Little known witnesses: is everyone a liar?

Seeing the myriad group of workers that eventually spoke out against Michael Jackson (the so-called "Neverland Five", the Hayvenhurst bodyguards, the Lemarques, the Quindoys, Blanca Francia, Charli Michaels, late PR man Bob Jones, etc.), it is certainly a fair assumption to make that if any pedophilia occurred at Neverland, his employees were sure to have seen it.

This is not to say that everyone on Michael Jackson's payroll 'revealed all'--quite the contrary; Michael still had many handsomely-paid cheerleaders--but a decent amount of them did claim to witness reasonably suspicious behavior, even so much as molestation.

But, given the discourse regarding Michael's alleged boy-loving indiscretions within the fan community, many, if not most, of the individuals above are seen as liars, peddling salacious stories to tabloids for small fortunes at Michael Jackson's expense.

If I am allowed a brief diversion, selling stories to the tabloids is not a credibility killer. Not even in the slightest. 

What does annihilate credibility is lying.

Regardless of what Michael's defenders think they know about these Neverland workers, we do not know--either way--if they were simply dispensing fibs! Ralph Chacon reportedly passed not one, but, two polygraph tests over the things he claimed to have seen.

However, the fact Michael Jackson never sued any tabloid that reported the stories of these workers is certainly telling. He could have cited libel but he did not. That gives me cause to believe them.

While browsing and reading court documents on the Santa Barbara County website, I discovered the motion submitted by District Attorney Tom Sneddon regarding the so-called 'prior sexual offenses' committed by Michael Jackson.

Not surprisingly, he lists most of Michael's 'special friends' as having been victims of sexual abuse: Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and, of course, millionaires Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia.

It should be noted that all, except the latter two, disavowed any notion of having been molested by Michael Jackson.

Nevertheless, the alleged victimization of these boys is based upon the testimonies, depositions, and/or police interviews of former Michael Jackson employees, all of whom were listed as potential witnesses in the State's case.

As I read the document, spotting many familiar names, I was surprised to notice employees most fans had never heard about as having spoken against Michael, or, at least, confirming the easily recognizable fact that Michael Jackson had a 'thing' for young boys.

Among these former employees was Jolie Levine.

As a testament to her proximity to Michael Jackson, her name appeared in the production credits of his Bad album:

(As an interesting aside, Mary Coller, appearing just above Levine, also gave testimony about Michael's boy-loving!)

Page 260 of the paperback edition of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized goes into more detail about Levine's job description:

Jolie Levine had been in the record business for seven years--first as an executive at Qwest Records, then as a production coordinator on the Bad album--when Michael hired her to be his secretary in mid-1987. For the next two years Levine kept track of his schedule and his appointments, took his phone calls, served as his liaison with accountants, attorneys, managers--in short, all the duties of an executive secretary.

Levine was also called upon to run personal errands for Michael--to buy him clothes, household items, and,  frequently, gifts for his friends.... [O]ften she was dispatched by Michael to buy toys for the young boys he had befriended. 

Basically, Levine was a secretary who dealt with the typical goings-on of the Michael Jackson enterprise. She also joined Michael on his Bad Tour as his assistant.

According to Levine's summarized testimony as it appeared in Sneddon's motion, Michael exhibited the curiously correlative behavior he'd exhibited with all other parents of young boys: he became close to Levine's son and attempted to lavish Levine with expensive gifts.

I cannot help but wonder had Levine accepted Michael's gifts, instead of wisely turning down such gratuitous bribes, and became besotted with her wealthy and exceedingly famous employer, instead of wanting to maintain a professional relationship, could her son have been yet another "alleged" victim of sexual molestation?

Because that seems to be the pattern with so many parents of Michael's 'special friends': Michael sensed that they could be swayed, as many would be, by luxury items and spoiled them, all the while he surreptitiously molested their sons.

Perhaps Levine's wisdom, as we will see, was her son's best protection.

Also mentioned in the document was Levine's knowledge of the de facto sleeping arrangements Michael kept whenever he was with young boys.

Page 261 of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized:

Whatever city they were in around the world, Levine said, she would walk into Michael's hotel room and find her boss in bed with his young friend. There was always a second bed in the room, and it was, according to Levine and other witnesses, never slept in. When she saw Michael at the end of the day, her pajama-clad employer would be back in bed in his hotel room--again with his young companion.

It is well known by now that Michael Jackson shared his bed with young boys. The fans, of course, subscribe to the 'innocence' argument, saying Michael was reliving a lost childhood and 'sleepovers' were a necessary aspect of regaining one's lost youth.

Utter nonsense.

It should be noted many child stars never went on to share their beds with children and become the brunt of pedophilia innuendo and accusations they'd molested boys.

