ETA June 5, 2012:
Since this entry details Michael Jackson's obvious preference for young boys over young girls, here is another example of Jackson's habit of isolating the sisters of the 'special friends' from Jacko-orchestrated sleepover festivities. Like Renia (identified as Marie-Nicole Cascio of the the Cascio family), Amy Agajanian--the lone female child of another family Michael Jackson 'adopted'--also helpfully shed light on Jackson's "All Boys" philosophy. Quoted verbatim from the Vindicate MJ fan website:
Amy was a very close little pal to Michael in the early 90s, kept up with him a little over the years, is a young woman now who, along with her family, is utterly devastated by Michael’s death. I talked to her on the phone for over an hour a few months ago.
She doesn’t remember or know much legal stuff, other than the whole family was at the airport waiting to testify on MJ’s behalf, when they were disappointed to get called by the lawyer and told they wouldn’t be testifying. She also was at a Neverland celebration afterward and said it was so joyous! Everyone singing! Her older brothers were allowed to sleep over at the house, but even though she was MJ’s closest pal and spent far more time with him than the boys, she was relegated to a guesthouse with her mother. She was pissed! Michael explained to her it wasn’t proper for little girls to be in his house overnight unchaperoned. Michael’s feelings about this explain completely why it was always boys overnight. But you hear nothing about his little girl pals.
Note the highlighted text.
So, according to Amy Agajanian, Jackson believed young girls could not be in the main house without adult supervision, but boys could. This, of course, appears quite strange, especially given the fact that Jackson himself was an adult and could be reasonably assumed to act as 'chaperone' to any of the children staying the night in his room.
It seems that the most important thing to Michael Jackson was to keep the girls cruelly and conspicuously away.
ETA March 4, 2011:
According to the album jacket for Michael Jackson's dubious Invincible album, it is reasonably believed that our Renia--who helpfully left behind her letter to Michael revealing the truth about Neverland--is Marie Nicole Cascio. In his 'Thank yous' section, he wrote:
ETA March 4, 2011:
According to the album jacket for Michael Jackson's dubious Invincible album, it is reasonably believed that our Renia--who helpfully left behind her letter to Michael revealing the truth about Neverland--is Marie Nicole Cascio. In his 'Thank yous' section, he wrote:
Special thanks to Connie (Momma Rubba), Big D, Renico, King Dom, Baby Rubba, Angel and Frank...my other family.'Renico' is obviously Renia. This, of course, makes all 'glowing reviews' regarding Michael's treatment of all members of this family a little suspicious.
_______________________________________________________________________
Just as the above picture of a license plate belonging to Michael Jackson shows (it was stored with items found in the Jackson family storage unit that came into the possession of New Jersey businessman Henry Vaccaro), 'all boys' was the dominant sentiment of Neverland Ranch, too.
Fictitiously billed as a place where all children--regardless of gender--had the 'right of way', Michael Jackson's real goal was always to turn Neverland into a 'Pleasure Island' for prepubescent, pubescent, and adolescent boys, complete with unfettered access to booze, porn, rides, and candy.
His special friends were of a similar make: boys--always boys--usually between the ages of 10 and 14-years-old.
Perhaps I am not completely well-versed on all of Michael's young companions but I cannot recall a single female child Michael was singularly interested in, let alone one he paraded around like he did the boys!
Sure, many of his special friends had sisters--such as Chantal (Wade Robson), Karlee (Brett Barnes), or Quinn and Dakota (Macaulay Culkin)--but it would be foolish to suggest Michael Jackson liked these girls as much as he liked their brothers.
I would even wager he would not have 'taken in' a family if the family only had female children!
Michael Jackson was moved by the boys with whom he'd come into contact. During the time Michael toted Emmanuel Lewis around on his hip, he proclaimed Emmanuel to be one of his 'inspirations'. If we fast foward to Michael's final album Invincible, a sleeper of a record that fell off the charts as fast as it came on, Michael's most tender song on the album was the song 'Speechless'.
It contained very romantic lyrics. A few snippets: "Your love is magical/That's how I feel"; "When I'm with you I am lost for words/I don't know what to say/My head's spinning like a carousel/So silently I pray/Helpless and hopeless/That's how I feel inside"; and "I'll go anywhere and do anything just to touch your face/There's no mountain high I cannot climb/I'm humbled in your grace".
There is nothing normal about Michael Jackson writing a tender 'boy-girl' love song about children. On page 235 of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book The Michael Jackson Tapes, Michael related a painting of children on his wall and how he felt about it, which is similar to his explanation of the 'Speechless' song:
The sister of Anton Schleiter goes unnamed in the article, although Michael did name her in his Invincible album's 'Thank You' section. However, it is really no surprise a female child would go virtually unnoticed, given Michael Jackson's history: he did not like little girls nearly as much as he did little boys.
The 2003 raid of Neverland revealed yet more evidence that the ranch was a 'Boys only' paradise.
Investigators searching for evidence to corroborate Gavin Arvizo's molestation and his family's alleged internment at Neverland found a very interesting letter from a little girl named Renia that can provide a glimpse into the ranch's boy culture.
For clarification purposes, little Renia's letter reads as follows:
Michael Jackson and his insensitive Applehead cronies made a female child feel ugly, hated, and like a 'faggot', a word she was certainly unable to fully comprehend. Yes, that was the conduct of a self-described 'lover of all children'!
So, what was it about Neverland Ranch that would make a little girl feel unwanted and less than a boy child? We can only ever speculate, since it's Proprietor-in-Chief left Neverland after the 2005 trial and is dead.
However, little Renia's letter reveals a lot about Michael's preferences.
At the very least, we know Michael Jackson did not like (or like as much) to conduct sleepovers with female children. A common theme from most of his special friends was that they shared beds with Michael, whereas those who had sisters typically slept somewhere else.
Macaulay Culkin's May 11, 2005 testimony attested to, once again, Michael's lack of girls, or the sisters of his 'special friends', in his bedroom:
On a similar tip, Michael Jackson's former chief-of-security, Robert Wegner, spoke to Dateline NBC's Josh Mankiewicz about the sleeping arrangements at the ranch. Unsurprisingly, according to him, little girls were as rare as unicorns during the sleepovers in Michael's bedroom:
But family doesn't count.
Both of these sisters, however, could only count on a few fingers how many times they'd slept in Michael's bed and all times it was when their brothers were in the room, too. So girls were a non-factor in Michael's private quarters.
As per Renia's letter, Michael Jackson not only excluded her from his bed but from his clubs, secret groups to which members had to conform to rules set forth by Jackson himself.
Chantal Robson's testimony in Michael's trial on May 6, 2005 corroborates the cold shoulder little Renia received in terms of admission into the Applehead Club, not to mention the 'Boys only' secrecy of the organization:
In the film adaptation of the classic TV show, the club's leader, Spanky, forbade Alfalfa to date Darla, a girl; Jordie Chandler, a most probable member of any or all of Michael's clubs, did tell Dr. Richard Gardner that Michael Jackson did not like him talking to girls:
The rumor around the Michael Jackson fan community was that French fangirl, Joanna Thomae, had been caught in a compromising position with Frank. When Michael found out, he'd been furious; of course, not at Frank for bringing people to Neverland and disrespecting his home but at Thomae for possibly being the 'wench, bitch, heifer, or ho' that corrupted his 'special friend'.
All of this may be apropos of nothing, just speculation and innuendo, but it seems at least possible Michael Jackson was jealous.
But let's bring it back to the point.
How is it that Michael Jackson, who claimed to love all children equally, made a little girl feel like an outcast? Could Renia have been a special case of a girl Michael did not like?
If we remember in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's The Michael Jackson Tapes, pages 251-252 mentioned a fourteen-year-old orphan girl to whom Michael took very little interest. It was obvious from the dialogue between the Rabbi and Michael that the latter could not have cared less about the girl! Shmuley related:
The Rabbi later detailed a younger girl with leukemia that Michael became fond of until she passed away. With that, it would seem Michael did not necessarily have a total dislike of girls; maybe the fourteen-year-old orphan had approached the cut-off point, where she no longer possessed the innocent spark of childhood Michael Jackson 'demanded'.
But Renia was shunned, was she not? Given her handwriting, she seemed to be a young girl.
Perhaps the final note of importance is the 'illness' variable: the little girl mentioned by Shmuley had a terminal illness to which Michael could cling onto to make himself look better and feel more like the Shepherd of Children he'd imagined himself as being...
Did Michael Jackson like girls as much as boys?
The answer would be a resounding 'No!'
Clearly, he behaved in a manner that would lead to a female child suggesting that the only way to make other people happy was by running away, so they could be rid of her! His special friends were always boys, and girls were seemingly incidental. He certainly barred them from his secret clubs, which happen to be very suspicious in their own rights.
Or maybe Michael Jackson tolerated girls as a necessary evil. Of course his true feelings were revealed privately--as Renia's letter proves--but having girls around at the ranch could have been a ploy to diffuse suspicion regarding his obvious questionable behavior with boys.
Whatever the reason, Michael Jackson made his preferences known: he liked boys. He was never a blind 'lover of all children'. Renia merely became a victim of that hypocritical farce, because it is inconceivable that she could have done anything to merit such treatment. She was a child after all.
It's good she'd left a letter behind to show us all the true nature of Michael's 'child-loving': no girls need apply.
His special friends were of a similar make: boys--always boys--usually between the ages of 10 and 14-years-old.
Perhaps I am not completely well-versed on all of Michael's young companions but I cannot recall a single female child Michael was singularly interested in, let alone one he paraded around like he did the boys!
Sure, many of his special friends had sisters--such as Chantal (Wade Robson), Karlee (Brett Barnes), or Quinn and Dakota (Macaulay Culkin)--but it would be foolish to suggest Michael Jackson liked these girls as much as he liked their brothers.
I would even wager he would not have 'taken in' a family if the family only had female children!
Michael Jackson was moved by the boys with whom he'd come into contact. During the time Michael toted Emmanuel Lewis around on his hip, he proclaimed Emmanuel to be one of his 'inspirations'. If we fast foward to Michael's final album Invincible, a sleeper of a record that fell off the charts as fast as it came on, Michael's most tender song on the album was the song 'Speechless'.
It contained very romantic lyrics. A few snippets: "Your love is magical/That's how I feel"; "When I'm with you I am lost for words/I don't know what to say/My head's spinning like a carousel/So silently I pray/Helpless and hopeless/That's how I feel inside"; and "I'll go anywhere and do anything just to touch your face/There's no mountain high I cannot climb/I'm humbled in your grace".
Curiously enough, this very 'romantic' song was inspired by children, as he told Vibe magazine:
VIBE: Tell me about the new CD Invincible. "Speechless." It's very loving.
MJ: You’ll be surprised. I had a big water balloon fight, I’m serious, in Germany and what inspires me is fun. I was with these kids and we had big water balloon fight and I was so happy after the fight that I ran upstairs in their house and write “Speechless.” That’s what inspired the song. I hate to say that because it’s such a romantic song. But, it was the fight that did it. I’d had fun, I was happy, and I wrote it in it’s entirety right there. I felt it would be good enough for the album. Out of this bliss comes magic, comes wonderment, comes creativity. It’s about having fun, it really is.Contrast this with his tepid discussion of another love song on the album, featuring lyrics like 'body cling to mine' and 'feel the sweat', obvious references to sexual activity. It's worth noting he could not write it alone.
VIBE: "Break of Dawn."
MJ: Freeze and myself wrote “Break of Dawn.” It’s just a beautiful, strolling in the park kind of song. There’s a good summer feel about it. It’s one of my favorites. It’s Denzel Washington’s favorite song. He blasts it all the time.According to an article by Roger Friedman, the German kids by whom Michael Jackson was inspired were then fourteen-year-old Anton Schleiter and his sister. Anton was yet another boy who dressed like Michael Jackson and appeared to be a 'special friend'.
There is nothing normal about Michael Jackson writing a tender 'boy-girl' love song about children. On page 235 of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book The Michael Jackson Tapes, Michael related a painting of children on his wall and how he felt about it, which is similar to his explanation of the 'Speechless' song:
"...one kid is screaming in the wind because he is feeling so good. He is just screaming to be screaming. I love that. Romance. Romance."A child being a child is 'romance'? Perhaps Michael did not fully understand the connotation of the word or boys being boys stirs up within him feelings of intense sexual love typical between two lovers! This is likely, given the romanticism of 'Speechless' and to whom it is dedicated.
The sister of Anton Schleiter goes unnamed in the article, although Michael did name her in his Invincible album's 'Thank You' section. However, it is really no surprise a female child would go virtually unnoticed, given Michael Jackson's history: he did not like little girls nearly as much as he did little boys.
The 2003 raid of Neverland revealed yet more evidence that the ranch was a 'Boys only' paradise.
Investigators searching for evidence to corroborate Gavin Arvizo's molestation and his family's alleged internment at Neverland found a very interesting letter from a little girl named Renia that can provide a glimpse into the ranch's boy culture.
Surprisingly, I managed to locate "Item #361" and while the snippet provided in the search warrant is certainly telling enough, the whole letter is much better.
"I am stupied (sic) and I don't think I deserve to be in your Applehead Club. Those are all the reasons I get this way. I am very sad because I am a faget (sic). I know that you don't really like me because I am a girl. You don't like me because I get this way. I get in this (sic) for many reasons. One reason is because I am a girl and I know you don't like girls as much as boys. Baby Rubba, Dom, Angel, Frank were all your babies and since I am a girl I can't be. They get whatever they want whenever they want. Golf carts quads they all got to sleep with you and I never did. Face it I know I am not liked by you all. (Applehead Club) Maybe I should not come on any trips so I can make everyone happy. Not even my brothers like me instead they just talk about me and assume I won't care. But I do! I'm sensitive and I have to run away or something. I am so ugly and nobody likes me. Please don't tell anyone because if you do I will be really upset. I do have 1 question that I want to ask you. Well I hope this tells you why I get this way and will probably never get out of it. - The stupied (sic) girl Renia"To me, this letter is heartbreaking.
Michael Jackson and his insensitive Applehead cronies made a female child feel ugly, hated, and like a 'faggot', a word she was certainly unable to fully comprehend. Yes, that was the conduct of a self-described 'lover of all children'!
So, what was it about Neverland Ranch that would make a little girl feel unwanted and less than a boy child? We can only ever speculate, since it's Proprietor-in-Chief left Neverland after the 2005 trial and is dead.
However, little Renia's letter reveals a lot about Michael's preferences.
At the very least, we know Michael Jackson did not like (or like as much) to conduct sleepovers with female children. A common theme from most of his special friends was that they shared beds with Michael, whereas those who had sisters typically slept somewhere else.
Macaulay Culkin's May 11, 2005 testimony attested to, once again, Michael's lack of girls, or the sisters of his 'special friends', in his bedroom:
Macaulay's statements certainly jive with Renia's assertion that she'd been excluded from the typical Neverland sleepovers, however, we don't know if Macaulay's sisters were purposefully kept from sleeping with Michael. All we know is that Renia received a less than friendly reception to the point she felt the need to self-deprecate.21 Q. How many times do you think you’ve stayed in22 Michael’s room?23 A. A handful of times.24 Q. How about your sister?25 A. Not as often.26 Q. How about your brother?27 A. Whenever I was there, my little brother was28 kind of always tagging along with me, so he was1 usually anywhere I was.
On a similar tip, Michael Jackson's former chief-of-security, Robert Wegner, spoke to Dateline NBC's Josh Mankiewicz about the sleeping arrangements at the ranch. Unsurprisingly, according to him, little girls were as rare as unicorns during the sleepovers in Michael's bedroom:
Mankiewicz: "During the three years that you worked for Michael Jackson, how many children spent the night in his bedroom?"
Wegner: "I can't tell you how many children. I can tell you how many times. Now it's in excess of this and I'm being conservative, it was a hundred. Now that doesn't mean 100 children—"
Mankiewicz: "Could have been the same child a number of times."
Wegner: "Right."
Mankiewicz: "Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?"
Wegner: "To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys."So, out of at least one hundred children, Wegner could only recall one little girl to have slept over in Michael Jackson's bedroom. Of course, this could simply be what he could recall, as both Karlee Barnes and Chantal Robson testified to having slept in Michael's bedroom, not to mention Wade Robson testified to having had a sleepover where Michael's niece, Brandee, was also present.
But family doesn't count.
Both of these sisters, however, could only count on a few fingers how many times they'd slept in Michael's bed and all times it was when their brothers were in the room, too. So girls were a non-factor in Michael's private quarters.
As per Renia's letter, Michael Jackson not only excluded her from his bed but from his clubs, secret groups to which members had to conform to rules set forth by Jackson himself.
Chantal Robson's testimony in Michael's trial on May 6, 2005 corroborates the cold shoulder little Renia received in terms of admission into the Applehead Club, not to mention the 'Boys only' secrecy of the organization:
I wonder if the Applehead and Doo Doo Head Clubs are akin to the He-Man Woman-Haters Club from The Little Rascals? It is possible, especially since Michael Jackson, to no surprise, collected Little Rascals memorabilia.10 Q. Ever heard of the “Apple Head Club”?11 A. No.12 Q. Never?13 A. Apple Head Club? No.14 Q. How about the “Doo-Doo-Head Club”?15 A. No.16 Q. Have you ever heard those expressions?17 A. Yes. Not “Club.”
In the film adaptation of the classic TV show, the club's leader, Spanky, forbade Alfalfa to date Darla, a girl; Jordie Chandler, a most probable member of any or all of Michael's clubs, did tell Dr. Richard Gardner that Michael Jackson did not like him talking to girls:
JORDIE CHANDLER (JC): "Right. Like, he didn't like it if I would want to call a girl or something. You know, I wouldn't know, like, there were other options."
RICHARD GARDNER (RG): "Are you saying that he would pull you off the track of going out with girls."
JC: "Right."Not to mention, in the 'Thank You' section of Invincible, Michael exhorted longtime 'special friend' Frank Cascio to 'stop fishing', a term Michael used to denote checking out women. This could correspond to groundskeeper Jesus Salas' April 4, 2005 testimony that Michael Jackson had been upset about Frank bringing people, perhaps women, to Neverland:
Of course, we can only ever speculate to whom these 'people' were that Jesus Salas saw Frank Cascio 'sneak' into Neverland.12 Q. All right. Mr. Salas, I show you People’s13 Exhibit No. 20. We’ve shown this to you before.14 You’ve identified it as Frank Tyson.15 You mentioned that at some point during your16 employment, Mr. Tyson -- you mentioned something17 about a problem with Mr. Jackson that Mr. Tyson had.18 Do you recall that testimony?19 A. Yes, I did.20 Q. How do you know about that problem?21 A. I believe about Mr. Jackson’s frustrations.22 Q. Okay. You were present when Mr. Jackson23 expressed some from frustrations?24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.25 THE COURT: Overruled.26 You may answer.27 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And what was -- can you1 tell us what he was frustrated about?2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll withdraw and reask.4 THE COURT: Okay.5 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did Mr. Jackson tell6 you what he was frustrated about? That’s yes or no.7 A. Yes.8 Q. What -- did Mr. Jackson tell you what was9 frustrating him?10 A. He did not know about Frank bringing people11 at Neverland Valley without his permission.12 Q. Okay. Bringing guests without Mr. Jackson’s13 permission?14 A. Yes.
The rumor around the Michael Jackson fan community was that French fangirl, Joanna Thomae, had been caught in a compromising position with Frank. When Michael found out, he'd been furious; of course, not at Frank for bringing people to Neverland and disrespecting his home but at Thomae for possibly being the 'wench, bitch, heifer, or ho' that corrupted his 'special friend'.
All of this may be apropos of nothing, just speculation and innuendo, but it seems at least possible Michael Jackson was jealous.
But let's bring it back to the point.
How is it that Michael Jackson, who claimed to love all children equally, made a little girl feel like an outcast? Could Renia have been a special case of a girl Michael did not like?
If we remember in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's The Michael Jackson Tapes, pages 251-252 mentioned a fourteen-year-old orphan girl to whom Michael took very little interest. It was obvious from the dialogue between the Rabbi and Michael that the latter could not have cared less about the girl! Shmuley related:
"Michael later agreed to a very short meeting with this girl, but he took very little interest in her and never asked about her again. Why Michael seemed to take interest in some kids, and had little to no interest in others, is something that I never understood."It really is an important question.
The Rabbi later detailed a younger girl with leukemia that Michael became fond of until she passed away. With that, it would seem Michael did not necessarily have a total dislike of girls; maybe the fourteen-year-old orphan had approached the cut-off point, where she no longer possessed the innocent spark of childhood Michael Jackson 'demanded'.
But Renia was shunned, was she not? Given her handwriting, she seemed to be a young girl.
Perhaps the final note of importance is the 'illness' variable: the little girl mentioned by Shmuley had a terminal illness to which Michael could cling onto to make himself look better and feel more like the Shepherd of Children he'd imagined himself as being...
Did Michael Jackson like girls as much as boys?
The answer would be a resounding 'No!'
Clearly, he behaved in a manner that would lead to a female child suggesting that the only way to make other people happy was by running away, so they could be rid of her! His special friends were always boys, and girls were seemingly incidental. He certainly barred them from his secret clubs, which happen to be very suspicious in their own rights.
Or maybe Michael Jackson tolerated girls as a necessary evil. Of course his true feelings were revealed privately--as Renia's letter proves--but having girls around at the ranch could have been a ploy to diffuse suspicion regarding his obvious questionable behavior with boys.
Whatever the reason, Michael Jackson made his preferences known: he liked boys. He was never a blind 'lover of all children'. Renia merely became a victim of that hypocritical farce, because it is inconceivable that she could have done anything to merit such treatment. She was a child after all.
It's good she'd left a letter behind to show us all the true nature of Michael's 'child-loving': no girls need apply.
176 comments:
Great job, Desirée.
Jacko was twisted in more than one way. What a perverted soul.
The letter of Renia is heartbreaking. I can't imagine what Jacko did to this little girl to make her have such a low concept of herself and have the initiative to write him (an adult and a megastar) a letter expressing her feelings. This is unusual for a kid and very telling, in my opinion.
I've read that Lisa Marie daughter didn't like him. Maybe she disliked him for his freakiness (totally understandable) or it was a reaction for Michael's dislike and disaffection for her. Sometimes kids spot those sentiments better than adults.
Also, reading Karlee Barnes testimony, I sensed she never felt welcomed to the sleepovers. The reasons for not being included she mentioned sounded weak to me.
I think that another side of his pervertion is the way he instilled jealousy among the boys. Sure he used that to make the boys compete for his atention and undermine their resistence to the abuse.
He said he wanted to save the children of the world. Sheryl Crow asked him what he wanted to save them from and he was unable to formule a response.
That was a heartbreaking letter. To hear a little girl say she is not liked because she is a girl is sick. Especially if it's coming from an idol like Michael Jackson. I bet when she received the cold shoulder from him, her heart broke in a thousand pieces. Shame on him for that! And I agree with you, that girl had cancer and that's why he liked her. I remember reading in Christopher Andersen's book that Mike would have little sick kids come over and he would briefly pop in for a photo op and then leave. Sick.
It does shed light on the obvious though, Mike did only have boy special friends, and I've never heard of a girl-version of Brett Barnes or Manny Lewis. Not picking up a little girl version of Omer Bhatti in Tunisia. Let's face it, it was because he was a gay pedophile.
I remember watching the 1993 Super Bowl performance of Heal the World and Mike was holding this little girl but he also at the same time tried to get the attention of this cute little Hispanic boy. Like he patted him on the head and waved at him, the boy was looking like "Who is this deformed female alien trying to touch me?" LOL. It was creepy to me and I had like him and thought he was innocent at that point!
Of course Mike was jealous of Frank. Frank was a devoted special friend since he was a young boy, and now that he was a heterosexual young guy, "fishing" was a normal healthy thing to do. I mean he was 20-21 when Mike said "stop fishing"! Unlike Mike at that age (and throughout the rest of his life), guys LIKE pretty girls and want to make out with them. Funny how you talk about the "no wenches, bitches, heifers, or hos", that's probably exactly what Mike was thinking when Frank picked up girls. No, no, a special friend is for Mike only, nobody else. But Mike didn't realize that not all boys can be so devoted as Omer or Brett. LOL
I think the rule should also extent to black kids too. Unless they are his family, Mike don't like no black kids. They could come to his house, but they couldn't be a special friend. I think the fact that Manny Lewis's mom cut that relationship off quick said to Mike that black parents weren't going to let him "play doctor" with their kids. Wow, everyone says Gutierrez is a sleazy guy, but his book is turning out to be more and more accurate. He said Mike only liked non black boys as well. No girls.
Desiree, you are quite a sleuth! I am absolutely amazed at how you manage to find these highly sensitive documents. Renia's letter was indeed heartbreaking. One can only imagine the anguish experienced by this little girl, because of Michael's heartless rejection. This makes him a cold-hearted, sexist, uncaring pedophile in my estimation. Especially worse because of his procaimed love of all children.
Gutierrez's book seems more credible because he wrote about the time Karlee Barnes comforted a crying girl who was'nt allowed on jaunts with Michael and the boys. Taraborreli also mentioned a meeting of which Justin Timberlake, Wade Robson and a few selected others were guests of Michael's, and Michael was annoyed that Britney accompanied Justin. Reportedly, he left her waiting downstairs until advised that it did not look good, so he invited her to join the group. What a prick! He definitely lived by his motto:No wenches, bitches, heifers or hos.
Forgive me if I am not wonderfully articulate at times as English was never my forte.
That is definitely a heartbreaking letter. Here we have a man who said his message for the world is L.O.V.E. and also claimed he loved all children. Yet, he thought nothing of hurting that little girl. A young child should not think less of herself because she is female, so I can only imagine the impact this had on her for years. Perhaps his dislike of women extended to anyone who was female.
If only his devoted, rabid female fans understood Michael did not like them and would never have had sleepovers with them because they were female. It would would ruin their fantasies of him, during "those moments alone."
Desiree,
I'm glad you posted the link to the items Michael felt should not have been removed without his permission. It shows how pompous he was, in regards to thinking he was above the law and should dictate what the law should and should not investigate.
Susana:
I didn't know Lisa Marie Presley's daughter disliked Michael.I know he claimed to love her children but kids really do have a sixth sense. If he had an odd thing for children, they would've picked up on it.
We should remember that he always had boys who were fatherless or the father was somewhat distant. Lisa Marie's children had a close relationship with their father and Michael probably seemed creepy.
I wonder if her son felt the same was as his sister, though. If he thinks more highly of Michael than she does, it'll be because he was treated better or got more affection. Probably because he was a boy.
I was struck that Michael would make a little girl feel this way. It shows he has an inappropriate relationship with children. It says a lot if a child has the guts to tell an adult that the adult is making them feel bad.
And that is not the conduct of a truly loving person to hurt a child that way. He obviously was one sick twisted freak.
J-M-H:
Michael was always looking to tune up his image as some damned Messiah so cancer kids would be his liking.
That was the reason he brought Gavin Arvizo back for the Bashir documentary.
As for Frank Cascio, Michael was totally jealous. all I have to say about that is 'Yuck!' What, did he expect that these boys he was 'playing doctor' with were going to go gay for the rest of their lives?
Of course not. They liked girls. I wonder how he really felt. I wonder if he was jealous they could be 'normal' and he was hooked on boys and young men?
I bet it killed him.
sofi:
Victor Gutierrez gets scoffed at so I didn't quote him in the post. But it seems as if he did good detective work. A lot of things he's said, I believe.
My thing is if you can corroborate something with something else, you have a solid piece of information. He's sleazy, as J-M-H says, but his book is probably more detailed and accurate than a lot of things out there.
But, of course, I do use caution.
Michael was most definitely a sexist. and obviously it extended down to little girls, too. I don't know if he was ever 'special friends' with a girl child; it always seemed to be boys.
But a rabid fan should know that more than me. I just think girl children around Jacko are incidental. If they are there, it's by accident, not choice.
What do you mean 'English isn't your forte', sofi? I thought you were an English speaker from the UK?
Len:
LOL. 'Those moments alone' indeed. That's the reason they don't want to accept the fact he's gay. It ruins the masturbation fantasies.
That's what we think, anyway. But I think we are on the money, though.
He only liked men.
