.

He described the material shown to him as:

“complete bullshit.”

He explained his reasoning:

“Those cops are liars and I got nothing to say. They should — I really hope they got fired.”

When asked whether his opinion extended to law enforcement as a whole, Whaley clarified that he was referring specifically to these two investigators.

He stated:

“Those two were definitely liars because I had interaction with them and they lied straight to a child’s face and tried to intimidate one and tell me things happened that didn’t.”

He also stated that he had not had other negative experiences with law enforcement that shaped his opinion.

To him, this was about one specific encounter.

That matters, folks.

His testimony was not a general accusation against all police officers.

It was a specific allegation regarding the conduct of the detectives involved in his interview.

With that, Whaley’s portion of the deposition comes to an end.

However, his testimony leads into another issue involving one of those same investigators: the controversial books seized during the 1993 search.

Luckily, I have already covered the books themselves in a separate deep dive, so I won’t be repeating that entire discussion here.

Read here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/

Up next,

Corey Feldman.

Now, before we dive into Feldman’s experience with investigators during the 1993 allegations, it is important to understand how Feldman himself described his relationship with Michael.

In his 2013 memoir Coreyography, he recalled turning to Michael during one of the most difficult periods of his life.

After describing his own experiences with abuse, he wrote:

“I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson.”

He went on to describe Michael’s home as a place where he felt safe:

“Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place.”

Throughout the memoir, Feldman describes Michael as someone who brought him a sense of childhood innocence during a period when much of that innocence had already been taken away.

Yes, this made me tear up too.

He has repeated those sentiments in interviews over the years, consistently maintaining that nothing inappropriate ever occurred between them.

That context is important because Feldman’s interview with investigators was not simply about Michael.

According to Feldman, it also became an opportunity to disclose his own experience of abuse.

And what happened during that interview is absolutely sickening.

You’ve been warned.

When the allegations against Michael became public in 1993, Feldman was contacted by the LAPD and asked to discuss his friendship with him.

In Coreyography, Feldman recalled his initial reaction to the allegations:

“When I first heard that Michael Jackson had been accused of child molestation, I almost laughed—it seemed so ridiculous.”

During the interview, however, Feldman says the conversation took an unexpected turn.

He disclosed that he had personally been sexually abused and identified the individual he believed was responsible.

He wrote:

“I admitted that I had been molested; I even named my abuser.”

Investigators interviewing him, Sergeant Deborah Linden and Detective Russell Birchim, showed little interest in pursuing that information.

Instead, he believed their attention remained focused on Michael.

…yeah.

Guys, please hold me while I lose my sanity, because…what the fuck?

And yes, it gets worse from here.

The interview took place in December 1993, when Feldman was twenty two years old.

Years later, Feldman stated that he obtained copies of the interview materials and found references to the individual he had identified, Jon Grissom.

According to Feldman, investigators acknowledged they knew who Grissom was.

However, Santa Barbara authorities later stated that their records did not indicate Feldman had identified any suspects during the investigation.

Their response was straightforward:

“Our records do not indicate that he named any suspects.”

…interesting.

If Feldman did identify an alleged abuser during the interview…what happened to that information?

Well…

This resurfaced in 2017 after portions of Feldman’s 1993 interview were discussed on Dr. Oz following the release of audio recordings.

During the program, Feldman reiterated that he believed investigators were not interested in pursuing the individual he had identified.

Instead, he said their attention remained fixed on Michael.

Dr. Oz also commented on the significance of that claim, suggesting that if investigators had fully pursued the person Feldman identified, it could have led to a different investigation.

But again, the investigators were not interested in that.

I mean, normally, when someone comes forward describing their own abuse and identifies an alleged perpetrator, investigators should look into that, right?

Well, not in this case, apparently.

Feldman has remained consistent in publicly defending Michael.

When asked whether Michael could have been responsible for abusing him, Feldman rejected the suggestion.

He stated that if Michael had ever harmed him, he would have reported it immediately.

Instead, he maintained that the person responsible was someone else entirely.

The interview then moved to a discussion about Jon Grissom.

According to the audio later released publicly, Sergeant Linden suggested that Grissom may have been jealous of Feldman’s friendship with Michael.

She asked whether she had “hit a sore spot” before laughing.

…yeah, you read that correctly.

Gross.

Feldman responded by immediately correcting the direction of the conversation.

He explained that he had known Michael long before meeting Grissom.

Then he made the distinction unmistakably clear:

“Jon Grissom was the guy who molested me.”

He went on to reject the suggestion that Grissom somehow connected back to Michael.

If Grissom had been jealous of Feldman’s relationship with Michael, Feldman explained, that jealousy stemmed from his admiration for Michael, not because anything inappropriate had occurred between them.

Feldman also clarified the timeline of the abuse.

When asked how old he had been, he initially answered fifteen before correcting himself and explaining that the abuse began when he was fifteen and continued for approximately a year and a half.

Which is worth noting because Feldman was not brushing off the interview or refusing to engage with investigators.

He was discussing his own experiences and providing details about them.

Yet, the interview continued returning to his relationship with Michael.

Feldman again stated that nothing inappropriate had ever happened between himself and Michael.

According to the audio excerpts later made public, investigators suggested that he might be protecting Michael or withholding information.

Feldman rejected that premise outright.

“Because nothing happened.”

It is one of the clearest moments in the interview.

Feldman did not say he couldn’t remember.

He did not say he was uncomfortable answering.

He simply maintained that there was nothing to disclose because nothing had occurred.

At one point, Birchim stated:

“I don’t think if Michael’s molesting kids, he’s doing it because he wants to hurt them. He’s doing it because he loves them.”

Again…what the fuck?

Now, some think that Birchim was using a minimization technique or a soft approach. In certain interviews, investigators may present an alleged act in less confrontational terms in an effort to encourage a subject or witness to continue talking.

Which…reminds me a lot of…you guessed it: Evan Chandler.

Why?

Well, back in Case File: Chandler — part 3, I covered how Evan used the exact same tactic to manipulate Jordan.

…mhm.

Anyway,

Another exchange that has drawn attention occurred near the end of the interview.

While discussing the possibility of encountering Grissom, Sergeant Linden reportedly laughed and remarked:

“If we run across him, we’ll let you know.”

Years later, both Feldman and Dr. Oz commented on that moment after portions of the interview became public.

For Feldman, the issue wasn’t simply the words themselves.

It was his attitude.

It was his carelessness.

Do you see the pattern?

Another detail worth noting, there is a later connection with Detective Russell Birchim.

Birchim would later become associated with discussions involving former Michael Jackson security employee Ralph Chacon during the 2003–2005 case.

…and of course, I already covered that.

Read here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/

On another note, during the years following the 1993 investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department became involved in the Rampart corruption scandal.

The scandal involved documented allegations of police misconduct, including accusations involving falsified reports, perjury, and evidence related issues among certain officers.

The controversy resulted in numerous criminal cases being reviewed and convictions being challenged.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office also faced a lot of criticism over how cases involving officer misconduct had been handled.

Which brings us to the end of part 7.

…I think I need a nap.

See you in Part 8. 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t362pc/case_file_sneddon/

Dimond:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t4zd0m/case_file_dimond/

Gutierrez:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t7t6ut/case_file_gutierrez/

Francia:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tcj13c/case_file_francia/

Neverland Five:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/

Chandler – Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Chandler – Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Chandler – Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Chandler – Part 4:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/

Chandler – Part 5:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/

Chandler – Part 6:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uph0gr/case_file_chandler_part_6/

Sources and additional information:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://mjjr.net/docs/LeroyWhaleyDepo.pdf

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKYVHmA7Ig&ra=m

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-the-1993-corruption-from-the-santa-barbara-9e15d57175ae

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-17-me-57719-story.html

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/corey-feldmans-tapes-about-michael-jackson-jon-grissom-sergeant-deborah-linden-and-other-characters/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tpltfp/some_people_need_michael_jackson_to_be_guilty/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1um4ucd/comparing_michael_jacksons_trial_to_oj_simpsons/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tzylaq/talking_in_circles/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t8m59j/theres_no_way_all_11_people_are_lying/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t5liuf/fact_vs_fiction_common_claims_about_michael/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t22m7w/a_media_assassination_the_case_of_michael_jackson/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uqhic1/not_everyone_is_a_narcissist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1usbz9m/the_word_grooming_has_lost_its_meaning/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uu60fg/where_theres_smoke_theres_firebut_what_if_its/

I hate this saying.

Like…really hate it.

So, as I was going through my growing checklist of things I wanted to write about, I realized it was finally time to address one of my least favourite internet arguments:

“Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

People love to say it like it’s some profound piece of wisdom that settles a discussion or something.

But it doesn’t.

At least…not in the way people use it.

Now, before anyone gets mad at me, let me be clear:

The saying itself isn’t the problem.

Originally, it’s meant to express a pretty reasonable idea: if there are signs that something might be wrong, it’s worth paying attention and looking into it.

Fair enough, right?

I don’t think many people would disagree with that.

If there are reasons to suspect something, then yes, investigate it.

Ask questions.

Examine the evidence.

See where it leads.

That’s exactly what investigations are for.

The problem is people randomly changed what the phrase means.

Instead of:

“There may be something worth investigating.”

It became:

“There must have been a fire.”

Do you see the difference?

Good.

Because they’re not remotely the same statement.

One is an invitation to investigate.

The other skips the investigation entirely and jumps straight to the conclusion.

No second guessing. No true examination. Just boom…a conclusion.

Honestly, that is one of the biggest logical mistakes I see people make, not just when discussing Michael, but in other cases.

People hear an allegation.

Then another.

Suddenly the argument becomes:

“Well…where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Case closed.

