The book is intended to convince the readers that Michael Jackson was not the innocent human being we believe him to be, nevertheless if we read it with a critical eye and if we read what is implicit between the lines, the text turns to be precious proof of how Michael Jackson fell in a trap posed by this greedy blackmailing family. The book is pro Michael, whereas it was written with the opposite intention.

The more I passed the pages, the more bewildered I got.

(However, I do not advise Michael Jackson's fans to buy this book. PAY ATTENTION HERE! Michael does not deserve that the Chandlers' family make more money on those blackmail allegations.)

I remarked many shocking contradictions and unfounded facts, such as: (I will little focus on the lies already debunked on books, blogs and videos spread over the web. My aim is to debunk the book through its own text. All references to the book are from the hardcover edition.)

1) About the famous phone conversations (July 8) between Evan Chandler (Jordie’s father) and Dave Schartz (Jordie’s stepfather):

• Page 70 (see note on the bottom of the page):

California law allows a person to record another without their consent if there is reason to believe that the other is going to commit a violent crime. But the purpose is to bring the tape to the police so the crime can be prevented.

• Page 76

It is possible that neither Fields nor Pellicano came right out and Dave to record Evan. Maybe they beat around the bush and said something like, "You know, Dave, famous people like Michael are constantly the target of extortion. If we could just catch the attempt on tape . . . " Maybe it was Dave’s idea and they just went along with it after he brought them the tape.

• Page 102

Evan asked Pellicano if he was taping the meeting. "Absolutely not," the investigator replied. But just in case, Evan read a prepared statement Rothman had supplied concerning laws prohibiting secret recordings. Everyone remained relaxed and smiling throughout the opening formalities.

For me, and I believe, for all who love Michael, the reason why Dave recorded these conversations is not important. What matters for us is their content. And it proves that, before the meeting of August 4 took place, Evan had already asked for money. I will not quote the conversations. I invite whoever is interested in this case to read the transcript in its entirety, which is much more revealing of Evan Chandler’s greed than the quotes which are often mentioned in articles, blogs, books and YouTube videos. It is understandable why reviewers prefer to quote passages, for it is a matter of space and of guiding the reader to what is considered of most importance. Anyway, I do believe that what motivated Dave Schwartz was something related to money, as the author says in page 76:

Dave was starved for cash and waiting for Michael Jackson to feed him.

• Page 106

According to Pellicano and Fields, however, Evan not only threatened Michael at this meeting, there were several other conversations in which Evan and Barry Rothman (individually) tried to extort Michael. Pellicano admitted that he never caught any of these on tape.

Other investigators questioned how Pellicano could have neglected to make recordings that might have corroborated his version of the story.

Legal experts said it appears likely that the tape could be used as evidence in the case, based on California law.

"It would be the first thing an investigator would do — set up a conversation by putting a tape on the phone" Which is exactly what Dave Schwartz did on July 8, one day after Fields "retained" Pellicano to "perform services."

With this legal knowledge, why didn’t the Chandlers have any recordings, photos or videos to prove any harm Michael would have done to Jordie? Or why did they fail to record their meetings and phone conversations? After all, THEY started considering going to court. It was up to them to prove what they were saying. Instead of that, they were afraid of being recorded and, at the beginning of the meeting of August 4, “Evan read a prepared statement Rothman had supplied concerning laws prohibiting secret recordings”.

2) Can you see a contradiction in the quotes below?

At a certain moment, he says the mother was not bothered with the supposed gay relationship, at another moment he states that if she got to the truth she would be on his side. Liars cannot support their own stories for long.

• Page 187

To ease her conscience, June may have rationalized the relationship as a gay thing. "So he's gay. So who cares," Evan claims she told him.

• Page 111

…Evan decided to approach June one last time. He knew she would be easier to convince if Jordie were willing to tell her what Michael had done, but the boy was too ashamed. He believed that his mother, like himself, had been duped by Michael, and that she did not know about the sex. In his young and confused mind he felt as if it was he who had betrayed her.
Evan thought of telling June what Jordie had admitted, that Michael had touched his penis, but it meant breaking his promise to his son and he feared losing the boy's trust. So he confined his accusation by saying only that he, Evan, was certain Michael had molested their son.

