Michael Jackson Trial: Mothers, Why?

Apart from Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence, the enormous question hanging over the trial proceedings like a poisonous cloud is why on earth did parents — and in particular, mothers — essentially turn their young boys over to the care of the grown man who expressed intense, and in retrospect, alarming interest in their sons?

The obvious but incomplete answer is that while Jackson "groomed" the boys (again, putting aside his guilt or innocence of the charges at hand), he also groomed their mothers with expensive gifts and accomodations, and at least in the case of June Chandler, the mother of the boy who received the $20+ million settlement in 1994, effectively used emotional blackmail to elicit her complicity in the "relationship."

Yesterday Chandler testified that her son was already a fan of Jackson when they met by chance at her ex-husband's car rental office in Los Angeles in mid-1992. The two established a fast telephone friendship, which led to invitations for the family to come to Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch for weekends.

Chandler said she, her son and daughter intially stayed in a guest cottage, but on their third visit, her son asked her if he could sleep in Jackson's room. She said no.

Then Jackson took the three of them on a trip to Las Vegas for a weekend. On the second night she gave Jackson permission to take her son to see a show, after which the grown man and the 12 year-old boy appeared at her Mirage hotel door. The boy was quiet. Jackson was "sobbing, shaking, trembling," according to Chandler's testimony.

Jackson wailed, “Why don't you trust me? Why won't you let him sleep in my bed? We are a family! Why won't you trust me?” She testified she told Jackson she didn't think it was right. Jackson begged, "There is nothing going on, why don't you trust me?”

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for eric-olsen

Article Author: Eric Olsen

Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and former publisher of Blogcritics.org, and former publisher of Technorati.com, which both rule. He is now editor, co-founder, and CEO of The Morton Report.

Visit Eric Olsen's author pageEric Olsen's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - swingingpuss

    Apr 12, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Babe was shedding crocodile tears. Why even crocs do a better job of protecting their young from predators.

    She deserved to be incarcerated for letting a deranged boy lover share her son's bed.

  • 2 - DrPat

    Apr 12, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    This is certainly spooky, and it's easy to see why the testimony is expected to be damaging to Jacko's case.

    Now I've got the shudders again...

  • 3 - chello

    Apr 12, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    this whole case is wrong. i don’t see how anyone cannot find fault in how the media is managing reporting around this case. its out right pathetic. these are one sided accounts not relevant to this case in anyway.. this one sided (MJ is a villain) approach has dominated the from day one. look at the reality irrespective of how you put these testimonies of all these people, including sneddom are enemies of MJ and they are currently having a field ball at the expense of this beleaguered artist. why make the assumption that MJ is the one blackmailing, why make the assumption that all these things being said are true (the accounts definitely dont add up; the credibility of the witnesses is certainly questionable).. like you said rightfully at the beginning before you went off to promote your book; any mother in their right mind would have made a lifetime commitment out of making sure that this man was behind bars for life or worse... how can we even acknowledge this women’s testimony as being worthy.. if jackson truly molested her son then she has blood on her hands... i fear for the legal system in America the most if it can allow for such a liteny of nonsense to feature so prominently in what will be the most recalled legal disaster in history. Follow-up on the details of the case and then make judgment. would you make judgment against someone you don’t know only based on hear say... if MJ is guilty of the crime being professed by this embarrassment of a media coverage then there is reason to believe that weapons of mass destruction do exist in iraq... MJ, the world, even if america has betrayed you at this time of need, stands by you.. what we learn from this is that we are all greedy - people create kings to bring them down (please understand that people are making money out of MJs suffering, TV programs being watched, and even books being sold)... at the end of it all - justice is the daughter of time...

  • 4 - DrPat

    Apr 12, 2005 at 2:50 pm

    Chello, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the link to a book that Eric did not write. Eric's post boils down the testimony of this witness - including the complicity of all the mothers in anything that did (or did not) happen to their sons.

