PLEASE CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO READ THE FULL AND UPDATED RUNDOWN ON MICHAEL JACKSON AND BRETT BARNES' RELATIONSHIP:
Brett Barnes redux: Michael Jackson's most special 'special friend'
Michael Jackson had 'special friends'.
Brett Barnes redux: Michael Jackson's most special 'special friend'
_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Jackson had 'special friends'.
Regardless of whatever his legions of fans believe about the pedophilia accusations marring his name, the most curious and bothersome aspect of their 'idol' is unavoidable: Michael Jackson collected little boys.
A quick and heavily redacted pictorial of some of Dear Michael's 'pals':
Emmanuel Lewis:
Emmanuel Lewis:
Jimmy Safechuck:
they say couples in love start to dress alike...
Wade Robson:
wade and the 'smooth criminal'
Macaulay Culkin:
they say 'jesus juice' makes you laugh, then cry
Omer Bhatti:
Although it was Michael's young celebrity chums--those who acted or danced--the public most recognized (of course, disregarding the most famous boy who ended the near-farcical 'innocence' of Michael's 'boy-collecting' habits), one of Michael's most special friends was an Australian mixed-race boy named Brett Barnes.
In 2005, Brett Barnes flew in from Australia, after having quit his job as a casino roulette dealer, to testify on behalf of Michael in his child molestation and conspiracy criminal case. Because the district attorney's office had put on stand individuals who claimed to have seen Michael molest or fondle Brett, he got up there and repudiated those 'stories'.
He was adamant he had not been molested and was never one of Michael's boy victims in his May 5th testimony:
19 Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in a sexual20 way?21 A. Never. I wouldn’t stand for it.22 Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched any part of23 your body in a way that you thought was24 inappropriate?25 A. Never. It’s not the type of thing that I26 would stand for.
Clearly, any predation by Michael would not be something Brett would 'stand for'. He continues, growing ever more defensive and combative at the idea of being a victim:
4 Q. Are you aware of any allegations being made5 that Mr. Jackson inappropriately touched you when6 you were with him?7 A. Yes, I am. And I’m very mad about that.8 Q. You’re mad about it?9 A. Yeah.10 Q. Why?11 A. Because it’s untrue, and they’re putting my12 name through the dirt. And I’m really, really,13 really not happy about it.
Brett Barnes was not happy!
Of course, taken at face value, one could reasonably believe Brett's testimony on the stand. He said very firmly that he was never molested and he'd stuck to that story since he was a child: Michael Jackson never touched him.
However, after reviewing documents, reading books and articles, and using a bit of common sense, Brett's above assertions seem to be more along the lines of 'doth protest too much' than truth...
Let's take it back to 1993.
In October of that year, Jordie Chandler--Michael's very first tangible alleged victim--underwent an evaluation by the late psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner, who was the world's leading expert on false child abuse allegations at the time. According to Gardner, Jordie was believable.
During the interview, Jordie curiously brought up his good pal Brett Barnes (pseudonym 'Tommy Jones'):
Jordie mentioned the possibility that Michael Jackson could have lied to him, using Brett--a boy of similar age and appearance--as a sort of motivator to get Jordie to engage in sexual activity when Jordie was hesitant.
'It's okay to do this because Brett did it, too,' or, 'Brett does this and if you don't do it, you don't love me like Brett does.' Perhaps along those lines, except Michael was not telling him the truth?
That is a real and legitimate possibility!
It is possible Brett Barnes had never done anything sexual with Michael but Michael told Jordie otherwise, which--even if Brett was never predated upon--Jordie Chandler was still a sexual abuse victim.
According to Jordie, however, he felt that it was Brett Barnes, not Michael Jackson, who was not telling the truth. Of course, this could all be Jordie's way of trying to not seem like he had been the only boy to engage in shameful, homosexual contact--him wanting to believe he was never the only one--but I doubt it.
I, too, believe Brett was the one telling fibs, although the alternative is logical.
The truth is Brett and Michael were very close. According to Brett's testimony, he would often fly alone from his home in Australia to be with Michael:
Anyway, in Victor Gutierrez's bombshell (and surprisingly accurate) book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, the author photocopied pages from Evan Chandler's 'chronology' of the events that occurred with regards to his son's alleged molestation. With Jordie's help, Evan typed up the multi-paged document for his lawyers but it was stolen en route to their law offices by the carrier and later disseminated to the media.
Contrary to popular belief in Michael Jackson fan communities, Evan Chandler did not give the documents to Victor Gutierrez and, if one reads the book, there is certainly no way it was written by Evan Chandler, especially since the English version is a translation of the original Spanish text first published in Chile, South America.
I photographed the documents as they appeared in the book. Please click each picture for a larger and more readable resolution and full details. Underlined text portions are for emphasis.
PLEASE DO NOT STEAL THESE IMAGES!
According to the chronology, while in a limousine ride to Neverland, Jordie witnessed Brett and Michael Jackson being very affectionate, to the point the two were hugging and kissing. Also, the document stated Jordie was intensely jealous of this affection and attention bestowed upon Brett by Michael, and of what seemed to be a 'closer' relationship between Brett and Michael than what he had with Michael.
That anecdote coincides with Jordie's assertion of a close, affectionate relationship between the two as stated in the above Gardner evaluation. Clearly, Jordie believed the affection existing between Brett and Michael mirrored the affection within his own relationship with Michael Jackson. He then reasonably assumed Brett also engaged in sexual activity with the superstar (Michael's own tales of sex with Brett notwithstanding).
Additionally, while in Monaco, states the chronology, Michael told Jordie that other boys--including Brett Barnes--had masturbated in front of or with him, all as a way to convince Jordie of the propriety of mutual masturbation.
As we see, the gratuitous references to Brett Barnes are quite peculiar.
Jordie, as was stated in the chronology and pretty much evident in the Gardner evaluation, had a sort of rivalry with Brett Barnes for Michael's affection, whether or not Brett was aware.
Is it not possible Michael exploited this evident jealousy to get Jordie to submit to sexual behavior by comparing Brett with Jordie?
As I included in my last expose blog entry, I will re-embed Jordie's hand-drawn description of Michael Jackson's erect penis because that drawing includes interesting evidence about Brett that begs for common sense analysis and probative speculation.
Please click on each picture for a larger and more readable resolution.
Of course, none of that is a crime, but it makes you wonder whether Brett and Michael were possibly in a relationship. According to the .pdf document about child molesters written by former FBI agent Ken Lanning linked in the last blog entry, it is not uncommon for victims of abuse to form relationships with their abusers.
Could this have been the case with Brett Barnes, who continued to sleep in the bed with Michael Jackson?
Sure, it all seems innocuous; Brett Barnes could've been having a slumber party with his good friend Michael and nothing improper was ever going on. Of course, Brett became fairly discombobulated when Assistant DA Ron Zonen asked him about when and why he stopped sleeping with Michael Jackson:
What does that mean?
Brett's answer is bizarre in that it deviated so greatly from the other 'special friends'. They basically said they grew out of sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson; by extension from Brett's own mouth, it's possible Brett would have slept with Michael until who knows how long, certainly past nineteen!
Taking all of Jordie's allegations about Michael and Brett Barnes into account, could it be possible Michael and Brett engaged in sexual activity that was no longer apropos when Prince, Paris, or Blanket Jackson also wanted to share a bed with their father?
If one is unconvinced that Michael Jackson's boy-centric sleepovers, including the ones with Brett, were less than innocent, Wade Robson revealed that the sleepovers were secretive, too, a secret between Michael and said 'special friend':
In sum, the entire body of this investigative blog entry regarding Michael Jackson's sexuality attempts to understand whether one of Michael's most special friends was a victim of his. If we quantify all of Jordie's accusations, Brett Barnes appears many times, to the point an intelligent person would be suspicious.
Was he a victim? Brett himself says no, although some of his conduct belies that protestation. Jordie insisted that Brett had to be in the same boat as he, given Brett's closeness to Michael--which was similar to his own relationship with the singer--and the stories Michael told him about Brett.
The Vaseline, the guilt trips...
We don't know for sure if Brett Barnes was ever predated upon by Michael Jackson. It may very well be that Michael's only victim at the time was Jordie Chandler and Michael lied to him about Brett in typical manipulative, pedophile fashion! The 365 days the boy spent with Michael while on the Dangerous Tour, where they shared a bed, according to Brett's sister, Karlee Barnes, could have been completely innocent.
However, when all of the evidence is put together, there seems to exist more than a reasonable amount of suspicion as to the propriety of the Michael/Brett twosome. All things considered, I would not be surprised if Brett Barnes grew attached to Michael as one would to a lover.
Interestingly enough, it was Brett Barnes who was at Neverland when the ranch was raided in 1993. He was a very, very 'special friend'...
ETA September 3, 2010:
Originally, I meant to add this truly apropos video from the hilarious late 80s-early 90s sketch comedy program In Living Color but I forgot! Here it is:
Let's take it back to 1993.
In October of that year, Jordie Chandler--Michael's very first tangible alleged victim--underwent an evaluation by the late psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner, who was the world's leading expert on false child abuse allegations at the time. According to Gardner, Jordie was believable.
