93年MJ案一位前任律師的訪談(錢德勒的律師)

at0707

這是1993年MJ案,一位前律師Geraldine Hughes的訪談,也有說到保險公司的部分!
因為本人英文不好只能仰賴網頁翻譯,不過翻的亂七八糟,所以只能略知一二,
原本想利用MJ來訓練英文,不過...因為MJ的美圖比較吸引我,結果...到現在英文還是不行~
我只看過關於2005年MJ案的資料,1993年的反而很少見,
不知道有沒有高手可以幫忙翻譯~
以下是節錄自http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/Interview-with-Geraldine-Hughes.html

A Witness To Extortion...

An Exclusive, In-Depth Interview with author Geraldine Hughes, sharing the truth behind the Michael Jackson 1993 Child Molestation Allegations

By Deborah L. Kunesh

Geraldine Hughes is the former legal secretary to Attorney Barry Rothman, who was Evan Chandler's lawyer at the time of the 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson.  Currently, Geraldine is both an author and a missionary.  This interview is a must read for everybody.  Especially those who have always wondered what was behind the 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson.  

If you've ever wondered, why did Michael Jackson pay his accusor's father a settlement if he was innocent?  What really happened?  This interview is for you!
DK:  Deborah Kunesh

GH:  Geraldine Hughes

DK:  You were the legal secretary for the accuser’s father in the 1993 allegations, correct?

GH:  Right.

DK:  How did you come to work for him?  How long had you been working for him?

GH:  Not long actually.  I had only worked for him for total time of about maybe 8 months, but I was with him 2 months before the allegations.

DK:  Barry Rothman, he had a fairly bad reputation for being pretty mean?

GH:  To call him mean would be a compliment (laughter). He just really had a horrible demeanor, personality, just his whole everything.  His presence, how he treats people.  He just really had a bad character.


My best description of an encounter with Mr. Rothman is a real-life encounter with a real life demon straight out of the pits of hell.....Mr. Rothman ran his office like a concentration camp.  His goal was always to inflict pain, humiliate and render you worthless so he could feel more superior.  In his eyes, there were only two classes of people, boss and employees.  Even his associate attorneys fell under the employee classification because he treated them no differently.  He would rant and rave and humiliate them publicly just like the clerical staff.  We were all equally abused."  Geraldine Hughes in "Redemption"

"According to an article written by Mary Fisher of GQ in 1994, "Rothman has a reputation for stiffing people."  He was considered a professional deadbeat who pays no one.  Professionally, he has received repeated disciplinary actions by the State Bar."  Geraldine Hughes in "Redemption."

爱迈1990

谢楼主分享呀！！！！

vines

还有吗？网站打不开。MJ在这个案子里的对头都是极品啊极品，愤怒

at0707

DK:  When you started working for him, did it take you long to notice that?



GH:  I noticed it kind of instantly.  We had a receptionist and it was like he needed someone to badger on a daily basis and he used to beat up on her pretty badly on a daily basis.  He kind of left me alone because he couldn’t afford for me to just up and walk out on him.  He could lose a receptionist.



DK:  That had to be hard to work for someone like that.



GH:  I became friends with the receptionist and part of the reason I hung in there was to keep her encouraged.  Under normal circumstances, I would have bailed out from that environment long past.



DK:  It’s good in a way that you didn’t though because of what you were able to witness.  You actually witnessed the extortion?  What did you see and hear?



GH:  Well, they started out negotiating.  When I say they, Chandler, Evan Chandler, and Barry Rothman who was representing him, they started out negotiating with Michael’s representative, who was Anthony Pellicano, who was the private investigator.  What they did was they went to him, he (Evan Chandler) wanted him to fund a $20 million movie deal, he wanted to make another movie and he needed the money for it, so he first went to Michael’s team, not saying anything about, you know, seeing him molesting his child.  He went to him asking for a $20 million movie deal, for him (Michael) to fund it and he had a hypothetical letter that he obtained from a psychiatrist saying well, you know, "my son is hanging out with this male guy and they’re doing sleepovers and, what do you think?  You think something wrong is going on?"  (The psychiatrist) sent a letter back telling him that minus talking to the boy, he can’t say conclusively, and "just hypothetically speaking, I would have a concern about impropriety," that was it.  So he (Evan Chandler) took that hypothetical letter that he got from the doctor after posing a hypothetical question and he used that letter as a bargaining tool to Michael’s team that if he (Michael) didn’t pay the money, that they were going to use that letter to ruin him.