Except…that’s not how it works, like at all.

Now, you’re probably wondering why I’m bringing this up and what the issue is.

The problem is that a lot of people mistake suspicion for proof. Something can seem strange, unusual, or raise questions, but that doesn’t automatically make it evidence.

The existence of an allegation tells you one thing:

Someone made an allegation.

That’s it.

It doesn’t tell you whether the allegation is true, whether the evidence supports it, or whether there’s any evidence at all.

And it certainly doesn’t tell you whether a crime actually occurred.

Yet that’s exactly where “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” gets misused.

People treat the smoke as though it is the fire.

But smoke, by itself, doesn’t tell you what caused it.

It could be a fire or it could be someone deliberately creating the appearance of smoke.

Cough cough…Victor Gutierrez

The point is that you don’t know until you actually investigate.

Which apparently people hate doing.

But then they’ll say, “Well, there’s so much evidence!”

Okay…where is it?

Suddenly, the evidence they were so confident about is nowhere to be found.

Anyway,

Imagine a world where an accusation was enough to prove guilt, where rumours were accepted as evidence, and where suspicion alone could lead to conviction.

We wouldn’t need courts, trials, or evidence.

We’d only need someone to point at the smoke and declare there’s a fire.

Thankfully, that’s not how the justice system works.

The phrase also creates another problem that people rarely think about.

It encourages people to treat the number of accusations as evidence.

As though allegations can somehow “stack” into proof.

They can’t.

If ten people repeat the same unsupported claim, you don’t suddenly have evidence.

You have ten claims that still need to be evaluated on their own.

That’s why courts don’t count allegations like votes.

They examine the evidence behind each one.

Some are supported.

Some aren’t.

You don’t determine which is which by counting them.

You determine it by looking into them.

People tend to think quantity is more important than quality.

You and I both know that isn’t true.

Hell, just read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t8m59j/theres_no_way_all_11_people_are_lying/

Another thing I find interesting is how selectively people apply this saying.

Just think about it for a moment.

If someone they admire is accused of something, they wait for facts, and in our case, we examine everything, including asking hard/important questions.

Which…I completely agree with.

But then someone they already dislike gets accused.

Suddenly it’s:

“Well…where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Really?

So which one is it?

Either allegations deserve to be investigated before conclusions are reached…or they don’t.

You don’t get to change what the rules depending on whether you personally like the person being accused or not.

That’s not objectivity.

That’s bias.

Honestly, I think that’s exactly why this phrase has become so popular online.

It allows people to sound reasonable without actually examining the evidence.

Instead of asking difficult questions…

“What evidence supports this?”

“How reliable is the source?”

“Are there inconsistencies?”

“Has this claim actually been verified?”

…the conversation gets replaced by a saying.

Isn’t that ridiculous?

A saying suddenly becomes their entire argument.

Well…at least it’s better than them ghosting the argument because they were wrong, right?

I just know it’s happened to you too, haha.

That brings me to my final point.

Spreading misinformation isn’t activism.

I understand that many people believe they are “fighting for victims”. They believe that they are raising awareness.

But good intentions do not make an argument accurate. In fact, accuracy matters even more when discussing topics like alleged abuse.

When people exaggerate, remove context, repeat claims that have not been proven, continue pushing claims that have already been disproven, or present assumptions as facts, they are not helping the conversation.

They are making it harder to separate real evidence from complete speculation.

And ultimately, they risk harming the very conversation they claim to support.

Let’s be honest: caring about an issue does not mean abandoning critical thinking. It does not mean treating every accusation as fact or interpreting every unusual interaction in the worst possible way.

Real advocacy requires honesty and accuracy.

You have to be willing to follow the evidence, even when the answer is complicated, or something you don’t like.

If the goal was truly about protecting people, then the argument should not be:

“Does this make the person look guilty?”

The argument should be:

“Is this actually supported by evidence?”

And no, before anyone brings up documentaries, interviews, or popular media pieces, those are not evidence simply because they are presented confidently. A claim being filmed, edited, or widely shared does not replace the need for verification.

I said this in a comment earlier today, and jokes aside, I stand by it fully:

I feel like they (specifically James and Wade, although I wouldn’t be surprised if other users did this as well) pulled up a map of Neverland, pointed at random places, and went:

“Yeah, this should make sense, right?”

“I’ll just say it happened here.”

Maybe that’s just my opinion, but c’mon…

I’ve mentioned it before in a few posts, but this is where hindsight bias often comes into play. Once someone reaches a conclusion, every piece of information gets filtered through that conclusion. A person no longer asks, ‘What does this evidence actually show?’ They ask, ‘How can I make this fit what I already believe?’”

At the end of the day, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is not evidence.

Sometimes smoke means there is a fire.

Sometimes it doesn’t.

The only way to know the difference is to look closer.

Not assume, speculate or repeat claims.

Actually look.

I promise, the truth is a lot more interesting than a recycled saying.

P.S. I just realized I accidentally created another series besides the Case Files.

Was this intentional? No.

Did it happen anyway? Apparently. 😂

Here are the other two if you missed them:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uqhic1/not_everyone_is_a_narcissist/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1usbz9m/the_word_grooming_has_lost_its_meaning/

Bye for now!

I’m bad, I’m bad…and I’m back to dissect another frequently misused word.

Yay.

Okay, seriously though, we need to talk about this.

Because just like the word “narcissist,” another serious term has been thrown around online so casually that many people have forgotten what it actually means.

Grooming.

It carries a very serious meaning.

It describes a process of manipulation, trust-building, and exploitation.

And it should never be thrown around casually.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

Thanks, social media.

Somewhere along the way, “grooming” has gone from describing a specific pattern of predatory behaviour to becoming a word people use whenever they see an interaction they personally find uncomfortable, unusual, or suspicious.

Which is a big issue.

Let me get this straight, grooming is not simply:

“Someone was nice to a child.”

“Someone spent time around a child.”

“Someone gave someone a gift.”

“Someone had a friendship with a family.”

Those things alone do not define grooming.

The issue is that people have started focusing on isolated actions while ignoring the most important part:

The intent (key word, folks) and the pattern behind those actions.

Grooming is not about one single moment.

It is a process involving the gradual building of trust and the creation of a dynamic that allows someone to gain access, influence, and control for the purpose of exploitation.

Which is important, why you ask?

Well, because when you remove context and start labelling every interaction that makes someone uncomfortable as “grooming,” you are no longer using the word correctly.

That’s completely turning a serious term into a buzzword. Just like throwing around the word “narcissist,” but I already covered that.

Read here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uqhic1/not_everyone_is_a_narcissist/

Words matter, especially words connected to abuse.

They matter because they describe real experiences that real victims have gone through.

They deserve more than becoming another internet accusation people throw around whenever they want to explain why they dislike someone or something.

Enter Michael.

As you already know, one of the most common accusations made by guilters is that his relationships with children and families were examples of grooming.

But before we decide whether that claim holds up, we need to ask the same question we asked with narcissism:

Do people actually understand what grooming means?

Because a lot of people don’t.

So…what does grooming actually look like?

Here comes the part that people often skip.

You know…the definition.

Crazy concept, I know.

Grooming is not a single action.

It is not a conversation, a gift, a sleepover, a photograph, and it is certainly not, “Well…it looked weird to me.”

Believe it or not, that’s not the legal or psychological standard.

Not even close.

Grooming is generally understood as a deliberate process.

A process where someone gradually builds trust, gains access, tests boundaries, and creates a relationship that can later be exploited for abusive purposes.

Do notice you something?

Everything I just described involves intent.

Not assumptions, vibes, or hindsight.

That’s because grooming isn’t defined by one isolated behaviour.

It’s defined by a pattern of manipulative behaviour that serves a specific purpose.

In many documented cases involving actual grooming, you’ll often see recurring elements.

An adult works to gain the trust of a child and, quite often, the trust of the child’s family.

They slowly normalize behaviour that would otherwise raise concerns.

They may encourage secrecy.

They may isolate the child from protective adults.

They gradually test boundaries, often escalating over time.

None of this usually happens overnight.

It isn’t about one grand gesture.

It’s about slowly changing what feels “normal” to the victim.

Which is exactly why simply making a list of innocent actions tells you…well…absolutely nothing.

“Michael gave children gifts.”

Okay…

So did countless celebrities.

So do teachers, coaches, grandparents…

Should I give you a bigger list?

Giving someone a gift is not, by itself, evidence of grooming.

“Michael spent time with children.”

Again…children don’t exist in some magical universe where every adult interaction is automatically sinister.

Lots of people spend time with children. Teachers, doctors, camp counsellors, youth leaders, parents’ friends…

The question has never been whether an adult spent time around children.

The question is whether there is evidence that those relationships followed a pattern of manipulation designed to facilitate abuse.

Those are two completely different questions.

Unfortunately, many people skip straight to the conclusion without ever examining the steps in between.

Instead, the argument often becomes:

“It looks strange to me.”

Okay.

And?

Looking unusual is not evidence.

Looking unconventional is not evidence.

Looking different is not evidence.

Otherwise, we’d be replacing investigations with gut feelings.

Which…would be the most ridiculous idea ever.

The reality is that words like “grooming” carry an enormous weight.

They’re meant to describe a very specific pattern of abusive behaviour.

If we start applying that label to every interaction we personally find odd, then the word stops distinguishing actual grooming from ordinary human behaviour.

And when that happens, everybody loses.

Serious words deserve to keep their meaning.

Now that we’ve actually talked about what grooming is, let’s ask the obvious question:

Does that pattern actually fit Michael?

Honestly, this is where I think a lot of people skip straight from “he spent time with children” to “therefore, grooming.”

There’s a lot of missing context in between.