Or maybe Michael Jackson tolerated girls as a necessary evil.
I think that's exactly right. If Michael was a pedophile, then this is typical: Pedophiles not only groom & seduce the victims, but the victim's whole family too in order to gain and maintain access. If Michael befriended young boys and wanted to show them a good time at Neverland, it's inevitable that their sisters would want to tag along (what kid wouldn't want to hang out at Neverland?) and Michael had to allow them to come in order to maintain good relations with the family as a whole and maintain access to the boys. How would it have looked if he said "I want your son to come to Neverland but your daughter's not welcome".
I think the fact that Manny Lewis's mom cut that relationship off quick said to Mike that black parents weren't going to let him "play doctor" with their kids.
I don't think it was so much the parents, but rather Mike just had a preference for non-blacks in general. In my opinion he bleached his skin white (I think whatever vitiligo he may have had was the product not the cause of skin bleaching), and he also appears to have also made nose and lips smaller, cheek bones and eye brows higher, and used wigs with straight hair (all caucasoid traits) had an interest in Nazis and appears to have used non-black sperm and eggs to create all his kids (see a pattern?). Desiree made a fascinating argument that the kids have Michael's DNA but are designer babies, but I did not find the argument convincing. If Michael had designed his own babies I doubt he would have designed a girl; furthermore the science was still in its infancy when Michael's babies were born. The fact that Debbie Rowe's lawyer claimed the kids are Michael's proves nothing because Rowe has a vested interest in convincing people she is the mother of Michael's children and her lawyer serves her interests (and Rowe may not even know herself!). I don't believe Prince has vitiligo; I think either someone is rubbing bleaching cream on him for staged media photos to convince the public he is Michael's biological son and that Michael had natural vitiligo, or I think he just has Tinea Versicolor which would make sense if he's Arnie Klein's son since Arnie seems to perspire easily. According to Diane Dimond, Klein is indeed his biological father.
opinionation:
Debbie Rowe is the mother of both of those children; it's pretty obvious and it's odd anyone would even question her maternity. Paris looks just like her and, strangely enough, even though she had barely any contact with her mother growing up, she exhibited identical mannerisms to Debbie in the recent Oprah interview. And Prince has her chin.
Anyway, I think the simple answer would be that Michael Jackson is not the father of those children.
Even though I think this discussion is more appropriate under another post comment thread, I will gladly indulge it.
I have a problem thinking that they aren't his kids for the simple reason Prince exhibits something on his underarm area that seems like vitiligo. We can debate whether or not Michael's case was natural or induced but he did seem to have it. I reckon that his case wasn't very severe and due to his exceedingly wealthy status he could pay for the creams that wouldn't normally be prescribed for him to turn his ENTIRE body white. He used it to his advantage.
So the fact Michael 'had it' and Prince appears to have it, I always come back to the fact that they are his (Blanket is not in the discussion because I do think he actually sort of resembles Michael).
But this leaves why the hell are they so damned white-looking?
Holding the belief that they are his, I'd have to say there was genetic manipulation going on.
You claim that the 'designer baby' technology was in its infancy in 1996-1998 but that is incorrect. The same technology was already around to test for genetic diseases/disorders like cystic fibrosis through pre-implantation genetic testing. The mother is induced into superovulation and her numerous eggs are fertilized. When the fertilized eggs are at an 8-cell stage, one cell from each blastocyst is removed and screened for the 'faulty' genes. When 'faulty' genes are found, those blastocysts are destroyed; when good genes are found, the blastocyst is allowed to hopefully develop into a baby. (J-M-H had described it better but, as another biology student, I've learned about this, too.)
It really isn't very sci-fi. This same testing can be used for physical traits, as they are genetically determined the same way as diseases. It is just that people don't usually use the process for designing kids, either because it's distasteful or because it's too expensive.
I think it's more than a little naive to assume something is 'in its infancy'; anyone who thinks we can't clone humans has their heads in the sand. It's just that it's not ethical. The 'designer baby' technology is old, definitely around in the 1990s.
Most people cannot fathom the things the rich and famous are capable of doing because they are not rich. But Michael Jackson was exceedingly rich. He could commission anything he wanted. If he could find doctors and geneticists without scruples, he could get his white-looking black children.
This is the only way I can comprehend why those kids look so white being his.
Of course, the simple answer would be that they are not his. Again, I'm just not so fully convinced of that yet. And I definitely don't think Arnold Klein is the father of those kids but I do think it is interesting that the tabloids brought his name up so soon after Michael's death. Klein's an unscrupulous bastard and he really has a lying tongue but tabloids are right a LOT. I read them enough to know this is true.
But, bottomline, whatever happened, Michael didn't want his kids to look black. The Nazi fascination is proof he was a true racist, not to mention he called black people 'splaboos' in front of white kids.
Desiree,
What I meant to explain is that gramma is not one of my strong points. So my writing may not be up to certain standards. Going back to Renia's letter, I wonder why he would keep something as distressing as that? The only conclusion my sister and I could come to, is that he probably derived some sadistic pleasure from reading it.
Opinionation:
You made an intersting point that if Michael designed his children he would not have wanted a girl. However I feel that he possibly wanted a little girl to show everyone that he was not totally boy obsessed, especially after the Chandler scandal. Just my opinion.
Desiree, I wasn’t questioning Debbie’s maternity, but rather her knowledge (or honesty). She may not even know for sure whose sperm was used to fertilize her eggs, and she has a vested interest in convincing people those kids are genetically Michael’s because she would be demonized for contradicting the fan dogma and would damage her relations with the Jacksons and the popularity and opportunity her kids have would also plummet if their genetic link to Michael Jackson was discredited. Debbie Rowe has discovered a gold mine in being the mother to Michael’s kids and she would be foolish to let her lawyer say anything that would rock the boat.
I don’t think Michael had natural vitiligo. It seems like way too much of a coincidence that someone who appears to have had such an interest in being white (smaller nose, smaller lips, bigger cheek bones, higher eye brows, straight haired wigs, white looking kids) just happened to have a disease that made him lose his color. It would be as if God said “Hey this little black boy dreams of being white. Let’s give him a disease to help him reach his goal”. LOL!
Dr. Pamela Lipkin said:
When you look at the other features, the skin bleaching sort of goes along with what I think was his quest for beauty. So I have to wonder what came first? Vitiligo or lighter skin?
Probably he's trying to look Caucasian. His skin is whiter. His nose is getting thinner every six months. His lips are getting thinner. His eyebrows are getting higher. His eyes are getting wider every time. His cheekbones are getting bigger.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Cosmetic/story?id=131910&page=2
Latoya also said years ago that she’s aware of no skin disease in the Jackson family and Latoya herself seems to have become lighter too so she should know. Also, on page 351 of J. Randy Tarraborrelli's book MICHAEL JACKSON The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958-2009 it states:
His skin seemed to be getting lighter with each passing day. He had begun using an over-the-counter skin-bleaching cream called Porcelana to achieve that look. Latoya used it as well. They had crates of this cream stored at Hayvenhurst, holding it as the most valuable beauty product ever produced.
So the bottom line is if Michael’s vitiligo was completely self-induced (and I think it was), not genetic, the white spot(s) on Prince do not serve as evidence that Michael’s his genetic father. It’s possible that someone rubbed one of those bleaching creams on him for a staged photo to discredit rumors that Michael hated being black so much he bleached his skin and used a white man’s sperm to make his kids. Convincing the press that Prince has vitiligo would not only serve to convince the public that Michael used his own sperm but also convince the public that Michael’s increasingly white skin was the product of a hereditary disease and not racial self-hatred. Or Prince could just have Tinea Versicolor which is actually what it looks like and something I could picture Arnie Klein having too.
As for the designer baby technology being possible in the late 20th century, prestigious Time magazine (1999) begs to differ:
Aside from gender, the only traits that can now be identified at the earliest stages of development are about a dozen of the most serious genetic diseases. Gene therapy in embryos is at least a few years away. And the gene or combination of genes responsible for most of our physical and mental attributes hasn't even been identified yet, making moot the idea of engineering genes in or out of a fetus.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html#ixzz18O09H78D
Sofi, I was thinking the same thing, in regards to Paris. Having a little girl would sidestep Michael's fixation on little boys and make his crazy fans think he loved all children equally. I still opt toward believing the children are not biologically his, but I'm always willing to be proven otherwise. The description of genetic manipulation has me intrigued.
opinionation:
I agree with you about Debbie Rowe. I think you are 100% correct. It would make perfect sense that she'd maintain the 'lie'. She has a history of deceptively going to bat for Michael anyway. She lied on the stand about being coached for the MJ Rebuttal documentary, I believe just so she could see her children.
Everything you said is on the money. The real question is does she know and is hiding the truth, or is she completely in the dark? She definitely doesn't seem like a stupid woman so she had to think, 'Hmmm...' when she saw those two children. Maybe not Prince, because he was dark haired and eyed, but Paris.
As for Michael's vitiligo, it does seem like one hell of a coincidence that the black man who hates being black suddenly gets a skin disease that transforms his skin. I don't know. I was coming to the side of it being self-induced and then I thought of the patchy testicles and splotches on his buttocks and penis and know that is consistent with the disease.
Maybe it was one hell of a coincidence but I think that would be naive to believe. The two together is too much. I was thinking it's possible Michael had a mild form and used it to his advantage?
I don't know. But a negative mindset was involved in his transformation. I don't think for a second there wasn't other treatments for his condition, such as turning the light patches dark again. I think he just opted for the 'white-out' treatment.
I also don't think La Toya bleached her skin. She's always been light. She looked lightest when she was promoting her book but she's always been light-skinned.
As for the genetic engineering, Time magazine incorporated the great qualifier: 'not yet discovered.' Because the genes were there. All genes are in the nucleus of the cell and already mapped on the chromosomes. The whole recipe for a human is needed for mitosis to begin after sperm and egg come together in meiosis.
Dolly the sheep was made from the udder cell from one sheep and an embryo that had its nucleus removed from another. The udder cell's nucleus was implanted into the embryo and Dolly was born as a perfect identical clone to the udder cell donor. There's no way the genes for physical traits weren't there already. That doesn't make any sense scientifically.
Pre-implantation genetic testing is exactly how they do designer babies and it's at that 8-cell stage. Perhaps they didn't 'know' how to look for traits back then but I can't help but think that is something the media is told so when it's translated back to the masses, they won't be afraid.
The same with cloning humans.
But, since you have the link, I will take you and Time magazine's word for it. However, I think--if those kids are his--he found some enterprising doctor to do it. It's sort of what happened when they were going on to map the human genome. The public government funded project was slow but when an enterprising corporation with the technology to do it (because they had the money to make the technology, mind you) stepped into the mix, the genome was being coded faster than ever.
If Michael could pay, he could've done it when Time magazine was considering it a pipe dream. Or that is what they'd been told...
But, the simple answer would be that they are not his children. The two kids look nothing like him, especially Paris. Prince has the marks on his fingers, throat, and underarm. I doubt it's Tinea versicolor. It could be a birthmark, if not vitiligo. I think it's the latter, honestly.
They don't look like him but at least Prince has the same colored eyes. I don't know anything for sure. He could've used the sperm of a swarthy white man; I don't think it's Arnold Klein. I don't think Michael Jackson was as close to him as Klein claims.
sofi:
I don't know if Michael kept Renia's letter for sadistic kicks or not. He seemed like bit of a pack rat, actually. Maybe it never got thrown away.
Thank God it didn't.
Opinionation,
Well I agree that he had a preference for non-blacks in general, but that doesn't explain why he had an interest in Manny Lewis and Alfonso Ribeiro. It must be more to the story then him just being a self-hating racist. Maybe the black parents didn't allow him to get as close as he liked. That's what I'm saying. I just don't get why he would like them if he didn't like blacks.
I wonder why he kept that letter too. I think it is because he was a pack rat first and foremost. Do you think he ever read it and took it to heart? I bet not.
Desiree, this is off topic, but in regards to hiding evidence, I found these links to be very interesting. The link to the comment posted by somebody who defended Quincy Jones was from a story in which Katherine clamed her son did not molest little boys. This made me curious, and I found these two links somewhere else, while I was digging around.
http://socyberty.com/people/michael-jackson-diaries/
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-michael-jackson-20101212,0,2867570.story
What are your thoughts? They made for an interesting read, anyway, and Katherine is notorious for lying to the public. (Claiming Michael only had two nose jobs?) She isn't well-thought-of by people I know who have met her. Obviously, the woman does not want Michael's money-making image tarnished. But let me know what you think.
Len
Have I missed something? Where is the link to the items that Mj thought needed his permission to br removed?
I was coming to the side of it being self-induced and then I thought of the patchy testicles and splotches on his buttocks and penis and know that is consistent with the disease.
It may also be consistent with skin bleaching. Perhaps some patches of skin are just more resistant to bleaching than others, and thus a patchy appearance results. Another possibility is that he did have vitiligo but it was CAUSED by years and years of damaging his skin through bleaching since skin bleaching can cause vitiligo. I think it makes far more sense to believe that the apparent racial self-hatred caused him to damage his skin to the point of getting vitiligo then to believe he just happened to get a disease that conveniently erased the color he seemed to despise.
I also find it interesting that his medical records went missing in the mid 1990s. This tells me he had something to hide and I suspect he was hiding the fact that his skin changes were self-inflicted.
I was thinking it's possible Michael had a mild form and used it to his advantage?
Anything's possible, but Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation should be assumed until it becomes untenable. The simplest explanation for why an apparently self-hating wealthy black celebrity became white (with a few patches) is that he so hated being black that he used his wealth to bleach himself to the point of skin damage and lied about having a natural disease to save face with the public.
I also think the apparent skin bleaching may be related to his sexuality. I saw an episode of Oprah where a dark skinned masculine black man was concerned that his biracial son might be gay because he played with dolls. The boy's white mother noted that the boy hated his father (much like Michael hated Joe) and that the boy would often try to wash his dar skin off. I think wanting fair skin is a femine beauty goal so I think gay black males desire it more. I also think it's possible that Michael's white skin was part of a desire to look like a young Elizabeth Taylor (a glamorous icon for gay men) but that's wild speculation.
I also don't think La Toya bleached her skin. She's always been light. She looked lightest when she was promoting her book but she's always been light-skinned.
At times she looks so light that I can't help but think she bleached, and you would expect that if Michael was bleaching at least one of his sisters would try it too (since it's a feminine thing to do), but if she's always been really light, then perhaps not.
Sarah,
It's in the link Desiree posted. I did an eye roll when I saw how Michael and his defense team felt the search should have been conducted.
Desiree,
Speaking of the storage unit, have you read this? The link to the comment from the person who stated to have worked with Michael and Quincy was posted on an article, with Katherine Jackson claiming her son didn't molest children. I became a little curious about why she is brazenly skating on thin ice.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-michael-jackson-20101212,0,2867570.story
I also found this very interesting.
http://socyberty.com/people/michael-jackson-diaries/
I can't imagine why Katherine would want certain items handed over to her for safekeeping. Obviously, the information might actually kill the money-making image of her son. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about it, along with everybody else's.
As for the genetic engineering, Time magazine incorporated the great qualifier: 'not yet discovered.' Because the genes were there.
Yes but it's identifying what genes are responsible for what traits that has proved far more difficult than thought. The human genome project has provided far less information than predicted because human genetics is so complex and many traits are governed by a vast number of genes with each individual gene only having a tiny effect.
The same with cloning humans.
If cloning humans is possible it would be fascinating if someone cloned Michael Jackson and raise him in a normal environment. Then we could determine how much of his spectacular talent and alleged obsession with boys was a product of genes and how much was a product of environment. But then environment can also include prenatal effects. Research finds that the more male fetuses a boy's mother has carried before she gives birth to him, the more likely that boy is to be gay:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/ns/health-health_care/
Katherine carried a lot of male fetuses before she had Michael.
If Michael could pay, he could've done it when Time magazine was considering it a pipe dream. Or that is what they'd been told...
I don't think Michael had more money than what elite universities spend on such research. Michael wasn't that rich. He was never anywhere close to being the billionaire he implied he was and never once qualified for Forbes ranking of the 400 richest Americans. On the other hand if he was funding cutting edge genetic engineering, it would certainly explain why he ended up hundreds of millions in debt. The Jordy Chandler settlement was only about $15 million (actually $25 million according to Diane Dimond). Though that's huge in 1993 dollars.
But, the simple answer would be that they are not his children.
And the simple answer is usually correct. See Occam's razor.
He could've used the sperm of a swarthy white man; I don't think it's Arnold Klein. I don't think Michael Jackson was as close to him as Klein claims.
I think they were fairly close considering how dependent Michael was on doctors for cosmetic procedures and drugs and must have relied on them to hide his secrets. Michael also mentioned in the Bashir interview that the intelligence level of his child's mother was important to him so we can assume if he didn't use his own sperm, he wanted the sperm of a stereotypically smart man so he would perhaps pick an Ashkenazi Jewish doctor.
Opinionation
You are really smart!
If Occam's razor is to be used, those kids are just not his. Gene manipulation is a reality now, but since you (and time) say that it wasn't really possible in the 90s, Mike just picked some sperm donor and had his children. They look too white to be his, although Quincy Jones' daughter Rashida is pretty white looking and so it Mariah Carey. I can't believe that he can have 3 children and absolutely none of them have any black traits, not even only curly hair on their heads. If doesn't make sense, it can't be true is the old aphorism and it's applicable to Mike's skin and kids.
Also Occam's razor applies to the most logical scenario (Mike being gay) for the reason he had different flavors of semen on his mattress, and also for the reason he INSISTED on those damned sleepovers.
Well I agree that he had a preference for non-blacks in general, but that doesn't explain why he had an interest in Manny Lewis and Alfonso Ribeiro.
I don't know much about his relations with Ribeiro but if Michael was a pedophile, perhaps he "settled" for black kids early on, fearing he would be practically lynched if he dared molest a white or near-white kid. As his confidence increased with his success, and as the racial climate improved, perhaps he became more bold and no longer felt the need to "settle" for black kids.
However after getting burned by the Chandlers, I suspect he decided it was a mistake to pursue a child from an educated wealthy partly Jewish home, and decided it was better to go with a family with no credibility that he assumed could easily be silenced and bought off. I suspect he believed that a dim-witted Hispanic boy with a crazy alleged welfare cheat mother would make the ideal victim because if they complained no one would believe them, and they would destroy their own credibility by getting their facts wrong and their logic muddled. In sharp contrast, a bright boy like Jordy Chandler could remember intimate details about Michael's genitalia according to Diane Dimond.
It must be more to the story then him just being a self-hating racist. Maybe the black parents didn't allow him to get as close as he liked. That's what I'm saying. I just don't get why he would like them if he didn't like blacks.
He may have been attracted to boys of all races to some degree, but I think his preference was for slightly tanned looking boys (i.e. Jordy, Brett, Cascios, Omar, Gavin, Jason). I wonder if this is part of the reason he moved to the middle east after the 2005 trial.
But your point about black parents is a good one. Not to stereotype, but there's more homophobia in the black community so perhaps black parents were more disgusted if Michael tried to cuddle with their sons.
JMH, I think people make a mistake in comparing Quincy Jones' kids to Michael. Quincy's DNA has been tested and he's nearly half white on the genetic level so it makes sense that his kids (with a white woman) would look almost white because they are almost white. Michael by contrast was originally a very black looking black man with dark skin and broad features, so the odds of him having, not one, not two, but ALL THREE kids with no visible black traits is incredibley small unless they were genetically engineered which was probably not possible.
And I agree that Michael was gay. Not only were his manerisms gay and feminine, and not only did Desiree brilliantly unearth physical evidence, but he was accused of molesting boys, had no credible female lovers, was very feminine (almost a drag queen), worshipped older glamorous women (Liz Taylor) who serve as typical icons for gay men, had several older brothers (a prenatal correlate of male homosexuality), hyper-sensetive (cried at the drop of a hat), loved the arts, loved to sing, obsessed with his appearance etc. He embodied every gay stereotype ever known to man. If Michael was not a gay man, he did the best immitation of one I have ever witnessed!
Opinionation,
Right on the money! I agree with you about the confidence level and moving on to white boys. And I'm sorry to say that those families were more than willing to pimp their kids.
I don't think homophobia has anything to do with a pedophile. Black people (and smart people in general) draw the line at messing with kids, so these black kids he liked (Manny, Alfonso, "Baby Bad") might have had parents that sensed some bullshit.
That is a very likely scenario regarding Gavin Arvizo, especially after what Ann Gabriel said at the Grand Jury. She said that one of Mike's advisors said that they would make Janet Arvizo look like a "crack whore" if she tried anything after the Bashir documentary. And I think we can see that that became true, regardless of whether the molestation allegations were a lie or not.
Jordie was able to describe his genitals accurately because he was telling the truth, according to legal documents submitted by the prosecution in the 2005 trial when they wanted to use the photos and sworn statement given to detectives in court. Not to mention the fact that he settled only weeks after the photos were taken in late December 1993.
"And I agree that Michael was gay. Not only were his manerisms gay and feminine, and not only did Desiree brilliantly unearth physical evidence, but he was accused of molesting boys, had no credible female lovers, was very feminine (almost a drag queen), worshipped older glamorous women (Liz Taylor) who serve as typical icons for gay men, had several older brothers (a prenatal correlate of male homosexuality), hyper-sensetive (cried at the drop of a hat), loved the arts, loved to sing, obsessed with his appearance etc. He embodied every gay stereotype ever known to man. If Michael was not a gay man, he did the best immitation of one I have ever witnessed!"
Amen to that, sister (or brother?)! All that circumstantial evidence and people (fans) still think that this man was straight. That is all a pipe dream. You are so right about him fitting the prenatal correlate, interesting that even THAT fits him! And I believe that since he was raised in a religious cult that condemned homosexuality, he oriented himself towards young boys because boys are not as "dirty" as adult men. Toni Morrison has a character in her book "The Bluest Eye" called Soaphead Church that fits this description exactly.
Caesar Milan of the "Dog Whisperer" fame says that only humans will follow an unbalanced leader. I guess that should extend to fans following a clearly unbalanced, self-hating pedophile.
I don't think homophobia has anything to do with a pedophile. Black people (and smart people in general) draw the line at messing with kids, so these black kids he liked (Manny, Alfonso, "Baby Bad") might have had parents that sensed some bullshit.
They were excellent parents in this situation.
All that circumstantial evidence and people (fans) still think that this man was straight.
To be brutally honest, I think his hardcore fans tend to be dumb. I think his original fans had normal intelligence, but with each passing lie I believe he told the public (I'm not gay, I don't bleach my skin, I'm proud to be black, I've only had 2 operations, sleeping with kids is innocent, I used my own sperm to create my kids, the police roughed me up, I settled for mega millions because I'm innocent) it became harder and harder for anyone with a triple digit IQ to believe a word he said. I think most of the smart fans deserted him, and the bulk of his loyal audience now consists of dumb people.
Opinionation,
Yes most of Mike's fans that I've encountered seem to be young teenyboppers, and young people tend to be less "worldly". Couple that with an affinity for idol worship, you have one dumbass individual.
I don't think that, for instance, black people should like him because he didn't like us. There is a mentality among some, okay, many black people at least in the US, to support him because he was one of us. But "was" is the operative word here, because what he became wasn't black.
All of his lies are defended by these fans and they barely make a decent argument that can support why an innocent man paid two boys off, why he continued to sleep in the bed with BOYS, etc, etc. I mean they allege extortion in the Chandler case but, really, doesn't extortion only truely work if the person doing the extorting has something embarassing and/or criminal on the person being extorted that can be proven true? And Mike was a beloved, albeit bizarre, celebrity who could have easily taken down a crazy Beverly Hills dentist if said dentist was making up a molestation allegation. Besides, a false child molestation allegation is pretty random and rare outside a mother-father custody battle. Mike was the celebrity friend.
I'm continually amazed at the level of denial fans have and the fact that they will defend some one they have never even met. It's because he could moonwalk and made "Thriller". Mike couldn't have paid for better spin than what the fans pump out on a daily basis on their vindication blogs and fan forums.
Len
That was a very interesting story about the maintenance man who found diaries at Neverland. I can't believe that he would get assaulted like that, over diaries?!?! Makes me wonder what was in them and why the Jacksons would result to violence to get them. I think it's interesting how the said that it was Katherine that did the hiring of those thugs. I read that Jack Gordon had said that people always talk about Joe being violent but the real evil one was Katherine, and he said she would put out a hit on any of her enemies. I had thought Jack was lying but I guess with this story, he may have had a point.
I will say I wonder if this story is true only because they state that Jesse Styles didn't tell anyone what they contained. I just find it hard to believe that he didn't look at them at least once. But hey that's just me.
I wonder if in those diaries Mike revealed his attraction to boys or how he struggled with his homosexuality. I bet that is what Katherine feared and that's why Jesse had to be taken out.
J-M-H,
None of the people I know who encountered Joe and Katherine Jackson have anything good to say about them. The irony is Katherine could have hired a lawyer to stop the publication of the diaries, or she could have paid for them. But she has always been described as a wicked woman who uses that sweet-grandma countenance as PR.
I have a feeling Jesse did tell people what was in the diaries, which prompted Katherine to do something very illegal. When I saw one of my sources in the press, it was interesting to see what was true and what was not true. So, now I look at these tabloids with different eyes than I used to because this has given me a completely different perspective on news/gossip reporting, in papers and magazines.
opinionation:
The other night I was writing a comment towards you and my browser crashed!
I'll just say this, though, in lieu of writing a long-winded response, I agree with basically everything you've said.
About Debbie, it would explain why she lied on the stand at trial about being coached for Michael's rebuttal documentary. She wanted to see the kids and if she spoke ill about him on the stand, like she did to police, she would've been cut out for sure.
Saying anything now about the children's genetics (if she does know anything) would be a detriment to her. Most definitely.
About Michael's vitiligo, I think he had a very mild case of it and took the 'full-on bleach' route, to be honest. Monobenzone 20% can depigment the skin in as little as 1-4 months; I bet he was elated. Of course, I definitely agree that the simplest explanation would be that he bleached and it came. I wonder if someone told him, 'Hey if you use this stuff, it'll give you vitiligo.'
You really have to wonder because everyone could see he was getting lighter yet he stayed mum regarding it. It would seem as if that is something deceptive people do...
As for his children, yes, they probably aren't his, at least the oldest two. It is genetically far-fetched--maybe not impossible but far-fetched--that a black man could have three children in succession and none of them look like they have any black in them.
I stand corrected over the designer babies. You had the link and you are probably right. It was there, of course, but it's the aspect of finding the genes. And many times isolation could affect something else so at that time, at least, it would've been difficult.
I'm a biology major; I should know this!
I still don't think Michael Jackson used Arnold Klein's sperm for the two oldest children. They really look nothing like him either so, if they aren't Michael's, they look like someone else (Paris looks like Debbie, though).
What do you think about Blanket?
I really have no vested interest in his children being his. It would make perfect since if they weren't his. I mean, regardless if Michael bleached his skin and carved up his face, his DNA still is black, and very black at that.
Many fans like to do comparison photo posts in forums, etc. and they say that Michael Jackson is not 100% black so, of course, his children won't necessarily look 'black'. But you were on the money about him being a 'broad-featured' black man. He was black enough; like many American blacks, of course there is a varying degree of admixture. My dad is half-white and half-black, for example, and he looks anywhere from a light-skinned black man to a Latino. His hair is curly; his nose is keen; he has fullish lips. I would at least expect one of Michael's children to come out looking somewhat like that. But none of them?
The simple answer would be... they are not his.
Oh, and yes, his fans are stupid. Anyone who can look at the evidence I'd found of semen on his bed and not think he was gay, especially coupled with all of the other stereotypical factors he embodied, they have to be a bunch of idiots.
No way else to explain it...
I know we have all been having a discussion on whether Mike's vitiligo is indeed "real"--as in genetic--and not the result of gratuitous usage of skin bleach.
The technology of gene manipulation was in its infancy according to Time magazine, but I still think it's a possiblilty that something was going on.
Opinionation, I agree with you about Q being not all black and thus having a far greater ability to produce light-skinned and white looking children, as many of his kids are. And Mike had a helluva big nose and so did every single one of his immediate family. If you've ever seen the 2003 picture of Mike's extended family at Neverland, most if not all of his family are of the medium to medium dark skintone, with a few "high yellow" peolpe thrown in.