DK:  You don’t agree that Evan Chandler gave his son a truth serum and then Jordie Chandler admitted molestation?



GH:  No, I think that’s their story on how they found out.  I really believe that the whole thing was plotted and planned and the words were given to him to say because I actually witnessed the 13 year old in my attorney’s office without any supervision of his parents and he was kind of snuck in there, it was like no one in the office knew he was in there. He was behind closed doors with my attorney for several hours, and I kind of believe that is where he was being told what to say.  I can’t say that I actually witnessed him being told, but I did witness that there was a meeting between my attorney and the 13 year old accuser for several hours.  Actually it was a meeting that nobody in the office was supposed to know even existed and the only reason that I found out (was because) I was on my way out of the office and we were under threats of death about just walking in his office without even knocking or without announcing, and I was just rushing so I opened up the door and when I opened up the door I saw the boy in his office and I was kind of shocked.  We didn’t even know he was in there and he had a startled look on his face and the attorney blasted me for coming in there unannounced.



DK:  Soul Patrol.com chat.  You dispute the sodium amytal theory….you said that you were the only one because you saw something entirely different take place and by that you are meaning what you witnessed as far as this plan coming into place?



GH:  It’s just that there whole technique, their whole thing was planned.  Even the plan was planned.  All the issues were planned.  Then when the father in the conversation, he said, "We’re moving according to a plan."  He said it wasn’t his plan, but he said "We’re moving according to a plan.  It’s not mine, but I’ve hired someone that’s mean, devious, nasty to move against Michael and he’s just waiting on my phone call."  So, he put it like that.  So, you know their whole MO was to make it look like something that it wasn’t.  They made it look like they just happened to take the boy to the psychiatrist and that’s where he got the information, the psychiatrist got the information.  Then I’m hearing the sodium thing, so I said, first you said the psychiatrist is the one that got the information and then now you’re saying, the father put him under a truth serum and I’m like, which one is it?



DK:  When he meant he hired someone, he meant Barry Rothman?



GH:  Oh, absolutely.



DK:  Michael’s insurance company paid the settlement, not Michael himself?



GH:  Right.  They paid it not on negligence, they paid on there being a liability.  They didn’t pay on negligence, because insurance companies will not pay on negligence.  The fact that they paid the settlement, shows that he wasn’t negligent.  If he was negligent…it’s just like if you get into a car accident.  If you were the negligent party, they won’t pay.  At least you won’t get anything out of it.  You’ve got the insurance to cover the other person.  But you can’t collect from an insurance company based on negligence.



DK:  What does it mean that they paid on a liability?



GH:  Just like if you go to a mall, you said you slipped and fell, and then you went to the doctor.  Now, we don’t know if you really did or not, but there’s a liability in that you got a doctor, you got charges, it’s like you’re claiming you’ve created a situation, it hasn’t been proven, so therefore, they’ll pay it.  You’re going to court to prove it.  So the insurance company is like, :look, rather than pay all of this money on court costs, we’ll negotiate a settlement based on there being a liability."  It doesn’t get proven unless you go to court.  But they’re not willing to pay the money to go to court.  They’re just saying, "well, look, you’ve created a situation, you’ve made a claim, let’s settle this thing, let’s negotiate for a settlement amount.  We’re not saying right or wrong, good or bad, we just want to get rid of this."



DK:  Thank you for explaining that, that makes more sense to me now.



