Myth: Michael Jackson Wanted a Criminal Trial after the Settlement in 1994

April 5, 2019

According to some fans, Jackson and his legal team were prepared to confront a criminal trial based on Jordan Chandler's accusations. However, due to Chandler's refusal to cooperate further following the multi-million-dollar settlement, this did not come to fruition.

Fact: It has never been claimed by Jackson or his lawyers that they were prepared to face a criminal trial. On the contrary, all their public statements indicate the complete opposite.

In 2009, a seminar titled "Frozen in Time" showcased insights from various lawyers involved in the Michael Jackson cases. The panel included Carl Douglas, one of Jackson's attorneys involved in the 1994 settlement, Larry Feldman - Chandler's lawyer, and Thomas Mesereau, the lead lawyer in the 2005 case. 

During the seminar, Carl Douglas notably stated:

In our perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to "silence" the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of If we don't get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson.

Watch the clip below.

The phrase "300-pound gorilla" is akin to the expression "elephant in the room," both highlighting an evident truth that Is difficult to ignore.

Bert Fields, Michael Jackson's original lawyer who resigned from the case in 1993, asserts his opposition to a settlement, citing its potential implication of guilt. However, he notes that it was Elizabeth Taylor who advised Jackson to effectively settle the case and move forward with his life.

Fields stated:

Fields: I was very much against a settlement, I felt there was no way to keep it a secret, and if you pay a substantial sum of money, and he wanted a lot of money, no one is ever going to believe you're innocent, and….

Interviewer: And didn't you say Elizabeth Taylor kind of?

Fields: Yeah, that happened, and I can't blame her, she was his best friend, and was really by this time running things. And while I was feeling insane, you can't pay those people off [The Chandlers], there's no way you're going to keep that payment a secret, I don't care what you say in the agreement, it's going to get out and nobody's going to believe you ever again. No one is going to believe your innocence, because if you're innocent, why would you pay, whatever it was, twenty or thirty-five million dollars? You just don't do that, maybe settle a case for fifty thousand dollars, or even half a million, but twenty million? Or 30 million? But Elizabeth Taylor's view was, Michael, you've got all the money in the world, this is a pittance to you, why do you need to go through a trial and any risk that they're going to find you're guilty, and I mean I believe you're innocent, she… did believe it I think. But her attitude was, 'If you got the money, just pay them and get rid of this, get it out of your life.' So you have these two divergent views, and she was clearly prevailing, she was very close to him, I wasn't, I was just his lawyer. And he was definitely leaning that way, and I resigned.

Watch the clip below.

The agreement didn't stop Jordan from testifying in a criminal trial, as it would be illegal to do so. However, the Chandler family decided to stop cooperating with the police, as they believed a trial would harm Jordan emotionally. They were also denied entry to the witness protection program, making them vulnerable to attacks from Michael Jackson fans, as stated by Jordan's uncle, Ray Chandler to Matt Lauer on the Today show.

Matt Lauer: Does he feel any guilt about the decision or does the family feel any guilt about the decision in 1993 that perhaps if they had testified in a criminal investigation or trial, then that the current case could have been avoided?

Ray: The decision was not his at the time because he was a child, it was his parents' decision. But actually that was one of the myths that persisted for 12 years, that they refused to testify at the criminal trial, they actually agreed to testify at the criminal trial as long as they were given witness protection. The death threats were so serious that, you know: animals with their heads cut off left on the door, telephone threats, people trying to break into the house, into the place of business, bomb threats... Last year, a spokesperson for the LA DA's office confirmed that, in fact, that request was made and denied. If it had been approved and they had gotten protection, the criminal trial would have gone forward.

Watch the clip below.

In 1993, the child's therapist, Nancy Cotterman-Garcia, stated that the child displayed signs of depression and deemed it unreasonable to subject the child to a criminal trial.

Sexual abuse cases where children refuse to testify in court are more common than one might realize. Often, families opt not to go to trial in order to spare the child from the stressful legal process, especially if it involves a celebrity. The added trauma of public scrutiny and intense questioning of their credibility can be burdensome, especially for a 13-year-old.

Below are some examples explaining the issues related to children testifying.