Nevertheless, i still think those kids could very well be his, although taken with all we know about him--that he wanted to be a white man, so he somehow came down with vitiligo and got the plastic surgery and straight wigs to match--it is pretty hard to believe that God was shining down on him and ordained the creation through natural means of having 3 kids that don't look like they have any black in them.
http://mjspuffyfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/once-again-on-paternity.html
Look at those pictures of the kids. Do you see any resemblance possibly between he and his kids? Maybe he was genetically luvky? I don't know.
Also I don't understand the lengths he went through to make sure no one knew how the children came to be. Debbie was barred from speaking about, and she's the mother! If there was nothing to hide he would have been open, which makes me think those kids aren't his.
Len,
I always thought there was something not right with Katie Jackson, her eyes just look so evil. The other story you linked, the LA Times article, was interesting as well. Howard Mann is a shrewd businessman and sleazy as well. Isn't it funny how both Mike and his family seem to always hook up with unscrupulous people? You are the company you keep.
Howard Mann really has the Jacksons by the balls if you really think about it. If they have a falling out, he can easily sell all of the intellectual property that he wants since he bought Vintage Pop. Also, he could reveal all of the nasty wheeling and dealing that the Jacksons have done.
Interesting how he came to the family and destroyed that piece of Michael Jackson "memorabilia" at their request. It must have be extremely salacious. The family knows Mike was a pedophile. I remember reading that at the trial in 2005, when Ralph Chacon was telling the jury (the truth) about having seen Mike perform a sex act on a little boy, Katherine left the courtroom in disgust. The media thought it was because of the salacious "lie" Chacon was telling, but I suspect that it was because she didn't want to know the truth about what her son was doing at Neverland. She knew but didn't want to her the details.
Hey guys,
I basically agree with your opinions.
Michael didn't want to have his bio children since his young years.
Lisa Robinson interviewed him in 1977 and he said he wanted to adopt children of all races.
In another interview in the early 80s:
<>
He said the same over the years when questioned about this subject. I haven't time for searching all the links, but I've read this response in different interviews.
I remember also that Brooke Shields told that he proposed her to marry and adopt children together. She implies that they weren't talking about a conventional marriage but what we can consider a sham. She refused the proposal because it was odd.
Obviously, Michael did know he was gay and he would never have his own children by regular means. Also, I think there was an element of self-hate too.
I don't think his children are biological, no way. It is obvious. They look white and Blanket looks like many latin-americans with Native American and mostly European blood in him.
If we analyze Michael life there are too many facts pointing in the same direction.
He was a master of manipulation, that's for sure. People still defending he is straight, he's white because of vitiligo and his children have his DNA.
There is a quote in the previous post that doesn't appears:
In another interview in the early 80s:
Asked about the possibility of having children of his own, he shook his head. He might adopt, but he would not procreate. ‘I don’t have to bring my own into the world,’ he said uneasily.
On MJ fans... yeah, almost all of them are dumb blind and deaf. MJ was more than a regular gay, he was some kind of an hybrid male/female thing.
Most of the fans are very young and they didn't know a thing about the evolution of MJ and where he came from musically. They only know the strange ghost white creature, the messianic pop-icon, and don't care about the music. They follow him irrationally and make excuses for his criminal and odd behavior.
He was cool back in the day, when Thriller came out, or in the 70s. I remember watching the Jacksons in several TV shows in my country during the 70s. They were an elegant act... old school artistry... and very good looking people :) The old fans loved the music and the image. Mj did a great great impact and the interest in the fans was genuine. After his re-do for Bad, many of them (us) deserted him. He is the only person in the world who has altered his race. How odd is that. This is not a white or black thing. Nobody in their right mind (no matter what the race is) can understand that. He was at the peak of his career when he was a black man, he was cool when he was a black man. The press referred to him as “his hotness”. I say this because many fans blame others for MJ's craziness and actions. No, he's the only one to blame. Quincy Jones, Walter Yetnikoff and many others were warning and questioning him for his ever changing look, but he chose not to hear them. Quincy Jones recommended him to go to therapy.
At the same time, his talent was slipping away with his melanin. At 20 he was a veteran, his peers were the most influential music acts in the popular music, he was a creative and innovative performer but at the same time his artistry had been forged in the old school way. The sad part is he ended up being a cross between Millie Vanillie and Madonna. Well, at least Madonna is still performing and doing music; I mention her because obviously her music was very popular in the day, but lacked the quality of MJ or Prince music.
He blew up his own legacy. After Thriller he went downhill in all aspects. His lyrics were childish and cheesy and his music was crap. Many production effects and no real music. Compare his voice singing “I can't help it” or “Lady in my life” with the recent crap... he was a shade of his former self. Also, there is no evolution in his music, no maturity in any aspect.... a reflection of his own life.
He lost his artistic dignity lip-syncing entire tours. I can't picture James Brown or Prince doing that. By the way, in the BET Awards they were reunited on stage and JB looks pissed. I don't think a man of his generation could be happy with this pathetic representation of a black artist.
I've listened to an interview with Jesse Jackson on the radio. It took place right before the release of Invincible. JJ was talking about promotion and MJ said something like no matter how much promotion you do, if the music is good, you will sell even if it's not promotion at all. Hahaha Owned!!!
A grown up Jimmy Safechuck was accompanying Lisa Marie and Michael during this footage in Budapest:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7917/mjjmichaeljackson177724.jpg
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/3139/safechuck.jpg
In one the pictures Jimmy is wearing MJ sunglasses. Old habits never die, right? Was he assisting Mike in more than one way? Sure. Many of his special friends seem star-struck and possibly have some kind of dependance on him. Or maybe that was simply male prostitution. Remember Brett Barnes sleepovers with MJ til he was 19 y/o or the Cascios.
Wayne Safechuck was a garbage collector before his son special relationship with Mike. After that he bought an enterprise and have a Rolls Royce and a new Mercedes every year. When questioned by the press by the time of the second accusations, he refused to comment. Why? If Mike was innocent and a benefactor for his family, why he did not defended him? Why his special friends never sued the press that presented them as victims of a paedophile. This is not a pleasant label and the suspicions will be there forever.
The marriage with Lisa was a sham. Bob Jones said it was a sham but Lisa was really in love with mike. I doubt it. Bob Jones seemed like a good person, I think he was lying in order to protect Lisa Marie and avoiding to cause collateral damages.
Latoya said they never sleept together in an interview. When they married, they stayed in different hotels in the honeymoon.
Actor Jason Lee wife told the press:
Carmen on Lisa-Marie Presley: “Jason and I were talking to Lisa Marie one night and we asked her ‘Come on tell us the truth, why did you really divorce Michael Jackson?’ She said, ‘The reason I finally left him was that I didn’t want him to be in the same room as my children!’”
He divorced him after Michael trip with the Cascios. I bet she was fearing the backlash for being the wife and supporter of a paedophile and left before the dirty came out. The fake marriage was for publicity, not for the worst publicity.
Desiree, do you know the story about Bela, a Rumanian child Michael brought to his hotel?
Susana:
That's an interesting viewpoint about James Brown at the BET awards with Michael. I never thought of it like that. It's sad that Michael plays this 'I'm black and proud' act when it really is such hypocrisy.
Michael had a few good tracks on albums later than at least Bad but, at the end of the day, most of it was filler never to be released as singles. I liked many tracks on Dangerous and a few on Invincible but, again, his older stuff is of a higher musical quality.
Of course I think it depends on what type of music you like. I am a devotee of the music of black people--R&B especially--and it is really my choice of music, although I will listen to anything of any genre that is soft and moody. Anything that's a quiet storm. Michael's changing styles from the lush Thriller and quasi-funk of some of the Jacksons recordings to the crappy, sappy pop ballads is enough to turn me off.
Prince is superior musically. Just all around talented. Michael Jackson is a seasoned promoter and a fantastic dancer in terms of agility and grace but what else? His HIStory album was atrocious.
The only people buying Michael's crap are his dumb fans. They should at least be smart enough to know when it's time to say, 'Well, you know what? This really doesn't sound good anymore.'
Another musician I follow--I used to be a huge fan--is Christina Aguilera. Her latest album Bionic was a colossal failure. She was changing styles to be more 'techno'/electronic. She sold 200,000 units, which is really pathetic sales. But I think it was poor promotion. I actually like the album and if anyone is interested in free music from that album, send me an email.
But she's more current than Jacko, although she tends to over-sing and in the same pitch over and over. (The reason I liked Bionic is because she was more varied vocally.)
He dissolved into boys and drugs and ruined his career by carving up his face and doing something to his skin.
James Brown could have been offended, who knows. It's sad Michael threw away all of his sane friends who wanted him to get help about the self-hatred. I can't believe he had people telling him it was okay to do that to his face, or at least not saying a thing. Damned well he should've went into therapy!
Thank you for the picture of Jimmy Safechuck!
We know Michael took Omer Bhatti with him to South Africa when he was with Lisa Marie. And so Jimmy Safechuck was there with Michael and Lisa Marie in Budapest. I wonder what other boys came along with him? I can't help but wonder if they were there for sex as well, that he needed them there to have an excuse not to be intimate with Lisa Marie.
I agree with you to an extent about Bob Jones that what he said in his book may have been a whitewash but I do think she liked Michael. I don't think it was at all reciprocated. She had to know he was a pedophile, at least that he was gay. I know she always maintains that they had sex and it is hard for me to completely disbelieve her but I don't think they had sex often. Maybe count on one hand.
He didn't like girls.
Where did you get the quote from that wife about Lisa's divorce? Do you have a link? It's very telling if it's true. I always think it's BS that she claims to know nothing about Michael's obvious pedophilia. I think it's an out-and-out lie! Cascios and Omer Bhatti and now Jimmy Safechuck were around and she didn't think nothing was wrong?
Yes, I don't think Lisa Marie is intelligent but she's not an idiot.
No, Susana, I have not heard about Romanian Bela. Tell me more, though.
Desiree, I leave some links to the story of Jason Lee's wife:
http://www.celebitchy.com/category/jason_lee/
http://www.famewired.com/2010/04/03/jason-lees-ex-wife-claims-he-abused-her-reveals-scientology-secrets/
http://www.umcssa.net/2010/04/04/jason-lee%E2%80%99s-ex-wife-talks-about-scientology/
Well, musically, MJ was very talented when he was young, but the success of Thriller changed things forever. I love some of the sounds in Bad, like Another part of Me, but the lyrics are just plain stupid. I don't think all the credit should go to Quincy Jones either. Some of the most successful songs of MJ are his, and listening to the demos, are almost identical to the recorded version, so, there wasn't a big input of QC in them. Even so, QC and Rod Temperton played a relevant part on MJ success.
I also love the songs he did with his brothers, specially Heartbreak Hotel.
His obsession with number ones and sales, are some of the reasons why he lost his horizon musically. Mike never matured and I think it was impossible for him to relate through lyrics with an intelligent, mature or sensitive public (the dumb fans don't count). Sensitive doesn't equal “mawkish” (it's the first time I use this word).
We know he was a paedophile, a manipulator, a phoney, a liar, someone acting 24/7... he became a clown. How someone like him could express authenticity in his lyrics? Impossible. He only could came with the old boring silly stuff over and over. A 10 years old could have been more profound expressing romantic sentiments than him. And he was many things to hide. Sometimes his lyrics are laughable or don't make sense at all... and I don't think MJ was pretending to be a Dada Poet :) Simply, he didn't have what it takes to be a good lyricist and he tried to disguise this fact making some of the songs incomprehensible.
Some time ago I read that James Brown was deceived and upset with MJ. After that, I found the video I mentioned in my last post and I saw him not very comfortable with Mike onstage. I bet he was trying to hide his true feelings, nonetheless. This contrasts with the video of MJ, Jb and Prince in 1983. JB was really impressed by Mike back then. Who couldn't?
Rabid fans think everybody who says unflattering things of Mike is a hater. I don't think QC hates Mike. He was giving him good advice: like going to therapy, forcing him to socialize with adults, telling him his relationship with children could ruin his career... A person who doesn't care about you, will never bother to give you good advice. QC keep it real when it comes to Mike: the bleaching of the skin, the paternity of the kids... Once Michael is dead, why not tell the truth?
I love black music too... unless rap and hip hop. EW&F, Kool and the Gang, George Benson (great memories), The Four Tops, Bo Diddley, Prince..only to name a few.
Regarding Bela, I've read two different versions. In one of them Bela was a Bulgarian kid who needed a transplant and Michael helped him. The other version is about a Rumanian orphan who Mike encountered in the street and invited to his hotel for a sleepover. After Michael left Rumania, the kid went living with a pederast. I don't know if there are two different boys and the name is mixed in the two stories, or if one of them have some truth in it and the other is fake. I remembered the story yesterday when I found the picture of Safechuck in Bulgaria.
One more time, excuse me for my bad English... it is not my mother tongue and maybe I'm making up new expressions.
Susana,
Those were interesting links about Jason Lee's wife. I bet some people won't believe her because she is speaking out now that she is an ex-wife, so they could say that she is disgruntled. And why would Lisa Marie tell her such personal information? I think it's possible that Lisa Marie has told her Scientologist friends the truth about her relationship with Mike, but they just don't talk about it with the media out of respect. Because everyone in the world with 2 brain cells to rub together thinks that was a sham. I agree with Desiree that I don't think Bob Jones was lying when he said that she really did like him and that it was Mike who was running a heartless scam on her. Mike would have never gotten married if the Jordie Chandler scandal didn't happen; he would have continued to have "special friends" until he was an old man.
I had no idea that Jimmy Safechuck was with Mike and Lisa when he was making his HIStory teaser video! That was supposed to be like he and Lisa Marie's honeymoon and he brought a "special friend"? It always seems that Mike needs little boys around when he is around women, like Manny Lewis with Brooke Shields. But this was his wife, right? He must have really didn't want to be alone with her completely. and I know something must have been going on between he and Jimmy. It's really all very sick and sad. I know in Bob Jones' book he said that Mike, when he was over at Lisa's house in Hidden Hills, he would even bring special friends and boy relatives over there too, much to her dismay. It is clear that he had no real interest in her whatsoever, and he preferred the company of boys over his own wife--he wanted to spent Christmas of 1995 with the Cascio boys!!
You are right about Mike's music...it's completely horrible. I LOVE Thriller and the songs he did before the "whiteout" of his voice, skin, and persona in the late 80s, like the ones he did in the Jackson 5 and the Jacksons. I never really liked the album "Off the Wall", although I do love "Don't Stop...", "Rock With You", and "Off the Wall". His voice was beautiful and black and well, perfect; it was like an angel's when he was in J5. But he lost that soul and that emotion that he had in his voice once he became more "white". It's like he forgot where he came from musically and culturally. It's sickening. But to be honest, I have a hard time listening to any of his good songs becuase I find him distasteful since he hated being black and he was a pedophile.
And his "romantic" love songs are a joke. I can't take hearing him sing about loving a woman (which I noticed tha the barely even sang songs about love) because he wasn't even interested in them; it's just laughable. Desiree pointed out that he wrote and composed the song "Speechless", which has very romantic lyrics, was written for a little boy (and his sister, but we all know the sister wasn't on his mind, please). How don't fans see it, it's so obvious that his mind was oriented towards boys and young guys. have you ever read his "Dancing the Dream" book? It's probably some of the stupidest and poorly written poems and stories I've ever read. None of them feel geniune, except the poem "Children of the World", interestingly enough. It just feels like some sick publicity ploy to make him look like this pure and innocent angel, when really that wasn't true. The stories about nature and animals and kids feel like homework for a high school creative writing class; it's all fluff with no real emotions. I scarcely believe that he was as environmentally aware as he tried to make people think. All of that was a way to not reveal his true thoughts and feelings, he was creating this image that he wanted to sell to the humble masses. But interestingly enough, his HIStory album was very "personal" and all he talked was basically Jordie, even if it was in a "I'm the victim" way. A whole album dedicated to a boy. I think "Stranger in Moscow" was his lament that he couldn't carry on these relationships with the boys anymore because everyone found out. He said he was "livin' lonely" and that "a bagger boy" called his name and "happy days will drown the pain". I mean was he talking about the fact that other special friends, like the Cascio boys and Brett Barnes who accompanied him overseas during the scandal, made him feel better? And I think he admitted guilt in there to when he said "we're talkin danger...", it's as if he KNEW he might be going to prison, because as you know, this song was written while he was on tour in Moscow in late 1993 when the scandal was huge. I think it's interesting how boys seem to bring out his true emotions in songs.
I never heard that about James Brown, that he seemed mad to share the stage with Miek in the 2000s. Interesting because he probably didn't like how Mike had abandoned his race and only took interest in black people when it would make him look better. I still get pissed when, after all those years of him during the 1990s of not ever seemign remotely interested him his heritage, he tried to say that stuff about Tommy Mottola like he was some radical Black Panther. Yea right. Many old black stars do have kids with white women or are married to whites, but they never, ever forget that they are black. Mike was the exception, and if I was James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, I'd be pissed to be up there next to a bleached self hating black man too.
Sorry, the video shooting took place in Budapest, but I don't know if the boy in the story is Bulgarian or Rumanian or maybe he was Hungarian... but we know he had Jimmy in his hotel.
J-M-H
As a dancer he also lost it the 90s. His moves became mechanical and stupid. He was a great dancer when he was more "natural".
I agree with you. I can understand Mike opening to new things, musically, culturally or whatever... that is OK, but his transformation into that ghost white allien drag queen was too much.
A poster going by the name tofuchild21 said some really interesting things about MJ's skin on Michael Jackson's IMDb page (Nov 17, 2010):
Vitiligo isn't gonna affect your face and chest alone. It's gonna affect you all over. Michael was putting that cream on the open areas of his body to see if he could bleach it out because that's the part of his body that people saw. He experimented with bleaching creams and the photos show it. It wasn't until he lightened his face that he then went all white. He had NO spots on his body during the time he "supposedly" came down with blotches everywhere.
Here's Michael during Thriller at a pool. In the water. NO MAKEUP to cover his body. No spots honey. None. Just tiny reflections from the camera flash on water droplets. His face is red and raw from the BLEACHING he was doing to it. The only pigment removed from that man's body was his FACE. Right where he cosmetically wanted it removed.
http://www.mjsite.com/pics/1071.jpg
And here's another picture with full body no pigment loss AT ALL.
Around Off The Wall / Thriller, right when he said he started getting blotches and spots. Remember Daddy Joseph used to call him "Spotty" when he was "a KID". Yet NO SPOTS.
http://cdn.necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/michael-jackso n-fresh-out-of-the-pool.jpg
And again, No blotches. Nothing but evenly faded blended depigmentation done on purpose, and coinsiding with his cosmentic metomorphasis.. No. Michael didn't get the spots you're all talking about til he went white and struggled to keep his pigment from coming back which it constantly was. That's when he started with peppering speckles and spots and ugly blotching. It was his crippled skin fighting to repigment itself. Michael had the most BEAUTIFUL case of (Vitiligo) of anyone ever in the 80's. lol He controlled it's spreading, it's coverage. Even the areas it affected. That's not Vitiligo. The timeline doesn't add up and neither does Michael's lies. He controdicted himself too much, the photos tell another story.
http://i818.photobucket.com/albums/zz103/tofuchild21/mic7227785_500072 785_3399213_2925376_n.jpg
opinionation:
Thank you for that pic of Michael Jackson getting out of the pool. I'd seen it before but never in such a large resolution.
I always wondered why his face was so red; I figured it was because he had lupus and the redness came from the disease's tell-tale butterfly rash. However, I do know that typically just attacks the cheeks.
Michael's face was awfully red. And tofuchild is right: he had to have the most prefect vitiligo in the world for it to be so even. Granted, he was always in long sleeves and pants and collars up to his throat.
He was definitely bleaching. His dates don't match up. His skin was gradually getting lighter and lighter. I wonder if his face had turned white and he was waiting for his body to catchup and just used darker makeup on his face to match the body.
I've seen a picture of him with Liz Taylor in 1986, I believe, and his face looked really light and ashy but his hands were very dark, like a normal black man's. I thought the 'vitiligo' began on his hands?
Inconsistency is the hallmark of lying.
He may have got vitiligo from the bleaching but he was bleaching. I remember seeing a show and some dark skinned Asian woman had been bleaching her skin and she got vitiligo. He face was brown and white.
That's probably how it went with Michael.
Mike was totally bleaching his skin. Look at these pictures. The first to are when he was swimmin in a pool with no makeup and you can really see how red his face is, apparently from bleachimg. Notice how uniform it is though, not splotchy at all, which would be consistent with rubbing bleaching cream on your face and slowly fading the pigment.
http://jacksonaction.com/80s/slides/24tx.htm
http://jacksonaction.com/80s/slides/16zo2.htm
This picture was taken probably in 1983 or 1984, when he was at some awards ceremony with Brooke Shields. it doesn't look like he is covering "splotches" from vitiligo. I believe that he wasn't wearing as much makeup on his face as people claim because the tone looks similar to the pictures when he is getting out of the pool. Notice how his eyelids aren't light like the rest of his face. I bet it's because you can't but that bleaching cream around or on your eyelids.
http://jacksonaction.com/80s/slides/cele4.htm
This is his normal skin tone and he looks like he only had one nose job. I think this is 1980.
http://jacksonaction.com/80s/slides/80s_202.htm
Mike probably gave himself vitiligo, if he even had the disease at all.
What an arsehole, that poor little girl. Kids always write letters to express themselves as they can't always vocalise what they are feeling. My daughters write me notes all the time if they are sad about something. How could the "Protector of all Children" treat a child like this? I wonder how he would have felt if his daughter had been treated in such a way. I think the answer to that is he had very little to do with the day to day raising of his kids, that was left up to Grace and the team of nannies that he employed (when he could afford it). His kids were just paraded around like strange masked trophies, Debbie Rowe called him a "sociapath" to the DA that treated his kids like possesions, that is why they put her on the stand. Her performance unfortunatley did more for the defense than the prosecution. It served his purpose to occasionally make breakfast and do a jigsaw, we have seem a lot of that sort of footage of You Tube, convenient isn't it. If you read the article that Grace did with Daphne Barak it is very different. Grace of course retracted at lot of it after Mj's death, but a bit too late then, she had already put it our there that he was abusive and stoned most of the time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, he was a junkie! It has been said before that a lot of the staff at Neverland spoke of how he was intoxicated a lot and that they were scared for the kids safety on occasions. Even as far back as 1992/1993 we heard that MJ was sometimes incoherent and strange according to Ray Chandler and this was before we really knew too much about the pill problem! I've had a blast before from Pauline on this space because I dared to call MJ a bad parent, well guess what he WAS a bad parent imo. He deprived his kids from a mother's love thinking that he was enough for them. Prince even told Martin Bashir that he didn't have a mother! He took drugs and did not provide a stable enviroment for them. Of course Paris stood up at his funeral and broke everyone's heart with her speech. He was the only parent figure that they knew, and they didn't know any better. Do you think now they are in normal school with normal friends that they don't wonder about their life with MJ? But our hearts should have been broken for them before he died. No school, no friends, no interaction with family, just constant shifting from place to place with a succession of Daddy's special friends! Was there any talk about him sharing his bed with his own kids like normal parents. Paris and Prince didn't figure much when Gavin was in the sack did they? He should have been snuggled up to his own kids at night providing the love and nuture that kids need, not talking about masturbation and showing surfing porno sites on the internet with prepubescent boys. Ultimately that cost him his sanity and then most probably his life!
Sarah,
I'm waiting for his kids to grow up and write a tell-all book. Katherine and Joe will be dead by that time. Hopefully. Those two people are evil. And we wonder why Michael went crazy? Katherine actually had the audacity to say, on television, Jordan Chandler admitted he lied about the molestation. Jordan did no such thing!
Niggers are a mess. Now I know why the country is in debt from welfare. Your lazy fat ass sitting at home compiling this stupid shit. That nigger is dead and gone. Your dumb ass is a fan of a pedophile which makes you a stupid bitch. Why don't you join him in a dirt nap heifer and for the 3 coons and 6 crackers following this bitch, get a life........ ha, ha, ha that's why LSA roasts your ass. And how the fuck can an illegal, no English speaking motherfucker tell anyone about soul music and being black? This shit right here should get you a beatdown for real. Bitch please, get off this dead nigga's nut sack. Nigga's should drag your porch monkey ass out of your project and beat the roaches out of you for conversing with racist sicko's over this stupid shit. Your ass should be blogging about how Bush has generationally fucked you over and Obama sold you out. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. When the race war comes, you will be the first casualty, Ms Piggy. I guess your fatass has no friends. Jacko didn't invite you to Neverland because no wide loads allowed on the rides and they already had an elephant. He was a freak and your even weirder you loser, creepy stan. Stop stalking the ghost.
I just blasted you ebonics style now I want to share with you some knowledge of self. Yes, you are ridiculed and blasted by those few who care to pay attention on another forum. I briefly glanced at this blog, shook my head then offered the comment it warrants. I decided to view your comments about yourself since quite honestly, I will forget about this blog in the next 10mins because its not worthy of more thought than that. You are, evidenced by your comments about yourself, a lost young woman struggling with her racial identity and apparently you lash out at others you feel share the same struggle. Sad part is, you choose this as your outlet, wallowing in your confusion with others who seek to manipulate and exploit it. The same 6 or 8 people commenting here are members or alleged insiders on that conspiracy blog. They are funng; however, unlike you, they are dangerous because they are white. Truth is whatever you want it to be when you are not a participant in a situation. I won't bother to breakdown fact for fact just the few ridiculous "facts" that I skimmed over with sources such as Victor Gutierrez. Perhaps Gutierrez will extradite himself back to the US and pay that judgement against him and support his facts. The redacted FBI files and all court testimonies are available as public record. None of these facts are present. Also, as evidenced by your comments about yourself, you have a sexual-orientation identity crisis. You love homoerotica yet you frown upon homosexuality. Clearly, you have some deep seated lesbian feelings and you lash out at others you feel share the same emotions. I'm not trying to convince you of anything and I certainly could care less about what you or anyone believes. However, in hindsight, I would hope that you will come to realize that you cannot claim to be proud of who you are, proud of being black and profess to being a black radical while taking seriously the comments of an alleged foreign, non-english speaking white person claiming to judge how Black or non-Black a 50 year old black man was and attempting to offer critique and career analysis of a person who was in their profession for 40 years since the age of 5. Just the fact that a white person would come to you like that is insulting and demonstrates just how buffoonish you have portrayed yourself here. A true black radical would know that. Ask Loius Farrakhan, Professor Griff or Chuck D if they would partake in dialogue with a white person coming at them with that bull. Hell, "she" wouldn't have the balls to say it to them. This was funny for a moment, now its just sad. Wake up "sistah" before its too late..... Peace
P.S. post the link (video, I've seen their site and forged docs with unsubstantiated private detectives and foreign women cleaning movie sets, lol. I should link John Branca and his law firm for "authentification", lol.) Of the James Brown comments because they NEVER happened. Charles Thomson has an exclusive with Brown's wife, I should forward him the link as well.
Now, from my satirical ebonics laced comment to a genuine post from a secure person with knowledge of self, this entire blog is sad. Initially, I skimmed this post, laughed then offered the comment it warranted. After reading your comments about yourself, its clear that you have racial identity and sexual preferance issues you are dealing with and you've chosen to focus on someone you feel share those same emotions. The sad fact is you've been exploited by right-wing, militia conspirators who been non-whites are part of the "Illuminati" if they earn their way out of the ghetto. I've seen their site, fake private investigator, fake "inside info". They are so ridiculous and goofy that even the ridiculous and goofy mjdeath hoax group laughs at them. No true self aware black radical would ever tolerate a non-English speaking white woman rating how "black" ANY black person is with a straight face. If they respected you in that role, she wouldn't come at you like that anyway. I wouldn't bother you with facts because 1. I couldn't give a fuck what they think and 2 sometimes we lose some to save many. Wake up "sistah" this blog is a sad joke... PEACE
Well, isn't this comical?
AnonymousBabygyrl from Chicago, Illinois came to my blog searching "how does bobby winters know michael jackson" and he/she is now bashing people here for being interested in Michael Jackson and, erroneously, I'll say, calling them 'fans' of his.