GH:  Settlement is the most desirable way of handling any kind of dispute.  They would rather... the court requires mandatory settlement conferences.  They’ll give you a trial date, but before that trial date hits, they make sure that these parties come together, negotiate, try and settle this thing, try and keep this thing out of court.  That is mandatory.  Oh absolutely.  They don’t have enough judges.  They don’t have enough man dollars to handle every dispute or claim that comes knocking at their door.  So they try and settle it.  If they can’t settle it, they’ll mandatorily send it for arbitration, send it for mediation, anything, but let’s keep this out of court.



DK:  You had come forth to investigators with your information in 1993?



GH:  Yes, Anthony Pellicano.  That was Michael Jackson’s private investigator.



DK:  When you found out what was going on, then you went to Mr. Pellicano?



GH:  Yes.  That was at the very onset.  I think my meetings with Pellicano, it wasn’t longer than 2 weeks after the story broke that they were alleging child molestation for Michael the first time.



DK:  You had witnessed Jordie Chandler coming in to your office and then the tape, that recorded phone conversation, etc.  Do you know how long after that that these charges were brought against Michael?



GH:  They launched the charges against Michael on the date that they had an Ex Parte hearing.  They had a hearing, the father took the custody of the boy from his mom and it was during this time that I believe that all of the planning was going on, when I saw him in the office, negotiating with Michael, and he had the boy in his custody.  Well, it was without the mother’s approval and permission because he was supposed to return him back to the Mom.  So the mother filed an emergency custody hearing, an OSC (Order to Show Cause).   We call it an Ex Parte hearing for custody, regarding custody, and Ex Parte means that you have to show up in court the very next day.  You only get a one day notice on that.  The real damaging piece of information against the Chandlers is that they went to court, in front of the judge (at this hearing, with no mention of child molestation concerns).  They had been negotiating with Michael for a month, trying to get money out of him, claiming to use the allegation of inpropriety as their leverage, but then they go to court before a judge on the issue of custody and they didn’t say 2 words to the judge that there was a concern about the boy’s welfare, about him being molested, about any inprorietary.  They didn’t say anything that there was a concern or any problem in that regard.  The judge ordered that he return Jordie back to his mom.

Now, I’m in the office like, "Lord, what are they going to do next?"   I was thinking, ha, she won.  They’ve got to return the boy.  Well, that’s the day they launched the allegation of child molestation.  On the same day that they were ordered to return the boy back to the mother.  On the same day!

at0707

DK:  Yet, they didn’t mention any of this in the court?

GH:  Didn’t mention it in the court.  Because if they had, the judge would have ordered an investigation.  When you really think about it, that’s the proper forum.  If you’re going through a custody situation, that’s where you express your concerns about the welfare of a child.  But they went to court, they didn’t say two words.  The way I explained it in the book, well first of all, she threw them with a curve ball with that hearing.  That wasn’t their plan.  They didn’t know how to deal with it and they only had one day to show up in court.  They didn’t have time to (alter their plan).  They just had to show up and they were just at the mercy of the court pretty much. and when they saw that the court ordered to return the boy, they decided, let’s go on and launch the plan because without the boy’s custody, they could not really do this thing, or sending him back to the mom, whatever they did, she could have undone it.  He could have confided in the mom and they didn’t want that.  At that point, they could not afford to send him back into her custody.  They had done too much.

DK:  With their plan?

GH:  With their plan, absolutely.  That’s why I’m saying that that truth serum, that doesn’t jive, because everything that they were doing was part of a plan.  It was already mapped out, it was planned out. They even mapped out the part about how it was going to be reported.  If he gave him a truth serum and according to him, that’s how he found out, all he had to do at that point is dial 911.  The way they plotted it was that he was supposed to go talk to a psychiatrist and that’s where he would tell the psychiatrist the different things that he told him, and the psychiatrist would be the one that reported it because he’s a credible cohort.  He’s somebody that nobody is going to question and he’s a mandated reporter.  

