Myth: The Settlement Was For Negligence, Not Sexual Abuse

April 7, 2020

The statement is partly true, but it overlooks a crucial detail: in the settlement, the Chandlers agreed to drop the sexual abuse claims and proceed solely with the negligence claim. This remaining claim is inseparable from the underlying allegations, as negligence inherently relates to a failure that enables or contributes to a wrongful act.

To put this into context, in September 1993 a civil lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jordan Chandler against Michael Jackson, comprising seven causes of action: sexual battery, battery, seduction, wilful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligence. The full breakdown of these claims is set out in Jordan’s original civil complaint.

As we know, the civil lawsuit ended in an out‑of‑court settlement, with Michael Jackson paying a reported $15+ million to the child.

So why is it claimed that he only paid for the negligence charge?

In the fifth paragraph of the settlement, Jordan Chandler and his parents agreed to withdraw all claims that directly accused Jackson of sexually abusing the child. In effect, Jackson required them to remove the explicit allegations in order for the payment to be framed around a less damaging claim. The settlement was clearly intended to resolve the dispute, not to serve as an admission of guilt.

Counts one through six were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Chandlers technically retained the option to refile them. In reality, this was highly unlikely, as Evan and June Chandler had already agreed in paragraph 12.c. that signing the settlement and avoiding a trial was in the child’s best interests.

Jordie’s therapist raised concerns in November 1993 about the “extremely harmful” impact a prolonged legal battle was having on him. Jordie even drew a picture of himself committing suicide and showed it to his father. A year after the settlement, Larry Feldman confirmed that Jordie was still struggling to cope. The family sought protection through the witness protection programme, but their request was denied. Given these circumstances, their decision not to proceed to trial was entirely understandable.

The agreement also explicitly prohibited the Chandlers from discussing the allegations with anyone other than the authorities. MJ fans often point out that the settlement did not prevent them from speaking to the police about the criminal investigation, which is correct—restricting that would have been illegal. The Chandlers were free to cooperate with law enforcement, but it is important to consider the highlighted sections of paragraph 11.g:

While MJ could not prevent the Chandlers from cooperating with the police, the agreement ensured he would be notified if anyone involved chose to discuss the allegations with the authorities. This effectively gave him advance warning and an opportunity to prepare his defence before any questioning took place.

As a consequence of this arrangement, the LA District Attorney’s Office and several child‑welfare organisations pushed for reforms to California law. Their concern was that civil settlements of this kind could discourage victims from cooperating in criminal proceedings. The resulting change allowed prosecutors to intervene in civil cases to prevent agreements that might undermine criminal investigations. Under the revised law, contracts that schedule payments more than one year after signing are no longer legally enforceable. This is set out in California Civil Code 1669.5, which is explained on findlaw.com

In addition, MJ and his legal team sought to limit the Chandlers’ ability to bring a future lawsuit. The settlement included a clause stating that the civil suit would be dismissed with prejudice once all instalment payments had been completed. Because the payments were structured to run through the entire criminal statute of limitations, this meant that the Chandlers would be unable to pursue legal action for the molestation allegations at a later date. At the time, the statute of limitations for Jordan’s case was six years.

This was clearly detailed in paragraph 11.f.

If the agreement among all parties still doesn’t strike some readers as an obvious attempt to silence the Chandlers — as Carl Douglas explicitly stated — then paragraph 12.e. near the end of the document is worth considering.

The “discovery” process is a pre‑trial stage in which each party can obtain evidence from the other through methods such as interrogatories, requests for document production, requests for admissions, and depositions. Notably, MJ sought to keep all discovery related to the Chandlers’ lawsuit completely sealed. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, his attorneys also attempted to block any discovery—including evidence gathering and witness depositions—for seven years, which would have effectively stalled the civil case.

It’s important to clarify that keeping discovery sealed is not illegal and does not amount to obstruction of justice. However, it does restrict the ability of any party—whether media, civil, or criminal—to access information about Jordie’s claims or to understand where to direct further inquiries. At the same time, the sharing of evidence between the Chandlers’ civil attorneys and prosecutors became a significant challenge for Jackson’s defence team.

According to this 1993 LA Times article:

Why was Jackson’s legal team so determined to stifle information if there were genuinely no concerns about his behaviour?

One plausible explanation is that the discovery process, which underpinned Jordie Chandler’s lawsuit, created a strong incentive to settle. Full discovery risked exposing material that could heighten fears of criminal prosecution and potentially strengthen the prosecutors’ case—something Jackson’s lawyers would have been acutely aware of.

Settlements are often crafted with the strategic aim of slowing legal progress or preventing damaging information from becoming public. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that Jackson’s decision to settle carries implications. If the Chandlers’ claims were trivial or posed no threat to his innocence, there would have been no need for a settlement at all.

To summarise, the agreement does state on page 4 that Michael Jackson does not admit guilt. However, the “no admission of guilt” clause is standard legal boilerplate.

Harvey Weinstein used similar language in the NDAs he signed with his victims (see page 142). Likewise, in a case involving two sheriff’s deputies accused of beating a man during an arrest, the county denied any wrongdoing despite the existence of video evidence. If we were to treat such clauses as proof of innocence, we would have to assume that every institution or individual who signs an agreement containing them—including the Catholic Church with its numerous NDAs—must also be entirely blameless. The idea that a “no admission of any crime” clause is a compelling argument for innocence is, frankly, absurd.