The Chandler Case: Unravelling the Myths Surrounding The 1993 Allegations
June 7, 2025
Few controversies in modern pop culture have sparked as much debate, speculation, and division as the 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson. When 13-year-old Jordan Chandler accused the global superstar of sexual abuse, the world watched as the case ignited a media storm, sending shockwaves through entertainment, legal circles, and public discourse.
What followed was a high-profile police investigation, culminating in a dramatic raid on Jackson’s famed Neverland Ranch—a moment that seemed to set the stage for an explosive courtroom battle that would either convict Jackson or clear his name.
Yet, instead of a public trial that could have provided definitive answers, the case shifted toward an out-of-court settlement, a move that only deepened uncertainty, fuelled speculation, and left lingering doubts in its wake.
Over the decades, two vastly different interpretations of the case have emerged, each fiercely defended by opposing camps.
Despite the polarised views surrounding the case, many legal experts, journalists, and analysts argue that credible evidence supports Jordan Chandler’s allegations. However, misinformation, myths, and deliberate distortions have made it incredibly difficult to separate truth from speculation.
Adding to this complexity, the 1994 settlement legally prohibits Jordan, June, and Evan Chandler from discussing the case. This restriction has prevented them from addressing misinformation or defending themselves publicly, leaving them vulnerable to continued speculation and misrepresentation. Tragically, Evan Chandler took his own life in 2009, further limiting any opportunity for clarification.
The only member of the family to speak publicly is Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler. In 2004, he published All That Glitters, a book offering his perspective on the case. He has also appeared in documentaries, attempting to push back against misleading claims and provide rebuttals to widespread myths.
Below, I will explore some of the most common myths about the Chandler family. This is not a complete list, and it may be updated over time.
Myth 1: Jordan Chandler Later Admitted He Had Lied
A persistent rumour claims that following Jackson’s death in 2009, Jordan Chandler came forward and admitted that his accusations had been fabricated by his father—as part of a financial extortion scheme. According to this narrative, Chandler supposedly confessed that nothing inappropriate had ever occurred.
However, this claim is entirely baseless. Jordan Chandler has never publicly retracted his allegations, and no verified news source has ever reported such a confession. The myth appears to have originated on unreliable blogs and online forums shortly after Jackson’s death, sparking intense debate between supporters and critics. Even some of Jackson’s most ardent defenders acknowledge that no credible evidence supports this supposed confession.
Myth 2: Evan Chandler’s Suicide Was Driven by Guilt
Another widely circulated claim suggests that Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler, took his own life due to overwhelming guilt for falsely accusing Michael Jackson.
While it is true that Evan died by suicide, there is no evidence to support the theory that remorse was a motivating factor. At the time of his death in November 2009, Evan was 65 years old and suffering from Gaucher’s disease—a debilitating genetic disorder that causes severe physical deterioration. The reality is that his declining health likely played a far greater role in his decision to end his life than any supposed regret over the accusations.
Moreover, no suicide note or personal admission has ever surfaced to suggest that Evan regretted his actions. The idea that he accused an innocent man, only to be haunted by guilt to the point of suicide, is entirely speculative.
Myth 3: Michael Jackson’s Insurance Company Paid the Settlement
Perhaps one of the most enduring claims surrounding the case is the assertion that Jackson himself never paid the multi-million-dollar settlement. According to this theory, his insurance company covered the payout on his behalf, implying that he was powerless to fight the allegations.
Yet, this claim collapses under scrutiny.
Evidence Directly Refuting the Myth:
Origins of the Myth
The rumour appears to have originated from a questionable document signed in 2005 by one of Jackson’s former legal advisers, Brian Oxman. In it, Oxman falsely asserted that an insurance company had paid the settlement on Jackson’s behalf. However, this claim is widely regarded as an attempt to manipulate public perception during a turbulent period in Jackson’s life.
