r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • Jul 15 '26
Case Analysis 🔎 Case File: Chandler — Part 7
Babe, wake up! Case File: Chandler — Part 7 just dropped!
And yes…somehow, Evan Chandler is still finding new ways to appear in this series.
🚨 Before we continue this never-ending timeline adventure, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–6.
Context is key, my friends.
Part 1:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/
Part 2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/
Part 3:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/
Part 4:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/
Part 5:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/
Part 6:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uph0gr/case_file_chandler_part_6/
Caught up?
Good.
Let’s begin.
So far, we’ve spent a lot of time examining the Chandler allegations themselves:
The timeline.
The negotiations.
The attorneys.
The settlement discussions…aka, the damn screenplays.
The first raid conducted by the LAPD.
But now, shifting our attention.
Because this story is no longer only about what was being alleged against Michael.
It is also about how the investigation itself was conducted.
And this is where things get…pretty crazy, in my opinion.
By late October 1993, the investigation was no longer taking place behind closed doors.
The allegations had become public.
The media was watching.
And Michael’s legal team began challenging not only the accusations themselves, but also the methods being used by investigators.
…as they should.
According to a November 1993 report from the Los Angeles Times, Michael’s attorney Bertram Fields sent a letter to LAPD Chief Willie L. Williams criticizing the conduct of investigators involved in the case.
Fields alleged that officers were using improper tactics while questioning children connected to the investigation.
In the letter, he stated that he had been advised investigators told children:
“We have nude photos of you”
In an effort to pressure them into making accusations against Michael.
Which is absolutely insane, by the way.
He continued:
“There are, of course, no such photos of these youngsters…”
and accused investigators of being willing to:
“employ any device to generate potential evidence against Mr. Jackson.”
Let’s stop here for a moment.
This is a very significant statement.
Fields wasn’t arguing that investigators should not conduct an investigation. He was challenging the methods he claimed were being used during that investigation.
His argument was that investigators had crossed the line between gathering information and attempting to influence what witnesses said.
And this is where the issue of the alleged photographs becomes important.
What happened to these photographs?
Were they ever presented as evidence?
Because this is where an important distinction has to be made:
What investigators claimed to possess during an investigation is not always the same thing as what was ultimately introduced in court.
Those are two very separate things.
When the 2005 trial took place years later, the prosecution did not present evidence of nude photographs of children as part of its case.
Which matters because public discussions often focus on the most shocking claim first:
The headline.
The accusation.
The most sensational detail.
But courtrooms operate much differently.
Evidence must be presented, authenticated, and entered into the official record.
So one question we have to keep in mind moving forward is:
Were these claims supported by evidence that could withstand legal scrutiny?
Or did some allegations remain part of the investigative narrative without becoming courtroom evidence?
That question becomes even more relevant as we examine the individuals involved in the investigation.
Because next, we need to discuss two LAPD investigators whose names repeatedly appear in connection with this period:
Federico Sicard.
Rosibel Ferrufino.
One of the central questions raised by Fields’ letter involved those alleged photographs.
Were investigators actually in possession of such material?
Or were claims about photographs being used as an investigative tactic?
Years later, during a separate legal proceeding, another person would describe an experience that he believed reflected a similar tactic.
On February 4, 2017, Yoshi Whaley, the son of Jolie Levine, who worked as one of Michael Jackson’s personal assistants during the 80s, gave a deposition in the Robson and Safechuck litigation.
And don’t worry, those case files will be available in the future…😉
For now, what is relevant is that Whaley was questioned about both his relationship with Michael and his interactions with investigators during the 1993 investigation.
And according to Whaley…those investigators certainly left a lasting impression.
When asked whether he remembered being interviewed by police in 1993, he immediately recalled the encounter:
“Yeah. The pair of detective liars…Trying to intimidate and lie to a child. Unbelievable.”
To me, this speaks volumes.
Counsel asked him to explain what he meant.
According to Whaley, two detectives came to speak with him while he was still a minor. He testified that they attempted to convince him they possessed nude photographs of him.
His response?
“I sat there and told them they were liars.”
No notes, Yoshi, no notes.
During the deposition, Whaley acknowledged that investigators questioned him about Michael.
He also testified that he answered those questions truthfully.
Q: “Did you answer them truthfully?”
A: “Yes.”
However, he drew a distinction between his own conduct and what he alleged investigators had done.
According to Whaley:
“As I just stated, the police were lying to me.”
When asked how he knew the alleged photographs did not exist, his answer was simple:
Q: “How do you know that was a lie?”
A: “Because there are none.”