During the interview, Jordie curiously brought up his good pal Brett Barnes (pseudonym 'Tommy Jones'):
Gardner cut Jordie off before he finished his final thought but he later added, along a seemingly similar tangent:JORDIE CHANDLER: "He said, also, during phase one--the telephone phase--his cousin would go along with him on the tour. And I spoke to his cousin one time. We just said hello."DR. RICHARD GARDNER: "Was his cousin a boy or girl?"JC: "A boy about my age, eleven or twelve."RG: "What was his cousin's name?"JC: "His name is Tommy Jones [Brett Barnes]; he was on the news if you’ve been watching, in defense of Michael."RG: "Tommy Jones. He’s thirteen now?"JC: "I think--no, I think he’s twelve."RG: "And he went on the concerts?"JC: "On the tours."RG: "On the tours. And he was on the news saying what?"JC: "He said, 'I will admit that Michael and I are friends and we do sleep in the same bed, but Michael has never touched me,' and, 'it's a really big bed'."RG: "So he spoke about his cousin. And what did he say about Tommy Jones?"JC: "He said that, um, like, if he wanted me to do something with him, he would say that Tommy did that with him, so that I would do it. And, like, if I didn't do it, then I didn't love him as much as Tommy did." [Jordie makes a heavy sigh.]RG: "Are you okay?"JC: "Yeah."RG: "Okay, fine, you’re doing very nicely. You know, we’re going to take a break but let’s try to finish this and then we’ll take a break."RG: "Do you think that Tommy Jones was lying when he went on television?"JC: "Yes."RG: "Why do you think he's lying?"JC: "Because Michael told me they did."RG: "Okay, but Michael said he did these things--"JC: "I mean it could be that Michael could be lying to me."RG: "Somebody is lying. Right? Because Michael was lying to Tommy by saying the opposite things, right?"JC: "Yeah, well one of them is lying."RG: "Who do you think is lying?"JC: "Tommy."RG: "Why do you say that?"JC: "Because in public, when he’s with Tommy, they're very close together physically and verbally and relationship-wise. And if one were to observe things in public, how they acted to each other, one would come to that conclusion, that it was more then just a friendly relationship."RG: "Now, let’s go on. So that was the lip kissing. Then he cried--"JC: "He tries to make me feel guilty for--"
"Right. But somewhere on the trip I said, 'I didn't like when you put your tongue in my ear and grabbed my butt.' Once again, he started crying and making me feel guilty, and saying there's nothing wrong with it, and referring to the levitators and Tommy. I think he referred to Tommy and said Tommy wouldn’t care if I did that to him."Once I was finished reading the transcript of the interview, I had to wonder about several things, mainly what was behind the continued Brett Barnes references.
Jordie mentioned the possibility that Michael Jackson could have lied to him, using Brett--a boy of similar age and appearance--as a sort of motivator to get Jordie to engage in sexual activity when Jordie was hesitant.
'It's okay to do this because Brett did it, too,' or, 'Brett does this and if you don't do it, you don't love me like Brett does.' Perhaps along those lines, except Michael was not telling him the truth?
That is a real and legitimate possibility!
It is possible Brett Barnes had never done anything sexual with Michael but Michael told Jordie otherwise, which--even if Brett was never predated upon--Jordie Chandler was still a sexual abuse victim.
According to Jordie, however, he felt that it was Brett Barnes, not Michael Jackson, who was not telling the truth. Of course, this could all be Jordie's way of trying to not seem like he had been the only boy to engage in shameful, homosexual contact--him wanting to believe he was never the only one--but I doubt it.
I, too, believe Brett was the one telling fibs, although the alternative is logical.
The truth is Brett and Michael were very close. According to Brett's testimony, he would often fly alone from his home in Australia to be with Michael:
I often wondered why, when these boys also had sisters, the boys would go to Neverland or 'sleepover' with Michael on their own, as stated here by Brett and also in the testimony of Macaulay Culkin? It was quite a common theme...21 Q. Did you ever go to Neverland without a22 parent going with you?23 A. Yes.24 Q. So sometimes you would fly all the way from25 Australia to Neverland, is that right, by yourself?26 A. Absolutely.
Anyway, in Victor Gutierrez's bombshell (and surprisingly accurate) book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, the author photocopied pages from Evan Chandler's 'chronology' of the events that occurred with regards to his son's alleged molestation. With Jordie's help, Evan typed up the multi-paged document for his lawyers but it was stolen en route to their law offices by the carrier and later disseminated to the media.
Contrary to popular belief in Michael Jackson fan communities, Evan Chandler did not give the documents to Victor Gutierrez and, if one reads the book, there is certainly no way it was written by Evan Chandler, especially since the English version is a translation of the original Spanish text first published in Chile, South America.
I photographed the documents as they appeared in the book. Please click each picture for a larger and more readable resolution and full details. Underlined text portions are for emphasis.
That anecdote coincides with Jordie's assertion of a close, affectionate relationship between the two as stated in the above Gardner evaluation. Clearly, Jordie believed the affection existing between Brett and Michael mirrored the affection within his own relationship with Michael Jackson. He then reasonably assumed Brett also engaged in sexual activity with the superstar (Michael's own tales of sex with Brett notwithstanding).
Additionally, while in Monaco, states the chronology, Michael told Jordie that other boys--including Brett Barnes--had masturbated in front of or with him, all as a way to convince Jordie of the propriety of mutual masturbation.
As we see, the gratuitous references to Brett Barnes are quite peculiar.
Jordie, as was stated in the chronology and pretty much evident in the Gardner evaluation, had a sort of rivalry with Brett Barnes for Michael's affection, whether or not Brett was aware.
Is it not possible Michael exploited this evident jealousy to get Jordie to submit to sexual behavior by comparing Brett with Jordie?
As I included in my last expose blog entry, I will re-embed Jordie's hand-drawn description of Michael Jackson's erect penis because that drawing includes interesting evidence about Brett that begs for common sense analysis and probative speculation.
Please click on each picture for a larger and more readable resolution.
PLEASE DO NOT STEAL THESE IMAGES!
Disregarding the damning information about Michael's genitalia, notice how Jordie, once again, mentions Brett Barnes.
I should note, however, that the above description is NOT the same description given to the detectives working for the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Police Departments, the one in which District Attorney Tom Sneddon requested to introduce into Michael's trial. .
What's of interest in Jordie's drawing is how intimately he refers to Brett. I found two things quite curious: first, Jordie's description of not only Michael's penis, but Brett's, as well; and second, a reference to Michael applying Vaseline in Brett's anus because he was frequently constipated with 'big shits'.
With regard to the the first 'curious thing', I can understand that the first question would be: How do we know Jordie didn't just see Brett's anatomy on his own? Well, in reality, we don't know if Jordie could have merely seen Brett if the two boys were in the bathroom together or if they were changing into swim trunks. Photographic evidence exists that the boys have been in close enough proximity:
The above picture shows the boys with Michael. (Notice how Michael is holding onto Brett's hand and the two are wearing the same shirts. Recall Jordie's jealousy as in the chronology, as well as his references to Brett being a sort of 'model' in which Jordie should emulate sexually...) However, in Jordie's Gardner evaluation, Jordie makes it seem as if he and Brett still did not have significant enough contact with each other for him to be so graphically exposed to Brett's penis.
There are two possibilities in my mind:
1. Jordie saw Brett on his own and included his descriptions of Brett's genitalia in his drawing, or;
2. Michael related Brett's anatomy to Jordie.
I believe it is the latter.
According to Victor Gutierrez's book, Jordie's knowledge came from the fact the boys engaged in a sort of threesome with Michael Jackson. None of that was ever alleged and it is highly likely Gutierrez only included that 'theory' for shock value and to appeal to the NAMBLA sect (he thanks the organization in his acknowledgments at the close of the book).
That Jordie brought up Brett's masturbatory technique and mentioned his foreskin after referring to how Michael would guilt Jordie into sexual activity at Brett's name leads me to believe that sort of intimate information was related to Jordie by Michael Jackson himself. The basis of this belief is rooted in the idea of why include something that is not exactly important to the molestations being alleged. It would be moot, regardless if Michael used he and Brett's (allegedly sexual) closeness as a way to get Jordie to do things.
Most importantly, Jordie said Michael could have been the one who was lying to him [about Brett]! Jordie's usage of 'lying' implies that he had been told information, not witnessed it himself.
The second 'curious thing' is probably of more intrigue, owing to the fact it sounds so fantastic, it could be considered simultaneously nonsensical and believable along the 'fact is stranger than fiction' tip: Jordie alleged Michael put Vaseline in Brett's anus, albeit for 'medical purposes'. (NOTE: Victor Gutierrez, in his caption at the left-hand side of Jordie's drawing, states erroneously that the Vaseline usage was a 'sexual game'. This has never been alleged or proven.)
The question is: How would Jordie Chandler know such a thing?
My belief is that Michael--or even Brett--told him about the Vaseline usage; the above allegation is far too graphic to be fictitious, not to mention it would be far too risky an inclusion for someone who devised a fallacious 'extortion' plot. If not true, the boy implicated--meaning Brett Barnes--could vehemently deny the charge and blow the whole stunt wide open.
Most everyone is intelligent enough to not make up something that can be so easily disproved!
But, instead, Jordie writes 'get med. exam of Brett' in the drawing for his lawyers. Clearly, the boy felt he could prove whatever he said.
Although it is speculation, I found an interesting document and wondered whether it could prove Jordie's Vaseline-in-Brett's-anus allegation.
One of the infamous 'Neverland Five'--who sued Michael Jackson civilly and lost--related a story to District Attorney Tom Sneddon about Michael Jackson's sexual proclivities.
Kassim Abdool, who was barred from telling this anecdote to the trial jury because he failed to tell it to the Grand Jury, stated his former boss requested he and another security guard, Ralph Chacon, to fetch a tub of Vaseline from his vehicle. When they brought the Vaseline to Michael, Abdool stated Michael appeared aroused and there was a young boy in his room. Abdool claimed the boy was Jordie Chandler.
Click the picture for larger.
Although Abdool claims it could have been Jordie Chandler, it is highly likely it could have actually been Brett Barnes. Many have stated how similar the two boys looked. If we are to believe him, it is very possible Michael Jackson was not only going to apply Vaseline to Brett as alleged by Jordie, but that this activity was sexual in nature to Michael. He allegedly had an erection.