While Mesereau condemned the settlement as poor legal advice, Oxman attempted to control the narrative by circulating the false insurance claim. The glaring contradiction between the two accounts likely played a role in Oxman’s dismissal from Jackson’s legal team in 2005.
Further complicating matters, around the same time, another settlement emerged—a $2.4 million payout to Jason Francia, another young accuser who alleged abuse by Jackson in the 1990s.
Myth 4: Jordan Was Brainwashed with a Mind Altering Drug
One of the more bizarre claims surrounding the Chandler case suggests that Jordan Chandler’s allegations were not the result of direct experiences but rather induced through the administration of Sodium Amytal—a controversial drug once believed to function as a “truth serum.” According to this theory, Jordan was either unknowingly influenced by the drug to fabricate memories of abuse or deliberately brainwashed by his father, Evan Chandler, who allegedly used the drug to implant false recollections of inappropriate behaviour by Michael Jackson.
The myth hinges on the idea that Evan Chandler, a practising dentist, had long suspected his son might have been abused but struggled to get Jordan to speak openly. The narrative suggests that during a dental procedure, Evan administered Sodium Amytal under the guise of anaesthesia, at which point Jordan allegedly admitted to being molested by Jackson.
Supporters of Jackson have seized on this claim, arguing that any testimony produced under the influence of such a drug would be inherently unreliable. Sodium Amytal’s supposed ability to create false memories has been cited as evidence that Jordan’s allegations were artificially induced, rather than genuine recollections of abuse.
Yet, a closer examination reveals the theory to be entirely baseless.
How the Myth Spread
The Sodium Amytal theory gained traction largely due to Mary Fischer’s 1994 article in GQ Magazine, titled “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” Fischer’s piece has been widely circulated by Jackson’s defenders, appearing in books, documentaries, and fan websites. However, the article is based on conjecture rather than verified facts—Fischer had no direct access to the Chandlers or their medical records, meaning her claims were entirely speculative.
Mary Fischer and Ray Chandler in Michael Jackson and the Boy He Paid Off (2004)
Despite its lack of factual basis, the myth persists, serving as yet another attempt to discredit Jordan’s testimony by attributing it to supposed drug-induced false memories.
Myth 5: Jordan's Description of jackson's Genitalia Was Wrong
Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of the case is Jordan Chandler’s detailed description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia, provided to law enforcement as part of the investigation. This description played a key role in the police inquiry, as it was compared with photographs taken of Jackson during a search warrant executed at Neverland Ranch in December 1993.
The debate surrounding this issue largely revolves around whether Jordan accurately described Jackson’s anatomy—or whether his account contained significant inaccuracies that might call into question his credibility.
The Critical Details in Jordan’s Description
According to investigative records, Jordan provided a description that included:
When police analysed photographs of Jackson's private parts during their investigation, multiple sources—including district attorney Tom Sneddon and law enforcement officials—confirmed that the images matched Jordan’s description with notable accuracy.
The Circumcision Debate
However, one disputed aspect of Jordan’s testimony is whether he claimed Jackson was circumcised. If Jordan indeed stated that Jackson was circumcised, this would contradict the findings of Jackson’s 2009 autopsy, which confirmed that he was not circumcised.
Jackson’s defenders have pointed to this inconsistency as supposed proof that Jordan fabricated his testimony. However, the issue is not as clear-cut as it may initially seem.
Where Did the Circumcision Claim Originate?
There are 2 sources.
The first is from Victor Guitierez, a journalist and former private investigator deeply involved in covering Jackson’s legal troubles in the 1990s.
In Guitierez’s controversial 1996 book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, he claims that Jordan kept a “love diary” containing a drawing of Jackson’s genitalia, with an inscription stating, “Mike circumcised”. However, this account has been disputed for several reasons:
The second source is an article titled The Telltale Splotch, published on The Smoking Gun website in January 2005. The circumcision claim is allegedly part of a statement written by Deborah Linden from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department.