If you can get something--one thing--correct, it should be that no one here is a fan of Michael Jackson's.
Let me repeat: you found this blog looking for "Michael Jackson".
That is of great importance for everyone to know here, because it reveals true intentions.
I am sure, as a fan (because the Bobby Winters book is so obscure that only a fan would know about it), you cannot take me writing about Michael Jackson in a negative manner. No, "Babygyrl", you are the loser, creepy "stan", not me.
This is nothing but me being a writer and compiling the fruit of research.
Now, you exposed both your stupidity and your fanaticism numerous times in your comment. You called someone a 'racist sicko' while also calling someone a 'nigger' or 'coon' and someone an 'illegal, no English-speaking motherfucker'. (FYI, she's European, not an illegal. You'd do well to expand your brain beyond the American context. We aren't the only country in the world, you know...)
Perhaps you are the most self-efficient racist, managing to be two sides at once, or, alternately, you are simply in possession of a low IQ. Or both?
You also told me to get off Michael Jackson's 'nut sack' but you referenced Lipstick Alley, and that they've 'roasted me'. Now, I wouldn't know anything about getting roasted but I do enjoy negative attention as much as positive. However, not one of these 'LSA roasters' have ever came to this blog and shown me the error of my ways. I imagine this is because they cannot refute me.
And don't you find it a little strange that you call people 'nigger' and still like Michael Jackson? Or has he completely ceased to be black to you? And don't pretend that you are not a fan of his. Only fans get this angry.
Don't bring up welfare, Obama, Bush, etc. You will be woefully out of your league there, too. Don't you think I would be a 'lazy fat ass' if I was sitting at home compiling thoughts on that, as well?
I happen to be a full-time college student and this is just for fun. A hobby, investigating Michael Jackson posthumously. I am currently on a month long break and, come returning to school, I am usually too busy to write a post. And having friends has nothing to do with anything I do here, as none of my friends know anything about this blog I keep.
I find it funny that if you think what I write is 'stupid shit', why bother to comment--let alone mention Lipstick Alley--at all?
Why not go on about your day?
Or, rather, since I know you are a fan (recall: Bobby Winters and Lipstick Alley), refute what I put out on this blog. I know you can't but I always enjoy a good sparing match! Of course, I doubt your competency in this arena, too, since you are clearly not clever enough to hide your own rabidity. (Most Michael Jackson fans have dangerously low IQs.)
Oh, and, as I mentioned in this post, there would be no point of me going to Neverland. Michael didn't like little girls. Neverland is for boys. He was a pedophile.
Desiree you go girl! I'm sure MJ would be pleased to have had this very inarticulate person as a fan. As you said "dangerously low IQ"!
Please post some more "stupid shit" soon!
Sarah:
These people are lunatics. Here's a Lipstick Alley thread about my blog. It's pretty humorous. I find it funny that people always shoot the messenger...
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/same-desiree-baord-272482/
I read the LSA thread, OMG what a bunch of losers! Surely even fans of the Gloved One must conceed that sleeping with boys in your bed, and have 3 other strains of male DNA on your mattress pad is a bit dodgy! One poster on LSA said that Michael might not have slept in his room for a while, that's a good one, I think that was post 2003 raid not before. Someone else wanted to suggest that the DNA was from a tissue in the trashcan or some saliva! I guess they didn't read the report which clearly states semen, and the soiled sheets have completely escaped attention then! Too much evidence now to say that he was misundestoon and heterosexual, whatever it was it wasn't what the fans and the public in general had been lead to believe for years!
Sarah:
I am really perplexed at the level of denial these fans are in. I mean, that I am Victor Gutierrez or Diane Dimond or even a member of Jordie's family? Really?
What Michael's fans don't realize is that BEYOND the fanatics and the idol worshippers or even just the casual admirers, MOST people think Michael Jackson was a child molester. Sure, these people may like his music or dancing, but he's still a pedophile.
They should understand--and understand real quick--that they are the ONLY ones who think he was maligned, innocent, and a victim of a conspiracy. No one else thinks that.
No one celebrities don't really like their fans. Most of them are batshit insane.
I am working on a post and, although I can make no promises, I hope to publish it as the last post of December. No later than January 1st 2011. Sorry for the delays. :-)
Wow, Desiree. That was perhaps the most funny thing I've seen all day! Thanks for that link. I agree with you, they don't realize that most people think he was probably a child molester, regardless of his talent. He wasn't a maligned innocent man. What, do they think he was this Jesus that came to earth to show the world how to "heal the world" and moonwalk and he was labeled as a child molester so we would be "distracted" by his message of "love" and "purity and innocence", because as we all know we mere mortals are too evil to stand next to his "light" (LOL), and then he was martyred and only in time we will see how "holy" he was? LMAO! How preposterous! Someone on there said that "this world was going to end" just because you are writing things they disagree with?
I have a hard time believing that the media just made all this up about him. I mean Evan Chandler must have been a really brilliant personality to pick Michael Jackson out of all celebrities to "extort" because Mike 1)did in fact sleep in the bed with young boys, his own admission, 2) had no visible or tangible interest in women, 3) had numerous "special friends" all in the same age range and all the same gender that he wined and dined and spent time with similar in manner and method to that of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, 4) owned two books with naked boys in them. Tres brilliant! I mean, really? The probability of that is highly unlikely.
And of course the funniest thing of all is that they assume that there is no one--in their right mind, according to them--that would think he's guilty, so all "detractors" must be related to each other. And that all your commenters are one of your multiple personalities? LOL. I guess if that helps them sleep at night against all the ugly truths, so be it.
The Blogger spam folder sure knows how to detect 'spam'. Two of the three of "Babygyrl's" comments were siphoned to the fiery depths where spam goes to die...until I decide to notice and offer pardons.
Anyway, this person is the same as dyhard123, miownunique, and the other ridiculous Jacko fans that trickle thusly from the great state of Illinois, and who offer absolutely nothing of value to my blog. No refutations, no links to information showing me the error of my ways, nothing.
What they do offer are ad Hominem attacks, which, as we all know, are poor substitutes for real arguments.
In the marketplace of ideas, the consumer has the right to 'buy into' whatever intellectual stock they choose. If people like "Babygyrl" dislike what I say, by all means, shop elsewhere.
However, I will NOT stop writing what I have found to be substantiated FACT about Michael Jackson: he was a pedophile, he struggled with his homosexuality, he hated his race.
I am simply reporting the fruit of my research. I don't understand why detractors have to put Michael's 'sins' onto me because I have chosen to write about all of his dirty deeds!
"Babygyrl" don't refrain from ebonics, let alone threatening violence: that is simply your true nature. I don't understand why you chastise me for allowing a foreign white woman to talk about Michael's self-hatred (which was evident to ANYONE with functioning eyeballs and the cognition of at least a gerbil) and in the same breath call me a coon, nigger, porch monkey, etc.
It's a tad hypocritical. My readers are entitled to their opinions. Regardless of the person's race, anyone should be allowed to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) when it comes to Michael Jackson.
You are exposing yourself once again. To say that this blog didn't bother you yet you leave long-winded, pointless screeds? That is a low IQ, "Babygyrl"!
YOU are the Michael Jackson worshipper, not me; remember how you found this blog and that you were on Lipstick Alley. And you were the one with the disquieted diatribes. Please don't get it confused. I already know who you are and where you're from. I also know that you are a man.
And you say I'm identity confused?
If you'd like to debate me on the facts, please bring your links, your documents, and your A-game. I doubt you are capable of it in this context but I am always ready to defend my pieces.
I must say, Michael Jackson fans are insane, unbalanced, and disturbed. It is really, really creepy.
Just a bunch of low IQ drones, I guess, since only the IQ deficient would still believe Michael Jackson liked being black when his children weren't and he carved up his face to look like a white man, and that he wasn't a pedophile, yet paid off at least four families with young sons. These fans--Jacko's Wackos--have nothing, they know it, and can't stand me for presenting the truth about Michael, despite the fact I am but one lone blogger in the vast virtual space that is the Internet.
Thank God they don't know where I live.
Desiree,
Babygyrl's comments were so horrifyingly racist, my jaw would have hit the ground, had it not been attached to my head. Then she turned around and showed how much she worships Michael Messiah. As always, I love your retorts to the rabid fans.
I also like the way you have struck a nerve, with the rabid fans. Obviously, your well-researched posts, complete with links, are a threat to their favorite masturbation fantasy of choice. So far, you have mentioned people coming over from Lipstick Alley and IDMb. Has anyone appeared from the VindateMJ site?
Keep up the good work! I'm truly impressed and look forward to your upcoming blog.
Len:
I have people coming from the VindicateMJ site sometimes. I know of two people who 'lurk' regularly.
"Babygyrl" is actually a guy, which is so odd because I thought the idol worshipping of Michael Jackson was a feminine enterprise? This is the same person who told you to "eat a bag of goat dicks". (Sorry to bring that up again)
I am really tired of the stupidity, actually. If you are going to disagree with me, at least be one person and be eloquent. But not only do we have to keep in mind these people have nothing to go against the research here, they are also 'off'.
My next post, which I have had a terrible writer's block on, was another post on Michael being gay, like an expanded version of the other, since people around the net seem to be confused by it (or, rather, in denial). This was the post I'd lost that last time, so it's taking a little longer to get done. I am going to work on it some more today. It may be the first post of 2011. Sorry for the delays.
I'll admit, "Babygyrl's" comments upset me, and I am pretty sure he's black, too, which is ironic. Michael Jackson's fanatics are truly messed up mentally, and that's an understatement. "Babygyrl" can say he thinks Michael was pedophile in order to say I have some weird 'obsession' with Michael but he's not clever enough to be consistent. None of these attacks against my person will not stop me from my work. It's funny that these idiots think 'hitting below the belt' will stop the blog. It won't. I'd stop posting if I figured out I really was maligning an innocent man.
But we all know that's not true.
You know, I could look like the Elephant Man, drool when I speak, and smell like really old Gorgonzola and it wouldn't matter. Just because someone is 'ugly' doesn't make their truths less valid.
I am still on the right side of history and they have NOTHING to refute me. If you think I wrong and baseless and without fact, PLEASE disprove me.
Calling me insane (which is what they say), a hater, fat, and/or ugly does not diminish the accuracy of my research.
And, Len, it was you who brought the article link about something in the Vaccaro storage unit that the tabloids were willing to pay 7 figures for in order to slam Jacko. And then, mistakenly, the Jacksons told everyone they destroyed this item. They didn't put it in a safe-deposit box, they DESTROYED it as to make it seem as if it never existed.
Obviously, just this mere slip of the tongue proves that something was present in that lot that makes Michael look less than savory.
The fans don't get it? Poor things... I often imagine that if they figured out the whole truth, some of them would commit suicide.
Desiree,
I'd love to have the lurkers from the VindicateMJ site post a comment. If Babygyrl is male, I'm curious to know who he actually is and why he's so angry about your posts, proving Michael was a pedophile. Where is this person located?
Howard Mann and Katherine Jackson - who is so obsessed with money-making public image, slipped up badly by the announcement Mann destroyed Michael memorabilia destroyed and Katherine's appreciation. Even worse was her comment Mann was treating her well. They don't realize how much they publicly put Michael's behavior into suspicion, again.
It's the story of Jess Styles getting beaten up by thugs so that Katherine could get ahold of Michael's diaries that I am even more curious about and want it validated or proven false. Joe and Katherine are notorious for intimidating people, which is why I'm so curious. As I have said before, I don't know one person who has met Katherine say they like her. That, alone, speaks volumes.
“Some pedophiles cut out pictures of children from magazines and put them in albums as if they
were photographs. Visual images of children
can be on computer and CD-ROM disks.”
(Kenneth V. Lanning. “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis”)
This video shows more circumstantial proofs of Mj's proclivities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp9KRtkVgOo
There is just too much evidence to suggest that MJ was totally innocent of all charges. I believe that he certainly had an unhealthy interest in kids. From the strange lyrics of his "love" songs to his reading material and collection of pictures of naked and clothed children. He believed that they were his inspiration! He almost talks about them as a man speaks of a woman he loves, spooky! Is it normal to take baths with kids that aren't yours? I think not, but there has been much said about his sharing of baths, showers and hot tubs with his special friends. Did these peopke all make it up because he was MJ after all? The undies and the sheets seem also to be a recurring theme, from the little boys jocks that Blanca Francia and Adrian McManus talk about to the pants that Gavin and Jordie mention to the stained jocks found by Henry Vaccaro (I'm presuming everyone knows who he is) and passed onto the LA police in 2004. And now of course the semen soaked jocks found with the sheets at the Neverland raid in 2003. Also the sheets are a recurring theme, remember the sheets that Bob Brown mentions in his book with the love letter on them during the Bad tour, not too mention the faeces stained ones! MJ sure was one sick boy! Just because he could sing and do the moonwalk he seemed to think that the normal rules of society and propriety did not apply. WRONG they did apply and eventually I believe lead to his decline and eventual death. He knew after the trial and his accquital that he could never again parade around with kids and proclaim to the world that he enjoyed sharing his bed with boys. This I believe made him profoundly sad and he lost the will to live, therefore turning to more and more drugs to medicate away his pitifully sad and lonely days. Why didn't he go out and get laid? Well I guess he did if you believe Arnie Klein and Jason Pffeifer! I think he longed for his past and the Neverland lifestyle that he had to give up and this made him a sad lonely freak. He had so much and lost so much that in itself is criminal.
Desiree,
please, feel free to delete my last message. I copy pasted it in the wrong place.
Thank you very much!
Babygirl,
I was about to write you a long message, but I think it is a complete waste of time.
Regarding music, Stevie Wonder told Mj that making music only to satisfy his audience=big sales (as mj claimed) was a big mistake. FYI, Stevie is Black, American and a musician himself. Same for James Brown. He said in an interview for the NYT dated 1994:
"I admire Hammer." he said. "I admire Prince. I admire Michael from the beginning until the last four or five years," he said of Michael Jackson.
Very telling. He was stating the obvious for anyone with a pair of ears and a working brain. More than being black or white, what matters is to have some good taste and appreciation for good music.
Cheers,
The illegal immigrant
Susana, I read Dileo is planning to move forward with his book. I would admire Dileo a LOT if he didn't whitewash what he knew. People who dealt with Michael on a regular basis were well aware of what he was (and shouldn't be) doing.
By the way, those were very interesting comments you posted about Stevie Wonder and James Brown. I still listen to their music. A lot.
Thanks for the quote from James Brown. Interesting how he said that added a qualifier specifying which time period for the Michael Jackson he liked, but he didn't do that for Prince and MC Hammer. It's apparent that he might have been disgusted but Mike's abandonment of his race.
Len, I don't think Dileo will be completely honest in his book, especially since he knows his kids. What I wonder is if Dileo will say anything negative about the Jacksons because I've seen him on TV and read articles where he kind of implied that they were less than scrupulous. Like saying the sisters came and cleaned house the day of his death.
Oh, did you guys hear that the good Rabbi was going to release a second book about Mike regarding his words on children? Well, he says that we can all learn from Mike on his view if children. I think it is interesting how he says in this book that he "still" doesn't believe that Mike ever has, or could ever, molest a child, and that he thinks the allegations against him are false. BUT in the first book, he said from what he gleaned from June Chandler's testimony in court, he felt that Mike was "erotically obsessed" with Jordie. He also had said that he didn't know if Mike was a child molester but that didn't make him a monster if he was. He did however disbelieve the Arvizo allegations.
Now isn't that a 180 degree difference in his new position?
I smell opportunism from the good Rabbi. Mike's words are his own, but I think that the Rabbi is up to no good. Remember all the tapes were done in the same time period so if he thought that Mike was misunderstood and innocent and all that, he could have said it in his old book.
As far as MJ's vitiligo goes, one only has to read the autopsy report in regards to his skin. One section states
"There is focal depigmentation of the skin, particularly over the anterior chest and abdomen, face and arms."
So, places which were obvious and could be seen by others was bleached. Below the waist and his legs weren't.
I can't see any mention of vitiligo in the autopsy report though. Have I missed it??
I konw there are many things intriguing in MJ's life,the fact that he didn't say a word in his trial already says many things, but even so I'm not able to believe he was guilty, you can call me anything you want. I also find it very strange that now that he is dead many people emerged saying they regretted, now they say good things about him. The autopsy did reveal he had vitiligo. I watched "this is it", he seemed to be so humble, the person he had always said he was. That was a personal video, he didn't need to pretend. I won't judge him as long as I have never met him in person, and all that I have are what people say, documents in court, I found Evan's Chandlers suicide too much coincidence soon after his death. I do hope the true emerges, this story needs to die with him. I has already caused much suffering to a lot of people.
THE REGRETTING
Evan Chandler was found with a gun in his hand, he killed himself. How strange he shot his head and the gun doesn’t fall down, somebody shot him to shut up his mouth. Coincidently he died soon after the blackman died.
His ex-wife said she regretted speaking bad things about him and said he was an incredible person.
Martin Bashir, the journalist who claimed to have seen inappropriate behavior in his documentary in 2003, confessed he lied.
A message from the first boy who accused him was written in internet saying it was all for money, although the end of the message saying he would always love him seems to be strange.
Oprah Winfrey who used to laugh at him in the past, made new interviews totally different from those she used to.
Why did this people change their mind suddenly? Did his mother buy this people to clean her son’s image?
The racist man before dying wrote songs with another blackman, he left the custody of his children to a blackwoman, in case of his mother died, who had always been his friend. Williams from Black Eyed Peas have already given several interviews defending him, the man who didn’t like Jewish used to have as a spiritual counselor a Jewish man.
Diane Dimond told Ian Halperin during her investigations about his life she has never found any evidence he was gay. What about the naked men magazines?
In his will he left 20% o charity institutions, after his death, he wouldn’t be able to molest any kid, would he?
When you watch his post-morten documentary all you can see is a humble man, treating everyone as equals and it was a private documentary. He seemed to be very meticulous in everything he did, and in accusations of pedophilia there were many rifts.
In the end, there are many evidences against him, but also many good things about him, the only consistent things against him is his interview to Diane Swayer and the sperms found in his mattress. The rest are only speculations, no one has how to prove that Renia, really wrote a letter to him, saying he just liked boys, his daughter who is a girl seems to be the one who likes him the most, there are some photos of his with girls, one of them is lied down with him in an airplane. That girl from the documentary said many good things about him.
In his interview with Martin Bashir, he says he liked to give biscuits to children and his daughter in the interview to Oprah said he liked to make French toast for them. It correlates.
Probably he was a gay, but pedophile, it’s something we will never know for sure. I could just know for sure if I really had met him in person, as it has never happened, it seems to be unfair affirm he was guilty or not. May we let God decide it, he is the fair judge. Besides, no one can affirm he hadn’t regret before dying.
Bit by bit the truth will appear, we will know MJ through his children because as Bible says, ‘The tree is known by its fruits’.
2.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY:
www.reidopop.com.br access in June, August, September, October, November, December 2009, January 2010
www.youtube.com access in June, August and September 2009
www.allmichaeljackson.com access on January 08th, 2009
www.etonline.com access on September 4th, 2009
www.amazon.com access in June 2009
www.smokingun.com access in August 2009
www.wikipedia.com.br access in July
www.terra.com.br access on December 23 th, 2009
www.abcnews.com access in June 2009
Documentary This is It watched on October 28th, 2009
Serie The Jackson watched in June, 2009
Joseph’s Interview watched on TV Record, on August 2nd, 2009.
MTV watched on August, 29 th, 2009.
MTV watched on September 13 th, 2009.
Michael Jackson’s Funeral watched on TV Globo, on July 07 th, 2009.
Jornal da Globo watched on September 03 th, 2009.
SBT Reporter watched on September 16th, 2009.
Ms. Remy’s Interview in TV Bandeirantes watched on November 24th and 25th, 2009.
www.oprah.com watched in November, 2010
I just wanna one thing if Diane Dimond really investigated MJ's life why didn't she testify against him as well as Victor Gutierrez?
It doesn't really make sense for me that he used to molest kids in front of all his employees to be at their hands. If their employees said he spent a long time locked in his bedroom with boys, but they say, they saw he really molesting them. He licked the boys head in the airplane. Would he let the employees see everything to blackmail him? He seemed to be an intelligent person.
I agree with Gary and I haven’t offended you, can you answer me this question?
I will never offend you Diane or even MJ himself soon I have never met both of you, I prefer to be impartial for committing no injustice with both of you.
I truly hope he had regretted the things he had done and maybe it was the reason for his insommnia. He was horrible molesting kids, if he really had done that, despite everything he deserves pity ’cause a person who acts this way is not a normal one.
I think Joe is guilty of it as well ’cause according to La Toya he molested MJ when he was a kid, Katherine is also guilty because she didn’t use to do anything. What a crazy fmily. The more I try to understand them, the more it seems that will be crazy myself.
Now La Toya defends Michael and say he looked like God and his father was not that bad.
Although Michael might have been a pedo, the children’s family were not innocent at all, because he used to molest kids under their parents’ nose and they did nothing, for me they were pimps and children prostitutes. All this story is really disgusting from all parts.
As for media some of them use this sordid story to make money and add more lies to be interesting, I can’t affirm it is your case since I don’t know you, but it might have happened with other journalists.
Erci, Roberta, Mary, Anonymous, and Lucia,
People seem to have a hard time speaking ill of the dead. I have a strong feeling guilt plays into it. But even if people who spoke against them recant what they said, it doesn't change the cold, black-and-white print of the legal documents. Desiree has done impressive research and has posted links to very revealing information. If you haven't read them, please do. Michael was a pedophile, with a predilection for boys between the ages of ten and thirteen.
Roberta,
The message from Jordie Chandler, claiming he was made to lie, is a hoax, perpetuated by rabid fans who are trying to change history. Nobody has ever retracted the accusations of molestation. I would also like to have a link in which Bashir claimed he lied. (I don't have time to look at all the links you posted, and some of them are either fan sites or look suspiciously of fan sites.) The words condemning Michael came directly from the horse, himself, so the claim Bashir admitted he lied, in and of itself, puts such a pronouncement into suspicion. We also do not know what Oprah's motives are, so what you posted is an assumption. If people retrated their stories, perhaps Katherine did pay them off. Per inside information, she's done it before. Who knows. Michael was also a master of manipulation. So, of course he was going to come across as soft spoken and humble.
In youtube you can watch martin bashir and lisa marie speaking about MJ. I'm not a blind fan of him, of course not, I DO believe he molested the boys. Jordan Chandler's story is convincing for me. What I just think he was not the only guilty, the boys' family were guilty 'cause they were pimps, his employees were his accomplices who used to help him and when he was in trouble they just left, there were no innocent in this story. All of them should have gone to jail, except the children just because they were children, because they were not that innocent, they were like prostitutes, he was just acquitted for the fans outside the court shouting innocent, the judge was afraid of fans. As you know, he used to have and still thousands of fans in the world. What I just meant it's that I am intrigued for these people speaking good things about him now that is dead, probably kate paid them to clear his image.
As for his skin I believe he did have vitiligo, his children are not this, but these things are not crime and I won't judge him at all because of this. There's no proof he bleached his skin, his autopsy proved he had the disease. I really think the molestation story is true, but the other ones are fabricated because people hate him for he was a molester.
I think what he had done doesn't matter anymore since he is dead.
The fact that he was a child molester doesn't make Conrad Murray innocent, he is a drug dealer in disguise, he should have refused that job, but he just cared about money. I really think MJ was killed. All the evidences were showed in Conrad Murray's trial.
I hope he had regretted before dying as well as evan Chandler for selling his own son.
I DO NOT defend MJ for he was the king of pop, but I think it's unfair portray him as the single villain. If he was gay, he was a pedo, because a pedo is a faggot who doesn't come out of the closet. Pedo just molest boys 'cause they coerce them not to tell anybody and thus, the pedos poses as men to society.
I understand desirée's intention to open people's eyes, if he were alive and was a threat for children I think it's ok, but now he is dead, he can't harm anyone anymore, so it won't make any difference if he was guilty or innocent, I know you get angry at people worshipping a pedo, but people just see what they want to, you will use thousands of arguments to say he was guilty, they will use thousands of arguments to say he was innocent.
There's no comparison between Elvis and Michael. Elvis married Priscilla, it was wrong to get involved with 14-year-old girl, but repaired his mistake by marrying her. It is totally differente.
As for Jordan Chandler's message I didn't say the message was true I just find it much coincidence that his father had died in the same year that MJ and that message appeared in internet. I'm not a supid blind worshiper as you are portraying me who can't stand people who believe is guilty, what I just meant I prefer to be impartial. It's not a hard time for me to speak ill about the dead, because it would be stupid, I won't argue with people for a person that I have never met, I'm not a hypocritical fan that regard him as member of my family. If I have met this man and he tried to convince me he was innocent I would pretend I believed him but I would never let my children to be next to him. I am not that stupid person. Everybody has right to believe in what they want, we don't have to impose our beliefs to each other.
Desiree,
When you break it down like that, it's hard to ignore the fact that Michael seemed to fixate on young boys. Stranger in Moscow seems a little creepy now.
It seems so strange that Michael could fixate on boys so long with little repercussions. It wasn't until Jordie that people really reacted. And even then it was mixed.
There were girls. They were very few but they were there, too. Beyond the sisters, I mean. Like one of the comments, they were nothing like the Bretts, Jordies, or Wades. And they tended to be tiny. Did Michael have so many issues with women that he could only deal with very young girls?
That letter from Marie-Nicole was heartbreaking. I guess when you come from a family with four brothers that were all "special friends," she felt left out. Her letter must have been a wake-up call because I saw a picture of a golf cart with her name written in very large letters across the hood.
P.S. Any new posts on the way? Your blogs are amazing.
Brenda:
I don't know if the letter was by Marie Nicole Cascio. The little girl was called Renia.
As for blog posts, I am trying. I've been really busy with school and life, and it is hard to squeeze in such laborious expository entries. But it isn't that I don't want to write them. Quite honestly, I have not felt inspired to write anything due to schoolwork, etc. But I will try to get it together. I, too, think it is ridiculous that I have not posted in so long. Frankly, it's embarrassing...
Hi Desiree,
Now I feel bad. School is way more important. Enjoy friends and family and write when the time is right. Luckily you have tons of great blogs to read while we wait!
I assumed the girl was Marie-Nicole based on the other names:
"Baby Rubba, Dom, Angel, Frank were all your babies"
Although Marie-Nicole was called Renico, Michael used the above names to thank the Cascio boys in the HIStory notes.
http://tinypic.com/m/e8tmqx/2
Angel is Eddie. Dom is Dominic(sp). Frank is Frank. And Baby Rubba is Aldo. In this video at 7:47, Michael asks Aldo what's his name and Aldo replies, "Baby Rubba."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGeh4OHNaAM
Brenda:
Oh, wow. I did not know that Renia (which is close to 'Renico') is Marie Nicole. That actually makes it a lot more interesting.
So she is just another sister Michael cast aside in exchange for diverting all of his time and energy on the brothers. We know that both Karlee Barnes and Chantal Robson were cast aside in favor of Brett and Wade, respectively. According to Victor Gutierrez (whether or not you want to believe him), Michael did not have that much interest in Lily Schwartz (Jordie's sister), either.
Marie Nicole was not just some random little girl coming to Neverland.
The Cascio family went to bat for Michael on Oprah and not only denied he ever touched any of the Cascio boys but also that the allegations were completely untrue (overall pedophilia), the latter of which I think it is unfair for them to give an opinion because they were not there (I also believe they are just lying). I also have a reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson did molest those boys, as well, but of course, it's just a feeling.
You have to wonder how many of these families are just covering things up because this was the King of Pop, one of the biggest celebrities of the 20th century. If you read the trial transcripts of Joy Robson's testimony, you'll notice that she revealed lots about Michael's proclivities and behavior towards families only to backtrack (and make herself look like a fool) on the stand.
Thank you for the information, Brenda. I will add an ETA to this post.
Very interesting. It make even more sense now.
I don't know how old was Renia when she wrote the letter, but she was intelligent enough to identify michael as the cause for her being rejected by the applehead club and how the boys followed suit.