    What Michael Jackson needs is less slavish support for his behavior. He doesn't need another mother, son, or fan to simply accept whatever he wants as his due just because he is able to create music (however brilliant) and buy presents (however expensive).

    And whether you will admit or not, the media coverage has been thorough on both sides of the issue. We're all reading what we can precisely because we don't want to judge without evidence.

    Even if we can tell where this is going. That's not prejudice - it's more like seeing that traffic light two intersections farther down the road...

  • 5 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    yes, and thanks DrPat - I am looking at the issue of parental complicity in all this and trying to understand how it happened. I specifically said this is apart from whether or not Jackson is innocent or guilty of the specific charges against him, there is no dispute at all that he spent a huge amount of time and attention and money on these boys and their families.

    That in and of itself requires some kind of explanation: why did he do it? And why did the parents allow it?

    The Chandler and Arviso cases are remarkably similar on many fronts.

  • 6 - HW Saxton

    Apr 12, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    Yeah,What the f*ck was this kids mother
    really thinking when this went down?(Pun
    unintended).

    Isn't the scenario alone enough to give
    anybody pause for thought.So,let's see
    here:A grown "man" who's visibly shaking
    and shuddering,highly upset,begging her
    profusely late at night to let her pre-
    pubescent kid spend the night with him.

    This didn't set off any alarms in her
    head? Even after she had reportedly told
    him NO on prior occasions.She has to be
    at least partially to blame,IMO. C'mon,
    fer chrissake,who's fooling who here?

  • 7 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    agreed, though Jacko sure seems to knows the points of vulnerability, doesn't he? And in this woman's case she has been punished for 11 years - it is no coincidence that he won't talk to her.

  • 8 - Richard Porter

    Apr 12, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    Eric

    We have had this dialogue before. It seems the mothers get "hooker guilt" where they whore out their sons and then feel guilty afterwards. It is disgraceful and they should be investigated by child welfare after this case has been decided.

  • 9 - Veronica

    Apr 12, 2005 at 4:26 pm

    I agree with alot of your veiws. I'm much too young to be a mother yet, but I don't think I would ever let someone I care about go sleep in the same bed with a man that was "sobbing, shaking, trembling". But even the most loving mother could be tempted with thousands of dollars in presants. I also highly question witnesses credablity. There is alot of mass heestaria(sp?) about the Michael Jackson case.

  • 10 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    you are wise for your age Veronica - ironically, much of the press has decided that there isn't enough hysteria about the case among the public and has cut back coverage accordingly. An awful lot of people are creeped out by the specifics of the testimony

  • 11 - Aaman

    Apr 12, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    Thus spake Eric the Wise, dispenser of tacos and MJ-news

  • 12 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 5:06 pm

    yea and verily

  • 13 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 5:10 pm

    "mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be Jackoboys"

  • 14 - ii

    Apr 12, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    for all you jackobots ... are you nuts? read this .. jackson so obviously did it ...

    excerpt from here:

    "...They were quite open about being friends; for example, Jordy sat on Jackson's lap in the front row of the World Music Awards ceremony, next to Albert II, Prince of Monaco.

    In 1993, after waking up from anesthesia for pulling a tooth by Evan, a dentist, Jordy said that he and Jackson often had sex. Some argue that due to his condition he lost inhibitions to tell the truth, some say that in this condition false memories could have been implanted in him, given that the barbiturate sodium amytal, highly questionable for pulling a tooth, was used.

    Allegedly Jackson masturbated Jordy many times and also applied oral sex to him, while sometimes Jordy masturbated Jackson. According to Jordy (this, in turn, according to Ray Chandler's claimed transcription of an interview, see below) Jackson said that he believed that this is okay, and that this belief is a matter of being "unconditioned", like metaphysical levitation is a matter of being unconditioned with regard to gravity.

    According to the transcript, in an earlier phase Jackson and Jordy shared a bed non-sexually. Jordy's mother June Chandler first objected, but Jackson convinced her by saying (summarized) "There's nothing wrong with it, you should allow it because it's simple and fun and you shouldn't set up barricades". In the 2005 trial, June confirmed this: "He said: 'You don't trust me? We're a family... Jordy is having fun. Why can't he sleep in my bed? There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on'."

