Quick update...

So, midterms are over and I had looked forward to devoting Thursday through Sunday for writing. Alas, there is something wrong with my computer (the terminal from which I write at this point is my sister's laptop). To those who read, I have posts waiting in the wings, anticipating completion, however, we will see if I can still access the numerous files I have saved once my computer goes in to get fixed.

Also I mentioned in my last entry that I had ordered Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons by Carl Toms. Allegedly (or, according to those who worship at the Church of Michael), Toms is a 'pedophile' named Thomas O'Carroll.

You can Google search the name, as if his status as pedophile delegitimizes his keen viewpoints. (It does not; on the contrary, his perspective is refreshing.)

I received the book a day or so ago and, as usual, all of the fans on Amazon.com who had bashed it as having been written by a pedophile (yawn) and, thus, deserving of scorn did not read it.

Nazism in the Michael Jackson fan community seems common place. If we recall, the Nazis were infamous book burners.

Toms' piece, although somewhat unsavory in its support (of course) of 'boy-loving' and child sexuality, is fantastic! It's literally a tome of astute analysis and tedious research of publicly available information on Michael Jackson; basically, every thing that is available for fan consumption, too.

The old adage is true, isn't it? "Don't judge a book by its cover." Words to live by indeed. While Toms' book is analytical, and he obviously has a bias in the direction of 'boy-loving',  he is no stranger to objectivity. He doesn't merely dip his toes into Fairness Pond but dives in.

I am excited to see where his book goes because, so far, it is really good. At the risk of being premature, it certainly is a must to own. His opinions, I'm sure, would invoke the ire of Michael's numerous fans, the ones who bill him as 'pure', 'innocent', and heterosexual. Toms disbelieves all of that and then some.

It's just a damned good book! Only the most foolish of people would log onto Amazon and take an ignorant shot at Carl Toms' work without having read it. If, by chance, anyone is interested in it, I recommend you try to find a reasonably priced copy on the Internet. Please, do not be swayed by anyone who has bashed the book; they only bash it because it questions Michael's non-guilt...

When it comes to his book, all I can say is this: it takes one to know one. Because Toms is a 'boy-lover' himself, he would be able to see the peculiarity of Michael Jackson's conduct around young boys.

More entries to come when I figure out what's wrong with my computer. Hopefully sooner than later. What a way to spoil a weekend! :-(

In the meantime, thanks for reading.

~ Desiree

A 'literary' aside to the previous entry

It is worth noting that pedophiles know their own.

Check this photo from the website www.intermale.nl, a 'gay' bookstore located in the Netherlands, on the page 'Boys and teenagers':

All of this was found by clicking links from the 'boylover' website I'd linked in the previous entry.

Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover was bashed as being a 'book by a pedophile for pedophiles'. He'd even thanked NAMBLA in his Author's notes at the close book.

But, whether you believe Gutierrez's book was any of the above, the point is this: why is it completely unreasonable to think that pedophiles--when observing Michael Jackson with his 'special friends'--see a parallel between themselves and Michael?

Who but pedophiles would know another pedophile best?

It is worth noting that many fans only examine the surface of Michael's relationship with children. But this isn't really rocket science; it's intuitive after a while. 

The special friends, all of a certain age and taste; the sleepovers; the nude-boy books; the accusations; the multi-million dollar payoffs...

As soon as it becomes a mantra, the truth really will stand out to you: all of the above is more than just innocent.

I put a purchase in for the book and we will see how it is. My goal is to be as informed as possible from a wide range of sources. 

Stay tuned.

I'm not hating on Wacko Jacko; everyone else has been misled.

It's time for eyes to be opened.

If one goes through this blog to read some of my older posts (well, I don't recommend it; my writing and tone has changed so much, to the point those old pieces are rather embarrassing), there is a marked change in my tone towards the subject du jour, Michael Jackson.

I also didn't mean for this blog to be all about Michael, but, because of my research in the midst of having this blog, I have to accept where all of it has taken me.

I should say that I do not mind it. He is a fascinating subject.

But anyway, I used to be a fan. Let me make that clear: saying that you used to be a fan does not turn you into a 'hater', that completely ridiculous word Michael Jackson fanatics (not fans, 'fanatics'; that word denotes a level of ardor that is wholly unrecognizable from stereotypic psychosis) like to label you with if you happen to hold a view of Michael that is divergent from the status quo.

If I said I liked Michael, that would be overstating it, but I definitely don't hate him. 'Hater' is just a dumb concept delivered by people incapable of debate or critical reasoning... of course, it is not as bad as being called a 'pedophile', which is quite sad; apparently their end of the debate has so crumbled that they resort to calling someone who merely suggests Michael had boy issues a person with boy issues!

Clever!

Well, it was one evening where I was capturing Michael-related links for future blog entries and I stumbled upon a story that blew my mind. I mean, completely changed my perceptions.

I will say it right now: I feel about 99.9 percent sure that Michael was a pedophile and was guilty of not only molesting Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia, both of whom received millions of dollars in hush money, but other boys as well, including (but certainly not limited to) Jimmy Safechuck and his favorite child prostitute and future legal lover, Brett Barnes.

If you feel differently that is okay. 

But I felt that way once, too. When Michael passed away, I wanted to research this man that people were going nuts for. I think I've touched on this before but, now, it feels more holistic and complete. But I wanted to know about these child molestation charges, accusations, and innuendos. I wanted to know about the accusers, the players, everything.

I had no opinion, really, although I did used to joke that it would probably be frightening to wake up and have Michael standing over you with his carved up and infinitesimal nose. 