One of the biggest things people ignore is how many of these relationships actually began.

The media/internet often paints a picture of Michael randomly seeking out children, which is completely incorrect.

That didn’t happen.

When you actually start looking into many of the families that entered his life, you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.

The initial contact involved families, parents, managers, charities, and mutual connections.

Sometimes families were introduced through Michael’s team.

Sometimes they met at events.

Sometimes parents actively pursued a friendship because they wanted help, guidance, or simply wanted to meet one of the most famous people in the world.

Take the Chandlers, for example.

One detail that often gets overlooked is that it was David Schwartz, Jordan Chandler’s stepfather, who asked Michael to call Jordan as a favour after Michael’s rental car had broken down.

That phone call wasn’t Michael inserting himself into Jordan’s life out of nowhere.

It came after an adult encouraged the contact.

There are multiple examples of this happening.

It doesn’t fit the simplistic narrative that Michael was secretly identifying random children and working his way into their lives.

It also raises another point that gets repeated constantly:

“He just moved on once the kids got older.”

People say this so confidently that you’d think it was an established fact.

It isn’t.

Some of Michael’s best-known friendships lasted for years, well into adulthood.

Macaulay Culkin remained close to Michael from childhood until Michael’s death.

Brett Barnes also maintained a longstanding friendship.

Those are just a few examples.

That doesn’t mean every friendship looked exactly the same, but it certainly goes against the claim that he “discarded” children once they reached a certain age.

And that’s why I think it’s important to separate claims from evidence.

If someone argues that Michael groomed children, they need to present evidence that actually aligns with the definition of grooming.

Not simply point to the fact that he spent time with families.

Those are two very different arguments.

Let’s continue.

One of the most commonly discussed elements of grooming is that it often involves secrecy.

Not just keeping a relationship private, but actively creating an environment where the child becomes separated from protective adults, where relationships are completely hidden from the people who would normally intervene.

That raises another question.

Where is that pattern here?

One thing that has always stood out to me is just how public many of Michael’s friendships actually were.

People outside of Michael’s inner circle knew about them.

Fans knew.

The media knew.

I mean, hell, reporters literally wrote about them.

There are countless photographs of Michael with these families at public events, on trips, arriving at airports, attending premieres, shopping, or simply spending time together.

And many of those photographs don’t just show Michael and a child.

They show parents.

Siblings.

Other family members and friends.

That’s very important context, which conveniently gets ignored.

If someone argues that Michael groomed children through hidden, calculated relationships, then it’s fair to ask why so many of those relationships unfolded so publicly, with families actively participating and with media documenting them along the way.

Just…think about it.

Alright, alright, my last point…for now.

People side with a particular conclusion.

“Michael was guilty.”

Then they work backwards.

Suddenly, everything becomes “grooming.”

But really, that’s called hindsight bias.

Instead of asking:

“Do these behaviours demonstrate a pattern of grooming?”

The question changes into:

“How can I make these behaviours fit the conclusion I’ve already reached?”

Again, these are two completely different things.

One starts with evidence.

The other starts with an assumption.

And assumptions are not evidence.

Which is exactly why accusations should never be built on hindsight alone.

I also think people have confused two completely different words:

Unusual.

And abusive.

Whether someone believes Michael’s friendships were unconventional is one discussion.

Whether those friendships meet the definition of grooming is an entirely different one.

People are free to think aspects of Michael’s life were unusual.

He wasn’t exactly living an ordinary life.

He was the most famous person on earth. No one will ever understand how overwhelming and lonely that could be.

His childhood wasn’t ordinary.

His career wasn’t ordinary.

That’s something no one could ever deny.

So the fact that some of his friendships looked different from the average person’s isn’t exactly shocking.

But unusual does not become abusive simply because someone says it does.

That’s a conclusion that has to be supported with evidence, okay?

Not feelings.

Not hindsight.

Not, “It just seems weird.”

Actual evidence.

And before I go, I have to address what might genuinely be the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard:

“He groomed the world!”

Seriously…

What does that even mean?

If your definition of grooming becomes so broad that it includes millions of unrelated people across different countries, cultures, professions, and generations, then you’ve stopped describing grooming.

You’ve started describing popularity.

Or influence.

Pick one.

Words have meanings.

Or at least…they’re supposed to.

Grooming is one of the most serious concepts discussed in psychology and criminal justice.

Stop misusing it just because you think it makes you sound smart.

This is the man people have spent decades trying to convince the world is a monster.

But behind the headlines, accusations, and media narratives was a human being who showed compassion, kindness, and empathy toward others.

This is Michael with Dave Dave, a burn survivor he became friends with after Dave suffered horrific injuries as a child.

Don’t forget who the real enemy is.

You know their names.

Yes, I’m here to solve another dumb claim.

What is it now? Well, apparently the word “narcissist” went from being a specific psychological term to one of the internet’s favourite insults.

Someone hurts your feelings?

Narcissist.

Someone disagrees with you?

Narcissist.

Someone is selfish?

Narcissist.

Someone has confidence?

Believe it or not…also apparently a narcissist.

This is a big issue.

Because guess what?

“Narcissist” is not just a fancy word for “someone I don’t like.”

It is not a label that should be casually thrown onto people based on a few public moments, personal dislike, or assumptions about someone’s personality.

It is a term for an actual mental health diagnosis, and like any diagnosis, it requires far more than someone on the internet deciding a person fits a certain stereotype.

But unfortunately, we live in a time where people casually play psychologist far too often.

People watch a few interviews, read a few articles, see a controversial headline, and suddenly believe they have enough information to diagnose someone they have never met.

And that brings me to the topic of this post.

Our dear friend, Michael.

One of the most common labels thrown at him by guilters is that “he was a narcissist.”

But before we even discuss whether that label applies, we need to ask a much bigger question:

Do people actually understand what narcissism means?

Because a lot of people don’t.

So, let’s talk about what narcissism actually is.

The word “narcissist” gets thrown around so casually online that many people have forgotten it has a real psychological meaning.

It reminds me of how often the word “grooming” is also thrown around so easily, but don’t worry, that post is coming.

It is not simply another word for someone who is arrogant, selfish, annoying, confident, wealthy, famous, or someone who has made mistakes.

People are complicated, that’s no shocker.

Everyone, at some point in their lives, can display selfish behaviour. Everyone can be defensive. Everyone can want attention. Everyone can make decisions that hurt other people.

We’ve all done it.

Those things alone do not make someone a narcissist.

There is a huge difference between having certain narcissistic traits and having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Narcissistic traits can appear in many people occasionally. Someone might be self-centred in a particular situation, need validation, or struggle to accept criticism.

Those are human behaviours.

A personality disorder, however, is a much more complex and consistent pattern of behaviour that affects how a person views themselves, interacts with others, and functions in relationships.

It is not something that can be determined by watching interviews, reading headlines, or analyzing someone based on a narrative that you were fed.

And like I said, this is where the internet has created a monstrous problem.

We have reached a point where people use psychological terms as weapons instead of trying to understand what they actually mean.

I swear, someone can display one trait people don’t like, and suddenly they’re being labelled a narcissist.

But that isn’t how psychology works.

A diagnosis is not an insult. It is not a character judgment. It is not a way to summarize whether someone is a good or bad person.

It is a psychological assessment that requires far more than assumptions based on public perception.

Honestly, that is the biggest issue with labelling public figures.

A person can be misunderstood.

A person can be complicated.

A person can have flaws.

None of those things automatically equal narcissism.

Now, let’s get into the Michael of it all.

Like I mentioned, the claim that Michael was a narcissist is something that comes up frequently among guilters.

They often point to things like his fame, his success, his appearance, his private life, or the amount of attention surrounding him as evidence.

But this is where the misunderstanding begins.

Someone being famous, successful, or confident in their own abilities does not make them narcissistic.

In fact, many of the things people point to as “proof” of narcissism often have much more complicated explanations.

Michael Jackson was one of the most famous people on the planet.

Of course he had a larger-than-life public image.

He was a performer whose entire life was built around music, entertainment, and creating memorable experiences for millions of people.

Even in death.

That is not the same thing as believing you are superior to everyone else.

In fact, Michael openly acknowledged his influences. He frequently praised other artists, musicians, dancers, and creators who inspired him. He spoke about learning from others and continued studying music and performance throughout his career.

A narcissistic mindset is often associated with an inability to accept criticism, a need to constantly prove superiority, and a lack of genuine empathy toward others.

And in my opinion, Michael was the complete opposite of that.

He was deeply empathetic, genuine…and unfortunately, very hard on himself.

He was known for being extremely dedicated to his craft, spending countless hours rehearsing, refining performances, and pushing himself creatively. Perfectionism was a well known trait of his, but perfectionism and narcissism are not the same thing.

Not even close.

Wanting to do something well does not mean someone believes they are better than everyone else.

That’s simply not how it works.

Michael also spent a very significant amount of time and money on charitable efforts throughout his life. Whether through organizations, donations, benefit concerts, or personal interactions with fans and children’s charities, philanthropy was a major part of his identity.

Again, no single action can diagnose or rule out a personality disorder, but the simplistic idea of “Michael was successful and loved attention, therefore he was a narcissist” does not make sense.

Personally, I think it’s just fucking stupid.

Another trait people often overlook is his sensitivity.

Michael was very private, sometimes uncomfortable with intense scrutiny, and openly discussed the emotional impact that fame had on him.

Some people interpret vulnerability or emotional struggles as weakness or manipulation, but those things are not evidence of narcissism.

Which is…so fucked up, but okay.

A person can be sensitive, insecure, and struggle with fame.

None of those things make someone a narcissist.

The biggest lesson here is that people need to stop confusing traits with diagnoses.

