It's time for eyes to be opened.
If one goes through this blog to read some of my older posts (well, I don't recommend it; my writing and tone has changed so much, to the point those old pieces are rather embarrassing), there is a marked change in my tone towards the subject du jour, Michael Jackson.
I also didn't mean for this blog to be all about Michael, but, because of my research in the midst of having this blog, I have to accept where all of it has taken me.
I should say that I do not mind it. He is a fascinating subject.
But anyway, I used to be a fan. Let me make that clear: saying that you used to be a fan does not turn you into a 'hater', that completely ridiculous word Michael Jackson fanatics (not fans, 'fanatics'; that word denotes a level of ardor that is wholly unrecognizable from stereotypic psychosis) like to label you with if you happen to hold a view of Michael that is divergent from the status quo.
If I said I liked Michael, that would be overstating it, but I definitely don't hate him. 'Hater' is just a dumb concept delivered by people incapable of debate or critical reasoning... of course, it is not as bad as being called a 'pedophile', which is quite sad; apparently their end of the debate has so crumbled that they resort to calling someone who merely suggests Michael had boy issues a person with boy issues!
Clever!
Well, it was one evening where I was capturing Michael-related links for future blog entries and I stumbled upon a story that blew my mind. I mean, completely changed my perceptions.
I will say it right now: I feel about 99.9 percent sure that Michael was a pedophile and was guilty of not only molesting Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia, both of whom received millions of dollars in hush money, but other boys as well, including (but certainly not limited to) Jimmy Safechuck and his favorite child prostitute and future legal lover, Brett Barnes.
If you feel differently that is okay.
But I felt that way once, too. When Michael passed away, I wanted to research this man that people were going nuts for. I think I've touched on this before but, now, it feels more holistic and complete. But I wanted to know about these child molestation charges, accusations, and innuendos. I wanted to know about the accusers, the players, everything.
I had no opinion, really, although I did used to joke that it would probably be frightening to wake up and have Michael standing over you with his carved up and infinitesimal nose.
I did my sleuthing around and the only stuff I found was proclamations of his innocence. I guess I was unaware, at the time, that I was reading nothing but 'research' and compilations of 'evidence' of his 'innocence' from MJ fanatics.
How silly of me! The reality is no one but the fans are going to spend hours and hours, days and days, trying to discredit everyone of Michael's detractors, haters, alleged abuse victims.
Let me just say: I feel sorry for anyone who isn't really knowledgeable of Michael Jackson; they will be bombarded with 'well-researched' yet essentially opinionated fan facts about him. No truth, all bias. Like me, they will only have gotten one side of the story.
And that's what I had gotten. Naturally, since his most ardent and vociferous of supporters control the flow of information about Jacko, I believed him to be innocent. Not only innocent, a victim! I had shed tears for a man who had--according to the fans--been maligned and mistreated by a vicious media, greedy parents, and other unscrupulous people.
Apparently, despite my own seeming devotion to Michael, I clearly wasn't a fanatic. Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love gave me a really bad feeling, to the point I couldn't finish it upon the first cold read in August of last year.
Interestingly enough, I attributed that reaction to feeling spiritually sick at someone's viciousness and 'lies' (remember, I thought I was well versed in Michael's woes at that point, except only in His Side), when, in hindsight, I was just disgusted by the truth; it made me uncomfortable because I thought Michael was a wonderful person--an innocent man-child--but all of Diane's points seemed to make sense.
Nothing was contradictory.
I am wiser now.
Anyway, if I am to bring it back to my point: I was researching one evening and I found a story that challenged this fan-indoctrinated idea of Michael's innocence and his accusers' all being liars, namely the 15.3 million-dollar kid.
Briefly, I should note that I had only heard about Jordie and Gavin Arvizo before I researched Michael. It was then that I had heard about Jason Francia, who the media didn't even discover until 2003. I wrote him off as yet another liar but, in retrospect, I can't believe I didn't see the 'iffy'-ness of so many accusers, especially another one who'd received a multi-million dollar payoff.