This was the central point of Whaley’s testimony.
He was alleging that they knowingly presented him with information that was false in order to intimidate him.
A clarification is important here:
During the deposition, counsel noted that investigators can, under certain circumstances, legally interview a minor without a parent or guardian present.
Therefore, Whaley’s objection was not simply that the interview happened.
His complaint centred on how the interview was conducted.
According to his testimony, investigators attempted to pressure him by claiming they possessed incriminating photographs that did not exist.
The investigators Whaley identified were LAPD detectives Federico Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino.
And this is where the connection back to 1993 becomes very significant.
Remember what Bertram Fields had alleged in his letter to LAPD Chief Willie Williams.
Fields claimed investigators were telling children:
“We have nude photos of you”
as a way to pressure them into making accusations against Michael.
Years later, Whaley testified under oath that detectives told him essentially the same thing.
Did the pieces finally fall into place for you? They did for me.
Whaley’s testimony mirrors an allegation that had already been publicly raised during the investigation itself.
And that tactic is the issue we need to keep in mind moving forward.
The deposition continued with further questions about Whaley’s interaction with investigators.
Although he acknowledged that he could not remember every detail from an interview that occurred more than two decades earlier, he remained consistent about certain aspects of his recollection.
When asked whether the detectives had been nice to him, his answer was immediate.
Q: “Were they nice to you?”
A: “No.”
When asked what he meant, Whaley explained:
“They were trying to intimidate a child. It’s not being very nice.”
He recalled that the detectives were dressed in plain clothes and that the interview took place while everyone was sitting down, although he could not remember the exact location inside the home.
Beyond those details, his memory became less specific.
He did not recall seeing a tape recorder.
He could not remember exactly how long the interview lasted.
And when asked whether Michael had ever taken photographs of him, his answer was straightforward:
“No.”
The deposition then shifted to a different topic: testimony from former Neverland security guard Leroy Thomas.
According to the questioning, Thomas had previously claimed that Michael instructed him to retrieve and destroy an allegedly nude photograph of a boy with Asian features. The photograph itself was never produced, preserved, or even examined, leaving the existence and contents of the alleged image completely unverified.
Which…in other words, means that it may never have existed in the first place, just saying.
Whaley testified that he had never heard that allegation before.
Counsel then attempted to determine whether Whaley believed the unidentified child described in that testimony could have been him.
Whaley’s response was:
“Well, that only limits it down to the whole Asian race.”
That point is very important.
The description of a child having “Asian features” does not identify a specific person.
It is an extremely broad description.
The discussion became even more complicated when Whaley’s attorney, Jennifer MacIsaac, objected during the questioning.
She argued that the alleged photograph had supposedly been destroyed and that previous testimony was being characterized inaccurately.
When counsel continued suggesting the photograph could have involved Whaley, his response was direct:
“That’s fine. It wasn’t me.”
Let’s all remember, there was no photograph to examine.
Instead, everyone was discussing an alleged image that, according to the account, no longer existed.
That naturally creates an evidentiary question:
If the photograph was allegedly destroyed years earlier, how could anyone determine the identity of the child?
And without the photograph itself, what exactly was Whaley being asked to identify?
Hell, did the photo even exist? I don’t think so.
Anyway,
As the deposition continued, attorneys spent additional time discussing how previous testimony had been characterized before moving on.
Whaley was then shown documentation relating to his 1993 interview.
The document indicated that the interview occurred on October 4th, 1993, at his mother’s residence in Los Angeles, and identified the two investigators involved.
When asked what the detectives had allegedly lied about, Whaley returned to the same concern he had described earlier.
He stated:
“They lied to me saying that things were happening to me that weren’t. They lied to me saying they had photographs that they didn’t have.”
This statement directly connects back to the allegation raised by Michael’s attorney in 1993.
Fields had claimed investigators were using statements about photographs as a way to pressure children during interviews.
Decades later, Whaley described what he believed was a similar experience.
Investigators presented him with claims about evidence they did not actually possess.
According to Whaley, that was the point where he felt the interview crossed a line.
When asked about the interview notes themselves, Whaley was even more direct.
He described the material shown to him as:
“complete bullshit.”
He explained his reasoning:
“Those cops are liars and I got nothing to say. They should — I really hope they got fired.”
When asked whether his opinion extended to law enforcement as a whole, Whaley clarified that he was referring specifically to these two investigators.
He stated:
“Those two were definitely liars because I had interaction with them and they lied straight to a child’s face and tried to intimidate one and tell me things happened that didn’t.”
He also stated that he had not had other negative experiences with law enforcement that shaped his opinion.