The website states:
With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
However, there is no screenshot or link to any official documents authored by Deborah Linden on the website. That, in itself, is rather unusual, as The Smoking Gun typically provides screenshots or links to official documentation.
It is possible that The Smoking Gun received only limited information and chose to embellish the story. After all, the website falls squarely into the tabloid category, having published many sensationalised and unfavourable stories about Michael Jackson over the years.
Possible Explanations for the Alleged Discrepancy
For argument's sake, let's say that Jordan was asked by the Sheriffs' Department whether Michael Jackson was circumcised or not—and got that detail wrong. How might one explain such a discrepancy? There are several possible explanations:
Whatever the truth may be regarding the circumcision debate, the fact remains that Jordan's description of discolouration on Jackson's lower torso—including a notable dark mark on the underside of his penis—has been confirmed as accurate by law enforcement.
For a more in-depth look at the description read post 6.
Myth 6: Evan Chandler demanded a Film Deal
Evan Chandler had aspirations as a screenwriter. He co-wrote Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which was filmed between January and March 1993 and released in December of the same year.
Some claim that Evan demanded a $20 million film deal from Jackson, who was under contract with Sony Entertainment, in exchange for remaining silent about allegations of sexual abuse.
Why the Claim is Flawed
If Evan had approached Jackson or his legal team, threatening to make allegations unless he received a film deal, this would constitute extortion—a serious crime.
All Michael Jackson and his representatives would have needed to do was string Evan along. At the next meeting, with some discreetly placed cameras capturing Evan’s blatant extortion demands, they could have gathered more than enough evidence for the police to arrest and charge him. Jackson would have been vindicated—without any ifs or buts. That didn’t happen.
The Reality
It was not Evan Chandler who demanded a film deal; rather, it was Michael Jackson’s own representatives who proposed it. Evan firmly rejected the offer. This clarification comes from Ray Chandler:
Myth 7: Evan Was Caught on Tape Plotting Extortion against Jackson
Few elements of the case have been more hotly debated than the infamous audio recordings of Evan Chandler—recordings that, to this day, are frequently cited as supposed evidence that the allegations against Michael Jackson were financially motivated. In these tapes, Evan is heard making bold declarations such as:
Combined with his reference to hiring aggressive legal representation, these statements have often been presented as definitive proof of an extortion plot. To Jackson’s supporters, they offer compelling evidence that Evan Chandler’s primary objective was not justice, but money.
Yet, as with many aspects of this case, the reality is far more complex.
The Context of the Recording
The conversation in question took place over the phone between Evan Chandler and David Schwarz, who was then married to Evan’s ex-wife, June Chandler. However, this was not an accidental recording—rather, Schwarz, likely under the influence of Jackson’s associates (including private investigator Anthony Pellicano), was encouraged to record the conversation without Evan’s knowledge.
More significantly, later investigations suggest that the tape was heavily edited before its public release, with Pellicano himself accused of splicing key portions in a way designed to make Evan appear unstable, manipulative, and singularly focused on financial gain.
A Review of the Full Transcript
Critically, the unedited transcript of the conversation tells a markedly different story. Rather than explicitly demanding money or outlining a strategy to extort Jackson, Evan’s words largely revolve around a custody dispute. At the time, June Chandler was allowing Jordan to travel with Jackson, much to Evan’s growing distress.
Convinced that his son was being harmed, Evan desperately wanted custody of Jordan, and his frustrations with both Jackson and his ex-wife boiled over. Many of his statements—including the infamous “I will get everything I want”—were actually directed at the custody battle, not a financial settlement.
Furthermore, Evan admits in the conversation that he was intoxicated, stating outright that he was “hammered.” His words, then, may reflect a moment of extreme frustration rather than any well-planned extortion scheme.
Was Evan Chandler Financially Motivated?
Jackson’s defenders often point to this conversation as evidence of greed, but when examined in full, the recording presents a man who appears genuinely distraught about his son’s welfare.