The Cascios received a 600.000 dollars payment. In my opinion they know something was going on, as the other families. Before the boys were victims of MJ, they were the victims of their own parents. I can't say who was more degenerated, whether Michael or the parents.
Joy Robson delivered Wade as a pizza when Michael requested it. No matter if it was 2 p.m. or he was sleeping. She warned another mother about Michael activities with the boys, even so, she forced her little child to sleep with him. The mothers were competing to promote their sons as Michael favourite toy boy... They should have been all imprisoned, Michael and the parents.
It's sad that the authorities couldn't stop him in 1993, but in part that was because the Chandlers were prostituting Jordie and expected money in return, not justice. I don't agree with the notion that Evan Chandler didn't want Jordie to testify because it would hurt him. He lost his anonymity the minute the abuse was made public. His life would never be the same after that. Evan wasn't concerned, he was trying to hide why he let his child sleep in a tiny bed with a thirty something years old man covered in make-up. We know he was expecting money from MJ to start a career in Hollywood and for an extension of their house. In the conversation with Dave S. he didn't sound worried for Jordie, but angry because he felt Michael was cheating or fooling him. As saying: I let you sleep with my kid and I get nothing in return; is June who is taking advantage of the situation, I will show you who is really smart. He even said he didn't care if Jordie will be OK or not after his “intervention”.
None of the parents were naïve. A man in his 20s, 30s, 40s,.. sleeping with kids for years, and showing the same behaviour than Michael, is a paedophile. I (an many rational people) don't need further proofs. This single fact is enough proof of his proclivities. But the parents were as criminal as Michael, if not more.
I always wonder why the authorities, after the 1993 fiasco, didn't ran interference or made difficult for Michael to contact with kids. Neverland, though a private place, received thousands of kids every year. Why not try to shut down the place because of security concerns, etc. Why social services didn't investigate the families like the Cascios, or the Barnes whose children were travelling, living and sleeping with a man accused of paedophilia?
Susana:
I don't know if Evan Chandler was pimping Jordie out. I do think it was strange that he had no problem with Jordie being with a grown man; he just chalked it up to Jordie being 'gay'. There could be something going on with that, but, all in all, I am inclined to believe Evan was that liberal-minded.
June Chandler was believable in her testimony. I think the family was hoodwinked by Michael Jackson.
If you notice in the 'Invincible' album jacket, Michael thanks the Cascio family but he also thanks Frank individually. My gut feeling is that the two had sexual contact. People think straight males wouldn't do homosexual things with other men but I beg to differ! Many men in gay porn are straight; they do it for the money. Frank could have easily soothed a desperate and pleading Michael Jackson--who needed his sexual fix with a young male--by allowing Michael to give him oral sex, etc. Of course, in exchange for perks.
And the Cascios undoubtedly got perks from Michael.
I know in Jordie's evaluation with Dr. Richard Gardner, he stated that Michael gave him oral sex pretty much everywhere and at least over 15 times. Jordie said he himself liked girls but he never stopped Michael because it 'felt good' and Michael was his friend, probably extra emphasis on the first part!
Apparently, it's no big thing.
There's no way Frank Cascio and Michael did not have sexual contact.
Thank God the police found that Renia letter. I know fans just wanted to say that she was just upset but now knowing that the girl was Marie Nicole Casio, makes it a lot juicer. Can we all say 'paid off'?
Désirée,
In my opinion the attitude of Evan C. has nothing to do with open-mindness. Michael was a thirty something years old man and Jordie was 12 or 13. Like many other things surrounding those families, the “I was OK with him being gay” was a cover up for his negligence as a father and his greed.
He would be OK with Jordie being gay and having feelings or being in a puppy love relationship with a boy his age or a little older. Letting him sleep with a grown man like Michael, is like he was pimping his son, in my humble opinion. Of course, he was a wealthy man, otherwise I don't think he would have been that “liberal”.
Possibly the boys fell in love with him and enjoyed having sexual contact with him. They weren't, as many victims, molested by someone who exerted some kind of authority over them, for example a teacher or a priest who acts furtively... They weren't manipulated by fear or isolated. They were friends with Michael, bonded with him, and most important, the parents were OK with the sleepovers and the abnormal relationships.
The parents knew that MJ was a paedophile and took advantage of it. This is the reason why they weren't suing the press for slander or libel for saying their children were Michael's victims. The investigation that would ensue, could be very damaging for them.
The kids will be labelled all his life as victims of sexual molestation and maybe will raise suspicions of being paedophiles themselves. It isn't an innocuous rumour that people easily forgets.
I agree with you on Frank. Same for Omer... they were sodomizing him, lol. I bet they needed 300 pages of Barely Legal and some hard drugs to get an erection in MJ,s presence, lol. Money makes some people beautiful, but this wasn't Michael's case.
I found enigmatic some of the things Wade Robson said in the past, as an adult. Of all the “special friends” I find him to be the less determined in Michael's defence. I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe is just a baseless impression I have.
Sarah,
I would like to know if Brett Barnes has made any interview in Australia after the trial.
Susana,
I agree. Parents who intentionally pimped their sons to Michael should have been convicted, right along with Michael. At the very least, CPS should have removed their children from the home. As an fyi, the Bhattis are high on my list of pimps.
Because Pellicano edited the taped conversation between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler, we don't know what was left out. I find it strange he would let a grown man have a sleepover in his own house, with his son. We can only speculate he was trying to trap Michael. I do think they were hoodwinked. Yet, I say so knowing I'd have to have a conversation with them when they were drunk to know the full story, and Evan is now dead. No matter what, though, in the end, Michael destroyed their lives.
Something to keep in mind is that pedophiles woo the entire family in order to make them comfortable and trusting, with their children. It's part of the grooming process. That way, it is easier for the pedophile to be alone with the child, for pederasting.
Brenda,
What a brilliant find! Once again, the "mouthpiece" told me the truth. The Cascios were more of Michael's boy toys, in particular, Frank. I have a mental checklist of everything the "mouthpiece" told me. So far, I have marked each item on the list as "proven true."
As an aside, I'd love to know what happened to Brett. He frequently traveled from Australia to Neverland without his family. This is somebody Michael said needed vaseline on his anus because he ate too much and had big "doo doos." Therefore, his anus bled, per Jordie Chandler's testimony. Um, connect the dots.
I keep asking myself, "Why?" Why did the parents allow their children to sleep with a grown man? Even if nothing happened, why would a parent do something so irresponsible? Why? There must be a lesson in all this. Michael was found "not guilty" but his actions raised red flags.
The trial transcripts were rich with information. Experts say that when the child is young, a molester would spend considerable time grooming the parents. I noticed a pattern while reading the transcripts. Michael initially met several of his special friends when they were quite young. He casually met Wade, Jordie, Brett, the Cascio boys when they were around 5. We heard about his conversations with the children but the trial illustrated the fact that he spoke extensively with the mothers. Joy Barnes felt she knew Michael when she finally met him because she had spoken to him for more than a year by phone. The same with Lisbeth Barnes. Then there are the famous Glenda tapes. She was the mother of a special friend. These women spent an exorbitant amount of time talking to Michael. They thought they knew Michael but did they really?
He spoke to each of the mothers about family. How he was to be considered family. How they could trust him. Well, exactly how much family did one man need? He lavished the mothers with attention and gifts not just the children. They could not believe their friend would harm their children. If he did, it would be a phenomenal betrayal of trust. I just don't believe the mothers really want to deal with that possibility.
In hindsight, I think Evan made the right decision. If he really believed Michael was guilty, he got Jordie out of the situation fairly quickly and he got a measure of justice. What did Gavin get?
As for Frank, he told us himself that Michael acted inappropriately with him. Oh, that was not his intentions. He thought he was defending Michael. When he was a minor, "Tyson says he and Jackson would have frequent and graphic sexual conversations in bed, conversations about women, but he says Jackson never laid a hand on him." What good reason would a grown man have for sharing a bed with a 13 year old boy while discussing that?
Source: http://popdirt.com/former-employee-reveals-secret-michael-jackson-liaisons/27979/
Yes, paedophiles seduce the families, etc. but regular paedophiles need an excuse to sleep with kids. Sleepovers with their own kids, if they have, religious, sportive, social groups whose activities include camping, reunions, etc. I don't think a regular paedophile would propose the parents sleepovers with their children, if there isn't a plausible excuse for that, much less I can't picture them proposing sleepovers in the same bed for no apparent reason, or begging for it, like in Michael's case. The difference is Michael was a millionaire and the parents were avaricious and did put money before their sons well-being.
Remember that Emmanuel Lewis mother, in the 80s, when Mjs image was immaculate, put an end to mjs relationship with her son the moment she knew they were trying to check in a hotel as father and son. See, it isn't that difficult to deduce the obvious and say NO.
We know that Joy Robson warned June Chandler because she was “hearing things” of Michael. So the suspicions where there. The families where at Neverland, they came in contact with other families, staff, saw his interest for the boys exclusively, etc. They weren't clueless as the general public. They did have first hand information.
In 1991, in Taraborrelli's book, he mentions the relationships with E. Lewis and Jonathan Spence were questioned by some people as suspicious. He used the word “sexual”. And he quotes Theresa Gonzalves saying MJ was very interested in sexual abuse.
By that time, some of the headlines in the press suggested sarcastically that Michael was only interested in animals and kids. The red flags were there prior to the 1993 allegations.
I don't think the “special families” were immune to all of this. I can't understand how at least they did not see their own greediness and negligence reflected in the other families “providing” toy boys for Michael.
365 days of sleepovers with Michael (like is the case with Brett Barnes in the Dangerous Tour), no matter how naïve somebody can be, implies something sexual going on.
In Evan Chandler case, he was seeing the signals, but he ignored them as long as the possibility of being awarded with some millions was still there. When Michael refused to give him the money, he changed his ways.
He said Michael followed Jordie all the time, he saw them in-love, he allowed them to sleep together, he saw them spooning with MJ hand in Jordie's crotch, the comment about the men kissing and marrying that his step-daughter did... He wasn't naïve. He knew for a fact that the “cosmic” relationship that Michael claimed to have with Jordie, was very “earthly”. He didn't stop it like a responsible father should do, but used that for financial gain.
A responsible father would never have allowed the sleepovers under his own roof.
He could have filled a criminal lawsuit, but he chose the money and disguised his greediness with being concerned by Jordie's well-being. Where were the concerns when they were sleeping night after night in the same bed? And... why such irresponsible, negligent parents should be awarded with several millions dollars in the settlement? All the money should have gone to his son. This payment to the parents is very telling. They didn't fight for justice, but money.
Anyway, I find sad that people measure success in million dollars. Evan Chandler was far for being a hero. Margaret Lewis and the parents (I suppose that there are many) who said NO to Michael using their children are the real champions on this story.
Gavin case is very different. I find many many things that simply doesn't add-up.
The Chandlers could have sent Mj to prison. In fact, the 2003 case is based almost completely in the 1993 one. If Michael settled, it is because the Chandlers did have plenty ammunition to force him to do it.
Desiree,
Wow. I didn’t know that Renia was Marie Nicole. Definitely makes it more interesting. Now that I read her letter to Mike, it makes more sense to me, especially when she calls herself a “faggot” and that no one likes her because she’s ugly and a girl. I suspect her brothers taunted her with the fact that Mike has no interest in girl children, just to make her feel bad. I always thought that Mike just had the sisters “along for the ride” rather than he actually having any relationship with them. And the Cascios have a lot of sons for Mike to have played with. The girls are just an afterthought.
Susana,
You always make me think! I don't know if Evan Chandler was out for millins, and actually the majority of the settlement went to Jordie in a trust that no one but he could touch; June and Evan got like $1 million a piece will Jordie got $15.3 million, so they hardly got anything. The rest of the money went to the lawyers and to pay legal bills. But I will say I believe Evan when he says he was "liberal" about whether Jordie could be in love with Mike. I think it's possible that Evan chandler may have initially been okay with the closeness of Mike and Jordie but he clearly was pissed that Mike stopped talking to him and made June and Jordie stop as well. Maybe, as reprehensible as it seems, he was pissed off that he allowed Mike to have access to his son (well, Evan did say that he didn't know if Mike was "fucking" Jordie but knew "exactly what Mike was hiding"), and now was angry he would get nothing in return for allowing it. Norma Salinas was Evan Chandler's maid and she said that Jordie and Mike spent the ENTIRE weekend in Jordie's bedroom and Evan didn't do anything. It was her opinion that Mike should have went to jail for what he did to Jordie, because it was obvious to her what was going on, and that Evan should got to jail for letting it happen.
I've read Dr. Richard Gardner's book "Sex Abuse Hysteria, published just 2 years before the Chandler scandal, and he was an expert on false child abuse claims. This guy was very intelligent and would know when a childwas lying about being sexually abused; likewise he would know when a child was mostly abused. He also had tremendous empathy for the falsely accused. Suffice it to say, it was this man that believed Jordie. Fans denegrate anyone who says anything negative about Mike, but if they would take the time to read and actually think, they would see that Dr. Gardner wasn't some quack out for publicity. He had harsh words in his book for those people that harassed children into lying about being victimized. If Dr. Gardner believed Jordie, that says a hell of a lot for his credibility, and there was a reason why Mike quickly and sustantially settled the case.
I agree with both you and Desiree, Frank was having sexual relations, or some sexual intimacy with Mike. He was doing something to keep getting all the perks. I believe Mike wouldn't spent all that time, energy and MONEY on quarting these boys and their families if he wasn't going to get a "return" on his investment. I mean what grown ass man would say to a then 20 year old guy like Frank to "Stop fishing", which meant stop prowling for women, unless he was deeply religious and disapproved of fornication? Mike was not religious in that regard, as his drug addiction, spending habitats, and porn collection showed. So I can only suspect he didn't want his toy boy Frank with anyone else besides him.
Brenda,
Thanks for that link. I always found that story to be suspicious because of the timing, and given the fact that around the trial, Mike's PR team went into overdrive trying to make him appear interested in women. Any yet Mike never confirmed any of these stories, which is what any man would have done if he was actually with these women and was falsely accused molesting a young boy. Frank Cascio admitted that Mike talked graphically to him in bed, which in my opinion, sort of corroborates Gavin's allegation of being showed sexually explicit materials. Corey Feldman even said Mike showed him pictures of genitals. All of this is a common grooming tactic of pedophiles, as we all know. Frank's admission also reminds me of when Mike thought it would be helpful in 1993 to bring out young boys to say they did share a bed with him but it wasn't sexual. It doesn't really help to admit to having been in a sexually ambiguous situation with a child if you are accused of being sexual with a child. It only adds more fuel to the fire.
Also, I didn't know that Glenda was the mother of a special friend. Do you know which? Fans always point to these conversations as "proof" to Mike's heterosexuality, but now I'm thinking that he could have been saying all those things to her as a way to make it seem that he wasn't a pedophile. Pedophiles will often project an image of normal sexuality to quiet any suspicions about their obsessive interest in children.
I think the whole situation is just plain sad. Sometimes I'm angry but mostly I'm just sad. Michael was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and now that he's gone ... it's over.
But some good can come from all this if more people really learn about child molestation particularly about preferential molesters. There are so many myths out there.
Myth #1 Gay pedophiles molests young boys. This is the most dangerous myth because it will cause parents to overlook the real molester (like security following a black person in a store while another ethnic group robs them blind). A gay man that is happily gay, living an obvious gay lifestyle is rarely interested in little boys. They want a man. They would molest boys in their late teens. Men who molest young boys usually say they are straight. They marry, have girlfriends or allege interest in women. When asked, they say they were attracted to the boys' lack of puberty. Researchers tested men's sexual response to photos. Openly gay men were attracted to men and late teens mostly. The men who claimed to be straight were not attracted to those photos. They were more attracted to women and prepubescent boys. Here's what's shocking ... according to the myth, I would be wary of a gay man while I really should be watching that pillar of the community, married coach giving my 10 yr old son extra practice.
Source: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
Myth #2 If someone molested my son, I would ... kill, maim, prosecute him. If it's a stranger but most predators are people we know. And we don't kill, maim or prosecute them. We don't turn in our dads, uncles, brothers, friends. Statistics don't lie. We like to think we would do something but we don't for the most part. And victims don't tell. By the way, I have pictures of Lewis with Michael during the Bad era not just Thriller.
I don't think Evan Chandler was a hero. I think he was a realist. He knew that prosecuting a very wealthy person would be very difficult. I won't say impossible but the justice system doesn't always work well prosecuting guilty wealthy defendants. Money isn't true justice but it's a measure of justice. And Evan got Jordie out of the situation. The Monaco thing happened in May (?) and by July, it was over. Evan was no hero but look at all the other boys. What did their father do?
I've come across a couple of books that explain how parents get themselves tied up in knots to the point that they don't act:
(1) The predators select them carefully. He only selects parents who are passive and easily manipulated.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=sociallyskilledmolesterp3.jpg
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=sociallyskilledmolesterp085.jpg
Think of Kit Culkin who put his foot down when Michael wanted to take Mac to the Hideout. Kit doesn't acuse Michael of wrongdoing but he didn't like it. After that an adult always had to be present when Michael was with the children. One year later, Kit was out the picture and Mac's mom gave Michael free rein (my shortened version). I think Michael thought that would happen with Evan but he underestimated him.
(2) The predator spends a lot of time grooming the parents.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=identifyingmolesters.jpg
(3) Predators tests the parents to see if they set boundaries.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=identifyingmolestersp48.jpg
Glenda's son is named Damien.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86HGk5xSzco
Jessica,
I know most of the money went to Jordie, but based on what the parents got money too? It was a fee for their services as pimps? They were irresponsible and negligent, for god shake!!! They should have been investigated along with Michael.
I've heard different amounts for the settlement, so we can't know exactly how many millions they got, but they collected millions... bottom line: they should have get NOTHING.
The Chandlers weren't interested in a court case, but no because they were worried for Jordie (since the allegations went public, he is living almost hiding). They were afraid for themselves.
The problem is people end up discussing or basing their judgement in secondary and incidental aspects and not the roots. For many, MJ wasn't a paedophile because they give any credit at all to the testimonies. They think this or that person is a disgruntled employee, or has an ulterior motive, or was a fan of Elvis Presley lol, while ignoring the most important and overwhelming fact: Michaels behaviour over the years. He was a walking manual of the good paedophile.
Same for the parents. The single fact that MJ requested to sleep with their son is CRAZY! Any responsible parent would ban all contact with a man making such propositions and would call the police right away.
Responsible parents don't make this kind of experiment when the safety of their kids is compromised. More so, they would consider alarming any sign of bribery.
Evan knew what was going on, but chose to use the relationship for financial gain. He proposed Michael to pay for an extension of the house so he could spent more time with Jordie comfortably!!!
Do you really think they would let their sons sleep with the guy next door as they did with MJ? I'm sure not. The difference is Mj was a millionaire and they put money before their sons well-being.
I picture Michael having hard-ons contemplating his “mothers-in-law” competing for making her son the “playmate” of the month. All those stupid cows should have been imprisoned.
Bob Jones said Michael had a gift for identifying the families potentially “woo-able”. Almost all, were middle class families (or not exactly poor) and of course, as we are seeing, they have no scruples at all. Maybe there is a sociological question attached to it which Michael, consciously or not, was able to identify. Possibly because they are more ambitious and easily impressionable by money than (obviously) rich people, but aren't as inconvenient as poor people. Maybe the “sense of embarrassment” is a guarantee for their silence after the payment... poor people tends to be more “open”... Blanca Francia, for instance. The other families who received payments never spoke or denied any wrong-doing. The only exception are the Chandlers, but this is because Evan wanted more than a Mercedes and a million dollars check. I put the Arvizos in quarantine since I am more inclined to think they were lying.
Brenda,
Yes, that is a myth that all gays are pedophiles. And it is true that most child molesters SAY they are straight. But true preferential child molesters, ie pedophiles, routinuely identify as homosexual. The NAMBLA crowd are an example, and if you watch that "Chickenhawk" documentary, you will see how they have aligned themselves witht he LGBT movement, and some of them seem, well, blatantly gay. I think we must remember that homosexuality is a gender distinction, as in "I like males and I'm a male" or "I like females and I'm a female", and not an age distinction, to use Desiree's words. I'm definitely not saying gays who are attracted to of age partners will molest kids; straight people attracted to of age partners wouldn't do that either. But there are homosexuals who are pedophiles and heterosexuals who are pedophiles. Mike definitely was one of those pedophiles that didn't like to identify as gay, but to me, some of his books show that he was into not just young boys but late teens (like the boys of Taormina and Peter Johnson) and men, as well.
I agree with you I don't think that Evan was a hero per se, but he did more than a lot of the parents. I mean, Jordie started to physically hang out with Mike in late February and the relationship was over in July; Evan had put a stop to it in 4 months! But look how quickly Mike started the molestation! There's no telling how far the abuse would've gone had he never stepped in. Kit Culkin was smart to not allow Mike to be alone with his son at the Hideout, especially if Mike has an attitude of begging or insistence. I will never understand, but I do not fault her, why June Chandler would see Mike's histrionics over her disapproval of Jordie having had slept in the bed with Mike after watching "The Exorcist", as a glowing red flag that this man was up to no good.
I too think it's minutely sad, the fact that a little black child grew up to be a deformed white woman or half asian/half white transvestite. In that regard, it's sad. But he has no impact on my life and he was ultimately responsible for his own actions. I'm not a fan of his music, anymore, so I don't lament over his life. He chose to be this way, and as bad as this may sound, he lived a pretty good life as a pedophile, and he was never caught and was still up to his hijinks post-1993.
Just because he was found not guilty doesn't make him innocent, and those jurors weren't too bright:
http://www.mjfacts.info/jurors.php
http://larryharriet.bravehost.com/journalism12.html
http://larryharriet.bravehost.com/jouranlism17.html
Susana,
I don't know if I agree with you on the Chandlers, although you are making good points. Evan did in fact say that June and Jordie wouldn't have even talked to Mike if he was just any random 34 year old. But I think about June on the stand and she didn't seem like she was a completely horrible person. I think it would be naive to think that she was completely hoodwinked by Mike, but he was a skilled manipulator pedophile who had woo'd many families by then. Then again, Evan said when he tried to tell her his concerns, she said "Go fuck yourself." I tend to agree with Brenda, that maybe they realized that monetary damages is the best they could get, seeing that the American public was more or less firmly siding with Mike. They also were getting death threats and being harassed by Jacko's Wackos, by that time. Ray Chandler said they were going to testify:
"Question from hello: Why was there a settlement instead of pursuing MJ so he wouldn't hurt any other boys?
Raymond Chandler: There was a settlement in the civil case. It was not until five months later that the DA notified my family that a criminal case was ready to be filed. At that point, my family agreed to testify against Michael Jackson provided that they be given witness protection. That request was denied. My family felt that the safety of themselves and their young children had to come first. If the protection would have been provided, they would have testified. As you can see now in 2004 this family is being given protection. And that makes all the difference."
I 100% agree with you, Mike INSISTING on sleeping with these families' sons should've raised a red flag. He begged and cried to June Chandler when she was mad that Jordie had slept with a grown 34 year old man. That was the right reaction for a mother to have, but she slowly turned a blind eye to it all, but to her credit, she did think the relationship was taking Jordie away from his family and that Jordie needed to spend time with his relatives because his relationship with Mike could be over in a split second. The links Brenda left kind of explains why these parents may have responded the way they did. He was a millionaire and they were just regular people caught up in the opulence that was Michael Jackson. Not an excuse but it may explain the psychology of their choices. Mike spent considerable time on the phone with these mothers (never with the fathers) making himself seem like he was a normal heterosexual adult that wouldn't be interested in young boys. But that was a part of his scheme.
You are right about the middle class thing. I do believe they were more susceptible to his charm. Poor people might have wanted everything he could give and then turn him in if he stopped complying to their every whim; blackmail him I guess. And rich people couldn't be flattered by all his gifts because they could buy their own stuff. Look at Princess Di, he was sending her all these gifts and she sent them back. He sent toys to the little princes and they were returned. Alexander Montague Manchester didn't give in to Mike's request to allow his 6 year old son to go to Neverland alone or get a phone line set up in his room so Mike could call him directly. He was weirded out by Mike's behavior and no amount of money could woo he and his family because he was a part of the royal court. Suffice it to say, that relationship went no where. As an FYI, Mike was like 40-41 when he was courting this 6 year old boy! He's a criminal. Middle class people are definitely more likely to get woo'd. They like the expensive gifts and the status that comes along with being with a celebrity, but they may have enough moral scruples not to blackmail him like a lower class person might.
Here's the link to that Ray Chandler thing.
http://www.mjfacts.info/chandler_chat.php
Susana,
I think it has been ingrained in people, since 1993, to think of Evan Chandler as money obsessed. Look at the way he is portrayed by the rabid-fan sites.
I think Brenda's description is more accurate. Evan Chandle was a realist. Then again, any opinion I have of Evan Chandler is based only on the available information I have read. On the other hand, the Bhattis were pimps. When did they return to Norway, out of curiosity? I can't remember. Wasn't it around the time of the 2005 trial or directly after the raid?
The link to Frank's comments about graphic sex talk, in bed with Michael, gave himself away. Michael did not travel or spend any time alone with boys, unless he was pederasting them. The "mouthpiece" made that very clear, and Desiree's research is proving what I was told correct. I am looking forward to her new post when she finally has time!
Brenda,
Sorry your message didn't show up yesterday.
I'm not saying gays are paedophiles or all the paedophiles who molest boys are gay. I know many of them are straight or in straight relationships.
I live in a country where gay marriage and ADOPTION are legal and I agree with that law, so I'm not prejudiced.
We were commenting on Evan thinking maybe Jordie was gay and being OK with the relationship with Michael because he was liberal. This has nothing to do with being liberal. I'm hetero and I'm sure my parents would never had allowed me having a relationship with a 34 years old man at twelve. The sexual orientation, the open-mindness doesn't count. Jordie was a young boy being exploited by an adult.
Anyway, in the present case, Michael was gay and a paedophile IMO, so statistics doesn't matter.
I bet there are many, many families out there who said no to Michael in the first place. This is the best decision to avoid having to choose whether to kill, maim or prosecute him later. We can add Jolie Levine to the list.
We always discuss the “special families” and almost are assuming that under Michael spell every family gave him full access to their children, like it was the most logical thing to do. There is rational and realistic people who isn't as greedy and materialistic as those families, because lets call a spade a spade, they were there because Mj was a millionaire. That explains why after the 1993 case they continue leaving their children at Neverland.
Michael didn't need an excuse to be alone or to sleep with the kids. The parents consented. He wasn't a relative, or a teacher who needs a pretext to spent the night in the same bed with the kids or acts furtively. Evan Chandler saw his son heading to the bedroom with Michael, like newlyweds, and did nothing. He barely knew Michael when he stayed in his home. I doubt Michael had the time to “seduce” him, as paedophiles do with the parents... he was Michael Jackson, a millionaire superstar, and that was enough for Evan. The problem came when Evan wasn't getting what he wanted.
Realist people doesn't act like that. They work for and are happy with whatever they have, in the first place.
I understand your point of view, but I don't agree. Evan seemed determined to destroy MJ because he fooled him, rather than looking for justice for Jordie, in my opinion. As he said, he won big time. All those meetings and negotiations smell very bad.
If one of the reasons for acting like that was to protect Jordie, why leaking the sordid details to the press or in a book, like his uncle?
Michael was a criminal but the special families are no saints either.
I've seen those pictures with Emanuel Lewis too; in the record studio and the footage of a video. During the Bad Era he was like 16, I think at that age he was able to make his own decisions. Apparently his mother banned the relationship when Manny was younger, when Mike cameraman was around.
Len,
The first time I read the transcriptions of the conversation between EC and DS, I was shocked.
I try to be objective, and really, EC sounds hurt for being screwed by MJ, rather than concerned for Jordie. The way he speaks of June and the situation, makes me think he was jealous and enraged because he was taken advantage of more than anything. I'm convinced that Mj was a paedo, but EC acted like an extortionist too, in my humble opinion.
I'm looking forward to a new entry too.
Jessica,
I agree with you on Michael making the mothers think that he was heterosexual. Judging by Glenda tapes, if they believed he was interested in women, they are dumb as dirt. He sounds so fake it's funny lol.