I did my sleuthing around and the only stuff I found was proclamations of his innocence. I guess I was unaware, at the time, that I was reading nothing but 'research' and compilations of 'evidence' of his 'innocence' from MJ fanatics.

How silly of me! The reality is no one but the fans are going to spend hours and hours, days and days, trying to discredit everyone of Michael's detractors, haters, alleged abuse victims.

Let me just say: I feel sorry for anyone who isn't really knowledgeable of Michael Jackson; they will be bombarded with 'well-researched' yet essentially opinionated fan facts about him. No truth, all bias. Like me, they will only have gotten one side of the story.

And that's what I had gotten. Naturally, since his most ardent and vociferous of supporters control the flow of information about Jacko, I believed him to be innocent. Not only innocent, a victim! I had shed tears for a man who had--according to the fans--been maligned and mistreated by a vicious media, greedy parents, and other unscrupulous people.

Apparently, despite my own seeming devotion to Michael, I clearly wasn't a fanatic. Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love gave me a really bad feeling, to the point I couldn't finish it upon the first cold read in August of last year. 

Interestingly enough, I attributed that reaction to feeling spiritually sick at someone's viciousness and 'lies' (remember, I thought I was well versed in Michael's woes at that point, except only in His Side), when, in hindsight, I was just disgusted by the truth; it made me uncomfortable because I thought Michael was a wonderful person--an innocent man-child--but all of Diane's points seemed to make sense.

Nothing was contradictory.

I am wiser now.

Anyway, if I am to bring it back to my point: I was researching one evening and I found a story that challenged this fan-indoctrinated idea of Michael's innocence and his accusers' all being liars, namely the 15.3 million-dollar kid.

Briefly, I should note that I had only heard about Jordie and Gavin Arvizo before I researched Michael. It was then that I had heard about Jason Francia, who the media didn't even discover until 2003. I wrote him off as yet another liar but, in retrospect, I can't believe I didn't see the 'iffy'-ness of so many accusers, especially another one who'd received a multi-million dollar payoff.

But the 'perusing'. I found this story by Roger Friedman dated July 6, 2006: "Jacko's Big Secret: $300,000 Payoff to Another Family?" I'll paste some of the interesting tidbits but it was also printed in the New York Daily News here, here, and here:

It’s apparently a secret known in the world of Michael Jackson to only a select group of former advisers. In court in Santa Monica, however, where Jackson is being sued by a former associate, it’s a story coming out into the open bit by excruciating bit.

Sometime after he was arrested in November 2003, Jackson sent $300,000 to a family living in South America. What he got for his money is unclear, but my sources say it was part of a continuing payout to a family who felt their child was abused by the pop star.

The jury in the Jackson case has heard several allusions to the payoff, although direct parties to the trial are not allowed by Judge Jacqueline Connor to address the subject as anything other than “a personal matter.”

The reason is that this is a financial lawsuit, and at least two of the sitting jurors stated during their interviews that they believe Jackson is a child molester....

In this case, yesterday, Jackson’s recently fired accountant, Alan Whitman, confirmed that he had received a request for the $300,000 payment from Jackson but declined to say what it was for.

He claimed, as I’m told he did in depositions, that he “chose” not to know what the money was for after it was explained to him in partial detail.

Similar testimony was given by former Jackson financial advisor Alvin Malnik, who said that Jackson called him and asked him to have associate F. Marc Schaffel take care of an “urgent situation” for $300,000....

I am told with great certainty by insiders that Jackson sent the money to South America to keep a parent and her son quiet in late November 2003, right after Jackson’s arrest for child molestation in the Arvizo case.

The implication is that this additional money was paid to a family that had already left the United States and made a deal with Jackson long ago — but was now being sought by prosecutors in the Arvizo case as witnesses to support their "prior acts" case.

The concern at the time may have been that the family in question had been on Jackson’s payroll for a long time. At the time of the pop star’s arrest in November 2003, however, Jackson evidently felt it was a good time to move them again rather than risk their discovery by either the media or authorities.

The Santa Monica jury also saw e-mail communication between Whitman and Jackson’s then-attorney Mark Geragos. In the e-mails, Geragos gives approval to Whitman to pay for the "travel expenses" for Schaffel related to that transaction....

Intriguing, huh? That's what I thought!

I read the story and said to myself, "These are Michael's advisors! They couldn't be telling lies in a court of law." This was documented and the judge decided to reduce the testimony to nothing more than 'a personal matter'. Of course, she had to know, seeing that judges review all evidence in the case to which they preside.

So, Michael Jackson--much like the secretive payoff to the Francias in the mid-1990s--paid another family? I thought it was shocking but I had absolutely no reason to think the report was fictitious, seeing it had been confirmed by a number of his employees, past and present, in a court of law.

It was then that I decided to look at everything through a more critical lens.  No longer did I investigate using fan and vindication blogs but I stuck to published books and news-media reports. Flash forward several months and here we are, blogging about Michael's suspicious boy activity.

I should say that I realize many fans (all of them, perhaps) will disavow the article. But, let's be honest: the only reason anyone would immediately bash said article is because it bashed Michael the Messiah. However, if that is the only foundation to which a fan can repudiate the report, they are living in a shack on sand.

What kind of thinking skills does one possess if they believe anything divergent from their own opinions about Michael is a lie or tabloid or from a 'hater'? Talk about giving new meaning to 'idiot'!

Ultimately, what I am trying to say is that this article made me think. It made me question all of the notions I had previously held onto due to my original research (on fan sites only) and it opened my eyes. 