But the 'perusing'. I found this story by Roger Friedman dated July 6, 2006: "Jacko's Big Secret: $300,000 Payoff to Another Family?" I'll paste some of the interesting tidbits but it was also printed in the New York Daily News here, here, and here:
It’s apparently a secret known in the world of Michael Jackson to only a select group of former advisers. In court in Santa Monica, however, where Jackson is being sued by a former associate, it’s a story coming out into the open bit by excruciating bit.
Sometime after he was arrested in November 2003, Jackson sent $300,000 to a family living in South America. What he got for his money is unclear, but my sources say it was part of a continuing payout to a family who felt their child was abused by the pop star.
The jury in the Jackson case has heard several allusions to the payoff, although direct parties to the trial are not allowed by Judge Jacqueline Connor to address the subject as anything other than “a personal matter.”
The reason is that this is a financial lawsuit, and at least two of the sitting jurors stated during their interviews that they believe Jackson is a child molester....
In this case, yesterday, Jackson’s recently fired accountant, Alan Whitman, confirmed that he had received a request for the $300,000 payment from Jackson but declined to say what it was for.
He claimed, as I’m told he did in depositions, that he “chose” not to know what the money was for after it was explained to him in partial detail.
Similar testimony was given by former Jackson financial advisor Alvin Malnik, who said that Jackson called him and asked him to have associate F. Marc Schaffel take care of an “urgent situation” for $300,000....
I am told with great certainty by insiders that Jackson sent the money to South America to keep a parent and her son quiet in late November 2003, right after Jackson’s arrest for child molestation in the Arvizo case.
The implication is that this additional money was paid to a family that had already left the United States and made a deal with Jackson long ago — but was now being sought by prosecutors in the Arvizo case as witnesses to support their "prior acts" case.
The concern at the time may have been that the family in question had been on Jackson’s payroll for a long time. At the time of the pop star’s arrest in November 2003, however, Jackson evidently felt it was a good time to move them again rather than risk their discovery by either the media or authorities.
The Santa Monica jury also saw e-mail communication between Whitman and Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos. In the e-mails, Geragos gives approval to Whitman to pay for the "travel expenses" for Schaffel related to that transaction....
Intriguing, huh? That's what I thought!
I read the story and said to myself, "These are Michael's advisors! They couldn't be telling lies in a court of law." This was documented and the judge decided to reduce the testimony to nothing more than 'a personal matter'. Of course, she had to know, seeing that judges review all evidence in the case to which they preside.
So, Michael Jackson--much like the secretive payoff to the Francias in the mid-1990s--paid another family? I thought it was shocking but I had absolutely no reason to think the report was fictitious, seeing it had been confirmed by a number of his employees, past and present, in a court of law.
It was then that I decided to look at everything through a more critical lens. No longer did I investigate using fan and vindication blogs but I stuck to published books and news-media reports. Flash forward several months and here we are, blogging about Michael's suspicious boy activity.
I should say that I realize many fans (all of them, perhaps) will disavow the article. But, let's be honest: the only reason anyone would immediately bash said article is because it bashed Michael the Messiah. However, if that is the only foundation to which a fan can repudiate the report, they are living in a shack on sand.
What kind of thinking skills does one possess if they believe anything divergent from their own opinions about Michael is a lie or tabloid or from a 'hater'? Talk about giving new meaning to 'idiot'!
Ultimately, what I am trying to say is that this article made me think. It made me question all of the notions I had previously held onto due to my original research (on fan sites only) and it opened my eyes.
Because the reality is this: no normal adult is going to have sleepovers with aged 10 to 14-year-old boys; he isn't going to have these boys sleeping in the bed with him when other beds are sufficient and available; he isn't going to be accused of child molestation more than once; he isn't going to pay off boys in the millions of dollars over 'alleged' or false claims; he isn't going to continue sleepovers with boys after child molestation charges; he isn't going to own books owned and recommended by pedophiles (please click through his site and see Boylinks--a site for pedophiles and 'boylovers'--and his brief pictorial of The Boy: A Photographic Essay, which Michael kept nestled safely away in a locked file cabinet, not in his so-called 'vast' library).
I don't know if more can be said, really.
Do we need more evidence? A couple on a train saw Michael Jackson, his staff, and a young boy (the date shows it was, without a doubt, Brett Barnes) and heard disturbing sounds coming from Michael and the boys compartment, sounds so disturbing the woman of the couple had to alert the conductor. Are they liars, too?