Of course, my inclusion of the above document is only speculative. There is no way to verify the accuracy of Kassim Abdool's tale or even his memory. Also questionable is the fact he did not tell the tale to the Grand Jury. At best, it was a serious lapse in cognition for Abdool to 'forget' the above anecdote; at worse, it reeks of convenience.
Nevertheless, Jordie's allegation stands even without corroboration, and I cannot think of any reason why it would have been made up.
Let's take it back full circle...
As Jordie Chandler stated above to Dr. Richard Gardner, Brett appeared on national television defending Michael. In the below video, Brett appears at the 8:27 mark:
Notice Brett's body language when asked about the sleeping arrangements. He does not look as if he was telling the truth. He swallowed so hard it was obvious and his fixed eye contact with the reporter seemed unnatural. He responded in a way that was similar to a child being questioned about bad behavior: slightly combative and too forceful when feigning innocence.
'Doth protest too much'?
It does not seem to curb suspicion when the man who organized the whole television interview was Michael Jackson's private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, a man known to think and conduct business like a mafioso (which is most likely the reason he is currently imprisoned). He made all of the wrong moves, unintentionally broadcasting to the world one of the planet's 'weirdest' celebrities facing a molestation rap slept in the bed with young boys, not to mention conspicuously avoiding police involvement knowing Evan Chandler was a so-called extortionist!
Let's move it forward...
As previously stated, Brett Barnes testified in court that he had never been molested by Michael. However, while on stand he made some very interesting statements that could cause one to question his sincerity, not to mention the propriety of his unique attachment to Michael Jackson.
Many of Michael's 'special friends', such as Wade Robson, stopped sleeping with Michael once they hit a certain age, about fourteen or so. Check Wade's May 5th testimony:
However, Brett Barnes' testimony was startlingly different by comparison:23 Q. When did you stop sleeping with Mr. Jackson?24 A. I guess when I was about, I don’t know,25 maybe 13, 14, something like that.26 Q. Why did you stop?27 A. I didn’t stop sleeping with him. I just28 haven’t spent the night with him, I mean, in his1 room or anything like that since then, I don’t2 think.
As we can see, Brett continued to sleep in the same bed with Michael Jackson until he was at least nineteen years old. Why does a nineteen-year-old young man need to sleep in the bed with another man who was in his forties?9 Q. So you stayed in the room with Michael10 Jackson when you were 18 years old?11 A. Yeah.12 Q. You’re 22 now?13 A. 23. 23.14 Q. So you were 19 years old?15 A. Yeah, I guess.16 Q. Did you share a bed with him at that time?17 A. Yeah, I did.
Of course, none of that is a crime, but it makes you wonder whether Brett and Michael were possibly in a relationship. According to the .pdf document about child molesters written by former FBI agent Ken Lanning linked in the last blog entry, it is not uncommon for victims of abuse to form relationships with their abusers.
Could this have been the case with Brett Barnes, who continued to sleep in the bed with Michael Jackson?
Sure, it all seems innocuous; Brett Barnes could've been having a slumber party with his good friend Michael and nothing improper was ever going on. Of course, Brett became fairly discombobulated when Assistant DA Ron Zonen asked him about when and why he stopped sleeping with Michael Jackson:
It seemed as if Zonen asked him an easy enough question but Brett found it difficult to answer. Why? According to Brett, the only reason he no longer slept in the bed with Michael Jackson was because he had children! Is it unreasonable to assume Brett would have continued to sleep with Michael if Michael had no children of his own? Any other reason would have been 'purely speculation', whatever that means!12 Q. Do you still sleep with Michael Jackson?13 A. No, I don’t.14 Q. How old were you when you stopped sleeping15 with Michael Jackson?16 A. I couldn’t tell you that.17 Q. Why don’t you still sleep with Michael18 Jackson?19 A. Well, he’s got kids now.20 Q. And?21 A. And I -- it would be purely speculation if I22 told you. I could not answer that knowingly,23 like -- it’s just --
What does that mean?
Brett's answer is bizarre in that it deviated so greatly from the other 'special friends'. They basically said they grew out of sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson; by extension from Brett's own mouth, it's possible Brett would have slept with Michael until who knows how long, certainly past nineteen!
Taking all of Jordie's allegations about Michael and Brett Barnes into account, could it be possible Michael and Brett engaged in sexual activity that was no longer apropos when Prince, Paris, or Blanket Jackson also wanted to share a bed with their father?
If one is unconvinced that Michael Jackson's boy-centric sleepovers, including the ones with Brett, were less than innocent, Wade Robson revealed that the sleepovers were secretive, too, a secret between Michael and said 'special friend':
Now, why would Michael hide something that was pure and innocent? I guess that would be 'purely speculation'!21 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you know about other22 children that he had slept with?23 A. No.24 Q. Never?25 A. No.26 Q. Did you know that he was sleeping with Brett27 Barnes?28 A. No.1 Q. Did you know that he was sleeping with2 Macaulay Culkin?3 A. No.4 Q. Did you know that he was sleeping with5 Jordie Chandler?6 A. No.
In sum, the entire body of this investigative blog entry regarding Michael Jackson's sexuality attempts to understand whether one of Michael's most special friends was a victim of his. If we quantify all of Jordie's accusations, Brett Barnes appears many times, to the point an intelligent person would be suspicious.
Was he a victim? Brett himself says no, although some of his conduct belies that protestation. Jordie insisted that Brett had to be in the same boat as he, given Brett's closeness to Michael--which was similar to his own relationship with the singer--and the stories Michael told him about Brett.
The Vaseline, the guilt trips...
We don't know for sure if Brett Barnes was ever predated upon by Michael Jackson. It may very well be that Michael's only victim at the time was Jordie Chandler and Michael lied to him about Brett in typical manipulative, pedophile fashion! The 365 days the boy spent with Michael while on the Dangerous Tour, where they shared a bed, according to Brett's sister, Karlee Barnes, could have been completely innocent.
However, when all of the evidence is put together, there seems to exist more than a reasonable amount of suspicion as to the propriety of the Michael/Brett twosome. All things considered, I would not be surprised if Brett Barnes grew attached to Michael as one would to a lover.
Interestingly enough, it was Brett Barnes who was at Neverland when the ranch was raided in 1993. He was a very, very 'special friend'...
ETA September 3, 2010:
Originally, I meant to add this truly apropos video from the hilarious late 80s-early 90s sketch comedy program In Living Color but I forgot! Here it is:
Contrary to popular belief, Michael Jackson's penchant for boys was evident to the writers of this show way before the Jordie Chandler scandal ever made headlines (or could be a fruition of Michael's fantasies, rather)! Unfortunately, I cannot find a video this show did as a spoof on Michael's 'Billie Jean' called 'Little Timmy Is Not My Lover'. Oh well; enjoy.
50 comments:
I posted a reply to this post, but I accidentally posted it under your previous blog post. Got to the end of your new entry and your other post was so short, I wasn't paying attention and I clicked the comment link on that one instead. Sorry about that!
According to the FBI study about molesters you posted, a common activity of pedophiles is also to write sexual captions to the innocent photos they collect.
You might want to check the extremely disturbing captions you made, your clear interest in the fictional, totally unproved, lurid details of Guitierrez book and your hopefully inconscious attraction to the idea of molested kids with a therapist, maybe.
That captions are seriously disturbing.
Other comments later, if I decide to believe that I´m not discussing with a pedophile incognito.
I honestly do not believe that these kids wouldn't have come forward if they had been victimized, especially now that Michael is gone. I don't believe any parent would take money from the insurance company of the man they say hurt their child, and I do not believe that there would be any point in not coming forward now, since Michael Jackson is dead, since it seems it's the "cool" thing for everyone to do regarding paternity and other claims against Michael.
Nobody really knows the truth, but there is no evidence out there to prove that Michael hurt anyone, but there are definitely more than enough indicators that both cases, Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo, were attempts of getting money.
Sure, it went to trial in the Arvizo case, but come on, these people say they were held prisoner by Michael Jackson, yet they were allowed to go out and spend thousands of dollars and do other things like that? If that's what being held hostage is like, sign me up.
The mother was clearly unbalanced, and her children, don't get me started. All I can say is...INCONSISTENT. No, that doesn't prove innocence on Michael's part, but you can't say without a doubt that he did it unless you were there and you actually saw it happen.
The world may never know the absolute truth, but it's not going to stop the speculation. Luckily, there is enough "evidence" out there to point to the possibility that these cases were simply about the money.
Desiree, I sent you a mail with "that stuff" :p
@ Sonic:
LOL at the pedophile incognito, that was a good one! But the only pedophile incognito was your beloved Michael Jackson. He fits a lot of the traits found in Lanning's pdf.
Also you should read Christopher Andersen's "Michael Jackson: Unauthorized". That's a very good book and he is a meticulous researcher...had info about the alleged "insurance company buyoff" that fans believe so much (I don't give a shit about Tom Mesereau's brief. Mike never spoke about his insurance company overruling his RIGHT to defend himself in court. Andersen has memos from Transamerica that clearly show that Johnnie Cochran and Mike had WANTED and INTENDED for his insurance company to pay the Chandlers and all associated costs. pgs 336-338).
Lighten up about the captions under the photos; comedians ripped on Mike all through his life about his obvious penchant for boys...it's a joke. Besides, it seems to me that to you, anyone who wants to get in depth about the evidence that supports Mike's obvious pedophilia is a pedophile themselves? That's ridiculous. Get it together!!!
Enter reality: he's a pedophile and probably was gay.
I´m searching in my own ways and I´m finding evidence that Michael probably could be gay.
I´m laughing here,because many MJfans believe exists private pics with Lisa somewhere but it never appeared. But I found pictures that proves Michael felt very good with Klein and his gay friends :D.