Even if a fan does not want to label Michael a pedophile, they can, at least, acknowledge the apparent need Michael had when it came to these sleepovers.

But Michael Jackson sleeping with Jimmy Safechuck was not the only suspicious thing Levine witnessed. Page 51 of Bob Jones and Stacy Brown's Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask explains:

One of the oddest things that happened occurred at Paris' DeCrillion Hotel. Jolie Levine, Jackson's assistant at the time, found a bed sheet in the King's hotel bedroom. On it, Michael had drew a picture of Peter [Jimmy Safechuck] and himself. Also written on the sheet was what amounted to a love note to the boy. Worried that if a housekeeper got hold of the sheet, it could end up in the hands of the media or law enforcement, we had our secretary pack it, taking it with us. That sheet was the first tangible clue that Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, was up to no good with this young kid.

Jones went on to tell of how, while in Nice, France, Michael's then-manager, Frank DiLeo, found a hotel sheet "painted with human feces." I will make a wager this bed sheet was also 'packed up' by Michael's dutiful staff in order to conceal their boss' predilection for shit.

But after seeing these encounters (and undoubtedly many others), it is no surprise Jolie Levine went on to call Michael Jackson, while she was being questioned by police in 1993, a "chicken hawk", a slang term for pedophile.*

Levine, of course, reverted to the predictable Jackson spin and Code of Silence, disavowing her use of the term, as mentioned in a Los Angeles Times article at the time of the scandal:

Among other edited depositions filed Monday in connection with the lawsuit is one taken from Jolie Levine, who worked as Jackson's secretary for two years starting in 1987. Levine told the lawyers that she called Jackson a "chicken hawk," a slang term for a pedophile, when police interviewed her about the allegations against her former boss.

"And when you told that to the detectives or the police, you meant by that that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, correct?" asked Robert Turner, an associate of Feldman who also is representing the boy.

"I was caught off guard, angry, surprised," Levine said. "I didn't really mean saying that."

'Chicken hawk', it should be noted, is a very explicit term to level against another person. If Michael Jackson was so innocent and blameless of any wrong-doing against boys, as his legions of fans would have you to believe, why would Jolie Levine use such language?

Her protestations of being 'caught off guard', 'angry', and 'surprised' do not seem to cut it in my view!

The only reasonable explanation behind her use of such a word is that she thought Michael Jackson was a pedophile and was capable of molesting young boys.

Like Debbie Rowe calling Michael a 'sociopath' to detectives in 2004, I imagine Levine gushed to police, and calling her former boss a 'chicken hawk' felt long overdue, given what she'd experienced under Michael Jackson's employ.

Jolie Levine was Michael's secretary and his assistant. Unlike the Hayvenhurst bodyguards, Blanca Francia, and the so-called Neverland Five of ill-repute, she never sought stardom or publicity, if that is to be the standard measure of a Jackson detractor's truthfulness. She cooperated with police and told them what she'd seen as his worker.

That testimony just happened to include calling Michael Jackson--who slept with young boys and scrawled love letters on hotel sheets (in pen or feces or both)--a 'chicken hawk'. I find it hard to doubt her honesty.

Diverting a bit, I often wonder how many people, outside of his employees, have seen Michael Jackson display suspicious behavior with regard to young boys and 'special friends'.

Earlier this year, we heard an anecdote from Kiss' Gene Simmons, who believed Michael molested boys and claimed to know of a musician who quit after seeing boys go in and out of Michael Jackson's hotel room.

Naturally, Michael Jackson's fans descended upon the story and sunk their teeth into Simmons, sometimes leaving frighteningly hypocritical and ironic comments:

claudiajackson41:

so thinketh a man so is he. Because that's something he would do so that's why he thinks Michael is that way, but we all know the truth.

Love you more Michael

peace

Oubah:

JEALOUS PIECE OF CRAP. I wonder how many little girls he has raped that dirty a**hole.

mjthinker:

Thank you everyone for your hearty rants! i read this yesterday and felt so terrible, but i didn't want to bring any bad energy to the board, so i didn't post it. but all night i felt sick after reading it.

now i feel better! yes, this guy Gene has a serious sexual perversion if he feels the need to sleep with over 4,000 women and talk about it!! and i mean, ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. look at him!!!

mugsyam:

I have always hate KISS and Gene Simmons but wow now I really hate him. He "bedded" more 4600 women and calls Michael a child molester. Have you seen him without the make up (or really even with)? I may catch slack for this one, but I bet a few of those supposed 4600 women may not have been willingly. And a few had to be blind. All the women Gene ever slept with-supposedly-were disease ridden groupie wh0re$ that would blab to anyone that would listen that they had sex with Gene. While Michael was always in the company of true ladies that did not kiss and tell.......and their IQ's were probably more than Gene and any given bimbo of his combined too.