Michael Jackson was a pedophile; jeez, is it really so hard to see? He was horribly abused, as I've already posted about, and I have no doubt in my mind that his trauma and sexual exploitation at the hands of adult men shaped his possibly criminal sexuality.
I am doing my best to compile the evidence to support the valid assertion of Michael's pedophilia, the type of evidence and/or analysis that I would have liked to see when I was searching for information on Michael over a year ago. I want to be the oasis in the desert of completely blind fan analysis.
The truth is the fans are too tied up into Michael to ever be objective; sometimes I feel it may be better if they never learn the truth about him. Some of them may hurt themselves...
If you think Michael Jackson was innocent of molestation, it is time to relinquish the 'Jesus juice'. No amount of ardor can change the reality of his offenses.
He was a nonce, a pedophile, a pederast, a child molester. His porn collection did not show he was a 'normal heterosexual man'; it showed he was sex-obsessed, given his history of sexual abuse and the soft-core sex shows he'd seen as a child.
To whitewash his memory and make him into a god is insulting to such a tragic being. Not to mention, it is insulting to his alleged victims.
I realize that I was not 'there'. That's a valid statement, but it cuts both ways. A fan cannot proclaim he's innocent because, like me, they were not there; at most, we all can only say, "We don't know."
However, a little common sense will go a long way on this particular topic. He allegedly paid off another family, for goodness' sake! If that doesn't cause some sort of questioning in the mind of a fan, perhaps, they are just too far gone.
20 comments:
Were you able to get into the link I sent you, after my instructions on how to reach it? There is another document about somebody from Louisiana, who was also claims to have been sexually abused.
I used to think Michael Jackson was just so mentally ill from the physical, mental, and sexual abuse he suffered as a child, he didn't understand why it was inappropriate for a grown man to have sleepovers with little boys. But after somebody from the inside told me Michael was a pedophile and went into detail, I had to face the truth. I still feel sorry for Michael; he was obviously a tormented man who led a tragic life. But just because I stare at the facts about what he was doesn't make me a hater. I still enjoy Off the Wall and Thriller.
By the way, I'm looking forward to your review about the book you mentioned in your most recent post. I can only imagine what the rabid fans who worship at the Church of Michael Jackson will have to say. I can only imagine how his family will react, too.
@ Len
The fanatics have already dismissed the book because allegedly it was written by a real-life pedo! I for one don't think that really matters; it's better to have someone who knows tell you like it is rather than someone who thinks they know. As doctors often say, clinical learning is different from book learning. The author probably can see it more clearly than any of us.
Oh, and one of the negative Amazon reviews for the book was written by one of the writers of Vindicate MJ!!! LOL Why am I not surprised.
@ Desiree,
I so agree with this post. i still like Mike's music (although he definately isn't my favorite) but I still think he had, as you call it, "boy issues". That was a very interesting article. i never knew there were possibly others, and the fact that the mother could have been on the payroll as an employee of Mike's makes me think that it was probably easy for him to control the situation. Perhaps she was maid? Blanca Francia was one. I know Orietta Murdoch had said that Norma Staikos warned her against bringing her young son around Mike. All very interesting.
I just don't get the level of adoration. I for one have no patience for celebrities and their hijinks so I could never be a blind loyalist fan. Why worship somethone fallible? what is the point of that? He wasn't a damn messiah; he was a very talented musician and dancer--that's it. He was so horribly abused and I will forever feel sorry for him, but I won't be blinded to reality by my sympathy.
Len:
I was able to open the page but some of the pdfs were password protected. By the write ups, it seems as if a lot of those docs were from the Arvizo case, which, honestly, I just don't find that case legit. The Arvizos were liars. The only thing I care about with regards to that case is the 1108 evidence. I don't believe Gavin was molested.
I had heard about the Louisiana case as well. But I thought it had been by someone who wasn't the correct age when he said he'd been molested. They said that there had been some issue with the date. But, nevertheless, the judge thought it was frivolous, so it amounted to nothing more than a seemingly crazed stalker of some sort...