    ALSO SEE the psychiatric interview of jordy chandler

  • 15 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 12, 2005 at 7:05 pm

    that was her testimony yesterday as well

  • 16 - paul

    Apr 12, 2005 at 10:53 pm

    why arent the mothers charged with pimping their children

  • 17 - mjak

    Apr 13, 2005 at 12:27 am

    Man u ppl have been blinded by bias media reports. the defence has already torn apart practically every "witness" that have. wait until its their turn 2 bring out witnesses. dont be fooled by witenesses who have previously be fired who hav a grudge. mothers who dont talk to their sons anymore or accusers who have a history of sueing ppl for $$$$

  • 18 - missprincess

    Apr 13, 2005 at 12:33 am

    i totally agree with mjak, if other witnesses said they saw something 10-15 yrs ago y no call the police then they are just as bad 4 "watching' a child get abuse and do nothing about. even if they work for the worlds most famous person. if they feared losing their job thats craps coz they no they can make much more by telling their story to the scum we call tabloids and eric olsen who are trying to sell sensationalised books

  • 19 - chello

    Apr 13, 2005 at 1:02 am

    one need not argue extensively on a matter that is already being addressed in court. to be honest some of the people posting on this site surprise me. there is literally nothing new being brought forth in this case - no incriminating evidence what so ever just one sided accounts of people who have been well briefed by the prosecution and have some material interest in the outcomes of this case. justice calls for us to look at the facts and act logically. how can you base your link on one witnesses testimony? don’t you see that as bias in its own right. this has been the trend; suddenly the worlds most professional media system becomes no better then the tabloids we dehumanize in terms of reporting standards. even Jesus was crucified by a people who could only see evil in him because of their own insecurities. i think the true weakness here resides in the people themselves. how can we suddenly assume that holding hands or kissing a kid is wrong because MJ is doing it. we teach our kids not prejudice or segregate others but suddenly we label MJ weird and think its OK. There are people who suffer from obesity and feel bad about and go through extremes to loose weight; do we suddenly legitimize laughing at them and making them feel strange. double standards ring a bell anybody… eric you continue selling your books as that is the role you have been accorded but also be considerate of the fact that MJ at the end of the day is a human being and is facing the most damning accusation anyone can possibly face in this age. he doesnt need your support, he deserves your respect.

  • 20 - mjak

    Apr 13, 2005 at 1:07 am

    Chello u are preaching to the choir!!!

    it about time we had some sense on the matter - not to mention intellegent unlike some of the trash i have read!!

    Money is the root of all evil and ppl will go to great lengths to get it even who ppls lives are at stake

  • 21 - DRS

    Apr 13, 2005 at 5:14 am

    Eric: "I specifically said this is apart from whether or not Jackson is innocent or guilty of the specific charges against him, there is no dispute at all that he spent a huge amount of time and attention and money on these boys and their families."

    1) NOT on boys, on CHILDREN. Jackson carried on his arms little sister of 1993 accuser throughout the world, she sat on his laps in front of hundreds million audience of World Music Awards in 1993, not only Jordan. The same with Arvizos, sister of current accuser was there at Neverland and travelled to Miami with her friend on jet, and she was always there at Neverland. Sister of MacCaulay Culkin was there always, no more rare than other brothers of the family. Jackson had about 25-30 nephews and **nieces** hanging at Neverland. Jackson also hang out with his daughter, Paris, for 7 years already.

    2) Since Jackson considers himself as boy, it would be very strange if he would be hanging out more with girls, not with other boys. Boys have little common interests with girls. Jackson was not going to play with dolls and look at girls fashion sessions or whatever else activity girls do. Pillow, supersoaker fights, arkades, frolic tricks that what boys like to do.

    3) Jackson gave out about $50 million dollars for charity right out of his pockets, charitable projects like We Are The World are not even not included. He "groomed" hundreds of families, he bought car to the late Ryan White, gave out his $5000 jacket to dying boy for his funerals, and so on.