I typed the letter to the father where the attorney was telling him how to report it using a third party.  I remember typing the short letter.  He typed him a letter and he sent him some information on child molestation being reported through a psychiatrist, so he was informing the father how to go about it and that was his plan.  So he was literally just making him feel comfortable, making him so he felt okay with it,  giving him some articles, we sent him some newspapers, something we sent along with it.  But I remember when I typed that letter, I said, “Why are you writing him telling him?   I said if anybody has got a suspicion of child molestation, all he has to do is pick up the telephone.   You don’t have to plot and plan and take him to a psychiatrist because nobody else has the credibility to report it."

DK:  You said this to Barry Rothman or you were just thinking it?

GH:  Oh, of course not.  I would have been out that day and I wouldn’t have been able to get the rest of the story.

DK:  That’s true.  So you had all of this going through your mind, so you were thinking at this time, something isn’t right about this situation?

GH:  With the letter that I typed, that was another red flag to let me know something was really wrong.

DK:  It’s as if God placed you there in order to be a witness to it.

GH:  Absolutely.

DK:  What about the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and someone else?  Who was he speaking with on the tape?

GH:  Right.  Now it was a conversation between Evan Chandler and the boy’s stepdad and the reason he (the stepdad) tape recorded the conversation was because he had talked with (Evan Chandler) previously where (Evan) had threatened to do bodily harm or he had threatened to harm, so he wanted to just tape the conversation in case he needed to use anything later on that he did.  Chandler did not know he was being tape recorded, but he was basically admitting in that conversation.  He said he couldn’t understand why Michael was kind of like pulling away from him and he said, and one thing he said was, if I go through with this plan, I’m going to win big time and then he said, “I’ve hired someone who’s mean, who’s nasty, who’s devious, ready to move against him, he’s waiting on my call, but if I go through with this plan, I’m going to ruin Michael Jackson, I’m going to ruin him and I’m going to win big.  That’s what he said.

They aired that tape.  Pellicano got a hold of it and gave it to a news person and they aired it.  They literally aired it.  Why wasn’t people listening when they heard that conversation?  That was him admitting that he was getting ready to do something, that he was moving according to a certain plan.  He said nothing about his child being molested.  He just simply said, if I go through with this, I’m going to win big and I’m going to ruin Michael Jackson.
http://www.tudou.com/v/pKqG54TCuwU

maryruan

谢LZ
留脚印
呼唤蜜蜂同学
快来翻译啊
某人坐等翻译中。。。

周锦

呼唤蜜蜂同学
快来翻译啊

周锦

呼唤蜜蜂同学
快来翻译啊

简.爱

英文好的亲去哪了？

maryruan

蜜蜂不来，我试着翻译一下吧
水平有限，大侠指正
1L译文:
勒索的见证人——对Geraldine Hughes的独家深入采访，在采访中与我们分享了MJ 93案件的幕后真相
由Deborah L. Kunesh采访
GH是Barry Rothman律师的法律秘书，BR是93案件时期伊文钱德勒的律师。目前，GH是一名作家和传教士。这是大家必读的采访，尤其是那些一直想知道93事件幕后真相的人们。如果你曾好奇为什么MJ是清白的却又支付给原告父亲一大笔钱？到底发生了什么？那么，这个采访就是为你准备的！

GH：我是GH
DK：在93案件中，你是原告父亲（律师）的法律秘书，对吧？
GH：没错
DK：你怎么为他工作的？为他工作了多久?
GH：其实没多久，总共加起来大约8个月的时间，不过在案件之前，打了2个月的交道。
DK：Barry Rothman这个人因为手段卑劣而臭名昭著，是不是？
GH：说他卑劣其实是在恭维他(笑)，他的人品、行为，所有的一切，他的举止、待人的方式都很恶劣，他的人品真的很坏。
“对于我和Rothman先生相遇的最好描述就像是真的遇上了来自地狱的活生生的恶魔…Rothman先生把他的办公室弄得像个集中营。他的目标总是给人平添痛苦、耻辱，让你觉得自己毫无价值，这样他就能有优越感。在他眼里，只有两类人——老板和雇员。即使是他的副手律师，他也毫无例外的视为他的雇员，他会在公众场合对他们大声咆哮，就像对自己的手下一样。我们都曾有这样的遭遇。”
——出自GH的书《Redemption救赎》
“根据Mary Fisher94年的GQ一U书，“Rothman有令人生厌的品行”，他是不会给任何人付账的职业无赖。他曾收到律师协会再三的纪律处分”
——出自GH的书《Redemption救赎》

