Redemption by Geraldine Hughes

Geraldine Hughes is convinced that Michael Jackson is innocent of the 1993 molestation charges and that he was the victim of an extortion attempt. As I read Hughes’ book, Redemption, looking for items to comment on, I found that I had placed sticky notes on almost every page – sometimes three per page.[1]

The book contained numerous inaccuracies and omissions of fact. For instance, Hughes failed to mention that child erotica was found at Jackson’s home in 1993, that Jackson invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in 1994 to deposition questions concerning his relationship with young boys, that Jackson had negotiated with a second child victim for a multi-million dollar settlement in 1995, that the district attorneys stated that they believed there were two additional victims other than Jordie, and that the district attorneys made a public statement outlining the specific reasons why they declined to press extortion charges. Hughes also erroneously wrote that the authorities were not able to confirm Jordie’s description of distinctive markings on Michael’s genitals.

Hughes’ book also contained misstatements of the law, excusable for a layman, but not for someone claiming to have twenty-three years experience as a legal secretary. Hughes stated that Jackson’s (and O.J. Simpson’s) constitutional right against double jeopardy was violated by having to face both criminal and civil trials. Double jeopardy applies only to repeated criminal trials. Hughes revealed that until she met Anthony Pellicano in 1993, she believed that all private investigators worked for the district attorney.

Despite its failings, Redemption was well received by the hard-core Jackson fans. Together with Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article, from which Hughes borrowed many of her “facts,” it has become their bible.

It would be exhausting to discuss Hughes book in its entirety, so I have selected a few examples.

Redemption, page 45.

Hughes claimed that she met Jordie twice, the first time when he was alone in Barry Rothman’s office. Here’s how she described that meeting.

The boy had a puzzled look on his face when I walked into Rothman’s office. That made me very suspicious of this meeting between Rothman and the Chandler boy. I had some overwhelming feeling that that this meeting had some significance to the child molestation allegations and not the custody case that was also going on between the boy’s parents.

Hughes claimed to be the sole legal secretary to Rothman in the summer of 1993, but her initials do not appear on Rothman’s letters until about July 16.[2] The only time Jordie was in Rothman’s office without Evan was on July 20, 1993.

July 20 was the day June and Dave came to Rothman’s office to see the letter from the psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams. The letter was based on the facts of Jordie’s relationship with Jackson, but the psychiatrist was not provided with the names of the child or alleged perpetrator. The letter stated that the unknown child was “at risk” in his relationship with the unknown male.

June and Dave had agreed that if a psychiatrist said that Jordie was at risk, they would sign a document awarding physical custody of Jordie to Evan. A meeting was set up for them to review the letter at Rothman’s office. Evan brought his son to the meeting, and, as planned, left before Dave and June arrived. On the day that Hughes first saw Jordie he was waiting for his mother and stepfather to show up.

Although Hughes mentioned Dr. Abrams letter in her book, she made no mention of June and Dave’s appearance at Rothman’s office to view the letter. It was a meeting that ended up in a shouting match between Dave and Rothman. Hughes could not have avoided hearing it. Jordie called Evan in the midst of the melee and he came running over from his dental office. No mention of this by Hughes, either.

More important, Hughes description of the child abuse and custody issues as separate issues reveals that (even ten years later) she did not have a clue about what had occurred in the Chandler case before she started working for Rothman. Evan had been demanding that June meet with him to discuss the relationship between Michael and Jordie. June refused, and Evan was not permitted to see or talk to his son for four weeks after making that demand. That’s when Hughes came on the scene. She apparently never understood that the custody battle had originated because of the molestation, and that it was a fight to prevent further abuse.

As the following reveals, Hughes quickly parlayed her suspicions based on a child’s puzzled look, and her overwhelming feeling about a meeting she knew nothing about, into the firm belief that Rothman and Chandler had teamed up to extort Michael Jackson.

According to Hughes, the second time she met Jordie was just after the scandal went public.

While Evan and Barry were conversing away from the child, she observed Jordie for several hours. Hughes stated that Jordie acted perfectly normal and he did not appear to be harmed in any way. In fact, he was more calm than his father, and Hughes observed that he seemed to be consoling Evan, who was a nervous wreck.

Here is Hughes interpretation of what she observed that day.

