Jordan Chandler Recantation Myth Debunked

March 11, 2020

Almost as soon as Michael Jackson was pronounced dead in June 2009, a rumour began circulating online claiming that Jordan Chandler – the first boy to accuse Jackson in 1993 – had recanted his allegations. According to the story, Jordan had supposedly admitted that his father, Evan Chandler, forced him to lie in order to secure a multimillion‑dollar payout.

The rumour spread quickly across forums, blogs, and dubious “news” sites. It wasn’t only anonymous posters fuelling it. Members of Jackson’s own family, including his mother Katherine and his brother Jermaine, repeated the claim in interviews and public appearances years later.

More recently, Bill Whitfield, one of Jackson’s former bodyguards, has also confidently asserted that Jordan withdrew his allegations and that Evan Chandler took his own life out of guilt for framing Jackson.

This raises an obvious question: where – or when – did Jordan Chandler supposedly confess that his 1993 allegations were lies?

It’s a simple query, yet none of the people promoting the story have ever been able to answer it.

A genuine confession does not appear anonymously on a forum or a fringe website. It must come directly from the individual concerned and be supported by verifiable evidence – not only of the confession itself, but also of the person’s identity.

For Jordan Chandler to have legitimately recanted, one of the following would need to have happened:

• He posted a statement from a verified social media account explicitly declaring that his allegations were false and that he was retracting them, either in writing or on video.
• He gave an interview to a reputable journalist or news organisation, with his identity independently verified.
• He instructed a licensed lawyer to issue a formal statement announcing that he was withdrawing his 1993 claims.
• He directly approached a member of the Jackson family or someone legally connected to the Jackson estate, providing a clear and authenticated confession.

So, do any of these exist?

The answer is no.

As already noted, this rumour has only ever circulated on forums and other unreliable corners of the internet. No credible outlet — not CNN, not the BBC, not even the usual tabloid suspects — has ever reported that Jordan Chandler recanted.

The story was flawed from the outset. The earliest version read: “Evan Chandler, I lied for my father, I’m so sorry Michael.” It didn’t even get the names right. Instead of questioning this glaring error, many blogs and forum users simply “corrected” the names and continued spreading the myth.

You can find a discussion on this topic in the MJJCommunity forum.

In November 2009, Jordan’s uncle, Raymond Chandler, directly addressed the claim in an interview with The Daily Mail:

His statement remains one of the few direct comments from within the Chandler family and serves as a clear rebuttal.

The fact‑checking outlet Snopes.com also examined the rumour and classified it as false due to the complete lack of verifiable evidence. Their report noted that the claim originated from a single poorly worded statement reproduced across multiple blogs, with no supporting coverage in mainstream media despite intense reporting on Jackson following his death.

Even The Michael Jackson Allegations, a pro‑Jackson website dedicated to defending his innocence, rejects the retraction story. It describes the rumour as an internet hoax, pointing out that it lacks credibility even within fan circles:

Jordan Chandler and his family endured sustained harassment from Jackson’s fans after the 1993 allegations, and he has deliberately avoided the public eye ever since. He is also legally barred from discussing the allegations due to the confidentiality agreement attached to the 1994 settlement.

In 2017, during legal proceedings brought by Wade Robson, Jordan’s sister Lily asked the court to stop Robson’s legal team from contacting the family. She included examples of hostile, threatening messages sent by Jackson’s fans – messages clearly intended to intimidate them. The filing cited these threats as a key reason the family remained unwilling to speak publicly (see page 24 of the legal brief).

It is also worth noting that had Jordan ever recanted, the Michael Jackson estate – which now controls Jackson’s assets – would have seized upon it immediately. At the very least, they would have used such a retraction as a powerful PR tool to proclaim Jackson’s innocence.

During production of the biopic Michael, the estate initially planned to include material relating to the 1993 allegations. They later discovered that the 1994 confidentiality agreement prevented them from doing so. As a result, the film was delayed and several scenes were reshot to remove all references to the Chandler family.

If Jordan had genuinely recanted in 2009 — explicitly admitting that he had lied and that the allegations were part of his father’s scheme to extort Jackson — it is highly likely that the 1994 agreement would have been partially, if not entirely, void. In that scenario, the estate would not have been forced to remove every scene in the film that referenced the 1993 allegations.

In short, the so‑called “confession” was nothing more than a flimsy, poorly written statement that circulated on random websites and forums — one that even confused Jordan’s name with his father’s. It was never issued by Jordan Chandler, nor did it come through any legitimate or official channel.