As for the book, I looked around and J-M-H is right: allegedly Carl Toms is a pedophile named Thomas O'Carroll and the fans hate him for saying Michael was 'one of them'. I don't know how long it's been out--the book--but my motto is this: if the fans dislike it, it must have some value. ;-)
J-M-H:
I wonder, too, who Ruby Martinez was to Michael. Maybe she was like Blanca, a maid; her son was molested, wasn't he? Whatever she was, she had power over him.
All of it is interesting and I wish there was more information on Ruby and David Martinez. All I have to say is that I believe the report.
I hope fans read it and understand that not all stones have been unturned. Michael was a pedophile; Toms knows, as did Gutierrez.
The old adage stands: it takes one to know one.
I feel sorry for Michael's abuse but the buck stops at his abuse of other boys. I'll keep researching...
Desiree, Let me do some more hunting around. There is one police report I read from the raid that lists every single item found in the house, one by one, in numerical order. That's the one I'm trying to find, again. I was always skeptical about the Arvizo case, but a criminologist I was in contact with insisted there was no doubt in his mind about Michael's guilt. He's the one who had access to the full monty of documents, which included previous cases. There was one document I need to reread about whether or not past payoffs should be included in the trial. But it was late at night, so I want to pull it down to see it, again. I'm still in question about the Arvizo case, but Michael was definitely guilty of sexually abusing the others.
Len:
You are talking about the continuation sheet that showed the books Michael had and the bloody sheets, etc., right? I thought I attached that in one of the emails I sent you?
Well, here is a link to it, if that is what you are talking about:
http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/resources/060804sdcontsheet.pdf
That document is not found on the Santa Barbara County site, so it's best to save that one to your computer!
I read that the judge in the 2005 case ordered that all of the pleadings about whether the DAs could bring into evidence prior settlement amounts were to be filed under seal. That's the reason they aren't out there. The only document regarding the settlement out there is Tom Mesereau's BS filing in support of a subpoena quash for Larry Feldman, the Chandlers' attorney.
In that document, he stated that Michael Jackson wanted to fight the 1993 matter but that is a complete lie and inconsistent with the facts of that case. Inconsistent with Michael's own words, too. I plan to write a post on that but midterms are coming up next week so I won't have the time to write anything yet.
That's an interesting thing, I feel. Funny how the ONLY document about the settlement (outside of the redacted settlement itself) available is from Michael's side. It reeks of that notion of the color of justice is green and is, once again, indicative of Michael Jackson manipulating the media.
Michael always wanted to settle. He said so in his own words. I really hope I can get that post out soon after Tues.-Wed. of next week. So many fans believe that that is evidence the settlement wasn't a payoff.
But they are wrong. So much misinformation out there, it's really sad.
So this criminologist has seen other documents? I know the journalist Maureen Orth had alluded to herself sleuthing through court documents at the LA and SB county courthouses. Christopher Andersen also sites many documents himself, so, apparently, they can be accessed somehow if you are a credible journalist or someone connected to the justice system.
But the point is this: the fans base their belief of Michael's innocence based on redacted documents because it's easy to do so when there really is nothing exculpatory or damning in them either way. However, as you've suggested with the criminologist, if they were able to see the 'full monty', they will undoubtedly have a different opinion.
Apparently, that is the case with Maureen Orth--who's first piece on Michael was very even-handed--and Christopher Andersen, who mentions the documents (with their file numbers) in his appendix.
I haven't seen the 'full monty' either so, at the end of the day, this is all my opinion, that he was indeed a criminal pedophile. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. That article by Roger Friedman above in this post is mighty interesting, Len. Mighty interesting...
Michael obviously had paid other families before and the media never knew, like he did with the Francias.
All signs point to pedophilia. The fans need to wake up.
Desiree, the police report I'm referring to is a different document, not the analysis of some of the items on the list. I'll check that link you posted, later tonight, after I get home. (I did read the analysis, last night. A bloody sheet? Hmmm.) There was also a testimony from each of the Arvizo brothers, explaining where some of the items were located.
The documents I read were not on PDF files. What I can do is download them, set up a file for you, and email it. I'm also waiting for a couple of people I mentioned to get back to me. You can only imagine my impatience! I want to get ahold of those documents, again, to send to you!