Jealous much Gene??

MJsTink87:

wow, this is one jealous messed up sick idiot who has some serious issues. you can bet he is getting a message from me.

I realize these comments are ancillary but fan psychosis is often too funny to pass up. Of course, anyone who says anything negative about Michael Jackson is either a pervert in their own right or utterly jealous of the man's success!

Yes, we shall forget Kiss was one of the biggest rock bands of the 1970s and Gene Simmons is a legend to fans of classic rock.

It was a little later that one of Michael's guitarists, Jennifer Batten, who'd worked with Michael on his Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory Tours, came out and supposedly disputed his claims.

I thought she left herself an interesting escape route, since ambiguity is the safe place of those out of The Know. From a Charles Thomson blog post:

Was it true, I asked her, that a musician had quit one of Jackson's tours while on the road?

"Number one," said Batten, "there's no truth to it. Number two, I would guess that it was somebody who got fired. Somebody who was embarrassed that they got fired and made-up a story."

But did any musicians ever get fired mid-way through a tour?

"No. Nuh-uh. No, there were a couple of people who got fired like a week before we took out on the road."

If any musician left Michael Jackson's employ, it could never have been because of moral scruples regarding Michael Jackson's conduct. It was because they were less than satisfactory at their jobs. I have a strong suspicion Batten did not know as much as she thinks she knows, not to mention her loyalties to Michael are  forged in titanium. He did pluck her from utter obscurity.

Interestingly enough, Batten revealed on her own accord that it is highly likely she knew very little about the goings-on with regard to Michael Jackson. According to an interview with Jackson fans on her website, she confessed Michael was quite distant and separate from her and other 'employees' on his tours:

“We were looking at things in a shop when MJ came up behind us (Sheryl and her) and started talking to us. It surprized us because we'd only seen him surrounded by security whenever we were out with him and never bothered trying to get close.” ....

“There were 100 people on the tours and we took up 3 different hotels for the most part.” ....

“I was an employee along with 5 other musicians. We didn't socialize much outside of rehearsals but would do a group prayer before every show.” ....

“He'd review rehearsal tapes and make suggestions for changes to the musical director.”

Note, in particular, that Jennifer Batten states three different hotels were used during one tour, which is suggestive of a pattern Michael could have used while touring.

Is it not possible that the musicians saying Jackson had boys going in and out of his room, as Gene Simmons suggested, had shared a hotel with Michael but not Batten? It certainly is!

It is true: Simmons was not on tour as Batten had been; however, knowing the revelations as reported by Jolie Levine of Michael Jackson sleeping with Jimmy Safechuck every night in every city, not to mention Batten herself acknowledged the disconnect between Jackson and his staff, it is unlikely that the musicians with whom Simmons conversed were fibbing out of thin air. They'd had to seen something that Batten would not necessarily be able to refute.

Is it really unfathomable that Simmons, knowing by proxy Michael Jackson's boy habits, would, like Levine, think Michael was a pedophile?

I don't think so at all.

Gene Simmons, however, does not count as a witness since even the best connections in Tinseltown amount to nothing more than heresay.

James Hudnall is a more convincing bystander.

Hudnall wrote of his own encounter with Michael Jackson entitled, "My Disturbing Michael Jackson Experience" only one day after Michael died. He dates the 'experience' as being from 1993. Curiously enough, his brush with Michael Jackson included Jordie Chandler.

The tale is disturbing. I will paste some of it here:

Coincidentally, I was living in Encino, California in 1993. The Jackson family lived not far from me. I would see Joe Jackson at the supermarket or Randy at the car wash. But I never expected to meet Michael. About once a week I would go over the hill to Golden Apple Comics on Melrose. It was owned by a friend, the late Bill Liebowitz, and I also had a bunch of friends who worked there. They told me Michael was a big customer. He would go there with a group of kids and buy them whatever they wanted. He would often spend thousands on those days....

Everyone I know who knew him said he was a very nice guy, kind of quiet and he did a lot with charity. No one had a bad thing to say about him. But I did detect a certain reluctant vibe when discussing Michael with my friends at the store. They didn’t say why, but they felt he was weird. And this is from people who worked at a store on Melrose in L.A.

So one day I came in the store and one of my friends told me Jackson was in the store. And there he was, over by the comics rack. He had his arm around someone like he was on a date. That someone was Jordy Chandler.

I walked over to the long racks and pretended not to notice them. Jackson had his people with him including his driver. That driver was later a witness against Jackson in his trial.

Jackson was whispering in Jordy’s ear and they were acting totally like people on a date. It was not the kind of behavior a couple of straight guys do together. Then they went back in the store in the employee area and disappeared. They were gone for a half hour. I stuck around and talked to my friends, just shooting the breeze. I assumed Jackson left by the back door to avoid people. But Bill the owner asked me if I wanted to meet Michael Jackson, and I said, sure.

