If you have yet to read Maureen Orth's 1995 Vanity Fair article "The Jackson Jive", you should get a move on then! It's a great piece.*
I was perusing Youtube the other night and, having already had my transcript of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley's 1995 Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer in hand, I wanted to re-watch the video to match the text.
Diane Sawyer was heavily criticized for what was essentially a softball interview (or an extremely expensive ad campaign for the HIStory album in exchange for a ratings boon) with Michael and his sham bride.
I can see why.
The whole show began with what was basically an ass-kissing spectacle celebrating Michael's musical genius; it had the bit of pillow chat between the three broken up by an Elizabeth Taylor testimonial and the music video for the cacophonous 'Scream'; and it ended with Michael being able to make 'bunny ears' behind Lisa Marie's head while Diane was delivering her final questions.
But, most importantly, Maureen Orth was right! Michael did lie!
The 'grilling', if one could call it that, begins at the 4:45 mark:
Let's analyze.
By the way, I found Michael's body language in the above video to be quite telling. When Diane Sawyer would ask a particularly uncomfortable question about the Jordie Chandler allegations, he would maneuver into a sort of calculated calm, being almost rigid. It was unnatural. At times he looked off, stared intensely, fluttered his eyelids, or laughed. All of these behaviors can be indicative of deceit depending on the person or the situation.
But, you know, I am no expert. I just wanted to make that clear.
Michael was adamant on one thing from the moment Diane Sawyer began her questions about the allegations: he had been slighted by law enforcement investigating the charges he had molested a pubescent boy.
MICHAEL JACKSON: The idea--it just isn't fair--what they put me through. 'Cause there wasn't one piece of information that says I did this. And anyway, they turned my room upside-down, went through all my books, all my videotapes, all my private things and they found nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing!DIANE SAWYER: But let me ask you a couple of questions...MJ: To this day nothing. Still, nothing...DS: Let me ask you...MJ: ...nothing, nothing, nothing!
Hubris.
I'm assuming that despite the fact the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County law enforcements received a complaint that a child had been sexually abused, it was not a good enough reason to violate the sanctity of Michael's Neverland Ranch, even if it was 'standard procedure'.
If we are to believe Michael and his protestations of innocence, he most certainly went through a horrible ordeal: he was body searched, smeared in the media, and ultimately forced to settle. But was it that cut and dry?
Apparently not. If it had been, such accusations would not have stuck nor would he have had to settle the case.
He did not tell the truth in his interview.
DS: Nothing. We got nothing. As you may or may not know, we have called everyone we can call. We have checked everything we can check, we have gone and tried to see if what we heard before is in fact the case. I want to ask you about two things. These reports that we read over and over again, that in your room they found photographs of young boys...MJ: Not of young boys, of children, all kinds of girls and...everything.DS: And that they found photographs--books, of young boys who were undressed.MJ: No.DS: It didn't happen?MJ: No, not that I know of--unless people sent me things that I haven't opened. People send, people know my love for children, so they send me books from all over the world. From South America, from Germany, from Sweden, from Italy...DS: So people say that, that they found these things, that there's an indication...let them come forward...Let them produce them, right?MJ: Yeah. Because I get all--I get all kinds--you wouldn't believe the amounts of mail that I get. If you say to somebody, you know, if I let the fans know that I love Charlie Chaplin, I'll be swarmed in Charlie Chaplin paraphernalia.DS: What about...MJ: ...If I say I love children, which I do, they swarm me with everything pertaining to kids!
Michael's assertion that he did not have books of young children is not entirely true. Of course, he left himself an 'out' by saying if, in the event that evidence of said books were produced, they would have been given to him by fans.
Well, that's a little too convenient an argument from someone who was so emphatic that they did not possess such books, although I am sure there are many fans who'd be willing to take the fall for Michael.
On the stand in Michael's 2005 trial for the alleged molestation of Gavin Arvizo, Detective Rosibel Ferrufino-Smith, an investigator during the raid on Neverland in 1993, testified to the curious location of these so-called 'art books' of naked boys, labeled exhibits #841 and #842:
It is also worth noting that Michael had had The Boy since 1983 and Boys Will Be Boys since, at the earliest, 1988, inscribing these words in the latter:
It has also been said that one of these particular books allegedly appeared to have never been opened. Seeing that Michael inscribed one of them but kept them together, it is wholly unlikely that one of the books were 'neglected'. Besides, some people keep their books in near-mint condition in spite of usage.
So, he lied.
The boy in question was Jason Francia, son of Michael's very credible maid Blanca Francia. For the accusations of Michael having tickled and touched his testicles on several different occasions at both Michael's Century City 'Hideout' apartment and Neverland, Jason was eventually paid upwards of $2 million sometime after the interview. Clearly, Michael was in some sort of negotiations in 1995 when he appeared on Primetime Live.
I should note that Lisa Marie stared intently at Diane Sawyer when she posed that question, her brow furrowing; she obviously had heard nothing about her sham husband's legal issues.
Jordie Chandler provided a detailed description of Michael's private parts to his lawyers and police. However, his claim of Michael Jackson being circumcised turned out to be incorrect, as Michael's autopsy report later proved. Although Jordie was wrong in the area of circumcision, that was basically the extent as to what was different.
The details that did match Jordie's description were things the boy could not have seen in any other capacity outside some form of sexual impropriety on Michael's part, such as his patchy testicles: brown and pink, not brown and white.
In Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover, Gutierrez provides the reader with a photocopied reproduction of the hand-drawn sketch and description Jordie made for his lawyers at the time.
(LEFT: from Michael Jackson Was My Lover; RIGHT: for clarity's sake, I deciphered Jordie's handwriting as I saw on the page. Click for bigger. PLEASE DO NOT STEAL THESE IMAGES!)
Jordie's description of the 'cow-like' appearance of Michael's testicles is indicative of something that couldn't have been made up! Brown and pink is a very unique and distinguishing attribute, especially given that the testicles of someone without skin pigment would most likely appear pinkish due to the abundance of blood vessels and capillaries in that region.
Jordie's description makes it reasonable for one to assume he actually saw Michael's testicles.
Also, Michael's own conduct while undergoing the body search belies an innocent man. He was said to have physically attacked his own doctors who tried to restrain him; he verbally attacked the photography and investigative team; and he stormed out of the room before the police photographer had finished taking all of the necessary pictures. (For discussion of this, check out Diane Dimond's book Be Careful Who You Love from your local library, if available, pages 8-16, 141-143.)
Moreover, Michael claimed there had been no markings. There are conflicting reports as to whether said 'splotch' was light in color or dark in color. Michael's camp has alleged the opposite as to what was found, of course, although one could reasonably argue that what Jordie thought was distinctive was different from what the authorities thought was distinctive.
You know, sort of like those pictures in which they ask you, "What do you see: a pair of faces in profile or a goblet?" I'm just saying. It's possible.
However, what should be noted is that Jordie was able to lead the investigators to where this 'splotch' was located: just underneath the penis, only visible during arousal!
I am of the opinion that if one was to extort someone, as Evan Chandler allegedly did, one would not claim to be so familiar with an intimate appendage as to describe it if it were never shown or seen by them. They would only claim possession of information they were certain would bring about a payday. Anything else would be too risky!
During Michael's 2005 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce the pictures of Michael's genitals as evidence on May 26th 2005. They were denied by Judge Rodney Melville but their reasoning was not to shock the jury; they simply wanted to show that the photos matched reasonably enough to prove Michael had had some sort of sexual contact with a minor:
Michael escaped an arrest because of that tiny inconsistency surrounding the circumcision and nothing more. As per Jordie's description, it's reasonable to assert that he'd only seen the penis when it looked circumcised!**
Michael lied in that he knew the boy had seen his penis but feigned innocence since he eluded capture!
But that is the way of superstardom, wealth, and hubris...
In the vein of hubris (or is it compulsion?), Michael Jackson made it very clear he would not stop his sleepovers, the very 'sleepovers' that sexual activity between himself and young boys allegedly occurs:
After all, he did make Thriller, he can 'moonwalk', and he had Bubbles the Chimp.
Michael was defiant in his stance: he would not give up his vice; he needed to sleep in the bed with young boys. According to the FBI guide Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis by Kenneth V. Lanning, a thirty-year veteran in the FBI, Michael's 'sleepovers' would be considered ritualistic and compulsory to the molestation process (page 23/160 of the .pdf document):
No one understood that need but Michael and anyone who questioned it was seen as obstinate, cynical, and unsympathetic to the lost youth of a child star.
He thought Diane Sawyer's question about why would a thirty-something-year-old man sleep in the bed with a twelve-year-old boy was 'ridiculous', even laughing a bit to diffuse his own nervousness surrounding the query:
Tangled webs...
So, what do we have at the end of it all, besides an orchestrated advertisement for the HIStory album and a post-molestation career booster masquerading as an in-depth interview? Oh, yes: lies.
Money very well spent by Sony Music to save their most valuable commodity...
**With regards to the circumcision, let's be real: the penile foreskin, when still attached, looks different depending on the man; some are thinner and less noticeable and some are thickened and obvious. In fact, the investigators and doctors on site when the body search occurred had to double check to make sure if 'uncircumcision' was the right call! When an erection occurs, uncircumcised looks very similar to circumcised (explicit link but I think it's worth looking at in terms of understanding Jordie's mistake). Jordie most likely only saw the damned thing when Michael was erect and wanted to enter into some sort of sexual activity, Michael having already been aroused before he removed his own clothes. It is also possible he did not look directly at Michael's appendage during the molestations, only working by feel.
Well, that's a little too convenient an argument from someone who was so emphatic that they did not possess such books, although I am sure there are many fans who'd be willing to take the fall for Michael.
On the stand in Michael's 2005 trial for the alleged molestation of Gavin Arvizo, Detective Rosibel Ferrufino-Smith, an investigator during the raid on Neverland in 1993, testified to the curious location of these so-called 'art books' of naked boys, labeled exhibits #841 and #842:
The two books--Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy--were found in Michael's bedroom. They were not on a shelf in a 'vast library' or even in a storage-style box! They were in his bedroom closet! Ferrufino-Smith continues in her testimony:20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three21 objects at this time. Exhibits No. 841 and 842;22 would you take a look at those two objects, please?23 A. Okay.24 Q. Do you recognize those two books?25 A. Yes, I do.26 Q. Did you seize those two books?27 A. Yes, I did.28 Q. From where?1 A. These books were seized from a cabinet2 within Michael Jackson’s closet in the master3 bedroom.
Both books were nestled safely in a bedroom closet, the first floor in which Michael slept. The evidence is mounting against his feigned ignorance as to his possession of the books. He had them and they were in very close proximity to where he slept. She continues in what will shatter Michael's lie:10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Tell us where in11 his bedroom this particular closet is.12 A. It was off to the side of the main bedroom.13 There were -- actually, there were two closets on14 either side of the room, and this would have been15 the side where the Jacuzzi was located.16 Q. Now, this is the first floor of his bedroom17 suite; is that right?18 A. That’s correct.19 Q. Was there a bed in that bedroom suite?20 A. Yes.
2 Q BY MR. ZONEN. All right. And is that file cabinet
3 depicted in that photograph?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. How many drawers in that file cabinet?
6 A. Four.
7 Q. In which drawer were those two books seized,
8 from which drawer?
9 A. From the third drawer.
10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?
13 A. We were able to get the key from -- the maid
14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to
Not only were the books found in his bedroom on the floor where he slept, they were also found in a locked file cabinet! One could make the argument that Michael was trying to hide these particular books which contained photographs of naked boys, some photos explicitly showing the children's genitals.15 unlock it at that time.
It is also worth noting that Michael had had The Boy since 1983 and Boys Will Be Boys since, at the earliest, 1988, inscribing these words in the latter:
"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ."So much for books Michael knew nothing about, or, rather, books amid 'tons of mail' he received from fans! I doubt one would hold 'unknown' books for ten years and five years, respectively; write in one of them; and then hide them in the bottom drawers of a locked file cabinet in a bedroom closet. All of that reeks of deliberate concealment!