One note the criminologist told me is that not all of the documents are available for the public. He also explained why Jordan Chandler refused to testify. He said monetary contracts are set up with stipulations. One of them is the recipient can never discuss what happened to him/her, or said individual will have to return all of the money. I mention this because the rabid attendees of the Church of Michael Jackson insist Jordan Chander refused to testify because he knew he lied and didn't want to face Michael.
Len:
Okay. I thought you meant the continuation sheet. My mistake. ;-)
I, too, wondered what it meant by the bloody sheets. Possibly sex with special friends? Or men? Or he was inserting objects into himself?
I suppose a fan could argue sex with a woman whilst she's on her menstrual cycle but I doubt it. Although many of the former Neverland employees seem incredible (well, let's be honest: incredible to fans, and we all know that they have framed the debate!), one of them stated there had been semen-, and sometimes 'doo doo'-, stained sheets they had to clean that were from he and Brett Barnes.
I'm actually giggling as I typed that. It does seem so incredible! But I know he had a sexual relationship with Brett so maybe those sheets were from their nights after Brett became legal and was still 'sleeping over', as he'd testified on the stand?
But I believe the bloody sheets are sexual in nature, whoever the blood belongs to. Michael had a storage unit which, because of missed payments, I believe, he lost and, allegedly, there were child-sized sex toys/dildos, along with sex guides.
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_0gKcnJFXo0hVEEFJY2EHpN
(that link, by the way, did not mention the dildos--that was in a MJ book I own called 'Jackso'--but the guy said that there were other items that were salacious in nature; small dildos/butt plugs is possible, LOL)
Clearly, something is going on, if those reports are to be believed...
Len, the fans would say about the settlement that it did allowed Jordie--or any of the Chandlers--to testify in court, because if he hadn't allowed them, that would've been illegal (allegedly; the laws work differently for the rich and famous, apparently).
But, if you read the document closely, it's obvious there's language in there covertly telling them, 'Hey, you got the money; now keep your mouth shut!'
Also, the fans don't know what went on at the roundtable when everyone was there to sign the docs. How do we know that there wasn't this verbal agreement for the Chandlers to never say a word? Larry Feldman was very uncooperative with the DAs and other attorneys after the settlement was signed. He's this big hotshot civil attorney; he knows the rules of those contracts/settlements.
They weren't allowed to testify; period.
Were you 'Curious' under the sawf website thread about the FBI docs (she wrote like you)? You'd made several good points about why Jordie wouldn't have testified. All, of course, making more sense than the idea of someone wanting to stay out of court because they 'lied'.
That doesn't even make sense logically. And Jacko's wackos say it like it's set in stone. How the hell would they know? It just makes me sick that they are bashing a HIGHLY PROBABLE molestation victim...
Yes, please send me whatever you can find! :-)
The criminologist mentioned with great disgust the rich can buy their way out of just about anything. He said people can be intimidated into signing contracts, waiving their rights to speak out. He said when something like this is settled in civil court, it's common for that sort of clause to be included, overtly or covertly, via the wording. No matter what the members of the Church of Michael Jackson say, the Chandlers were not allowed to testify, as you pointed out. One thing he mentioned when reading the documents is to especially pay attention to police reports and victim/witness testimonies.
Out of curiosity, have you read the contract that settled the case between Michael Jackson and the Chandlers? My understanding is it is sealed, but I'd love to read it if you have.
Yes, I was "Curious", which I really was. I just couldn't understand the mentality of the rabid fans, and I found Debrah Ffrench (and all his/her aliases) to be completely insane. But I ended up getting kicked off the site, just for trying to be a voice of reason. I was also trying to be neutral, even though I know Michael was a pedophile. At the time, I had also not read the documents I have been referring to. In the end, I decided it's impossible to reason with a lunatic.
By the way, I agree with you. The blood stained sheets were due to some sort of sexual activity.
I have read the settlement documents and I planned to post about them. But there is a site that has all of the pictures of the redacted settlement, so you can read them, Len:
http://dearjordanchandler.com/?page_id=27
(continue onto the next page until you've read all of the pages)
Oddly, this website has all of the redacted settlement available for public viewing but, as evidenced by the URL and the title of the blog, it is yet another vindication site aimed at trying to get Jordie Chandler to tell the 'truth' about how he was not molested.
