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!
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.