A few things:
1. You rely too much to prove your point on info from Jordie on Brett, info that: 1. jordie did NOT give to the police; 2. jordie implied that might not be accurate because mj lied to him...so in case anyone checked any of that and it proved false, he had an excuse.
So, Jordie told his lawyers to take a med. exam of Brett but not to police, and we know that from a book (forbidden in the US, as far as I know), written by a guy proved to lie regarding something else, and based on a supposed diary that was again not handed/mentioned to police and is most likely another lie... And this is believable evidence why?
2. I watched the video with Brett - he looks into the eyes of the reporter. When people, especially kids say something untrue, they fiddle and try to avoid eye contact...To me his body language is telling that he is not lying actually.
3. The fact that Wade testified that he did not know about the other kids proves nothing to me. Culkin testified he slept in MJ's beds with other kids; there was again a sister - so at least one girl was there as well - of one of these boys that testified she also slept there with other children.
Finally, you accuse fans that they start from the hypothesis that MJ is innocent and try to prove their point. While I agree with this, your approach is similar: your belief is that MJ was gay, paedophile and occasional child molestor and you try to prove your point(s). There is no tangible proof of any of these - there is only speculation, 90% of it based on MJ being a non-conventional guy and there is only one alleged victim left with some credibility.
In fact I'm pretty disturbed also by the idea of people making jokes and laughing on cases of child molestation as if we were talking of a guy who slipped on a banana.
What should be my reaction, ha ha ha, imaging the situation you kindly invented is so funny? Hey, wait, let me read a book that shows documents without sources and looks like a child pornography novel, it's so entertaining! I guess pedophiles of all the world are entertained by that book too.
I really don't care of why MJ's insurance company paid the settlement. Some say he didn't wanted to, some say he wanted to, to put an end to this story. I don't care if MJ lies or not during an interview. And for sure I don't give a f. if MJ was gay or not.
What I care about is to understand if some children were molested, and for how much you hope for it, it looks like not. All these info you find in the books, are pure speculation, because if the 10% of what they say could be proven MJ would have been in prison AND paying off everyone with civil lawsuits almost 20 years ago. Do you thing that Sneddon is so idiot to ignore real proofs when he tried to convict MJ for more than 10 years? Sometimes also falsifying evidence? Do you think all the investigators that inteviewed the children are idiots too?
For God's sake, if it's like this it's about them you should be making jokes.
Oh, and FBI also looks like an idiot, 3,4,5,6 kids molested and not one single iota of proof! While wannabe tabloid journalists of all the world have sources that pops up like pop corn!
Enter reality: child molestation ruins lives. Pray God your children will never be victims, then you'll see how much you'll laugh afterwards if the molester is not send right into jail. Or maybe you're more like your fictional idea of the Chandlers, who cares of what he do to someone else until I get the money.
A couple of questions:
-why an interview between a therapist and a underage kid going graphic on details of molestation is not protected under the doctor-patient relationship (I'm talking of the Gardner interview)? Interesting that this interview surfaced after Gardner death, when he can't say anymore something about it.
Where is reported that Gardener believed Jordan?
Sly:
1. Jordie's anecdotes are relevant (with regards to this post) because they contradict Brett's assertion that nothing ever happened. You say Jordie gave himself an 'out' by saying Michael could be lying to him but even if that's true, Michael could be manipulating Jordie for sexual purposes. It would still say Jordie could have been a legitimate victim. Brett is ancillary, honestly. I doubt the guy's sincerity. Jordie mentioned all of those boys as per the chronology; Michael either offended with all of them or he wanted Jordie bad enough to lie! Of course, you'd say he was just adding boys to make it seem as if Michael was prolific but isn't that too risky to implicate others if money was the goal? I think so...
Gutierrez's book is interesting in that it has a nearly perfect timeline. I guess it's a case of crying wolf, unfortunately. Gutierrez did lie about seeing a video of Michael and a boy. He did make it seem like a love affair between Jordie and Michael (which, again, is a personal belief, wrong or right). BUT he investigated for the book. Is it believable? Well, I think it is. Have you read it? It's not forbidden here in the States but Michael did try to suppress it. Victor G is probably shady but that doesn't mean everything he's said is false. We don't know everything he's seen and heard, as with Diane Dimond, Tom Sneddon, and Maureen Orth (she is legit, more so than Dimond and Gutierrez, IMO).
2. As for Brett, I disagree. He looks like he was lying. Not all children avert their eyes when they lie! People say you can tell when people lie by them either averting their eyes or making strong eye contact. I think it's personal opinion at the end of the day. I'm just writing about what I think *shrugs*
3. Wade's testimony is interesting in that it goes to the typical secret keeping MO of child molesters. This was also the guy who testified that Michael discussed with him that sleeping with an older man was 'okay'. Why discuss something that was innocent and pure? I'm trying to figure it out...
4. Yes, of course, I am trying to prove my case from the standpoint of him being guilty! I believe he was guilty. I've been on the other side of it, too, but I guess I feel that the MJ fans who think he's innocent are just trying to cast reasonable doubt, knowing that he was weird and did things that no one BUT a person with a freaky thing for kids would do. There is no proof either way, sure. You find the fact that there was two victims (not including Gavin) dubious and not evidence of Michael being a pedophile, just like I find the fact Michael had two 'wives' dubious. Not to mention MJ fans buy into the PR spin. Check these links:
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/07/michael-jackson-was-guilty-of.html
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/08/professional-pedophile-apologist-mary.html
Michael being an 'unconventional' guy is an understatement, Sly. He was gay, at best; a pedophile, at worst. I don't care if he was either or both; my biggest problem with Michael is that he hated his race and genetically modified his children to not look black. That's what I hate...
MJSpuffyFan:
At the end of the day, all of this is speculation, regardless of which side you happen to fall on. Personally, I think there is tons of 'evidence' to make you at least suspicious of Michael's behavior around young boys. I happen to believe he was a pedophile but I could be wrong about whether or not he ever offended. The pro-Michael's innocence side could be wrong as well.
Janet Arvizo and that whole case was a mess. I don't believe Gavin was ever molested by Michael but--maybe I would have to read the transcripts more closely--it seems as if he was trying to hide them or get them out of the picture. All of that sort of makes me suspicious, regardless if they got to go on shopping sprees.
Honestly, if you look at it hard enough, I think there is just the same amount, or even more, evidence/indicators that Michael had a problem with young boys. I believe the Dr. Farshchian story that I posted about in July. Michael had a problem. I don't think all of it was about money; why would it stick? Why would Michael settle? Why didn't he fight?
I just believe the guy was a Svengali in pretty much all facets. I think he paid people off to be silent. Contrary to popular belief, there are many victims of sex crimes that never talk. Most rapes, for instance, are never reported. It is not unlikely that a molestation vicim would stay silent. I think their is a sort of wall of silence in those cases...
Sonic:
Please, I am in no way a pedophile. That type of kneejerk reaction to someone who believes that there exists more than enough reasonable suspicion surrounding Michael's interactions with young boys is a little disturbing. As J-M-H mentioned, you should read Christopher Andersen's book 'Michael Jackson: Unauthorized'.
No, I don't think child molestation is funny but it's undeniable that there has been a great deal of comedy injected into the Michael Jackson molestation issues. It's hard NOT to joke about it, honestly. Maybe it is bad but having been so completely socialized to the idea that this guy--with a soft, effeminate voice, black to white skin, and always around children--had a thing for boys and he was so 'weird', it makes you chuckle a bit. You can't ignore the jokes...
As for Gutierrez's book, sure, he put a spin on it--I mentioned all of that in the post--to make it more salacious but there ARE things that check out. His timeline is spot on. If you haven't read the book, you can't really bash it.
You don't care if Michael lied in an interview or the insurance company? Yet you are willing to call other people liars? I don't really understand that, honestly. Michael lying (and dodging psychiatric evaluations and depositions) is very important!
Please don't bring up the American legal system. Are you an American? Otherwise, it goes without saying that our US justice system does NOT work for people who are not rich, famous, etc. All the time in our news we have celebrities that get away with crimes normal people would go to jail for. The FBI did not even release all of the documents and most of those were redacted to the point they were unreadable! Why was there a restraining order issued against Michael? Why did that social worker on the train find the sounds coming from Michael's compartment so disturbing she had to report it to the conductor? The FBI researched federal crimes, such as child porn possession and violations to the Mann Act, not molestations.
As for Richard Gardner, many fans already know he believed Jordie. Diane Dimond mentioned it in her book. Fans then when out to discredit Gardner's PAS disorder (you can find it on wikipedia) and the doctor himself. Why the transcript of the convo was released? Who knows, who cares? It is what it is... Those are Jordie's words.
You talk about 'tabloid journalists' but they've encountered more evidence--human and documents--than the most well-researched fan. I believe there is legitimate reasons as to why Dimond and Orth believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Believe what you want.
Sue/'youknowwho' :-):
Yes, you are doing very good research. I believe like you do: Michael was gay, no doubt about it, in my opinion.
Private pics of Lisa Marie and Michael? Like sexual pictures? LOL, I don't believe it. Michael felt incredibly comfortable with gay men. His advisors, his doctor, etc. they were all gay. He never had any women around him. Actually, according to Christopher Andersen's book 'Michael Jackson: Unauthorized', a friend of Michael's named Kenneth Choi said that he and Michael used to cuddle (he had a young son Michael also liked) and Michael told him that he would never be with a woman because it would be a woman who would 'destroy' him.
Sounds like a gay guy to me! :-D
I´m not talking about a sexual way...but private pictures with Michael alone with Lisa in their house, for example. Pictures taken by themselves, you know?
youknowwho:
Why would the fans want to see that? How would that say that Michael wasn't gay? If there were private pics of the two of them together, it wouldn't be surprising. They had been married.
But sexual/romantic photos... if those existed, I'd be surprised.