Haven't they read the settlement docs on their very site?? If they had--and read between the lines--they'd know that the settlement was nothing but a payoff in exchange for the Chandlers' silence.
Silly fans... I stick to what I said in this entry: if they really heard the 'truth' coming from Jordie's lips, some of them would kill themselves.
Your chat with SoCalGal and Deltaquadrant was very sad. They refused to address your question about idol worship and the mentality behind it. That is a question I'd like answered as well.
I have figured that talking to some of Michael's adherents is completely pointless. I do, however, enjoy making them defend their ridiculous assumptions... Unfortunately, I don't get to do that here...
I'm surprised a document like that became public information, but what a read that was! I can't thank you enough for the link! I have to read documents like that, and in layman's terms, the legal wording clearly translates into "We are giving you this money to make you shut up and to prevent you from pursuing this in criminal court. You will also pretend Michael Jackson never molested your son. Or else." The rabid fans don't see it? To anyone familiar with legal documents, it's very overt in its means to silence the Chandlers.
You're welcome, Len!
It's actually missing about 8 pages where the settlement payment and its disbursement was broken down; that was too confidential, I guess.
I wonder what it said. Hmm...I bet it said that Michael agreed to settle and was paying a portion of the settlement, along with his insurance company. I bet that payoff would me much clearer with the addition of those pages but it's clear already, IMO.
I have all the available pages saved as .jpg files and have already marked a few of them up in the Paint program (you know, my typical underlining for emphasis; crude, but it works).
Like I said before, when these mid-terms are over...!
The wording in the settlement doc is pretty overt, I agree with you; it's all pretty much intuitive in that what you read was really how it went, including a little bit of reading between the lines. I have a whole plan to break it down because they were bought.
The DAs wanted very badly for the Chandlers to testify but they declined because the settlement had been reached. Church of Michael worshippers say that it clearly said they could testify--and it does say that, BUT...with conditions. They must alert Michael within 5 days of their plans to turn over information or be said information if a another party plans to investigate him. Of course, if they refuse a subpoena, no alert needs to given, OF COURSE!
In other words: 'Yeah, you can testify but why do it? We'll be watching your every move and, if you do decide to say anything, we'll know because you have to tell us beforehand. And since we'll know what you are doing, we'll be able to crush you like a bug in court."
Very mob-like, you know? They say Michael was very much into the mob, possibly connected to them in some way.
But, basically, they couldn't testify and they wouldn't testify. That's how it went. It's in black and white in the settlement docs.
By the way, the document became public info, I believe, because Michael Jackson had violated its confidentiality clause by going on Primetime Live in 1995, that wonderful sit-down chat with Sawyer where he lied, lied, lied... Evan Chandler tried to sue him but was unsuccessful; in some way, the document was released afterward, I guess to show the public the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement that Michael had to adhere to as well.
But let's be honest: the confidentiality clause was for the Chandlers ONLY. They were the ones who got the money.
Funny thing is that Johnnie Cochran--a party to the settlement agreement and the one who strong-armed the insurance company to pay for Michael's woes--stated, following the signing of the settlement, that in time Michael would come out and speak about how the troubles had made him feel, give his side, etc.
So Cochran already knew that the settlement's confidentiality clause was to be violated by Michael, not to mention he pretty much stated it was just for the Chandlers.
See, everything is right there in front of people if they are willing to LOOK and LISTEN.
It wasn't long after that Mary Fischer wrote her GQ piece discussing how Michael was framed and posited the bullshit that Jordie Chandler had been given sodium amytal and, possibly, made to lie about the molestation.
It's my belief that she was put up for that piece. Have you read it, Len?
Then, of course, he did the Primetime Live interview the following year.
Feldman was right when he said that Michael manipulates the media.
(that comment above has a lot of typos and redundancy errors; forgive me, LOL; I just woke up)
I did read Mary Fischer's piece and wondered who put her up to it. Somebody from the Jackson family? One of Michael's lawyer's or spin doctors? What do you think?