3) Another point to consider by the time of the meeting is that, had Michael molested Jordie, how could Evan, as a father, have “walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend.” ? (page 102)

And more on page 114:

"You know. Anthony," Evan said, "it would go a long way toward helping these negotiations if you could have Gary drop off the computer Michael bought for Jordie.''

4) It appears amazing to me the question Evan asked Jordie to find out if any molestation had occurred:

“Did Michael touch your penis?” (page 91)

It is odd because the boy later alleged only masturbation, how could the father foresee that it was the kind of molestation that was taking place?

5) Page 137

The Jackson camp also claimed that poor Michael unwittingly became entwined in a custody battle between Evan and June. Yet Evan, June and Dave swore under oath that none of these problems existed prior to Michael’s entry in their lives, and that he was the cause of them.

Michael, or better, his money was certainly the target of this battle. See transcription of the phone conversations already mentioned. Moreover, after the settlement, the Chandlers came to sue one another for money. I will refer to it later.

Still on page 137:

Whether or not Bert Fields believed that Michael was sexually involved with Jordie, he knew from the start that Evan was making that claim. Fields made that statement to Vanity Fair. In addition, Fields was involved in the change of custody agreements and in arranging the visitation. What conclusion could he have come to other than the custody dispute was a direct result of Michael's relationship with Jordie?

What a surprise to read this after having read on page 107:

That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn't done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a "molestation" had occurred — did not originate in Evan's mind. It was Antony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.

Again a contradiction here with the transcription of the telephone conversations between Dave and Evan (that had taken place before the meeting), even if we consider the interpretation the author tries to infer on our intelligence. Last but not least, a contradiction with what we can read some lines above, on page 102:

Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend. Jordie wouldn't go near Michael either. "I was scared of him. I knew my dad was going to say that I told him what happened, and I thought Michael would get mad."

6) Why Larry Feldman replaced Gloria Allred (attorneys who worked for the Chandlers)?

Feldman’s strategy was diametrically opposed to Allred's. A civil attorney by trade, his goal was to sue for money, not push for a criminal prosecution. (Page 145)

It’s astonishing that a father would prefer money to sending to jail his son’s molester. After all, had they been telling the truth, they could ask for money after the defendant’s condemnation.

7) Why did the Chandlers part have so much fear of Pellicano?

• Page 144

And then there was Anthony Pellicano, the devil incarnate as far as we were concerned.

• Page 178

"Oh yeah!" Larry agreed. "It's crazy. I told you my response when Howard called me and said, 'If you won't meet with Pellicano, how about a conference call.' I told him, Howard, let me put it this way. If we were in the middle of a deserted island, and it was just Pellicano and me, and he was totally naked, I wouldn't meet with him. Now is that clear enough? Do you get it? I'm not meeting with Pellicano now, on the phone, in person, anyplace, anywhere, anytime.'"

• The answer comes on page 253:

…on the dedication page of her book Hughes offers a special thanks to Anthony Pellicano for his "extensive investigation efforts in digging up all the facts surrounding this case."

8) Michael Jackson did not want a settlement with the Chandlers and could have prevented the litigation to become public – Page 146:

Let me ask you something then, Larry. It could have all gone away before it ever got this far. Michael's people could have stopped it.

9) Page 148

Among the information Alison gave us were two key names. Miko Brando, Marlon's son, and Norma Staikos, Michael's chief of staff at Neverland. Miko was very close to Michael, Alison said. "If anybody knows about Michael, it's Miko."

Amongst her other duties, Staikos was in charge of the children's groups that visited the ranch. She would invite back only those children that Michael took an interest in — always little boys. Norma was also in charge of the parents, seeing to it that they were kept entertained while their children went off alone with Michael.86

86 When the s~t hit the fan. Norma Staikos left U.S. jurisdiction for her native Greece the day before she was scheduled to be deposed. (Maureen Orth, "Nightmare at
Neverland." 137.) She returned to appear before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury after the settlement (Victoria Inzunza, "Jury Relished Glimpse of Pop Lifestyle," Santa
Barbara News Press, September 23, 1994.)

