Hughes Responds to Ray Chandler – MJEOL Bullet #197

Hughes Responds to Ray Chandler As Questions about the Authenticity of Certain Signatures and Audiotapes Surface – MJEOL Bullet #197 Geraldine Hughes, the writer of the book Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations, has informally responded to the defamatory and one-sided tall tale recently being pushed by Ray Chandler (Charmatz).

In MJEOL Bullet #192-C, Part 3: Ray Chandler Provides More Lies to Dateline, we discussed a few of things that Chandler is claiming, and information from Hughes’s eye-witness accounts during the 1993 investigation.

Yesterday (September 13 2004) Geraldine Hughes responded to Chandler questioning her credibility. She says she’s heard that Chandler has wanted to write a book for at least 6 years now and she finds it interesting that Chandler has decided to release it at this time. She says of Chandler:

It is interesting that he tries to discredit all of my main points which I content proves the extortion theory, as opposed to child molestation. However, he refers to the transcripts and when you read them for yourself, they are validating exactly what I am saying happened. (see Redemption v. All That Glitters, I Stand Confidently Behind Redemption)

Hughes says that all of this information in Chandler’s book is 3rd party info, whereas she was there as an eye witness to the events. She discloses that R. Chandler was not around during the ’93 ordeal as he claims. And she blasts him for making assumptions about her:

I am speaking based upon what I saw, heard and witnessed on my own. He is professions to know my state of mind, etc., when he has never met me. I met all the characters involved in this case. And he was nowhere around during this entire ordeal. (see Redemption v. All That Glitters, I Stand Confidently Behind Redemption)

She says that several of the “documents” on Chandler’s website appear to have forged signatures at the bottom. The documents show her initials at the bottom as the typist, but she says she never typed some of them. She also reveals that her then-boss’s signature, Barry Rothman, doesn’t match from document to document:

When I review the documents that he has on his website, I am convinced that several of the documents, even though they bear my initials as the typist, I DID NOT TYPE THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. Several of these documents have been manufactured and are not even bearing the correct signature of my attorney Barry Rothman. (Compare Rothman’s signatures on several of these documents). (see Redemption v. All That Glitters, I Stand Confidently Behind Redemption)

As a matter of fact, one of the documents has no signature at the bottom at all. The image to the right is a collection of the signatures found at the bottom of the documents on R. Chandler’s website (Thanks, Obie). Hughes has questioned where Chandler is getting his information and for whom is he writing this book. It’s quite clear these documents did not just magically float into R. Chandler’s hands. They had to have been given to him at some point in time for the specific reason of leaking them to the media. Hughes says that Jackson had nothing to do with her writing Redemption and that Chandler’s snide comments about her character reveal his agenda. Based on the facts as she’s actually experienced them, she says, she believes Jackson is innocent of the 1993 allegation. R. Chandler’s agenda is certainly loud and clear now. Hughes says that when she was about to release Redemption, she and her publisher had no idea that a second family would make an accusation against Jackson using the same attorney and one of the same shrinks involved in the 1993 case. She says, “Therefore, we had no agenda other than telling the truth about the 1993 case, which was already over with.” Of course, Chandler released his book at this time right before the mother is set to testify and before a possible trial beginning in January 2005 because of an agenda. Hughes also comments that the “lying tongues” will be mute once Jackson gets into a court of law. She says:

A lot of people are crawling out of the woodwork. With nothing but negative information that has already been reported. Wait until Michael has his day in court. There are a lot of things going on IN COURT that are weighing heavily in Michael’s favor. (see Redemption v. All That Glitters, I Stand Confidently Behind Redemption)

Hughes is not the first person to verify this. Some observers–who have read both the documents on Chandler’s website concerning the psychologist’s interview with the ’93 accuser, and the 1993 affidavit–report that some sentences are almost identical to what was in the transcripts. Not to mention the narrative being told by the 1993 accuser. At one point the accuser tells the psychologist that he’s speaking with (the deceased and controversial Robert Gardner) “Well, I’ll get to that…” Then as he was telling the tale, the doctor cuts in with another question and the accuser says, again, “Well, I’ll get to that…” He’ll “get to that”? It sounds like this isn’t the first time he’s recounted this tale–and in a specific order, as well. When is he going to get to the truth, I wonder. The audiotapes that R. Chandler plays are also being called into question. The father’s voice has already been recorded by the accuser’s stepfather on an audiotape. It is the audiotape where the accuser’s father says:

“And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.” “Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked. “That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.” (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story; Mary Fischer, GQ October 1994)

The audiotapes ‘Uncle Ray’ claims he recorded between himself and his brother don’t sound anything like the father’s voice on the first tape recorded between David Schwatz (the ’93 accuser’s stepfather) and E. Chandler (the ’93 accuser’s biological father). And it’s amazing how these tapes surfaced just in time for Chandler’s book release. Now listen and see video excerpts from the September 13 2004 show of the Abrams Report, where Chandler claims the audiotapes were made in December 1993. First, you hear the audiotape made between the accuser’s stepfather, David Schwartz, and Evan Chandler. That’s the tape a Jackson private investigator played in 1993 at a press conference. Then you hear Ray Chandler’s tapes: :nav Chandler tapes (excerpt from Abrams show) The voice in the Ray Chandler tapes don’t sound anything like the voice in the original tape made in 1993. The voice sounds deep, more mature; like the tape was made much more recently than in December 1993 as Ray Chandler claims. During that appearance on the Abrams Report—where Abrams never seems to ask him 1 hardball question because he can’t get over this incessant need to equate ‘settlement’ with ‘guilt’—R. Chandler made other asinine claims. One of those claims is that Jackson shared a bunk-bed with the 1993 accuser. This is ridiculous. Jackson is 5’11’’, so either he secretly shrinks at night or he had one hell of an uncomfortable night sleeping in a bunk bed with someone else. Chandler also claimed on the program that there was overwhelming evidence against Jackson in 1993. Yet he can’t seem to think up a satisfactory answer as to why–if the DA had all of this “evidence”—a criminal case didn’t proceed. As discussed here at length, it’s quite clear that there was zero evidence of Jackson’s guilt back in 1993. That’s why we have the blame-game now: Ray Chandler blaming the DA for not putting them into the witness protection program; Fmr. Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti blaming the laws in California for not being able to force an accuser to testify in court; Sneddon blaming Jackson for “paying off” the family; etc. Certainly Geraldine Hughes won’t be the only person to disavow the assertions being made by R. Chandler. Some observers say that he could be in for a rude awakening once the real details of the 1993 investigation are made public. Stay tuned. -MJEOL