There are parts of the Chandler-Jackson contract I found chilling. Putting into the document how important Michael's image was and how his income would be hurt by this just didn't look good on the side of Michael's camp. Coupled with the Chandlers being told to relinquish the Action (case) made it obvious Michael cared more about hushing up the Chandlers so that he could continue making money and protecting his image for the public.
Numbers 9 and 10 were interesting because the Chandlers honored the contract by not speaking. And yet when Michael blatantly violated it, Evan Chandler was condemned for filing a lawsuit, even though the contract gave him that right.
Telling the Chandlers to send written notification to Michael if they were subpeoned is a spit in the face to the legal system. And the constant threat of lawsuits if the Chandlers didn't keep their mouths shut made my skin crawl. And people wonder why Jordy Chandler refused to testify? It just shows how much a rich celebrity can control "justice", with the right amount of money and clout. That Michael had this document set up to silence the Chandlers was so shamelessly overt.
It would be interesting to see the eight missing pages, but I'm willing to bet Michael would never have wanted anyone knowing how the monetary payout was broken down, by who paid how much. I can't decide if I'm angrier at the out-of-control-image-obssessed Michael or the fervent worshippers at the Church of Michael Jackson who insist this man was the new messiah.
I don't know who I am more disgusted with either. I think it's the fans. It's one thing to like someone's music (although, I agree with J-M-H above: he's not my favorite; I prefer R&B) but to make them blameless in the face of every foible or scandal is just insane.
Michael was human and he had definite flaws: he molested young boys and was a pedophile. There are fans who think he is seriously 'pure and innocent', despite the fact--even if we disregard the accusations of abuse and pedophilia--he had porn, was a junkie, and a drunk (I mean, the porn and the bottles of alcohol and some pill bottles were everywhere at Neverland!).
That's not pure or innocent.
As for Mary Fischer, I'm pretty sure she was set up to write the piece, most likely by Sony, if I had to make a guess. They had a lot to lose post-settlement and if they could get a hack to write a piece positing this BS about Jordie being drugged and tricked into lying, they could save face. If any of that were true, there would have been no settlement and Michael would have sued the Chandlers for extortion.
That's a great point about the gratuitous mentioning of how Michael's image was very important. I never thought about it deeply but, again, that's just another fairly overt reference to the fact that the settlement was a silence buy-off. Totally.
If you think about it, the fact that he was Michael Jackson who made Thriller and can moonwalk is the reason he is allowed to do whatever he wanted. Also, as a result of this status, everyone else acted contrary to reason and ethics.
A kid was abused? "Oh, well, we'll act like we didn't see anything." A special friend does a sexual act with Michael? "Oh, Michael would never hurt me; he's the coolest guy in the world!"
It's funny because the fans get cocky and sarcastic and say, 'Oh, yeah, sure; the only reason we think Michael's innocent is because we like his music and he can dance! Suuuure...'
But, in reality, it's true! If he was anyone else at all, he would have been in prison and no one would like him. They'd think he was scum. But since he's Michael, he can do no wrong!
And that's what's so sickening to me. He gets a pass--like all celebs--because of status and the 'too cool too be bad' factor. Absolutely horrible.
You know very little about this two cases (chandler, arvizo), the settlement deal, I recommend you to research about them even more. I recommend you to read the trial transcipts. If you read any book about MJ, you should learn about the author too. Diane Dimond is a cheap tabloid liar, it was proven many times.The book: The boy: the photographic essay is an artbook, is not recommended for phedophiles. Yes, Michael give money for a lot of children and families in the world, many of them he never met. Theese were donations. Michael slept not only with boys but with girls too (just the media don't mention the girls, but on youtube you can find several interviews with girls too who slept in his room when they were children), he never touched them that way. Michael choosed to settle mostly any time he was sued for any stupid things not connected to sexuality at all, because he hated trials so much. That is why hundreds of people sued him, they thought he was an easy source of money.
Didn't you know that the jury found all those wittnesses incredible of the prosecution who testified they saw Michael in inappropriate situation with minor for different reasons. Brett Barnes testified that Michael never touched him. The defence played a video for the jury how Jason Francia was interrogated by the police back in 1993. At the begining he denied that michael ever had touched him. After the police officers pushed him to say they wanted to hear. Also the defence revealed his mother connections with the tabloid media.
