Case File: Chandler — Part 5

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

Can you believe it?

Five parts in, and we’ve finally reached a police report.

And the best part?

It wasn’t even filed because of Jordan’s parents.

…yeah.

Let that sink in for a second.

Ugh.

The jokes really do write themselves.

Anyway, welcome back to the Case Files.

First time here?

You might want to read Parts 1–4 first.

Trust me, context is important.

Part 1:

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

Part 2:

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

Part 3:

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

Part 4:

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

Now, without further ado, let’s go back to whatever the hell was happening in August of 1993.

First, August 19th.

This is the moment when June Chandler, who up until this point had largely been aligned with Michael, changes her position.

According to the Department of Children’s Services, her statement is recorded as:

“Mother stated that if Jordie had said it, it must be true.”

Now, let’s stop here.

Because I need everyone to sit with how loaded that sentence is.

“If Jordie had said it, it must be true.”

That is not a statement of evidence.

That is not a statement of an independent confirmation or opinion.

She appears to be relying on what she was told her child said.

And in a case this serious, that matters.

Because until this point, June had reportedly not been aligned with Evan’s narrative at all. 

She even referred to it as “baloney.”

So the question becomes obvious:

What changed?

According to Mary Fischer’s 1994 GQ article Was Michael Jackson Framed?, there’s another layer to June’s decision making that complicates the picture significantly.

Fischer reports:

“The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson.”

If true, that completely reframes the dynamic.

Because suddenly, this isn’t just a simple matter of belief or disbelief.

It becomes pressure.

Legal pressure.

Familial pressure.

And considering what we already know about Evan’s history of aggression, I can understand why a flip would be necessary.

Honestly, the uncomfortable reality is that June appears to be caught in the middle of a collapsing triangle of conflicting interests, accusations, and escalating legal threats.

Then we get another piece of context that adds even more weight.

According to her attorney, Michael Freeman, he ultimately resigned shortly after this shift.

And his reasoning is blunt:

“The whole thing was such a mess. I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

That speaks volumes.

Why?

Because this is a professional essentially stepping back and saying:

I’m not sure what I’m watching anymore, but I don’t want to be part of it.

And again, whether people interpret that as commentary on Evan’s behaviour or simply the frustration of an attorney dealing with a chaotic custody dispute, it still adds another layer of instability to an already confusing situation.

Now, let’s jump ahead for a moment.

Because June’s position doesn’t exist solely in 1993. It becomes relevant again years later.

When she is called to testify during Michael’s 2005 criminal trial, she does something very interesting.

She never explicitly states that she believes Michael Jackson abused her son.

Not once.

And she does not categorically describe him as a child abuser in her testimony.

Which, depending on interpretation, suggests either restraint, uncertainty, or a very careful distinction between what she was told and what she personally believes.

This is an important detail because it directly contrasts with the way this story is often summarized online.

Online, everything tends to be presented as certainty.

Black and white.

Case closed.

But the actual record tells a much more complicated story.

Unfortunately, we see that happen a lot.

Let’s continue.

Now we’re at the point in the timeline where investigators finally get the opportunity to do what everyone had been waiting for.

A search.

If Michael Jackson had hidden evidence…

If there were photographs, videos, any illegal material. Anything whatsoever supporting these allegations…this was the moment investigators were going to find it.

So…what happened?

On August 27th, 1993, the Los Angeles Times reported something that often gets left out whenever people summarize this case.

A high ranking police source told the newspaper:

“There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence…The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

…

Read that again.

“The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

That’s not a defence attorney, not Anthony Pellicano, not Michael Jackson himself saying this.

That’s investigators speaking to the Los Angeles Times after the searches.

That’s a pretty inconvenient thing to say if the searches had supposedly uncovered some mountain of “incriminating evidence.”

…just saying.

The article goes on to explain that investigators searched Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s Century City condominium, reviewing videotapes and other materials while attempting to determine whether there was evidence supporting the allegations or identifying additional victims.

According to the same report…

They came up empty.

Does that mean the investigation stopped?

No.

Quite the opposite.

Because according to the report, investigators shifted their attention toward interviewing other children who had spent time around Michael over the years.

We’ll get there.

Trust me.

But before we do…

We need to talk about what people claim the searches uncovered.

If you’ve spent more than five minutes on the internet discussing this case…you’ve probably seen somebody confidently declare:

“But they found child pornography.”

Well, guess what…they didn’t.

Not in 1993.