Someone can be confident without being arrogant, private without being manipulative, successful without being self-obsessed, and flawed without being a narcissist.

Human beings are far more complicated than a label someone on the internet decides to place on them.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

Raise your hand if you’re tired of Evan Chandler.

🙋🏼‍♀️

Great.

Now leave it up, because we’ve still got a ways to go.

Welcome back to the Case Files.

🚨 Need to catch up? Here are the previous parts:

Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Part 4:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/

Part 5:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/

If you’re new here…

First of all, welcome!

Second of all…

I’d recommend starting with Part 1. We’ve already covered a lot, and it’ll save you from wondering why everyone keeps talking about screenplays.

Seriously, I’m not even kidding.

Alright,

When we left off, the investigation had officially begun.

Search warrants had been executed.

Michael Jackson’s homes had been searched from top to bottom.

And after all of that, Investigators still hadn’t found evidence that supported filing criminal charges.

Now we arrive at the period immediately after the allegations become public.

And almost immediately…the cast changes again.

Because apparently this story needed even more lawyers.

Let’s begin with August 30th.

By this point, attorney Barry Rothman is no longer representing Evan Chandler.

Interesting timing, isn’t it?

Because this happens immediately after Anthony Pellicano releases the infamous negotiation tape, the same tape we’ve discussed before.

Also, listen here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=m

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5Ya_YfzvI&ra=m

The tape that allowed the public to hear conversations surrounding screenplay deals, money, and negotiations instead of simply taking everyone’s word for what had happened behind closed doors.

Then enters a name I’m willing to bet a lot of you recognized immediately.

Gloria Allred.

…

Yeah.

That Gloria Allred.

On September 2nd, she held a press conference at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

According to the Los Angeles Times, she announced that she had been retained by Jordan’s parents to represent him and described herself as his spokesperson.

She also made it clear that Jordan intended to cooperate with authorities.

But…Gloria Allred’s involvement would be remarkably short lived.

The Los Angeles Times later reported:

“Allred’s abrupt departure from the case makes her the latest in a revolving series of representatives for the boy and members of his family. The boy’s father originally was represented by Barry K. Rothman.

Jackson’s private investigator says Rothman was part of an attempt to extort $20 million from the entertainer.

Rothman is no longer connected to the case, and the father now is represented by Richard G. Hirsch.”

Hold on.

She held one press conference…and now she’s already gone?

Guys.

We’re changing lawyers faster than Evan changed negotiation strategies.

Notice something?

We’ve now watched this case cycle through attorneys while the investigation itself is still in its early stages.

That’s…not exactly the picture most people have in their heads when they think about the Chandler allegations.

I mean, if you’ve only ever heard the simplified version of this story, you’d probably assume everyone stayed on one consistent path from the very beginning.

Instead…the legal representation itself is already changing.

And we’re only getting started.

The paper quoted her saying:

“My client wants…the truth to come out. He is ready, he is willing, he is able to testify.”

That’s a pretty significant statement on its own.

If you’re representing a child making allegations this serious, publicly stating that your client is prepared to testify naturally sends a message that the criminal process is moving forward.

But here’s where things get…

well…very Chandler, to say the least.

According to the same Los Angeles Times report, it came literally one day after Pellicano publicly released the negotiation tape.

The newspaper explained:

“Jackson’s representatives released a tape they said bolstered their contention that the entertainer was the victim of an extortion attempt…”

And suddenly…there’s a nationally televised press conference.

Coincidence?

You can decide that for yourself.

But the timing is certainly interesting.

Suspiciously interesting.

And then, just days later…Gloria Allred is gone.

She enters the story, holds one of the biggest press conferences of the entire case, and then disappears from the Chandler legal team almost immediately afterward.

Uh oh, say the wrong thing, Gloria?

Naturally, people wanted to know why.

Allred herself never publicly explained her departure.

So once again, we’re forced to rely on one of the Chandler family’s own sources.

Ray Chandler.

Boooo.

Sorry, had to.

Despite all the problems with All That Glitters, it remains one of the few places where the Chandler family’s own internal reasoning is laid out.

And according to Ray, the family had a decision to make.

Continue with Gloria Allred…or hire Larry Feldman.

He writes:

“The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.”

wait...

Let’s read that one more time.

“…a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.”

Highly…profitable.

I’m sorry but we accidentally wandered back into Part 4?

Because I could’ve sworn we had finally moved beyond screenplay negotiations.

Apparently not.

And before anyone says I’m putting words in someone’s mouth, those aren’t my words.

They’re Ray Chandler’s.

The word “profitable” wasn’t added by me, not by Michael’s defence team, not by fans.

It appears in the Chandler family’s own version of events.

I’m going to be honest here, I don’t think that word gets enough attention.

Because throughout this series we’ve repeatedly been told that the overwhelming priority was supposedly Jordan.

Justice for Jordan.

Protecting Jordan.

Helping Jordan.

Yet over, and over…and over again, the conversation keeps circling back to settlements.

Negotiations.

Money.

Profit.

It’s becoming a pattern.

But, oh, Ray doesn’t stop there.

He goes on to explain the reasoning behind choosing Larry Feldman over Gloria Allred by writing:

“Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainer.”

Okay.

Let’s talk about that.

On the surface, that sounds perfectly reasonable.

Nobody wants a child dragged through years of court proceedings.

Nobody.

If that’s all we knew, I’d completely understand the argument.

But the problem is…

Ray is in way over his big head.

Why? Because we have a timeline.

And timelines have a nasty habit of refusing to cooperate with convenient explanations.

…sorry, Ray!

Let’s look at where we actually are.

It’s only been about two weeks since Jordan was taken to Dr. David Abrams.

Two weeks.

The mandatory report had only just been made.

Law enforcement had only recently become involved.

The investigation was still in its early stages.

So…how exactly had the family already reached the conclusion that criminal proceedings should effectively take a back seat to pursuing what Ray himself described as a “quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement?”

Think about it.

At this point, there wasn’t even enough information to know whether criminal charges would ever be filed.

No grand jury had convened.

No prosecutor had announced charges.

Nothing.

Yet according to Ray’s own account, discussions had already shifted toward settling the matter as quickly, and as profitably as possible.

That raises an obvious question.

Was criminal accountability ever really the priority? Because we’ve been asking versions of that same question for five straight Case Files now.

When Evan supposedly caught Michael “spooning” Jordan…

he didn’t call the police.

He went back to bed.

When Jordan supposedly confessed on July 16th…

there was no immediate report.

Instead, weeks passed.

Negotiations and financial demands happened.

Custody battles continued.

Screenplay discussions somehow continued.

Only after those negotiations collapsed, after August 17th, and most importantly, after Evan had been ordered to return Jordan to June, did the allegations officially enter the legal system through Dr. Abrams’ mandatory reporting obligation.

That timeline hasn’t changed.

We’ve walked through it together.

Step by step.

And now…even after law enforcement becomes involved, Ray Chandler’s own explanation still circles back to settlement.

Not prosecution.

Settlement.

I’m going to say something that I think has become impossible to ignore.

If your ultimate objective is criminal justice, you generally don’t spend this much time trying to get back into negotiations.

You just don’t.

Yet that’s exactly what appears to keep happening.

Every road seems to lead back to money.

That’s not a coincidence.

Which brings us to the newest member of this ever growing legal cast.

Larry Feldman.

Now, if you’ve never heard of him before, here’s how he’s typically described as:

An accomplished civil trial attorney.

High-profile litigation.

Entertainment law.

Business disputes.

Personal injury.

A lawyer with decades of experience handling major civil cases.

Notice anything?

Civil.

Not criminal.

Which is extremely important.

Because the direction this case is about to take starts making a lot more sense once Larry Feldman enters the picture.

According to Feldman himself, years later, the reason for pursuing civil litigation so quickly was the media circus surrounding the allegations.

He explained:

“The Department of Children’s Services leaked a report of the accusation. That’s why [the case] took on a life of its own… The boy was in terrible pain…You’ve got to end that.”

At first glance…that explanation sounds completely understandable, right?

Public scrutiny can be devastating.

Especially for a child.

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

But…there’s another side to this story.

Because while Feldman points to media attention as the reason a civil resolution became necessary…we also have to acknowledge something we’ve already seen several times throughout this timeline.

The Chandler crew wasn’t exactly avoiding publicity.

Quite the opposite.

By this point we’ve already seen press conferences.

Public statements.

Attorney interviews.

Negotiation tapes becoming public.

And as we’re going to see later…the media attention doesn’t exactly stop after the settlement either.

In fact…it arguably increases.

So, yes, while Feldman’s explanation deserves to be included, it also deserves to be examined alongside what actually happened afterward.

Funny how history has a funny way of answering questions people leave open.

And in this case…the story was far from over.

Let’s continue, because I have a huge question…

If the concern was truly about protecting Jordan from prolonged legal exposure, why does the very next phase of this story look like the legal case is about to expand?

The problem is, what happens next doesn’t exactly look like stepping away from conflict.

It looks like escalation.

And in the life of Evan Chandler, that was always the easiest way to go.

As some of you may remember from a different part of the Chandler case files, I said that Evan’s mask was forever slipping.

Well, here it goes again…

According to Ray Chandler, a disagreement emerged between Evan Chandler and Jordan’s stepfather, Dave Schwartz, over how any potential financial outcome would be handled.

And yes.

We are still talking about money that, at this point in the timeline, does not exist yet.

Ray describes Schwartz’s position like this:

“In the heat of this verbal battle [Evan] sprang from his seat and slapped Dave in the face. Several of the lawyers stepped between the two men and separated them.”

Let that sit for a second.