After observing the boy for a number of hours, I could not help but speculate, in my mind, what would cause a child to falsely accuse someone of child abuse? Especially someone he loved and valued as a good friend – especially someone like Michael Jackson! Most kids would give their right arm and leg to be with the superstar. I could not stop wondering how this boy could be sucked into such a scheme as this. What could make a child become part of such an evil scheme? (Italics in original.)

Hughes had made up her mind about the child abuse allegations right from the start, and from that point on she twisted everything she saw into evidence to support her belief. She stated that she had previously worked for an attorney who handled child abuse cases and she had seen how in 95% of the cases the child wanted to return to the abusive parent because children want to protect and cover up for their parents. That’s what was going on between Evan and Jordie, Hughes surmised.

Just a few days prior to the incident Hughes described, Jordie had told the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) that he wanted to stay with his father because Jackson had abused him, and he was afraid that a return to his mother would place him back in Jackson’s grasp. He said he never wanted to see Michael Jackson again. All of this information is in the DCS report.

The only fact contained in Hughes description of this event was that a child had exhibited concern for his father at a point in time when his father was being vilified in the world-wide media. Instead of interpreting Jordie’s acts for what they were, a child expressing love for a parent, Hughes decided that there must be something “evil” in it. She had to. She had already made up her mind; she just needed the facts to fit her belief.

Redemption, pages 51-52.

Hughes wrote,

Dr. Chandler admitted, in his own words, that he had been “rehearsed what to say,” – “paid people to move against Michael” and that, “there was a plan.” This was, in my opinion, a confession of guilt. Why wasn’t anything done about this admission by Dr. Chandler?”

The above quotes, together with others appearing on page 51 of Hughes book, are from Dave’s secret tape. They are found on pages 9, 27, 29 and 220 of the official court transcript of the tape. Some of these quotes, including the “rehearsed” quote, were discussed in Part Three of All That Glitters (regarding Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article). I refer the reader to that discussion. Suffice it to say that Hughes (like Fischer) took snippets of the conversation out of context and opined that they were admissions by Evan that he had a plan to extort Jackson.

On the same page Hughes quoted Evan saying that he had hired Rothman because he is “devious, nasty and cruel, and will destroy everybody insight,” and that Evan said that once his plan went forward he would “win big time.” Hughes then commented, “I am not an attorney, but in laymen’s terms, this sounded like he had expressed first degree, premeditated motives to extort money from Michael Jackson, all in one sentence.”

First, the “devious, nasty and cruel” quote is on page 29 of the transcript. The “destroy everybody in sight” quote is on pages 206-207. And the “win big time” is on page 133.

More important, when Dave asked Evan what he meant by winning big time, Evan replied that he will win custody of his son. There was no mention of money on the tape. Hughes neglected to mention this.

Check out  Evan Chandler Phone Transcript With David Schwartz

Still on page 51, Hughes wrote.

When Dave asked Evan to consider the possible repercussion the case would have on his son, Dr. Chandler responded, ‘…that’s irrelevant to me.’ By Dr. Chandler’s own admission, his actions had nothing to do with the best interest of his own child.

Here is the actual transcript.

21 MR. CHANDLER: Michael can come with

22 all his bodyguards and his lawyer if he wants to.

23 I don’t really care, as long as everything gets

24 aired out. That’s it. And if I walk away

25 dissatisfied, then I’ll take it to the next step.

132

1 That’s all. If they walk away dissatisfied, they

2 have the right to do that, too. At least [tape

3 irregularity] nothing will get resolved except for

4 the fact that we’ll agree to meet again and talk

5 about it.

6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

7 MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know where it’ll

8 go, but I’m saying is that when people — when

9 you — when people cut off communication totally,

10 you only have two choices: To forget about them,

11 or you get frustrated by their action. I can’t

12 forget about them. I love them. That’s it. I

13 don’t like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not

14 like them because I do not like the people that

15 they’ve become, but I do love them, and because I

16 love them I don’t want to see them [tape

17 irregularity]. That’s why I was willing to talk.

18 I have nothing to gain by talking. If

19 I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no

20 way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.

21 MR. SCHWARTZ: But when you say

22 “winning,” what are you talking about, “winning”?

23 MR. CHANDLER: I will get everything I

24 want, and they will be totally — they will be

25 destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June

133

1 is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to

2 ever see him again.