Because the reality is this: no normal adult is going to have sleepovers with aged 10 to 14-year-old boys; he isn't going to have these boys sleeping in the bed with him when other beds are sufficient and available; he isn't going to be accused of child molestation more than once; he isn't going to pay off boys in the millions of dollars over 'alleged' or false claims; he isn't going to continue sleepovers with boys after child molestation charges; he isn't going to own books owned and recommended by pedophiles (please click through his site and see Boylinks--a site for pedophiles and 'boylovers'--and his brief pictorial of The Boy: A Photographic Essay, which Michael kept nestled safely away in a locked file cabinet, not in his so-called 'vast' library).

I don't know if more can be said, really. 

Do we need more evidence? A couple on a train saw Michael Jackson, his staff, and a young boy (the date shows it was, without a doubt, Brett Barnes) and heard disturbing sounds coming from Michael and the boys compartment, sounds so disturbing the woman of the couple had to alert the conductor. Are they liars, too?

Michael Jackson was a pedophile; jeez, is it really so hard to see? He was horribly abused, as I've already posted about, and I have no doubt in my mind that his trauma and sexual exploitation at the hands of adult men shaped his possibly criminal sexuality. 

I am doing my best to compile the evidence to support the valid assertion of Michael's pedophilia, the type of evidence and/or analysis that I would have liked to see when I was searching for information on Michael over a year ago. I want to be the oasis in the desert of completely blind fan analysis.

The truth is the fans are too tied up into Michael to ever be objective; sometimes I feel it may be better if they never learn the truth about him. Some of them may hurt themselves...

If you think Michael Jackson was innocent of molestation, it is time to relinquish the 'Jesus juice'. No amount of ardor can change the reality of his offenses. 

He was a nonce, a pedophile, a pederast, a child molester. His porn collection did not show he was a 'normal heterosexual man'; it showed he was sex-obsessed, given his history of sexual abuse and the soft-core sex shows he'd seen as a child.

To whitewash his memory and make him into a god is insulting to such a tragic being. Not to mention, it is insulting to his alleged victims.

I realize that I was not 'there'. That's a valid statement, but it cuts both ways. A fan cannot proclaim he's innocent because, like me, they were not there; at most, we all can only say, "We don't know."

However, a little common sense will go a long way on this particular topic. He allegedly paid off another family, for goodness' sake! If that doesn't cause some sort of questioning in the mind of a fan, perhaps, they are just too far gone.

FIND: Michael Jackson's lies...?

While searching the Internet in my usual investigatory fashion, I stumbled upon a website (www.statementanalysis.com) whose proprietor is an expert in something called 'statement analysis'.

Statement analysis--if I were to attempt to describe it in a nutshell--is the technique of analyzing the truthfulness (or deceptiveness) of a subject's words and language. So much has been made of body language, the proprietor contends, that many times we fail to miss the deception right in front of us. 

Think about the idea of 'double talk' or the notion of just 'saying what you mean and meaning what you say'. In his view, deceptive individuals often give away their deception in their spoken language in in the words they choose to use.

It's fascinating stuff and, if I am not scammed via an Internet shopping cart, I will be receiving a book all about this subject in the mail!

But I titled this post in reference to Michael Jackson and his lies. 

Previously on the blog, I have indicated that I believe Michael was not telling the truth in his 1995 Primetime Live interview with then-wife Lisa Marie Presley regarding the Jordie Chandler case and any other boy issues to which he'd been implicated. 

On the Statement Analysis website, the proprietor, named Mark McClish, wrote a piece analyzing Michael's December 22, 1993 Neverland Ranch statement via satellite; portions of his 'pillow chat' with Diane Sawyer in 1995; and portions of his 2003 60 Minutes interview with journalist Ed Bradley.

It was so fascinating that I have decided to post it here almost in it's entirety (I redacted it in a small area, which will be noted), with a note here and there from Yours Truly; it is worth sharing. 

NOTE: 

- McClish's piece was written before Michael Jackson's 2005 acquittal and, as such, he is more than a little skeptical about his innocence.

- Some of the analysis may seem as if hairs are being split but it is always intriguing to get the take of an expert...

* * * * *

Michael Jackson's Child Molestation Charges

Posted February 8, 2004 

by Mark McClish

Well, here we go again. Michael Jackson is facing charges he molested a child at his Neverland Ranch. Before we take a look at these most recent charges, let's recap what happened ten years ago.

In 1993, a 13-year-old boy accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. Jackson had befriended the boy in 1992. Soon the boy became a regular guest at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in Santa Ynez, California. Jackson gave the boy gifts and paid for several vacation trips around the world. In 1993, the boy started to spend the night at Jackson’s residence. This was not unusual as Jackson would often have children sleep over at his Neverland Ranch. According to the allegations, Jackson had kissed and fondled the boy while they were alone in bed. Allegedly, this repeatedly took place during a four-month period.

At the suggestion of the boy’s father, a civil lawsuit was filed in 1993. Jackson denied the accusations. He continued to tour and make public appearances. The boy’s father talked to the Jackson camp about a financial settlement while the police continued their investigation. On January 25, 1994, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit paying an undisclosed amount to his accuser. Many believe that he paid between 15 and 20 million dollars. After receiving the settlement, the boy refused to testify in any criminal matters. Therefore, the prosecution was not able to pursue a criminal case.

On December 22, 1993, Jackson gave the following videotaped statement from his Neverland Ranch:

"I am doing well and I am strong. As you may already know, after my tour ended I remained out of the country undergoing treatment for a dependancy on pain medication. This medicine was initially prescribed to soothe the excruciating pain that I was suffering after recent reconstructive surgery on my scalp. 