maryruan

水平有限，请高手雅正
4L译文：

DK：你啥时开始为他工作的，工作多久你注意到了这些事(指BR先生为人卑劣)？
GH：我一开始就注意到了。我们曾有一个接待员，就像是他(指BR)的一个日常出气筒一样，他习惯于每天都严厉的训斥她。他不会对我这样，因为我离开的话，他的损失会很大。(后来)这个接待员走了。
DK: 伺候那样的老板工作一定很难。
GH：我和那个接待员成了朋友，为了给她鼓励也是我留在那里的部分理由。在那样反常的环境下，我本可以早就离开那个地方的。
DK：不过因为你能够见证的事情，你没离开还是对的。你真的见到了勒索的事情？你看到、听到了什么？
GH：嗯，他们着手和MJ的代表Anthony Pellicano谈判，AP是一个私人侦探，我说的他们，指的是钱德勒、伊文•钱德勒和代表他的律师BR。他们所做的就是去找MJ，伊文•钱德勒想要MJ为他的电影投资2千万，他想要拍电影，他需要钱，所以他首先去找MJ阵营的人，但是如你所知，他没说任何一个关于“他看见MJ骚扰他的孩子”的字眼。他去找MJ要2千万的电影投资，他还有一封从精神病专家那里得来的假定信，上面写着“我的儿子和这个男子经常一起出去(可能指在交往)，在外过夜，你怎么认为，你会认为有不当的事情发生吗？”，那个精神病专家回复了信，告诉他跟他的孩子谈过不多几次，不能下最后结论，并且说“只是假定性的讲，我可能更倾向于有不恰当的事发生”，仅此而已。伊文•钱德勒拿着这封医生回复他的几个假定问题的假定信，把它当做向MJ阵营讨价还价的筹码。如果MJ不付给他钱，他们就打算用这封信毁掉他。
DK：你不同意伊文•钱德勒给他的儿子服用truth serum(麻醉药)，然后乔迪•钱德勒就承认了被骚扰？
GH：不同意。我认为这就是他们编出来的故事。我确信整个事情是预先计划好的，那些话是别人告诉他(乔迪•钱德勒)去讲的，因为我亲眼目睹了这个13岁的孩子在没有父母监护人的情况下出现在我们的律师所，他有点鬼鬼祟祟，就像不想让律师所的人知道他在那一样。他的大门紧闭的办公室和律师呆了好几个小时，我有点相信就是在那他被告知怎么说。我不能说我亲眼目睹了他被告知，但我真的看见这个13岁的原告和律师讨论了好几个小时。真的，律师所没人知道有这样一回事，我发现的唯一原因是因为我正在办公室外——我们规定不能不敲门、不到报告就进BR的办公室——(回来后)我不小心冲进办公室，当我打开办公室门时，我看见了那个孩子在办公室，我大吃一惊。我们甚至不知道他在那，他看起来很吃惊，然后律师一声不响的把我关在门外。
DK：你质疑sodium amytal(麻醉剂)理论…你说过你是看见这个事情发生的唯一一个人，你的意思是你所看见的就是正在实施的计划？
GH：整个事情全部都是有计划的。即使计划也是策划好的，所有的都是。后来孩子的父亲说“我们正在根据计划按部就班的进行”，他说这个不是他的计划，但他说“我们根据计划行事，计划不是我的，但是我雇了个卑鄙又肮脏的家伙来
对付MJ，他只需等我的电话就行了”。所以，就是这样。因此你能知道他们的整个计划就是把颠倒事实。他们假装是碰巧带男孩去看精神专家，他和精神专家因此得知(孩子被骚扰的)事情。我现在听到了麻醉剂之类，所以我说，首先你(可能指BR)说过精神专家是得到信息的一个人，现在你又说是孩子的父亲搞的麻醉剂事件，到底哪个是真的？