Furthermore, Evan was, in fact, investigated by the police for alleged extortion, but they found no evidence that such a crime had taken place. Michael Jackson's legal and PR team clearly used the recording as a means to portray extortion to the public, hoping to convince them—and, in the process, intimidate Evan into silence.
Read the full transcript at MJFacts.com
Myth 8: Real Victims Want Justice, Not a Settlement
One of the most common arguments posed by sceptics is the assertion that a genuine victim would never settle a case involving sexual abuse for money. Instead, they argue, a real victim’s family would pursue justice in court, ensuring that the accused faced legal consequences.
On the surface, this reasoning may seem logical—particularly given the gravity of the accusations. However, it fails to account for the extreme complexities surrounding the case and ignores the many factors that likely influenced the Chandlers’ decision.
Do Settlements Always Indicate Extortion?
The idea that accepting a financial settlement inherently suggests extortion is flawed. Historically, many victims in high-profile cases opt for settlements, either due to concerns over emotional distress, public scrutiny, or legal costs.
In this instance, the settlement amounted to approximately $15 million—an enormous sum that undoubtedly cast a shadow over Jackson’s reputation, suggesting that even he recognised the risk posed by a drawn-out criminal trial.
Jordan’s Fragile Mental State
A crucial factor behind the Chandlers’ decision to accept a settlement was the rapid deterioration of Jordan’s mental health.
As the case gained international attention, Jordan—just 13 years old at the time—was described by mental health professionals as severely withdrawn and traumatised. He reportedly expressed intense fear of testifying in court, and psychologists warned that exposing him to a media-frenzied trial could have devastating psychological consequences.
One particularly haunting detail emerged from Jordan’s personal artwork, which featured an illustration of a figure leaping from a building, accompanied by the chilling words: “Don’t let this happen.”
Threats Against the Chandler Family
Beyond concerns for Jordan’s well-being, the Chandler family was also subjected to horrific intimidation efforts.
According to Ray Chandler, the family endured a series of violent incidents, including:
Watch the video from the Today show below.
Out of fear for their safety, both Ray and Evan Chandler began carrying firearms, anticipating potential violence.
Faced with these terrifying circumstances, the Chandlers sought witness protection—but, tragically, their requests were denied. In contrast, during Jackson’s 2005 trial, the Arvizo family was granted full police protection, a safeguard that made an enormous difference in their willingness to testify.
While the settlement undeniably raises questions, it does not automatically undermine Jordan’s allegations. The combined weight of his psychological distress, the intense threats against his family, and the lack of legal safeguards likely influenced the decision to avoid a courtroom battle.
Most, if not all, of the claims made against the Chandler family are either outright false or easily explainable. Some conspiracy theories—such as the Sodium Amytal claim or the idea that Evan Chandler demanded a movie deal—are not only unsubstantiated but absurdly ridiculous.
The fact that grown adults continue to fabricate such narratives in defence of Michael Jackson, despite his well-documented and deeply troubling relationships with young boys, including Jordan Chandler, goes beyond mere denial—it borders on moral bankruptcy.
Why people cling so fiercely to these fabrications is perplexing in itself, but perhaps it speaks to the powerful influence of celebrity culture—a phenomenon where idolatry overrides reason, and unwavering loyalty dismisses even the most damning evidence.
Similar Posts
Analysing law enforcement statements concerning Jordan Chandler's December 1993 description of Micha…
Piers Morgan once described witnessing Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler together in a manner that…
Carl Douglas, a member of Michael Jackson's 1993 legal team, describes in Telephone Stories how soci…
In Square One, UK journalist Charles Thomson asserts that Jordan Chandler was drugged and brainwashe…
During the 1993 raid of Michael Jackson's properties, police discovered books that contained nude im…
Defenders of Michael Jackson assert that he sought a criminal trial following the Jordan Chandler al…