It has also been said that one of these particular books allegedly appeared to have never been opened. Seeing that Michael inscribed one of them but kept them together, it is wholly unlikely that one of the books were 'neglected'. Besides, some people keep their books in near-mint condition in spite of usage.
So, he lied.
This was also not true.DS: Any other settlements in process now or previously with children making these kinds of claims? We have heard that there is one...not, not a case that the prosecutors would bring in court...MJ: No.DS: ...but, but once again you're talking about settling out...MJ: No. That's not true. No. It's not true. I think, I've heard everything is fine, and there are no others.
The boy in question was Jason Francia, son of Michael's very credible maid Blanca Francia. For the accusations of Michael having tickled and touched his testicles on several different occasions at both Michael's Century City 'Hideout' apartment and Neverland, Jason was eventually paid upwards of $2 million sometime after the interview. Clearly, Michael was in some sort of negotiations in 1995 when he appeared on Primetime Live.
I should note that Lisa Marie stared intently at Diane Sawyer when she posed that question, her brow furrowing; she obviously had heard nothing about her sham husband's legal issues.
The above is only partly true.DS: How about the police photographs though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?MJ: The police photographs?DS: The police photographs.MJ: That they took of me?DS: Yeah.MJ: There was nothing that matched me to those charges. There was nothing.LISA MARIE PRESLEY : There was nothing they could connect to him.MJ: That's why I'm sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that they found, that could connect me...DS: So when we heard the charges...MJ: There was nothing...DS: ...markings of some kind?MJ: No markings.DS: No markings?MJ: No.
Jordie Chandler provided a detailed description of Michael's private parts to his lawyers and police. However, his claim of Michael Jackson being circumcised turned out to be incorrect, as Michael's autopsy report later proved. Although Jordie was wrong in the area of circumcision, that was basically the extent as to what was different.
The details that did match Jordie's description were things the boy could not have seen in any other capacity outside some form of sexual impropriety on Michael's part, such as his patchy testicles: brown and pink, not brown and white.
In Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover, Gutierrez provides the reader with a photocopied reproduction of the hand-drawn sketch and description Jordie made for his lawyers at the time.
Jordie's description of the 'cow-like' appearance of Michael's testicles is indicative of something that couldn't have been made up! Brown and pink is a very unique and distinguishing attribute, especially given that the testicles of someone without skin pigment would most likely appear pinkish due to the abundance of blood vessels and capillaries in that region.
Jordie's description makes it reasonable for one to assume he actually saw Michael's testicles.
Also, Michael's own conduct while undergoing the body search belies an innocent man. He was said to have physically attacked his own doctors who tried to restrain him; he verbally attacked the photography and investigative team; and he stormed out of the room before the police photographer had finished taking all of the necessary pictures. (For discussion of this, check out Diane Dimond's book Be Careful Who You Love from your local library, if available, pages 8-16, 141-143.)
Moreover, Michael claimed there had been no markings. There are conflicting reports as to whether said 'splotch' was light in color or dark in color. Michael's camp has alleged the opposite as to what was found, of course, although one could reasonably argue that what Jordie thought was distinctive was different from what the authorities thought was distinctive.
You know, sort of like those pictures in which they ask you, "What do you see: a pair of faces in profile or a goblet?" I'm just saying. It's possible.
However, what should be noted is that Jordie was able to lead the investigators to where this 'splotch' was located: just underneath the penis, only visible during arousal!
I am of the opinion that if one was to extort someone, as Evan Chandler allegedly did, one would not claim to be so familiar with an intimate appendage as to describe it if it were never shown or seen by them. They would only claim possession of information they were certain would bring about a payday. Anything else would be too risky!
During Michael's 2005 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce the pictures of Michael's genitals as evidence on May 26th 2005. They were denied by Judge Rodney Melville but their reasoning was not to shock the jury; they simply wanted to show that the photos matched reasonably enough to prove Michael had had some sort of sexual contact with a minor:
27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I think we’ve
Lastly, it should be reiterated that Michael was only telling a half-truth in his interview. Jordie's descriptions fell short in that Michael was not circumcised but nearly everything else matched; additionally, Jordie described features that could only have been seen while Michael was in a state of arousal or during sexual activity. His inability to accurately cite a circumcision is really moot in the grand picture: he knew exactly where a 'dark splotch' was located; he knew the testicles were patchy; he knew Michael had short pubic hair!28 adequately stated our position in the pleadings. I1 can tell you that with regard to the relevance of2 that material, there was quite a bit of testimony3 that was presented during the course of the defense4 case about nothing untoward or inappropriate5 occurring in Michael Jackson’s bedroom and numerous6 witnesses who have testified to the fact that many7 children, particularly back in the 1993, ‘94, ‘928 period, who spent not just nights, but weeks and9 even months in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, in Michael10 Jackson’s bed, and it was a completely nonsexual11 event.12 The fact that this child was able to give a13 description of a unique feature of his anatomy that14 could not have been known by him except for a very15 intimate acquaintance with Mr. Jackson is very good16 circumstantial evidence of the fact that the17 relationship between he and at least that child was18 something more than casual and something more than19 innocent.
Michael escaped an arrest because of that tiny inconsistency surrounding the circumcision and nothing more. As per Jordie's description, it's reasonable to assert that he'd only seen the penis when it looked circumcised!**
Michael lied in that he knew the boy had seen his penis but feigned innocence since he eluded capture!
But that is the way of superstardom, wealth, and hubris...
In the vein of hubris (or is it compulsion?), Michael Jackson made it very clear he would not stop his sleepovers, the very 'sleepovers' that sexual activity between himself and young boys allegedly occurs:
'If they want...' And that is all Michael had to say, really. He knows that since he was a celebrity, the possibility of countless children who venture into Neverland would have wanted to spend time in Michael Jackson's bedroom.DS: I just want to--is it over? Are you gonna make sure it doesn't happen again? I think, this is really the key thing people want to know.MJ: Is what over?DS: That--that there are not going to be more of these sleepovers in which people have to wonder.MJ: Nobody wonders when kids sleep over at my house. Nobody wonders.DS: But are they over? Are you--are you going to watch out for it now?MJ: Watch out for what?DS: For the sake of the children, and for--everything you've been through.MJ: No, 'cause it's all--it's all moral and it's all pure. I don't even think that way. It's not what's in my heart.DS: So you'll--you'll do it again?MJ: I would never ever... Do what again?DS: I mean you'll have a child sleeping over.MJ: Of course! If they want.
After all, he did make Thriller, he can 'moonwalk', and he had Bubbles the Chimp.
Michael was defiant in his stance: he would not give up his vice; he needed to sleep in the bed with young boys. According to the FBI guide Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis by Kenneth V. Lanning, a thirty-year veteran in the FBI, Michael's 'sleepovers' would be considered ritualistic and compulsory to the molestation process (page 23/160 of the .pdf document):
The concept of an MO ("method of operation")--something done by an offender because it works and will help him get away with the crime--is well known to most investigators. MO usually involves patterns of behavior intended to ensure success, protect identity, and facilitate escape. An MO is fueled by thought and deliberation. Most offenders change and improve their MO over time and with experience.Through use of these sleepovers, Michael could gain access to the young boys, lower their inhibitions and molest them or fondle them while they slept, all the while remaining under the banner of 'innocent fun'. His unwillingness to give up the sleepovers reeks of need.
No one understood that need but Michael and anyone who questioned it was seen as obstinate, cynical, and unsympathetic to the lost youth of a child star.
He thought Diane Sawyer's question about why would a thirty-something-year-old man sleep in the bed with a twelve-year-old boy was 'ridiculous', even laughing a bit to diffuse his own nervousness surrounding the query:
By the way, Michael contradicts himself by saying it's not 'just boys' he sleeps with in order to make it seem as if he is egalitarian with both sexes of children yet he says he never invited anyone into his bed. Well, which is it: all or nothing?DS ...What is a thirty-six year old man doing, sleeping, with a twelve year old boy? Or a series of them?MJ: Right. Okay, when you say "boys", it's not just boys and I've never invited just "boys" to come in my room. C'mon that's just ridiculous. And that's a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it, you know, the answer... I'll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But... anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.
Tangled webs...
So, what do we have at the end of it all, besides an orchestrated advertisement for the HIStory album and a post-molestation career booster masquerading as an in-depth interview? Oh, yes: lies.
Money very well spent by Sony Music to save their most valuable commodity...
___________________________________________________________________________
*Maureen Orth's article is a must-read regarding Michael's Primetime Live interview. Also a must-read is this piece here, which brilliantly discusses the interview as well as Evan Chandler's lawsuit against ABC and against Michael Jackson for violating the settlement agreement.**With regards to the circumcision, let's be real: the penile foreskin, when still attached, looks different depending on the man; some are thinner and less noticeable and some are thickened and obvious. In fact, the investigators and doctors on site when the body search occurred had to double check to make sure if 'uncircumcision' was the right call! When an erection occurs, uncircumcised looks very similar to circumcised (explicit link but I think it's worth looking at in terms of understanding Jordie's mistake). Jordie most likely only saw the damned thing when Michael was erect and wanted to enter into some sort of sexual activity, Michael having already been aroused before he removed his own clothes. It is also possible he did not look directly at Michael's appendage during the molestations, only working by feel.
40 comments:
This is David from Vindicate MJ. I'll be brief:
I'm glad you finally did a decent post on MJ's guilt! Very clever of you to use the testimony of the detectives regarding those book!
Now, do the same thing with Blanca and Jason Francia's testimony, and tell us how he was molested, and how MJ got away with it, and why the jury didn't believe it!
And while you're at it, please explain to everyone why Ray Chandler was sooooooo afraid to testify in court in 2005. We did a post on the legal documents we found that prove that he evaded the subpoenas. And why did Jordie threaten legal action to avoid testifying, too? Please don't say it's because of the media attention!
No comment on the substance of the entry? Why am I not especially surprised? I would have liked to hear your rebuttal but if you don't have one, by all means I accept your concession.
I'll tell it to you straight, David: I do not work on anyone's time. I work on my time.
Also, my goal is not to prove why everyone else acted stupidly with regards to Michael's pedophilia; my goal is to prove that Michael was, at least, untoward to young boys.
Blanca Francia was exceptional on the stand and I will have to go back and re-read Jason's testimony; it's been over a year! I think the jury didn't buy Jason's testimony because 1. it was easy to dismiss because it was 1108 which had nothing to do with the Arvizos; and 2. because there were Michael Jackson fans on the jury. Some of them went to parties ran by the fan clubs after the verdict. No one wants to put a celebrity in jail.
I can give you a quick answer to the Jordie situation: he didn't want to face Michael Jackson in court. Why? Well, I'd have to be in Jordie's head to understand that! You say because he had something to hide; I say it's because he'd moved on with his life and did not want to face his abuser. You discount Jason Francia yet he testified under oath. His silence wasn't bought, apparently...
If we are in the game of evaluating mindsets, explain to me this: why did Michael continually plead the 5th with regards to molestation accusations, as in his 'Video Nasty' as seen at the News of The World tabloid website? Why did he not give a deposition, a harmless little deposition? Why did Norma Staikos flee? Why did Jermaine Jackson discuss Michael holding his nephew (from 3T) in an odd, disturbing way on a bed following Dee Dee Martes' death? Why did Michael settle with the Francias? Please don't say it's because of the media attention!
Take a look at the picture of Jordie's description which has never been shown in its entirety on fansites. Why did Jordie mention Brett Barnes? How can a child come up with some of the shit he came up with? It's a little too detailed for it to be 'brainwashing' by Evan Chandler, a dentist with NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO IMPLANT MEMORIES OR OF HOW TO USE A PSYCHIATRIC DRUG!