3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

4 MR. CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave.

5 That’s what —

6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help —

7 MR. CHANDLER: — Michael the career

8 will be over.

9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?

10 MR. CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be

11 over.

12 MR. SCHWARTZ: And does that help

13 Jordy?

14 MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.

15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, but I mean the

16 bottom line is —

17 MR. CHANDLER: The bottom line to me

18 is, yes, June is harming him, and Michael is

19 harming him. I can prove that, and I will prove

20 that

21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

22 MR. CHANDLER: — and if they force me

23 to go to court about it, I will [tape

24 irregularity], and I will be granted custody. She

25 will have no rights whatsoever.

134

1 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

2 MR. CHANDLER: Now, I’m willing to sit

3 down and talk to her. If she wants to tell me to

4 go fuck myself after that, she’s welcome to do it,

In addition, as noted above, Hughes wrote that Dave asked Evan to consider the repercussion that “the case” would have on Jordie. Those were Hughes words; Dave never mentioned “the case.” How would Hughes know that Dave and Evan were talking about a case? Because on the tape Evan talked about going to court, about everyone being placed on the witness stand, about lie detector tests, and about experts who would decide right from wrong.

Hughes knew, or should have known, that Evan was not talking about winning big time money, but about winning custody. She was there in the office and had seen the files. She knew that Rothman had drawn up restraining orders and custody modifications – all legal documents to be filed with a court.

On the day the tape was made, Evan had not been allowed to see or talk to his son for four weeks. Evan was throwing around words like nasty, cruel and devious, and saying that he would destroy everybody in sight because he was frustrated and angry at not be allowed to see his son, and because each time he tried to talk to June about Jordie he was told ‘go fuck yourself’? Evan said this on the tape.

From day one Hughes had shut her mind to the possibility that Evan had hired Barry Rothman to help him end the relationship between Michael Jackson and his son. No, for Hughes it always something evil and sinister.

On the next page 52 of her book, Hughes concluded:

Dr. Chandler appeared to be a very insecure man who was dominated by greed. The Bible says that ?the love of money is the root of all evil.’ Dr. Chandler was the epitome of what the love of money can do to an individual. How the lust for money can turn an individual into a green-eyed monster with no regard for anyone – including their own child.

No parent whose child caught the eye of Michael Jackson needed to extort the singer. Jackson gave away money, cars, homes, jewelry, cash and a whole lot more to the parents of his favorite boys. Evan had seen first hand the benefits that his ex-wife had received from Jackson. And Jackson had offered Evan many benefits as well. All he had to do to reap those benefits was to do what the other parents had done, allow Jackson access to his son. Instead, Evan was willing to go to court to get Jackson away from Jordie.

Redemption, page 68.

Regarding Jordie’s description of Michael’s genitals, Hughes wrote, “It was later revealed that the authorities were not able to corroborate the boy’s statements.” Revealed by whom? Hughes offered no source for this claim.

In 1995, after Jackson denied on PrimeTime Live that Jordie’s description was accurate, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told Vanity Fair that Jackson statement was “untrue and not consistent with the evidence.” Lead LAPD detective Bill Dworin has also stated that the matchup was accurate.

Redemption, page 76.

Hughes admitted that at the time of the child molestation allegations Evan and June appeared to be sharing custody without any problems. She then claimed that the custody battle arose because Evan became jealous of being cut out of the relationship between his son and Jackson. Here is her proof: “Dr. Chandler, in the recorded conversation with Dave Schwartz, reported that he didn’t know why Michael Jackson had stopped visiting him.” . . . “He also admitted that he told Michael Jackson exactly what he wanted out of the deal.” (Italics added.)

At no point on the tape did Evan state that he wondered why Jackson had stopped visiting him. Evan complained that Jackson had stopped talking to him, and that the communications halted immediately after he (Evan) tried to discuss his concerns about Jordie’s relationship with Michael.

Here is the transcript.

10 MR. CHANDLER: No, I’m not his role

11 model.

12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, you are,

13 definitely —

14 MR. CHANDLER: Not anymore.

15 MR. SCHWARTZ: You are, positively, in

16 the long run, you’re his role model.

17 MR. CHANDLER: There is no — there

18 isn’t gonna be a long run if things went on like

19 this.