Susana,
The taped phone conversation was edited. I always wondered what Pellicano removed. Bear in mind, Pellicano is currently behind bars for intimidation of witnesses, illegal wiretapping, etc. Therefore, I can't judge that conversation, knowing something is missing. To me, Evan did come across as a concerned father. But again, I say that knowing the illegally taped conversation was edited.
Something to bear in mind is extortion is a federal crime, in America. Had the Chandlers truly been extortionists, a man in Michael's position would have pressed charges and dragged them into criminal court. This did not happen.
Girls, today is my last exam before Spring Break which is next week. So I will begin working on posts today. These things are time-consuming because I like to make sure that they make sense and are logical so people stumbling onto my blog will think 'informative article', not a post on someone's blog.
Personally, I dislike not having new entries. People keep emailing me asking when I'm going to update...
Susana,
Statistics always matter. I agree with you about the special families acting irresponsible. But in America, 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys are molested. So it isn't just Joy, June, or Lisbeth's children. It's our children, our nieces and nephews, our neighbors. Michael's money is just a distraction. The methods that are used are first emotional. They thought Michael was their friend. A best friend. A part of their family.
Are there families who said, "No." Of course. Children and families were selected very carefully.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=sociallyskilledmolesterp3.jpg
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=sociallyskilledmolesterp085.jpg
Those quotes apply to all of us. We all have to be vigilant. We're not looking out for a stranger wearing a trench coat, we're looking for a friend. A friend.
All of those mothers were one or more years into the relationship before the whole sleeping in the same bed stuff. Years. And before Jordie, we really were fooled. Presidents were giving Michael commendations.
Everyone of us can fall into the same trap as those mothers if we don't watch out. The hardest thing to wrap our minds around is the fact that a friend, someone we trusted and liked, could or would harm our child. Senior high school football coach was holding extra practices to prepare the kids for the season. It's summer, kids are home, parents are working. Hey, it's good that the kids have something constructive to do. Keep them out of trouble right? Oh, and the coach is willing to give the kids a ride home after practice, too. That really helps the single working mom. Oh, and the coach is really helping her son in hopes of getting him a football scholarship. Wow, the single mom can't afford college. This guy is such a huge help.
This actually happened. My friend was telling me the story and she didn't see the red flags. After everything I've learned, I pointed them out to her.
I don't think any of those parents are heros. I'm not a big fan of Lewis' mother because he was in that situation for a long time. The pictures of Lewis sitting in Michael's lap with Michael whispering in his ear. The pictures in the Hideout. The picture of them on the bed with the baby bottles. Naw, one anecdote by JRT doesn't absolve her. And the relationship continued. Ambiguity. Was the relationship right and should continue later or was it wrong?
You're right. In the best world, in the best circumstances, everyone making the right choices, Jordie wouldn't have been in the situation. Evan would have acted perfectly but he didn't. Jordie was in the situation but he got out. He got out.
There's an excellent book called, Don't Tell. It's about the after-effects boys experience. It's heartbreaking. It shakes them to the core of who they are. And one of the conflicts is families not making clear that the boy was the victim. Often by the actions of the families such as allowing the man to remain in close proximity or worse acting like he's still a friend (Brett, Cascios, ...), it sends a message to the boys that it's somehow their fault. This guy must be okay or more important than me if he's still around.
Len,
I'm with you on the Bhattis.
Brenda,
Well said. I agree with you about the parents. They aren't heroes but we all like to say "I would never allow my child to sleep in the bed with..." fill in the blank. And many of us wouldn't. Still, many of us would, especially if we believed this guy (or girl) was a trusted friend and would never hurt a child. Truthfully, we can't really know what was going on in these parents' heads when they were with Mike, so how are we to really judge. I think Evan was being realistic, he knew he wasn't going to win against Mike and his machine. So punitive damages seemed like the best they could get. And Jordie seems like he is doing okay, according to his uncle and published photographs. They say he quickly had therapy after the ordeal. And Jason Francia as well--he is an upstanding citizen.
With exception of the Bhattis,the Barneses, and the Cascios, I think many of these mothers were hoodwinked and swayed by how nice and sweet Mike seemed. He had everyone thinking that he was Peter Pan, an innocent man-child, so why couldn't the parents have bought in to that too? I think it's a little ridiculous to think that every single family was greedy and sold their son to a rich pedophile. That's not reality.
On the other hand, it is possible that Mike convinced everyone involved that it was perfectly okay that he had a romantic relationship with these boys. And maybe the boys liked it and felt nothing was wrong with the relationship. I'm not saying it's right, but in the Netherlands, for example, an adult can have a relationship with a child 12 and older, as long as the parents consent. Maybe Mike was able to get some of these families to think in that mindset.
I'd love to see the pictures of Emmanuel Lewis. Manny said he wasn't molested, but maybe this is a case of "don't tell"?
Jessica,
It's ironic you should mention the age of legal consent in Netherlands. I had terse discussions with a pedodphile, online, who kept speaking with glowing approval about the Rind Report. He used interviews with boys who had sexual relationships with the men. When I read them, it all started in typical pedophile fashion. The pedophiles spent considerable time charming the families and earning their trust. Then they gradually began to go on outings with the boys. Eventually, they began having sex with the boys. Some of the childrens' parents knew about it, other parents did not. But all of the children thought sex felt weird, in the beginning. They did like getting off (who doesn't.), but to show how the balance of power is unequal, there were boys who went along with sexual acts that made them uncomfortable because they felt pressured into it. Of course, when I began pulling links to criticism of the Rind Report and when I pointed out how much the children were not ready for sexual relations - especially with adults, the pedophile disappeared. Particularly after I insisted he tell me if the scientists who conducted this study were pedophiles. (He wouldn't answer the question.) I wanted to report him. (He was in England.) I just didn't know how to do it.
But it was alarming and creepy to see how the pedohpile wooed and lulled families into a false sense of trust and safety. Michael was a classic case.
Twelve? Twelve! Unbelievable! So men are trolling for children just out of grade school? Horrible!
Kudos to you, Len, for exposing that pedophile's lies. Predators try to justify their actions by trying to minimize the emotional wreckage they leave behind. They exploit a child's desire (and right) for love and affirmation by forcing sex into the relationship. The children aren't looking for sex; they're looking for unconditional love.
A predator cannot give unconditional love because of their psychosis. He suffers from "diseased thinking" by the nature of his sexual dysfunction (crime!) according to the book, Lonely All the Time. He sexualizes everything including the most innocent thing. A child's open smile is an invitation. So when a predator opens his mouth, a lie is going to fall out designed to make him look like the victim. And as farther evidence of his diseased thinking, according to the same book, he actually believes his lie when he knows it's a lie.
"Michael was a classic case." No matter how much I learn, I always have this vague and ever-diminishing hope about the whole Peter Pan thing but it's dashed when I run into quotes like this:
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=identifyingchildmolesters175.jpg
Wanda Sykes goes on a wild but funny rant about Michael. She just tells it like she sees it.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=wandasykesp51.jpg
Jessica,
Great point about gay pedophiles. Many of them probably are just refusing to self-identify which is what makes them dangerous. They're the married father next door and the single dad down the street. They look safe.
Michael was .... A team of experts could study Michael for years. Was he doomed from the start? I mean his introduction to sex was being forced by his dad to climb under tables to look at women's underwear and rub their legs in a strip club when he was eight. Eight! And what were the consequences of his actions? He was wildly applauded and showered with money.
The more I think about it, it's a good thing that girls weren't really allowed at Neverland. The children on daytrips were probably the luckiest of all. They got to experience the best of Neverland and returned safe and sound to their home at night.
I just don't think any child should have stayed overnight based strictly on the sheer amount of porn at Neverland. It's not a problem that a grown man should have porn but the amount was truly over the top. And it was everywhere. The porn in the nightstand, foot of the bed and under the bed should have been enough. But add in the master bathrooms, office and office bathroom ....
But all of that was clearly Michael's space. What about the arcade building? Thank goodness, there wasn't any hardcore stuff and it was behind the jukebox. But wasn't that where Michael kept the wine and weren't there sleeping bags down there? The books featured photos of nude men, women and children. They weren't illegal and they didn't show sex but why have them in a building designed for children?
(1) Underworld - pictures of men, women and children in their underwear
(2) Room to Play - nude pictures of children but some morphing , putting a younger child's face on a more mature body
(3) Drew and Jimmy - early to mid-teen boys dressed in swimtrunks
And above the arcade, they found:
(1) Fourth Sex - counterculture teenagers, some partially dressed, some undressed
(2) Cronos - nude men, women and children showing the aging process
Even if (it were in anyway possible that) Michael was innocent, he was clearly fixated on little boys. Girls never ascended to the ranks of the boys but a few were at Neverland that weren't sisters. It's weird how so little is known about the girls but every once in a while a story would come out. And believe it or not, a parent would let a little girl sleep in the room with Michael. And Sean Lennon had this weird quote in Ian Halperin's book (p.78):
"According to Lennon, Jackson was very shy around girls, like an "awkward teenager." But every once in a while, he would hit it off with one and would invite her to his home for sleepovers."
Brenda,
My face just went pale. Are you sure Sean Lennon is to be believed? I mean, the public saw the endless parade of little boys. But nobody saw him with any little girls, as his "special" friends. There are just
stories leaked about letting little girls spend the night, once in a while, when people become defensive about Michael's sleepovers with little boys. (As if that made it okay, which, of course, makes my blood boil, but you don't want me getting on my soapbox.) As an aside, I always wondered why Yoko let Sean spend time alone with Michael. It was no secret in the music industry Michael had a "thing" for little boys. I smell a rat.
Desiree, any thoughts? I think you read Ian Helperin's book. Brenda, if you have any other thoughts, I'm all ears.
I've seen both "Room to Play" and "Drew and Jimmy". There are a few disturbing pictures in "Room to Play", definitely can see why the cops would seize it given the charges leveled against Mike. The book only has a few nude/suggestive pictures of children, but I think the most interesting thing is why would he want it. t shows the "dark side" of childhood, that children aren't sweet and innocent all the time. It's a little macabre. But Mike must have bought the book because he was obviously OBSESSED with children. I really don't get the appeal of the book, and I don't think most adults would find this book appealing.
"Drew and Jimmy" is an interesting book. The subjects, Drew and Jimmy, start out as pubescent boys and end the book as young men. This book isn't a nostalgic look back at growing up; it's more of a study of these two guys in particular. It's a study of them, their faces, their figures. It's almost homoerotic, although there is no nudity, save a muscular Drew as a young man drenched wet in swim trunks, and a few shots of the adolescent boys wet near a pond. it's just the way the pictures are shot. The glances these guys give to the camera. When I first saw this book, I had thought it would have little kids playing in the fields, hanging out, etc--nostalgia for a man with a "lost childhood"--but that wasn't what was in this book. These are young men! In my opinion this book was purchased by Mike because he was gay, and liked looking at young men. There's a very homoerotic quality to the book, although it's very understated. I can see a pedophile liking this book as well.
Brenda
Hello again, well done for finding out about the Renia thing, now I read the letter it makes sense that she is Marie Nicole Cascio. It's a shame Oprah didn't know this when she had the Cascio family on her show denying MJ was a drug addict, child molester and a liar. It is well documented that they know he was a druggie, from the transcript of the Chris Carter police interview (that Desiree will publish soon I think) Mr Cascio tell Chris Carter that MJ took 40 pills a night. Oh and they conveniently forgot to mention the $600000 he gave them as well! During the 2005 trial it came out that MJ gave Frank Tyson Cascio whatever his name is a cheque for $1 million as well, what was that for I wonder, Marc Schaffel had receipts for everyhting he purchased on MJ's behalf, even small petty cash receipts. It would be interesting to see what FT spent 1 million on!
Len,
Michael really fixated on little boys. He may have had a (very) small amount of girls that were friends but none were "special" like Brett, Jordie, Wade, Anton, ....
Lennon's quote is a little on the creepy side if he was talking about little girls. The "awkward teenager" part would make more sense if he was talking about older girls. I've heard a few stories. Kellie from Moonwalker says how she and Michael were friends and that her mother trusted Michael enough for her to stay at Neverland alone. Another mother says how she adored Michael and allowed her daughter to spend the night in Michael's bed. And there was the African girl that Michael asked to adopt (her mother said heck no). There are other stories but it's amazing how undercover these girls are. It's like we only saw what he wanted us to see. And he didn't want us to see the girls. Only a select few boys (Jimmy, Brett, Jordie, ...) because there were many, many more boys, too.
Jessica,
Great research on the books. I agree with you. Why the books? Those books are what I call educational porn, lol. Before porn became so socially acceptable, if you wanted to look at nudie pictures, you bought pseudo educational books like those.
Drew and Jimmy is interesting to say the least. I think it was in Michael's collection for a reason particularly taken with the fact that he had actual photos of youths without shirts.
I have no problem with Michael and his books. I just don't like the fact that he had those books in a building designed for children. They just weren't necessary in the arcade building.
Hi Sarah,
So much is going to come out. So, so much. Michael was a prolific writer. There are tons of people with notes and letters from Michael. There are going to be books written. I wonder how long it's going to take.
Money definitely flowed from Michael to the Cascio family. Somehow I really do believe they were duped in the beginning. We really did believe that Peter Pan stuff back in the early 80s when he met the family. It seems so naive (stupid) now.
I think they deliberately closed their eyes because they couldn't deal with the fact that they let him into their children's lives. And the boys always denied wrong doing. I wonder if they could even deal with the truth.
Do you think the $1 mil was for Frank? Bob Jones said that Michael would funnel payments through other people. And he bought very expensive gifts for Taylor to appear at the 30th concert and Brando demanded cash, didn't he? Some friends.
Brenda,
Would you mind sharing a list of books you've been using for your research? I read Don't Tell, too, and found it both difficult and enlightening.
This comment thread is so interesting!
Brenda,
I the generous sum of money was probably for Frank or Frank and his family. Who knows how the money that arrived at the Cascio bank account(s) was distributed. Michael paid people well for "enjoying" their sons. I don't think people will ever know the full numbers of little boys Michael molested.
I still find it hard to believe he was interested in molesting little girls. He clearly did not like females. But then again, the man who sexually abused me did molest at least two little boys. He just preferred pederasting little girls. But what you posted brings a couple things to mind.
1. Michael's rabid fans try to claim there was nothing wrong with little-boy sleepovers because he also had the occasional little-girl sleepover. Foremost, that statement makes it seem to be okay in their minds for a man to have sleepovers with a child who has a vagina instead of penis because, once again, females are still being objectified. Secondly, this does not release Michael from the obvious fact he pederasted children. It still makes his behavior criminal. I don't think Michael's deranged fans realize how much they have aligned themselves with NAMBLA, by insisting sleepovers with other people's children was sweet and innocent.
2. The story about who really tried to seduce whom makes Tatum O'Neil's story more believable. She said she did not try to seduce Michael when he was 21. Instead, he tried to have sex with her when she was twelve. Now, should what she stated prove true, Michael was still technically a child because he was 17. But what adolescent boy who has already gone through puberty wants to do The Job on a twelve-year-old child? I always found the story on both sides peculiar and questionable, given Michael's proclivity for little boys. But if he did, indeed, molest the occasional little girl, then I'm prone to go with Tatum's version of what happened.
I have never believed in Michael's peter-pan persona. I was old enough to watch his rise and fall from grace. I liked his music, up to Thriller. But I never actually paid attention to him, as a person, until the grammies. It was then I noticed he had been making more than one visit to the plastic surgeon's office. The way he also behaved on stage just made him seem a little off-in-the-head. After that, he became just flat-out strange. I thought he was mentally ill and not childlike, at all. It always baffled me people bought into his public image of being a child in a man's body. Nobody that childlike and naive forges a successful purchase of the Beatles catalog.
Len:
When did Tatum O'Neal say that Michael tried to have sex with her? I always thought the story was that they were going to kiss and she said he was really nervous and sweaty and was then like, 'Oh, gotta run,' and bolted before anything happened.
I don't believe Michael Jackson ever molested any girl children, although his book 'In Search of Young Beauty' has naked pubescent girls in it. (I've seen this book. The photographer likes girls.)
I think the fans clinging to the 'he has sleepovers with little girls, too' argument is not so much about allowing little girls to be objectified and that it is no big deal, etc. No, it's not about that.
If he'd been accused of molesting girls instead of boys, they'd say the opposite. That Michael also had boys sleepover, as well.
I think it is more about legitimizing the fact that he sleeps with boys. Constantly sleeping with boys chips away at the belief that they have about his innocence. If they can find a girl he's invited to do sleepovers, it makes them feel relieved that maybe, just maybe, the purpose for his boy sleepovers is not sexual, but an actual sleepover. They rationalize, 'Well, he's accused of using the sleepovers as a sexual thing and he is accused of molesting the boys invited to sleepovers. If he has a sleepover with a girl, it PROVES the sleepovers are nothing more than sleepovers because no girl has accused him of molestation.'
It has nothing to do with the gender issue. They just don't want to think the sleepovers were sexual.
This is the same thing with the semen. Michael Jackson cannot be gay. If he's gay, it totally makes real the possibility that he was molesting boys, because a gay man will molest boys if he's a molester; he will not molest girls.
Michael Jackson can never be gay.
As yet another example, Michael Jackson could not have ever been molested by men, or by anyone. It is almost universal common knowledge--at least in the West--that many people who were molested grow up to be molesters. It's almost universal common knowledge that abuse is cyclical.
Therefore, Michael Jackson could have been beaten, he could have been worked like a slave, but he could never, ever have been molested by men. Acceptance of this would chip away at their belief that he is innocent of predating upon boys.
Unfortunately, I prove each of these here on the blog.
I should mention that a girl sleepover could have been innocent because I do not believe Michael Jackson molested girls. I don't believe he had girls sleepover that much, if at all, anyway. But his boy sleepovers? Nope, those were sexual. His insistence of continuing them even after the Jordie Chandler scandal shows they were sexual in nature. A compulsion.
I think what we need to realize here is that the fan belief system about Michael Jackson is very, very fragile. Accordingly, they have to believe something--such as what I previously delineated--with a religiosity and cult-like fervor. Anything less is dangerous to fan community morale because anything less would allow rational thought to creep in.
And we know that when rational thought creeps in, they will begin to doubt Jacko's innocence.
Len, you asked me about Halperin's book and I must say that it's been over a year since I have read it. But the quote to which Brenda refers sounds creepy. Maybe unintentionally so but creepy nonetheless. It sounds as if Michael Jackson was using the sleepovers as a sexual tool by that comment but I don't think that was what was intended.
Sean Lennon was trying to downplay Michael's sexuality in the book. What you got was the typical 'asexuality' defense.
I've been getting hits from this forum because someone linked my blog there (she states that after reading it she is not sure about Michael's innocence):
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=11589&start=150
Len, this is the fan mindset with regards to sleepovers that I am talking about. Here was a comment towards the poster who'd linked my blog:
However, just one thing: MJ was free of all charges by a court of law, and second, MJ did not sleep in bed with boys, children used his bed and he slept somewhere else and his room is about 200 sqm plus, parents also stayed at Neverland. ... Michael did not have a childhood and to bring a friend with him would be a normal thing. Sleeping or playing does not mean Sex.
Ridiculous, right?
I have to say, and I wasn't going to say anything, Michael Jackson at 17 is not exactly a child.
You guys can read the fan 'swarming' on that dissenter at that site linked.
I read Identifying Child Molesters: Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by Carla van Dam last night. I could not believe what I was reading. Sneddon case seemed like such a dud. The parent's (June, Joy, Lisbeth, ...) reactions seemed so strange. But if you read that book! It should be required reading for everyone! If the jury had read that book, Michael would be alive today. He would be safe and sound in jail or on probation but he would be alive.
The book doesn't prove Michael's guilt or innocence so if that fan wants to believe men sleep with children because of a "lost" childhood .... But if you want to protect children, read this book and take its advice to heart. Joy, Lisbeth and Connie's reaction to the accusations are very, very common. Right now, in cases everywhere, parents are defending men accused of molesting their children. Shocking! This book explains why.
And this book leaves no doubt about why men are so nice to you and your children. And it leaves no doubt about why they want to sleep with your child. It details the slow process of getting both the parents and the child to lower their guard. They will plan and sacrifice months and even years to get what they want.
As for the girls, I am choosing to believe Michael didn't molest them. It's not based on logic. I just want to believe. I am going to doggedly hold onto hope. According to the FBI's publication, Child Molesters, a preference is a preference, not a limitation. And a molester who molests younger children is willing to molest either sex despite a distinct preference.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=fbip051.jpg
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=fbip052.jpg
I believe Sean because it jives with the stories I've heard about the girls. None of the stories are accusatory, btw. So I'm going to believe they're okay.
Did the boys say Michael was asexual? Wade, Aaron, Mac, and Frank seemed to indicate otherwise. Not that Michael was a raging heterosexual but definitely not asexual either.
The Tatum story is pure irony to me because both sides (fans vs nonfans) are so attached to their viewpoint. Sexuality can be a journey of self-discovery. Even Elton John (does it get any more gay) said that he enjoyed sex with his (female) wife. But he realized he was gay (and that was that) and asked for a divorce. Another gay man admitted that he had a mad crush on a cheerleader in highschool and would stand in her yard just to be close to her.
Sometimes the answers are easy. Was Michael sexually abused as a child? How about forcing an eight year to look under a woman's skirt at her panties and rub her legs? Abuse is forcing a child into a sexual situation they are not developmentally ready for.
As for Tatum, she said 12 but everything else indicates she was 13. Michael would have been 18. They met at the Roxy where she sat in his lap. Next day he followed them to the Playboy mansion where he hung out with her in the Grotto. It blows me away how Michael could make people overlook the obvious. An 18 yr old boy, in a bedroom, sweating, making out (trying at least) with a girl. Why would that boy hop up and leave in a hurry? Let's think ... 18 yr old boy ... not much control at that age ... might be a little embarrassed ... might want to change his pants.
The problem with the Tatum story is that both sides want to embrace it or deny it for the wrong reasons. They want it to be the destination instead of just a point on Michael's journey. I think Michael accepted himself late in life. But Tatum was early in the journey. And does a teenage boy really need much? I think Michael did both more and less than anyone believes with women. More because some people believed he did absolutely nothing. Way less because some people think he had real adult relationships. I don't know if Michael progressed much pass the awkward teenage stage with maybe a handful of women over his 51 years. Just a few stops on his way to acknowledging what he knew about himself. Tatum proves nothing either way.
But Michael was really fixated on little boys. Children. That's where he wanted to spend his time.
Brenda:
Let's stick to the Knowns and try not to extrapolate from some nebulous situation that may or may not have happened. You and/or Len have not stated where you've heard that there was sex or anything of that nature. Is this in Taraborrelli's book? I remember my ex-boyfriend telling me something about a hot tub and Tatum o'Neal, etc. and it was in Taraborrelli's book.
I had this link to Halperin's book about Tatum O'Neal in my 'Addendum to Michael Jackson was gay' post:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QWbFC7coiC4C&lpg=PP1&dq=unmasked&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q=tatum%20o'neal&f=false
She stated that the encounter was innocent, flaccid.
Listen, here's the deal: you can call me a hypocrite if you'd like but I find it unfair to even suggest indirectly that Michael Jackson could have molested or thought in a pedophile's way about girls.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this.
I like to consider myself a cautious person despite my seeming salciousness, and I notice that it is the hardcore anti-molestation harpies who like to suggest out of nowhere that a pedophile has lascivious intentions for every single child that they encounter.
I suggest Dr. Richard Gardner's 'Sex Abuse Hysteria'. He basically asserts that the harpies are idiots (possessing lower intellect and dubious critical thinking skills) who are gratified by discussing the molestation of children and accusing others of molestation. He also stated that everyone is pedophilic to a degree, which would explain everyone's seeming interest in the subject of child sexual abuse and the obsession with innocence.
Pedophiles, if they were not sexually attracted to kids, would represent the only people who genuinely care about kids and are interested in them as beings.
Michael Jackson preferred boys, as this post shows, and when he was interested in the rare female child, I believe it was not sexual because he was a homosexual. To even suggest anything about Tatum O'Neal being a potential victim of an early pedophilic Michael Jackson is just plain wrong. In fact, if he had behaved in such a way toward Tatum, it would show he was at least normal.
I hold very little animus towards Michael Jackson because (1) he's dead, and (2) I feel sorry for him. My animus is towards his fans that cheerlead and deny his every stupid and criminal move, respectively. This was a man who was sexually abused by men as a child. I am not sure if you read my post on his molestation but Johnny Jackson saw him being molested and Jermaine Jackson attested to this, as did La Toya Jackson.
It was not just having Michael Jackson look under women's dresses or seeing naked women in strip clubs or hearing his brothers have sex, although I am sure that did not help. He was an actual molestation victim.
I feel bad for the guy. And I have to be honest with you, and if you, or anyone else is offended, I am sorry but this is the truth: I believe, in my heart of hearts, that most of the boys who engaged in sexual contact with Michael enjoyed it. This is definitely the case with Brett Barnes and Jordie Chandler. I am writing about Brett now. He certainly enjoyed himself, so much so he wanted to spend every night in Michael's bedroom on the Dangerous Tour and he kept right on sleeping with Michael until he was at least 19.
But what I am saying is that it is unfair to even mention tangentially that Michael Jackson could have behaved in an untoward manner with girls. There just is no evidence to support it. You and Len and whoever else are free to have your opinions but I have to at least ask that such baseless speculation and conjecture be kept to a minimum. This site is based upon well-reasoned research and evidence and logical, unemotional thinking, and I don't want the comments to reflect badly on me.
If I wanted to point fingers, I'd try to get Nancy Grace's job, or be some jaded former sex crimes prosecutor on a talking head show. Let's stick to the facts.
Desiree,
Thank you for the information about Sean Lennon's remarks. It puts it into context. The operative word for what he said, though, is still "creepy."
I want to clarify I am still skeptical about the idea of Michael ever having sleepovers with little girls. Given the way he carefully picked and chose his bed partners, I don't believe he would have had any child in his bed, unless it was for sex, regardless of gender. That being said, Michael paraded around the world only with little boys, never little girls, definitely not women. Renico's letter is obvious proof Michael did not like females. Again, as I posted, stories about little-girl sleepovers float to the surface when Michael's sexual abuse of little boys, during the "slumber parties" is dissected. But the only story I have heard or read about, in regards to a little girl, is the Tatum O'Neil counter story to Michael's story about her, on the Martin Bashir documentary.
If there is any proof he slept with little girls, I'm willing to be swayed. That was what I was trying to get across.
The link you posted is definitely what I read, in regards to Tatum's version of the "events." Tatum has written she was sexually abused, as a child (her mother's boyfriend, her father's drug dealer, and only she knows who else). Her father also used to have sex with women while Tatum was asleep in the same bed. If what she claims between Michael and her did take place - and that is a very, very big "if" - her reaction demonstrates desensitization to such behavior. Her words "I can't", thrown in after he kissed her, made me hope down inside what she claimed didn't happen. I don't think it makes Michael look more normal, at all. A child is a child.
As an aside, when I read the story, what stood out in my mind more than anything else was not so much the story itself but the reaction of the Worshipers at the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson. To summarize the list of names decorating her head, she was basically called her a liar and a slut.
But if you feel the story deters people from the fact Michael molested little boys, it doesn't have to be mentioned, again.
The link to a rabid-fan site left me with my jaw gaping. The person who said "goodbye" to that site and stated why was crucified in typical deranged-fan tradition. Be proud you are causing them so much distress.
Brenda,
Michael was sexually abused. Period. The "mouthpiece" was very insistent LaToya told the truth. My favorite and often-repeated quote from the "mouthpiece" is the ironically announced "someday, LaToya will be regarded as a heroine."
Desiree,
You have a very good point. Facts and accuracy are vital. Discussion of the true facts about child molestation is just about the only good thing that can come from this whole MJ situation.
I was frustrated with fan sites because the actual facts about molestation are ignored. There are these fallacies of logic such as, if the guy is nice or kind, then he cannot be a molester. The fact is that nice, kind men do molest children.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=fbip027.jpg
Children can be victimized a second time by the public's stranger danger mindset. An adult who systematically manipulates a child and his family over the course of years for the sole purpose of his sexual gratification is a criminal. And the child is not to blame no matter the outcome of the sex. A child isn't some fictional cardboard hero. His reaction to sex does not make him in any way culpable and he shouldn't be blamed for an adult's behavior.