Michael was a pedophile. I have more to come...
As for the substance of your entry, you're focusing on crap that isn't even relevant to molestation. Those two books are not an indication of MJ's sexuality, the straight, legal porn from 1991-2003 is indicative of his sexuality!
As for them being locked in a safe, he probably just grabbed a bunch of books and put them their. And I believe his comments that were in the book, and so did the jurors. Those 2 books are irrelevant!
Jordie, Ray, and Evan didn't testigy because they were scared they would get caught lying! They didn't testify in 1994 or 2005. In fact, Gil Garcetti tried to get the law changed so he could IMMEDIATELY force the Chandlers to testify, but he was unsuccessful. Evan only wanted money, and never had any intention of seeking justice because he knew he was lying!
MJ settled with the Francias because he and Sony DID NOT WANT THE NEGATIVE MEDIA ATTENTION! The Francias threatened the lawsuit a few months before HIStory was released. If their story was so credible, then why wasn't MJ indicted? In fact, Jason emphatically denied being molested, and complained about the scare tactics the cops used on him. The fact that he had nothing incriminating to say to the grand jury, and that the cops didn't try to press criminal charges, speaks volumes. And you say that Blanca was "exceptional" on the stand? Are you kidding me? She and Jason's testimony didn't match up, she had no credibility due to her lying to the tabloids, and nobody believed her!
Here's an article on Francia:
http://mjthekingofpop.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/jason-francia-forcing-him-to-remember-it-right/
As for the description of MJ penis, we've already covered it in 3 parts on our blog. If you had read Jordie's interview with Dr. Gardner, he mentioned taking several baths with MJ, and seeing MJ's penis while he was NOT erect, yet he said MJ was circumcised! So you're argument that he only saw MJ's penis while erect is garbage! Do some research!
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-always-afraid-to-ask-part-1/
MJ plead the Fifth because he didn't want people asking him why he hung out with so many children, the sleeping arraignments, etc. He knew those depositions could be leaked to the press. It's very common for people to plead the Fifth to avoid embarrassing questions, not because they're guilty.
If MJ is a pedophile, than I guess he's the only pedophile in history to only molest 1 child (Jordie Chandler), and he was lucky enough to find a victim whose parents wouldn't seek justice!
Interesting. I have never seen the entire drawn description on the web, and all the other stuff surrounding the drawing is really telling, especially his description about Brett Barnes and his genitals. Why would he mention something like the way Brett masturbated--very specially I might add--and that he would say "look look...etc" unless he was told by Michael. Evan wouldn't have known that, and he sure as hell wouldn't be able to implant memories in his head of that (that whole Amytal story is BS in my opinion, there was no freaking evidence of that that was used and that would be the smoking gun evidence of century; anyone still thinking that is true is stupid. Have you read Alex Constantine's blog? He freaking destroys Mary Fischer's credibility, she is a pedophile sympathizer and Dr. Ralph Underwager who she talks to in her piece was a former NAMBLA official. I think she was hired to write that sham piece.) Same goes with the vaseline on Brett's rectum. Where the hell did he get that from?? It's all just too much for a kid to know or to make up.
I think it would be EXTREMELY RISKY for the Chandlers' alleged "extortion" plot to ask for Brett Barnes to get a medical exam! Wouldn't that destroy their claim and any ablilty for them to get money from Michael by alleging something that could be completely proven false? Why would anyone do that if their goal is to get money?
I think Jordie knew what Michael's genitals looked like. I don't think the circumcision issue is that big of a deal. Like you pointed out, foreskin varies and Michael could have had thin foreskin that did not completely cover the glans (head) of his penis (the autopsy said "appears uncircumsized; I've seen autopsies that were pretty sure about whether a penis was cut or not, so that says something to me that Michael could have had thin forskin that didn't cover his glans). Also the arousal issue is a good point. In Taraborelli's book, he even said that everything--the pink/brown splotched testicles and the short pubes--matched, except the circumcision. And pink and brown is a pretty specific description that no one could have known unless it was said or shown.
My feeling was that his description was probably accurate enough for a slam dunk civil trial (thus the settlement, which people say was forced upon Michael but I don't buy that, legal memo by T-Mez or not. If you read Chris Andersen's book, he talks about the insurance company Transamerica who, as early as November of 1993, Michael's people had contacted to negotiate covering any settlement and legal costs, but Transamerica felt that sexual impropriety was not covered by his personal liability insurance. Johnnie Cochran then wrote a scathing letter to them saying basically if they don't help, Michael with take every legal action against them [pgs 336-338]. Suffice it to say, I believe Michael had knowledge of a settlement and his personal legal counsel--including Johnnie Cochran who wrote the letter to Transamerica--were not overruled and hoodwinked about settling with the Chandlers), but reasonable doubt (and celebrity) would probably cause jurors in a criminal case to acquit him. I remember reading a Maureen Orth piece and she talked to 1993 prosecution sources that said the photos were their strongest evidence, but Larry Feldman was "sitting pretty" because all he had to do was supeona them for the civil case and Michael would settle. It appears they were right.
As for the 2005 case, I don't believe that the state would have just shown the pictures of his genitals to embarass him. That's bullshit because their careers were on the line and they had credibility to maintain. The photos obviously showed a distinguishing mark that would have made people realize that there was no way Jordie could have known these marks unless he had intimacy with Michael. Circumstantial evidence at its best, I presume.
@ Anonymous
You need to chill out, really. Obviously you know little about child erotica and how pedophiles collect things that pertain to children but are non-sexual. Those books may not have been child porn, but they definitely fulfill the category of child erotica. And child erotica is much safer to have than child porn, as any NAMBLA newsletter will tell you. Just click Desiree's link and download the Lanning pdf. I did and I actually read the thing, and Michael fits many characteristics of a preferential child molester. Normally, anyone can fit 1 or 2 characteristics, but dude fits MOST. And coupled with the fact that he was always hanging out with and collecting "special friends" and was accused of molestation, Michael was probably a pedophile. Read between the lines.
And you say that no one wanted to testify because they would be caught in a lie. Isn't that the same as Michael taking the Fifth? In a deposition, you either tell the truth, lie and risk penalty of perjury, or take the Fifth. Why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide? Do you know what the Fifth is? The right against self-incrimination. What did he have to hide when he was asked about his relationship with young boys if it was all "moral" and "pure"? Why the freak would he be embarrassed if nothing was going on? The media you say? Bullshit! He was never embarrassed parading Brett Barnes through his trip to Africa and other places without Brett's parents, never embarrassed to be seen with Jimmy Safechuck all through the Bad tour and being affectionate with him; he was never embarrassed to be holding Emmanuel Lewis like a damn baby for the whole world to see, and he was never embarrassed to be seen with young boys over any woman his entire career! So why would he be embarrassed to answer any questions under oath about his relationships with young boys if it's all pure and innocent? Because he had something to hide and he didn't want to risk perjury charges, thus he invoked his Fifth. Yea, you speak of the Chandlers avoiding testifying, but make no parallel to your charge of "being exposed of lying" toward Michael's evasion of those questions pertaining to his relationships with young boys. That's hypocrasy.
No one will no why anyone acted any specific way and why they chose to handle this a certain way, but to act like there is absolutely no penumbra of guilt in Michael Jackson's case, you need to wake up.
@ J-M-H
If MJ knew he was guilty, and that the description would match, then why didn't he settle the case BEFORE the strip search? Why didn't he give Evan the $20 million dollar film deal in August 1993? Why did MJ request that the civil trial be delayed until AFTER the criminal trial?
MJ plead the Fifth to avoid leading, embarrassing questions that would be asked about his lifestyle, and would be leaked to the press. If Barnes would have been molested, do you honestly think that he would have so passionately defended MJ in the 2005 trial? What, are you gonna say that MJ paid him off? Are you kidding me? If YOU had been molested, could any dollar amount pay you off?
As far as the description, if it would have matched, he would have been arrested. Period. End of discussion. He said MJ was circumcised, when he's not. And he did NOT guess whatever blotches he claimed to have seen. Please open the links I included in my previous comment.
As for Sodium Amytal, Dr. Torbiner didn't deny it as you would expect. Evan claimed in his taped convo that he had other people helping him, that were waiting for his word. Even if it wasn't used, Jordie still lied, and that's why he legally emancipated himself in 1994! He didn't speak to his parents for years, and in August 2005 Evan tried to MURDER Jordie! They got back in touch when Evan needed money, and his health was in decline.
If you had read Dimond's book, you would have known that Evan used "reverse psychology" to get Jordie to admit being molested. He LIED and said he bugged his room, and already knew of it. If Jordie admitted it, then Evan wouldn't do anything. But if Jordie denied it, he would destroy MJ. So Jordie was trapped into lying! And Rothman coached him in his office as well (per Geraldine Hughes).
One more thing: if MJ was guilty, then why did he subpoena Ray Chandler in 2005? Why didn't Sneddon subpoena him? According to your theory, shouldn't MJ have "paid off" Ray Chandler?
@David:
Wow, you are really shrill. Your whole argument is typical fan 'doo doo', as Michael would say.
Michael Jackson was a homosexual, first of all, and the books go to his love of males. I don't even think we need to discuss that anymore but if I may: his two marriages were shams. That's not the tabloid media telling me this; it's observation. Prince was just as effeminate, if not more, and yet he never battled gay rumors like Michael did. Hmm, I wonder why? Straight my ass. If you believe that, I have a couple of things I'd like to sell you...
Anyway, I find it laughable that you are here (or there) attempting to argue 'mentalities', as if you are in-tuned with Michael Jackson (bullshit), the Chandlers, or any of the witnesses/boy victims. I only care about actions because actions are tangible and can be documented.
That's the arena I play in, pal. Last time I checked, Michael wasn't conducting some sort of beyond the grave telepathy with his 'fans'; you will never really know his mentality. I mean, I can watch him in the 'Video Nasty' and speculate that he was scared shitless when asked about Jordie, Brett, and Mac Culkin due to his body language but it's still an opinion.
Once again you are speculating with regards to the books. You cannot deny that he possessed books with naked genitals of young boys photographed so you have to supply 'Fan Theory': Michael had the books, yeah, but he didn't look at them! BS... that was concealment and you know it. I believe Michael was sincere in his inscription in BWBB; it's common for pedophiles to have an idealized view of children. So it's not out of character.
@David (cont'd):
Well, if Evan was only after money, he sure didn't sound like he was in those crudely edited (by Pellicano) phone convos with Dave Schwartz. He sounded like a concerned father whose life was being ruined by Michael Jackson. I don't know if you read the convos but they make Evan look good.
I am sure Michael settled the Francia lawsuit because he wanted to avoid negative media attention; he and Sony Music. I loved his petrified face when he said: 'I've been told there are no others'; good fun. One could reasonably assert he knew other boys were out there, especially given that he went on to pay one of them. Why no one pushed for criminal charges? Well, that's playing that mind game again, David, but I guess I always thought it had something to with the idea that no jury would want to put someone behind bars for tickling testicles, thus making it a waste of time and money for the state.
Jordie never said anything about seeing Michael's penis flaccid or erect in that Gardner interview. His description as in the photo from MJWML is just too damned detailed for a kid, even a 'brainwashed' kid, to make up, especially the Brett Barnes bit. Yeah, I'm sure he made up everything about Brett! Also, you act like you know more about Michael's penis than a young boy who claimed he could identify a marking (even knowing it was beneath Michael's penis?) and later got a huge settlement. Really? Well, okay, but I know who I'm believing and it sure as hell isn't a Michael Jackson fan.
As for pleading the fifth, people plead when they don't want to perjure themselves on the stand or under oath. That's what the fifth amendment is for; did you think Mark Fuhrman, taking the fifth in OJ's case, was trying to avoid 'embarrassing questions' re: using the N-word but not that he was guilty? Like the photos of Michael's penis, the tapes of Fuhrman using the word repeatedly was a smoking gun in his guilt. I'm sure if Jordie had pled the fifth, you'd say he was lying.