20 Don’t you see? As long as I go along

21 with whatever they want to do —

22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

23 MR. CHANDLER: — everything’s okay.

24 As soon as I say you can’t [tape irregularity]

25 anybody —

166

1 MR. SCHWARTZ: Did you go through that?

2 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah, I went through

3 that.

4 MR. SCHWARTZ: And how old were you?

5 MR. CHANDLER: Why do you — oh, with

6 my parents?

7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

8 MR. CHANDLER: No, I didn’t go through

9 that with my parents. I never had any outside

10 influence on me —

11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

12 MR. CHANDLER: — was more powerful

13 than my parents were.

14 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I mean, Michael is

15 very seductive, without even trying.

16 MR. CHANDLER: Oh, he’s trying, believe

17 me. He just looks like he’s not trying because

18 he’s so damn good at it.

19 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I mean, it’s —

20 MR. CHANDLER: Dave, he fooled me —

21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

22 MR. CHANDLER: — I’ll tell you that.

23 He fooled me, for a while.

24 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think

25 this is —

167

1 MR. CHANDLER: There’s no reason why

2 they would have to cut me out unless they — unless

3 they need me to be away so they can do certain

4 things which I don’t think are good to be doing.

5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

6 MR. CHANDLER: And I — and not only

7 that, but I don’t even have anything to say about

8 it, okay? [tape irregularity] I think what they’re

9 doing and it isn’t bad, and so maybe I’m wrong —

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

11 MR. CHANDLER: — but I’m not even

12 getting a chance to express that.

13 MR. SCHWARTZ: I think that’s all — I

14 think it’s all fair because —

15 MR. CHANDLER: I had a good

16 communication with Michael.

17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

18 MR. CHANDLER: We were friends, you

19 know. I liked him.

20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

21 MR. CHANDLER: I respected him and

22 everything else for what he is, you know. There

23 was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He

24 could have called me.

25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

168

1 MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I — you

2 ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked

3 to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of

4 this whole relationship, what I want [tape

5 irregularity], okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure

6 me out.

7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

8 MR. CHANDLER: And one of things I said

9 is we always have to be able to talk to each other.

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

11 MR. CHANDLER: That’s the rule, okay,

12 because I know that as soon as you stop talking

13 weird things start going on and people [tape

14 irregularity] —

15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Imaginations take over.

16 MR. CHANDLER: Imagination will just

17 kill you.

By early June, Evan not only refused to allow Jackson back into his home, he began demanding that his ex-wife end the relationship with Jackson. Michael stopped talking to Evan after that, and Evan was not permitted to see or talk to Jordie for one month. By the time the tape was made on July 8, June and Michael had refused repeated requests from Evan to talk to him about Jordie’s welfare. It was at that time that Barry Rothman began to draw up legal documents.

Check out  Mary Fischer GQ Magazine Rebuttal

Redemption, pages 84-85.

Hughes continued her manipulation of the tape.

When Mr. Schwartz asked Dr. Chandler [on the secret tape recording] if that helped his son [making allegations against Jackson], Dr. Chandler’s reply was, ‘That’s irrelevant to me (134). It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to come crashing down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight (206-207). It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. (27)'”

The numbers represent the page on the official transcript where each sentence appears. The complete transcript of the Chandler – Schwartz tape can be viewed on this Web site.

Redemption, page 134.

Hughes presented a detailed discussion on the motions submitted by both parties in Jordie’s civil case against Jackson. Jackson had asked that the case be postponed for six years until the criminal statute of limitations on child abuse had expired. He told the court that he would have to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if the case went forward. He also asked the court not to allow any evidence gathered by Jordie’s attorneys to be handed over to the district attorney.

Jackson lost all of the motions, which, according to Hughes, was an infringement on his Fifth Amendment rights. She then asked the following question.

What would you have done at this point with these same factors weighing out of your favor? Would you have continued with the litigation or settled the case as Michael Jackson chose to do?

Hughes is right. Anyone in Michael’s position would have settled. But she asked the wrong question. The real question is why Michael was in that pickle to begin with.

Jackson called huge press conferences and had his attorneys shout to the world that he was innocent and that he had been extorted. Why then, would such an innocent man want the case postponed for six years? Why would he tell the court that he would have to take the fifth if the case went forward? Why would he fight so hard to keep evidence from the district attorney, or to be placed under oath? (Why did he take the fifth in a 1994 case when asked about his relationship to young boys? Why did he pay another victim $2 million dollars just a few years later?)