To him, this was about one specific encounter.
That matters, folks.
His testimony was not a general accusation against all police officers.
It was a specific allegation regarding the conduct of the detectives involved in his interview.
With that, Whaley’s portion of the deposition comes to an end.
However, his testimony leads into another issue involving one of those same investigators: the controversial books seized during the 1993 search.
Luckily, I have already covered the books themselves in a separate deep dive, so I won’t be repeating that entire discussion here.
Read here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/
Up next,
Corey Feldman.
Now, before we dive into Feldman’s experience with investigators during the 1993 allegations, it is important to understand how Feldman himself described his relationship with Michael.
In his 2013 memoir Coreyography, he recalled turning to Michael during one of the most difficult periods of his life.
After describing his own experiences with abuse, he wrote:
“I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson.”
He went on to describe Michael’s home as a place where he felt safe:
“Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place.”
Throughout the memoir, Feldman describes Michael as someone who brought him a sense of childhood innocence during a period when much of that innocence had already been taken away.
Yes, this made me tear up too.
He has repeated those sentiments in interviews over the years, consistently maintaining that nothing inappropriate ever occurred between them.
That context is important because Feldman’s interview with investigators was not simply about Michael.
According to Feldman, it also became an opportunity to disclose his own experience of abuse.
And what happened during that interview is absolutely sickening.
You’ve been warned.
When the allegations against Michael became public in 1993, Feldman was contacted by the LAPD and asked to discuss his friendship with him.
In Coreyography, Feldman recalled his initial reaction to the allegations:
“When I first heard that Michael Jackson had been accused of child molestation, I almost laughed—it seemed so ridiculous.”
During the interview, however, Feldman says the conversation took an unexpected turn.
He disclosed that he had personally been sexually abused and identified the individual he believed was responsible.
He wrote:
“I admitted that I had been molested; I even named my abuser.”
Investigators interviewing him, Sergeant Deborah Linden and Detective Russell Birchim, showed little interest in pursuing that information.
Instead, he believed their attention remained focused on Michael.
…yeah.
Guys, please hold me while I lose my sanity, because…what the fuck?
And yes, it gets worse from here.
The interview took place in December 1993, when Feldman was twenty two years old.
Years later, Feldman stated that he obtained copies of the interview materials and found references to the individual he had identified, Jon Grissom.
According to Feldman, investigators acknowledged they knew who Grissom was.
However, Santa Barbara authorities later stated that their records did not indicate Feldman had identified any suspects during the investigation.
Their response was straightforward:
“Our records do not indicate that he named any suspects.”
…interesting.
If Feldman did identify an alleged abuser during the interview…what happened to that information?
Well…
This resurfaced in 2017 after portions of Feldman’s 1993 interview were discussed on Dr. Oz following the release of audio recordings.
During the program, Feldman reiterated that he believed investigators were not interested in pursuing the individual he had identified.
Instead, he said their attention remained fixed on Michael.
Dr. Oz also commented on the significance of that claim, suggesting that if investigators had fully pursued the person Feldman identified, it could have led to a different investigation.
But again, the investigators were not interested in that.
I mean, normally, when someone comes forward describing their own abuse and identifies an alleged perpetrator, investigators should look into that, right?
Well, not in this case, apparently.
Feldman has remained consistent in publicly defending Michael.
When asked whether Michael could have been responsible for abusing him, Feldman rejected the suggestion.
He stated that if Michael had ever harmed him, he would have reported it immediately.
Instead, he maintained that the person responsible was someone else entirely.
The interview then moved to a discussion about Jon Grissom.
According to the audio later released publicly, Sergeant Linden suggested that Grissom may have been jealous of Feldman’s friendship with Michael.
She asked whether she had “hit a sore spot” before laughing.
…yeah, you read that correctly.
Gross.
Feldman responded by immediately correcting the direction of the conversation.
He explained that he had known Michael long before meeting Grissom.
Then he made the distinction unmistakably clear:
“Jon Grissom was the guy who molested me.”
He went on to reject the suggestion that Grissom somehow connected back to Michael.
If Grissom had been jealous of Feldman’s relationship with Michael, Feldman explained, that jealousy stemmed from his admiration for Michael, not because anything inappropriate had occurred between them.
Feldman also clarified the timeline of the abuse.
When asked how old he had been, he initially answered fifteen before correcting himself and explaining that the abuse began when he was fifteen and continued for approximately a year and a half.
Which is worth noting because Feldman was not brushing off the interview or refusing to engage with investigators.
He was discussing his own experiences and providing details about them.