I wonder if a human being capable of searching for boys for a child molester would have any moral problem about lying under oath. I mean, if Norma Staikos was this kind of person, it would be easier for Michael and for her to appear at court and lie. Last but not least, the author wants the reader to believe that the settlement put an end to the criminal case, which is not true. It only put an end to the civil case. So what is the difference if Norma Staikos appeared before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury after the settlement? The criminal case was closed because after searching Neverland, interviewing children who stayed at Neverland, searching Michael’s body and comparing photographs of his private area to Jordie’s description, etc. and etc. nothing was found that could incriminate Michael. And the case could be restarted at anytime, during the next ten years, in case consistent proof was provided.

Page 149:

Alison called two days later, mad as hell. The police had questioned her that morning. You sold me out!" she screamed. Click. There would be no rolodex.87

87 We never found out how the police got to Alison so quickly.

Or if the police got to Alison through Michael’s team, they were not fearing the truth, were they? What a pity that Alison did not tell her story to the police! Who was afraid of the truth?

Sometimes the author’s reasoning is confusing: Norma Staikos, Michael’s side, went to Greece not to lie. Alison, Chandler’s side, deposed and lied!

Last but not least, she states in the same page: “I like Michael, I really do.”

10) The author did not know what was better: to question why the cross-examination was not recorded or to state that “Michael fed Jordie the correct answers to Pellicano's forthcoming questions” (p.78). To be as much impressive as possible, he took both arguments, which is contradictory. By the way, why should Michael rehearse Jordie to face Pellicano’s interrogatory if Pellicano, according to the same author, was hiding Michael’s wrongdoing? Besides that, the cross-examination was not meant to be recorded!

Page 79:

While Jordie was downstairs being cross-examined by Pellicano, June and Dave remained upstairs in Michael's bedroom; June watching TV, Dave the phone to work. Both were apparently unconcerned about what the stranger they had met for the first time that afternoon was doing with etheir child. At one point during the forty-five-minute session Dave started downstairs to see Jordie, but Pellicano stopped him. I just need a few more minutes with him, the P.I. declared, and ordered Dave back upstairs.
According to Pellicano, Jordie not only denied having sexual relations with Michael, he stated his father was just out for money. When asked by the press why he didn't tape the session, Pellicano responded, "You have to understand, that was a whim.”

Michael scared me," Jordie later recalled. "He told me an investigator would be there to talk to me, then went over all the questions I would be asked. He was, like, really worried and made me all worried. He said, "Just smile and say no. That's all you have to do is say no."

To be compared, for instance, with page 184:

I suggested to June that Fields and Pellicano must have known.
"That's right! But they're not going to tell anybody. That's where they have to draw the line . . . that nobody ever talks about this again.

11) The Chandlers try to justify their choice to settle the case and avoid the criminal case. They knew they would lose it.

• Page 154

"So let me tell you where the DA's office is at. They have a child they firmly believe is a victim of molestation. They also have a very high profile defendant who will deny it. And they have, floating around before this matter came to the courts, two unusual things that took place. Number one, an opinion was sought anonymously from a psychiatrist about what happened. And number two, there were negotiations for money. That's a very negative thing in a criminal case."

• Page 155

"Of course," Richard explained, "they might even return an indictment against you, Evan."

Or, for certain people it is difficult to understand why Michael Jackson preferred to settle the case instead of going to court. In fact, he resisted a lot. But an artist, mainly a megastar like MJ, do not take decisions alone. And his lawyers feared negative consequences from the fact that civil lawsuit against him was sure to go to court before the criminal trial. Moreover, the settlement concerned only the civil case, it did not prevent the criminal investigation to go on. The result of the criminal investigation was that two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson.

• Page 209

What really mattered was that the DA did not preempt the civil trial with a criminal trial, one that was certain to end in a hung jury, at best, and all but destroy Jordie's case.