Throughout her book Hughes professed that the evidence of molestation was weak and the evidence of extortion was strong. By December of 1993 Jackson’s career had taken a huge hit. Why let the effects linger for six years? If the evidence was all in Jackson’s favor, why not go to court, prove his innocence, and watch his career rebound to new heights? Hughes never raised those questions. And neither did anyone else who supported Jackson. They complained that his right to remain silence was violated, but they did not want to talk about why he felt compelled to invoke that right in the first place.

Redemption, page 143-144.

Here, Hughes discussed a lawsuit brought by Rothman against Jackson and Pellicano. She reported that one of Rothman’s allegations was that the Jackson camp had committed defamation by filing a false extortion charge against him. Hughes then described several of the documents filed in the case and even provided the legal name for each document.

Hughes had researched the lawsuit extensively, yet she failed to mention some key facts. Bert Fields, Jackson’s attorney, was also a defendant in the lawsuit. Fields’ defended against Rothman’s defamation charge by claiming that even if he did falsely accuse Rothman of extortion, he (Fields) was immune from liability because of a law that protects attorneys who are involved in legitimate disputes. Fields argued that he and Rothman were at all times engaged in legitimate negotiations to settle civil claims that the Chandlers might have against his client (Jackson). This was the same conclusion reached by the authorities and made public by a spokesperson for the district attorney. No mention of this in Hughes book.

Fields defense would have been hard for Hughes to miss; it was vigorously challenged, went up on appeal, and became a published opinion. (Discussed in greater detail in Part Three of All That Glitters.) Hughes, apparently, did not want anyone to know that Jackson’s former attorney agreed with Evan and Barry Rothman that the talks were legal negotiations, not an attempt to extort money.

If Hughes were a professional reporter I would say that she set out intentionally to misrepresent the truth. But I do not believe she did. I believe Hughes is a zealot who has convinced herself that she is doing God’s work. Her book is replete with biblical references, page after page of them. At times, especially near the end of the book, she preaches like a firebrand from the pulpit.

It is also obvious from Hughes book that Mary Fischer and Anthony Pellicano are her heroes, and that she borrowed heavily from the information they supplied. This combination of unreliable sources and holier-than-thou piety has resulted in a sort of blind faith belief in Jackson’s innocence.

As if that were not enough, Hughes added race to the mix.

In the Michael Jackson case so much energy was directed toward indicting him on the child molestation allegation that the extortion investigation received minimum attention and investigation. Some people call it black justice in white America. There was a time in America when a serious crime was only a crime when it was committed by someone black. That same crime committed by someone white would always end in a lesser punishment or acquittal. This includes murder, rape, robbery, stealing people’s land and even police brutality. There is no doubt that this practice caused a lot of anxiety in many Americans, especially in the black community. But this case also involved the word of a thirteen-year old white boy against an adult black male, totally denying Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights as well as ignoring proven state and federal laws that applied to other states.

Hughes is typical of the fanatic Jackson fan. They eliminate all evidence of his guilt and manipulate the evidence that exonerates his accusers. To them, Jackson has become a deity who must be protected at all costs.

 

[1] Those not familiar with the facts provided in All That Glitters may have difficulty understanding this analysis. If you do not wish to read the book, I suggest that you read the analysis of Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Framed.”

[2] See the letter from Rothman’s office in the Review Documents section of this Web site (sorry, no longer available).

  • silverspirit

    I’d forgotten about that lady. I did some research. She’s back to soliciting fans & famous people to getting a movie made. According to her blog this “movie was coming out in 2014” when she still has no one to make it. She has a GoFundMe acct. A whopping mount of $175.00.

    Did she do the same thing yrs ago, irrc? I smell a scam.

    • Andreas

      Yes, wow, you’re right. Geraldine’s at it again. Seems like she wants 100K by crowdfunding to make a trailer for a movie that’s going to be called “MichaelGate: The Conspiracy Theories”.

      Now, I’m a bit confused if she’s trying to make a documentary, or if she’s actually wants to make a fictional Hollywood-ish movie, but I suppose the prior..? Reading her blog, this project was actually meant to be her second book about Jackson that was supposed to come out in 2010/2011, where she was going to focus on the 2005 Arvizo case, the 2009 Conrad Murray’s trial(she thinks he killed MJ on purpose) and other things she strangely admits to calling “conspiracies” against Jackson.