This is happening in the middle of a case that, according to earlier framing, is supposed to be about protecting a child from trauma.

Instead, we now have a physical altercation between family members and lawyers stepping in to separate them.

Don’t you just love what money does to people?

Ugh.

Now, okay, Ray’s version of events doesn’t exist in on its own either.

Because Mary Fischer, writing in her 1994 GQ piece Was Michael Jackson Framed?, described the same incident, stating that during the argument Schwartz allegedly said:

“This was all about extortion, anyway…”

At that point, according to her account, that’s when Evan allegedly stood up and struck him.

Ray’s version notably omits that remark.

Convenient, wouldn’t you say?

But unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there my friends.

Shortly after this period, Evan Chandler files a lawsuit against June Chandler and Dave Schwartz.

(I’ve mentioned this previously.)

The claims include invasion of privacy, violation of penal code sections relating to recorded communications, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.

The foundation of this lawsuit?

Taped conversations between Evan and Dave.

Conversations Evan alleges were improperly handled and distributed.

So now, within the same timeline, we have a criminal allegation in motion, a civil strategy taking shape alongside it, a family dispute evolving into litigation, and internal recordings becoming external evidence.

But what’s important here is not just the existence of these conflicts.

It’s their timing.

And of course, none of this is happening after resolution. It’s happening while everything is still unfolding.

While the investigation is still developing, legal representation is shifting, public pressure is increasing.

But eventually, that lawsuit itself does not move forward.

It is later dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Which, in legal terms, simply means the case was not actively pursued to completion within the required timeframe.

Moving on,

By September 13th, 1993, the Chandler legal team takes a decisive step forward.

A civil lawsuit is filed against Michael.

The claim totals $30 million.

The allegations include sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligence.

It’s a long list of allegations, but at this point, no criminal charges had been filed.

Hell, no evidence had been found either.

…What else is new in the world of Evan Chandler and his 59 personalities?

Alright, deep breath.

We’re going to stop here.

The next few parts are going to be tough, so prepare yourself ahead of time.

Also, bring caffeine.

You’re going to need it.

I’ll see you in Part 7. 👋🏼

Previous case files:

Sneddon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t362pc/case_file_sneddon/

Dimond:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t4zd0m/case_file_dimond/

Gutierrez:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t7t6ut/case_file_gutierrez/

Francia:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tcj13c/case_file_francia/

Neverland Five:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/

Chandler – Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Chandler – Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Chandler – Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Chandler – Part 4:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/

Chandler – Part 5:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/

Additional information and sources:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-the-aftermath-of-the-1993-allegations-going-8ba74b7008f9

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-09-03-me-31230-story.html

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tpltfp/some_people_need_michael_jackson_to_be_guilty/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1um4ucd/comparing_michael_jacksons_trial_to_oj_simpsons/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tzylaq/talking_in_circles/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t8m59j/theres_no_way_all_11_people_are_lying/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t5liuf/fact_vs_fiction_common_claims_about_michael/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t22m7w/a_media_assassination_the_case_of_michael_jackson/

Seriously, I’m sick of it.

Every time Michael’s trial is brought up, the same handful of names get thrown into the conversation.

“O.J. Simpson was found not guilty.”

“Casey Anthony was found not guilty.”

“R. Kelly got away with it for years.”

“What about Diddy…”

As if simply naming another case automatically proves Michael’s acquittal meant nothing.

It doesn’t.

In fact, it tells me something else completely.

Many people aren’t comparing the evidence or the legal proceedings at all.

They’re comparing headlines.

And that’s a big problem.

Not every acquittal happens for the same reason.

Not every prosecution presents the same quality of evidence.

Not every jury reaches its verdict for the same legal or factual reasons.

Yet people routinely lump Michael’s trial together with every “popular” case as though they’re all the same.

They’re not.

Anyway…as many of you know, I love a good rebuttal. So, here it is:

Before we dive in, I just wanted to mention that this isn’t a post arguing that every person who was acquitted is innocent.

It isn’t a post defending O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, Diddy, or anyone else (minus Mike, but that’s obvious lol).

This is a post about something much simpler:

The legal path to an acquittal matters.

And if you’re going to compare cases, you have to compare how those verdicts were reached, not just the words “Not Guilty.”

Honestly, once you actually examine the trials themselves instead of repeating internet talking points, the comparisons fall apart very quickly.

Now that we’ve established that, let’s get into it.

O.J. Simpson:

This is probably the comparison I see the most.

“Well, O.J. was found not guilty too.”

Okay…let’s talk about why.

People often use O.J.’s acquittal as the poster child for “juries get things wrong.”

Now, whether you personally agree with the verdict or not isn’t actually the point.

The point is how the verdict was reached.

The prosecution’s case in O.J. Simpson’s trial was built heavily on forensic evidence: DNA, blood evidence, the gloves, timelines…the jury heard months of testimony about it.

But that evidence didn’t exist in a bubble.

The defence spent the trial attacking the integrity of the investigation itself.

They argued that evidence had been mishandled.

They challenged how forensic evidence was collected and preserved.

They raised allegations of police misconduct and bias, particularly involving Detective Mark Fuhrman, whose racist statements and credibility issues became a major part of the trial.

Which mattered…a lot.

A shit ton, actually.

Once jurors begin questioning whether investigators handled evidence properly, it can affect how they view the prosecution’s entire case.

They ask, “Was guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Whether the jury reached the correct conclusion has been debated for decades, we know that.

But here’s the important part:

O.J.’s defence focused heavily on undermining confidence in the investigation itself.

Michael’s defence was fighting an entirely different battle.

The prosecution’s case against Michael depended primarily on witness testimony, timelines, and allegations that the defence argued were inconsistent, contradicted, or unsupported by the evidence presented.

And well, I mean…just read the transcripts. Like, actually read them.

The contradictions are extremely clear, and they aren’t exactly small either.

Personally, I don’t think Michael’s case should have gone to trial in the first place.

But anyway, the point is that these are fundamentally different legal battles.

One centred on whether the integrity of a murder investigation could be trusted.

The other centred on whether the prosecution had presented credible, reliable evidence proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those are not the same thing.

Yet people constantly treat them as if they are, simply because both defendants heard the words “not guilty.”

That’s not legal analysis.

That’s headline analysis.

Next,

Casey Anthony:

This is another case that gets thrown around a lot.

“Casey Anthony was found not guilty too.”

Again…this case is completely different from Michael’s.

Why?

Because these cases weren’t even trying to prove the same type of crime, and they weren’t built on the same type of evidence.

The prosecution charged Casey Anthony with first-degree murder, alleging she intentionally killed her daughter, Caylee Anthony.

To secure a conviction, prosecutors had to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Caylee had been unlawfully killed, but that Casey was legally responsible and that the killing met the elements of first-degree murder.

The problem?

They couldn’t explain exactly how Caylee died.

Her remains were discovered months later, badly decomposed.

The medical examiner classified the manner of death as homicide, but the exact cause of death could not be determined.

That became one of the biggest issues in the trial.

The prosecution argued one theory.

The defence argued another.

And the jury ultimately concluded the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notice something important here.

The jury didn’t say:

“We know she’s guilty, but here’s a loophole.”

Or

“She’s guilty, but we have to let her go.”

They said the prosecution had not met the burden of proof.

Whether people agree with that conclusion is a completely different discussion.

Now compare that to Michael.

His trial wasn’t about reconstructing an unexplained death.

It wasn’t a circumstantial homicide case either.

In Michael’s case, jurors spent months hearing testimony from the accuser, family members, investigators, employees, experts, and numerous other witnesses.

They reviewed extensive evidence from both sides.

After all of it, they returned not guilty verdicts on every count.

The important takeaway from this “comparison” is that there really isn’t one to begin with.

And the fact that two juries reached “not guilty” doesn’t mean they got there by the same road.

The destination may look identical.

The journey wasn’t.

Next,

R. Kelly:

I’ll be real, this comparison has always confused me.

“Well, R. Kelly was acquitted too.”

Yes.

In 2008.

But if that’s where your understanding of his legal history ends, you’re missing…well, pretty much everything.

R. Kelly’s 2008 trial involved state child pornography charges in Illinois, based on a videotape prosecutors alleged showed him engaging in sexual acts with an underage girl.

One of the prosecution’s biggest hurdles wasn’t simply proving what appeared on the tape.

It was proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the identity of the people in the video and that the girl was under 18 at the time.

That issue of identity wasn’t as straightforward as it’s often made out to be.

Some individuals connected to the alleged victim supported the identification, while others disputed it or expressed uncertainty at different points.

That lack of clarity became a key weakness for the prosecution.

Because of those unresolved issues, the jury acquitted Kelly on all counts.

But here’s where the comparison often becomes incomplete.

That wasn’t the end of the story.

Years later, additional allegations came forward.

Journalistic investigations renewed scrutiny of long standing claims.

New witnesses cooperated with investigators.

Federal prosecutors brought entirely different cases involving different victims, different evidence, different jurisdictions, and different charges.

Eventually, R. Kelly was convicted in federal court.

So when people say:

“R. Kelly was acquitted too.”

They’re skipping the part where later prosecutions, built on substantially different evidence, resulted in convictions.

Michael’s legal history doesn’t follow that trajectory at all.

After the 2005 trial, there wasn’t a later prosecution that uncovered new victims and resulted in convictions on similar allegations.

People sometimes speak as though Michael’s case was “the first round.”

It wasn’t.

It concluded with acquittals on every count.

And no, 1993 does not count in this discussion, it never went to trial, or resulted in any criminal charges.

Also, before anyone says, “What about James, Wade, or the Cascios?”

That’s actually another reason I don’t think the R. Kelly comparison works.

