Michael Jackson’s Settlement with the Chandlers

On these pages are details regarding the 1994 civil suit by the Chandlers against Michael Jackson for molestation. Michael Jackson fought the suit until photos were taken of his genitals to see if they matched Jordan’s description. Jackson settled soon after.

The original claim by the Chandlers

Declaration by Jordan Chandler regarding the molestation

The settlement agreement between the Chandlers and Jackson

Was Michael Jackson Forced to Settle by an Insurance Company?

Why did Michael Jackson Pay the Chandlers? (External Site) <– External site down, article temporarily on loan

9 thoughts on “Michael Jackson’s Settlement with the Chandlers

  1. JamesBaker 27th August 2017 / 5:57 pm

    There’s 1 glaring thing that I am having a problem with when it comes to this site…
    Don’t get me wrong – Everything posted here is brilliant and I love the “objective” outlook, but I just had a thought…

    Pedophiles are ones who are attracted to “prepubescent” children normally under the age of 11. And “hebephiles” are attracted to “pubescent” teenagers, generally ages 11-14.

    They are broken up into different classifications for a reason.

    So, now the question is – Do pedophiles go on to be hebephiles? Because Robson claims to have been abused over what was it…?? …. Ages 7-14? (Dont feel like going back and verifying) … I just know that the age range he gives would span over those 2 different classifications.

    All of this is very important, because it may just reveal that Robson is lying.

    DO NOT get the impression that I am an avid whacko jacko supporter. I try my best to see things and view things objectively just like this site, but the evidence can not be mounting up if well, the evidence is “crap.”

    There is a very good possibility that he is lying for money.

    And now that I think about it — Doesn’t most if not all of his alleged victims span over those 2 classifications?

    I could be wrong with my wavelength of thinking here, but I think all of that sounds plausible.

    I believe there is a REAL possibility that all of this is made up.

    And I mean “all of it.”

    And I’m talking about A to Z. From Chandler to now.

    His closest friends scoff at the idea of Jackson being a pedophile, because all they ever witnessed was a nurturing attitude exhibited towards children, so that would infer that he’s a hebephile. But like I said – His accusers claim the abuse went from pedo-range to hebe-range.

    Hmmmmm, somethin to think about…….

    • Pea 28th August 2017 / 8:04 am

      The classification scheme is a bit pedantic as far as “pedophile” and “hebephile” are concerned, in my opinion. Yes, there are obvious physical differences between a 5-year-old and an 11-year-old, but so with an 11-year-old and a 14-year-old (and why are 14- and 15-year-olds so different? Or 10- and 11-year-olds?). It is arbitrary, and, from a practical standpoint has little real world meaning.

      I submit that a pedophile’s preferences are more dissimilar to an ephebophile’s (lovers of teens) than to a hebephile’s. (And maybe the so-called hebephiles craved a unique moniker because thought they weren’t as “sick” as the diaper-swiping pedos. It’s always politics, isn’t it?)

      Jacko was most properly classified as someone who liked small boys pubescent and younger, the “magic age” being 10-11; in other words, a pedophile. Wade’s outlying encounters seemed to be convenience romps for Jacko….

      “I believe there is a REAL possibility that all of this is made up.

      And I mean “all of it.”

      And I’m talking about A to Z. From Chandler to now.”

      It’s possible it is all made up, but it isn’t probable (ignoring the Arvizos, who I personally don’t believe). Jacko’s boys were always around the same ages. While some researcher hurting for neat and tidy classifications may waste time thinking about pedos vs. hebes, Jacko himself was very consistent.

    • Dani Lee VanBuskirk 28th August 2017 / 2:34 pm

      MJ really did not have many friends in the end..What he used to have were people that cared about how it all looked and tried to talk him out of being seen and spending nights and all days with these boys constantly (back in the 80s)Q said something Dileo, Ritchie..They knew things were looking bad (B Jones took issues with it as well) Not everyone really felt it was so passive and innocent…Even Macs father has a thing or two to say about a thing or two..

      Most of these “friends” tried to warn MJ that something was going to happen if he did not stop his actions well he said fuck off it is my life and cut them off right away…Ritche never said it was all sweet, he said it was a huge problem and looked bizarre as all hell….Not everyone in MJs inner circle has said it was sweet and mothering..Not at all..Maybe outliers but not insiders.

      Maybe 1 boy I could let pass but all of them..No..And this is coming from someone that could be considered a HUGE fan of the mans music. MJ was as guilty as SIN..And I am sure there are many more that will never come forward..I used to think MJ was asexual but it is as clear as day rereading that Jordan evaul that MJ may have had negative sexual feelings towards adults and was asexual towards them he refocused his energy onto children..There is no other logical way to explain his actions..He was a “loving” pedo. But I do believe Mj understood and got off on the mindfucks he used against these boys and the families so it DOES include a level of malice and he put fear into them in subtle but effective ways..

      I used to think maybe he thought he loved them and was showing “love” and while sometimes he may have honestly tried to tell himself that, he totally knew what lived inside his heart was blackness. Not all love and joy not matter what he said in his baby voice.

  2. Pea 29th August 2017 / 7:50 am

    While it would be “nice” if Jordie Chandler spoke about 1993, there is really no need for him to do so. It isn’t about encouraging someone who experienced trauma to go into hiding; I personally am in favor of people speaking out about things that they’ve experienced. But what reason would there be for him to talk, especially when he clearly does not want to revisit that part of his life?

    There was a time when I was annoyed by his silence because there seemed to be a lot of misinformation out there about what happened to him (not to mention that fan hoax of him “recanting” after Jacko’s death). Fans probably still believe that Jordie is “hiding” because he was lying, which I find to be a ridiculous assumption. But, returning to the point, there is enough information out there (several books, TV specials, magazine articles!) to glean what happened to him without the need for his actual voice:

    – Yes, no adult in Jordie’s life at that time (including Jacko) had his best interest (source: Ray Chandler’s self-serving book)
    – Yes, Evan Chandler was motivated by what he believed to be a rejection of him as the “star parent” and then sought to make Jacko “pay”, literally and figuratively (Ibid.)
    – Yes, Jacko paid millions of dollars and included an iron-clad confidentiality agreement in the settlement because he didn’t want anyone to see his penis pictures or have the Chandlers talk about the affair (Source: pretty much any source that wrote about the Chandlers)

    What more is there that we should know that really requires Jordie? In my opinion, the real story shows itself in clear relief when one stops looking at any of the players (i.e., Jacko, the Chandlers, the media, the cops, the lawyers) through rose-colored glasses. The only one who was a victim was Jordie Chandler.

    He doesn’t need to make any kind of statement. Would it be nice? Yes! But so what? And the likes of Wade Robson shouldn’t search for him. It wouldn’t help Wade anyway; his case, due solely to the legal statutes, is not strong and will likely be dismissed.

    “But it’s hard to figure out because, well, you would think he used the pedo range (lol) to warm up to the kid and then wait for the hebe range to make his move. But robson claims it was “immediate.” I don’t know about that.

    Well, the thing about predatory behavior is that it depends a lot upon opportunity, and while fetishists are theoretically laser-focused on a very specific target, it would be naive to rule out deviating from their “ideals”. So a so-called hebephile could prefer a pubescent but may take someone a little younger if they have an itch that needs scratching. It’s the same thing when some guy has been watching porn all day and the only available body in his vicinity is a little girl; he’s not a pedophile and would prefer sex with an adult woman, but other factors primed his decision-making.

    So, Wade could’ve been younger than Jacko would like, but he was an available fan-boy who could be molded to indulge Jacko’s whim. I’m not sure why this is such an impossible or improbable idea to you. All of Jacko’s boys were roughly the same age; Wade being molested at 7 is such a small deviation as to be totally moot.

    “Could always be a publicity stunt, though,,,,, for ,,,,,, well ,,,,,,,, you know,,,,,,, lots of money. (And I mean “lots.”)”

    I am certain Wade Robson was motivated by revenge… for the abuse and the fact he lost out on some of his allegedly Jacko-guaranteed opportunities. He may very well want a bucket of money, and, in that case, yes, it is cynical. However, I believe he was still molested, and his alleged desire for money, even if you try to frame that negatively, doesn’t erase Jacko’s objectively creepy suspect behavior that validates his claims.

    • JamesBaker 18th September 2017 / 7:38 am

      It specifically says my last comment was “deleted.” Were my comments not eloquent enough? Lacking insight? Am I not up to par with you when it comes to a silly jacko convo? Seriously, I researched your answers to others before initially commenting on this forum, because I wanted to pick the right person to make my comments to. Looks like I got that ALL WRONG.

      • Pea 18th September 2017 / 1:33 pm

        I know what it says, James — I deleted it. And the reason was the following statements you made that indicated to me you were not a person having a discussion in “good faith”, i.e., it appeared (or was actual) that you were wasting my time:

        “Making “objective” statements on behalf of the defense is just kind of fun for some reason. :)”


        “That’s just me being dramatic for my own selfish needs to entertain myself. :)”

        There’s nothing wrong with challenging a point of view — making “objective” statements, as you call it — because not everything about Jacko is to one side. Additionally, considering alternatives is how you come to what can reasonably be deduced as the truth. But presenting comments you don’t actually stand behind or only say for private, personal amusement is tiresome and idiotic. No one wants to spend time replying to “fake” positions, especially in something as vapid and pointless as a conversation about a dead celebrity. That’s why your comment was deleted.

        If you have a problem with that, write your congressman.

Comments are closed.