There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false. As I have maintained from the very beginning, I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected. I shall not in this statement respond to all the false allegations being made against me since my lawyers have advised me that this is not the proper forum in which to do that. I will say I am particularly upset by the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. 

At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusion. I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don’t treat me like a criminal because I am innocent. 

I have been forced to submit to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s department and the Los Angeles Police Department earlier this week. They served a search warrant on me which allowed them to view and photograph my body, including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs and any other areas that they wanted. They were supposedly looking for any discoloration, spotting or other evidence of a skin color disorder called vitiligo which I have previously spoken about. The warrant also directed me to cooperate in any examination of my body by their physician to determine the condition of my skin, including whether I have vitiligo or any other skin disorder. The warrant further stated that I had no right to refuse the examination or photographs and if I failed to cooperate with them they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt. It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer. And even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied and wanted to take even more pictures. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare. But if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it. 

Throughout my life, I have only tried to help thousands upon thousands of children to live happy lives. It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers. I am not guilty of these allegations. But if I am guilty of anything it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world. It is of loving children of all ages and races, it is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces. It is of enjoying through them the childhood that I missed myself. If I am guilty of anything, it is of believing what God said about children, ‘Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven.’ In no way do I think that I am God, but I do try to be Godlike in my heart. I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false. Again, to my friends and fans, thank you very much for all of your support. Together we will see this through to the very end. I love you very much and may God bless you all. I love you. Goodbye." 

Desiree's note: I have embedded the video of the statement below:

I should note that there had been discussion that Michael was unconvincing in the statement. According to Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson: Unauthorized, the author had interviewed lie-detection experts who stated quite firmly that Michael appeared nervous and agitated, a sign of someone who may not be telling the truth (page 334). So, it is interesting to here that Michael's language was also 'suspect'...

The very first thing we notice is that Jackson never said, "I didn’t do it." He never said, "I did not molest this boy." That is something we would expect an innocent person to say. Let’s examine the denials Jackson does make. "There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false." All Jackson is telling us is that recently made allegations are false. We know how the press can be and how rumors get started. I am sure there were some allegations concerning Jackson that were not true. However, Jackson is not referring to every allegation made. He is only talking about "disgusting statements made recently." He is only denying those statements which he considered disgusting and which were recently made. The boy’s allegations were made public several months before Jackson gave this statement. It appears Jackson is not referring to the accuser’s allegations since they were not recently made.

"As I have maintained from the very beginning, (Here is the perfect opportunity for Jackson to issue a denial but instead he goes on to say) I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected."

"I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal because I am innocent." This sounds like a good denial. However, stating that you are innocent is not stating that you did not do it. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Jackson tells us not to make any rash judgements, but wait until all the evidence is presented. Think about it though. Why should we wait? An innocent person would not want you to wait. He would want you to believe right now that he did not commit this crime. If Jackson would come out and say “I didn’t do it,” I might believe him and label him as innocent, but he hasn’t said that. Furthermore, the truth never did come out because Jackson chose to settle this case. We are still waiting to hear the truth.

"The warrant further stated that I had no right to refuse the examination or photographs and if I failed to cooperate with them they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt." Think of how you would phrase this statement in reference to guilt or innocence. Most innocent people would state, "....they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication that I am guilty." In this statement, it is the authorities belief the person is guilty because of his refusal to cooperate. The way Jackson words it ("my guilt") it sounds as if he is talking about something that he, not the authorities, has already established. Pronouns show possession.

"I am not guilty of these allegations. This still falls short of saying "I didn't do it." Legally, no one is guilty until they are proven guilty.

"I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false." Again we have him claiming he is innocent which is technically true. He is "innocent of any wrongdoing." Jackson may have done things which he does not consider to be wrong. This would also allow him to say he is innocent. A better statement would have been, "I am innocent of molesting this boy." In hindsight, we can see these allegations were not proven false, as Jackson claimed they would be, because he settled the case. 

On June 14, 1995, Michael Jackson and his wife Lisa Marie Presley were interviewed by Diane Sawyer on Prime Time Live. The interview started discussing their recent marriage. Sawyer then turned her questions to the 1993 child molestation allegations. Listed below are excerpts from the interview. 

Sawyer: [Addressing Michael] "Well because I know that you've wanted to express similar sentiments for a long time, I want to ask a few things about the charges. But first I want to establish for the the viewers here, there are no ground rules. You have said to me you are not afraid of any questions. So, I wanted that understood by everybody before we proceed. I think I want to begin by making sure that the terms are clear. You have said you would never harm a child. I want to be as specific as I can. Did you ever, as this young boy said you did, did you ever sexually engage, fondle, have sexual contact with this child, or any other child?"

Jackson: "Never, ever. I could never harm a child, or anyone. It's not in my heart, it's not who I am. And it's not what I'm....I'm not even interested in that."

Sawyer, like many journalists, makes the mistake of asking a compound question. Jackson says, "Never, ever" but which question is he answering? Is he telling us he has never fondled this child? Or, is he telling us he has never fondled any other child? Maybe he is referring to never having sexual contact. Some might say he is answering all of the questions. However, we really don’t know. Based on the rest of his answer, "I could never harm a child" it appears Jackson is answering, "Never, ever harm a child." He was never asked if he harmed a child. He was specifically asked about sexual contact with the boy or any other children. Jackson did not answer the specific question. Not answering the question means there is something he does not want to tell us.