R. Kelly’s later convictions came from new criminal prosecutions built on different evidence that ultimately resulted in guilty verdicts.

People often try to draw a parallel by pointing to allegations that surfaced after Michael ’s death.

But allegations and criminal convictions are not the same thing.

Especially when James, Wade, and the Cascio family have all previously denied that Michael had abused them on multiple occasions, even on television and under oath, before later alleging abuse years after his death.

But those cases are a different topic, because, you know, money talks.

What I’m trying to say is, these are fundamentally different legal histories.

The comparison only works if you stop reading at the word “acquitted.”

Next,

Sean “Diddy” Combs:

“Well, look at Diddy.”

Okay, first of all, this comparison doesn’t even work.

As of writing this post, Diddy has already gone through a full federal trial and has been convicted on multiple charges. He is currently serving a four year sentence.

So unlike O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony, this isn’t even an acquittal being compared to another acquittal.

It’s being used as a general example of “celebrity justice,” which already blurs the legal differences between cases.

But even if we step back from that, the comparison still doesn’t work.

Because what people are really saying when they bring up names like Diddy, R. Kelly, or others is:

“Famous people either get away with it or the system protects them.”

That’s an interesting claim.

And such claims collapse the moment you look at the actual case structures.

Sorry, but they just do.

Diddy’s case involved a different legal framework than Michael’s.

It was not a single credibility driven prosecution built around competing narratives.

It was a case involving multiple complainants, corroborating evidence, and a broader evidentiary structure that did not hinge on one account in the same way Michael’s case did.

Which matters, despite what people on the internet want to tell you.

Because when people flatten all of these cases into “celebrity trial = same outcome,” they erase the actual legal mechanics that determine verdicts.

And once again, that’s the core issue here.

The argument isn’t just wrong. It’s oversimplified to the point where it stops being analysis at all.

Lastly,

Jimmy Savile:

This is a fundamentally different category of case, and it’s important not to blur it into the same conversation.

Jimmy Savile was a UK television personality whose decades of sexual abuse were only fully uncovered after his death in 2011.

Following investigations revealed a vast number of allegations, making it one of the most significant institutional scandals in British history.

But legally, this is not comparable to any of the cases above.

There was no criminal trial.

No prosecution.

No defence.

No jury.

No verdict.

So there is no acquittal or conviction to compare.

What happened in Savile’s case is not “a failure to convict in court.”

It is systemic failure and posthumous exposure of allegations that were never tested in a criminal proceeding.

That’s why Epstein doesn’t belong in this comparison either.

He had a plea deal in 2008, faced new charges in 2019, and died before trial.

Anyway, here’s my conclusion, I hope you’re excited:

People don’t actually compare these cases.

They collapse them.

Many of these people are all placed into the same mental category of “famous person + trial = same outcome logic.”

But that category doesn’t exist in law.

It exists on the internet.

Because in reality, each case involved:

Different charges.

Different standards of proof.

Different types of evidence.

Different defences.

Different strategies.

Need I go on?

A “not guilty” verdict does not explain why a jury reached that conclusion. It only tells you the outcome.

Everything else…the reasoning, the evidence, the credibility assessments, is where the actual legal meaning lives.

That’s why saying “O.J. was acquitted too” or “Casey Anthony got off too” doesn’t actually rebut anything about Michael Jackson’s case.

It just substitutes one headline for another.

And that’s where “technicality” gets thrown around most often.

Not because it’s accurate.

But because it flattens complexity into something easy to repeat.

Michael Jackson’s acquittal wasn’t a mirror of those other cases. It wasn’t a loophole, and it wasn’t because he was famous either.

Was the evidence enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

In 2005, twelve jurors said no.

And they were right.

That’s what gets lost when the conversation turns into comparisons instead of analysis.

And if the only response is another celebrity name, or popular case then it’s not really engagement.

It’s just repetition.

Aka, just talk, no bite.

Okay, okay…not technically about Evan, but it might as well be. 😂

Can you believe it?

Five parts in, and we’ve finally reached a police report.

And the best part?

It wasn’t even filed because of Jordan’s parents.

…yeah.

Let that sink in for a second.

Ugh.

The jokes really do write themselves.

Anyway, welcome back to the Case Files.

First time here?

You might want to read Parts 1–4 first.

Trust me, context is important.

Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Part 4:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/

Now, without further ado, let’s go back to whatever the hell was happening in August of 1993.

First, August 19th.

This is the moment when June Chandler, who up until this point had largely been aligned with Michael, changes her position.

According to the Department of Children’s Services, her statement is recorded as:

“Mother stated that if Jordie had said it, it must be true.”

Now, let’s stop here.

Because I need everyone to sit with how loaded that sentence is.

“If Jordie had said it, it must be true.”

That is not a statement of evidence.

That is not a statement of an independent confirmation or opinion.

She appears to be relying on what she was told her child said.

And in a case this serious, that matters.

Because until this point, June had reportedly not been aligned with Evan’s narrative at all. 

She even referred to it as “baloney.”

So the question becomes obvious:

What changed?

According to Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article Was Michael Jackson Framed?, there’s another layer to June’s decision making that complicates the picture significantly.

Fischer reports:

“The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson.”

If true, that completely reframes the dynamic.

Because suddenly, this isn’t just a simple matter of belief or disbelief.

It becomes pressure.

Legal pressure.

Familial pressure.

And considering what we already know about Evan’s history of aggression, I can understand why a flip would be necessary.

Honestly, the uncomfortable reality is that June appears to be caught in the middle of a collapsing triangle of conflicting interests, accusations, and escalating legal threats.

Then we get another piece of context that adds even more weight.

According to her attorney, Michael Freeman, he ultimately resigned shortly after this shift.

And his reasoning is blunt:

“The whole thing was such a mess. I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

That speaks volumes.

Why?

Because this is a professional essentially stepping back and saying:

I’m not sure what I’m watching anymore, but I don’t want to be part of it.

And again, whether people interpret that as commentary on Evan’s behaviour or simply the frustration of an attorney dealing with a chaotic custody dispute, it still adds another layer of instability to an already confusing situation.

Now, let’s jump ahead for a moment.

Because June’s position doesn’t exist solely in 1993. It becomes relevant again years later.

When she is called to testify during Michael’s 2005 criminal trial, she does something very interesting.

She never explicitly states that she believes Michael Jackson abused her son.

Not once.

And she does not categorically describe him as a child abuser in her testimony.

Which, depending on interpretation, suggests either restraint, uncertainty, or a very careful distinction between what she was told and what she personally believes.

This is an important detail because it directly contrasts with the way this story is often summarized online.

Online, everything tends to be presented as certainty.

Black and white.

Case closed.

But the actual record tells a much more complicated story.

Unfortunately, we see that happen a lot.

Let’s continue.

Now we’re at the point in the timeline where investigators finally get the opportunity to do what everyone had been waiting for.

A search.

If Michael Jackson had hidden evidence…

If there were photographs, videos, any illegal material. Anything whatsoever supporting these allegations…this was the moment investigators were going to find it.

So…what happened?

On August 27th, 1993, the Los Angeles Times reported something that often gets left out whenever people summarize this case.

A high ranking police source told the newspaper:

“There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence…The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

…

Read that again.

“The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

That’s not a defence attorney, not Anthony Pellicano, not Michael Jackson himself saying this.

That’s investigators speaking to the Los Angeles Times after the searches.

That’s a pretty inconvenient thing to say if the searches had supposedly uncovered some mountain of “incriminating evidence.”

…just saying.

The article goes on to explain that investigators searched Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s Century City condominium, reviewing videotapes and other materials while attempting to determine whether there was evidence supporting the allegations or identifying additional victims.

According to the same report…

They came up empty.

Does that mean the investigation stopped?

No.

Quite the opposite.

Because according to the report, investigators shifted their attention toward interviewing other children who had spent time around Michael over the years.

We’ll get there.

Trust me.

But before we do…

We need to talk about what people claim the searches uncovered.

If you’ve spent more than five minutes on the internet discussing this case…you’ve probably seen somebody confidently declare:

“But they found child pornography.”

Well, guess what…they didn’t.

Not in 1993.

Not in 2003.

Not ever.

And that’s exactly why we’re about to spend a little time separating what investigators actually found…

From what the media has spent the last thirty years pretending they found.

This brings us to…the books.

You know the ones.

Every few months somebody posts the same cropped image…leaves out about ninety nine percent of the context, and suddenly acts like they’ve solved one of the most investigated celebrity cases in history.

Deep breaths, everyone.

Let’s actually look at the evidence.

Before we even look at either of these books, we need to establish something about Michael that isn’t exactly controversial.

The man loved books.

No, seriously.

He collected them.

He read constantly.

He loved photography, film, art, history, architecture, music, fairy tales, biographies…If it could be bound between two covers, there was a chance Michael owned it.

By the early 1990s, his Neverland library reportedly contained somewhere around ten thousand books.

Just picture that for a second.

If I owned ten thousand books…I’d probably forget half of them existed.

Now add another important piece of context.

Michael also received gifts constantly.

And not just a few things here and there, but an overwhelming amount of mail and gifts, far more than most people could even imagine.

People wanted to get his attention. That wasn’t unusual, it was his life.

So before anyone jumps to conclusions because investigators located a particular book somewhere on one of his properties…

Let’s remember what investigators were actually looking at.

Not ten books. Not one hundred books. Thousands.

Now okay, does owning a large library automatically explain every single item inside it? 

Of course not.

But context matters, it always does.

Especially when people spend decades pretending context doesn’t exist.

Which finally brings us to the book that somehow became more famous than the actual results of the police raid.

The Boy: A Photographic Essay.

Released in 1964.