DK：当伊文•钱德勒说他雇了人，他指的是BR?
GH：绝对的
DK：是MJ的保险公司付的帐，而不是他本人？
GH：是的。他们赔偿不是基于疏忽，而是基于责任，因为保险公司是不会基于疏忽而进行赔偿的。他们赔偿，表明MJ不是因疏忽犯罪。就像你卷入一起车祸，如果你是疏忽方，他们不会进行赔偿，至少你要和它才行，(这样)你能拿到保险金去赔偿另一方，但是基于疏忽的话，你是不能得到保险金的。
DK：基于责任赔偿是什么意思？
GH：就像我们去超市，你说你滑到(摔伤)了，然后去看医生。现在，我们不知道你说的是否属实，但是却有一个责任既然你看过一生，花过钱，就象你要索赔，你要立案，它还未被证实，因此他们要赔偿，你就要去法庭去证实。所以保险公司就像说“我们宁愿基于责任进行商讨赔偿，不愿在法庭上赔偿全部金额”。但是除非上法庭，事实才能被证实，但他们就是不愿意花钱上法庭。他们只是说“嗯，你看，你已经立了案，申请了索赔，让我们商量一下，为赔偿金额好好商讨一下。我们不会讨论好坏、对错，我们只想快点摆平这件事”。
DK：谢谢你的解释，现在我更明了了。
GH：协商赔偿是解决任何类型纠纷最适用的方式。法庭需要的是强制和解会议。他们会给你一个审讯日期，但是在审讯日期到期之前，他们会确保当事双方碰头、商议，试着解决事情，努力让事情在法庭之外解决。这个是强制的，他们没有够多的法官、人力和资金去处理每一件找上法庭的纠纷或诉讼案。所以他们试着这样解决。如果不能解决的话，他们会强制性地把案件送去仲裁调停之类，除非能在法庭之外就解决掉。
DK：你曾在93年辅助过调查？
GH：是的，Anthony Pellicano，他是MJ的私人侦探。
DK：当你发现了那些事情后，你就告诉了Pellicano先生吗？
GH：是的，一发现就告诉他了。我记得我和Pellicano先生的会面是在他们首次宣称MJ骚扰儿童的事情爆发之后不到两周的时候。
DK：你见证了乔迪•钱德勒进了你们的办公室和录有电话录音的磁带等等。你记得这是发生在对MJ指控多久之后的事情吗？
GH：他们在接到一个单方面听证会的时候发起了对MJ的指控。他们有个听证会，(因为)孩子父亲之前从孩子母亲那拿走了孩子的监护权。当我在办公室看见那个孩子，当他们和MJ商讨以及当他拿走孩子监护权的时候，我相信就是在那段时间，所有的计划就在进行中。没有孩子母亲的同意和允许，因为他本该将孩子还给母亲的，所以，孩子母亲申请了紧急监护权听证会，一个陈述理由令。我们称它为监护权的单方面听证会，就听证会而言，单方面是说你必须在第二天现身法庭，你只有一天的通告时间。对于钱德勒来说，最糟糕的部分是他们诉诸公堂(在此次听证会上，没提到骚扰案件)。他们已经和MJ谈判了一个月的时间，企图从他那里大捞一把，用控告不恰当行为作为索赔的筹码，但是他们关于孩子监护权的问题上了法庭、面对法官，并且对孩子的福利、被骚扰的事情和不恰当行为三缄其口。他们没说任何那方面的事情。法官后命令他把孩子还给孩子的母亲。现在，我会想“天哪，他们下一步会干什么？”，我当时想，她赢了，他们得把孩子还给她。就在那天，他们发起了骚扰指控。在同一天，他们被勒令把孩子还给母亲，就在同一天！