Lastly, Michael would not be the only pedophile in history to be unprolific. Well, I do believe he was quite prolific but that's besides the point. Not all pedophiles molest children or even great numbers of them. I linked Lanning's FBI write up in the post. Please read it. It's like a Michael Jackson biography.
Anyway, have a good one, David. I'll keep writing my side but you guys are so delusional it's ridiculous...
@J-M-H:
You are always bringing something intelligent to the table. Thanks, girl. ;-)
@David:
Regarding Brett Barnes, my next blog entry is about his lies. It's a common occurrence for a molestation victim to develop sexual feelings for his abuser. I think that is what happened in Brett's case. Jordie knew too much or said too much about Brett Barnes--including suggesting he should get a medical exam?--for me to believe there was never anything untoward happening between he and Michael.
Brett lied on the stand. It's speculation, sure, but I don't think he was telling the truth. His combativeness and answers belied just an innocent relationship with Michael Jackson...
I think, at the end of the day, no one knows and it turns into being complete selective attention. But I think you are delusional because you worship Michael Jackson. His music is good and he was an amazing dancer but really, there isn't much difference between he and Gary Glitter.
@ Anonymous
Thank you for that response, it provided many a chuckle. You are wrong, as I said previously, to assume to know why someone did what they did. That is fallacy in your own logic at your attempt to defend a man that has more than a reasonable amount of suspicion surrounding his relationships with young boys.
You say if Michael was guilty, why didn't he pay the Chandlers off before the strip search. Simple, because he assumed he could get away with it but it got out of hand. Pellicano was known as the guy who could solve all problems, using any means necessary, correct? Isn't it likely (well, more than likely) that he promised to take care of this situation for him? Well clearly that's what he had been doing when he spent from July to August negotiating and taping phone calls. Which goes into something else. Tell me why Michael---please, please---if this man was extorting him with an allegation of molesting his son that wasn't true (and could presumably be proven as such), why didn't he go to the police?? Here is this allegedly crazy man saying he did this horrible thing, why not report it to the police, why STILL NEGOTIATE? Not only did Michael not report this to the police when he and Pellicano at the August 4th meeting were told it was about him being accused of child molestation, he continued to negotiate until August 17, which was, what, a week before the media got wind of this whole thing? That makes absolutely no sense to me if he was innocent. He could have easily defeated a freaking dentist alleging lies, but he still negotiated. If you have ever read Victor Gutierrez's book, there is a document that was written by Evan about the "extortion" charge levelled against him. It's pretty convincing, and it is no wonder law enforcement thought the extortion charge was complete garbage. I personally think that Pellicano didn't want anyone to know that his client was a pedophile and that's why he never once--even though he "thought" Evan was an evil extortionist--went to the police. It was more like damage control in the media for them to finally say extortion. The timeline doesn't help Michael.
I'm glad to see that you are realizing that the Amytal story was complete bunk, and that there is no evidence that that was used, because there isn't. No DEA form, no witnesses, nothing to even remotely link the usage of Amytal in this case. Funny how outside of Mary's article, there has been virtually no mention of Amytal or even the allegation of Amytal use. I would think T-Mez would have harped on that one loud and clear, and that shrill moron Aphrodite Jones as well. But alas, not mention of Amytal. Your use of the phone conversations is laughable, because when if you read the ENTIRE phone conversation transcripts--and not what Fischer or Hughes cut and pasted together--Evan doesn't come out as a bad guy. I personally was pretty surprised at that; I thought that I would read irrefutable evidence of a greedy man out for money from Michael Jackson. But he came of as extremely sympathic and caring, and never mentioned money. What was more curious is how on that entire tape, the only tape irregularities were in Evan and Dave's conversations, particularly when Michael was brought up and Evan no doubt was probably going to say something about Michael that would make people wonder what exactly was the nature of his relationship with Jordie. Impropriety, my friend, impropriety. Michael Jackson, accused pedophile and Pellicano, world expert in tapes and tape recording. Coincidence, I think not!
@ Anonymous
Once again, your defense of Michael's taking the Fifth carries no weight. This was a man that flaunted his relationships with young boys for all the world to see; a man that clearly preferred the company of these boys over any woman. Some would argue that the reason they believe Michael never harmed a child is because he was so open with his relationships with them! So why, why, why would he be afraid of any questions if he has nothing to hide? What would be embarrassing about something that he flaunted anyway, that to him was all "moral" and "pure"? It's because he didn't want to perjure himself. He had something to hide and that was his unhealthy attraction to the young boys he consistantly slept with. Even Wade Robson on the stand admitted that Michael had routinely talked about the propriety of children sleeping in the bed with him (but of course he had convenient memory lapses as to when these talks with Michael occurred). Even Zonen was taken aback by that admission! It had nothing to do with "leading questions" being leaked to the media, that's bullshit and you know it. That makes no sense. It looks more suspicious to take the Fifth to avoid "embarrassing, leading" questions than to freely admit and defend your lifestyle choices. But Michael could not admit his lifestyle because it was immoral (as Jesse Jackson had said about his sleeping with boys) thus he used his right against self incrimination.
You say Brett Barnes wouldn't have defended Michael if he had been molested. I beg to differ. There are many victims of molestation that grow fond of their molesters, particularly if they are older and the molester is feeling some void in their life. Read the Lanning pdf, please. And Brett Barnes was horrible and combative on the stand, and had some interesting moments that were, in my opinion, revealing to his relationship with Michael. How can't you answer why you stopped sleeping in the same bed as Michael? Why did he get all discombobulated over that question. "It would be pure speculation if I answered..."? Yeah right! And he admitted that when he was 19 he not only slept in Michael's bedroom, he shared his bed! "Yeah, I did" was his answer. Wade said he stopped when he was 13 or 14. Sure nothing was going on; Brett probably was in love with Michael and that's why he quit his job to testify. That would be my guess. And still you have no explanation as to why the Chandlers would mention Brett's genitals, the way he allegedly masturbated, the use of vaseline, and that he should get a medical exam to prove their claims, if all that could have been unequivocally proven to be false had they made it up? You don't think that it was strange, not to mention dangerous, for Jordie to mention all of the Brett business? he obviously was told this by Michael. I would never risk a payday by alleging something that would get me laughed out of court.
@ Anonymous
Please don't mention Geraldine Hughes. She knows nothing, she only thinks she does. Why didn't she come out sooner if she had evidence of Rothman coaching Jordie to lie? Why not got to the media during the height of this scandal and blow it all open? Because she knew nothing. Her book is so illogical and so poorly written, not to mention she used Mary's piece as her main source. Was she not one of Mary's main sources? so why would she have to cross reference to mary's piece? Seems to me that Geraldine and Mary are like a snake that ate its own tail-- you don't no where their story begins or ends so both nullify each other, thus they are useless sources for information. By the way, Hughes claims that she heard Rothman coaching Jordie to lie? But I thought that Jordie was implanted with false memories using Amytal? Why would he then need to coached into lying by anyone if they were his "memories" of being abused? See, if it doesn't make sense than it's probably not true. So either your beloved Mary Fischer's Amytal story is bunk (which it is) or Geraldine is lying. Take your pick.
You don't know why Jordie emancipated himself, so don't act like it. And I highly doubt it was for "lying". I don't think lying is a valid legal reason for emancipation. How do you know Evan was trying to murder him? Murder implies malicious intent. If you knew Evan had the mens rea to commit homicide against his son, well you should have been there to protest the judge's decision to refuse the request for a restraining order.
I stand by what I said previously regarding Michael's penis. Enough to win a civil trial but maybe not a criminal. Still doesn't explain why on earth the prosecutors would want to bring in a picture of his penis if they would have been laughed out of court since it presumably didn't match Jordie's description. Obviously it did and Michael's lucky that the state was denied the opportunity to show it in open court. I find it interesting that Jordie would be told by Michael that Brett's penis was uncircumcised and that he played with his foreskin. That is such a distinction between Jordie's description of Michael as circumcised and his description of Brett as uncircumcised. Clearly Michael saw fit to mention Brett's difference, maybe Michael viewed his own penis and foreskin as different in comparison to Brett's. Which would lead me to believe it was because his foreskin was so much thinner and did not cover the glans as much. It did say "appears uncircumcised" on the autopsy report. Jordie could have legitimately thought he was circumcised, both during an erection and flaccid (because of his possibly thin foreskin that didn't cover his glans).
@Anonymous
God there is people so naive in this world!!
Yeah he had straight porn. And...?!
Honeychild I have gay friends and even them see straight porn! They like more the straight men in the magazines because they are more "macho"! As some straight men see gay porn!
Sexuality is confusing and it´s not so black and white like you think, child!
I´m not saying he´s gay but you cannot use the porn magazines as a proof that he wasn´t.
Desiree and others, there are proof that Michael was really innocent you could believe that! FBI knew since 93 that he was innocent, but unfortunately the money talks louder...their report is on net you can check it. It´s a pdf document.
It´s tue that his behavior with kids was weird, but he never touched them inapropely.
Sue:
You are right about the straight porn. Many straight men in the US like lesbian porn because they won't have to look at other men with women. Michael had--I believe--little to no lesbian porn; I thought that was weird. I thought maybe he, too, just like you said, was looking at the men! ;-)
As for the molestation allegations: I've seen those FBI documents and they are redacted to the point you can't even decipher what they are saying.
Here's what I think: I also agree Michael acted 'weird' around young boys but I don't think he was innocent with regards to Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia. I think the FBI didn't really want to dig too deep into Michael's actions with kids and I also think they just couldn't find any evidence he'd violated federal laws, like having child porn or the Mann Act. The US FBI doesn't deal in molestations that occur within a state so even if he had molested a child, they would be beyond their jurisdiction.
Really, Sue, I think Michael molested boys. Do I think that makes him a horrible person? Well, of course not; everyone can change. I think that is why he enlisted the help of Dr. Farshchian and the usage of Depo-Provera...
I am an MJ fan but am not quite decided what to think re the allegations. In my view, if it weren't the Jordie settlement, I won't even consider that the Arvizos could be telling the truth. On the other hand, if the Arvizo case weren't that ridiculous, I'd be more inclined to believe Jordie.
My two cents:
Regarding the porn - I think that if the hetero magazines cannot be 100% telling that he was hetero, neither can the books that contained nude males be telling that he was gay. Also, if I am not mistaken, there were books that contained nude/semi-nude females as well. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the sexual material they found on his computer and the porn dvds exclusively of a heterosexual nature? They found no gay porn and no paedo materials. If the gay guys are so interested in hetero porn, who is gay porn for then? hetero women? :) Who is paedo porn for if not paedophiles?
Re the description: The fact that Jordie knew details of MJ’s anatomy does not prove he was molested. Also, the things he knew about Brett did not necessarily come via MJ. Why do you dismiss him knowing all those details from Brett himself? Did Jordie even allege that he knew those details from MJ?
Since you rely on evidence from his book, what do you know about MJ's case against Victor Gutierrez? How and why did he lose that case against MJ?
Finally, if you believe, as you state above, that MJ was not an evil soul and that even if (some of) the allegations are true, he did try to change and do something about it, and none of the kids’ lives was actually destroyed and they moved on, why digging up this now? MJ has his certain merits as an entertainer and humanitarian and he has these uncertain, albeit very serious, flaws. It’s quite hard to decide now, years after everything happened, without witnessing anything – testimonies, trials etc. – and without actually knowing any of the characters involved what the truth is. I know it is not exactly fair to mention this as an excuse, but child molesters who rape kids and scar them for life still have the right to remain unknown and not have the entire world passing judgement on them. He’s dead now, he stood trial, he ‘paid’ in many other ways for this, can’t we live with the question mark if we are not happy with the verdict?