To illustrate Michael's resistance to settle the case - Page 173:

Larry said. "There's this black attorney who called me and said that he met with Michael's security people in Moscow before Bert got there, and the bottom line is they don't intend to settle. Richard and I met with Weitzman on Thursday and the two of us are convinced there's no deal to be made.

Summarizing the extortion scheme – Page 160

If we went to the other side and said, 'Listen, a trial for Michael Jackson is a disaster, he can't win. Because even if he's acquitted, when the public hears what this boy has to say, you will have no endorsements, you will have no contracts, you are virtually finished. If we say that, it is my belief we have control of the situation, we have power.

12) The Chandlers tell us how people act towards others who have money – Page 226

After the media announced that Evan controlled his son's fortune, several of Evan's patients all of a sudden threatened malpractice suits against him. Most of these claims were so frivolous they died a quick death. One or two were paid because the amount was so small it was more costly for the insurance company to defend than to fight. And one went to trial, but was dismissed when the plaintiff, knowing she was losing, attempted, in the middle of the case, to admit new evidence that a repressed memory had surfaced of her being sexually molested while under sedation in the dental chair.

We can then imagine how people saw in Michael Jackson, a multi-millionaire megastar, an easy target to be slandered, sued and extorted. Besides, we can see here that sometimes the insurance companies prefer to pay than to fight.

13) Page 223

It was about this time, April 1994, that the DA began putting pressure on Evan to have Jordie testify at a criminal trial. The authorities had uncovered allegations of sexual misconduct on Michael's part with a second boy, and they had discovered what they believed to be a third boy as well. They also had one adult who testified that she saw Michael acting inappropriately with a child. This testimony would be supported by the child pornography seized at Michael's home, and by Jordie's accurate description of Michael's privates.

The epilogue was that Michael Jackson was not indicted because there was no proof against him.

In what concerns the accurate description, the boy said that Michael Jackson was circumcised, what was untrue according to a body search he was submitted to at the time, and more recently according to his autopsy. Or, as the boy alleged mutual masturbation had occurred several times, there is no excuse for his mistake. If the boy was circumcised (which was most likely, for most Americans are circumcised and besides his father was Jewish), he would have seen and feel at the touch something very different from his, if he was not, he would have seen and feel something like his. No excuse for errors here. But that was not all, he missed other details concerning the color, size and exact location of the vitiligo markings. The Chandlers preferred not to approach this subject in this book and did not try to explain the boy’s mistakes. The fact is that Jordie Chandler never saw Michael Jackson undressed.

14) Page 169

Larry remained calm. He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie's natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie's complaint. But Dave became increasingly belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible. He didn't give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money. Four million dollars, to be exact. The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.

And Michael did not lend him. That was probably the reason why Dave changed sides, since at the beginning he was helping Michael and Pellicano and recorded the revealing phone conversations.

15) A mean fairy tale without rime or reason: page 180

Points to think about:

1- What a coincidence that the call was answered by Evan, while there was staff there to do it, and that it was recorded by the police device which was in place to catch death threats!

2- Should the story be true, why on earth did this lady telephone, once she did not want to go public? I did not find a reasonable answer, so I came to the conclusion that it was untrue.

3- Feldman's case was more than solid without her? According to the author, the Chandlers avoided the criminal case because they had no chance! This is said several times within the book and I have already quoted this issue here.

It was midday and Evan and I were sitting in the den discussing recent events when the phone rang. Attached to the phone was a recording machine installed by the police to catch death threats. It was set to begin rolling with the first ring.
Evan rarely answered the phone. At his office there was staff to do it. At home, I screened most calls. But this time Evan was sitting next to it and answered out of reflex.
"My name is Kirsten Danzig," the caller said, in a heavily accented but understandable voice. I'm calling from Germany. I wanted to speak with Dr. Chandler."
"Because my son, too, was molested by Michael Jackson."
"Did he touch his penis?" Evan asked — the crucial question.
"Yes," Kirsten answered. "And he tried to kiss him."