Long before Michael ever owned Neverland, and long before any allegations.

And most importantly, before the internet existed.

And here’s something that almost never gets mentioned.

The book wasn’t banned and wasn’t it illegal.

In fact, it’s catalogued by the Library of Congress, and has been sold publicly for decades.

Collectors still buy and sell copies today.

So already this isn’t some underground publication investigators stumbled across hidden behind a fake wall like we’re watching an episode of CSI or something.

It’s a commercially published photography book from the 1960s.

It’s important to note that this particular book was sent to Michael as a gift.

During the 2005 trial, evidence showed an inscription indicating it had been given to Michael by a fan named Rhonda.

I’ll come back to why that matters in a minute.

But first, before we continue with discussing what’s in the book, I need to clarify a detail that tends to get left out. A pretty big detail.

According to the evidence presented years later…No fingerprints from Michael were documented on the interior pages.

…yeah.

For years people have argued this book somehow proves criminal intent. Yet the record does not document that Michael handled the interior pages.

Which is extremely important, because if you’re trying to argue somebody used a specific book as evidence of grooming…

You’d probably want evidence they actually used the book.

Crazy concept, I know.

But we’re not done.

Let’s actually talk about why this book became controversial.

Because if I just stopped here…

Somebody would inevitably show up in the comments yelling:

“YOU LEFT SOMETHING OUT.”

Relax.

I’m getting there.

Years after these books entered the public conversation, people discovered something disturbing about their authors.

Or more accurately…who the authors actually were.

Because “Georges St. Martin” and “Ronald C. Nelson” weren’t their real names.

They were pseudonyms (fake names).

According to later reporting, the men behind those names were connected to NAMBLA.

But here’s the question nobody ever seems interested in asking.

How exactly was Michael Jackson supposed to know that?

Seriously.

Take yourself back to that time period.

If a commercially available photography book listed two author names on the cover, most people would assume those were the authors.

Because why wouldn’t they?

The real identities weren’t printed inside the books.

Their criminal histories weren’t printed inside the books.

Their alleged affiliations weren’t printed inside the books.

The books themselves certainly didn’t come with a giant warning label saying:

“By the way…the people who made this aren’t who they claim to be.”

So let’s ask the obvious question.

If ordinary readers had no practical way of discovering the real identities behind these pseudonyms…how exactly was Michael expected to?

And remember this wasn’t some rare underground publication secretly passed around in dark alleyways.

The book was publicly sold.

That’s an important distinction.

Because there’s a massive difference between knowingly seeking out illegal material…

And owning a commercially published photography book whose authors later turned out to be people hiding behind fake identities.

Those are not the same thing.

Not even close.

Now, here’s another detail that gets quietly left out.

The book contains hundreds of photographs.

Some are artistic.

Some are documentary.

Some were taken in Puerto Rico.

And some are actually production photographs from the 1963 film Lord of the Flies.

Yes.

That Lord of the Flies.

The same film that’s been discussed in classrooms for decades.

The same film that’s still available to watch.

The same film that includes scenes of boys skinny-dipping and running around the island with minimal clothing in completely non-sexual contexts.

IMDb even describes the nudity in the film as “non-sexual and non-sensational.”

So suddenly…The cover of The Boy starts looking a little different when you realize some of its images are connected to an internationally recognized film.

Funny how context keeps showing up.

Almost like it matters. :)

When you actually look at the evidence, the scary story people tell online starts falling apart piece by piece.

Because instead of finding hidden child pornography, Investigators found a publicly available photography book.

Among roughly ten thousand other books.

Whose authors concealed their real identities.

And whose pages weren’t documented as containing Michael Jackson’s fingerprints.

That’s…a very different story than the one usually told.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Anyway…

Let’s actually talk about these books.

Again, if you’ve spent any amount of time arguing about this case online, you’ve probably heard someone confidently say:

“Michael Jackson had those books in his bedroom!”

Okay.

Let’s assume that’s true.

Now comes my question.

Did anyone ever establish that Michael actually…read them?

Because that’s kind of important, isn’t it?

Like I said, according to the records, Michael’s fingerprints were not documented inside the pages of either book.

Now, I’ve seen people try to argue:

“Well maybe investigators just didn’t fingerprint them.”

Alright.

Let’s think this through.

Because that argument creates an entirely different problem.

The prosecution’s theory years later was that Michael supposedly used books and other materials as part of a “grooming process.”

Okay, if that’s your theory then wouldn’t you want to know who actually handled the books?

Wouldn’t you want fingerprints?

Wouldn’t you want to see whether any children had touched them?

Wouldn’t that be…oh, I don’t know, one of the first things you checked?

Instead…there is no documented evidence showing Michael’s fingerprints inside the pages.

None.

Which leaves us with two possibilities.

Either investigators checked and didn’t find what they were hoping for.

Or…they never considered the books important enough to examine that way in the first place.

Neither option exactly screams,

“Smoking gun!”

This is one of those moments where I just stare at the ceiling.

Because we’re supposed to believe these books were so unbelievably significant, that they’re still brought up over thirty years later, yet somehow nobody thought…

“Maybe we should determine whether the owner even handled them?”

Interesting investigative strategy.

And then there’s Boys Will Be Boys!.

The second book in question.

Same general subject matter, same authors, same publishing world.

And this is the one where things get even more…specific.

Because inside this book, there is something that everyone loves to conveniently either exaggerate or ignore depending on the argument of the day.

Michael’s inscription on the flyleaf.

And it reads:

“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

Now I want everyone to actually sit with that for a second. Not the way people interpret it in hindsight or not the way it gets clipped into arguments online.

Just the words themselves.

Because what stands out immediately is not anything sinister. It’s the opposite.

It’s someone reflecting on what they didn’t have.

A normal childhood.

A lived experience of freedom and play that, according to everything we know about his upbringing, was taken from him extremely early.

He even mentions his future children, and how he would want them to experience a normal childhood.

It’s an emotional reflection on the childhood he never had. The inscription itself simply doesn’t say what many people claim it does.

Time to let the “sinister” narrative go.

Alright, let’s talk about where these books were supposedly found.

According to testimony presented years later, investigators claimed the books were recovered from the third drawer of a locked filing cabinet inside Michael’s bedroom.

Simple enough.

Except…there was one tiny problem.

The cabinet was locked. Apparently no one, including officers, couldn’t get it open.

So what did they do?

They called Blanca Francia.

Yes.

That Blanca Francia.

The former maid.

Read her Case File here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tcj13c/case_file_francia/

According to the testimony, she arrived…with the key.

You’re telling me a woman who had stopped working for Michael years earlier…still had a key to a locked filing cabinet inside his bedroom?

And nobody thought,

“Maybe we should change that lock?”

Here’s the testimony:

Q: “Was that file cabinet locked?”

A: “Yes.”

Q: “How were you able to unlock it?”

A: “We were able to get the key…the maid brought the key over…and we were able to unlock it.”

Then…

Q: “Do you remember which maid that was?”

A: “I believe it was Blanca Francia.”

Again, I’m just asking questions here.

If this account is accurate…then Michael apparently wasn’t terribly concerned about whatever was inside that cabinet.

I mean…c’mon, just think about it.

If there were supposedly incriminating materials hidden away…why leave the key with someone who hadn’t worked for you in years?

Why never change the lock or ask for the key back?

Why make absolutely no effort whatsoever to secure these allegedly devastating items?

It doesn’t exactly fit the image of someone desperately hiding evidence, does it?

And here’s another thing.

If we’re accepting this testimony…then we’re also accepting something else.

Michael had a former employee walking around with access to a locked cabinet inside his private bedroom…for years.

Which honestly tells me far more about Michael’s trust in people than it does about those books.

I’ll be honest, if I had confidential documents sitting inside a locked cabinet, I’d probably want the only key.

But, maybe that’s just me.

Let’s continue,

And now we arrive at what might be one of the most repeated, most misunderstood, and most dramatically inflated talking points in this entire case.

The infamous “nude photographs.”

You’ve seen it, the people who claim “police found nude photos of boys at Neverland.”

Let’s stop right there.

When you actually trace that claim back to where it originates, things get a lot less cinematic very quickly.

Let’s start with what was actually reported at the time.

A contemporary Associated Press report described allegations that a nude photo of a boy had been recovered during the investigation. 

However, and this part tends to get conveniently left out, the reporting itself was based on investigative claims and leaks during an active investigation, not entered, tested, or confirmed evidence in court.

Classic.

Even at that stage, there was already inconsistency about what was being alleged and where it was supposedly found.

Some accounts placed the alleged image at Hayvenhurst, the Jackson family residence.

Which immediately raises a very simple chronological problem.

By 1993, Michael Jackson had not lived at Hayvenhurst for years.

So even on a basic timeline level, the claim is already unstable before we even get to the evidentiary part.

And that instability doesn’t stop there.

During the 2005 trial stage, the framing changed again.

Now suddenly, the same alleged photographs are no longer being described as coming from Hayvenhurst at all, but instead as items seized from Neverland Ranch, specifically from Jackson’s bedroom and adjoining areas.

Two different locations.

Two different narratives.

Same alleged “evidence.”

And still no publicly photographic exhibits shown in court in a way that allowed for cross-examination.

Which brings us to the part that tends to get buried under headlines:

In pre-trial motions, the prosecution referenced the existence of such materials, but references in motions are not the same thing as admitted evidence.

They are assertions, not adjudicated facts. It’s as simple as that.

To me, the contradictions speak for themselves.

During the 2004 pre-trial period, Michael’s defence attorney Thomas Mesereau publicly addressed circulating media claims about nude photographs being found, calling them false, and stating that even the prosecution had confirmed there was no child pornography recovered.

And then we get to the broader confirmation that tends to get left out of casual summaries of this case entirely.

At one point, it was explicitly noted that no child pornography had been confirmed…as being found during the searches connected to the investigation, and that federal agencies were not treating the case as one involving recovered illegal sexual imagery.

And that conclusion was reflected in judicial proceedings.

So, let’s just take a step back for a second.

Tell me, do you see the pattern?

claim → correction → reframe → contradiction → new claim → repeat.

And somehow, that loop keeps getting presented like it’s momentum.

Right.

I told you, the jokes write themselves.

Anyway.

That’s enough spiralling for one file.

I’ll see you in Part 6.

Well, if you thought the Cascio family couldn’t make themselves look any stupider…think again. 😂

Today marks 17 years since the world lost Michael.

As fans, and as those who believe in his innocence, we’re continuing to clear his name and protect his legacy.

His impact through music, humanitarian work, and the millions of lives he touched around the world will live on for generations to come.

He is missed, remembered, and loved.

Rest easy, Michael. Justice is coming. ❤️

Then she became obsessed with the narrative. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Fuck Jimmy Kimmel for mocking Michael, but other than that…this is a sweet video of Jennifer Love Hewitt discussing what it was like working with Michael.

Welcome back to the Case Files. Or as Evan Chandler would call it: “Act Four: I Want Your Money.”

🚨If you’re just joining this saga…you’re going to want to read parts 1–3 first:

Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Alright, alright.

Here we go,

During part three, we left off with Evan Chandler reaching “absolute certainty.”

According to the timeline.

Jordan had “confessed.”

Dr. Abrams had been consulted.

Michael had denied any wrongdoing.

The infamous August 4th meeting had already happened, where, yes, Evan hugged Michael.

And Evan had supposedly concluded that Michael had abused his son.

A pretty serious conclusion…the kind that would normally send a parent straight to the police.

Well…with that in mind,

We now arrive at August 9th.

And if you’re waiting for the part where Evan starts acting like someone who believes his child was abused…

Keep waiting, or better yet, stop thinking that entirely. It doesn’t happen.

Because somehow, despite everything we’ve just walked through, we are still not at a police report.

We are, however, back to negotiations.

According to All That Glitters, Anthony Pellicano comes back with a counteroffer.

And before anyone reacts too strongly to that, remember where we are in the timeline.

This isn’t the start of negotiations.

This is after Evan has already introduced the idea of a financial demand, which started with…screenplays.

So what comes next is…well.

A response.

According to the account, the offer was one million dollars to fund screenplays written by Evan and Jordan.

Now, whether someone believes this was a serious proposal or a documented negotiation tactic is beside the point.

Because what interests me is Evan’s reaction.

He turns it down.

Not because discussing financial arrangements is offensive when your child has supposedly been abused.

Not because he’s focused exclusively on criminal accountability.

No.

According to the account, he turns it down because he expected more.

…

That’s where the rejection lands. Not on principle. On expectation.

I’m sorry.

Can we all acknowledge how insane this sounds?

Because we’re still operating under the premise that this is a father who believes his son has been sexually abused.

And yet we’re watching somebody negotiate numbers like he’s haggling over a house.

Can someone please explain to me how on earth that’s supposed to make sense?

Thanks.

Anyway,

Just a few days later, we get a letter

And this one is…something else.

“Dear Mr. Pellecono:

I appreciate you meeting with me in my offices at 12:15 p.m. on Friday, August 13, 1993, on behalf of your client, Mr. Michael Jackson, whereby to settle and release all civil claims our clients, Dr Evan Chandler and Jordan Chandler, on behalf of your client, the sum of of $350,000 in respect to a development deal whereby our clients would author a motion picture theatrical screenplay to potentially produced into a motion picture.

I have been instructed to inform you that our clients appreciate your offer on behalf of your client, however your offer is hereby rejected.

Please be advised accordingly.

Very truly yours,

LAW OFFICES OF BARRY K. ROTHMAN”

Guys, can I just say something?

I’m sick of hearing about the screenplay ideas. I really am.

Okay,

Before we move forward, I need to pause on something that tends to get conveniently brushed past in this timeline.

Because while all of this is unfolding in the background, custody pressure, legal letters, and escalating claims being filtered through attorneys, there is another layer being described independently by someone who was actually inside the legal machinery at the time.

And that person, is Geraldine Hughes.

For context, Hughes was Barry Rothman’s secretary during this period. And unlike a lot of voices that get thrown around in this case, she wasn’t a commentator years later trying to reconstruct events from headlines. She was working in the office while all of this was actively happening.

And according to her account in Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations, she claims she personally witnessed legal correspondence being prepared in relation to how these allegations were being handled.

One of the most striking parts comes from her description of a letter typed for Evan Chandler.

She writes:

“According to my diary entry, and my memory, on July 27, 1993, I typed a letter to Dr. Chandler from Mr. Rothman advising him how to report child abuse through a third party without liability of the parent.”

Yeah, let’s stop right there.

Regardless of how anyone interprets the case, the phrasing here is doing a lot of work on its own.

She continues:

“The Codes that Mr. Rothman supplied Dr. Chandler explained in great detail all the ramifications of reporting child abuse/ molestation, how the law would determine what was in the best interest of the child and a parent's right to injuries; and through a third party who was reputable, believable and by someone who would effectively make the reporting of said allegations look credible.”

The last line speaks for itself.

I’m going to remind everyone, at this point in the timeline, what she is describing is not a police driven process, not an investigative interview, and not a child protection led escalation.

It is a legal office discussing procedural pathways. Including how allegations can be reported in a way that avoids liability concerns.

Let’s not forget what Evan said during his phone call with Dave Schwartz

“It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”

Did the alarm bells go off for you?

Let’s continue,

Jordan is still not back with his mother.

And this is where something important needs to be said clearly:

Because custody is not a side detail here, it is actively unfolding at the same time as these “serious allegation” claims.

that matters.

June Chandler, via her attorney Michael Freeman, files a motion for Jordan’s return.

And the court agrees.

Jordan is ordered returned to his mother.

The July 12 agreement is overturned.

And Evan fights it.

Now, parents fight custody battles all the time, this isn’t unusual.

But here’s what strikes me, where is the abuse allegation?

Seriously.

Where is it?

Because if Evan truly believed Michael had abused Jordan…

And if Jordan had truly confessed…

And if Evan had evidence…

Why isn’t that front and centre?

Well, guess what.

According to the timeline presented, the claims aren’t even in the filings.

Mic. Mother. Fucking. dropped.

I need everyone to understand how important that is.

Because on one side, we’re told there is absolute certainty, and on the other side, we’re watching behaviour that looks like negotiation, custody maneuvering, and financial structuring.

They cannot coexist.

It’s as simple as that.

Why? Because it makes zero sense, not even an ounce of logic can be found here.

Moving forward, we arrive at August 17th.

And this is where the timeline takes another turn.

Because suddenly, Jordan is taken to see Dr. Abrams.

And if you were wondering…yes, this is the first time they’ve actually met.

Before this, Evan presented a hypothetical scenario to Abrams with no evidence.

And the hypothetical scenario was before any alleged confession.

Which is extremely important.

And what stands out immediately from Abrams’ later comments is this:

“I think that this is a possibility in both cases (Chandler and Arvizo) that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out.”

That is another very important detail that gets left out.

Not because it proves anything on its own, but because even the reporting psychiatrist acknowledged uncertainty about influence.

Now, to be clear, Abrams was doing exactly what he was required to do.

A child reports allegations in a clinical setting, the law requires reporting.

That part isn’t controversial or unusual.

But here’s what often gets left out:

A mandatory report is not the same thing as confirmation of truth.

It is the start of a process, not the conclusion of one.

And, as mentioned, Abrams himself later acknowledged he never had the opportunity to fully determine whether coaching or external influence was present.

And that brings us back to something that keeps quietly standing out the further we go.

Because once that report is made, everything escalates quickly.

But what keeps sticking out to me is what came before it.

Because before August 17, before the report, before the formal machinery of investigation even begins…

We’ve already gone through weeks of:

Negotiations.

Counteroffers.

Custody disputes.

Screenplay discussions.

Financial escalation.

And shifting explanations depending on the moment.

And at some point, you have to step back and ask what exactly is driving all of this forward.

Because whatever it is…

It doesn’t look consistent.

And it doesn’t look like a clean progression from “certainty” to “action.”

And that becomes even more noticeable when you compare what is being claimed…with what is actually being done.

Because if certainty is truly locked in at this stage…then logically, everything else should reflect urgency.

Immediate reporting, escalation, criminal action. But that isn’t what we see here.

In fact, it’s far more transactional. Wouldn’t you say?

Anyway,

I’ll see you in Part 5…assuming Evan doesn’t try to pitch me a screenplay first.

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t362pc/case_file_sneddon/

Dimond:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t4zd0m/case_file_dimond/

Gutierrez:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t7t6ut/case_file_gutierrez/

Francia:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tcj13c/case_file_francia/

Neverland Five:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/

Chandler – Part 1:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/

Chandler – Part 2:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/

Chandler – Part 3:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/

Sources and additional information:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=m

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/how-did-the-allegations-of-the-chandlers-emerge/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-1993-allegations-evan-chandler-admits-to-4d015cadb19a

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2ytrh5cz1/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/evan-chandler-v-david-and-june-schwartz-et-al/

Important posts:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tpltfp/some_people_need_michael_jackson_to_be_guilty/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tzylaq/talking_in_circles/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t8m59j/theres_no_way_all_11_people_are_lying/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t5liuf/fact_vs_fiction_common_claims_about_michael/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t22m7w/a_media_assassination_the_case_of_michael_jackson/