@Sly:
I understand what you are saying in a holistic sense. It's like, 'Well, why not just leave it alone?'
But, see, it would have to cut both ways, then. There seems to be hundreds of blogs and websites and physical, tangible movements dedicated to 'Vindicating Michael Jackson'. These blogs call everyone who thinks Michael Jackson was guilty liars, extortionists, money-hungry, or, as I have been called, 'haters'.
It would seem okay for someone to try to clear the name of someone, instead of dirty it up, right, but in doing so you are dirtying up the name of someone else? I guess it depends on which side you are on.
Well, I do believe Michael being a pedophile does not make him a terrible person and I am not 'exposing' him because I get a sadistic kick out of sullying the name of the Dead. No, it's because I like truth.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that Jordie Chandler was seduced and molested by Michael and I think he was able to get away with it because he was rich/famous. I don't think that's right, esp. when he went on to make the HIStory album and Childhood and continue to deny, deny, deny unchallenged. If it were a commoner, they would've been thrown in jail.
I could live with, I suppose, Michael Jackson = pedophile? innocent? but if I can avoid ambiguity, I try to... Michael doesn't have the right to privacy in the US because he's a public figure and my view of his deceptions re: the 1993 charges render the whole issue of letting him rest in that regard moot. JMHO.
Re: Brett Barnes, there was never any allegation or evidence that he and Jordie saw each other in the nude so I don't really think it's fair to destroy the claims of molestation from a young boy on things that are fairly baseless, you know? As far as we know, Jordie spent most of his time with Michael singularly and was told, according to his allegations, by Michael of Brett's anatomy. Yes, in his convo with Richard Gardner, Jordie suggested that Michael could've been lying to him when he would tell him Brett would do certain things with Michael when Jordie was apprehensive about engaging in certain sex acts.
@Sly (cont'd):
Re: Victor Gutierrez, his book is loaded with documents and other hard-to-find evidence that makes the book a real treasure to possess. Of course, Gutierrez is a pedo sympathizer so he turned the whole 1993 case into a story of unrequited love between a pedophile and his boy lover. As for the lawsuit, Michael sued Victor G. for claiming he saw a videotape of Michael having sex with a young boy, his nephew Jeremy, Jermaine's son. That was the lie but the book MJWML was never banned or suppressed through legal action because Victor G. was a journalist protected by the First Amendment. Allegedly, Michael got his people to buy all of the copies from whatever bookstore they could get to.
Also, I don't think it's fair to really link, even cognitively, the Arvizos with Jordie Chandler. Those are two entirely different animals! ;-) The Arvizos were known to lie and Michael didn't care for Gavin, thus I don't think he'd molest him. I do think he probably was trying to get 'rid' of them. Why did his people take their furniture? WTF?
Re: the porn, no, you are right, Michael had no gay porn and the cached images on his computers were of nude women. Being cached instead of downloaded, we don't really know if someone else besides Michael saw them. Michael porn and erotica materials show someone who is at least bisexual. I think the whole thing cuts both ways. The fans who believe he was straight ignore the books mentioned in the above blog entry and the homoerotic books, esp. Man, A Sexual Study of Man, which was very graphic. Those like myself who believe he was gay try to understand the straight porn and the abundance of it. I can't explain it, Sly, but I go back to people like Arnold Klein and Liz Taylor who basically confirmed his homosexuality. I strongly believe Michael was gay. Really, all you have to do is look at him since he was a boy.
The only real thing that one can think of as showing him to be straight is his dubious marriage to Lisa Marie Presley. Stressing 'dubious'. There really is no hard evidence outside of the anecdotes of some that Michael was stright or gay. It's just my opinion, but I think there is just more of a penumbra of homosexuality and pedophilia than anything else!
Why dig all of this up now? I have no idea, really. It's fun to right about, I guess. It might seem cruel but the provocation of naysayers is the sometimes the price of super-celebrity...
While I can understand your quest for the truth, the situation is still one where you have only one credible child who spoke of abuse (Jordie). However, he has not been put through the scrutiny of a trial, and had he been put through it, it might have emerged that he is as credible as Gavin turned out to be. Still, even if he remained credible, it could still be that his folk were just more intelligent and planned the whole thing better than the Arvizos who behaved like loonies and added a lot of hilarious crap on top of the molestation accusations and lost all credibility in the end.
Wade to me is also very credible and he testified that he was not molested. Culkin the same, although I admit that MJ should have been quite stupid to molest Mac. Brett testified he was not molested, but you interpret his behaviour to prove your point, corroborated with Jordie's drawing and allegations - I still don't see why it would be impossible for Jordie to know those details from Brett or by witnessing them (btw, there are photos of both of them with MJ, so the two kids have crossed paths at least). The pro-MJ-innocent fans on the other hand interpret Blanca and Jason Francia's behaviour (her selling the story to tabloids and her testimony not matching her son's) to prove their point - who is right? You can't be 100% sure...And what about all the other kids who stayed at Neverland? None came forward with a credible testimony. It could be that they fell in love with MJ and/or that they were paid, but it could be that Jordie was also lying – not all lies have to be as bad as the Arvizo’s lies.
Even if I could find plausible that Jordie was molested and moved on and did not want to ruin MJ's life by testifying, I still can't quite get my head around Evan's behaviour. If he was not interested in money, like you say might emerge from the entire phone convo, why did he settle? OK, we are talking millions of dollars and each man has his price. So far so good. But why did he sue MJ again for even more money then? If all he wanted was justice, why did he not testify to destroy MJ as he vowed to do? Especially if he supposedly witnessed part of the abuse...Uncle Ray was also very present in the press to "spread the truth", still he also did not testify.
Also, if the Arvizos are a different kind of animal to the Chandlers and the two cases should not be linked, what does that say about the same DA that handled both cases and tried, quite hardly, to link the two?
Re Liz and Arnie: Some interpret Liz’s comments as confirming Arnie’s claims, some to the contrary – again, it depends on what people want to read into it. Arnie’s behaviour after Mj’s death was not the most admirable: selling stuff on Ebay linked to Mike, selling stories to tabloids about him. His assistant’s story to me sounds a bit ridiculous: this megastar was my soul mate, regardless of the fact that I only met him a few times in my life and hence barely knew each other. And to prove I am his soul mate, I’ll go and sell our romance to tabloids, after the soul mate is dead and hence cannot vehemently deny his alleged homosexuality like he did all his life...I don’t care if MJ was gay or not, but for his sake I really hope he was not this guy’s soul mate or rather this guy’s anything...
@Sly:
I will maintain that it is not really fair to link the 1993 case with the Arvizo case. They really are dissimilar. You mention Tom Sneddon and I really believe he thought Michael Jackson was a pedophile and he would have done anything in his power to put him in jail, even if it meant picking up a bogus case. It is fan theory that Sneddon pretty much conspired to create the whole case with the Arvizos and all of that. I don't know what was going on. I really do believe that Michael was trying to get rid of the Arvizos. What would be the reason for his 'people'--disregarding the truly ridiculous claims he was completely naive to whatever they were doing--to take their furniture, get passports or plane tickets (?), etc. if they were doing all of that on their own volition? What would they gain if it was without Michael's knowledge? What was the point of Geragos saying to basically 'Keep an eye on them; they'll want a payout, too,' after the Bashir documentary aired?
It is all just too suspicious IMHO. Sneddon dropped the ball when he only went after Michael when it came to a 'conspiracy'; clearly, he should have looked elsewhere for victims but his goal was to go after a 'child molester'. The Arvizos were terrible 'victims' with a history of lying for money. Does it mean they couldn't at all be victimized? Well, of course not.
Do I believe Michael molested Gavin? Hell no. His MO for molesting boys is that they are 'special friends' he likes; he did not like Gavin. Kind of cruel that he would use Gavin's cancer story to make himself look better if he didn't like the boy...
As for Jordie, I don't believe any of that is made up, as it is alleged by Michael's side. I think J-M-H summed it up pretty well above. You say Jordie was never scrutinized in a trial but neither was Michael. Every time he was asked about child molestation, he would plead the 5th amendment as to 'not incriminate' himself. If you are innocent, what do you have to hide? It seems like such an easy thing to do, to just answer questions. But he stayed out of the country, he never let the detectives take all of the photos they needed of his private parts (he behaved violently), he settled the case only a night or two before his court-scheduled deposition. He did all this to avoid what? What was he afraid of if he was innocent? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. If someone accused me of child molestation and I was innocent because it's 'not what's in my heart', I would fight tooth and nail! I wouldn't only make a public statement via satellite to the news, yet avoid any type of police questioning or depositions. Michael behaved like a guilty man. In my view, it's either that Michael was guilty as sin (which I believe) or he was mentally a pedophile, yet never molested a child. Either way, he had stuff to hide.
(cont'd):
Many fans bring up the whole 'Evan's behavior' question. If one would read his entire phone conversations with Dave Schwartz, they will see that Evan simply assumed his son was gay and that the age difference between Jordie and Michael didn't mean anything. He said he was a very liberal-minded guy. To me, that's reasonable, although I would never think that way. We weren't there to see Michael and Jordie together so we can't really judge Evan's thinking, really.
If my child was molested? Well, typically in the US, child molestation ends up like a he-said/she-said in court. They are very hard to prove without corroboration. You are right: there was only one child, Jordie, who ever sited abuse. Usually, as we all know, pedophiles and child molesters do not do things out in the open (and any exposure was done by accident!). Those who 'claimed' to see things ended up talking to tabloids and killed their credibility in the eyes of the public (Blanca Francia spoke to police first, and she maintained her story that she heard two voices in the shower, even though she said she only saw Michael's silhouette and mistakenly named Wade as the boy who was in the shower with Michael; she said she couldn't remember the names of all of the kids at Neverland). But anyway, typically you'd want the case to be so solid so a child never has to get on the stand and see their abuser and potentially 'mess up'. It would be devastating because it's pretty much then a guarantee that the offender will get off. So, if my child was molested by Michael Jackson and my child's case wasn't necessarily strong enough for a criminal conviction, I'd settle; I'd take the 'hush money'. Take the millions and get my child therapy! Of course, you'd like to put the bastard in jail but sometimes it's better to leave with something instead of nothing. I think that was why Michael was trying to stay the civil case (completely shutting down discovery and talking to witnesses for Feldman's side!) until criminal charges were brought. He knew the Chandler case was too weak for a criminal case (no credible corroboration) but it would have faired much better in civil court where the burden of proof is much, much lower.
As for Wade Robson, he said something quite interesting on the stand (yes, I believe him when he said he was not molested, although he may have been asleep or doesn't remember): he said Michael had had a conversation with him about it being 'okay' for a grown man to sleep in the bed with a young boy of no relation. The prosecutor Ron Zonen was SHOCKED, as was I, when Wade admitted that, although Wade had a convenient memory lapse as to when and how many times, etc. the convo was had. Nevertheless, why did Michael feel it was necessary to convince Wade if it was all completely innocent and okay? Seems like a grooming technique to me...
As for Brett Barnes, yes, I didn't believe him. He was very combative and it was like 'doth protest too much'! Unlike the other boys, Brett slept in the bed with Michael until he was 19. Wade stopped when he was 13-14? Brett was a man. Also, 365 days in the same bed/bedroom with Michael? Yeah... what for? Why did Michael need to do that?
I think of Jordie when I think of Brett. According to Jordie, he and Brett did know each other but it was casual and not very significant. They went to Disneyland together (I've seen the pictures) and he said he spoke to Brett on the telephone but only when it was handed to Brett by Michael. I don't think the boys were the best of friends. And I highly doubt that there is enough evidence to even speculate Jordie somehow saw Brett naked and masturbating. I think all of that was told to him by Michael.