    4) By the way, Ryan White's mother, among other, seen 1993 accuser at the time his estranged mother claimes he become "distant" and "changed". Guess what? Those claims are false, as well as about Gavin's rude depression. And that is why June Changler never took her family out of Jackson, and that is why she always denied molestation until 1994, when boys father threatened to her to sue and that jury will find her responsible for "molestation", until she got her solely own $1.5 million as part of settlement with her son.

    5) How nice that all the mothers in this case were ready to prositute their children, but never call to police. June lied when she said she reported molestation to police on August 7, 1993. Molestation was "discovered" in June 1993, and for nearly two months there was blackmailing on part of his father, Evan Chandler, through lawyers, to get multimillion financing of his Hollywood projects. When Jackson refused, psychiatrist Dr.Kats reported to police, not June Chandler. The mother and step-father of Jordan never believed in molestation until 1994.

    6) Michael Jackson also "groomed" Liza Minelli, Elizabeth Taylor, Ryan White mother, Marlon Brando, and tens of other people famous and not. That is because Jackson is quoted to be one of the most generous people ever one could meet. He gives away gifts and money to the left, to the right all the time.

    7) ***Eric***, the questions You rised in Your commentary have sense only if suppose that mothers' testimony was not biased, and truthful. Prosecution specifically limited time and area of asking question so defence could not cross-examine them in more details. Even so, mothers said enough to impeach themselves, when defence will present their case, will call its witnesses that will show that their "worries" never existed, and their families were happy, laughing and playing all around. Also, June Chandler dared to deny she was telling to Jackson her family was in $5 million debt, and defense in going to show she was.

  • 22 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 13, 2005 at 8:40 am

    which, exactly, "book" do you think I'm selling? Please explain this recurring theme. I am not writing a book on Jackson, I have no plans to write a book on Jackson. Where does this accusation come from, pray tell? The complete lack of interest in factual reality evidenced by the dismissal of my thoughts as somehow being related to a sensationalistic book does not bode well for your veracity in general, now does it?

    As to the points brought up: I agree entirely that parents, at some level, "pimped" out their boys to Jackson.

    And no, DRS, it isn't "children," it's boys. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has taken any particular interest in young girls the way he has young boys: hours on the phone, sleepovers, travel, gifts to the parents of girls, payoffs to girls following accusations of impropriety? I haven't even heard rumors of any of this. Jacko is fixated on young boys, period.

    Regarding the testimony of former employees with grudges: all should be viewed with skepticism and I will certainly pay attention to what the defense has to say about it all, including their characterization of the entire "boy's club" lifestyle tht MJ has been living for the last 20 years or so, but by his own declarations to the world, most specifically in the Bashir film, he doesn't dispute sleeping with boys and spending lots of time and attention on them, he just says it is innocent and non-sexual.

    Note similar tearful declarations quoted above.

  • 23 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 13, 2005 at 8:46 am

    the attention given to girls mentioned above is simply part of the "appeasing the family" angle he has played since he realized doing so would give him much greater access to boys

  • 24 - jack.

    Apr 13, 2005 at 11:32 am

    my biggest problem with every witness the prosecution has called is that ALL of them seem to be tainted by money in some way -- it's hard, VERY HARD, for me to believe this didn't come out sooner if it were true. one man even said he saw michael put his mouth on a little boy's penis! i absolutely do not believe it: if it were true he'd have told the police in 1990 when it happened. i have never believed these kinds of stories about michael (regardless of whether or not i'm a fan of his music), because it has ALWAYS been about the bottom dollar

  • 25 - Eric Olsen

    Apr 13, 2005 at 11:39 am

    not sure what you mean Jack, it HAS all been coming out over the last 15 years: why do you think Jackson paid somewhere around $25 million in the '90s, if not to try to stop it all from coming out. But it has anyway because he doesn't seem to be able to stop himself - that is a pathology

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 20, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs