As I mentioned in the previous 'Re: Michael's sexuality' post, the song 'Childhood' was a pathetic ploy, perhaps arrogant or maybe even defiant. If Michael was indeed a child molester, that song and video was a slap in the face to Jordie Chandler and all victims of child sexual abuse.
Why, you ask?
Because of Michael's brazen declaration that his own actions were merely the 'eccentricities' of a so-called 'man-child'! Even if Michael was innocent of child molestation and was not a pedophile but a tortured artist forbidden a childhood, and it was that denial which fostered some sort of mental pathology forcing him to create Neverland and sleep in the bed with other people's children, he still had some nerve.
Well, at least in my opinion.
Well, at least in my opinion.
You don't repudiate rumors of pedophilia by attempting to brainwash the public that you're only a 'child' and sleepovers with young boys are just what 'children' do. That is not smart!
But what does Michael's insistence on sleeping in the same bed with children really mean? Was it merely stupidity, naivete, and lack of insight? Or was it more than that?
Was it a compulsion?
On the compulsion tip, I managed to find disturbing information that literally shook me to my core, even before I ever had the idea to start this series.
The United Kingdom's Daily Mirror published a story in August 2009 involving one of Michael's doctors who had treated him in the early 2000s. According to the article, Michael's then-doctor, Dr. Alimorad 'Alex' Farshchian, was worried about Michael's 'behaviors'--for lack of a better term--towards children. Says a so-called 'source' close to the doctor (clearly, he may have thought it improper to discuss a former patient's medical history in the Press):
"It was really Dr Farshchian, when he became aware of the sleepovers, who planted the idea in Michael’s head that he might have a problem.
"As a responsible doctor, Dr Farshchian thought these tendencies were something Michael might address. Dr Farshchian didn’t necessarily think there was abuse going on – but he was concerned there were inappropriate feelings towards minors which could be addressed."
The (alleged) treatment Dr. Farshchian had in mind were injections of the female birth control medicine, Depo-Provera. The good doctor's spokesperson confirmed the use of the drug in the treatment:
"Yes, that's exactly it. He was trying to help Michael."
This hormone, when given to men, can be used as a non-invasive form of castration, which is the process, in Layman's terms, of reducing or completely eliminating the male sex drive:
...a drug called Depo-Provera...sharply diminishes sex drive in men by reducing their production of testosterone. [source]
So basically, Dr. Farshchian was worried about Michael's preoccupation with children, so much so that this highly respected doctor of orthopedic medicine suggested chemical castration!
Dr. Farshchian orginally came into Michael's life, according to the Mirror article, after Michael had broken his foot slipping at Neverland. We don't know what caused him to slip but, as I mentioned in my blog entry about Grace Rwaramba and drugs, it is possible he was over-medicated and on prescription pills and was simply too intoxicated to keep his balance.
This would also jive with a letter Farshchian wrote to 'Dearest MJ' on July 21, 2002 that the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department found in the raid of Neverland in 2003. The topic was 'outpatient detoxification' at Farshchian's facility in Florida. Clearly, at that time, Michael Jackson was heavily addicted to drugs.
So, Dr. Farshchian was never some 'Doctor Feelgood' like Dr. Arnold Klein, but someone who sincerely had Michael's best interests and well-being in mind.
This is why the story had such an affect on me. What am I supposed to believe with an article like this? I could not cast it aside as simply yet another fictional Michael Jackson yarn printed in the so-called tabloids. That would be ridiculous and very naive.
Farshchian was quoted at the end of the article:
Originally, for some unknown reason, I had linked Dr. Farshchian's 'prescription' of Depo-Provera with his seemingly vast amount of commercial pornography. I thought that that had been the reason Michael needed help. Of course, now that doesn't make any sense; I must have not read the article closely.
"When I heard of his death it was the saddest moment of my life. I’m proud I met Mr Jackson."Clearly, the man does not harbor any ill will towards Michael, so I said to myself, 'Why would this be a lie?'
Originally, for some unknown reason, I had linked Dr. Farshchian's 'prescription' of Depo-Provera with his seemingly vast amount of commercial pornography. I thought that that had been the reason Michael needed help. Of course, now that doesn't make any sense; I must have not read the article closely.
So what does this say about Michael?
Since there is no real evidence that he ever underwent the treatment, we can only surmise that it was simply a 'recommendation' from a legitimate doctor based on what he perceived to be questionable conduct on Michael's part when Michael Jackson was around children.
This is something no one can deny, however: Michael Jackson has a peculiar preoccupation with children.
Ultimately, chemical castration is an extreme measure only undergone by men with dangerous sexual compulsions. (It is worth noting that the treatment is completely reversible.)
We should ask ourselves: why would Dr. Alimorad Farshchian--a man who deals with arthritis and bones--want to give Michael Jackson a chemical castration drug?
It's a damned good question. Stay tuned.
ETA July 15, 2010:
It has come to my attention that this story has circulated around the Internet with the long quote attributed to a source close to the doctor as being from Ian Barkley, a former photographer for Michael at one point. Barkley DID NOT say the above quotes, nor did I mention Barkley in this entry.
Since there is no real evidence that he ever underwent the treatment, we can only surmise that it was simply a 'recommendation' from a legitimate doctor based on what he perceived to be questionable conduct on Michael's part when Michael Jackson was around children.
This is something no one can deny, however: Michael Jackson has a peculiar preoccupation with children.
Ultimately, chemical castration is an extreme measure only undergone by men with dangerous sexual compulsions. (It is worth noting that the treatment is completely reversible.)
We should ask ourselves: why would Dr. Alimorad Farshchian--a man who deals with arthritis and bones--want to give Michael Jackson a chemical castration drug?
It's a damned good question. Stay tuned.
ETA July 15, 2010:
It has come to my attention that this story has circulated around the Internet with the long quote attributed to a source close to the doctor as being from Ian Barkley, a former photographer for Michael at one point. Barkley DID NOT say the above quotes, nor did I mention Barkley in this entry.
43 comments:
OMG really?! I have never, ever heard this story. WOW *jaw at the floor*
So this doc thought Mike might have had a problem? See this is so much more credible than any maids, employees, t.v. pundits, etc, that say he's a 'pedohile'. I mean not everyone lies but I always got the impression certain people talking had an axe to grind.
But this is a respected doctor (I just googled him) and you showed that quote that clearly he really liked Mike,so it's like, WOW. What I'm I to believe??
I read the Shmuley book and I did kinda think that Mike was a little bit "off" in some of the stuff he said about kids, esp. in relation to how he spoke about women and adults in general. But I'll be damned, a doc suggested that he might have some "inappropriate feelings" toward kids that was causing the sleepovers??
Maybe I should rethink things, or at least reread??
O_o
See, that's what I thought, too. So many times we have been thinking about things surrounding Michael and the child molestation accusations as 'he's innocent' and there was not question to it. We completely write off people if they sell stories to the tabloids.
But this doctor is a legitimate medical professional. He even has a Wikipedia page (not that that in of itself means your legit but I was surprised...).
I know people will think badly of the source since it's a British 'tabloid' (esp. since Michael had the song 'Tabloid Junkie') but that is just stupid. Clearly, there have been stories in the National Enquirer that have been real.
I actually believe many things in the tabloids. I don't think tabloids necessarily lie. They are just willing to pay for celeb stories which increase the likelihood of embellishments.
Celebs in general have gone against the paparazzi and tabloids because they think it's an invasion of privacy. So naturally when any story about them is printed and it proves embarrassing, they will deny it and say its lies.
We remember this distinctly with John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. The NE had the story long before it was all over the media.
So, what I'm saying is this story with Farshchian is probably legit. Remember, Michael fed the hyperbaric chamber story to the NE in the 1980s and then spent the rest of his life denying it. But, when Oprah asked him about it in 1993, he didn't look like he was telling the truth when he denied it. Yet, he seemed aggressive about it's falsehood when recorded by Rabbi Shmuley. Was he just lying again or was he denying it because it was that story he fabricated in the tabloids for extra publicity that got people thinking, 'Hey, this guy is Wacko...Wacko Jacko!', you know?
I'm on a quest to figure a lot of things out. They probably will be unpopular opinions but oh well.
Kim Kardashian, I believe, is lying about work done on her formerly beautiful face. In Touch Weekly has said she has had numerous surgeries on her face. I don't know... I think they have the real story.
It's the same with Michael. This story above is completely real. It's not fake. Why did he want to give Michael Depo-Provera? Why?
Well, he may have actually had a problem. That doesn't mean he ever molested children, though. But it's...telling...
The only publication that ran this story was the British tabloid The Mirror. No one else found it crdible and it was dead in 3 days.
It's true: I had never heard of this story until I was doing research late one night about a month or so ago. But, then again, I hadn't really searched out Michael Jackson stories until I started this blog, which was mid-March.
I just watched what was on TV or Larry King, etc. and we know TV media is much more 'choosy' about stories than the internet or press.
Here's the thing: many people don't know how to read tabloids. If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true, you know?
This story made sense to me. Everything about it made sense.
Dr. Farshchian is a legitimate doctor and he did have contact with Michael in the early 2000s. He also was trying to wean him off drugs as per the letter mentioned above in the entry.
So, to me, it seemed like everything made sense; everything was logical on the doctor tip. And if Arnie Klein, a dermatologist, can prescribe the psychiatric drug Xanax, why couldn't Dr. Farshchian prescribe Depo-Provera, which is just a birth control injection? Especially if he was trying to get Michael off whatever drug he'd been using (the treatment of his pedophilic behaviors is psychological as with the treatment of the addiction).
Could this be completely fabricated? Well, yeah, of course.
But that's the point with tabloids: you can't immediately dismiss everything they say as 'lies'. That would be woefully naive. Tabloids are celebrity magazines! If this story was in People, would you still disbelieve it, lynande?
Michael, I think, hated tabloids because his faux pas in the 1980s--you know, giving them the hyperbaric chamber story and elephant man's bones story--created the image of Wacko Jacko, which haunted him for the rest of his career and made it much easier to believe he was capable of child molestation given his 'weirdness'.
He's been out to destroy them ever since. I call it 'just desserts'! With songs like 'Tabloid Junkie' and the video for 'Leave Me Alone', he had successfully brainwashed his fans into disbelieving every story in the so-called tabloids about him.
I think celebrities are lucky they have the luxury of 'denial'. Jermaine Jackson has said many unscrupulous things in the press about Michael and has denied them, thus casting doubt over the veracity of the original story. This is all because he gets 'caught'.
No, I believe this Farshchian story. Everything makes sense to me. Michael had issues with children and I was recently reading the FBI's criteria for a pedophile vs. child molester and he, at least, fits the former categorization.
This story is highly probable. I'm cautious enough to leave open the possibility for doubt but I refuse to be naive and affectionate towards Michael in this arena. The truth is the truth, IMHO.
If you believe it confirm it with the doctor himself , email him and ask him this question and then post his reply to you,
You know what?
I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but I will...
Are you idiotic enough to believe a highly respected and, perhaps, very busy doctor would even tell me the details of the medical records of Michael-fucking-Jackson?
Are you serious?
If you read the Mirror article linked in my entry, it said Dr. Farshchian was not going to comment, on the record, regarding Michael's treatments. It's why he had a spokesperson (or a sneaky secretary who went through the files in his office) comment.
I cannot believe you, lynande. I cannot believe it! Why don't you email him, genius? It was your 'bright' idea in the first place!
Farshchian has better things to do than entertain Michael Jackson's fans.
Anger is always a good response isn't it. You know what is funny is that same response was given in 2003 when a note was found from Dr. Farshchian to Michael in the 2003 Neverland search. They recycle articles by just changing the name of the drug. Back then it was Demerol.They had a story not long ago about finding Michael Jackson's time machine and resurrected the hyberbaric chamber photos.
I didn't follow Michael back in 2003. I was, what? 14 years old. I just thought he was a creepy guy with the Arvizo boy.
Like I said, it may very well be that this story is ridiculous and flagrant in it's fallacy. Even if this story was fake, Michael Jackson still fits the profile of a pedophile.
What, lynande? All of the investigators, therapists, lawyers, reporters, etc. who worked on Michael's cases (1993, specifically) are wrong, too?
Give me a break! Expand your mind...
But you were the one reacting in anger when you wanted to bring math and chemistry into the equation. Clearly, anyone deflecting from the typical 'Michael is innocent' dogma is fair game, right?
You need to get a life, girlfriend. I'm am just one blogging private citizen.
Let me ask you this, lynande:
You don't at all think there was something amiss when it came to his behavior and actions with children? That he never, ever wanted to give up the sleepovers? That he was in love with innocence? That he romanticized children's innocence?
Have you read Shmuley Boteach's book? I read that thing cover to cover (and this is when I was absolutely gaga over Michael) and I was left with such a feeling of malaise. I felt that Michael used children like a drug and threw them away once he got his fix.
There was a girl mentioned in the book and Michael was so disinterested in her. So much for the 'Lover of all Children'... It's all such a farce. And you've all bought into it.
Like I've said: 'Machiavellian'. He was a Svengali. A Pied Piper. He needed help.
What was the name of the girl?
Shmuley Boteach didn't name her. It doesn't matter what her name was. What do you need to know for? She was described as a 14-year-old...
If you read the book (and analyze it), you'll see what I'm saying. Otherwise, you'll continue to be on a whole different wavelength than I am, lynande.
Michael's words were what they were. And they belied his assertions that his feelings for children were 'innocent'. He was pathologically obsessed with children and no normal person would conduct themselves in a way he did.
Read the book. It's a good one.
If you comment again, I'd like you to provide honest answers to my questions above.
Thanks.
I agree w/ Desiree. Seriously.
I don't know if he was a child molester, but I do think it's pretty hard NOT to see that he did have a strange obsession with kids.
I read the Shmuley book too, and I came away a little perturbed. All this worship of children but nothing really nice to say about women, and adults in general.
I was hurt, being a adult female.
I actually have read the book.
Hi Desiree,I´m a Michael´s fan (not like that rabid fans lol) and follow your blog with great interest,especially concerning Michael´s sexuality.
Please could you post your mail here? I´d like to discuss somethings about that subject with you, I made some research and saw people saying things to Liz Taylor on his Twitter about it, what makes me wary...
I remember years ago there was a Norwegian band named "Mayhem," who sang about human sacrifice and then ended up killing a couple of members of their band.
This happens fairly often with rappers; they'll rap about crimes they actually committed, and then end up in prison. Of course, many time their lyrics are inadmissible; sometimes even their stage names are inadmissible, esp. when they have "murder" in their name.
I guess my point is if Michael made "Childhood," he's not the most brazen artist to taunt suspicions with his music. By the way, did you change the color of your background?
Yes, I changed the background color. It's nice, no? I think purple and blue were a little too cool in tone and green is nice on the eyes.
Anyway, well, in comparison to murder and rapes and other general savagery, Michael's 'slip of the tongue' with regards to his 'proclivities' in 'Childhood' may seem tame by comparison. But the difference is Michael's a Svengali and he's brainwashing people into believing his 'innocence', all the while continuing his ritualistic 'sleepovers'.
ALLEGEDLY
Rappers and rockstars are merely idiots brandishing their rap-sheets in order to get 'street cred' or draw in the depressed cutters, respectively.
Glad to see you make a reappearance, friend. Hope you decide to drop in from time to time. My Michael Jackson expose is about to heat up; it's just a process of sitting behind the computer and writing it all down. I always like to read your input...
Hi Dez I did some looking and it wasn't hard. All I had to look up was the Neverland Photographer Ian Barkley and look at all the tabloid stories that say the same thing about Dr. Farshchian about giving him Depo then being a witch doctor ,then Grace was his girlfriend and then let me think? Oh yeah the Arvizo kids said nothing happened.This guy is from Salt Lake hmmmm I wonder is he the famed "Mormon" that sold all kinds of Michael information to Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth. Is he the one that almost all tabloid stories about Michael Jackson were based on his money talks information. He is the one that was fired when the 2005 allegation were made public because of the Nation of Islam getting involved. Good reading Dez it should take you a little while but have fun they are after all tabloid stories.
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/08/09/michael_jackson_prescribed_chemical_cast
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/09/michael-jackson-had-jab-to-curb-sex-urges-for-young-boys-115875-21583054/
http://au.eonline.com/uberblog/b132610_jacksons_former_photographer_michael.html
http://www.exposay.com/v/31154/former-personal-photographer-michael-jackson-good-father-but/
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/mj-was-dating-his-kids-nanny-photographer/96431-8.html?from=rssfeed
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/was-michael-jackson-dating-his-childrens-nanny/485719/
http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/106758-michael-jacksons-photographer-says-the-star-was-on-drugs/
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Jacko-doctor-prescribed-drug-to-curb-his-desire-for-young-boys/articleshow/4874217.cms
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Michael+Jackson-27225.html
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/jacksons-fears-for-childrens-safety_1108597
http://fametastic.co.uk/archive/20090705/17111/michael-jackson-dated-nanny/
http://johnjohnsaidit.com/michael-jacksons-sex-drive-medicine/
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=128004&page=3
http://www.ok.co.uk/celebnews/view/12883/Jackson-given-drug-to-curb-sex-drive/
I read the stories, lynande, and many are just rehashes of the same ones. I scanned those.
I didn't read anything suspicious in any of them. I find Ian Barkley believable, even with the Grace Rwaramba story. He said Michael was a drug addict, true, true. He was not lying there.
I will say, however, I came across a 'comment' in which a fan or whoever it was stated the good doctor denied the story. That is an interesting thing, although I was not able to find any story where he denied it. Maybe I should look harder?
Like I said, lynande, the story could be completely fake. I'm keeping that window open.
But what is factual is the continuation of this series. That's what you can look out for... No tabloids need apply (mostly...).
Cfw Network R&b Dialer Pool (216.12.37.57)
Ntelos Troutville Dial up (216.12.83.209; 216.12.82.139)
Look Abe, I know where you are and what your doing and whenever you leave a spammy ass comment, I'm posting your IP address.
Please get a life and go away. I'm sick and tired of your shit.
Thanks.
I have been a fan of Michael Jackson since the early 80s and was at college when the 1993 allegations broke. I never believed those allegations as he appeared to really love and helped especially disadvantaged children. He appeared very childlike, vulnerable and naive himself. I was definately convinced that the 2005 trial was a set up from the beginning and was glad when he was found not guilty on all counts. However since his death I have decided to read all I can about him and read various blogs. I came to the conclusion that he may not be a paedophile but I believe something inappropriate happened between him and the Chandler boy in 1993. I managed to read Jordie's taped session with psychologist Gardner and there are some things he just could not make up on the spot. Even though it is alleged that his father coached him to lie I believe the answers he gave Gardner were genuine no matter how bright and articulate he was. It has been alleged many times that Michael was forced to pay the Chandlers by his insurance company against his wish. Why did he not come forward and say "I want to fight this matter in court but my advisors and lawyers thought it is best to settle" it would have made him seem less guilty in my opinion, instead of just pay up and shut up.
sofi:
I think your opinions are astute.
I didn't get into Michael until after his death. I didn't think he was guilty of any of the charges so I was very tender about hearing anything negative about him. So, naturally, I just stuck to the 'pro-Michael' opinions.
However, recently, I've developed an open-mind and decided to just read all sides.
I agree with you, sofi, I think the Gardner interview is telling. There was no way Jordie could have made up some of those things he said. He mentioned levitation and conditioning, you remember, and Michael talked about that same thing with Rabbi Shmuley. Of course, one could argue that that was something Michael was into and since he was into it, he shared it with his friend, Jordie. But Jordie applied it to the molestation...
I just think there are many unanswered questions and now that I'm looking at it, I think he truly was a pedophile. Now that doesn't make him a terrible person and they should spit on his legacy, you know? But he did have two legacies.
Have you read Maureen Orth's article 'Nightmare in Neverland'? It's a great piece; she's very, very fair! But Michael didn't act like an innocent man when the 93 allegations broke; he fled, he refused to return to country, he refused to be desposed or interrogated, he assaulted his docs when he was body searched and the police photographers couldn't even finish taking photos.
The child erotica books 'The Boy' and 'Boys Will Be Boys' were found in a closet on lower level of his bedroom (where Mike slept) near the jacuzzi area, etc. He said in 95 he didn't own books with naked kids unless fans gave it to him and he'd yet to read them. But these books weren't on a shelf or in a box; they were close so he could reach them, as well as he'd written in one! So he lied...
He may have not molested Gavin Arvizo but I believe he molested Jordie (or touched himself in the kid's presence) and I do believe he 'tickled' Jason Francia's testicles (which is why he paid him off, IMHO).
Innocent men don't flee, they fight. I think many fans have been misled and they can't separate the love of the music from the man.
(Read Chris Anderson's book 'Michael Jackson: Unauthorized' for discussion about the insurance company, p336-338. He knew about the payout and allowed it. PR spin says he didn't!)
Oh and I think Brett Barnes was lying when he said he was never touched or molested. This is a guy who shared the bed with Michael until he was 19 (I believe) and spent 365 days in the same bed on the Dangerous Tour in 92.
Jordie attested to their close relationship (touching and cuddling in public!) and I think--and it might be controversial--boys like Brett 'enjoyed' whatever sexual contact they had with Michael.
Maybe Brett's gay or something and he loved Michael so he lied for him on the stand. *shrugs*
I think it's possible... What do you think?
Oh Desiree, can I point out that those 2 books were in the 3rd drawer of a LOCKED FILE CABINET inside his closet...very suspicious. Like you said, they weren't like on a bookshelf or even just lying around like a regular book would be.
To me, that seems like concealment and that these were highly precious materials to him...the 'Boys Will Be Boys' book had the words 'very scarce' written inside it! This is all from Rosibel Ferrufino Smith's Apr. 29th testimony.
It's just all kinda suspicious to me... especially as you said, he said on Primetime Live that he didn't have these books or he never saw them; he was clearly lying.
Hi Desiree,
I am sorry that I did not reply sooner as I was out of town. You are so perceptive. I do agree with what you said about Brett Barnes. As one juror asked in 2005 'how could anyone spend 365 days a year in someone's bed and just eat popcorn?'
As for Jordie, I am still convinced that something untoward happened. Everything I have read including his own mother's testimony suggests that he cut of contact with her for 11 years, yet he still remained in contact with his dad until Evan attacked him in 2005. If Evan was the evil mastermind behind the allegations, should it not be the other way round? I do believe Evan was primarily motivated by money, and would have let the relationship continue if there was something in it for him.
I have read in the past that he continued to support his father and even bought houses in their names. Hardly the actions of a man who hates his father.
Fans claim that Tom Mesereau had witnesses that claimed that Jordie told them it was all a pack of lies, and he emancipated himself from them for making him say those things. I think he chose this path in order to protect his settlement rather than anything. Moreover where are these friends now that both Michael and Evan have died? their stories if verified, could be worth hundreds of thousands. The likes of Dimond would fall over themselves to get the first scoop on the big extortion story of the century.
The Jackson family's behaviour regarding the accusations have always puzzled me. When the 1993 allegations first arose, Michael's mom and brothers appeared at the press conference to declare his innocence. The mother was sincere in her belief, however the brothers appeared as reluctant participants. They did not look anywhere near convincing and their tones lacked any conviction in my opinion. Apart from that one appearance they remained silent until Latoya made her now infamous statement regading her belief in Michael's guilt. The press went into overdrive. Although she later on blamed her abusive ex-husband for making her say those things,there are some things that he could not have known as he did not live at Havenhurst during that key period when she spoke of certain events. I know that if I was accused of such heinous acts, my family would be in the media every day expressing outrage at the claims and would continue to do so for years to come. The family's silence spoke volumes for me. And what about the very famous Janet who Michael is supposedly closest to? in 2005 I expected her to scream from the rooftops about the absurd, peposterous allegations, her words would have definately carried weight. Instead I read that she said she did not want to be caught up in Michael's problems again. They all appeared at the 2005 trial where he faced the real threat of prison, yet publicly they remained silent, with the exception of two-faced Jermaine who adopted the mantle of family spokesperson. I never trusted anything he had to say.
As I stated before, I loved Michael and his music since the 80's and I cried when he passed away. However even I acknowledge that although he was a musical genius and undoubledly a great humanitarian, he too had some flaws and fans painting him as whiter than white is also an insult to his memory.
Thanks sofi for replying. I've been meaning to post entries with regards to other aspects of 'Michael's sexuality' but I've been lazy and it's murder to compile everything. ;-)
I'm glad you are one of the few fans who have sense regarding Brett Barnes! No one sleeps in the bed with another man until they are 19 unless they have feelings for them. Even Michael's other special friends grew out of that. But not Brett. Why? he said he remembered seeing Prince in the room with them. Jordie was basically like Brett was almost competition; I don't think he made that up, esp. saying Michael would shellack a finger with Vaseline and lube Brett's anus because he was frequently constipated! I mean, 1. that's something only a parent should do, NOT Michael; and 2. That's just so 'random' that I don't think Jordie could have made it up, you know? I'm surprised they didn't grill him more on the stand... I really, really, really think he was lying. Law enforcement says its quite common to have victims lying for their victimizer because they have feelings for them.
I don't know if I believe T-Mez either. Why wait until after the trial to announce you had witnesses to go against Jordie if he 'stuck to his story'? He could have still put them on the stand, esp. if Sneddon brought on the Neverland 5! I think he was just saber-rattling after the fact.
Anyway, I was 4 years old in 1993 so I couldn't watch everything that unfolded in the media. You, on the other hand, were lucky!
In the Orth article I mentioned in my comment to you mentioned Jermaine Jackson (seriously, he is very two-faced) being quoted in the London 'Daily Express' as saying: 'I love him, but you have to wonder if there might not be some truth in it.'
He, of course, later denied ever making a statement like that. He did the same thing in 2004-2005 with Stacy Brown. They were going to make a book called 'Legacy' and Jermaine said a whole bunch of things about Michael, saying he doubted his innocence in 2005 and that they had seen Michael holding Tito's sons on the bed in a 'disturbing manner' following their mother's death.
http://www.showbiz411.com/2009/08/12/20090812michael-jackson-brother-jermaine-shocking-2003-book-proposal
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2006/03/05/2006-03-05_his_brother_admits_jacko_s__.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2006/03/06/2006-03-06_jacko_bullied_bro___fear_of_.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2006/03/08/2006-03-08_jermaine_s_dis_on_tape___tel.html
Of course, Jermaine denied it on Larry King Live and after Michael's death, but Stacy Brown said he had recordings of Jermaine, I guess if he ever decided to sue Stacy would have proof.
Even on their reality show, 'the Jacksons', the brothers still seem kind of unsure inwardly but will always publicly disavow the allegations because they love Michael. I think they just don't know.
As for La Toya, I think she was absolutely telling the truth when we came out in 1993. Sure, Jack Gordon could have manipulated her into speaking out but I don't think he put those things in her head. I think La Toya's a liar when she blames it on Jack; it's so convenient but she cannot explain away those things she would only know, not Jack, like the cancelled checks and check stubs? I think the Jacksons disowned La Toya because she broke away from the secrecy.
As for Evan, I think you should re-read the transcripts of the taped phone conversations between Dave Schwartz. I don't think he had money in mind, to be honest. I think he truly loved his son and, clearly, Jordie loved his father more than his mother.
And if you read them, I think you'll see that June's being cut out of Jordie's life was probably because of the events with Michael that June allowed.
Evan, IMO, was not a bad guy; he's been maligned in the fan community because of Mary Fischer's GQ article, which was full of lies and taking parts of the convo between Evan and Dave and putting them together to make Evan look 'suspicious'. I also don't believe he ever gave his son sodium amytal. Please, that's BS; there was never any record of the drug being used. I think she just made it up.
So, I don't think Evan was motivated by money. I think he thought his son was gay. He said himself--maybe something many parents wouldn't agree with--that age wasn't a big deal if there had been a 'romance' between his son and Michael. He said he didn't even want to hurt Michael until after they had a meeting and Michael just blew him off like he was worthless. He was then like, 'This guy is evil; he's a pedophile.'
I think he made bad decisions in the public's consciousness but he was not bad. Many say why didn't he just go to the criminal courts. Even though it may be hard to understand, Evan just didn't see Michael as predatory. I really think it was Michael who had been manipulating the situation and was taking Jordie away from his father. I think he ruined their family...
This is running long but I think the fans need to open their eyes. Michael needed help and he didn't get it. He was not extorted; he was not unjustly maligned. All of his problems were self-created. He just needed help and millions upon millions of idol worshipping fans were only sinking him deeper into narcissism and self-righteousness.
I wish he had found peace in life. This Depo-Provera story--which I believe 100 percent--could have been the answer to his problems. Maybe he was taking it; it seemed as if he didn't collect boys in the 2000s...
I believe the story of Dr Farshchian, but I wonder if Michael gave him permission to treat him with Depo-Provera or did the good doctor just take it upon himself in the belief that he was doing good? It would be most unethical if he did.
I think Michael gave Dr. Farshchian permission to use the castration drug. The question is did he ever submit to its use?
That's what I don't know about.
Although ethics do not seem to be in the minds of many doctors to the rich and famous (as we have seen time and time again), I don't believe Dr. Farshchian injected Michael with some sex-drive suppressant under the guise of other treatments.
He is a highly respected doctor.
But, even if he did, hypothetically speaking, I can't say I blame him: Michael really was in need of some sort of intervention when it came to young boys...
Hi Desiree, This was a fascinating read, and I do believe there is a ring of truth to it. I would never post my thoughts on a site full of rabid MJ fans because I don't have time for the indignant hate posts that would surely and swiftly arrive.
I used to date somebody involved with the camp of a renowned musician, who shall go nameless, out of concern of the repercussions it would have, since he knew the family. (Somebody would lose his job for squeaking, at least two friendships would be destroyed, and as obsessed as the Jackson family is about image, I would be concerned about the legal issues this musician would suddenly face.) But let's just say LaToya told the truth. (The person I dated said very dryly that somebody LaToya would be considered a heroine because she had the guts to break the secrecy about her family.) Jermaine did, too, in the book he was planning to author with ghost writer, Stacy Brown. I, too, don't think Michael Jackson was evil, and I still love Off the Wall and Thriller. But he was mentally ill and needed help. It's a shame nobody cared enough to get him to therapy when he was 17 or 18 years old. I think his creative output would have been greater, and I think his life would have had a different outcome.
Len:
Thanks for your comment. :-)
I agree with your analysis and, yes, I do believe La Toya was telling the truth (about Michael and the Jackson family), as was Jermaine Jackson. Jermaine always goes back on what he says but he has said numerous disturbing things about Michael. Once it is in print it cannot be erased.
Unfortunately, La Toya has also went back on the things she's said but if you watch her Tel Aviv press conference, her body language shifts and she becomes agitated when she's saying it's wrong and all of that. She blames all of that on Jack Gordon but can she explain away the stuff she's said that he would have never known? I don't think so.
I would love to hear more about this person who has the inside scoop, LOL. There was a blog I read and the blog owner (who adamantly believes Michael Jackson was a pedophile) was a journalist. He said he'd dated a LA-area psychologist who said she had had patients who claimed to have been, at the very least, inappropriately accosted by Michael. Another person he met was a rock musician and they said they had seen child porn at Neverland.
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/08/professional-pedophile-apologist-mary.html
Maybe you two know the same musician? ;-) But, nevertheless, I believe him and La Toya and Jermaine, when they have decided against lying about the truth. I hope you decide to share a bit more...
I agree with you: no one cared or they didn't know about Michael's 'pedophilia issues'. I often wonder what are the true blue feelings of those who were closest to him, the ones who saw him with children most. I bet if they were liquored up a bit, they'd spill the beans...a tad. A lot of selective attention goes into whitewashing the 'issues' of those you love. Michael had a thing for children; it's obvious.
Michael was molested as a youth and that type of orientation starts very early. It's unfortunate that he never sought treatment because I feel as infinitesimally close to 100% positive as I can that he molested Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia. I think his fans are just blind!
I'd love to tell you who the musician is and what I know. (A lot, probably too much.) But I could never, ever say it publicly. But when I dated this particular person, I heard more information about Michael and the rest of his family than I ever wanted to know.
I did some research on Dr Alimorad Farshchian, and this is what I found on the net; Michael Jackson was more of a family man in his later days, and hated drugs and he tried numerous times to put a stop to his drug problems. For that he asked for Farshchian’s help between 2000-2005. Jackson and Farshchian were close family friends, but they were also working on some business ventures together. Among the projects, one in particular was the construction of a charity children’s hospital in downtown Miami.
George:
I'm not trying to sound short but what's your point?
Farshchian and Michael probably did have business ventures together. But the point of this blog entry was to highlight the story of Michael's alleged Depo-Provera treatment.
I think it probably happened this way: Michael and Farshchian became close and Michael unintentionally revealed his sleepover 'issues' to the point a competent doctor (Farshchian) would feel concerned. He then, out of affection for his friend and the typical exhibition of a doctor caring for the welfare of a patient, suggested to Michael the chemical castration.
That's how it went. Yes, Michael was a drug addict and he may have hated drugs, but, in typical druggie fashion, he couldn't get himself clean, even with help from a doctor.
But, if you had noticed, George, Michael didn't have sleepovers like he had in the 1990s. I think that could have been because he was either taking something that reduced the libido (the sleepovers were clearly sexual in function) or he was to drug-addled as to 'enjoy' them as usual.
Yes, it is how it sounds, George: I believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. The sleepovers (as mentioned in the Mirror article) were a ritualistic behavior he could not give up.
Naturally, Farshchian would (and should) be concerned...
Also, Michael's obsession with children's causes (you mention a tentative idea for a children's hospital) is another example of his pedophilia.
Here is a pdf about child molesters that you may enjoy. It reads like a Michael Jackson biography and it will help you understand more fully the importance these sleepovers and why Farshchian would be concerned (copy and paste into your browser):
http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/resources/NC70.pdf
On that same article it says "Dr Farshchian went on tour with Jacko in 2002-3 and was with him in Berlin when Jacko infamously dangled baby Prince Michael II from a fourth-floor balcony."
Come on, Jackson never was touring in 2002-2003. So dr Frashchian could not be touring with him.
George:
Michael's last tour was HIStory, wasn't it? The Mirror is mistaken then.
But I believe you're making a mountain out of a molehill, George. Is it possible that the Mirror simply made a quick assumption that Michael was on tour since he was in Berlin, seeing that he's usually at Neverland and in the States?
I think it was just a mistake; someone wasn't a very good editor!
So... you are using that to make the article seem untrue? Explain your point; I am curious to know why this story is so false.
I have heard certain fans claim they called Farshchian at his office and he told them the story was a 'lie'. However, I am doubtful the good doc would reveal anything about a deceased and famous patient's past treatments.
The sleepovers stopped, didn't they, George? I believe this story...
You know, this is such an incredible story, and I just had to call Farshchian's office and ask. So I called today and I asked if I can speak to Dr Farshchian, the secretary Marty answered the call, and she asked me what is this in regard of. I said I need to ask Dr Farshchian about Michael Jackson. She said Farshchian Has NEVER AND WILL NEVER SPEAK about Jackson out of respect. She sounded firm but honest. So if he has not talked about him, the article must be a lie.
LOL, George.
How bold you are to call Farshchian at his practice! That really is kind of...odd. Personally, I would never do such a thing.
Anyway, the secretary told you Farshchian would never speak about Michael and had never spoke about Michael. But in the article, it was an unnamed spokesperson for Farshchian, not the good doctor himself.
So, technically, he never spoke about Michael.
Another thing I think you didn't notice was that 'Marty' seems like she's in damage control mode. I know I didn't speak to her but her response was similar to 'no comment', very general.
Here's what I think about the issue, George: I think this alleged 'spokesperson' was an employee who got into the files and found out what Michael's treatment had been or was going to be. They then sold a story.
Or Farshchian did it clandestinely through a source.
Let's get real, okay: why would Farshchian reveal a patient's treatment to a fan (because I know you're a fan)?
'Marty' was probably told, 'Dammit, if it's one of Jacko's fans again, tell them the story's fake and we deny it. Jesus Christ, I'm getting burned for spilling the beans!'
I think that's how it went. I'm surprised at your gullibility...
Listen up, Desiree, if the "good doctor" was so "professional," and so "respectable," why would he have even appointed an unnamed spokesperson to divulge anything so sensational about a former patient?
You claim to be such an expert researcher? Then why jump down George's throat calling him "odd" when he called the doctor to check out his story? George is searching for the REAL truth, and so am I? What are YOU doing? I am surprised at YOUR gullibility, for you keep saying, "I believe" and "I think" and what it means is that there is NO PROOF for your sordid claims here...only your own sordid speculations.
Did you even read the book CONSPIRACY by Aprhodite Jones?
And how do you know that MJ slathered Vaseline on his finger to lubricate Brett Barnes?
And it is highly suspect when people who claim to have facts, like Kikue and Len, always want to be anonymous and their proofs and evidence and sources are always such a big private secret that they can't tell the rest of us. Why are they protecting a pedophile if they think he was one?
And please stop calling him 'Jacko' because this blog is the thing that "I think" sounds completely "whacko," prejudicial, mean-spirited, paranoid, and neurotic. Don't tell us what you SUPPOSE, tell us what you KNOW!
Tabitha:
First of all, I have read 'Michael Jackson Conspiracy' by Aphrodite Jones. And? The book was nothing but a whitewash of the 2005 case. She didn't even prove her point as to what the 'conspiracy' was. So the media didn't like Michael Jackson and they thought he was a pedophile? And?
Aphrodite Jones is unintelligent and she can't write. I also think she may be an opportunist. Anyone who reads her pamphlet and says this is the gospel truth on what happened in 2005 is a little naive. Maybe more than a little.
As for those other readers and their info, 'Kikue's' info can be located on the Internet if you have an open mind. As for 'Len' her info is very confidential and if you find it's anonymity dubious, that is your prerogative! I can probably guess that if you knew her info and her ultimate source (connection?) you'd probably dismiss it anyway. I know with fans nothing can ever be said about Michael!
But I'll say this: Omer Bhatti was no secret son. You figure it out...
As for the Brett Barnes bit, I have a post that deals with that topic. Please click the Archives.
You know, as for 'George', I find it odd that he would phone Farshchian and expect, as a layperson, for the doctor to tell him Michael's medical history. I'm sorry you didn't get that.
At the end of the day, all of it is speculation. Fans say they "know" Michael was innocent but that's just speculation as well. Of course, for someone like you, it's more easily digestible?
Again, if I knew any of this for sure, I would have been able to put Michael in jail. If you knew for sure that I was wrong, you would've been able to save Michael Jackson millions of dollars in hush money.
Finally, if you dislike the tone of this blog, you may read elsewhere, although I do get a kick out of your types. No, no: 'wacko' is a much better fit for Jacko than for me or my blog.
Hi Desiree, we have spoken by email, but I haven't yet commented on any of your posts. As I mentioned to you I have had contact with a Jackson biographer many times. The question of the Depo Vera was one I asked him as he had been in very close contact with Bob Jones. Apparently this story was left out of their book as it was a considered a little too controversial by Bob. It is however true according to Bob Jones.
Sarah:
Interesting. To me, the Farshchian story makes perfect sense and it doesn't strike me as being tabloid.
As you can see in the comment thread above, some fans think they would be able to ascertain the truthfulness of the story by just calling Farshchian's office, which is silly.
I am awaiting your other email, Sarah...
how sad u are still writing a blog against a man who could not defend himself anymore. Let th man rest in peace----
Post a Comment