Desiree's note: 'Harm' to a normal person (meaning everyone who is not Michael Jackson or holds his extreme views of children) may be different to an abnormal person. It is fact that most pedophiles do not believe their contact with children is harmful. Is it impossible that Michael views his alleged sexual contact with young boys as not being harmful? I think so...

Sawyer: "And what do you think should be done to someone who does that?" 

Jackson: "To someone who does that? What I think should be done? Gee....I think they need help....in some kind of way....you know."

Here we have Jackson answering the question with two questions. He wasn’t looking for clarification because he does not wait for Sawyer to answer his questions. Jackson is stalling for time to think about how he should answer this question. This tells us this is a sensitive question for Jackson. Michael Jackson loves children. In his December 22, 1993 statement, Jackson said, "It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers." You would think Jackson like most people would be outraged with someone who molested a child. You would think he would want some type of punishment for the person who would do such a terrible thing. His response, "Gee....I think they need help," does not show that. We have to wonder why he is showing sympathy towards a child molester.


Desiree's note: The above is a good point, insomuch that Michael's stalling bothered me when I saw the video of this interview. I thought it truly bizarre that he would be so hesitant in answering such a seemingly simple question.


I should, however, say that a 'child molester', in my view, shouldn't be hanged or taken out and shot; I agree with Michael's answer in that said 'child molester' needs help. It is just an odd answer coming from Michael; but, given the resulting settlement he made with Jordie Chandler, his leniency is curious... One could almost make the argument, if he was indeed guilty of child molestation, he would want his own resulting judgment to be as lenient as 'getting help'.

Sawyer:  “Why did you settle the ....”

Jackson: “Why am I still here then?” [A reference to the previous question about markings on Jackson’s body.]

Presley: “You’re not going to ask me about them, are you? [laughing] Sorry. About the markings?”

Sawyer: “You volunteered.”

Presley: “No, I’m just....the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing a tiny area], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.”

Jackson: “Because it isn’t so.”

Sawyer:  “Why did you settle the case then?”

Jackson: “The whole thing is a lie.”

Sawyer:  “Why did you settle the case? And, it looks to everyone as if you paid a huge amount of money.....”

Jackson: “That’s .... that’s, most of that’s folklore. I talked to my lawyers, and I said, ‘Can you guarantee me, that justice will prevail?’ And they said, ‘Michael, we cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything.’ And with that I was catatonic. I was outraged!”

Sawyer: “How much money....”

Jackson: “Totally outrageous. [sic] So, I said ... I have to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies, lies. So what I did, we got together again with my advisors and they advised me. It was hands down unanimous decision - resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years!”

Sawyer: “How much money was ....”

Jackson: “We said, let’s get it behind us.”

Sawyer: “Can you say how much?”

Jackson: “It’s not what the tabloids have printed. It’s not all this crazy outlandish money, no it’s not at all. I mean, the terms of the agreement are very confidential.”

Three times Sawyer had to ask Jackson why he settled the case because Jackson wouldn’t answer the question. This means Jackson is withholding information. Jackson finally does give an answer. He states his attorneys could not guarantee what a judge or jury would do. This caused Jackson to become outraged. He still hasn’t told us why he settled the case.

Jackson goes on to say he is "totally outraged." He needs "to get out from under this nightmare." Jackson meets with his advisors again who believe he should "resolve the case." Jackson’s answer is he settled the case because his advisors told him to do so. A good follow-up question would have been, "Why did your advisors tell you to settle the case?" There is the possibility Jackson’s advisors knew there was some serious evidence against him. Going to trial may have revealed other personal information about Jackson, and it may have led to his conviction. Perhaps this is why they urged him to settle the case. It is interesting Jackson complains about people lying and "coming forth to get paid...." Yet in the end, he paid someone who he wants us to believe was lying.


Desiree's note: McClish makes a good point about Diane Sawyer's failure to follow-up. Seeing that in his 1995 Primetime Live interview Michael violated the confidentiality clause in the settlement he entered into with the Chandlers, he might as well have told everything that had happened on the road to the settlement! What a missed opportunity (and I believe Michael's resulting answer, if she'd pressed the issue, would have provided more fodder for McClish to be suspicious)! 


He also makes an interesting point about the tabloids: that Michael issued a general bashing of those who'd went to them does not mean these people's 'coming forth to get paid' was predicated upon lies...

When it comes to how much money Jackson paid his accuser, Sawyer again has to ask him three times. The press had reported that Jackson paid a large amount of money. Jackson responds by saying, “That’s .... that’s, most of that’s folklore" and "It’s not what the tabloids have printed. It’s not all this crazy outlandish money, no, it’s not at all." Jackson doesn’t tell us it is all folklore, he says that "most" of it is folklore. This qualified statement shows us that some of it is true. The exact dollar amount Jackson paid was to remain confidential. The tabloids were guessing and probably did print the incorrect dollar amount. This allows Jackson to say, "It’s not what the tabloids have printed.” Only Jackson knows what dollar amount constitutes "crazy and outlandish." What you consider to be crazy may not be crazy for him. After all the guy is a multi-millionaire. 


We see that in reference to the 1993 allegations, Jackson was evasive in his answers and he settled the case by paying his accuser a sum of money. Now lets take a look at the current allegations he is facing. On November 20, 2003, Jackson turned himself in to face charges he molested a child at his Neverland Ranch. On the same day, he was released on bond. Instead of giving a video taped statement as he did in 1993, this time Jackson used the internet to release his statements. On his web site he gives the following statement: 

"To my fans, friends and family:
As you know, the charges recently directed at me are terribly serious. They are, however, predicated on a big lie. This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us.