      Not sure if its a scam, Silverspirit. Perhaps she simply just didn’t get any publishers interested in the second book initially. In the 93′ case she did at least have something that made her a little bit relevant at least, being the Chandlers first lawyer’s secretary. Well, Barry Rothmans extra-secretary and quite briefly, but she could with her story in Redemption say she had SOME inside observations into the process, especially since she claimed she witnessed extortion and so on. She obviously didn’t have any inside information about the 2005 or 2009 cases though, so I don’t see why her “expert opinion” mattered more than another delusional biased MJ fan writing about those cases. I suppose the film would focus on all of it.. if it ever gets made, of course. I personally am a bit on the fence if I want to see it get made. Perhaps it’ll be fun to see how insane it gets, Geraldine is a wacko fan, and she might dig her own hole with this one… but on the flipside, the misinformation out there already is a bit too much.

      • silverspirit

        she wanted to do a 2nd book? Another flop that would be.

        Per twitter she is still claiming she was there and was a witness to an extortion attempt. I stopped reading after that. She’s another crack pot fan like the rest, imo.

        I’m confused so bare with me. I read her fb. She said she was still looking for people and Paramount to get a movie made. This is the same thing she said yrs ago. Word for word.

        Then per her blog. This movie is coming is to be released in 2014.
        http://geraldinehughes.blogspot.com/2013/05/michaelgate-movie-aug-2014-release.html

        Released by whom? Who made it? It doesn’t seem this movie exists. It never happened. Why would you need money for a trailer for a movie that doesn’t exist? For a trailer, you actually take clips from the movie, right? There is no movie. Makes sense?

        • Andreas

          I would guess the movie has stayed in pre-production(“development hell”) for a long time, maybe because nobody wants to finance it. Same deal with the book. I’m just guessing, as that happens to lots of movies. So now she’s trying to get the fans to finance it by crowdsurfing as a last resort. Strangely enough she has little luck so far.

          If she contacted Paramount though, I’m wondering if she really is talking about a fictional movie, and not a documentary. Can you imagine? A Pro-Michael Jackson movie produced by Paramount to go on cinemas? That’d be quite insane.

          A documentary would be weird too though, because I’m not sure what footage she would use. I doubt she’d get the Chandlers/Rothman/Feldman to participate, and she might not have noticed that Anthony Pellicano has switched sides, so I doubt he would be of much help.

          • I read that link that silverspirit put up http://geraldinehughes.blogspot.com/2013/05/michaelgate-movie-aug-2014-release.html and to be honest I found the whole story somewhat bizarre. Geraldine Hughes writes:

            Michaelgate will dramatically tell the events from Geraldine Hughes’ eyes from inside the accuser’s camp. Facts that have never been revealed, stories that have never been told, but when the final scene is played, it will prove Michael Jackson’s innocence. Geraldine Hughes will share letters that she personally typed, conversations that she heard from behind closed doors, and secret meetings that took place right inside her attorney’s office. While the media hype was saying Michael Jackson was a child molester worldwide, events will be highlighted that proves otherwise.

            Is she saying she has information that she hasn’t revealed yet? If that’s the case her book would have been incomplete, which sounds incredible.

            She also insists that the insurance company paid the settlement, a “fan fact” which has long been debunked. Even Hammertonhal, a shrill fan who believes all kinds of nonsense about MJ, knows that isn’t true https://twitter.com/Hammertonhal/status/698871637022810113

            The simple fact is that prior to his deposition and the strip search MJ and his lawyers were doing everything they could to discredit and get rid of the Chandlers, then after the photographs of MJ’s genitals were taken on December 20 1993 serious negotiations were entered into. That the photos were a catalyst to settling the case was confirmed by Jackson’s own lawyer!

            …in our [Jackson’s defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side

            http://www.mjfacts.com/300lb-gorilla/

            For fans to suggest it was anyything else doesn’t fit with the facts.

          • Andreas

            Yep, I suppose she has to play it like she’s an endless fountain of further inside information, and that she has a lot more than what she wrote Redemption on her sleeve. Ironically thats how she promoted Redemption too. She was always like “I won’t tell, you’ll have to get my book to get the information”.