But, then again, I guess I would still think Michael was just playing a part. He was playing a part already, trying to make himself not be gay when he really was.
I was just thinking: so many people continued to say that Lisa/MJ was a sham. Obviously that was always true; how can thousands of people be wrong in their perception of the two of them together?
I think Lisa Marie is in denial of how Michael really felt about her. It's kind of sad that she continues to lie to herself. He liked men... ;-)
Well, even gay men can have sex with women. So they could have had sex, even if he was gay.
btw did you see my last mail? I sent you after your answer to the Daniel Gonzales one. I describe a timing about the gay rumors and the straight rumors lol.
You know, I´m still studying the evidences. I´m not feel so sure like you, even if I believe more he was gay than straight. Sexuality is a mistery...who knows, he could be also bi...
Well, I feel pretty sure about Michael being gay...
I got your email and I laughed when I saw the timeline of all of the gay/straight rumors. So basically when Ian Halperin came out and said he had talked to Michael's 'lovers', that's when all of the secret girlfriend stuff started. I mean it makes sense if he and everyone else was trying to hide it from the world.
Funny you mentioned Susan Etok. I remember going on her blog and just thinking she was full of crap; I didn't believe her. She said she only brought up his secret girlfriend because of the gay rumors BUT when fans asked her if she had a picture of herself with Michael she said she didn't own the copyright to the photo? It didn't make sense to me; if it's a pic of she and Michael together you would think she would have owned it herself! Smelled fishy, IMO. I know she was in the story that said the Jacksons wanted to hire a private investigator to find this girlfriend and they were supposedly talking to her for help.
If that story is true, I'm assuming the Jackson family wanted to see for themselves if Michael ever had a girlfriend!
It's true; he could be bisexual. Michael was at least bisexual. But there is a saying that says when it comes to bisexuals 'the penis always wins.' If Michael was bi, he preferred men.
Actually, what's funny is today I went to the store and saw a tabloid magazine here in the States and it said that John Travolta (actor) went to spas and had sex with men. This was some guy saying this. But what's funny is Ian Halperin also outed John Travolta in one of his books about Scientology and he mentioned it in 'Unmasked', too.
I'm of the opinion that there are many closeted gay men in Hollywood. I really, really think Halperin was on to something about Michael. You don't have to be thoroughly convinced, of course, but I think the evidence is just waiting to be uncovered...
Youknowwho, did you find these pictures of MJ with Klein and his gay friends in the Internet?
Desiree,
Going back to Jordie including Brett in his drawing. You said that if he were lying, he wouldn't be doing that in order not to be caught with the lie - so far I can see the logic. However, you ignore the fact that Jordie DID not include anything Brett related in his drawing/testimony to the police...why wouldn't he do that? why not ask the police to take a med exam of brett if he truly intended to suggest that? could his lawyers, or whoever the first drawing was made for, have had the right and power to go ahead with the said medical exam? why not require it from those more likely to be able to check his assertions?
also on the drawing from the book and the associated text, correct me if I am wrong - I haven't read the book, i wanted to buy it but it's not worth its current price, at least to me :) - but is there any proof that that is actually jordie's handwriting at all? assuming it is and the thing is authentic, there is no part which refers to marks on mj's erect penis here and that fantastic and incriminating blotch. supposedly that appeared in the drawing for the police - that no one has seen - where all the brett details misteriously dissappeared...
you give a lot of credibility to journalists whom you don't know, assuming they've seen more factual evidence than the fans. I agree with you that the fans are way too passionate in their quest to prove MJ innocent, to the point where they lose credibility. Still, I'd like to point out that you don't actually know what these people (the journos) have actually seen and whom they've spoken to.
if they had truly incriminatory and convincing evidence and are some 'voices of the opressed', why haven't they helped sneddon build a stronger case against mj? where is all this convincing evidence that they talk about on TV but can't be part of a trial?
as for the part that mj biologically modified his children and hated his race... so you want to 'punish' him for these 'sins' by outing him as being a gay paedophile? first of all, again, these are speculations. you don't know for sure how mj got those kids and on the race thing - he never spoke publicly or acted in any way against his race, and i think this is what counts. what he felt, or better said what you think he felt about being black, is such a personal thing, too personal in my opinion to be discussed by someone who did not know him...plus, do people HAVE to be proud of their origin and their race? do we all have to be nationalists and well aware of our races? what is the point of accepting diversity then if we want to keep these limitations clear? going back to his children issue (it is the same issue in your view, as far as I see it - a race issue), as long as he did his best to be the best father he could be to them - and by all accounts so far he was - can't we just let him get his kids the way the wanted? they are his, not ours, he loved them - end of story.
it's interesting how we all, fans and critics alike, try to disect him to pieces and look for things, some well beyond our reach, that can make him low and little: it's just a testimony to how big he actually was...to me, the most important thing about mj is the fact that he started in life as a no one and ended up one of the first artists with world-wide appeal; that has to be, by any standards, a mind-blowing achievement and it didn't just happen to him by pure chance: he had the talent for it and he worked for it, and he possibly had the ambition and vision of it. as long as he did not ruin anyone's life, and so far I haven't found proof of that, i want to first think about what he meant on a larger scale and not imagine what he might have done or might not have done intimately.
Sly:
Well, we don't know whether or not Jordie mentioned Brett to the police. I think that he probably did! He was deemed credible by DFCS, several psychiatrists, the police, etc. In the US, the police cannot force any exam on anyone, including the body search they gave to Michael. Michael consented to it because he would have looked guilty if he refused. They could not force Brett to undergo a medical exam, especially since he's a minor. I don't know how laws in other countries work but that's the way it is in America. Seeing that Liz Barnes was instructed not to say anything about Sneddon or the police before she was put on the stand, I doubt she would have ever allowed her son to be examined by anyone on their side! You don't know what Jordie told to the police but clearly he told them something about Brett and other boys so much so that they were interrogated by the police!
When it get's down to it, Sly, you DON'T know what Jordie told to the police about Brett (I'm guessing he told 'em something, clearly!). Also, you are forgetting that he told it to Gardner, the false abuse expert. Why would he ever, ever mention it to ANYONE if he was not telling the truth, Sly? Regardless if he told it to the police, Sneddon, or Garcetti. If it were a lie, he wouldn't have said it because it was so inflammatory that if it were untrue the 'sham' would be exposed. Period.
As for the journalists, I think it cuts both ways. Think about Michael Jackson. You don't know the guy--no fan really does--and you assume, because you like his music and dancing, that he is better than Dimond, Gutierrez, Orth, etc. They could be 100x better people than Michael but since Michael, as all sociopaths do (Debbie called him it first, LOL), he cries and whines about him being 'beat up on' and everyone feels sorry for the proverbial 'Elephant Man': tortured but sweet.
(cont'd)
As for his race. I'm sorry... if you are not black, and a black American at that!, you have no right to say anything, Sly. I know, it sounds harsh. But Michael Jackson was a self-hating black man. He hated being black. This has nothing to do with his homosexuality (check) or his pedophilia (check). The fact that a black man would wish to be white is terrible. Why wish to be something you will never be? Why, in hating yourself so much, you genetically modify your children so they don't look black at all (because I am 100% convinced they are his)? (And if they weren't, IT WOULD STILL BE BAD, especially knowing how many black children there are avaibale in the US foster system! Black man not adopting black kids? He should be ashamed of himself!)
All of that is a sickness. If for no other reason at all, not even his criminal pedophilia (because it is still speculative regardless of what I think), Wacko Jacko should not even have sold a fucking record if he hated being black. Especially if the fool is going to run and call Tommy Mottola a racist when he was at Neverland calling black people 'splaboos'! What a fucking hypocrite!
I sometimes wonder why anyone even likes him seeing that he completely abandoned his race and bleached his skin (come on there are other vitiligo treatments out there!). A lot of non-black people (and non-American blacks) don't understand the level of distaste others have for black Americans. If our president Barack Obama was not half-white, he would have never been elected. I don't know if you guys pay attention to American news but there are growing movements in the US ready to seize political control because they don't like the fact a black family lives in the White House! Michael Jackson parading around white as a sheet and with a nose the thickness of a pencil deserves nothing but disdain or pity; he was SICK! Screw the applause; the clown needed to take off his makeup and see a psychiatrist for his issues.
No one was ever asking Michael to be a nationalist. No way, that's not even what it's about. I love being black but ruminations on race is not what I like to do day in and day out. Nationalism is not necessary but if you are black and have been in a country in which it has only been 50+ years since blacks have been able to FREELY vote, you better have some pride in your heritage. That Wacko Jacko did not--and Quincy said it--want to be black is a huge problem. While I believe the fool had vitiligo, I believe he loved bleaching his skin. A friend of mind (white guy) joked that he probably felt the disease was divinely guided! Yeah, I bet he thought that. Also, if he hated being black, it sickens me that he was ever able to be on stage in front of millions of people all around the world promoting that BS. I'm guessing you don't see him as black; I understand why! He married two white women (shams) and he made his 'white'/'latino' kids the antithesis of black! It makes me wonder if he could even love black kids...
(cont'd)
He could have been a great dad to them, I don't know anymore. Seems to me he wanted to make sure his precious test tube babies were 'protected' from the world in an unhealthy way. The kids are sheltered and anti-social. I'm glad 2 of them are going to school. Sure they loved him but they are a bit too young not to.
Like I said, Sly, I don't really give a flying fig about whether Michael Jackson was gay or a pedophile. I don't like liars so I MAY continue to write a few more posts about him, but I'm just not loving it anymore. I used to adore this guy until I finally realized he was a manipulative, lying, self-hating, child-molesting, gay pedophile. A Svengali of the worst breed. I feel sorry that he's being lauded as the best thing since sliced bread now that he has passed away. But he was a drug addicted, racist, pederast. I just don't care about him. I can't even believe there are websites devoted to defending him. Man, love IS blind!