The story goes on on page 182:

Evan and Kirsten talked at length about the long-term effects of such an experience for a child and the need for them to get immediate help. Evan offered to buy her and her son airline tickets to the United States to come talk to Feldman and the DA. Kirsten said she would consider it, but a therapist advised her that the trauma of going public would be devastating for her son, so she decided not to come forward. (Therefore her real name has not been used.)

Feldman was not concerned. His case was more than solid without her.

16) June Chandler know that nothing sexual was happening, for she had full access to the bedroom where Jordie and Michael stayed, should it be in her own home (for obvious reasons!), in Evan's home, at Neverland or on any of their trips (she declared it in her deposition), but she failed to let this book's author know it or he preferred to ignore it. Page 187:

I believe she chose to look the other way by rationalizing the obvious as a gay thing. After all, Jordie slept with Michael thirty nights in her own home, nearly all their weekends at Neverland, and on all their trips to Las Vegas, New York, Florida and Europe. It couldn't be more obvious.

17) It is very unlikely that Michael would have had a temper tantrum because Jordie's uncle, a New Yorker, who was outside of the main circle of relatives, found out that Jordie and Michael were sleeping together. Or, they really slept together with Jordie's parents consent. See above item 16. Page 179:

"By the way," Dave interjected, "the police called me today: They wanted to talk to Kelly about the time in the hotel in New York, when Michael broke the lamp in front of Kelly and Jordie. He had a temper tantrum."

18) When I read the following on page 202, I could hardly believe my eyes:

"I'm sure of that. . . . Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he's got, vitiligo, that it's capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease."
"Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything."
"No, that's good for us!"
"Because if he's right, he's right. And if he's wrong, we've got an explanation!"
"Yeah, it's a no-loser for us."

19) And more on page 206:

Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael's penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael's defense. And the poor beast was already swayback.
On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie's description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry's case was solid as a rock and he didn't need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.

We cannot help supposing that Jordie was instructed to say that Michael's penis was dark with white markings, for if it were wrong they could be able to say the markings have changed. But the photos showed a penis already white with a dark stain on it. The same way, he guessed Michael was circumcised, because since the Second Great War babies born in American hospitals are automatically circumcised. Fortunately to Michael, he was an exception.

The same way, we cannot help wondering why Uncle Raymond Chandler do not mention in his book what his nephew said about Michael being circumcised, nor provides in his book the description the boy gave to the authorities.

However, an uncircumcised penis cannot turn into a circumcised one, nor can a white marking turn into a brown one, it would be rather the other way round. The description Jordie gave to the DA is found in a book written by haters of Michael Jackson: "The man behind the mask" by Bob Jones and Stacy Brown. There is a reference to this description, as well as to the photos taken of Michael's privates by Santa Barbara authorities in a declaration of DA Tom Sneddon (May 26, 2005). Michael Jackson's autopsy proves that he was uncircumcised.

And more on page 210:

It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael's privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took.
The problem was not Jordie's memory: he had seen Michael's genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later.

I wonder if this second description matched the one given in September to the DA and if Jordie also took several hours to make himself understood by the DA. Was this second description taken into consideration by the authorities? Who determined that it was an accurate match? It is difficult to accept that a teenager would have had difficulty to describe something he supposedly had seen so many times and of which he had a precise mental picture. There is a note on the same page for this last quote on the bottom of the page:

After Michael denied the match in a 1993 interview with Diane Sawyer. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told Vanity Fair that MiclieaJ's "statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in this case." (Maureen Orth.The Jackson Five," Vanity Fair, Septemmber 1995. 116.)

To take a conclusion about this description, we should read the description itself, Tom Sneddon's declaration mentioned above and Michael's autopsy.

For more information:

Jordan Chandler’s drawing did NOT match the photos of MJ’s genitalia
Jordan’s description was wrong in COLOR too
Circumcision CANNOT be taken for Erection!
All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. CIRCUMCISION or ERECTION?
All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 2. JORDAN’S DRAWING

If we take the time to check the above links, we understand the Chandler's statement on page 225, I mean, we understand why the Chandlers respected Tom Sneddon so much.