            Logically, if she really wanted to help Michael Jackson wouldn’t she have said everything she knows by now? Why would she hold back information for a book she was going to release 10 years later? Does that make any sense?

            To me it seems like her main argument always was that Evan and Jordan negotiated with Jackson’s lawyers and Pellicano for quite a while before mentioning Jordan had been molested. She didn’t hear about it, working as a secretary, so to her it seemed like something that was invented half-way into some kind of supposed extortion plot.

            This has been explained many times. Jordan made Evan promise he wouldn’t tell anyone, so thats why it was kept quiet to most parties. If there was any doubt about it Evan mentions the molestation in the Schwartz conversations, and thats well before Hughes claims it was invented.

            And if it was an extortion plot, and the molestation claims came far into the process, what was the extortion claim based on before that? Not sure if she has thought this through.

            I also find it funny she doesn’t even try to hide she’s one of those utterly batshit crazy fans, its more like she shouts it proudly from every rooftop, saying she was sent by God to exonarate Michael Jackson. “God gave her a mission in life”, as she puts it.

          • silverspirit

            How many times does one have to explain to her that “extortion” is a crime? How did she get a job as a legal secretary? Didn’t she get fired?

            LOL@ God sent her. What a crock. She’s crazy.

          • silverspirit

            I’m having fun looking up the fanatic. I found this from 2010 on topix. This was 3 days after Jacko died.

            Mar 12, 2010

            Across town at ground zero of the public mourning for Michael Jackson, Geraldine Hughes was not having a good day. The self- described ‘street missionary’- who tries to keep kids out of gangs in the rougher districts of Los Angeles – was braving the midday heat a few metres from the Michael Jackson star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. She stood by a box of books she had written more than years ago about the pop superstar, but no-one seemed interested in buying.

            ‘Twenty bucks, or 25 (dollars) if you want a signed copy,’ her brother shouted to the crowd.

            Business was hardly better for the dozens of other vendors trying to hawk newly printed Michael Jackson memorial T-shirts for 10 dollars. But Hughes wasn’t discouraged.

            ‘This book proves he was innocent,’ she said.’That’s what’s so horrible. His whole life he was set up and framed.’

            As she spoke, a steady stream of visitors filed past the makeshift shrine that had grown around the star – a small mound of flowers, teddy bears, cards, posters, candles, rosaries and, bizarrely, a flat-panel TV screen. But there was nothing like the crush that had brought traffic on the surrounding streets to a halt a day earlier, and in their cordoned off area in the road, relieved TV crews were packing up their equipment after two days in the broiling LA sun.

            Hughes has a unique perspective on the travails that marred Jackson’s life. Sixteen years ago, she was a legal secretary for the lawyer representing the 13-year-old boy who sued the pop superstar for child molestation in a case that was never brought to court, with Jackson settling for millions of dollars.

            ‘It sounds funny to say it now, but this story is only just beginning,’ said Hughes, 50.

            She recounted how mainstream publishers had never wanted to publish the book, and how TV stations had ignored her evidence for years.

            ‘They didn’t want to know. They were making too much money trying to show a dirty side to Michael Jackson,’ Hughes said.’But that boy wasn’t a child molester.’

            Now, she claims to be close to finalizing a film deal:’Only now they want my book. It’s such a shame.’

            According to Hughes, the bizarre behaviour that has led many to label Jackson a kind of ‘manboy’ was little more than an exaggerated version of the midlife crisis other men have.

          • This was originally a syndicated news story titled Burning questions about king of pop linger for fans, family, written by Andy Goldberg of Deutsche Press-Agentur. It can still be found here http://www.sify.com/movies/burning-questions-about-king-of-pop-linger-for-fans-family-news-hollywood-kkfrLujeaeasi.html

          • ShawntayUStay

            Interesting…clearly she is milking her “connection”. Pretty sick that she’s claiming God ordained it. She’s a hustler; the description of her curbside “business” is shameful, imo, she’s no different from the guys selling bootleg Michael Jackson t shirts out of the back of a van!

            Besides fans recommending her book, it doesn’t seem like anyone really takes her seriously. She was one of Mary Fischer’s main sources for her infamous GQ article; Geraldine’s book was basically a rehash. She’s told everything she “knows” already, no need to keep giving her money…or a platform.