Because the charges are so serious, I hope you all will understand, on the advice of my attorneys, I will be limited in what I can say about the situation. There will be times when I cannot comment at all. No doubt, this will be frustrating for all of us.

For that reason, I have set up this website to serve as a source of official communications on my case. Any statement that does not appear on this website must be considered unauthorized.

You are right to be skeptical of some of the individuals who are being identified in the mass media as my friends, spokespeople, and attorneys. With few exceptions, most of them are simply filling a desperate void in our culture that equates visibility with insight. We will not engage in speculation. We will not provide running commentary on every new development or allegation du jour. We intend to try our case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media.

I thank you all for your support and understanding.

God bless you,

Michael Jackson" 

There are several things we see and don't see in his statement.

"As you know" We do not know anything unless Jackson tells us. Common sense does tell us these are serious charges. However, we do not know they are based on a "big lie."

"...predicated on a big lie." This is not a denial. He is not stating "I did not do it."

"This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us." Jackson uses plural pronouns. He could have personalize it by saying "I will be able to put this horrible time behind me."

Jackson then starts to use the pronoun "I." "I hope you all will understand." "I will be limited in what I can say." However, in the fourth paragraph he goes back to using the plural pronouns. "We will not engage..." "We will not provide..."

"We intend to try our case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media." The word "intend" means he may or may not do it. A stronger statement would be "I will try this case in the courtroom." Jackson is telling us that his camp may not try this case in the courtroom.

The biggest thing that is missing from his statement is the same thing that was missing from his 1993 statement. It is the same thing that is usually missing from a guilty person's statement; a denial. Jackson never says, "I didn't do it." "I did not touch this boy." "I did not molest this child." He may be limited in what he can say but he can always issue a denial. That is if he is innocent. When you are guilty, it is hard to deny the charges. 


Desiree's note: As with the Neverland statement at the opening of McClish's analysis, I often wonder if these statements can be truly analyzed in the same way as Michael's interviews, in which he has not been rehearsed and each answer is off-the-fly. It is quite obvious that, no matter how talented a songwriter Michael may have been, he did not write either statement, at least that is my opinion. However, if the writer of these statements to which Michael reads chooses his own words (for Michael) carefully, I guess it is possible to analyze them as truthful/deceptive by proxy.


On December 25, 2003, Ed Bradley with CBS News interviewed Michael Jackson regarding the new charges he is facing. The interview aired December 28, 2003 on "60 Minutes." Here is a portion of the transcript from that interview which CBS posted on their web site.

Bradley: "What is your response to the allegations that were brought by the district attorney in Santa Barbara, that you molested this boy?" 

Jackson: "Totally false. Before I would hurt a child, I would slit my wrists. I would never hurt a child. It's totally false. I was outraged. I could never do something like that."

Bradley is straight forward with [the] charges. "That you molested this boy." Jackson makes a denial of "Totally false" but he does not use the word "molested." He tells us specifically that he "would never hurt a child." But he does not specifically address the molestation charges. His statement "I could never do something like that" is not a denial that he did not do it.

Bradley: "This is a kid you knew?" 

Jackson: "Yes."

Bradley: "How would you characterize your relationship with this boy?"

Jackson: "I've helped many, many, many children, thousands of children, cancer kids, leukemia kids. This is one of many."

In describing his relationship with this boy, Jackson tells us he helped him. That is a pretty short and vague description of their relationship.

Bradley: "So, when he would come over, what would he do? What would you do?"

Jackson: "I'll tell you exactly. When I first saw (BLEEP), he was total bald-headed, white as snow from the chemotherapy, very bony, looked anorexic, no eyebrows, no eyelashes. And he was so weak, I would have to carry him from the house to the game room, or push him in a wheelchair, to try to give him a childhood, a life. Cause I felt bad. Because I never had that chance, too, as a child. You know? That the-- and so, I know what it-- it felt like in that way. Not being sick, but not having had a childhood. So, my heart go out to those children I feel their pain."

Bradley asks a compound question which makes it easier for the interviewee to not answer one of the questions. Jackson does this by not answering the question "What would he (the boy) do?" Jackson only tells us what he did.

Jackson refers to himself as a "child." "Because I never had that chance, too, as a child." When a person refers to himself as a "child" this is an indication the person was sexually molested before his 18th birthday. Most people will refer to themselves as a "kid", "boy" or "girl" but not as a "child." This word is even more important because Jackson is facing child molestation charges.

As soon as he calls himself a "child" he asked a question, "You know?" A question in the middle of a statement draws suspicion. Jackson never expected Bradley to answer the question. By his question he may want Bradley to assume (you know). Assume nothing. Only believe what people tell you.

After asking this question, Jackson stumbles over his words. "That the -- and so, I know what it -- it felt like in that way." The fact that he asked a question and stumbled over his words immediately after referring to himself as a "child" is significant.


Desiree's note: As I have documented in my previous post, Michael Jackson was a sexual abuse victim himself. That McClish could tell this in an interview--based purely on Michael's words--is truly astounding! The fact that he finds Michael's reference to himself as 'child' when the charges are molestation of a child makes me wonder if he is hinting at the cyclical nature of abuse.

Bradley: "What was going through your mind when you're taken into a police station, in handcuffs, to have a mug shot taken, that you know is gonna be shown around the world?"

Jackson: They did it to try and belittle me, to try and to take away my pride. But I went through the whole system with them. And at the end, I-- I wanted the public to know that I was okay, even though I was hurting."