"...Tom Sneddon wanted us to testify, too. But he seemed genuine, like his entire motivation was to put this criminal behind bars. He understood my fears and my need to protect my family, and he didn't try to push me around. I have a lot of respect for Sneddon."

Another remark here is that Evan Chandler did not care about his family when he once again sued Michael Jackson, claiming the right of making an album which would be called Evan HIStory. Had he won the case, the album would have come to the public. It is amazing that the author does not touch this matter, although it is spread in the media.

20) After the civil case settlement, the Chandlers began to sue each other for money. Page 228:

Robert Shapiro made a statement back in September of 1993 that was so simple its profundity did not register at the time. "Don't for one minute think this will all be over when the suit against Michael ends. There will be all kinds of lawsuits after that; there always are when large amounts of money are involved."

As far as I know, the last lawsuit triggered by this Chandlers scandal was that of the Arvizos against Michael.

21) The author writes what seems to be convenient for him at the moment, without reasoning and relying on the reader's absence of mind. Just compare:

Page 245:

The Los Angeles Times reported that Jackson began the recording of these songs "18 months ago," which places the timing around November or December of 1993, just prior to the signing of the settlement agreement.
Image building campaigns of this magnitude are not spur of the moment decisions. They are carefully thought out and planned far in advance by highly trained professionals, and consist of a multitude of public relations maneuvers involving a variety of media formats. Certainly SONY did not commit thirty million dollars on an uncoordinated, hastily designed program.

to page 246:

Sony execs are said to be worried that Jackson decided to address the 1993 scandal so bluntly in HIStory. But no one tells MJ what to do.

Another example: on page 230 it is convenient for him to say that attorney Bert Fields claimed under oath that Pellicano had never worked for him. But the convenience on page 251 is to state that "Hughes knew that Pellicano worked for an attorney, Bert Fields".

22) Page 227:

"Michael did not break up Dave's family," Evan commented. "He and June were on and off — mostly off — long before Michael came into their lives. As for Jordie, Dave ended that relationship when he cooperated with Pellicano."

In fact, Michael seems to have reunited June and Dave. While they were mostly off long before Michael came into their lives, after Michael's arrival Dave become ever-present - page 112:

While Evan was trying to reason with June, her estranged yet suddenly ever-present husband Dave, along with her lawyer Michael Freeman, was implementing a sneak attack. That morning, Freeman filed a document in Santa Monica Superior Court seeking an order for Evan to pay June sixty-eight thousand dollars in back child support.

But can we believe this family? When Evan, June and Dave joined together against Michael, targeting his money, they pretended to have harmonious relationship - page 251:

On August 19, 1993, the day after June conceded to DCS that Jordie had been molested, Freeman and Rothman met at Rothman's office. Hughes then typed another letter to Freeman memorializing the agreements reached at this meeting. The letter stated that Freeman had agreed not to go forward with his child support order and that June had agreed to sign a new stipulation in which she waived any child support claims against Evan as long as she remained married to Dave. Dave's testimony confirmed that this was the original gentlemen's agreement between himself, Evan and June in 1985.

23) Speaking about Geraldine Hughes' book, Chandler says on page 252:

She incorrectly reports that the extortion case "was never resolved, just dismissed." The facts are that there was no case to dismiss because none was ever filed, and the matter was resolved by a public statement from the authorities that no evidence of a crime had been found and that Evan would not be charged.

But we had already read on page 250 that The attorney's office stated that no evidence of extortion was found and declined to press charges against Evan or Barry. In January 1994, Michael Jackson publicly withdrew his extortion charge.

So the case really was never resolved. In what concerns the civil case, the authorities did not give so much attention to the megastar as they gave to the teenager and Michael Jackson team concluded that it would be better to settle. After the settlement, Michael Jackson was obviously obliged to withdraw his extortion charge.

By the way, Redemption by Geraldine Hughes is a book that everyone who seeks for the truth of what really happened to Michael Jackson in 1993 cannot miss reading.