          • silverspirit

            she sure is milking it. She has no shame. I loathe people who use God while sinning. Oh my God ordained her trash? Say it ain’t so! ROTFLMAO

            I only see less than a handful fanatics buying her junk while it’s clear they didn’t follow the case. Suckers who gave her money on gofundme who can’t get their money back when they realized they were duped.

            Anyone have the real story as to why Katherine Jackson shunned her & got her barred from the court room? That’s gotta be some good dirt right there.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Geraldine Hughes has zero special knowledge. Anything said with respect to “secretly heard conversations” would just be her interpretation, biased since she is a hardcore MJ fanatic. If she did have something worth saying, why on Earth would play the “Buy my [poorly written, self-published] book to find out” game? I think this is just another case of someone crazy who is milking their tenuous proximity to celebrity; she’s — what — 4 degrees separated from MJ? Same with “Dr” Susan Etok, Theresa Gonsalves. They get off on the fans looking up to them. It’s rather sad.

            The problem I have is the notion that Hughes can “prove” MJ was innocent. How? She wasn’t even privy to most of the legal goings-on in 1993, let alone being in the room when MJ allegedly molested Jordie Chandler. I’ve said this before but she referred to Jordie as a “white boy” when he is clearly biracial in appearance. So how can her evidence be believed if she can’t even get that correct? Credibility shot….

            The same goes for that Twitter user saying the reason MJ settled was because he knew he would never get a fair trial. How can one who has never met MJ say with such certainty MJ’s absolute motivation for settling? Jackson was the hugest star at the time and most people seemed to believe he was innocent of the allegations, since he didn’t look the part of the perverted child molester. They claim that all the DAs in both counties and the judge were somehow forcing MJ to pay up. How is that true when after the Chandlers entered into the settlement and they refused to cooperate, Garcetti and Sneddon changed the law to prohibit financial settlement payments for sexual abuse of minors to span longer than one year — because MJ’s spanned the entire statue of limitations! They actively tried to prevent the buying of silence, not encourage it. Dumb fanatics, LOL. If they weren’t so deeply entrenched in idol worship they’d know the difference between a real travesty of justice and a filthy rich celebrity legal “inconvenience”.

            Save for Anthony Pellicano speaking up, or one of the Chandlers — besides Ray — or those body photos + description surfacing, there isn’t anything that can prove MJ didn’t (or did) molest Jordie Chandler. It’s all about probability and inferences at this point.

          • silverspirit
          • ShawntayUStay

            Well, it looks like those reviews are by actual people because it says “verified purchase”, but who knows? Lots of fans, especially the “important” ones, have read and recommended her book so they could be real; alternatively, her shameless self promotion — she was tweeting towards the likes of celebrities like Lindsay Lohan, Deion Sanders and Rick Fox for donations, as if they give a crap, LOL — makes me think she’d do anything, even make fake reviews.

          • silverspirit

            Morning all!

            Very bizarre and hard to be believed. Why didn’t she put that stuff in her book that did not sell? She’s full of it. I also notice via her one particular twitter acct. She’s begging for money under the guise of a homeless shelter she is involved in. I don’t see anyone answering her except for a fan or two who think they are going to be part of a movie.

            Methinks that shrill is her. No matter how many times you prove them wrong. They repeat the same lies they were debunked on 2 secs later. Most have it blocked now. Might as well talk to a wall.

          • silverspirit

            Guess Paramount ignored her for obvious reasons.

            This is via fb in 2015.

            Geraldine Hughes‎ to MGM Studios

            September 9, 2015 ·

            “Hughes Productions seeks Executive Producer for “MichaelGate” the true story based on book, “Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegation” book that released in 2004 and proves that Michael Jackson was NOT a child molester. MichaelGate tells the greatest story NEVER told about the extortion scheme in 1993 that led to the false allegation of child molestation. The story is told by the legal secretary that worked for the attorney of Evan Chandler from inside the accuser’s camp and clear’s Michael Jackson’s name.”

            Since when does she have a production company? That name is taken by a company in the UK. I find no listing for her.

            Her ways of trying to get a movie made are the laziest ones I’ve ever seen. Especially by one who is in the movie making capital of the world. Tweets & fb don’t cut it.

  • Hilal Alsameraaii

    Wasn’t this article on Ray Chandler’s site?