Anna:
The difference between you and me is that when I research the information about the cases (I don't discuss the Arvizo case on this blog because I am unsure whether they are telling the truth), I actually look at both sides--all sides--not just say that I do to appear balanced.
I've read a breadth of books (from ALL sides), news articles, court documents, and trial transcripts. I probably am more researched than the average MJ fan; this is why I can maintain a blog and write about him because I know so much. I also have connections in the music industry.
Have you researched on all sides and kept an open mind? I doubt it, seeing that all MJ fans are blinded in their rabid devotion to Michael Jackson. Actually read between the lines and use common sense when you look at all of his issues.
Michael settled the Chandler and Francia cases because those allegations against him were true. Put two and two together. Actually read the settlement document with the Chandlers; he agreed that he had acted sexually negligent against Jordie! It was not because Michael hated trials, court, etc. It was because he would never be able to defend himself in a court of law against those allegations.
What people don't realize is that someone can only be a victim of extortion if the extortioner has something on them. Extortion does not work with a lie. So, if Evan Chandler extorted Michael Jackson, it was because he had something against Michael.
I'm sick of explaining this concept. No one can be an extortion victim if the extortioner is LYING. Evan had dirt on Michael and he may have used it to get money. Who knows. The police found the extortion charges against Evan unfounded; they didn't think the same with the molestation charges against Michael.
Brett Barnes lied on stand. He was molested and all of the evidence I have researched proves this so much that I can write about it.
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/09/re-michaels-sexuality-was-brett-barnes.html
This guy slept with him until he was 19, much longer than any other boy.
(cont'd)
Blanca Francia was questioned by police before she went on Hard Copy. Fans repeatedly twist that. Anyhow, just because you go to a media outlet with a story does not make you a liar. You are woefully naive and worship celebrities if you believe every story in a 'tabloid' is false. That is NOT true.
Michael's employees had stories about him molesting boys before the 1993 allegations ever emerged!
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/10/re-michaels-sexuality-was-michael.html
The book, 'The Boy: A photographic essay', was made by a pedophile who had connections to the pedophile organization NAMBLA and was convicted in the 1980s of sexually abusing boys. You'd know this if you bothered to do any deep research. I've seen every photo in that book and it is worshipful of boys and totally designed for pedophiles.
Actually, who knows what kind of stuff Michael had in his home; it was cleaned before the police searched it in 1993.
Michael Jackson did not like girls as much as boys. He may have liked choice little girls but his preference was for little boys. You know it; I know it; the whole world knows it. He liked boys and developed closer relationships (often sexual) with them:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-girls-allowed-neverlands-rule-du.html
Diane Dimond is a good reporter and she's talked to more people in the know that fans could dream. I take any diss of Dimond with a grain of salt because you only dislike her because she was the one who exposed Michael as a sick pedophile.
Get over it. If she's a liar, prove it, outside of the Victor Gutierrez fiasco (she was sucked into that by Gutierrez) and the Canadian boys who lied about being molested by Michael (she was simply investigating claims because Michael had molested so many boys already and it fit the pattern).
The Neverland workers are believable. I don't care if they were sued and lost. They weren't even allowed to present their side in the case against Michael because the judge--Zel Canter--refused to hear anything about the molestation charges against Michael when that was the impetus for the harassment, intimidation, and lost jobs for which they sued.
Don't accuse me of faulty research because that is laughable. I know more about this fool than most fans because I am not a fanatic and I don't worship him.
It's when you are in mid-bow at the Alter of Jacko that you cannot see him for what he truly was: a prolific and sick child-molesting pedophile.
funny u blame the fans for doing hours of researchers and u are the FIRST ONE doing the same?? hahah that's funny
and btw u were not a fan(u forgot that fan comes from fanatic btw) before, because if u were u knew very well everything before.
and u knew that this was discussed in the court room.
Marcy2,
When I finally read fan sites, what I noticed was how little research they had actually done. Then when they got links for legal documents, they went into strong denial and spun it. (Semen on the mattress, pad, sheets, and underwear are from the Cascios. Or planted? Or saliva? Please.)
Every time people like you open your mouths, you just prove yourselves even more deluded and foolish you really are. Sometimes it's best to remain quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Post a Comment