Prosecution of molesters is very difficult because people can't seem to understand why the child didn't scream or run away. They can't understand why the child would still associate with the predator. Reading books like Identifying Child Molesters or the FBI's Child Molesters explains why. The predator took every child's natual need for attention, affection and affirmation and manipulated it. It leaves the child confused and feeling guilty as if the molestation was his fault which the predator uses to his advantage to keep the child silent.
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=fbip017.jpg
http://s1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff461/MJJ08/?action=view¤t=fbip0171.jpg
As for girls, I'm going to believe Michael is innocent because (1) no girl has accused him of wrongdoing and (2) because I want to believe he's innocent. Neither one of those are anymore legitimate than saying he's innocent because he preferred boys. The FBI literature clearly says that's not a limitation. Because no girl reported? If we believe Jordie, do we think he was the first? Parents should err on the side of caution. They shouldn't think that their young daughter is safe because a predator has a preference for boys.
As for Tatum, take the story as is and the results would still be the same. The age difference is five years which is all that is needed.
Does it change the fact that he was fixated on little boys? No.
Brenda:
No, I fully realize that just because no girl ever 'reported' any abuse does not mean that Michael never molested a girl.
But to say that it is a possibility with no facts to base this on, it would be speculation out of your ass. That's what I'm trying to say.
And I don't like speculation out of asses. It has to be anchored to something, or you will end up sounding like one of those psychotic anti-molestation harpies that think pedophiles live under every child's bed.
The 'well, Jordie was the first to report; does that mean he was the first boy victim?' argument is a strawman. The difference between that and even suggesting indirectly that Michael Jackson could have molested a girl because of what a generalized field guide or manual says is that there were witnesses to suspicious behavior when it came to other boys.
There's actual evidence to suggest that boys who did not report it were abused. This goes for Jimmy Safechuck, Jonathan Spence, Brett, Wade, Mac, etc.
A field guide is general. A manual written to help spot pedophiles like birds is general. Every molester/pedophile does not conform to every one of those rules.
Michael Jackson molested boys, and that's fact, based on evidence.
Tatum O'Neal said nothing ever happened. The story of the hot tub or swimming in the pool naked was repudiated in Jet magazine in the 70s.
http://books.google.com/books?id=eLsDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA46&dq=jet%20magazine%20michael%20jackson%20tatum%20o%20neal&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q=jet%20magazine%20michael%20jackson%20tatum%20o%20neal&f=false
No sparks flew between Tatum and Michael because Michael Jackson was gay.
You suggested as a possibility that he could have 'bolted' from the kiss between he and Tatum because he had to change his pants? That's ridiculous; I'd go so far as to say the suggestion was a waste of brain power. He couldn't bring himself to kiss her. I don't want to harp on her troubles but she's a drug addict, and I sincerely believe that following the Bashir doc, she wanted to distance herself from creepy Jacko at the same time as getting publicity for her book.
Given her history I'd be more apt to believe Michael's version of events. Remember he also stated Brooke Shields was trying to get to him, as well, and he couldn't bring himself to act. That's a gay man.
A five year age difference does not make Michael Jackson a pedophile towards girls. He was the same age as Tatum mentally, just like he was the same age as Brooke Shields mentally. The distinction that needs to made is that none of these relationships were sexual. Michael Jackson was gay.
I'm not saying all of this because I want to believe he could never have molested a girl. No, not at all! If there was tangible, convincing evidence to suggest it that also passed the 'reasonable suspicion' smell test, I'd agree. But there is not, and I'm not in the business of making a pedophile the most horrible person in the world for their proclivity and predations, saying they've molested every kid that passed them by.
If that rubs you the wrong way, I cannot do anything to change the way either of us feel.
You are trying to educate about molestation, which is fine to an extent, but just try to keep it reasonable. The Sean Lennon quote was innocent--along the lines of what I'd delineated in my other comment about sleepovers--and no sparks flew between he and Tatum. She was yet another woman in a long line of beards.
I'm not trying to suggest that we should all keep our eyes closed and ignore the fact that pedophiles can possibly go beyond their preference but there is no evidence to suggest Michael Jackson did.
I think it is only fair--and rational--to keep the discussion to Knowns. If you want you to fly in the face of logic and rational thought, you are free to make your own blog. On it, you will be free to speculate till the cows come home using not evidence, but books.
That is your right.
However, that kind of mental 'mob mentality' that leads a harpy to think every interaction between a child and a designated pedophile is sexual just will not be tolerated here. Because it is unfair, and baseless.
I just think it is sort of crazy to crucify someone for something there is no evidence to support they did. I get you used to be a fan and are now angry he 'betrayed' you but that should just be a lesson that you should never worship celebrities. The level of animus you have makes it seem as if you get pleasure from going after Michael in the way you do.
My goal on this blog is to present the facts, not crucify the guy. It is really not that serious to me because he's dead. The boys liked it, too, regardless if that fact is a hard pill to swallow. Maybe in another forum you'll find people who'd like to listen to what you have to say with regards to molestation stats and books but, frankly, I find it annoying and reactionary. A little goes a long way, I think.
I substantiated my thoughts with quotes from books by experts and included links.
Brenda:
Well, if you believe that you effectively proved Michael Jackson was a molester of girls by quoting books by people writing generalized field guides, manuals, and books, then more power to you.
I disagree.
Nothing happened between Michael Jackson and Tatum O'Neal. Any suggestion otherwise used to bolster an out-of-left field claim he acted inappropriately with a young girl is wrong.
A five year age difference may represent the general designation of a pedophile or predator and victim (17 vs. 12), but it does not work in this case. It does not apply.
Nothing happened.
Frankly, that level of age disparity--delineated as 'suspect' by the 'experts', or anti-molestation harpies--is not always reflective of predation. Every case and situation is different. I imagine you believe it is impossible for a twelve-year-old to consent to sexual contact at all; well, you'd be wrong. The law says one thing, but reality says another.
This is not a difficult concept. If you disagree, I personally believe it is you just being obtuse to the idea.
Again, I realize you were a huge fan of Michael's and I imagine also being somewhat the child defender and finding out the man you liked was a child molesting pedophile was a huge blow. I totally understand this! There's a thin-line between love and hate; I bet if his fans were convinced he was a pedophile, they'd slip into depression or rage! But I think emotion is clouding rationality here. It just seems like you are upset and want to turn him into a monster.
I don't know where you heard dry-humping from (I'm am citing your email, here) but even then, that is not molestation in this case. Not at all. The failure of people to employ nuance and context is where they can get in trouble logically.
Yes, Michael Jackson was a pedophile. The evidence suggests very overwhelmingly that he was a molester of pubescent boys, a veritable boy-lover. There is no evidence to suggest he had any interest pedophilicly in young girls. None. If he did anything with Tatum--and, again, the evidence does not suggest it--that was a boy-girl thing, not pedophile thing. If you read her anecdote in Halperin's book, she's using language that suggests they were equal.
It is from this standpoint that I reflect and base my opinions on. Nothing happened; I don't know if I can repeat that enough. As this post proves, Michael Jackson did not like females. His life proves this.
I really think this is not that hard of a concept...
With that said, I welcome all comments and have made the executive decision not to delete any. And I plan to keep it that way. As a result, it may mean disagreements, which, apparently, I have no problem engaging in.
I just encourage people to not use his pedophile status to turn him into a monster who predating upon all children regardless of sex. That is clearly not the case.
To me, that is nonsensical, knee-jerk lynch-mob mentality. And I for one believe it's wrong. Lets stick to the facts.
Brenda,
What have to do in this specific case if statistics said mostly paedophiles who abuse boys are straight?
Rational and mature people use good judgement, intelligence and experience to make decisions, not statistics. Otherwise, I wish them good luck in life, lol.
I doubt the excuse for Evan for letting Jordie sleep in the same bed with MJ under his own roof was that statistics said of straight men molesting boys. Really, I think he was greedy, but not mentally retarded.
Michael wasn't a teacher or a football coach improving children skills in sports, in class or in other areas. He was a millionaire. Money was the only compensation he could offer in exchange of being allowed to spend “intimate time” with the kids. He didn't even came with a good excuse for the sleepovers. He begged for them and the parents accepted after some lavish gifts... He didn't hide his “activities” with children like other paedophiles, he acted like a lover with them in front of the parents.
The football coach, a teacher... their work is oriented to kids, is part of their jobs to spent time with kids. Is understandable why the parents wouldn't distrust them if they are spending extra time together to help their children improve in class or in sports. They don't ask the parents to sleep with the children, point blank, for no reason, like Mj. They need an excuse.
If we think that in that scenario, is logical for the parents to say yes to Michael without batting an eyelash, we are closer to the rabid fans discourse of innocent and appropriate sleepovers than we think.
Excuse me, but I don't see any normal parent agreeing with that. Not in a million years I would consider understandable why the parents allowed an adult man act like their prepubescent sons bed partner under their noses.
I doubt in the mid 80s Margaret Lewis was aware of Michael's proclivities. His image back then was immaculate, as I said before. The baby bottles pictures appeared recently in the media, for instance. Maybe she thought the friendship would give Manny exposure in the press. What really matters is that when she found out that Michael was trying to sleep in an hotel with Emmanuel, she banned the relationship, unlike the special families. This is what any responsible parent would do.
Len,
to direct questions from Dave S., Evan responded in a twisted way. Possibly there are missing parts of the conversation, but what is there, is true and is Evan talking. His brother validates it since the transcriptions are in his own website.
This reminds me what rabid fans said of the Bashir documentary. They said it is edited to make Mike look bad. Maybe there are missing parts where he acts like the guy next door (I doubt it lol) but what we see is him acting like a fool, and missing parts or not, it was the real Mike in the footage.
I don't think Michael was interested in girls, little girls or women. Poor Tatum, Stephanie Mills and Brooke Shields were left hot and bothered.
Also he wasn't interested in all the boys he came in contact with, the same way I'm not interested in any man just because I'm an heterosexual woman. I've seen footage of Mj acting lovingly with little boys or girls like any “regular” adult would do.
Like any relationship, Michael “special friendships” were a mixture of opportunity (because the parents and the some of the kids consented) and romantic/sexual interest for an specific boy.
I'm more inclined to think that Michael never molested Gavin, even if he had the opportunity for doing so.
Susana,
We'll have to agree to disagree about Evan Chandler's motives because we don't know what was edited out. Team Michael did a damned good job at character assassination, and Evan never gave his side of the story to the press because the contract forbade it, under threat of lawsuit. Your perception of him shows just how successful Team Michael was at swaying public perception of him in a very negative light. But the fact remains Michael molested his son. As with Janet Arvizo, the case was about whether or not Michael molested her son. It was not about her character.
When I saw Michael's version of the Bashir interviews, I compared the two of them, and Michael still didn't look good. On the other hand, I read the transcripts and the other available documents, and Evan still doesn't come across as an extortionist. I would have to examine his side of the story with the available information. But he can't speak for himself to answer questions because he's dead.
Again, extortion is a federal crime. Michael and Company would have put him behind bars for trying to destroy his money-making image. Michael's ability to use his image to make money was written right into the Chandler-Jackson contract.
Insofar as Gavin is concerned, I was told Michael did molest Gavin. The criminologist, in particular, was very insistent there was no doubt in his mind Michael did it. I have personally sat on the fence about that one. But I can't say with confidence Michael was innocent becuase I just haven't read documentation removing the gray matter that makes the question fuzzy.
Susana,
As an aside, if Dave Schwartz really did put the transcripts of the illegally taped conversation on his website, I'd like to know why. Did any of the settlement money end up in his bank account? Or was he left out? We'd have to ask him a few questions and listen to his answers. It might explain his motives for what he has done.
"Rational and mature people use good judgement, intelligence and experience to make decisions, not statistics."
Rational and mature people show good judgment when they read literature from experts in a particular field before espousing their opinion.
Rational and mature people use their intelligence to read and understand not one expert but many such as law enforcement whose job it is to apprehend these criminals. And the clinical practitioners who study these criminals in order to better understand their psychosis.
Once facts are known about the subject, rational and mature people add their experience to make good decisions.
And as you've said, the best decision any parent could have made was to tell Michael, "No."
Brenda,
If someone needs a whole library and an expert to say him/her that allowing an unrelated thirty something years old man sleeping in the same bed, at his request, for days, for no reason, with their 10-13 years old children is suspicious, wrong, inappropriate, unhealthy and dangerous for the child, what this person really needs is a brain transplant.
Len,
We don't know what is left out in the transcriptions. We are giving to much credit to EC here... What if the edited parts made him look worse?
I doubt the transcriptions present the worst face of Evan. His brother has them in his website.
But no matter what is left out, Evan's answers to Dave's questions are what they are, and cast shadows on his character. He looks really BAD.
I try to be objective. The first time I read them, I was shocked.
I don't think it was easy to prove the extortion without letting the cat out of the bag. Mjs camp reported it to the police, but in these circumstances, they were bound hand and foot because they did know he was guilty and it was better to keep things quiet. After the body search, their narrow margin for maneuver disappeared. They settled.
I remember reading that EC and his lawyer chose carefully their words during the negociations...
In my opinion, Evan was an extortionist and Mj a paedophile. Both things aren't mutually exclusive.
By the way, I've read that Latoya is planning another tell-all. I wish she finally decides to tell the truth, but I predict another whitewashing campaign for Mj. It would be interesting too to know more about Latoya's life. From the outside it looks very sad. I believe she was sexually molested when she was a little girl, but I have the impression that there was something more happening (when she was an adult) that she have never revealed.
Brenda:
Rational and mature people don't turn themselves into 'experts' by reading the books of experts.
They fully accept their intellectual limitations and realize that a guide is a guide--as these guides usually say--and that not every criteria can be used to label every seemingly suspicious interaction as 'suspicious' without a proper and thorough understanding of the mindset of the person at the brunt of the suspicion.
This is important!
And rational and mature people do not make up situations that were never documented to have occurred to back up an opinion predicated upon by the guides of experts who specifically tell laypeople to not use their guides in the way that they do.
The humble masses. There is a reason 'experts' are experts, and we are not.
Rational people do not need a fleet of reference materials to make decisions; irrational people use fleets of reference materials to justify their unfounded hysterics.
I think the line needs to be drawn some place. Enough of this.
Susana
There are 5 books coming out this year about MJ!
One by Latoya, Frank Dileo, Frank Cascio, and one announced this week by Jermaine Jackson. I'm guessing it isn't going to be the attempt he made in 2004 with Stacy Brown called Legacy which was explosive to say the least. The other one is called "One more chance -a week in Las Vegas" and is by Ian Barkley. This should be interesting as it was Ian Barkley that said that MJ had Depovero shots to quell his sexual desires for boys back in 2002 when Dr Ali Farschian was attending to MJ. He also said the Grace was MJ "secret" girlfriend but I have never subscribed to that theory. I believe that MJ was gay, any sexual contact he may or may not had with LMP in particular I believe was for the sole purpose of having childrem. I don;t believe that he wanted to be with women for fun.
I recently read " Honouring the Child's spirit" by Rabbi Schumley Boteach, what a lot of drivvel that is, it is particularly creepy to read how innocent MJ thinks kids are and how he would chose to die if he couldn't be around them. Perhaps that is what he did!
He waxes lyrical about how inspirational he finds children and how he can be himself with them. He loves their would because it is free from adults and adult like things. I guess in this he isn't including the drugs, porn and alcohol, those adult things are fine to have at Neverland laying around where all and sundry could see them. It is such a load of crap, the only honest bit in it is where he mentions that he altered his voice in order to stay childlike, that I think was a no brainer, guess what Rabbi Schumley most thinking people already knew that one!
Another enlightening piece in the book is where he mentions that children become "conditoned" in adulthood and that their are no barriers and barricades with kids, and them go to the transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with Richard Gardner. These words crop up all the time,MJ used the word conditoined to persuade Jordie that it was alright for them to kiss etc, he also said that June Chandler was putting up barriers and barricades between Jordan and himself!Very creepy.
I think the other books that are due to be released this year will just be the usual cover up affairs or fond memories of a troubled superstar! I think the world has enough "fond memories" what the world needs is some truth and a few people to stop lying to protect a very sick person's memory! You can't lible the dead so what are they waiting for. Apparently many people know what MJ was and did and said nothing, even his own family whon are now busy trying to keep the money trail going. I'm not sure what is in it for Dileo apart from money, it has been said that he was given a vast sum of money in 1990 when he was fired, the money was obviously hush money. He saw a lot according to Bob Jones and was complicit in hiding MJ's tracks.
Sarah,
I am particularly intereted in Ian Barkley's book. I suspect he'll be more forthcoming. The others will hide what sane people know: Michael was a drugs-addicted pedophile. I wish DiLeo would be honest. But I don't put much stock in him. Insofar as poor LaToya and Jermaine are concerned, at the manipulation of their parents, LaToya will more than likely continue to back peddle from the truthful book she original wrote. Then again, she lost her sanity years ago. And Jermaine will portray his brother in a godlike light, which is a far cry from his original truth-telling proposal. Yet, I can't figure out why they would go along with this. They were both left out of Michael's will, and when Katherine's evil life is over, the money will just go to Michael's children. Why not just be honest? Sane people are not fooled, and there is no reason for these people to try to cast their brother as the new messiah. His life was a mess, on every account.
By the way, the "mouthpiece" had interesting things to say about Michael's relationship with Grace. I'm trying to dig for more information.
Susana,
If what got edited out was worse, it would not have been edited out, and Evan Chandler would have been behind bars. Extortion is a serious federal crime. Have you read the Chandler-Jackson document? It's very telling. In this case, I think Brenda is right. The Chandlers accepted the money because it's very hard to get a conviction of a pedophile, especially somebodt in Michael's position. They suffered death threats, from Michael's reabid fans, after the case broke loose. According to Diane Dimond, he was even beaten up by one of Michael's deranged fans. They had more to lose by accepting money than allowing Michael to continue pederasting their son. I think you're blaming the victim too much.
We really need to just agree to disagree on this one.
As an fyi, the "mouthpiece" said LaToya told the truth the first time, in her original book. She was sexually abused.
Len
I realise that you have mentioned the Grace and Michael thing before, evem though I think Grace is an attractive woman, was she really MJ's type? I thought that he did not really like black people, plus I believe he was gay, are you suggesting he was bisexual? I have read before that Grace was very controlling and was an kept him on a very tight leash! I have also read in an article by Roger Friedman and Karen Faye's facebook that she had an affair with Jermaine around 2002/2003! Maybe she forced herself on Michael. Please let us know what you find out!
Sarah, thanks for the info about the Schmuley book. I will continually find it interesting how he did a 180 on his opinions about Mike form the first book. He had said that he didn't know in Mike was innocent (he didn't believe Gavin) but he said that Mike was "erotically obsessed" with Jordie Chandler. Now he's saying that he thinks that Mike was innocent 100% and that the allegations were lies, just because of the way Mike talks about kids. But pedos talk about kids being "pure and innocent" all the time, but they also want to have sex with kids. Mike's words hardly get him off the hook. I think Schmuley is an opportunist who saw how his first book was vilified by the fans, hence, why it made no money. He's greedy.
Mike's conditioning and "barriers and barricades" lingo, IMO, helps to corroborate Jordie's allegations. Mike was being a typical manipulative pedo when he used these words on the Chandlers. Him throwing a temper tantrum when June said Jordie shouldn't sleep in the bed with him should have been the ultimate red flag--he was 35 years old, Jordie was 13!!!
All those books will be a waste of time unless someone decides to stop covering up for a pedophile and tell the truth. It seems like many people, even celebrities, know stuff about Mike's "reputation" and they won't tell. Why? That's what gets me. Who cares if he made Thriller, he was a friggin' pedophile! I don't think we will ever get the truth, especially since Mike had three kids. No one wants to hurt them with the reality of their Daddy's ways. If you watch Latoya on "Celebrity Apprentice" she always talks positively about her family. Her charity was one the "my brother Michael was close to" and she said positive things about Katherine. When will she stop the charade, it's like she doesn't even remember 1990-1995 when she was being honest! So frustrating. Jermaine will be kissing Mike's ass too, tres interesting, not!
Ian Barkley didn't say that Mike was getting Depo shots for boys, that quote was from a Farschian spokesperson, but since that story was circulated throughout the internet they started attributing that quote to him; it's not said by him in the original story.
I don't think Mike was interested ever in any women, but Grace may have been able to get close to him because of their friendship. Pedos can sleep with adults. And Roger Friedman is full of it; his stories about Grace are probably from the Jackson family. The Jacksons were most likely some of his confidential sources in the pieces where he ripped into grace because they were jealous that she was protecting him from all of their greed and begging. I think she's been unfairly treated, and the Jackson hate her, probably because she knows a lot.
and Mike may have hated black on himself, but that doesn't mean he hated black on others. He was still a black man at the end of the day. Not trying to offend, but I think its curious how many of Mike's white fans don't like Grace and say he would never be interested in her, and that he could only like a white angel like Lisa Marie Presley and other white/nonblack women. Just saying.
Sarah,
I find it shocking people said Grace had an affair with Jermaine. I became curious and did a bit of online searching. Apparently, some of Michael's rabid fans have also accused her of sleeping with both Jermaine AND Randy. I think they're mixing her up with Alejandra, my favorite hot mess. She is the one who slept with Randy and Jermaine. The "mouthpiece" never said anything about Jermaine -- or Randy -- diddling Grace. I don't recall Jermaine ever saying he fucked Grace, either. Did he?
The "mouthpiece" did say Grace and Michael had sex. At the time the "mouthpiece" went into details about that relationship, I was so shocked, I was rendered completely speechless. As a result, I forgot to ask questions about how the "mouthpiece" knew this. The more information Desiree uncovers, the more I have difficulty believing sexual relations ever took place between Grace and Michael. I have asked the "mouthpiece" for validation. Unfortunately, that camp operates in a slower time dimension than yours truly.
I'm with Jessica on this one; the Jacksons are the source of information for Roger. In addition, as a woman observing another woman, I have always thought Karen was in love with Michael, so I would take her opinion of Grace with a grain of salt. And yes, the Jacksons hate Grace, for obvious reasons.
Jessica,
I have also found it ironic that so many of Michael's white fans choose to believe lily-white Lisa Marie and Michael were each other's true love, but they hate Grace. In reading their remarks, these same people think Michael looked more beautiful after he had carved up his face. This is very telling.
Sarah,
As an afterthought, so far, everything the "mouthpiece" has told me has proven true. Since the "mouthpiece" is definitely on the inside and went into such great detail, even though I have difficulty imagining Michael wanting to bed any woman, I'll go along with what I was told as true, until proven otherwise.
I have to keep in mind she was very close to Michael and is the only woman repeatedly seen in public with him, over the years. She is also a beautiful woman. After all, sexuality is never set in stone. It's just that Michael addictively slept with young boys, with the same compulsion as a drug addict.
Len,
Before I thought that Mike was a pedo I firmly believe he had had something with Grace, just by the sheer closeness displayed between the two. Now, I'm not so sure about it, because I really believe that Mike was exclusively attracted to young men and boys. But if ANY woman was able to say they slept with Mike, I think it would have been her. Lisa Marie is full of shit and her story doesn't add up in my opinion. Debbie was a brood mare, pure and simple. If Mike was really into marriage and all that jazz, why did he quickly put a stop on his marriage to Lisa in favor of a faux marriage to Debbie, which was for the sole purpose of being able to legally be the father of Paris and Prince; California says that any child born in wedlock is the child of the parents even if there is no biological relationship. Let's be real, the only reason he married Lisa was because he was exposed to the world as a child molester. Had that never happened, he would have taken boy suitors for the rest of his life.
I think what happened with Grace was just classic "falling in love with a friend" (arguing from the point that they actually had a physical relationship). Grace said that Mike had asked her repeatedly if she wanted to be a nanny for Prince when Debbie had been months pregnant with him. He obviously liked her as a person. Maybe her kindness drew him in and allowed him to be "intimate" with her. Who knows? But what's more telling to me is that he was still having teen boys in and out of his life; Grace's influence on him never changed his primary gay pedophile sexual orientation.
I think that all the negativity about Grace is from the Jacksons, most definitely. Just look how Randy talked shit about her on Twitter following "Stun-gun"gate. He said she was evil and was trying to tear the family apart. No, Grace was just trying to do what Mike asked her to do: protect his kids from the greed-laden craziness of the Jackson family. Plus, she probably knew a lot that would have hurt both the Jacksons and Mike. Maybe she saw Mike's dirty deeds such as the pedophilia and the drugs, since she did try to do interventions. The public knowing the full truth about the King of Pop would not be financially beneficial to the Estate and the Jacksons, who bank on his "good" name. So Grace had to be pacified, so they dragged her name through the mud, and all Jacko's Wackos hate Grace. Latoya said that Mike never liked Grace and that she was never his girlfriend, like it was just wishful thinking on Grace's part. It could very well be true that they weren't romantically linked, seeing that Latoya knows the TRUTH about her brother's proclivities. But how the hell would Latoya know? Like Mike would have her know anything personal about him after her "betrayal" in 1993?
You are right all of the fans who hate Grace because she is black (yes, that's the reason) think Mike looked better post bleaching/vitiligo and post surgical mutilation, because he looked more like them, white, and that's what they find most attractive. I think they see him as a white man, and for most white people, whites are supposed to go with other whites. But they forget that he was still a black man.
Also, Grace was married in early December 2008 to a man called Joseph Kisembo in Las Vegas. It's listed on the Clark County recorder's website. if she was married, that could mean that she may have had another man in her life, not Mike, if I was to believe that they had ever had a relationship. But if she was married, why did she live with the Jacksons and Mike's kids after his death? I don't think it was a real marriage. Interesting the marriage was in the middle of the night too. Las Vegas is known for middle of the night shotgun weddings, so I can only imagine what Grace and Joseph Kisembo were up to.
Jessica,
Those are very interesting remarks. Yes, the Jacksons hate Grace. That was made very clear to me. The woman knows too much. When she gave that one bonafide interview, the Jacksons went beserk. Katherine was suddenly shown to be as greedy as Joe instead of a loving mother, Michael was shown to be looked upon only as a cash cow to the Jacksons instead of a beloved family member, and Michael's severe drug addiction was exposed. I must admit I am firmly on Team Grace.
I'm very curious about the marriage to this Joseph Kisembo. Who is he? You made me curious, so I did a quick internet search. But I can't find any real information about him, let alone photos of Grace with him. I found one photo in which people speculated it might be him. But nothing validates it as proof. I have only seen Grace with Michael and his kids. Plus, I'm also curious to know why she was living with the Jacksons without her husband. The way the Jacksons have publicly blasted Grace, I think Joseph's name would have popped up. A lot of mystery surrounds a woman who was part of Michael's life for 17 years.
Something I have noticed is Grace has never come public about the kind of relationship she truly had with Michael. The "mouthpiece" said Michael was verbally abusive to her and frequently threw her out of the house, only to beg her to return. The "mouthpiece" did have some other comments to make about that relationship. I felt I should hold my ears, as this was equivalent to spying on people when they are bathing. But it was the same as witnessing a train wreck. You know it's bad, you know you shouldn't watch, but that's all you can do. I think it speaks well of her to keep her personal business to herself.
What has left me sitting on the fence is that sexuality is not set in stone, as I posted, before. I base this purely on my own experiences. My friend's husband did have sex with her but far preferred pederasting children. Now that they're not married, I can't help wondering if he would exclusively sleep with children, were if not for the fact he is now a registered sex offender. As an inclusive note, their sex life was not very active. So, coupled with the fact everything the "mouthpiece" said has proven true, so far, once again, I believe they did have sex, in the beginning, although I until proven wrong. And I am definitely sitting on the fence, swaying back and forth. I mean, I am REALLY swaying in the wind, as I sit on that fence.
I would take anything LaToya says, now, with a grain of salt. Ever since she left her husband, she has denied anything negative she said about her family as truth. I think of her the way I think of Jermaine. He has marionette strings attached to his limbs, and his parents are manipulating him, by holding the other end of the strings.