Ask yourself this same question. What would be going through your mind? Probably the fact that you have not done anything wrong and yet you are being handcuffed and taken to the police station. Jackson never mentions this. Here is an opportunity to proclaim his innocence and he fails to do so.

Jackson then goes on to say that he was mistreated when he was taken into custody.

Bradley: "What happened when they arrested you? What did they do to you?"

Jackson: "They were supposed to go in, and just check fingerprints, and do the whole thing that they do when they take somebody in. They manhandled me very roughly. My shoulder is dislocated, literally. It's hurting me very badly. I'm in pain all the time. This is, see this arm? This is as far as I can reach it. Same with this side over here."

Jackson continues to talk about being handcuffed saying:

Jackson: "Yeah. And putting it, they put it in a certain position, knowing that it's going to hurt, and affect my back. Now I can't move. I — I — it keeps me from sleeping at night. I can't sleep at night."

Jackson states that the police "manhandled" him to the point that his shoulder is dislocated "literally." The word "literally" is not needed. Deceptive people will often use additional words to make their statement sound believable. Jackson wants us to believe the police handcuffed him in such a way "knowing that it's going to hurt." Jackson's arrest was so well documented with video tape that it is hard to imagine the police would purposely manhandle him.

Jackson:   "Then one time, I asked to use the restroom. And they said, "Sure, it's right around the corner there." Once I went in the restroom, they locked me in there for like 45 minutes. There was doo doo, feces thrown all over the walls, the floor, the ceiling. And it stunk so bad. Then one of the policemen came by the window. And he made a sarcastic remark. He said, "Smell — does it smell good enough for you in there? How do you like the smell? Is it good?" And I just simply said, "It's alright. It's okay." So, I just sat there, and waited." 

Bradley:   "For 45 minutes? "

Jackson:   "Yeah, for 45 minutes. About 45 minutes. And then — then one cop would — come by, and say, "Oh, you'll be out in — in a second. You'll be out in a second." Then there would be another ten minutes added on, then another 15 minutes added on. They did this on purpose."

Desiree's note: Originally, when I first began to research into Michael's life, trials, and tribulations following his death, I believed he'd been 'manhandled' by police, not to mention actually kept into a room with 'doo doo' smeared on the walls. However, I am all the more wiser. I remember distinctly Michael going into the police station sort of swinging his arms in a 45 degree angle behind his back. Now, I believe he was merely showing to his supporters that he'd been arrested...unjustly.


Here is video of Michael talking to Ed Bradley about the so-called police brutality he'd suffered while in custody. He's so totally lying! Just my humble opinion, anyway.

"They locked me in there for like 45 minutes." The word "like" means it was not 45 minutes.
"Yeah, for 45 minutes. About 45 minutes." The word "about" tells us it was not 45 minutes.

Everyone has their own personal dictionary. Certain words mean certain things. There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Every word means something different even if only slightly different. Truthful people will remain in consistent in their language. If there is a change, there is justification for the change. Deceptive people will use a variety of words to describe the same thing. This is because they are not speaking from the heart and are making up the story.

In describing the bathroom incident, Jackson uses two different words to describe a police officer.

"Then one of the policemen came by the window."
"Then one cop would — come by, and say..."
With only two references, it is hard to determine if the change in language is justified. However, since he is talking about the same incident and since he uses some of the same language (then one & came by / come by), it would appear the change is not justified.

[removed segment]

Ten years ago, Jackson settled his lawsuit. The family in this case says they will not file a lawsuit. Jackson responds to this by saying:

Jackson:   "Somewhere greed got in there, and somebody-- I-- I can't quite say. But it has to do with money. It's Michael Jackson. Look what we have here. We can get money out of this. That's exactly what happened."

"I cant't quite say." We are not certain what he referring to with this statement. Does he have an idea who is behind this or is there something else he cannot tell us?

"We can get money out of this." If he would have said, "We can get money out of him", he would be talking about the fact that he is a rich person that is being extorted because of his wealth. What does he mean when he uses the word "this"? He may be referring to the sexual act that he committed with this boy.

Bradley: "As-- as we sit here today, do you still think that it's acceptable to share your bed with children?" 

Jackson:   "Of course. Of course. Why not? If you're gonna be a pedophile, if you're gonna be Jack the Ripper, if you're gonna be a murderer, it's not a good idea. That I'm not. That's how we were raised. And I met-- I didn't sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it's okay. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child."

Jackson tells us he believes it is okay to share his bed with children. He then goes on to say "If you're gonna be a pedophile, if you're gonna be Jack the Ripper, if you're gonna be a murderer, it's not a good idea. That I'm not." What is he referring to when he says "That I'm not"? Is he talking about not being a pedpohile, Jack the Ripper and a murderer? Or is he only talking about not being one of those things?

"I didn't sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it's okay." His statement "Even if I did, it's okay" makes us wonder if he is being truthful when he denies sleeping with the kid. Later in the interview, he repeats this statement.

Bradley: "Do you know how this looks to a lot of people? I mean, do you understand that?"

Jackson: "How does what look?"

Bradley: "How the fact that you—"

Jackson: "Know why? People think sex. They're thinking sex. My mind doesn't run that way. When I see children, I see the face of God. That's why I love them so much. That's what I see." 

Jackson answers a question with a question. This means he was asked a sensitive question. He was not looking for clarification because he does not allow Bradley to answer his question "How does what look?"

"People think sex. They're thinking sex. My mind doesn't run that way." Since he was talking about how people "think" it would have been a stronger denial if Jackson would have said "My mind doesn't think that way."