(cont'd):
Think about it: why implicate other boys to make your false claim of molestation more believable if that could potentially be the downfall of the whole plan to get money? Evan Chandler was a highly intelligent man; why would he do something so stupid? As Jordie said, it could have been that Michael was lying to him about masturbating with other boys. I think that's likely, although I don't believe anything Brett Barnes has to say.
As for Ray Chandler, I have no idea why he didn't want to testify. I know Michael's side was desperately trying to seize his documents but failed. Clearly they had no meritorious reason. But think about it like this: why did Michael refuse questioning and a court-sworn deposition? People think Ray was lying so he didn't want to get on the stand but what about Michael? It cuts both ways...
Really, it's true: no one can be completely 100 percent sure Michael was innocent or guilty of child molestation. However, it seems as if there exists MORE THAN ENOUGH REASONABLE SUSPICION he had a peculiar interest in young boys. Fans harping on his 'innocence' are merely trying to cast doubt on the allegations instead of providing proof. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see Michael had a boy obsession, lost childhood or not. Anyone ignoring that fact is simply blinded by devotion to the man's music and craft, as he was extremely talented with an impeccable singing voice.
Actually, the Quindoys and the Lemarques both had stories about Michael molesting boys before the Jordie scandal ever made global headlines. I find that interesting. Of course, they all wanted to sell stories. I try to understand this behavior of some of the staff. Why not report it to the authorities? One conclusion is that they are all liars because anyone would report the abuse of children, right? But another conclusion could be that they really were frightened or that they thought of it as more salacious than criminal. *shrugs* I think the immediate assumption that they are all liars is too simplistic and prone to fallibility, seeing that they all say the same stuff. What about Orietta Murdoch saying Norma Staikos told her to keep her son away from Michael? It's just too peculiar... not everyone is a liar. Michael's side has so effectively shaped the discourse that everyone believing he was 'guilty' has negative intentions. Oh, to be rich! Michael was lucky...
(cont'd--last part!):
As for Arnold Klein and Liz Taylor, I'm not trying to convince anyone but Liz's repudiation of Arnie's 'outing' of Michael was an unintentional confirmation of the latter's homosexuality, Jason Pfeiffer notwithstanding. She talked about priests and all of that. The vast majority of people commenting under that story of her Tweet to Arnie Klein (anywhere on the web) see it the same way as I do. Why would Klein respond with so much bravado and so matter-of-factly to her Tweet if he was lying? It doesn't matter about his behavior following Michael's death. Liz's response was enough, IMO!
And I do believe Jason. Do I think they were soulmates? I don't know; I wasn't there. Maybe it could have developed into more had Michael lived? Maybe Michael was using Jason as a way to dip into the world of homosexual relationships (if he'd yet to have any)? People talk about Jason's weight but Michael was quite hideous before he died; that may even be an understatement. Why Jason went to the tabloids? Well, I don't know. Maybe he and Michael was some sort of one-time tryst and he was still reeling... *shrugs* I have no idea!
All we can say is that Michael was no stud by any stretch of the imagination in the Lady Department, pages and pages and pages of speculative gossip on Lipstick Alley, notwithstanding. His marriages were phony and offensive ploys and he had test tube children like many men who are gay, such as Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken.
But fangirls can dream, I suppose. Michael hid it very well... well, from his fans, at least...
Re Sneddon: Tom Sneddon wanted to be the one to put MJ in jail for something, anything. I don’t think he had anything against MJ in particular, at least to start with. Just big catch, big payday for him. Diane Dimond falls in the same category. I have no respect for such characters, even if they might happen to be right sometimes -it's not because they were trying to be right. They are not looking for justice, they are just looking for self-benefit at any price for anyone involved. And they might develop manias along the way - see Diane Dimond. There is no way I can understand why a reasonable person can spend so much time trying to incriminate one guy. (Btw, I’ve read about her (and Piers Morgan’s) allegations about MJ caressing Jordie in Monaco in your other post. Interesting. So, although the camera was very often on MJ and Jordie, it missed exactly all the juicy bits, otherwise we would have had proof of the abuse... And how ‘credible’ that although MJ was in the front row and next to the prince of Monaco (who obviously can be easily paid for his silence in case he witnesses abuse) and knowing he was filmed, mj still found it convenient to caress Jordie... Is the woman next to him June, because this would be even more ‘plausible’: June came to testify for the prosecution at the trial, yet denied the abuse/impropriety she must have witnessed in Monaco? And how convenient also that the only ones talking of what they’ve seen are dear Diane and dear Piers Morgan - tabloid royalty. I for one find it hard to believe that... It’s stuff like that that makes me doubt Diane’s stories.)
Re: dear Arnie and dear Jason. They lost beloved MJ, so what do they do- they auction MJ related car on Ebay, they ask for a bloody coat back or ask for some thousand pounds for it, they advertise whatever they do with MJ in the title (e.g. Arnie's convention thing), they sell a gay romance story to tabloids, just after the guy died. (I first saw Jason's picture in the Sun about one week after MJ passed.)My opinion is: I don't care what MJ did with Jason –I never mentioned his weight when I said he’s not credible, I don’t know MJ’s taste- but regardless of whether his story is true or false, he's still just another hypocrite making money off the guy. He sold the story to the tabloids- fine, not the first, not the last- but at least stop there if you are to be worthy of any attention. If he said - I had sex with MJ. Period. I would have respected/tried to understand him more. But him and Arnie claiming this is not actually them making money and getting media attention by disregarding MJ's privacy and wishes, but on the contrary? Why didn't say that while MJ was alive if he had been fine with it as they claim? That says something about their character and imo makes their credibility questionable.
Re Liz: I think not all thought that Liz confirmed what Arnie was saying, but I obviously agree she did not explicitly deny it either. I know LSA is not the best example, but there were plenty of posters thrilled with her confrontation of Arnie and saw it as a denial; then there's gaylord Perez Hilton who wrote smth of the kind "Liz denies Klein's claims etc." Plus, had Liz twitted “mj was hetero”, no one would have considered that as proof of his heterosexuality, so inevitably there is a bias there...
(ctd.)
Since we are on the gay issue, not only gay guys get test tube babies – see sjp and ronaldo – but I agree that in his case that adds to the suspicion. Re his magazines, you were surprised he had no lesbian porn if we are to believe he was hetero, well apparently barely legal has no men photographed, just women – so he couldn’t have bought those for the men. Also, the whole magazines-for-grooming-the-kids argument does not entirely hold: as far as I know, jordie did not claim to be shown anything and the one claiming he was shown was gavin, who almost certainly lied. plus there is Messereau’s obs that Sneddon had gavin touch the magazine when he testified before the grand jury , plus not all magazines had gavin’s fingerprints but they had mj’s...i know mj did not look like the most hetero of fellas, but appearances can deceive.
Re Evan: If Evan was such a nice, liberal and rational guy, strange that he fell out with his son and died alone...
Re MJ’s behaviour: he behaved weird by the norm re these kids (and re anything else actually), once such allegations occur, anything he did/said could become incriminatory. It's hard to go and testify that there were kids in your bed and you did not do anything to them when they say you did... how exactly can you prove your innocence? The bashir documentary is a good example of how mj can incriminate himself even when not provoked, and trying to put himself in a good light...
Re Gavin: I don't think that Michael was cruel in using Gavin for the Bashir thing. He helped Gavin way before the documentary aired or was even planned. Lots of stars now advertise the humanitarian work they do and no one brands them cruel, on the contrary. He paid for Gavin’s treatment, he invited him into his home – he can’t be cruel for including him in a footage (that he hadn't plan at the time he helped the kid) because we assume he’s paedo and did not fancy Gavin...
Did not mean to sound too combative, btw - and promise I'll eventually stop with this post :).
Dear Desiree,
I admire your persistence in order to prove that a man who had his days in court and found NOT GUILTY,is according to you guilty.But you would have my deepest respect if you devoted the same time in order to reviale to the world some REAL PEDOPHILES like for example ELVIS PRESLEY, Roman Polanski, R Kelly etc.Or your mission as a pedophile hunter is limited in slandering Jackson. Because that is really cheap and hypocritical.
Sly:
I think you're wrong about Sneddon. Tom Sneddon was a DA for Santa Barbara County for over 30 years, I believe, and when Jordie's allegations came to him, I think he legitimately believed the boy had been molested.
I don't believe he was after Michael because he was a superstar or weird or any of that. All of that is fan mantra, IMO; those are stories created by Michael's side to make him look like some frail, innocent, maligned Joseph Merrick type, which he was so far from.
Anyone would undoubtedly feel frustrated if it came to their attention, esp. an experienced DA with an amazing record of wins like Sneddon had, a child was molested; they had the evidence that they believed could put the offender away; and then, all of a sudden, because someone has money, power, and privilege, the case is shut down with a civil settlement.
Tom Sneddon believed Michael Jackson was a pedophile and that belief probably allowed him to be hoodwinked by the Arvizos. I think it's wrong to say he simply was conducting a witchhunt in 2005. I don't believe he was. He probably resigned following Michael's acquittal because he was embarrassed how terrible his case had crumbled and how terrible his 'victims' were. I think he really wanted to try the 1993 case; maybe he blinded himself to the flaws of the Arvizos, I don't know.
But to say he was out for a big payday? Nah, I don't buy it unless there is hardcore evidence even to speculate in that direction. The guy thought Michael was a pedophile; he had the drawn description of Michael's erect penis from Jordie; the photos of MJ's penis, all of that. He felt he had credible evidence; he wanted to put it in as evidence in the 2005 case. I think he was earnest when he went through those grand juries in 1993-94. He was trying hard but I don't think it had anything to do with stardom. We weren't there and we don't know what things he saw or who he talked to during his investigation! It could have been damning, albeit circumstantial...
(cont'd):
Michael settled; he had something to hide. In 2005, he was equating his acquittal with the release of Nelson Mandela and all of that? What? How arrogant is that? It was never a witchhunt.
As for Diane Dimond, I think she gets a bad rep, too. She has done solid reportage about Michael's child molestation cases. However, I will question the intelligence of anyone who believes the Arvizos. To believe them, I think, is overkill and you desperately want to link Michael as a molester of many, many boys. But Diane has talked to numerous witnesses and seen hundreds of documents. Like Sneddon, I think it's unfair to judge her motivations behind her sort of gung-ho belief. She, too, has seen things the fans have never seen so how can we say she's just a fanatic who's out for Michael's blood? And doesn't even believe what she says, for that matter! The woman is a reporter, a journalist, sleaziness notwithstanding, and the MJ cases were stories for her to probe. Of course I think she has more of a stake in it than other reporters but oh well, you know? I can't blame her.
I don't think she or Sneddon are out to 'incriminate' Michael. For me to believe that, I would have to disregard some of the things I've discovered that made me come to the conclusion the guy really was a pedophile. Michael always played the victim; it's getting old. People are so brainwashed. Even if you think he was innocent of the charges against him, you have to acknowledge the sort of air of pedophilia or ickyness--for lack of a better term--surrounding his obsession with young boys. Criminal or not, the guy was a pedophile. But I believe Jordie Chandler.
All the fans do is try to put themselves in people's heads and judge the motivations of anyone who thinks Michael is not some angel from Heaven. It's unfair. No one knows what Michael's penis really looked like, outside of that article they always quote which states the description and the photos 'didn't match'. That was someone from Michael's camp and I doubt the police and DAs were showing it around to Michael's side. How would they know? All of that could be--and probably is--PR spin. All of those articles came out after the settlement, right? When the Chandlers could no longer talk. It reeks of convenience to me. Fans don't know what his penis looked like. You can't just assume Jordie would have looked at it like someone probing a specimen in a lab. If I were a child being sexually abused, I think I would probably not look at my abuser's penis during the acts. Clearly, Sneddon thought Jordie was solid enough for him to ask if that evidence could come into court in 2005, 'unimpeachable' photos, as he said. If we are in the game of judging people's motivations, don't you think the fans should find it probative to ask why Michael was never, ever questioned by police and refused to be deposed? Jordie was questioned over and over again by children's services, detectives, therapists, etc! He was even questioned by someone who was a false child abuse expert; it was like all bases were being covered. Michael, never by anyone. All he did was the Neverland Statement where he could have been acting or lying; no one was there to challenge him. He continually pled the 5th amendment. Why did the idea of Sodium Amytal only come out after the settlement (once again when the Chandlers had been 'silenced')? If anyone had had that sort of info, it would have saved Michael millions of dollars! But it was just another bit of PR spin; Mary Fischer was hired to write that article. It's the same with Geraldine Hughes. Why did she not come forward with her 'evidence' to the POLICE instead of trying to give it to Pellicano? It's all bullshit. If we are going to judge people, we need to at least spread it evenly around...