Children who testify in court, whether for abuse cases or custody matters, have experienced trauma that can often be severe and persistent. (...) Children and adolescents in court focused sexual abuse cases also require addressing several challenging issues, including the stigma of CSA itself, the fear of not being believed, and the need to confront the abuser in court, especially when the abuser is a family member or close friend. Children generally do not think beyond telling someone about the abuse in the hope that it will stop; they are unaware of the aftermath of disclosure, including forensic physical examinations, interviews with advocates and police, and ultimately testifying in court. Children are very concrete thinkers and may blame themselves for the outcome. For example, they may have thoughts such as, “I told him, he got arrested, it was my fault he was in jail and I left him there.

Source: sci-hub.se

And:

However, testifying remains a major obstacle for child witnesses. In their study of criminal trials, Goodman and colleagues found that children's greatest fear was seeing the defendant in court. In a laboratory study, Goodman and colleagues conducted a mock trial in which children ages four to eight were asked to testify. Despite their efforts to make the experiment as comfortable as possible for the children, 25% of the children “refused to testify, either by outright refusal or by appearing distressed so that the AR judged that the child should not continue.” (...) The dynamics of child abuse reveal how abusers exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims, making it unlikely that victims will ever take the stand. Abusers silence children and then complain when the children cannot speak in court.

Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And:

Bringing a case to court requires the child to testify. Prosecutors described their considerations for subjecting a child to the trial process. One prosecutor noted that a child's parents “did not want her to testify. The defendant knew this because I talk to the family. They shared a family.” In another case, the “daughter feared going to court,” so “3 years in prison [was] a reasonable resolution to avoid trial.

Source: nationalcac.org

And:

It is extremely complicated to determine which cases could/should be prosecuted and, therefore, it is difficult to determine the” success ”and prosecution rates. We would also like to point out that cases often did not move forward because they were not considered to be in the best interest of the child victims and/or their families. No prosecutor involved in our study (or to our knowledge) would ever “compel” a child to testify if it was not therapeutically appropriate and/or the child's wish.

Source: ojp.gov

In summary, the agreement did not prevent but discouraged additional cooperation. Following this, the LA District Attorney's Office and various child welfare organizations advocated for a change in California law. This change aimed to empower the District Attorney's Office to intervene in civil proceedings to prevent agreements from discouraging a victim from cooperating in a criminal prosecution. Additionally, contracts specifying payments beyond one year from execution are not legally enforceable under California Civil Code 1669.5.

During a 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer, Michael Jackson explained that he chose to settle in order to avoid facing a criminal trial, as opposed to seeking it. The full interview is available on YouTube,

Watch the clip below.

From this interview, it's clear that both Michael Jackson and his legal team were in agreement about the decision to settle. 

His claim that the trial could last up to 7 years due to its time-consuming nature is misleading. The statute of limitations on the case expired in six years. Jackson's reference to a "seven-year" timeframe stemmed from his attorney's unsuccessful motion to postpone the civil case until the investigations concluded, which conveniently aligned with the expiration of the statute. However, given the minor's age, as outlined in California statute CCP 36(b), prompt adjudication was entitled, meaning the case wouldn't have lasted as long as he implied.

In the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary with Martin Bashir, he makes the following statement (at 1:26:27).

Martin Bashir: The reason you didn't go to jail was because you came to a financial settlement with the family.

Michael Jackson: Yeah, yeah, I didn't want to do a long drawn out thing on TV like OJ's and all that stupid stuff and it wouldn't look right. I just said look, get it over with, I want to get on with my life, this is ridiculous, I've had enough.

Watch the clip below.

In September 2004, Jackson issued a statement, stating:

It is unfortunate that yet, again, I must respond to untruths and sensationalism.

Years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I fought the matter in court.

These people wanted to exploit my concern for children by threatening to destroy what I believe in and what I do. I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money.

I have spent my entire life helping millions of children across the world. I would never harm a child. It is unfortunate that some individuals have seen fit to come forward and make a complaint that is completely false.

Quite frankly, I question the timing and motive of this report.

I look forward to the day when I will be vindicated by a jury of my peers. Maybe then, these reports will come to an end.

Source: MJFacts.com

Once again, Jackson reiterated his desire to avoid the lawsuit rather than face it.