The Jacksons are all racists and they created a monster. He's loved around the world because people are looking to worship something. But he was a raceless, racist freakshow that molested boys and hated women (I'm talking rank chauvinsim at best, misogyny at worse!). He was a puppet of the corporations, a little boy so damaged yet talented that he was HAPPY to transform into the mutant he became.
And if you don't believe he was gay (or a pedophile), please obtain a copy of 'Michael Jackson: Unauthorized'. Thanks for your comment, Sly...
Could you explain why a diary is written in 3rd person and past tense?
Anonymous (96.2.155.148 - Bemidji, MN):
Yeah, I think you lack reading comprehension skills or you were intending to provoke by not leaving a name. Please, don't be an idiot.
I posted your comment because it was retarded and I'd like to respond. I'm assuming you are discussing Victor Gutierrez's book.
What don't you guys understand? There was never a diary; Gutierrez only used that ploy to sell his exposé! Hello? The more salacious, the bigger profit!
Jordie Chandler never had a diary, and, if he had, it wouldn't be in the hands of Victor Gutierrez, some random Chilean journalist. If you haven't read the book with it's documents, you cannot bash it.
you are one sick and twisted person.
Desiree,
I am not willing to enter racial discussions - I merely mentioned the race issue because you raised it in one of your comments. I am of the opinion that all people are free to feel the way they want about themselves, especially in their private space, without being judged for that.
My stance on MJ is simple: I appreciate MJ's showmanship and public message of peace - it is a simplistic and cheesy message, but it is a good message for the masses and for young people. Also, it came at a time when it wasn't yet fashionable to be green and humanitarian. I am not saying he was the most misunderstood wonderful and spotless person on earth. no, he definitely had his issues, many of them. but I try first to pity him for them rather than blame him for them, especially when I've seen no tangible proof of most of the allegations and when some were proved false. It's not relevant to me what MJ did in his private space, no matter how freaky as long as it did not distroy someone else's life. (If only we knew what all people do in their private space, we'd discover we all are much freakier than we pretend to be...)
Going back to your post, I mainly wanted to point out things which in my view are uncertain re Brett. Of course, I understand that the Jordie case being believable makes Brett's denial questionable. However, the fact that Brett denied it as a kid and then as an adult testified for MJ proves to me that at least he does not want someone else to do him justice, IF such justice is indeed due...
@Jerjester
I saw in his friend´s facebook. I know he has other with Michael, but I can´t find it now. He used to have his albums public, I only found that because his wall is public and you can acess the published photos there.
Gezz the man can read it, maybe I shouldn´t have wrote that...at least his wall can be seen yet!
Anonymous (85.72.101.198 - Attiki, Athens, Greece):
Whatever; I'm probably about as sick and twisted as the Easter Bunny. I just happen to be rational. I'm sorry you don't like to hear about the possibility of Michael Jackson being a pedophile. Because it's a real possibility! Please, open your eyes to all sides before you decide what to believe...
Sly:
No, no, no. I will not engage you in a racial discussion because I guarantee you will shut down. The fact of the matter is many non-blacks do not understand race relations from the standpoint of the victims.
Regardless of whether or not Michael's racial issues were 'private' demons, he paraded on stage with bleached skin (again, not the only treatment for vitiligo, especially for someone with buckets of money) and an imitation Caucasian nose. The surgeries...I can ignore because that's a personal choice--one I don't respect--but his money, his decision. But this guy modified himself because he hated being black. In the Primetime Live interview, Sawyer asked him if he wanted to go back to being black skinned. He couldn't even answer the damned question; he just said, 'I love black.' What kind of answer is that. You typed above that he never made any statements against his race. Well, regardless if you think it's rumor, he called black people 'splaboos'. His former secretary Orietta Murdoch, who was a black Latina, filed a discrimination complaint against him because she said she'd been harassed or fired because she was black. Remember, this is the guy who went with Al Sharpton to go out against Tommy Mottola; he hired the Nation of Islam for a brief moment. All of that was a s sham-worthy as his marriages.
That you are okay with a guy who is that two-faced shows your level of myopia. I've seen it with many non-black fans: it's okay that Michael bleached his skin, whittled his nose down, and had non-black kids (his, but so what) because who'd want to be black anyway, right?
I just don't understand how anyone can even like a guy like that. I'm tickled pink by his homosexuality and I understand that his pedophilia was a result of him being sexually abused. He needed help for the latter, instead of indulgence. But the race thing, especially the double talk, nah...I can't respect a man for that, especially being a black person. And so many black people think that guy is cool. So blind. I'm not judging Michael Jackson; I'm not casting stones. I'm calling it as I see it. He hated being black, possibly because he hated his tumultuous black upbringing, his black parents who are fucked in the head, and his black siblings. He moved towards whiteness because that was what was shown on TV as what was best. It's just a part of the greater System in the US, apparently in the World, too.
And Michael's message of 'peace' is ridiculous. It's not original and people are acting like he was the first one to say 'Love one another', etc. Um...no. He can call for peace but if you read Shmuley Boteach's book, the guy clearly saw himself as God with the 'peace' BS. He used it as a ploy.
Anyway, about Brett: there will always be a suspension of belief in the Jordie case. I think what's difficult to wrap your head around is why a molested boy would continue to bat for his abuser. But it really does happen, Sly. Brett probably liked it. I find Jordie believable so what he says about Brett is either something Michael told him that was a lie or something Michael told him that was the truth. how could the kid lie about the Vaseline, Sly? Come on now!
Sly:
One more thing...
"I am of the opinion that all people are free to feel the way they want about themselves, especially in their private space, without being judged for that."
So, you think people are free to feel however way they want about themselves as long as it doesn't leak onto your shoes, right? Wrong, Sly, dead wrong.
If I was to use your logic on that one, I should allow bigger girls to hate themselves because they are 'too fat' to be loved, people of 'lower' racial statuses to hate themselves because they aren't the 'status quo' (do you know how popular skin bleaching creams are in India?), people to be depressed and suicidal, etc. as long as they keep it in their 'private spaces'?
That's the biggest problem with Western society! We all think on an individual basis and we don't care about other people even a fraction of how much we think we do. Everyone always turns the other way. The cultures that value community have managed to be happy in spite of poverty! Everyone in the West is popping Prozac and all of that mess. Michael Jackson hating himself and modifying himself to be white is a larger problem than just Michael Jackson's.
I can't believe you don't see it that way... I think you are just saying those things because you like Michael. And since you like Michael, you are unwilling to delve deeper into what really is very, very, very ugly. Your logic doesn't work for other situations, Sly; it doesn't even work for Michael Jackson!
Desiree,
I said people are free to feel the way they want about themselves, I did not say I am AGREEING to how they feel about themselves, I am just not condemning them for it. They shouldn't be blamed about dreading/disliking who they are, they should be helped/treated differently.
Are people bleaching their skin to be blamed? If the world were not discriminating there would be no skin bleaching.(On the vitiligo issue, I know the example I am giving is a particular one, but my best friend's mother had the disease. she was white but it still looked very bad and she also chose bleaching the rest of her skin. you feel you can't give him the benefit of doubt on that, still he had a disease, he chose a solution for the his disease - it's speculative to believe he was thankful for it.)
I always said I like MJ, I am not denying that.
I think he had a complicated and troubled life, but I think he had his merits. Thus I am really trying hard to understand him before I condemn him. And for all the issues he may have had, I want to pity him first - I have not been in his shoes, I do not want to judge him.
On the other hand, I have not been in your shoes either, so I can understand I cannot understand how you feel. I am not as myopic as you might think: I am not black (as I think you realized), but I am an immigrant in the country where I live and I have very good non-white friends, so I understand being discriminated, to a certain extent. I've witnessed prozac nation and I've lived some very angry years at the whole Western materialistic view of the world. However, I've reached a phase where I feel there are things I can change and there are many others I can't. I just prefer not be angry at the world, but rather act myself the way I would like the world to act.
If only we were to delve deeper into a lot of issues, Desiree, there will be a lot of dirt to dig out...so many children and women suffering such serious abuse, sometimes at the hands of their families and no one gets paid or punished for it; children forced to prostitute, children mutilated to beg, catholic priests raping dozens of kids each, dying before they even got charged with a crime, people still killed by stoning and so on and so on.
I know personal examples are not the most relevant, but I lived in a town where thieves were respected because they had more money, and they would even brag about how they make their money! In a place where one of these guys ran over an old man with his car, paid (and not millions!)and got away with murder and even bragged about it calling the poor man he killed names because 'didn't you see what clothes he was wearing?'
I don't know Desiree, but I feel that there is a long long queue of people to be dreaded before him: in my eyes, he still has his certain merits, even in balance with his faults...
Sly:
On the vitiligo tip, I don't think it's completely speculative. As I mentioned previously, look at his answer to Diane Sawyer re: the disease:
Diane Sawyer: Do you wish you were the color you were again?
Michael Jackson: Do I wish I was the col...
DS: Black color.
MJ: You have to ask nature that. I loved...I love black. I love black.
DS: But do you wish you were that way...
MJ: I envy her 'cause she can tan and I can't.
I mean, it's obvious he didn't want to be black anymore. It pretty much makes the BS he said to Oprah Winfrey in 1993 about the vitiligo making him 'sad' moot, unless he was sad it was so difficult to control the propensity for the brown spots to return. I just don't buy it. Couple all of that with the fact the dude genetically modified his kids; collected Nazi memorabilia (his exchange with Shmuley in his book and his HIStory teaser now have new connotations!); you have Quincy Jones saying they always used to talk about how Michael wanted to be white; all of that, Sly, including discriminating against Orietta M., calling black people 'splaboos', and telling the woman on the phone conversations that he hated his 'Nigger hair'! And he still had the nerve to run back to the Black Community to call Tommy Mottola a racist.