(cont'd):
As for the World Music Awards, I don't think that video was the complete record of the goings-on at the show between Jordie and Michael. Clearly other people saw things. I don't know the difference between tabloids in the UK and tabloids here in the US, but regardless of Piers Morgan's reputation as a gossip king, if he said he saw something, and Bob Jones was in the video saying it, too, I have to believe him. It is completely likely that Michael stopped the affection when the camera panned to him. And they never said Jordie was being molested before everyone's eyes; they just said Michael was overly affectionate with a young boy to the point it got 'uncomfortable'. I think Diane just really believes Michael's a pedophile and she'll go where that takes her, regardless if it's faulty sometimes. It dampens credibility but what can you do? The real question is, why the hell did Michael insist a 13-year-old boy sit between his legs during a show? WTF? He's Michael Jackson; the show organizers would have provided chairs if he asked...
We will have to agree to disagree on Liz Taylor and the Klein/Jason Pfeiffer issue.
I will say I remember seeing the Liz story on Perez Hilton and he said she denied his claims but he didn't really support his own assertion. As for Klein and Jason, I still don't know why they did what they did.
I believe Jason and if/when someone credible comes out and refutes his story (outside of those former bodyguards *rolls eyes*), I will continue to believe him. I really think Michael Jackson was gay or bisexual (definitely not straight) and Klein, Liz, Jason, or Ian Halperin are not the first individuals to discuss his alleged homosexuality. All of that talk goes back to the 1970s!
Klein did behave unscrupulously and it may not have been in good taste for Jason to 'sell' his story. But neither behavior equals liars in every facet, although I can see how one can reasonably come to that conclusion. Forgive me but I don't believe you when you say you'd try to understand Jason or you'd respect him if he simply stated that he had had sex with Michael. No, I don't think Michael would have wanted to be 'outed' so Klein and Jason saying such a thing is ludicrous; but, again, that does not mean Michael wasn't gay.
The reality is that when you get to that eschelon of celebrity, most of your friends are two-faced backstabbers that you keep around because they know how to do what you say and tell you what you want to hear. Klein and Jason could be of that breed, although I really am of the opinion that Jason could've been star-struck and when Michael told interest in him, he wanted to tell the whole world? I don't think Jason is a bad guy, dumb maybe, but not bad...
Many posters on Lipstick Alley tend to be not too bright and it doesn't surprise me they thought Liz's tweet was a denial of Michael being gay. What I don't understand is why Michael's bodyguards are not poo-poo'd for selling stories but Klein/Jason are. That, too, is clearly a bias. The bodyguards are obviously making things up about girlfriends, they later denied all of that...
Sly:
I didn't notice your other comment until a few minutes ago, sorry :-)
Anyway, I just don't believe Michael Jackson was a heterosexual. He just was not. If anything he was bisexual. I mean, we are taking it back to the 1970s with the gay anecdotes and rumors. Everyone isn't a liar. Read Christopher Andersen book 'Michael Jackson: Unauthorized'. I think Michael wanted to be oriented towards women but he was gay.
I actually have been having an email correspondence with another Michael Jackson fan and she continually brings me info about Michael being gay. It's really convincing. I hope to right about it when I have time during school.
About Evan, Jordie had a relationship with his father for the longest after the 1993 allegations, unlike with his mother. Yes, he died alone as they say so we don't know what went down between he and the rest of his family. they say he was really, really sick and it could have affected his neural and psychological functioning and made him vicious to his family, so much so they didn't want to be around him. But I think it is faulty that many fans want to link it to the 1993 charges. I think that's ridiculous... Jordie tried to get a restraining order for longterm abuse and the judge refused it.
A lot of dynamics were going on. Ray Chandler says Michael Jackson coming into everyone's life was like a curse. I have to agree.
About Michael's behavior, actually the US sketch comedy show 'In Living Color' used to make fun of Michael's relationship with boys back in 1991, before any allegations ever emerged. They had a skit called 'Little Timmy is not my lover' based on 'Billie Jean' and 'Home Alone with Michael Jackson' in which Micahel is trying to get into the house and 'Mac Culkin' is torturing him, just like he did to the burglars in the movies. Also, as I mentioned the Quindoys and Lemarques had stories before 1993. After 1993, I think everyone probably was on alert to his behavior around kids.
Michael did use Gavin. If you read Shmuley Boteach's book, he says he never cared about Gavin. I have a pic on the blog showing the closed body language between Michael and Gavin. He used his cancer story to make himself look good in the Bashir doc. You may think he's entitled to do that, seeing he paid for med. procedures but I think it's effed up, IMO.
@Anonymous:
I said to leave a name using the Name/URL feature or at least sign it as from someone; can you read? I was going to delete that comment but it was too funny. Next time I'll delete comments and re-post them showing an IP address as the name...
No, I'm not slandering anyone and, yes, I do think Michael was a pedophile. There is a lot of evidence, albeit circumstantial, that point to his pedophilia.
What's funny is that you call Roman Polanski, Elvis, and R. Kelly pedophiles but neglect to call Michael one. LOL.
Roman Polanski, technically, is not a pedophile. He raped an underage girl and if the sex had been consensual, it would be considered statutory rape in the US. Polanski never re-offended and he does not fit the profile of a pedophile.
Elvis is a case I have not researched extensively and I'm assuming you are pointing to the fact Priscilla Presley was underaged when he began a sexual relationship with her. Once again, that does not denote a pedophile but statutory rape, which is a bogus criminal statute anyway. Elvis was a womanizer but he was NOT a pedophile. I can't believe you even typed that!
As for R. Kelly, who I like, he likes younger girls. I guess you could called it ephebophilia, which is the sexual attraction to adolescents and teenage youths. There is a track record there but the difference between R. Kelly and Michael Jackson is R. Kelly has never denied it. They asked him are you going to stop being with younger girls and he said 'Define a young girl.' He just sees them a sexy teens or something; he's never broke the law, actually, because as I said, statutory rape is a stupid idea. There is nothing criminal about sexual contact between a 15-16 year old girl (or boy) and an adult man UNLESS there is a sort of power/authority the adult has over the teen.
Maybe that's why R. Kelly and Michael got along so well! They both were into younger sex partners! *shrugs*
Michael fits, more than Polanski or Elvis (please), the profile of a pedophile. To call Polanski and Elvis pedophiles and not call Michael one is representative of the utmost stupidity. Michael had a type, he did the sleepovers and wouldn't give them up, he was charged TWICE with child molestation, settled with two alleged victims, his whole house looked like a kid's paradise, he drank from bottles for God's Sake. He collected little boys!
Clearly, there is more than enough REASONABLE SUSPICION that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I can't believe you could point to others and not MICHAEL!
Desiree,
Re Sneddon and his naked MJ pictures: Until we've seen the pictures (which I haven't and I assume you haven't either), we can't be sure whether the (hard to decipher Jordie description of MJ's penis) actually matched MJ's (erect) penis.
This may sound stupid,but if the description that Jordie gave is the one page with the scriblings you included in your post, where does he mention the infamous splotch that could only be seen only when MJ was erect?
I agree with you that there is suspicion in the Jordie case. I stated I am a MJ fan, but can't deny that I don't know whether Jordie lied or not. However, Sneddon bringing to trial a bogus/very very weak case makes me question his evidence in the Chandler case which we haven't actually seen.
Re the other cases invoked above, for the sake of clarity:
Samantha Geimer (the girl Polanski raped/had consexual sex with) was Jordie's age at the time of the (statutory) rape - 13 years old. The girl on the video tape with R. Kelly was allegedly 14 years old. So the victims were the same age in all of these cases, plus Polanski's victim alledged she was actually raped (Jordie did not). Since you quoted R. Kelly re the definition of 'young girls', the same applies to MJ's 'little boys' - he did not have sex with 3 year olds...if he did have sex with any of them.
R. Kelly also denied the charges, btw. Polanski couldn't have denied he had sex with the girl even if he wanted to - he had intercourse and anal sex with her, so I suppose biological evidence is hard to fight (he denied the rape though).
Sly:
Well, the description Jordie made that I showed in this post is the one he had made for his lawyers. There was a drawn and verbal description given in December, I believe, that Sneddon was trying to put into the trial.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf
I just think that it's not fair to link Arvizo with Chandler. Maybe Sneddon's Jordie evidence was too weak to guarantee a conviction but that doesn't mean the boy wasn't molested.
Yeah, I have never seen the pictures of Michael's penis but neither have the fans who are so vociferous about it 'not matching'. The only thing we know for sure is someone from the Jackson camp gave an unnamed quote to some newspaper about the photos not matching. I think I heard that Dr. Strick said he had to be told that the photos did match even though he'd been there when the photos were taken. I don't know... I saw on some pro-Michael's innocence vindication blog that he stated Michael's member was very oddly colored. He made it seem like there was a possibility it could have looked 'cow-like'. *shrugs*
I know R. Kelly denied the charges but the girl who was in the video went on stand and basically said she didn't even care. I am really liberal when it comes to that type of thing; I remember when I was younger, I used to crush only on older men. I think all girls are like that so when a 'young girl' dates an older man, I just don't think it is that big of a deal. She was 14, but did she look it? A lot of black girls look older than they really are...
I remember seeing Polanski's victim when she was the age of her rape. She really didn't look stunningly young when I saw the picture I'd seen. What he did was horrible but it scarcely qualifies him as a pedophile regardless of her age.
I think 'pedophile' is thrown about to loosely. I even had a time originally calling Michael that because he had never been psychiatrically evaluated. But if you were to read the Lanning pdf I had linked in the post, he really does fit the profile of a 'preferential child molester' (ie. pedophile). Polanski was a rapist but if she had been willing he'd be a statutory rapist, which is not even close to pedophilia. R. Kelly, I think, really does like younger girls. He married Aaliyah when she was 15 and he wrote the song 'Age Ain't Nothing But A Number', which she sang (I love that song! :-) ). He has issues but I wouldn't necessarily say it's 'criminal'.
I think the term 'young boys' is redundant and salacious, actually. If Michael had done what he did with Jordie and Jordie was a willing participant being 13, I think I'd be disgusted because there really is an element of the adult taking advantage but I don't think I'd sentence Michael to prison.
But that's why we have 'one size fits all' laws; if they weren't that way, too many children would be abused.
That drawing very probably comes from the sick mind of the Victor Gutierrez (I'm asking myself why you give relevance to someone who writes such disgusting and sick fan fiction honestly, unless you want to tell me that Jordan, after being molested and still underage, went to Gutierrez to talk about the lurid details).
BTW Jordan gave just one detailed description as a drawing to the authorities, and that was on september 1st, 1993. This thing, that I highly doubt was written by a 13 years old (see things like "my theory" -my theory what?- and the reference to "Orietta"), can be many many things.
Not last, a pure invention of the sick guy writing the book.
It's interesting that from this sketch is missing the famous blotch that sometimes is white and sometimes is black.
And Brett Barnes denied many times to ever been molested.
Anyway, your post turns out to be useful. You quote detective Ferrufino who reveals where she found the books, and reveals that a maid had the key to open the door and the closet.
Let's go one line foward!
12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?