maryruan

5L译文：
DK：但是，他们在法庭上没提到那些事情？
GH：没有！因为如果他们提到了，法官就会下令调查。如果你仔细想想，那样才是正常程序。如果你在进行监护权争夺时，你应该在案件中表达对孩子福利的关心。但是他们在法庭上什么都不说。我在我的书中有解释，首先，她举行听证会出乎他们的意料之外。这不在他们的计划之中，他们不知道怎么对付，他们只有一天的时间在法庭现身，他们没有时间(去更改计划)。他们不得不现身法庭服从法庭。当他们得知法庭勒令他们归还监护权时，他们决定实施(诬告勒索)计划，因为如果没有孩子的监护权，他们什么也做不成；否则把孩子送还母亲，无论他们做什么，她都会撤销的。孩子更信任母亲，这是他们不希望的。基于此，他们不能把孩子监护权还给母亲，他们做了更多的事。
DK：他们计划的事？
GH：绝对是的。这就是为什么我说麻醉剂的事，那不是乱说的，因为他们做得每件事都是计划的一部分。计划已经展开，已经在执行，他们甚至为将来怎么报道做好了规划。如果他给了孩子一剂麻醉剂，据他所说，就是这样发现了事情，那么他要做的就是拨打911！他们的计划是他该去找个精神专家谈谈，并且告诉他那些事情，这样精神专家就能揭露事情，因为他是个可信任的同伙，是没人会质疑的有绝对威信的举报者。我打过写给孩子父亲的信，在信中律师告诉他怎样让第三方来揭发事情。我记得是打了一封短的信。他给那个父亲一封信，告诉他一些通过精神专家发布的关于儿童骚扰的消息，他通知那个父亲怎么做，所以那是他的计划。他做的就是让他舒心、放心，给他一些文章，我们会给他送些报纸还有别的。我记得在我打这封信的时候，我在想“为什么你写信告诉他？如果任何一个人怀疑儿童被骚扰了，他所做的一定是拿起电话。你不必策划这些，把孩子送去见精神专家，因为没别人更有揭露事情的可信度”。
DK：你跟BR律师说了，还是你只是想的？
GH：当然没说，要不然那天我就得出局了，也不会知道以后的事情了。
DK：那倒是。所以你想了所有的事情，你在那时就想，有些事情是不对的？
GH：那封我打的信，是另一个警示，让我知道有些事真的是不对的。
DK：就像是上天安排你在那耗能亲眼见证它。
GH：没错。
DK：伊文•钱德勒和某人通话的电话录音是怎么回事？他和谁在通话？
GH：对，是伊文•钱德勒和孩子继父之间的通话。继父录音的原因是因为他之前和伊文•钱德勒谈过话，在以前的谈话中伊文曾进行过人身威胁，所以他想录下谈话以防万一。钱德勒不知道他被录音，但是他在谈话中基本承认了(要进行敲诈的事)，他说他不明白MJ为什么有点想要回避他，他还说“我雇了一个卑劣无耻的人，准备为我去打败MJ，他在等我电话。如果我执行这个计划，我就要毁了MJ，我要毁了他并大捞一笔”，这就是他说的。他们公开了录音带， Pellicano(MJ私人侦探)得知此事就把它给了记者，然后他们播放了录音带，全部播放了。为什么人们对此听而不闻？正是他承认他在准备做一些事情、要依计划行事的！他没有说关于他的孩子被骚扰的任何一个字！他就是说“如果我执行这个计划，我就要毁了MJ，我要毁了他并大捞一笔，我要毁了MJ”！

cbhhxy

等翻译 等翻译

maryruan

终于翻译完成

请高手指正，

at0707

哇~真是太感謝你的翻譯了!
最後還要說一句"錢德勒是超級大壞蛋!!!等著報應吧!可惡的傢伙!!!"