Desiree's note: Although McClish is the expert, and not me, I find the dissection of Michael's use of 'run' over 'think' to be a little knit-picky. But, again, I am no expert at 'statement analysis' and I have yet to receive and read his book.

Bradley: "Do you know any other man your age, a 45-year-old man, who shares his bedroom with children?"

Jackson: "Of course. Not for sex. No. That's wrong."

Bradley: "Well, let me-- let me say, from my perspective, my experience, I don't know any 45 year old men, who are not relatives of the children, who share their bedroom with other children."

Jackson: "Well, what's wrong with sharing your bed? I didn't say I slept in the bed. Even if I did sleep in the bed, it's okay. I am not going to do anything sexual to a child. It's not where my heart is. I would never do anything like that. That's not Michael Jackson. I'm sorry. That's someone else."

Here we have the questionable statement again "Even if I did sleep in the bed it's okay." Jackson does issue a good denial. "I am not going to do anything sexual to a child." However, he then says, "That's not Michael Jackson. I'm sorry. That's someone else." We all know what he is trying to say here. But, he may be telling us that he has a split personality. Michael Jackson would never do these things, but "someone else" might. We see possible further evidence of a split personality when he apologizes ("I'm sorry") for that someone else.


Desiree's note: I have heard discussion that Michael Jackson could have compartmentalized facets of his personality into different and distinct personalities. Although multiple personality disorder seems fictional, it has been said that those with the disorder have almost always been victims of severe childhood abuse. Is it possible that one of Michael's personalities is a molester of children (possibly his dominant personality)? If he has the disease, it is possible...

Bradley: "What-- what has this done to your career?"

Jackson: "What-- what has it done to my career?"

Bradley:  "What has it done to your career?"

Jackson:  "In what way?"

Bradley: "How has it impacted-- you know—"

Jackson: "I'm-- my album—"

Bradley: "--touring, record sales—"

Jackson: "--album is number one all over the world. All over the world. America is the one, because I-- I don't wanna say too much."

Bradley: "But it's not number one in the United States?"

Jackson: "It's a conspiracy. Yeah. I’m getting tired."

Jackson answers the question with a question which means he was asked a sensitive question. He never does answer the question "What has it done to your career?"

Bradley: "Michael, what would you say to you-- your fans, who have supported you through all of this, and-- and who today, some of them might have questions? What would you say to them?"

Jackson: "Well, I would tell them I love them very much. And I-- I-- they've learned about me, and know about me from a distance. But if you really want to know about me, there's a song I wrote, which is the most honest song I've ever written. It's the most autobiographical          song I've ever written. It's called, "Childhood." They should listen to it. That's the one they really should listen to. And thank you for your support, the fans around the world. I love you with all my heart. I don't take any of it for granted. Any of it. And I love them dearly, all over the world."

Here is another opportunity for Jackson to say "I didn't do it." "I did not molest this boy." But, as he does in previous statements throughout the years, he neglects to say such a thing. We will all have to wait and see how things turn out this time for Michael Jackson.

* * * * *

Mark McClish has other famous cases on his website that you can look through and it will help you more fully understand how statement analysis is used.

I do have one concern, though: there seems to be a heavy emphasis on grammar usage in the speech patterns of the subject being analyzed, whereas body language analysis is not so focused on an area that could potentially be problematic for an individual not well-versed in grammar rules.

I have noticed that some Jacksons do not speak very well, like Jermaine, for example. Could it be that said subject lacks the proper formality and is marked as 'deceptive' when the deception is nebulous or not there at all?

However, that aside, I think the vast majority of individuals (English speakers) use language in such a typical way that someone like McClish can quantify the types of verbal cues that indicate truthfulness/deception. His analysis on Michael Jackson, at the very least, provides insight. Now I have to go through the transcripts again.

I feel emboldened in my belief that Brett Barnes has been lying all these years!

Re: Michael's sexuality: was Michael molested?

It is probably evident from my previous 'Re: Michael's sexuality' blog entries (and the comment threads beneath them) that I don't buy into the 'Michael Jackson-have-you-seen-my-childhood?' nonsense. Because it is nonsense. I've said it before and I will say it again: all of that was PR spin following the Jordie Chandler allegations and subsequent 'hush money' payoff. 

Sony Music had to know that a grown man sleeping in the bed with young boys was suspicious enough, but, coupled with accusations of improper sexual conduct upon one of Michael's sleepover buddies, it didn't look good. 

How did they solve the problem?

They turned one hell of a 'lemon' situation into moderately digestible 'lemonade': Michael Jackson lost his childhood; the sleepovers were nothing more than innocent fun for a 30-something man-child. If you disagree, says Michael, you are 'ignorant'; if you disagree, says his fans, you have a 'dirty mind'.

Well, I must have one ignorant, dirty mind because I didn't buy Michael's faux tears nor am I convinced by his explanation of why he continued to do them. His whole attitude towards the sleepovers reeks of compulsion, my goodness!

Given my research, I believe there exists more than enough reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson's seeming predilection for youthful companions was based in something more sinister than his 'wanting to relive a childhood lost'.

But, in all fairness, even though it is not a justification for Michael's alleged crimes against small innocent children, he did lose out on his childhood to a certain extent. He was horribly abused.

Of course, that does seem like old news. Most people are fully aware of Michael's childhood trauma because he seemed to relate it to anyone who'd listen: Oprah Winfrey in 1993, the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as evidenced in his book The Michael Jackson Tapes, and Martin Bashir in Living with Michael Jackson.

However, the beatings aren't the whole story, I have discovered. Although Michael himself never mentioned it, there seems to exist enough reasonable suspicion that he was also sexually abused.