That's something I can't NOT bash and criticize and deride! I have to. The director of 'Thriller' and 'Black or White', John Landis, said Michael lifted up his shirt one day and showed him his vitiligo 'treatment'. Landis told him: 'Whoever did that to you should be put in jail!' He said Michael got angry and stormed away from him. What a bizarre reaction. I think he had something to hide... His treatment method would be acceptable on any other black person but him because you have to couple it with all of the other factors and it just seems suspicious!
(cont'd):
As for Michael not being the worst, well of course he isn't. There are many people who are 'worst' but I think you are still a little blinded by your adoration for him.
It almost seems ironic that you'd mention the abuse of children and the way Catholic priests rape boys and there still is the suspension of belief with regards to Michael Jackson being just as 'bad'. After all, when it came to the priests the only corroboration that existed was other boys, other children in most cases. The Church paid, too. Is that not the same with Michael? We had two credible victims--Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia--and both were paid. Both could corroborate for each other that Michael Jackson was a predator. No fan believes them; why should the priests be held at a different standard than Michael?
Are we not, in both situations, dealing with people who have inordinate amounts of money, power, privilege, and influence over millions?
The point I am trying to make holistically is that Michael Jackson is not someone to be worshipped. Benefit of the doubt, okay, but some people stretch it until he's immortal and infallible! Like he's a victim! The sore spots for me are the race self-hatred, first and foremost, and the criminal pedophilia. Honestly, outside of the guy's talent, what are his merits? Really, really think about it. He's nice? Okay...? I spent from his death to early June 2010--a year--defending him, extending to him a Devil's advocacy. I have had time to mull everything over and I've come to the conclusion that the sociopathy, the lies, the molestations, the lust for fame, etc. completely obliterates his virtues, whatever they may be. I cannot even think of them!
Is this a bash MJ party here at DSSL? Well, I don't think so but I think it depends on what level of devotion you have for Michael. I have very little, infinitesimal actually...
(cont'd):
So, what I'm saying is that regardless if there exists those whom I could chronicle here on my blog whom you believe are far more unsavory than Jacko, Jacko is also worthy of derision. He's too big, too influential, and has too many fanatical drones to not be exposed for his egregious hubris and possible criminality.
Sometimes I have a soft heart for Michael but as long as there are people who want to say he's innocent and say that he's an 'angel', I have to show--even in this small, unnoticeable corner of the web--that the guy is truly deserving of his infamous moniker Wacko Jacko!
All I'm doing is just putting it out there, in as articulate a way as I can, that for all the benefit of the doubt (and then some!) Michael has been given, there exists evidence (however speculative) showing Jordie, Evan, and Ray Chandler, Jason and Blanca Francia, Neverland employees, Diane Dimond, Sneddon, etc. deserve AT LEAST the same extension of the courtesy given Michael. Many fans have a problem with that; I'm sorry. But there is too much suspicion to be completely close-minded...
As Jacko said: 'Lies run sprints, but the Truth runs marathons.' I think that's true in a different way, you know?
I have to agree with Desiree regarding certain points. I am a black woman born in Britain in the 70s and have always been an ardent fan of Michael Jackson. When the first accusation occured in 1993 I was convinced that it was a case of extortion. Even after he made the settlement I still believed him to be innocent. I remained a fan despite him morphing from black to white over the years. He was still 'our Michael'. To me he had unrivalled talent, a great humanitarian and terribly misunderstood with a most unfortunate childhood. However since his death I was forced to read everything I could about this rather tragicc and complex man. I have to conclude that I believed something happened with Jordie. I am still unconvinced about the others but Jordie I do believe. It was the Gardner interview which changed my opinion completely.There are things Jordie said which are so out of the ordinary it could not be as a result of brainwashing, use of sodium amytal, coercion from Evan or any other unsavoury method claimed by fans. Jordie referred to Brett Barnes(Tommy) with certainity that he had been molested. He also mentioned another boy who appeared on TV defending Michael whom I believe is Wade Robson. However when asked by Gardner about Wade, Jordie stated that he does not believe Wade was not molested yet he was clear about Brett.
He was also asked about when his father discovered the molestation and Jordie described an incident when his father accused him and Michael of lying to him. He told Gardner that he was freaking out as he feared his father had already suspected shenanigans between them. Why would he come out with something like that if he was so brainwashed? Also fans have constantly stated that Michael refused to pay the civil suit at first because he was totally innocent. Here is my take on this;Reading between the lines it would be feasible for him to refuse to pay especially as it would make him appear guilty. Also he had Pellicano working for him who was a man who always got results. Pellicano must have convinced him at first that he would put so much pressure on Evan that he would just disappear quietly with a meagre pay off. However Evan was banking on a much bigger slice of the pie and was not going to let Michael off so cheaply. Pellicano decided to play 'Billy Big Balls'a British expression of a man with an over inflated ego, and jeopardized the entire secret negotiation. When the allegation became public Michael had to deal with the fallout and fled(sorry went on tour). The first thing he should have done was to publicly declare his innocence not wait until 3 months and a humiliating strip search later. Even then it was a pre-recorded message where he did not have to answer any awkward questions from reporters. Michael's entire behaviour during that period was questionable. I just did not realize it before.
sofi:
You are absolutely right! Thank you for your comment! :-)
When it came to Anthony Pellicano and the negotiations, I think of it like this: Michael sent in Pellicano to make a covert deal with Evan over his son's molestation. It's just like you've said. Michael was trying to hush Evan up with money but it hit the media because everything got out of hand. Unlike it had ever before, one could argue! Didn't La Toya Jackson say she saw checks payable to families?
Of course, she denied it but I think she was telling the truth at that time...
Michael acted very strange and that's what many fans are not 'getting'. If the Chandlers were liars, then Michael sure acted like he had blood on his hands!
That's the point of the post, sofi: Gardner's interview was just too much of an eye-opener about Brett Barnes. It's just too much detail for a young kid, not to mention extremely risky if it were false. I just don't believe Brett was telling the truth. Wade, yes, he was not molested because his mother kept an eye on him and actually wanted to be wherever her son was (allegedly Michael did not like that); Brett, alternately, was allowed to fly to Neverland at Michael's command, all by himself.
I don't know; it's all too suspicious.
It has been argued that Michael had to be innocent of molestation because both Brett and Wade's mother were effusive in their praise of him during the trial. And any self respecting parent of a molested child would not do that.To me this is not necessarily true.
Years ago, a schoolmate of mine was impregnated by her own uncle. She was only 14 years old. It is still the talk of the community decades later. The girl was treated like a social pariah, yet the uncle was welcomed wherever he went. Why?! because he was wealthy and benevolent and most of his family were poor farmers who depended on him for financial aid.
When this lowlife died a few years ago, his funeral was attended by hundreds. People in the community lauded him with praises. You would have thought he was the diety instead of the devil. To his current wife and children he could do no wrong. Even some members of her own family made an appearance! Noticably absent, was the girl who's life he ruined and their child.
The point I am making is; although none of this proves Michael's guilt, it is possible for parents to overlook the obvious when faced with overwhelming generosity. It is widely reported that Michael often lavished expensive trips, presents and luxury items on the families of his special friends. He could also introduce them to important people within the enertainment industry in order to enhance their career prospects. Moreover the parents may have felt they owed him some loyalty and could not possibly see this shy, fragile, manchild as a criminal. I mentioned in a previous post that I found it interesting that the Barnes family did not sue Gutierrez over the graphic claims made about Brett in the book. Yet Brett appeared sufficiently outraged during the trial about his name being dragged through dirt.
Just my humble opinion.
sofi:
Actually, when you mentioned Brett under a previous post (I can't even remember which one, LOL), it inspired me to go back and look at Victor Gutierrez's book more closely, comparing it with his bizarre testimony on the stand. It made me write this entry after I was finished.
But you are right. I think what people don't realize is that there is no cookie cutter way for victims or non-victims to behave.
I remember it was a few months after Michael died when I was still rabid in believing he was innocent of any wrongdoing ('He was an innocent manchild!'), I was reading the transcripts of the 2005 case, Joy Robson's in particular. Even then, when the autonomic reaction was to defend Michael, I found Joy's testimony just odd. Many times the prosecution would bring up what she'd said in 1993-94 from her depositions and I'd think, 'Wow! You said that?' She seemed more truthful, I think, in the past than at the time of her testimony. There she was defending Michael on the stand in 2005 but, previously, she'd told June Chandler that Michael would have another special friend to replace Jordie (could she have known Michael's proclivity? I think it's possible!) and she was crying on Mother's day when she couldn't find her son.
But, of course, she denied all of that, too, or downplayed it.
I've been thinking about it and I personally think Wade probably wasn't molested knowingly. Joy seemed to keep a really good eye on him.
However, the Robsons were imports to the US from Australia. They were sponsored by Michael and he made it so they could stay in the country, I believe. Is it out of line to speculate that that level of 'generosity' on Michael's part could've indebted Joy to him, especially if it was Wade's career that was of most importance, to the point she'd do anything?
I think it's not far-fetched, coupled with the fact she allowed her 7-year-old to sleep with Michael on the first day they visited Neverland. I'm not saying she 'pimped' Wade but if the shoe fits...
I think that is just how it was with most of the parents of the special friends. Let's be real: Michael could buy any 'playmate' he wanted.
That's a sad story about your schoolmate. Is it possible this uncle could have changed and repented or was he a cretin till the end?
Desiree
Unfortunately, after this uncle died many more young women came forward to say that he either molested them or at least tried to engage them in a sexual relationship when they were still in early teens. I think the general community knew that he had these predilections but chose to accept it as being part of his makeup. The onus was on the young women who 'allowed' it to happen. My schoolmate no longer has any contact with her siblings or her child and both her parents are now also dead. The whole situation is unfortunate for all concerned.