24) Everytime and everywhere we read Chandlers' material, we must keep in mind that we are dealing with screenplay writers:

Page 40:

"You and Jordie wrote a movie, too, didn't you? Jordie said you guys had a lot of fun doing it."
"Yeah. We wrote it with a friend of mine. It's pretty stupid, really. I don't even like talking about it."
"You shouldn't think that way, Evan. It's amazing you got your first screenplay produced."
"I know. Jordie and I had a great time. But its no Terminator."
"Do you have any other ideas?" Michael asked.
"Oh yeah, plenty. We just finished another screenplay. A first draft anyway."

Further in the book, page 55, Chandler contradicts himself:

"You're a terrible father! You're just using him for his writing talents." June accused Evan of reneging on his promise to give Jordie five thousand dollars from the sale of Robin Hood. She announced that she was now managing their son's career and if Evan wanted to collaborate with him again he would have to sign a contract with her.
"What are you talking about?" Evan said. "Jordie didn't write one word of that screenplay and you know it. He doesn't know the first thing about it." The only contribution Jordie had made was the original suggestion that it be a comedy, and occasionally he reviewed the script to see if it made him laugh.

What a family!

Let's refer to a note on the bottom of page 260:

Had the molestation story been a lie planted in the boy's head by his father, as some claimed, Evan would have to have studied child molestation in great detail to have included this in the brainwashing. Why in God's name would a child even mention it if it weren't true?

You have revealed the secret, Mr. Chandler!

On page 263, Chandler mentions J. Randy Taraborrelli as a widely respected expert on Michael Jackson. Throughout the book, he refers to his Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness, quoting stories told there. I will not debunk those stories here, other people have already done it elsewhere. I am here for "All That Glitters". And the point now is the author's inconsistency, for he focus his attention on hearsay stories (in what concerns Michael) and does not try to debunk the ones which concern directly his brother and nephew, Evan and Jordie, respectively.

For instance:

1- Page 485:

On 2 August, Evan Chandler extracted a troublesome tooth from his son, Jordie, in his Beverly Hills clinic. During the procedure, he decided to intravenously administer the drug sodium Amytal. Mark Torbiner, a dental anaesthesiologist (who had been the one to introduce Evan to his attorney, Barry Rothman in 1991 when Rothman needed dental work), was present during the surgery. Evan has since confirmed that his son was given the drug,
but only as a part of the dental procedure. While under the influence of sodium Amytal, says Evan, Jordie finally began to speak openly about sexual activity he claimed had occurred between him and Michael Jackson.
Sodium Amytal has erroneously been called a ‘truth serum’. Actually, most doctors agree that patients are extremely susceptible to suggestion while under the influence of the drug. ‘You can’t trust it,’ said Dr Lewis Strong, a Los Angeles psychiatrist (who does not know Evan or Jordie Chandler). ‘I never use it in my practice. I have found it to be unreliable. It’s certainly not a truth serum. Sometimes it is used for the treatment of amnesia, but it often provides false memories.’

2- Page 489:

After obtaining what he believed to be the truth from Jordie, Evan Chandler demanded another meeting with Michael Jackson. Anthony Pellicano managed to arrange it. The show-down between the teenager’s protective father and the man he believed had molested his son would take place on 4 August 1993 at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. ‘No good can come of it,’ Michael predicted, ‘but I have to see Jordie, somehow, so let’s do it.’
At the appointed hour, Evan walked into the room, trailed by his anxious-looking son. As soon as Jordie saw Michael, he ran to him and embraced him. They kissed each other on the cheeks. ‘Oh my God, how I’ve missed you,’ Michael said, visibly choked up. He stroked Jordie’s hair. ‘How are you? Are you okay? Tell me you’re okay.’
‘I’ve missed you, too,’ Jordie said. ‘I can’t believe what’s going on, Michael. Yes, I’m okay,’ he said, ‘but you should know that…’ The teenager’s voice trailed off.
‘What?’ Michael asked. ‘I should know what? Never mind,’ he decided, his tone now reassuring. ‘We’ll work it out, I promise.’
Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced him. ‘Nice to see you, Michael,’ Evan said. Michael stared at Evan with cold, dark eyes. Under the circumstances, it was an odd greeting by Evan. Later, Anthony Pellicano would say, ‘If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.’