13 A. We were able to get the key from -- the maid
14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to
15 unlock it at that time.
16 Q. Do you remember which maid that was?
17 A. I believe it was Blanca Francia.
Look who turns out to be the maid! Apparently, oh yes, Blanca Francia, who in her testimony reveals she quitted the job in May 1991, and say she never went back to Neverland!!!
Now, may I ask WTF is Blanca Francia doing at Neverland with the keys of MJ room and closet while MJ is on tour on the other side of the world and when she admit to have quitted the job two years before? And I think this is also before she was subpoenaed to testify o the Grand Jury in 93! Very, very interesting I have to say.
I saw some blah blah blah about Monaco. Did you read Bob Jones direct and cross examination? There goes his lies... People see, people see, but somehow then in court they didn't saw anything right?
And how comes that of all these people who "saw" something, nobody has a moral problem? Nobody that at least say "hey, I don't want to stay in this situation anymore" and quit the job right after seeing something "strange", not months and months after when they organize a way to make money out of it? Is it possible that despite knowing that a man is a child molester, all these people didn't thought something like I don't know... go to the police? at least talk with the parents to make them take away the kids?
Since basically everyone had the possibility to walk in while MJ was allegedly doing something wrong, the only thing to do is stay in the corner very silently and MJ could do something wrong in front of your eyes, nobody thought of take a camera with them and make a picture? or to stop what was going on?
We have many little children who were abused, and nobody of them, once grown up, feels hate for their abuser at least this much to avoid to put other children in danger?
We're all considering MJ behavior, but why not look also at the other "victims"? The only one with some problems and a therapy is Jason Francia, who until 1993 never even realized that tikling is a molestation (I still have to, personally). Mac went to Neverland many times, with MJ, alone, with the family, with the girlfriend... same thing, wade robson, brett barnes, the cascio brothers, etc. Sometimes when I read some stuff I really have the impression that people get secretly aroused by the idea of this kds being molested. Because there's no way that you molest many kids and then the vast majority of the kids defend you in court even when adult. You don't pay off a hurt child, the idea that all of them are so "cool" with it because they have been paid off is seriously offensive. The idea that somehow these kids were not damaged by an alleged molestation is just ridiculous. The idea that so many abused children never thought "what happened to me could happen to someone else if he's not convicted" makes no sense. Try to go to a website of survivors of child molestation and read the testimonies... that are the feelings of someone who has been molested by someone. I really don't know how to combine these feelings with people going to court many times or on TV, saying that nothing happened, that the allegations are ridiculous, and that they still spend time with MJ because they are friends.
Sonic:
If the raid on Neverland was conducted in 1993, it would be unlikely that Blanca Francia was the maid. Maybe Ferrufino was mistaken? I always assumed said maid would have been Adrian MacManus, who, I believe, was Michael's chambermaid at the time. They asked the detective if she remembered and if she was at the raid in 1993, clearly she did not remember. Blanca herself had some issues remembering who was in the shower with Michael (she said it was Wade Robson, erroneously)but she stuck to her story whole-heartedly! She was positive she had heard two voices in the shower, even though she'd only seen Michael's silhouette. I don't believe she's lying; she actually talked to the police FIRST.
Anyway, I guess anything is possible with that drawing, isn't it? Victor Gutierrez may have very well drew it himself for his book, although I doubt it. That's pure speculation and there exists no evidence to prove that that drawing is anything other than Jordie's handwriting.
The biggest issue one would have with Victor Gutierrez's book would be that he did not say that the molestation was a molestation, but a love affair ruined by Evan Chandler's greed. It's a sleazy slant on the facts of the case, sure, but the timeline of the book is very accurate. I don't believe Gutierrez saw any 'diary'; that's salacious. But his book is pretty solid. I have no reason to believe that drawing was done by him. According to Ray Chandler, I believe, that drawing was done on a napkin at the lawyers' office.
As for people 'seeing things', that's the most compelling argument for establishing reasonable doubt. Why didn't anyone say anything to the police? Why did they all come out in 1993? It seems insane that these people saw molestations but never went to the police! However, this is real life, not a TV show. In real life, witnesses have flaws and lapses in judgment. The Quindoys and the Lemarques had stories about Michael molesting boys years before 93. Strange. I think it's faulty to think that just because people see things and don't report it means they are lying. What about people quieted by the mob after seeing murders? What about mothers knowing their own children have been abused by a boyfriend yet never say a thing? In a perfect world, people would always report a crime; but since we don't live in a perfect world, that's not always the case. These people could have very well been intimidated or saw Michael's behavior with boys as more salacious than criminal. We always think of what we would have done but you never know how it was to work at Neverland.
As for Michael's alleged victims, it is most likely the boys don't see the predation as negative. Michael may have simply masturbated them, with them, or watched them do it and it really was like two boys. I think that's how it happened, honestly. Michael Jackson didn't scare these boys; he was creepy so any sexual activity most likely was seen as playful, not a big deal.
I linked a .pdf document in the blog entry by FBI agent Ken Lanning and if you read it, it discusses about victims actually going on the stand and defending their abusers. It happens all the time! Michael shelled out tons of money on these 'special friends'; I doubt all of it wasn't 'hush money'...
I don't think Bob Jones is a horrible liar. The thing is Bob Jones was put on stand and he didn't want to perjure himself if he had made that hair-licking detail up, since it was alleged by the Arvizos.
The thing about Bob is that he probably didn't know very much about Michael Jackson, only things that would make people wonder whether Michael was improper with boys. He didn't have hard proof and he never alleged (outside of the 'hair-licking') anything criminal. It was just suspicions.
I personally find Bob Jones credible. He stated that Michael did not like his own people, black people, and that was confirmed by others, including Quincy Jones. Michael called blacks 'splaboos'? Like WTF, seriously? Bob was a PR man and we have to understand that those in that business see a lot of things because they have to then go and whitewash them to the public. He said he didn't go to Neverland often because 'familiarity breeds contempt'; I believe he respected Michael Jackson but didn't like him as a person.
Bob Jones' book--which is interesting, although not very good--was an attempt to get back at Michael for the way he had been fired after working so long. I don't blame him, honestly. I hope Grace Rwaramba eventually writes a tell-all but I doubt she ever will. She likes Michael too much *rolls eyes*
I´ll discuss just some points of what you wrote now cause I do not have enough time.
1-Employers who say nothing is pretty different by people who do not report mob homicides and mothers that cover up for the molesting boyfriend.
First, they have no personal connection with the accused.
Second, many employers said they were fired because they knew too much, which make no sense. If someone knows too much you try to keep him under your financial and personal control (as mafia does) you do not fire him letting him free to go to the police. Plus, from what they say Michael must be the only molester with a locked room with an alarm who never goes inside the room, locks the door and uses the alarm, since everybody could go inside out without Mike noticing anything.
2- Assuming that the kids were not disturbed by ipotetical molestation episodes is still ridiculous, especially since we are not talking of one kid, that could ipothetically happen, but at least 3. And doesn´t match with Jordan story, where he said he was threatened and forced into the guilt feeling, which is a common modus operandi of molesters, but apparently in this story it has been used just with one. And I remind you that Jordan was 13, but the others were way jounger and between 9 and 12 this is not a "playful thing" and a kid feels it. This idea actually is pretty scary, you´re basically promoting pedophilia, "if the molester is nice and playful enough the child do not feel molested". Mmm... NO.
I can´t find the pdf you´´re talking about...
As for the drawing, you believe what you want. I prefer not to "believe" but to arrive at opinions through facts. And a hidden pedophile who writes sick fan fiction to me has credibility near 0. Plus, the way it is written looks as a reharsal, with "theories" and the name of Orietta, is wrong in one point (circumcision), misses the only detail known by the words of Sneddon (the spot) and all the other details are not confirmed by anyone. Nobody, as long as I know, ever talked about which was the factual "situation" of MJ under there, so there´s no confirmation that the other details are correct (...right?).
Could you provide me with the info about when esactly the other two families talked of "strange things" before 1993?
1
I'll answer to other points...
Blanca Francia. Yes, I checked, it was Adrian McManus. Netherless, I find interesting that Zonen in court, few minutes later the testimony of the detective, remarked the Blanca Francia detail, while esactly him less than one month before questioned in court both Francia and McMalnus. Short memory? O_O
And still, something is shady. Why the maid, whoever she was, had the keys of a private file cabinet where the investigators could find the two controversial books? Ok, I'm not going into conspiracy theories... I just think it's interesting.
I read the pdf, by now just the part about the victim bond with the molester and something else, pretty random, and the first thing that crosses my mind is that FBI investigated Mike and still nothing came out of it. Talking about the victims, this study proves that it can happen, not that for sure it happens, and I'm not a psychiatrist nor I conducted any form of interrogation with MJ or with the boys, boys that at the moment are pretty grown up and still defend Michael by the way (or do not accuse him if we still don't know who they are). We're not talking anymore of a group of adolescents, but of a group of men, sometimes married and probably some with children themself. As you can see in the document yourself the motives sometimes kids do not report is not "they thought it was ok", but fear (of breaking bonds, of being considered weird or gay), shame or guilt. These are feelings you can't just push under the carpet while you grow up, and still here we have three men succesful, with their own life in their hands and ready to defend MJ. The only one who reported problems is Jason Francia, who had the lightest experience if we have to believe the allegations and that in my opinion was convinced, maybe also in good faith, who knows, not saying they did it on purpose, that the tickling was a molestation by his mother and the police.
When I'll hear Mac or Wade or Brett or someone else that doesn't sound a psycho male-BilleJean coming out and saying they've been molested, I will be ready to change my mind.
Bob Jones. Bob Jones is a liar and this has been proven. If he actually came out with the book saying the licking part, you would believe him as you believe everything else he said and as you believe Guitierrez, and this story proves how easily "a lie becomes the truth". The only book I find interesting is All that glitters, since it's funny how the suspicions of an extorsion arise after reading it (and after the refusal of Ray C. to testify. Someone here seriously DO NOT want a child molester convicted!).
2
Then... How happened that Sneddon demand to show the photos in court has been dismissed by Melville is because he purposely, in my opinion, wrote the declaration contraddicting what he said in court, as a lawyer explain here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8044583
FILAN: Sure. They argued in their papers that they wanted to put that information in to rebut the notion that Jackson is very shy and very private. In court, they argued that they wanted to put it in to rebut the notion that it‘s impossible for a child to be able to see him in an excited state because it‘s completely innocent what goes on in the bedroom. You heard it yourself, milk and cookies.
Now, had they advanced that argument, it‘s to rebut the fact that nothing could have happened, it may have come in. But it‘s still so inflammatory and so prejudicial, and it has a huge “ick” factor. And I‘m just not sure, quite frankly, anyone could have dealt with it.
But the shy argument fell because the defense said that they did a transcript search, and the only time “shy” and “private” ever came up was once. And it was in one question, and the question was the same. So there was never even an answer to it.
Basically, his request was dismissed because he gave an obvious way to the defence to counteract (sorry, I'm not english or american and I hope is clear what I say).
I think he just wanted people think: look how much MJ does not want these photos in court!
But of course MJ did not want them in court... he, as well as all the rest of the world out of Sneddon, have no idea if the drawing and the photos matched or not and how, since the affidavit report for the strip search they gave him was redacted. Note that in the transcript, there's also a guy who was leading the investigaton in 1993 that says he didn't wanted (?!?) to look at the photos since "it‘s not exactly one of those things that you want to have sticking in your head" (WTH?!?) but "other investigators" said to him they matched. Boy, I would really meet some of these "investigators" on day or another. Just to understand if they exist.
desirèe: u call us BLIND but u r no better than us.
and u do not know anything about how things go in courtroom.
u are the one who should start being obejective.
and ur belief of fans being blind is absolutely ridiculus because there are so many other fans that are NOT that way even if they continue to believe he was innoncent-
get a life
Post a Comment