Johnnie Cochran served as Michael Jackson's attorney towards the conclusion of Chandler's civil suit. The excerpt from his biography briefly describes his work with MJ and the negotiation of the settlement.

Upon reading, you will find no mention of extortion or a potential criminal trial. The focus was solely on settlement negotiations with Larry Feldman. A Time magazine article published shortly after the settlement indicates a tacit agreement that Jordan Chandler would not testify against Jackson. This quote from Johnnie supports that notion:

"Michael wants to get on with his life," said his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, "and let the healing process begin."

Source: Time.com

From his 1996 autobiography "Journey to Justice":

From a lawyer's standpoint, Michael was-and is-an ideal client. He is intelligent, articulate, and decisive. Best of all, he solicits counsel when he feels he needs it, listens care-fully, and follows reasonable advice to the letter.

Larry Feldman and I sat down to negotiate under the auspices of a retired judge we had retained, as California law permits. I've never faced a tougher, smarter, or more able adversary. Both Larry and I agreed that it would be in our clients' best interests to put this matter behind them and allow them to get on with their lives. It was Martin Luther King's birthday.

We held an outdoor press conference in Santa Monica to announce the settlement. Howard, Larry, Carl, and I all were there. So were more than 250 reporters. As Carl and I were walking to my car, I recall looking up and seeing news heli-copters overhead filming us.

I turned and whispered to Carl, who seemed slightly dazed by the whole scene, "Take a look at this, my boy, you'll never see anything like it again in your life."

As we both were about to discover, I've never been so utterly wrong.

During the press conference, Feldman assured that the settlement was not intended to buy the boy's silence, and he hinted that Jordan would also move on with his life, suggesting that he might not continue to cooperate. He did not specify whether or not Jordan would do so.

Feldman, who waged an aggressive legal effort on behalf of the boy, would not say Tuesday whether his client would testify if prosecutors sought to file criminal charges against Jackson. He emphasized that the civil settlement in no way committed his client to remaining silent, but at the same time Feldman repeatedly suggested that the boy might be better off by getting on with his life.

“He cannot heal, he cannot get better until he puts this matter behind him,” said Feldman, whose client has met with psychologists in recent months. “He wants to put this behind him.”

Source: latimes.com

It is evident that Jackson legally purchased the child's silence, similar to how many individuals pay confidential settlements. In these situations, no one admits guilt or prevents the victim from testifying in criminal cases; instead, it subtly encourages silence. Cochran and his team were skilled lawyers, evidenced by Cochran's success in acquitting O.J. Simpson. If they chose to settle, it suggests the case had merit, not falsehoods.

Financial settlements are quite common in sexual abuse cases and do not indicate that the claims are false. This is particularly true for victims of abuse within the Catholic Church, where clergy have paid them to avoid court. R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Jeffrey Epstein have all made monetary settlements. 

Below is an interesting quote from an article titled “Nassar case shows predatory power of secret settlements.”

Confidential settlements in sex offense cases are a major reason why predators — whether Catholic priests, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby — were able to hide sexual harassment or assault for so many years. 

Public knowledge is a powerful key to setting off an avalanche of reports to authorities and, ultimately, action against serial abusers.

The Roman Catholic Church turned silencing victims and settling secretly into a dark art form in its decades-long quest to hide abuse by priests of thousands of youngsters. Not until The Boston Globe in 2002 revealed the church’s ugly bargains in more than 70 cases did the horror story of abuse begin to unfold publicly in dioceses across the country and finally led to desperately needed change. 

Source: usatoday.com

Some argue that Jackson paid instead of going to trial because it would have been too costly. However, this reasoning lacks support, as neither his lawyers nor Jackson himself mentioned this as a reason. The money used to pay the Chandlers could have been used for his defence. In reality, settling cost him even more by jeopardizing his public image and brand contracts.

Undoubtedly, both sides had to compromise, which is the essence of a settlement: each party gains and loses something. The Chandlers secured financial compensation and safety for their family but lost the chance to see Jackson jailed. Jackson avoided a trial and gained the ability to move on, but he lost a substantial amount of money, especially since he was already $30 million in debt by early 1993. Both faced public scrutiny over their choices.

However, the history of confidential settlements in sexual abuse cases suggests that a payment often indicates the allegations are credible, not false or extortion.