I can understand why people were initialy reluctant to believe that Michael was capable of child molestation. Especially when he pleads with earnesty that he would 'never harm a child'or his extreme statements declaring that he would rather slit his wrists than to see a child hurt. A common argument amongst fans is that he openly declared sharing a bed with children on the Bashir documentary. It is generally believed and paedophiles are covert and would never make such an incriminating statement. My view is that Michael clearly did not see himself as a paedophile. He viewed such people as repugnant, sinister, violent Jack the Ripper types. He could never see himself in that category. He quite possibly believed that he was in a loving relationship with a minor which was reciprocated and there were no violence involved, so to him it was acceptable. That is why his proclamations about not harming kids seem so sincere. He genuinely believed that he has done them no harm. I know that this is pure speculation on my part, but I have long thought about the possibility of him being in denial about his alleged paedophilia.
I think that is the crux of the matter: Michael Jackson was in denial about most of his issues.
He was in denial about the sexual abuse he suffered as a youth; he was in denial about his homosexuality; he was in denial about his pedophilia. Michael was out of touch with reality. He could build a fortress like Neverland and do whatever he wanted in untouchable serenity because he was so wealthy.
And what you've said about a sort of reciprocity in his relationships with these boys goes to the heart of this blog post: the special friends, like Brett Barnes, who engaged in a sexual relationship with Michael didn't believe they were molested.
But, of course, we know that consent doesn't eliminate the fact of predation. It's just that these boys who engaged in it all may have found it enjoyable--'Michael's nice, he's a great guy', etc--to the point they'd defend him.
So, if the boys aren't crying and are saying 'Okay, Mike,' when he asks them to masturbate with him/in front of him (as Jordie stated Michael had told him), Michael doesn't feel that he's doing wrong, just like you said.
Pedophilia is a compulsion, an orientation that can only be altered with years-long psychiatric intervention and, possibly, chemical castration. Michael couldn't suppress his but he sure as hell wasn't going to seek treatment with a therapist.
I mean, how out of touch does one have to be to not realize doing what he'd done to Jordie (I believe Jordie 99.9%, if I was to be conservative, LOL) is wrong? I think it's rooted in his childhood trauma, the sexual abuse.
I feel for Michael in that regard, that he was pimped to businessmen when the Jackson 5 had started out. But it's when he never even tried to break the cycle of abuse and predated upon other boys, possibly risking their sexualities, I have a problem.
That fans cannot see the red flags is disturbing. I am continually amazed, I must admit, by the power of the human mind to lie to its owner. It's one thing to be in denial about your own issues but to be in denial about someone you don't even know and the writing's on the wall? It's crazy...
This entire blog makes me sick but this entry in particular is just nauseating... And you call yourself a Michael Jackson fan?? I really think you have mental troubles. Since all your conclusions are based on tabloid books (you really love the more morbid books written about MJ ever) it doesn't have any meaning! Of course you are very wise, so it's a pity you weren't in Tom Sneddon place you could take MJ to Jail, really a pity!! And I really can't understand what are you looking for digging in all this shit?? Now that he is dead... It's quite pathetic all you efforts to put him down now that he is dead. Go to see the psychiatrist!
julianaka:
In your other comment, you say Evan Chandler is burning in Hell yet you deride me for talking about the dead? Okay...
This post is good and I have another one about Brett Barnes in the wings when my computer comes from repair. I hope you return to see it.
You know, just because my 'conclusions' are based on books YOU find 'tabloid-y' doesn't make the conclusions wrong. A lot of it is common sense, actually.
Brett was molested and he lied about it. Period. Actually, I think they continued to have sexual relations up until Brett was 19.
Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Period.
The only people who do not recognize Michael's proclivity for boys are his blind fans (his family even knew!). Also, these are the people who should see psychiatrists. Worshipping a dead pedophile junkie who betrayed his race and molested little white boys is INSANE!
I agree with you on one thing: I would be able to put Michael Jackson in jail. The Arvizos were liars but Sneddon screwed up his case. What an idiot.
man you are all so smart... and you don't know MJ at all.. so it's a "smart" talk about the nothing.. go and hold a candle somewhere else... maybe you will find some nasty things at other celebrities and you can lick all of your 20 fingers... yes including your feet too.
moa:
Likewise, you don't know Michael Jackson either. I am simply analyzing what evidence there is. And the evidence, when looked at reasonably, points to conclusions you may disagree with.
This is outrageous all this complete nonsense on Molestation. This is all Made up, false planted, made up whatever you want to call it. INCASE you dont know michael got found AND proven Innocent on ALL COUNTS. He was Innocent. He loved children, he was one himself, how could you accuse such a wonderfull man who was abbondend in his fame when he was young of such a crime? thats why he surrounded himself around children, because he felt safe with them, he could relate to them, he knew that they didnt want him for his money our his famous status, he knew they liked him for the person he was, they could be a true friend, not a back stabber or some greedy person who wanted to get a name for them self.All he wanted to do was help the children because nobody else cares about them? and Jordie did a statment years after putting michael through such pain and terror and stated he did not do anything and that it was all planted and he was forced to make a claim against him to screw him out of michaels money. Those of you who believe that michael could ever harm a child need to really study on michael and then you would understand what he was really about. Michael has millions and millions of fans from all nations around the world, we all each and individually know that these cases were fraud and untrue, hence why he was proven INNOCENT. After the accusations got made the boy was so full to the top with guilt on what he had done to MJ he committed suicide. All this has been dead and buried now, he was an innocent man who's life got destroyed after these enormous lies. he was never the same again after he got dragged through the dirt for no reason, he couldn't even eat because his mind was destroyed with how poeple could think such a thing of him. How could anyone who was involved in supporting he was a 'P' i dont know how they can sleep at night with destroying some one like that? He brought SO much to this world, he changed the music industy, helped millions of the suffering, he was so talented and touched by god and he gave us everything he had just to make us smile. And beause he had that, because he was the kindest soul of the celebrity community, people wanted to drag him down and destroy him, out of jelousy and greed and money. Do you know, if a journalist could get a story on michael jackson, no matter if it was made up (which they ALL were) they would get paid in Vast amounts, more than any story they could make on any other celeb. It was all out of glutony and greed and selfish accomplishment, If you believe what you see and read these days then you are a fool.
Good God, Jodie. You need a reality check.
Everything you said was bullshit. Everything you believe about Michael is bullshit.
You believe the hype, the image, the fantasy. He only surrounded himself with children because he was a pedophile. he was not stifled; he was not an innocent.
He was a dyed in the wood pedophile who sexually molested boys.
He was found 'not guilty' in court; not guilty does not equal innocent in the United States.
Jordie Chandler never, ever recanted his claim that Michael Jackson had molested him. Never. That was an Internet hoax and any fan who believes it is a bigger idiot than realized.
Please, wake up and smell the coffee. Michael Jackson was no more a good man than your standard child molester. He loved kids a little too much.
Don't act like he's an angel. That is an insult to his tragic life. You didn't know him, nor did I, but the evidence of his guilt is out there in court documents available on the web. It's pretty apparent that his fame and fortune allowed him to pay off parents and stay out of jail.
No, Jodie, you are the fool to think a child molesting pedophile with a truly phony, generic message is deserving of such adoration. I pity you.
How can you prove these documents are true? Anyone can write anything on a paper. If you show MJ's sample of sperm, this draw of draw of Chandler doesn't indicate it's MJ and Bret Barnes penis, anyone can make a draw like these. If he had really slept with him. Wouldn't have been easier to take a photo, he didn't need to draw his penis, the police itself could have made a composite picture, it seems to be fabricated. Why would MJ be so stupid to let the whole world know, be filmed just to pay only after. Wouldn't it have been smarter to pay and get the draw since the beginning? if those people who wrote books about him were telling the truth why didn't they seat in court to accuse him?
TO DESIREE,
OH MY GOD! IF YOU DID ANY KIND OF PROPER RESEARCH WITHOUT THE BULLS**T OF ALL OF THESE STUPID CHILD MOLESTING ALLEGATIONS, YOU WOULD SO CLEARLY SEE THAT MJ WAS 1000 PERCENT INNOCENT.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, JORDY CHANDLER ALREADY CAME OUT TO ADMIT THAT HE LIED ABOUT BEING MOLESTED BY MICHAEL JACKSON, AND THAT HE WAS FORCED BY HIS FATHER TO DO SO. HIS FATHER HAS IN A RESULT OF ALL THIS, COMMITTED SUICIDE IN 2009.
MICHAEL JACKSON IS SOMEONE WHO WOULD NEVER EVEN LAY A FINGER TO HURT A CHILD, YET ALONE MOLEST THEM. MJ WAS TOO GOOD FOR THIS WORLD, AND IT IS THE IGNORANT AND PREJUDICED PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT CONTINUE TO TARNISH THE LEGEND, HUMANITARIAN, AND ULTIMATE ENTERTAINER TO HAVE EVER GRACED THIS EARTH.
IT IS SO UNFORTUNATE THAT HE STILL DOES NOT RECEIVE THE VINDICATION HE SO RIGHTFULLY DESERVES FROM SOME SILLY JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE.
Anonymous:
Please. All caps is a little much, don't you think?
A correction for you: Jordie Chandler never admitted that he lied and Evan Chandler did not kill himself due to guilt over Jacko. That is all just silliness.
My goodness! I can't believe there are fans that still believe that nonsense.
@DESIREE
WOW OK, IT MAKES ME SICK TO THE STOMACH TO HEAR THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU STILL BELIEVE THOSE ALLEGATIONS.
ONE DAY YOU WILL REALIZE HOW WRONG YOU ARE.
Look, loser, if you can verify that I am wrong about the thing that became Jacko, I will give you a cookie.
Post a Comment