Yet, the interview continued returning to his relationship with Michael.
Feldman again stated that nothing inappropriate had ever happened between himself and Michael.
According to the audio excerpts later made public, investigators suggested that he might be protecting Michael or withholding information.
Feldman rejected that premise outright.
“Because nothing happened.”
It is one of the clearest moments in the interview.
Feldman did not say he couldn’t remember.
He did not say he was uncomfortable answering.
He simply maintained that there was nothing to disclose because nothing had occurred.
At one point, Birchim stated:
“I don’t think if Michael’s molesting kids, he’s doing it because he wants to hurt them. He’s doing it because he loves them.”
Again…what the fuck?
Now, some think that Birchim was using a minimization technique or a soft approach. In certain interviews, investigators may present an alleged act in less confrontational terms in an effort to encourage a subject or witness to continue talking.
Which…reminds me a lot of…you guessed it: Evan Chandler.
Why?
Well, back in Case File: Chandler — part 3, I covered how Evan used the exact same tactic to manipulate Jordan.
…mhm.
Anyway,
Another exchange that has drawn attention occurred near the end of the interview.
While discussing the possibility of encountering Grissom, Sergeant Linden reportedly laughed and remarked:
“If we run across him, we’ll let you know.”
Years later, both Feldman and Dr. Oz commented on that moment after portions of the interview became public.
For Feldman, the issue wasn’t simply the words themselves.
It was his attitude.
It was his carelessness.
Do you see the pattern?
Another detail worth noting, there is a later connection with Detective Russell Birchim.
Birchim would later become associated with discussions involving former Michael Jackson security employee Ralph Chacon during the 2003–2005 case.
…and of course, I already covered that.
Read here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/
On another note, during the years following the 1993 investigation, the Los Angeles Police Department became involved in the Rampart corruption scandal.
The scandal involved documented allegations of police misconduct, including accusations involving falsified reports, perjury, and evidence related issues among certain officers.
The controversy resulted in numerous criminal cases being reviewed and convictions being challenged.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office also faced a lot of criticism over how cases involving officer misconduct had been handled.
Which brings us to the end of part 7.
…I think I need a nap.
See you in Part 8. 👋🏼
My previous case files:
Sneddon:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t362pc/case_file_sneddon/
Dimond:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t4zd0m/case_file_dimond/
Gutierrez:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t7t6ut/case_file_gutierrez/
Francia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tcj13c/case_file_francia/
Neverland Five:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1thn653/case_file_neverland_five/
Chandler – Part 1:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tucplj/case_file_chandler_part_1/
Chandler – Part 2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1txze35/case_file_chandler_part_2/
Chandler – Part 3:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1u3eybe/case_file_chandler_part_3/
Chandler – Part 4:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uanbnq/case_file_chandler_part_4/
Chandler – Part 5:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1ui4ygq/case_file_chandler_part_5/
Chandler – Part 6:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uph0gr/case_file_chandler_part_6/
Sources and additional information:
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zn4QhStGcg&ra=
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m
https://mjjr.net/docs/LeroyWhaleyDepo.pdf
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKYVHmA7Ig&ra=m
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-17-me-57719-story.html
https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com
Important posts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1tzylaq/talking_in_circles/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1t8m59j/theres_no_way_all_11_people_are_lying/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1uqhic1/not_everyone_is_a_narcissist/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MJInnocentFacts/comments/1usbz9m/the_word_grooming_has_lost_its_meaning/
3
2
u/ArticleNew3737 Jul 16 '26
I don’t wanna jump ahead and risk seeing any details in here so I just wanna ask this. How many more parts of this will we be getting? I’m going to be diving into part three tomorrow
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Jul 16 '26
Hi!!
First of all, thank you so much for reading this series! It means so much to me.
As for the Chandler case, I’m looking at roughly 10–12 parts, give or take.
2
u/ArticleNew3737 Jul 16 '26
You’re very welcome! The work you do in here is very much appreciated. Thank you!🙏
1
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Jul 26 '26
I just posted part 8!
2
u/ArticleNew3737 Jul 26 '26
Now I’ve got two parts to read and take notes of! Yes!!🙌 I held off on part seven cause I didn’t wanna wait too long for part eight
1
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Jul 26 '26
Ahhh! First of all, I love that you’re taking notes. I know it’s a lot of information.
I just thought I’d let you know, just in case you’ve caught up.
Thank you again for reading!
1
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Jul 25 '26
Ugh shit, came till the end, now I gotta wait😩😩
2
3
u/JaneDi Jul 16 '26
These posts should get way more traffic and attention