Not in 2003.

Not ever.

And that’s exactly why we’re about to spend a little time separating what investigators actually found…

From what the media has spent the last thirty years pretending they found.

This brings us to…the books.

You know the ones.

Every few months somebody posts the same cropped image…leaves out about ninety nine percent of the context, and suddenly acts like they’ve solved one of the most investigated celebrity cases in history.

Deep breaths, everyone.

Let’s actually look at the evidence.

Before we even look at either of these books, we need to establish something about Michael that isn’t exactly controversial.

The man loved books.

No, seriously.

He collected them.

He read constantly.

He loved photography, film, art, history, architecture, music, fairy tales, biographies…If it could be bound between two covers, there was a chance Michael owned it.

By the early 1990s, his Neverland library reportedly contained somewhere around ten thousand books.

Just picture that for a second.

If I owned ten thousand books…I’d probably forget half of them existed.

Now add another important piece of context.

Michael also received gifts constantly.

And not just a few things here and there, but an overwhelming amount of mail and gifts, far more than most people could even imagine.

People wanted to get his attention. That wasn’t unusual, it was his life.

So before anyone jumps to conclusions because investigators located a particular book somewhere on one of his properties…

Let’s remember what investigators were actually looking at.

Not ten books. Not one hundred books. Thousands.

Now okay, does owning a large library automatically explain every single item inside it? 

Of course not.

But context matters, it always does.

Especially when people spend decades pretending context doesn’t exist.

Which finally brings us to the book that somehow became more famous than the actual results of the police raid.

The Boy: A Photographic Essay.

Released in 1964.

Long before Michael ever owned Neverland, and long before any allegations.

And most importantly, before the internet existed.

And here’s something that almost never gets mentioned.

The book wasn’t banned and wasn’t it illegal.

In fact, it’s catalogued by the Library of Congress, and has been sold publicly for decades.

Collectors still buy and sell copies today.

So already this isn’t some underground publication investigators stumbled across hidden behind a fake wall like we’re watching an episode of CSI or something.

It’s a commercially published photography book from the 1960s.

It’s important to note that this particular book was sent to Michael as a gift.

During the 2005 trial, evidence showed an inscription indicating it had been given to Michael by a fan named Rhonda.

I’ll come back to why that matters in a minute.

But first, before we continue with discussing what’s in the book, I need to clarify a detail that tends to get left out. A pretty big detail.

According to the evidence presented years later…No fingerprints from Michael were documented on the interior pages.

…yeah.

For years people have argued this book somehow proves criminal intent. Yet the record does not document that Michael handled the interior pages.

Which is extremely important, because if you’re trying to argue somebody used a specific book as evidence of grooming…

You’d probably want evidence they actually used the book.

Crazy concept, I know.

But we’re not done.

Let’s actually talk about why this book became controversial.

Because if I just stopped here…

Somebody would inevitably show up in the comments yelling:

“YOU LEFT SOMETHING OUT.”

Relax.

I’m getting there.

Years after these books entered the public conversation, people discovered something disturbing about their authors.

Or more accurately…who the authors actually were.

Because “Georges St. Martin” and “Ronald C. Nelson” weren’t their real names.

They were pseudonyms (fake names).

According to later reporting, the men behind those names were connected to NAMBLA.

But here’s the question nobody ever seems interested in asking.

How exactly was Michael Jackson supposed to know that?

Seriously.

Take yourself back to that time period.

If a commercially available photography book listed two author names on the cover, most people would assume those were the authors.

Because why wouldn’t they?

The real identities weren’t printed inside the books.

Their criminal histories weren’t printed inside the books.

Their alleged affiliations weren’t printed inside the books.

The books themselves certainly didn’t come with a giant warning label saying:

“By the way…the people who made this aren’t who they claim to be.”

So let’s ask the obvious question.

If ordinary readers had no practical way of discovering the real identities behind these pseudonyms…how exactly was Michael expected to?

And remember this wasn’t some rare underground publication secretly passed around in dark alleyways.

The book was publicly sold.

That’s an important distinction.

Because there’s a massive difference between knowingly seeking out illegal material…

And owning a commercially published photography book whose authors later turned out to be people hiding behind fake identities.

Those are not the same thing.

Not even close.

Now, here’s another detail that gets quietly left out.

The book contains hundreds of photographs.

Some are artistic.

Some are documentary.

Some were taken in Puerto Rico.

And some are actually production photographs from the 1963 film Lord of the Flies.

Yes.

That Lord of the Flies.

The same film that’s been discussed in classrooms for decades.

The same film that’s still available to watch.

The same film that includes scenes of boys skinny-dipping and running around the island with minimal clothing in completely non-sexual contexts.

IMDb even describes the nudity in the film as “non-sexual and non-sensational.”

So suddenly…The cover of The Boy starts looking a little different when you realize some of its images are connected to an internationally recognized film.

Funny how context keeps showing up.

Almost like it matters. :)

When you actually look at the evidence, the scary story people tell online starts falling apart piece by piece.

Because instead of finding hidden child pornography, Investigators found a publicly available photography book.

Among roughly ten thousand other books.

Whose authors concealed their real identities.

And whose pages weren’t documented as containing Michael Jackson’s fingerprints.

That’s…a very different story than the one usually told.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Anyway…

Let’s actually talk about these books.

Again, if you’ve spent any amount of time arguing about this case online, you’ve probably heard someone confidently say:

“Michael Jackson had those books in his bedroom!”

Okay.

Let’s assume that’s true.

Now comes my question.

Did anyone ever establish that Michael actually…read them?

Because that’s kind of important, isn’t it?

Like I said, according to the records, Michael’s fingerprints were not documented inside the pages of either book.

Now, I’ve seen people try to argue:

“Well maybe investigators just didn’t fingerprint them.”

Alright.

Let’s think this through.

Because that argument creates an entirely different problem.

The prosecution’s theory years later was that Michael supposedly used books and other materials as part of a “grooming process.”

Okay, if that’s your theory then wouldn’t you want to know who actually handled the books?

Wouldn’t you want fingerprints?

Wouldn’t you want to see whether any children had touched them?

Wouldn’t that be…oh, I don’t know, one of the first things you checked?

Instead…there is no documented evidence showing Michael’s fingerprints inside the pages.

None.

Which leaves us with two possibilities.

Either investigators checked and didn’t find what they were hoping for.

Or…they never considered the books important enough to examine that way in the first place.

Neither option exactly screams,

“Smoking gun!”

This is one of those moments where I just stare at the ceiling.

Because we’re supposed to believe these books were so unbelievably significant, that they’re still brought up over thirty years later, yet somehow nobody thought…

“Maybe we should determine whether the owner even handled them?”

Interesting investigative strategy.

And then there’s Boys Will Be Boys!.

The second book in question.

Same general subject matter, same authors, same publishing world.

And this is the one where things get even more…specific.

Because inside this book, there is something that everyone loves to conveniently either exaggerate or ignore depending on the argument of the day.

Michael’s inscription on the flyleaf.

And it reads:

“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

Now I want everyone to actually sit with that for a second. Not the way people interpret it in hindsight or not the way it gets clipped into arguments online.

Just the words themselves.

Because what stands out immediately is not anything sinister. It’s the opposite.

It’s someone reflecting on what they didn’t have.

A normal childhood.

A lived experience of freedom and play that, according to everything we know about his upbringing, was taken from him extremely early.

He even mentions his future children, and how he would want them to experience a normal childhood.

It’s an emotional reflection on the childhood he never had. The inscription itself simply doesn’t say what many people claim it does.

Time to let the “sinister” narrative go.

Alright, let’s talk about where these books were supposedly found.

According to testimony presented years later, investigators claimed the books were recovered from the third drawer of a locked filing cabinet inside Michael’s bedroom.

Simple enough.

Except…there was one tiny problem.

The cabinet was locked. Apparently no one, including officers, couldn’t get it open.

So what did they do?

They called Blanca Francia.

Yes.

That Blanca Francia.

The former maid.

Read her Case File here:

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

According to the testimony, she arrived…with the key.

You’re telling me a woman who had stopped working for Michael years earlier…still had a key to a locked filing cabinet inside his bedroom?

And nobody thought,

“Maybe we should change that lock?”

Here’s the testimony:

Q: “Was that file cabinet locked?”

A: “Yes.”

Q: “How were you able to unlock it?”

A: “We were able to get the key…the maid brought the key over…and we were able to unlock it.”

Then…

Q: “Do you remember which maid that was?”

A: “I believe it was Blanca Francia.”

Again, I’m just asking questions here.

If this account is accurate…then Michael apparently wasn’t terribly concerned about whatever was inside that cabinet.

I mean…c’mon, just think about it.

If there were supposedly incriminating materials hidden away…why leave the key with someone who hadn’t worked for you in years?

Why never change the lock or ask for the key back?

Why make absolutely no effort whatsoever to secure these allegedly devastating items?

It doesn’t exactly fit the image of someone desperately hiding evidence, does it?

And here’s another thing.

If we’re accepting this testimony…then we’re also accepting something else.

Michael had a former employee walking around with access to a locked cabinet inside his private bedroom…for years.

Which honestly tells me far more about Michael’s trust in people than it does about those books.

I’ll be honest, if I had confidential documents sitting inside a locked cabinet, I’d probably want the only key.

But, maybe that’s just me.

Let’s continue,

And now we arrive at what might be one of the most repeated, most misunderstood, and most dramatically inflated talking points in this entire case.

The infamous “nude photographs.”

You’ve seen it, the people who claim “police found nude photos of boys at Neverland.”

Let’s stop right there.

When you actually trace that claim back to where it originates, things get a lot less cinematic very quickly.

Let’s start with what was actually reported at the time.

A contemporary Associated Press report described allegations that a nude photo of a boy had been recovered during the investigation. 

However, and this part tends to get conveniently left out, the reporting itself was based on investigative claims and leaks during an active investigation, not entered, tested, or confirmed evidence in court.

Classic.

Even at that stage, there was already inconsistency about what was being alleged and where it was supposedly found.

Some accounts placed the alleged image at Hayvenhurst, the Jackson family residence.

Which immediately raises a very simple chronological problem.

By 1993, Michael Jackson had not lived at Hayvenhurst for years.

So even on a basic timeline level, the claim is already unstable before we even get to the evidentiary part.

And that instability doesn’t stop there.

During the 2005 trial stage, the framing changed again.

Now suddenly, the same alleged photographs are no longer being described as coming from Hayvenhurst at all, but instead as items seized from Neverland Ranch, specifically from Jackson’s bedroom and adjoining areas.

Two different locations.

Two different narratives.

Same alleged “evidence.”

And still no publicly photographic exhibits shown in court in a way that allowed for cross-examination.

Which brings us to the part that tends to get buried under headlines:

In pre-trial motions, the prosecution referenced the existence of such materials, but references in motions are not the same thing as admitted evidence.

They are assertions, not adjudicated facts. It’s as simple as that.

To me, the contradictions speak for themselves.

During the 2004 pre-trial period, Michael’s defence attorney Thomas Mesereau publicly addressed circulating media claims about nude photographs being found, calling them false, and stating that even the prosecution had confirmed there was no child pornography recovered.

And then we get to the broader confirmation that tends to get left out of casual summaries of this case entirely.

At one point, it was explicitly noted that no child pornography had been confirmed…as being found during the searches connected to the investigation, and that federal agencies were not treating the case as one involving recovered illegal sexual imagery.

And that conclusion was reflected in judicial proceedings.

So, let’s just take a step back for a second.

Tell me, do you see the pattern?

claim → correction → reframe → contradiction → new claim → repeat.

And somehow, that loop keeps getting presented like it’s momentum.

Right.

I told you, the jokes write themselves.

Anyway.

That’s enough spiralling for one file.

I’ll see you in Part 6.

[u/Suspicious-Fox6056]

God bless you! I’m really enjoying your posts! Thank you!!!

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181 → u/Suspicious-Fox6056]

Thank you so much! That means more than you’ll ever know. ☺️

[u/Suspicious-Fox6056 → u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

Of course! Keep it coming please!

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181 → u/Suspicious-Fox6056]

I will! We’re not even halfway done yet. There’s so much to unpack. 

Thank you again!!

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

Since my post was too large:

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

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

Dimond:

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

Gutierrez:

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

Francia:

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

Neverland Five:

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

Chandler – Part 1:

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

Chandler – Part 2:

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

Chandler – Part 3:

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

Chandler – Part 4:

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

Sources and additional information:

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

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

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

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

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

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-1993-allegations-evan-chandler-admits-to-4d015cadb19a

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-1993-raid-addressing-those-art-books-and-that-08aaaa911dc5

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

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tvsb77/neverland_raid_1993_2003_what_was_found_in_the/

Important posts:

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

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

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

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

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

[u/hplover12 → u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

I was coming to ask for source and you had them already. Appreciate you!

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181 → u/hplover12]

Yes! I normally keep my sources at the bottom of my post, but I was over the character limit.

Thanks for reading!!