Len
Your "mouthpiece" sounds intriguing! What other details did he/she reveal about the relationship. I know that you said he was abusive to her and threw her out ( I wonder what his fans would make of that! hardly sounds like Saint Michael!)but was it a proper retionship do you think or just sex? I can't imagine that he had much of a sexual appetite for women at all, I also find it strange that not even Bob Jones mentioned these details in his book, which let's face it was quite revealing about a lot of things. In it he says that MJ did not like to be around women and did not have normal desires.
I think most of the readers of this blog agree that we think MJ was a pedo and very probaby gay, but Grace is one piece of the puzzle that does not fit. It is also confusing how no one will come out and say that they were lovers, surely that would be a good thing for his image! Can you elaborate on some of the other things about their relationship ie was it public knowledge at Neverland and what period in MJ's life was it. I would hazard a guess that it was before the trial and probably not after it, because he didn't look like he had the energy for it post 2005! From what you said in your post above some of the details might have made you feel a bit icky! How come that doesn't surprise us when it come to MJ!
Sarah,
It makes me nervous to discuss anything I was told because I really do fear the repercussions. But Desiree's research has only validated, time and time again, what the "mouthpiece" told me. So, I'll tell you what I was told about Grace. But keep in mind the "mouthpiece" has been very slow in answering the questions I have been asking, ever since Desiree began posting the results of her research, as I have so much doubt in my head, at this point. I have also given Desiree the full story.
The "mouthpiece" said Grace and Michael did have sex, in the beginning. But as his drug addiction got worse, she became more of a caretaker, trying to keep him alive. I was also told Michael took pride in not being a physical abuser. But he was still verbally abusive to people and took out his anger on Grace. Whenever she tried to do interventions, he became angry and threw her out of the house. (He threw her out of the house, a lot.) Then he sucked up to her and begged her to return. The whole thing sounded horrible to me.
The "mouthpiece" did not portray Michael as a saint, in any sense of the word. Just a very sick man, with severe drug and little-boy addictions, who needed a psychiatrist. That's what made my skin crawl.
Len
Thanks for your reply, I understand entirely that you need to be careful of what you say, I am currently doing some research myself with some one I know who was on the fringes of Michael's life in 1993, he is very scared to speak and has told me that he doesn't even think that people will believe what he has to say. Apparently it is pretty scary stuff, a lot of it just confirms things that have already been in the mainstream media and some things that have been reported but not given much credence ie cocaine addition and people that MJ used to mix with.
I also am on the fence when it comes to Michael and Grace, perhaps Michael was bisexual and not just gay. I also agree that Grace is a beautiful woman, she is also very religious not sure is she is a JW but certainly god fearing which also may have been part of the attaction, however, I can't process how a religious person can turn a blind eye to what Michael was doing. How can you be "proud" of the fact that you aren't a physical abuser? It's Ok to shout and be abusive as long as I don't hit her! What a pig, I think if you read thru the lines of what LMP said, he didn't treat her very well either. She said that they had arguments that spanned 3 days! Hardly sounds like someone who is very passive to me. I the email from Karen Faye that I posted not so long ago calling LMP an "evil princess" she says that LMP makes Michael look like a saint! I'll post the link if you need it. All in all sounds like Michael isn't the sweet and innocent his fans think he is.
Around what era do you think that Grace and Michael started a relationship? If his drug addition wasn't that bad then it might have been a long time ago! I would hazard a guess that it was around 2000/2002? I wonder where Michael got his rocks off when Grace turned off the tap!
Sarah,
Grace knew Michael for about 17 years, give or take. I'm honestly not sure about the actual time frame.
Sometimes I wish the "mouthpiece" hadn't told me anything because I didn't need to know. I already thought Michael was a strange man. After the 1984 grammies, I jokingly told a friend I was afraid Michael's face would melt, in the shower. And this was 1984!
However, I think sane people would believe what your contact would have to say. It's only the rabid fans who would become unhinged. They deserve having their fantasy world shattered, as far as I'm concerned.
I think Michael and Grace's relationship was more emotional than sexual. We have to remember that this was a guy who had semen stains from other males on his mattress. THAT is indicative of behavior, more so than a bunch of magazines, like the fans believe.
Remember, there are people--credible, too--who have said the pornography Michael had was for his boys.
The evidence just does not support any interest in women. I believe that he was just gay, that he liked men and boys, males, penises.
Sexuality isn't fixed but Michael's seemed to be stuck primarily in the 'gay end' of the spectrum.
Desiree,
I'm prone to agree with you, in that it was more emotional than sexual (if sexual, at all). The problem is that the information came from inside the camp of the "mouthpiece." However, the "mouthpiece" did use the words "in the beginning." I have asked for validation because I have trouble with it, at this point. But regardless of what did or did not happen and what can or cannot be proven, everybody in the camp knew Michael was a child-molesting pedophile, first and foremost.
Len/Desiree
I find it astounding that people knew what he was up to and did not report him to the authorities for so long. Are these the same people that kissed his ass when he died and told their MJ stories on national tv. The very same people who were hoping for him to be locked up in 2005? I can't reconcile Grace, a god fearing woman looking after his 3 kids being involved with a man who openly shares his bed with little boys and is probably gay, ignoring his vile tendencies because he was good in the sack (ewwwww!)Why would you? Because he is Michael Jackson and apparently always gets what he wants.
Len - I wonder who told the "mouthpiece" of the relationship, it could always have been amother of Michael's many lies. Just like the marriage to LMP. the bogus relationships with Tatum and Brooke, look at the whole Oprah interview, the whole segment about Brooke Shields is pure BS. He was always trying to create the illusion of soemthing whether it be magic or mystey or his own sexuality, the problem was that he thought he was good at it and the rest of us could see right thru it after a while, who bought any of the crap that he was spinning to Diane Sawyer or even Martin Bashir. In the end it just became embarrassing, and his drug addiction ruled his life, he died a lonely, twisted man with no love in his life apart from the love of his 3 kids, which although is a beautiful thing was still not enough to stop him posioning himself with pills and propofol. If Grace loved Michael I feel sorry for her, she was obviously wasting her time as it was not equally returned. I believe that she was probably a distraction away from the boy loving but in the end his true desires won thru. Let's face it MJ was up to no good with boys before Grace came along witn Emmanuel Lewis and Jonathan Spence etc, no believable relationships in that era, albeit that was his most creative era before he was really strange and weird, although the mannekin thing has always freaked me out! Surely there were warning signs then! Any way you look at it, it was a sad vaccuous life that should not have ended in 2009, but should have ended up in jail in 2005!
Sarah,
thank you very much for the info. I wish Norma Staikos do write a book some time soon telling the whole truth. She or Evvy Tavasci.
I can't stand the telerabbi and his homilies lol. He's one of the many shady characters surrounding Mj. Where did he find this people?
I've read the first book and I noticed too the coincidence of Mj's discourse on “conditioning” and what Jordie said to Dr. Gardner.
I don't believe Michael had a relationship or sexual encounters with Grace or any woman. If Michaels presence and behaviour isn't enough proof of his disinterest for women and his homosexuality, as Désirée mentions, there wasn't a single physical proof on his mattress of the presence of a woman in his bed.
I think Mjs camp was feeding the notion of a relationship when he was fighting for the children custody with Debbie Rowe. They spread rumours of a wedding. The imagination of the fans did the rest. I think he would have embarked in another fake marriage for winning the custody battle. Finally he paid Debbie some millions and the wedding was postponed “sine die” lol. Grace wasn't needed for the role any more.
By the time Grace was around, Michael was very busy with the Cascios and Omer. After the Bashir documentary, when an investigation was happening and Mjs hired Mark Geragos months before the indictment, he went on vacation with Omer to Aspen... go figure.
Len,
D Schwartz was on June side too. The transcriptions are in Raymond Chandler website, we know them through him, so it's possible the parts left out make EC look worse.
The victims are the children, not the parents.
JC could have convicted MJ. After all, we are so convinced that MJ molested him because the case was based on very solid facts/proofs. Jc described Mjs genitalia in detail, to name one of the most significant. And MJ and his lawyers were convinced also... that's why he paid 20 millions.
I leave the subject here because I am feed up lol.
I know Latoya said the truth on the sexual abuse, but I think there is something more that she has not said yet. A young attractive rich girl living at home until her 30s... apparently without romantic relationships... Don't you find it strange?
Susana,
If Grace was truly around for 17 years, then she was just in time for the Jordan Chandler scandal, the Lisa Marie public-relations marriage, and the rent-a-womb Debbie Rowe experience. Curious. No wonder she made Katherine and Joe so nervous, after that interview.
Sarah and Len:
The 'mouthpiece' reporting that MJ was verbally abusive and proud that he was not a physical abuser is not surprising. What an a**hole! I guess little did MJ know that verbal abuse is just as, if not, worse than physical abuse...that's so pathetic. But I suppose he learned that very well from his father Joe. I have always heard people say that MJ was very well mannered and hardly ever yelled or raised his voice to anyone in public... but I suppose what goes on behind closed doors is another thing all together. You have to remember who we are taking about here... MJ, who was master of manipulation and illusion. He wanted
the public see him as being a certain way than what he really was. What I question is, why did Grace keep putting up with his shit? Eventually she had to have known that he wasn't going to change. I too, at first thought that they may have had some kind of sexual relationship at one point or another, but based on MJ's history with women and his preference for children, I now don't believe that was the case. Grace was a very beautiful woman and should have given her love and kindness to someone who was deserving of it; not MJ! However I do wish that she had spoke up about his proclivities with children and went to the authorities;that was desperately needed. I truly do believe that Ms. Grace knew too much about MJ and his 'private' affairs. She was seen as a big threat to the Jackson family and needed to be gone, quickly and for good.
As for LaToya; she has been trying to back peddle everything that she said about MJ in 1995 regarding his inappropriateness with children , and it's not working...the damage has already been done and can't be undone. As the saying goes, the first response is usually the right one, and we all know what that one was. I'm sure she still knows more things, but is very reluctant and will not speak about it. Despite all the announcements of upcoming books from various people who knew MJ, I don't think anyone is really willing to spill the beans on MJ and his private life any time soon, and I'm sure his children being in the picture has a lot to do with it.
Sarah and Len:
All in all, MJ's private life was painted with all kinds of 'red flags' that go back a very long time...and through out that time there have been many people who saw these red flags and chose to turn a deaf ear/blind eye to them. Wonder why that is? Could it be that everyone who saw it all the sudden got a case of 'it's none of my concern', where they chose not to get involved and take responsibility but left it up to the next person to take care of it. So irresponsible, IMO. The writing was on the wall; nothing should have been a surprise to anyone. It's just too bad that no one earlier had the backbone to stand up and take a stand rather than just passively sit back and let things happen the way they did. But also on the same note, the parents who supposedly loved their children and would protect them from harm, but placed them in the care of MJ, should also be held accountable. They are just as guilty as MJ for allowing it to happen. No decent parent in their right mind with any common sense or morals would allow their child to be in the company of a pedophile/molester! Especially given the fact that MJ was overly obsessed with children and his conduct legalities. That in itself is a form of child abuse, and it's called child endangerment.
Sarah & Susana:
I do hope that any new books coming out about MJ will be a lot more enlightening than those that are already out. I think that there is a slim chance of that happening, but it doesn't hurt to wish. I see that MJ's long time friend, Elizabeth Taylor died today. I suppose now that she won't be telling us anything more than what she has already said publicly about MJ. Not that I really expected her to, but I just really wonder if she would have exposed more than what she already had?? Makes me wonder.
Desiree & Brenda:
I was reading a lot of the posts since early February as I have been away for a while and trying to catch up. Desiree you mentioned that there are transcripts of Joy Robson testimony about MJ and is proclivities with children...do you by chance have a link to that information? I very interested in reading it and curious as to what she had to say.
A lot of people are asking the same question...why is everyone afraid to speak ill of the dead? Well, I guess it's for the exact same reason they were scared to speak out about MJ while he was alive. These 'cover up people' have apparently been present in MJ's whole life, starting when he was a young boy living at home with Katherine and Joe. It's just as he got older and got on his own, the roles have seemed to reverse: Joe abuses MJ and in return mother Katherine doesn't say or doing anything about it. MJ abuses children and in return the parents, staff, close friends, etc. doesn't say or do anything about it. No one said crap about anything to anyone at any particular time. And what is still fascinating is that these exact same people who kept it on the DL while MJ was here are still keeping it on the DL and the man is long gone dead! What kind of shit is that?? Is there something that goes really really deep involved here that the public has no idea about or can fathom? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I'm not a fan of MJ anymore like I once was, but I have to wonder is there something going on more crazy and more twisted than what we thought is imaginable? I know you can analyze the whole MJ scenario from every angle, and believe me, I have heard and read some far out crazy shit, but what gives? MJ no doubt is by far the greatest manipulator that ever lived, but why do I get the feeling that there is so much more to the MJ puzzle that has yet to be solved? I think that what you have come up with Desiree is incredible, and I like it!!! But I truly think that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I hope this does not sound shallow to you, but I am really puzzled and astonished as to how SO MANY people are still covering for that man! It really bothers me.
Yes, I agree with someone from an earlier post that it should not matter now about MJ now that he is dead...but actions speak louder than words. Does it really not matter? Especially since there are those who still continue to remain silent, cover up by back tracking the negative things said previously. By actions of some, it is apparent that it does matter. What are your thoughts?
Sarah wrote:
He was always trying to create the illusion of soemthing whether it be magic or mystey or his own sexuality, the problem was that he thought he was good at it and the rest of us could see right thru it after a while, who bought any of the crap that he was spinning to Diane Sawyer or even Martin Bashir.
Sarah, I agree that MJ thought he was good at manipulation, but was actually quite bad at it. With the exception of hardcore fans who are in a state of denial, most people could see through his lies, he just got a pass for a very long time because he was such a gifted dancer/composer so people either wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, or were intimidated by his wealth, power and popularity.
I think most of the readers of this blog agree that we think MJ was a pedo and very probaby gay, but Grace is one piece of the puzzle that does not fit.
I think the simplest explanation for Grace is that she was a beard, to conceal his alleged gay pedophilia and alleged racial self-hatred. That probably explains why he was allegedly verbally abusive to her; he was probably frustrated that he had to put up with her. As for him allegedly begging her to return to him, he probably needed her stick around because she had too much dirt on him to be let loose.
As for the gossip about them having sex, I agree with those who suggested he probably spread those rumors himself.
Lady C,
I actually never was a fan of Michael Jackson. As I have said many times, my interest in his work ended with Thriller. I just prefer a different genre of music. In addition, I was so repulsed by the sight of his already-surgically-changing face, at the 1984 Grammy Awards, I couldn't understand how women regarded him as a sex symbol. With the stunning face he was given at birth, yes. But the face attached to the body onstage, at the grammies, had a whittled-down nose and thinner lips, coupled with a falsetto whisper, and this was 1984. You can only imagine how appalling it was to look at the cover of Bad and see the white woman named Michael Jackson on the cover of it! As a friend and I stared at it, I told her it would age me 50 years from the horror if I awakened in the morning and found Michael Jackson in my bed.
I was, however, fascinated by his fans, after he died. But after being crucified when I asked a question to better understand their cult worship, I now have quite an axe to grind. Otherwise, I would never have repeated anything the "mouthpiece" told me. It was just too shocking.
Opinionation,
The "mouthpiece" said Michael was verbally abusive, period. I was told Michael was initially a very sweet person, but he became like his father, minus the physical abuse, in the end. His middle name was definitely Joseph.
Len
Are we saying that MJ was verbally abusive to everyone or just to Grace? I remember reading that Marc Schaffel said that MJ would scream and shout if he was not happy. Also Rudy Provencio's testimony at trial in 2005 stated that MJ would use his "big" voice to his employees when he wasn't happy. I don't doubt this for a moment but find it hard to reconcile this image with the image of dear sweet Michael that we saw for years in the media. Jermaine Jackson told the truth in the manuscript of "Legacy" when he said the "blood of our father runs through his veins". Just something a little off topic, I have been doing some interesting research into the Church of Scientology, I will post my findings shorty, there are some interesting stories regarding LMP.
Sarah,
The "mouthpiece" did not paint Michael as a good person, after all of the fame and power he aquired from Thriller. Initially, he was described as a very sweet person. Everything changed. That whispery, high-pitched voice of his was an affectation. That gentle demeanor was an act. He was verbally abuse, period.
I would respect Jermaine if he proceeded with the book he originally intended to write. But claiming he's going to write yet another eulogy to his brother has only caused me to roll my eyes, in disgust. He must really want that money from Michael's rabid fans, who are too stupid with blind groupie worship to see how they are being manipulated.
Len & Sarah:
I believe what the "mouth piece" said about MJ; that he was a verbal abusive person. I was reading an article online the interview that Grace gave to Daphne Barak shortly after MJ's death. It was a lengthy but interesting read as I had not read the interview before. But in the interview according to Grace, not only was MJ verbally abusive towards her, but he was also down right inconsiderate and non-caring about Grace's health (it was said that she had Lupus) and he had not provided her any kind of health insurance coverage for quite some time while they were in Bahrain. When she finally did get to see a doctor, the dr. was astonished and very concerned about her Lupus and the condition it was in, since apparently Grace had not gone to see a dr. in a good while. I don't know if it's true, but I read some where that MJ too, had Lupus?? If what Grace says in the interview is entirely true, then I would have to say that MJ was very cold and a pathetic excuse for a human being (not to forget all the other "stuff" that's out there about him). According to Grace, MJ had not paid her salary for quite some time, he provided her no health insurance coverage, did not want her to be friendly to his friends' family that they stayed with (Cascios), and he did not want Grace, for some reason, to get too close/attached to his children. Apparently this did happen one time, an incident where MJ expectantly walked in on her and his children (a little Blanket giving Grace a personal MJ 'concert' of his father's songs and dances) and they all literally froze because of the display of anger on his face...so I wonder, 'behind closed doors' did MJ ever yell at or verbally abuse his children as well? I believe the children liked Grace and warmed up to her because she was the closest thing to a mother that any of them ever knew. She had been with MJ ever since his first son was born. The children liking Grace, I believe some how made MJ feel threatened and maybe some times even less of a parent. Now that's not to say that motherless child can't have a meaningful and nourishing relationship with their father (as I grew up in a divorced family and my father wasn't around much like my mother was), but I do believe that a child feels a sort of 'emptiness' when that other parent or parent-figure is not around...I too as a child felt that same way with my father not being around. I think his children yearned for that and didn't have it (with the exception of Grace that is) ...and from the looks of it, it looked like it wasn't in MJ's plans to get it.
This interview however, is found on a website owned by an MJ fanatic(michaeljacksonscode.webs.com), and at the end of the article, of course, Grace like anyone else who dare tells the truth about MJ is dragged through the mud and crucified like always.
Lady C,
There was nothing about Michael having lupus on the autopsy. It didn't show he had any autoimmune disorders, which are considered to trigger vitiligo (which make his case even more of a horse-before-the-cart speculation).
I, too, have wondered how he really treated his children when the cameras were out of sight.
Lady C,
Mj was well known for not meeting his professional/employer compromises.
I remember this interview with Grace.
Michael being jealous of Grace is not that odd. I suppose it makes him look human. Many parents who hire nannies have the same sentiments when their kids have a problem and go first to the nanny and ignore them, LOL. A nanny is an employee, never a substitute mother/relative.
I had two different nannies when I was very little, but it was for a few hours a day, so although I loved them like someone close to the family, they weren't like my parents, not even close. But I bet Grace spent a great amount of time with them for years. MJ did have sleep patterns incompatible with those of the children; he was a junkie and a drunkard, and was “entertaining” kids other than his at Neverland. As he said to the Rabbi, he loved all the children around the world the same, including his own.... I wonder how their kids feel knowing that.
It seems obvious that Grace was more than a regular nanny to them. I don't think because they missed a mom... they never had one, but because she was the person taking care of them most of the time.
Maybe MJ did have some positive attitudes as a father, like, apparently, use reasoning instead of spankings, etc. But overall, he was a junkie and a paedophile living with his toy boys under the same roof. The kids were an extension of his ego, but he put his antics and own desires before them. This isn't the depiction of a good father.
If I remember correctly, in the interview Grace said they keep the children away from him because they were concerned for their safety... I wonder what exactly she was referring to.
It creeps me out when I see videos of his children and the toy boys in full make-up around the house. Mjs children could have been exposed to many awful experiences because of that.
It would be very interesting a tell-all authored by Grace.
LOL of course his friends were mainly boys. He hung around young males because he was a male himself. How would it look if he hung around nothing but young girls? People would accuse him of being another R.Kelly.
hahahaahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahahhahaha
you got all your information from a book that some mexican made up, lol. hahahaahah this all BS, but i guess we are all entitled to blieve in what we want, no matter how stupid, like me i believe the earth is hollow
Young children are known to play with friends of their own gender, and many males have mostly male friends, so this aint a point you're making, nor a proof of his sexual atraction to boys... Or would you condamn every male(age:0-100) who has only male friend; gay OR pedophile? haha, you know what would make you more reliable, acknowledging many of the allegations / trials were media-lies and that he actually won them, and proven by attorneys...
Marcus,
You really need to stop being so ignorant.
Males can have male friends.
But how many males in their 30s and 40s have friends that are child-aged to early teen-aged? How many males in their 30s and 40s insist on sharing the bed with these young friends?
And how many males have had their child friends accuse them of molestation and have had to pay millions of dollars to settle these molestation claims?
Really, your logic and common sense skills are woefully underdeveloped.
Oh, by the way, Mike was gay. You should read the documents. I bet $100 that you will deny the factuality of those reports in typical fan fashion. Or you will come up with the same explanation as to how the semen got there.
I'm not saying it is common for any person to have friends that are so much younger, but the fact that they were mostly boys doesn't proof that he is gay, I don't know if he is gay or not, but THAT particulary isn't proof. You have video's and story's from boys/nephews/nieces who were friends of MJ and just did the stuff that other kids would do, so at some point I do believe that MJ wanted to make up for his lost childhood, and I would really like to know if you agree on that in any way, or not..? :)
Or is it really that you think Michael jackson faked all the childlike fun, and enjoying the waterbaloon fights, just to get some kids in his bed?
And can I just say that I'm not hurt by the way you mock me and if you'd like to go on with that, so be it. But I can say that I don't really like the way you question my logic, when you don't get the point I'm making, and just perciflage me as a common out of his mind MJ-fan... I'm not against you, and I'm not a bad person.
Oh, and btw:
Michael Jackson only settled NOT because he would have lost the case, (they didn't even got enough evidence to get him arrested), but because he would have to come to trials and therefore couldn't perform, losing 2Milion per night... I'll get it in perspective for you:
Michael Jackson:
Earnings: 2 Milion per night
Settlement: 20 Milion
Some random person:
Earnings: 4500$ a month
Settlement: 1500$
How could you say, that this was a big settlement? And this made the 2005trials possible, because why work if you can sue MJ?
@Jessica:
"And how many males have had their child friends accuse them of molestation?"
I don't remember Michael Jackson EVER been accused by his friends... It were their parents, thats a HUGE diference!
Marcus,
If you really think that is the reason he settled, well, why not mock your intelligence?
You do realize that $20 million was 10% of his net worth at the time? Why pay out if it was all a lie, and it could have been proven as such in a court of law? It makes no sense. The amount of money he would have paid in court fees to prove his innocence would be chump change compared to the amount of revenue he would generate after vindicating himself to the public. The amount would be enormous.
"How could you say, that this was a big settlement? And this made the 2005trials possible, because why work if you can sue MJ?"
Really, sweetie? That is so stupid to think that everyone is looking to nail him for cash by calling him a pedophile. That is the problem with you and other fans' logic is that you forget that this was the most beloved man in the world at one point and to go up against him would be exceedingly difficult if you were lying. This was not a Joe Blow from down the street, we are talking about a multi-million dollar celebrity with the capital to hire the best investigators and attorneys to squash a liar like a bug.
Why don't you people get that?
"I do believe that MJ wanted to make up for his lost childhood, and I would really like to know if you agree on that in any way, or not..? :)"
Not. I think that was a farce. It may, in the beginning had some particulate truth in it, but that is absolutely not the reason a 40 year old man would insist on sleeping in the bed with pubescent boys. If you don't get that, well, God help you.
By the way, you are not a Mensa member. Quit with the charade.
So you're saying is that if he would have won the case in 1993 (and i'm not asking you if he would or not), that he would have more money than when he would do what he did?..
How could you know what he was worth then, how could you in general know what someone is worth? What DO you see if you look to his earnings (dangerous tour) ...
And for the Mensa-thing, look at my other reaction(other page).
All you have to do is look up an archive of Forbes magazine, but I happen to have a book that told what his net worth was. And I read it in Ebony magazine as well. Stunning, isn't it, to pay someone a full 10% of his net woth, especially if it was "all a big lie"? It's telling, isn't it?
Yes, he would have recouped any loses sustained in a criminal and/or civil suit. America loves a "beating the odds" story, a comback story, and a story of "good vs. evil". It would be like a knight slaying a dragon. Michael Jackson vanquished the liars and redeemed his good name. It happens all the time. Example: Kobe Bryant. He lost many of his endorsement deals when he was accused of rape, but he fought back and the woman finally dropped her allegations when all the evidence cam eout that she has slept with multiple men and had different flavors of semen and pubic hair in her body, leading everyone to say "It could have been any of the other men, why Kobe? Because he had money". He got his endorsement deals back and no one even talks about that rape allegation anymore.
So, remember that nearly everyone was on Michael Jackson's side before he paid out millions. It would have been too easy to prove his innocence if he was actually innocent. But he decided to pay the "liars", one month after the strip search and only a few days before he was to be desposed. That doesn't ring loudly of innocence.
Again, you should be able to see this if you were indeed capable of simple deductive reasoning.
But what you say is that he would RECOVER all his loses sustained in a criminal and/or civil suit...
That DOES actually just proofs what I said, that he would NOT be able to perform and earn MORE than he would lose by the trial... So the fact of him paying money is because of what I just said no indication of being guilty! Do you get that, Jessica?
Marcus:
So essentially you are saying that it was a better choice for Jacko to settle--paying a tenth of his net worth to 'liars--than to vindicate himself, showing that he'd been innocent of those terrible allegations the whole time, making himself even more popular with a sympathetic global public?
That makes little sense. He settled because he was a guilty pedophile.
By the way your comments read, I am sure you don't really understand English. There seems to be a cognitive language barrier on your end.
If that is the case, please spare all of us English speakers. Not only is it mind-numbing to read your ramblings, you would simply be spewing fan talking points even if you were fluent.
Again, what is the point of you being on my website anyway?
You are not going to change my mind and I believe your grasp of English is too poor for you to comprehend my writings that prove Jacko was guilty.
All of the above is an indication you should read elsewhere.
Yes that IS what I'm actually saying, don't forget all the persons surounding MJ who wouldn't earn money because he was occupied by those trials...
I am saying that it ould be more lucratif for him to just settle it and move on with his life:
BECAUSE either way he'd lose money by NOT doing that:
- If he'd win he would have lost nothing, but he wouldn't earn anything either...
- If he would lose he would have lost everything
SO: he did the only thing that was lucratif...
And THATs why it doesn't proof his guilt... Understand?
I CAN understand you Desiree, and I'm here because I'm interested and ask questions... :)
Marcus,
If you like to ask questions, come on to the newest post's comment section and there are more people willing to answer your questions.
Try not to be too dumb though, you might get hurt.
"- If he'd win he would have lost nothing, but he wouldn't earn anything either..."
Really? Really!? Come on, now, this explanation makes no sense. An innocent man would not settle for 10% of his net worth. Period.
Marcus:
Still waiting on your Mensa proof...
Susana,
If Grace ever write a book in the future I highly doubt she write about Michael´s addictions and other things. She know very well what the fans would do to her. Actually she had many of them in her facebook.
Frank Cascio is showing rare pics in his facebook page and I do´t believe he would write something juicy, either.
Frank DiLeo died a few weeks ago, so probably there will be no book either....maybe he will have some notes published posthumously, that is just a guess....About MJs behaviuor to Grace Rwamba, well, after having read this article about NPO of course this smells of typical narcisstic behaviour on the side of Jackson....
Post a Comment