Let's see how Raymond Chandler reports that - Page 102:

Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend. Jordie wouldn't go near Michael either. "I was scared of him. I knew my dad was going to say that I told him what happened, and I thought Michael would get mad."

3- Page 469:

In a few days’ time, Evan was again awe-struck by Michael’s presence in Jordie’s life, enough to suggest that Michael even spend more time with him. The suggestion came when Michael showed up at Nikki’s birthday party on 22 May 1993, astonishing all of the guests who couldn’t fathom that the Michael Jackson was playing with their children at a friend’s birthday party. ‘Who wouldn’t want his kid to be Michael Jackson’s pal,’ Evan said at the time. He even suggested that Michael build a new wing on to the home so that he wouldn’t have to make the trek from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles just to visit Jordie. ‘You can just stay here,’ he offered, ‘but you’d be more comfortable building an addition to the house, I think.’
Michael took the offer seriously enough to have his representatives check with the zoning division of the county in which Evan lived to determine if it would be possible to build such an addition to the house.

However, in the Chandler's book, this story is presented as Michael's idea which was withdrawn by Evan - Page 49:

Monique insisted, however, and Evan agreed, that Michael must be told that day that he could not move in with them. Not wanting to arouse the star's suspicion, lest he assert even more control over Jordie, Evan lied.
"You know, Mike, I checked with the building department and they said we're not zoned for an addition. I guess we'll just have to forget. . ."

4- According to Taraborrelli, Feldman's case was not as solid as a rock - Page 541:

Transcripts filed by Larry Feldman included sworn depositions from Michael Jackson’s former chauffeur, former maids and secretaries. Truth or
fiction, it didn’t matter; all of it was now a part of the public record. Composed mostly of hearsay, speculation and innuendo, and much of it from people
who’d already been paid handsomely by tabloid television programmes and newspapers to ‘reveal all’ about their boss, it was difficult to imagine that
such statements would have been given much credence by a jury.
No doubt, Jordie Chandler’s detailed testimony would have been the most damaging to Michael. One wondered, though, how a jury would have
reacted to the fact that the original allegation, that Michael had touched his penis, was given while under a mind-altering drug? And what of the question of
Michael’s being circumcised or not? In the end, it would be Michael’s word against Jordie’s, because there were no witnesses to any episodes of
molestation (but, then again, there are rarely witnesses to such events).

25- Page 262:

Taraborrelli sums up the-apple-doesn't-fall-far-from-the-tree relationship between father and son by reporting that to a great extent Michael became "as cold and calculating" as his father who "had been a bully for years" and "was suspicious of everyone because he expected others to be as unethical as he was."

However, it is not what we can deduce from the sweet note, supposedly from Michael to Jordie, presented on page 184. I mean, Michael trusted people, even too much:

Jordie, you're not only my cousin but also my best friend. I can't stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon.
, Love, doo doo.
Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.

To finish beautifully:

"Let us dream of tomorrow where we can truly love from the soul, and know love as the ultimate truth at the heart of all creation".

Michael Jacksonbeen a lie planted in the boy's head by his father, as some
claimed, Evan would have to have studied child molestation in great detail to have
included this in the brainwashing. Why in God's name would a child even mention it
if it weren't true?

Transcripts filed by Larry Feldman included sworn depositions from Michael Jackson’s former chauffeur, former maids and secretaries. Truth or
fiction, it didn’t matter; all of it was now a part of the public record. Composed mostly of hearsay, speculation and innuendo, and much of it from people
who’d already been paid handsomely by tabloid television programmes and newspapers to ‘reveal all’ about their boss, it was difficult to imagine that
such statements would have been given much credence by a jury.
No doubt, Jordie Chandler’s detailed testimony would have been the most damaging to Michael. One wondered, though, how a jury would have
reacted to the fact that the original allegation, that Michael had touched his penis, was given while under a mind-altering drug? And what of the question of
Michael’s being circumcised or not? In the end, it would be Michael’s word against Jordie’s, because there were no witnesses to any episodes of
molestation (but, then again, there are rarely witnesses to such events).