Jackson reappeared, and left the store. I went out there with Bill and he introduced me. Jordy had detached from Michael and went to the black SUV. I didn’t shake hands with Jackson, I only got to exchange pleasantries. But I noticed something, when I tried to look him in the eyes, he had this very evasive…almost crazed look. Like someone who had just committed a crime and didn’t want anyone to see them. It was weird.

I’ve met a lot of famous celebs and have never seen them as anything other than people. People who work in the entertainment industry, which I was doing at the time myself. So I’ve been very laid back in these encounters. So I know it was nothing I did that made him look at me like that. I thought, “Man, is he paranoid or what? Maybe he’s on something.”

After they took off, I went back in the store to buy some comics and I asked one of my friends what they were doing in the back room for so long. He said Michael and Jordy were in the bathroom for a half hour.

Yeah.

I said, huh? He said that’s not unusual for him.

Now, I don’t know what they did in there, but it was a small one-person bathroom. And I can only think of a couple reasons two people would go into a small bathroom together. One of the nice reasons is they were helping the other with their costumes. He wasn’t wearing anything that out of the ordinary. So that leaves the other two reasons, since we can assume Jordy is potty trained at 13. Sex or drugs.

When the story about the molestation broke a few months later, that pretty much made up my mind which reason it was.

A lot of people say Michael Jackson did not molest kids. Maybe not. But I have a hard time believing it.

It was not unusual for Michael to be in the bathroom for half an hour with the young male friends he'd bring to the comic book store?

Certainly telling.

Hudnall was attacked in the comments' section but defended his story to the naysayers:

ElaineC said:

I'm kind of surprised with a story like this to tell that you were not subpoenaed for the trial. Did you consider contacting the prosecutors in the case?

James Hudnall in reply:

I did, but when th (sic) trial was going on they seemed to have plenty of evidence. But they screwed up. Further, I would have had to involve my friends at the store, and the owner, and they would probably have hated me for that. I often think I should have got involved. But I was not even living in California when the trial started. I did post this story on my blog back at that time, though. It was not a secret I kept. I told a lot of people

Burrrbank said:

This is a creepy, 16 year-old, one-sided, unverifiable story best left in your memory. You couldn't have known then the name of any child Michael Jackson was with, but it sure is luridly sensational to claim it in this pathetic grab at fame at the expense of a dead man. The story is unfit for this site.

James Hudnall in reply:

I don't expect any fame from this nor do I want it. I just feel it should be told because people need to know the truth

David S said:

What kind of people regularly witness a grown man and a child spending extended time in a single stall bathroom, and do nothing about it? Apparently the same kind that hangout in Hollywood comic book stores. Quite the paradise you've made for yourselves out there. City of Angels my ass.

James Hudnall in reply:

I didn't see them go in. I saw them go in the back room. The bathroom was back there but a wall blocks you from seeing it in the front of the store. Reread the story. Someone who worked there told me they went in teh (sic) bathroom and they did that often. This was after they had already left the store.

James Hudnall said:

To clear up some confusion some people are having with this story: I did not know who Jordy Chandler was at the time. I did not know how old he was. He looked like he could have been 15 or so to me. I also didn't know at the time what we all "know" now, because this was before any molestation charges ever surfaced against Michael. So I had no reason to think that is what he was up to. I just got the feeling he was after the events of that day. When the molestation charges broke, it solidified my suspicions.

But at the time, I had no reason to react as some people thought I should have. I mean, Jackson was a weird guy who acted like a kid. He had a lot of people fooled into accepting such strange behavior with a shrug. It wasn't until after all the stories came out that people started being creeped out by him. Until that point he was just Michael.

If his story is to be believed (and I do believe him), Hudnall represents yet another 'onlooker', another silent witness stifled because all they have is a gut-based 'reasonable suspicion'.

Like Levine, Hudnall--after what he saw--believed Michael Jackson was a 'chicken hawk', a child molester.

And this all goes to the main point of this meandering blog entry: is everyone a liar?

Michael Jackson fans' reactionary position is to label everyone a liar if they say anything negative about Michael or err on the side that his conduct with little boys was criminal. But that is more than a little naive.

So what are the rules fans uphold when determining the truthfulness of a Michael Jackson naysayer? Do they have to have not sold a story to the tabloids? Do they have to have not lost a lawsuit against Michael Jackson?

If either choices reflect the 'rules', the believability of both Jolie Levine and James Hudnall seem pretty solid.

Gene Simmons, who was conspicuously out of The Know regarding Michael Jackson's affairs, still resides in Hollywood and still frequents celebrity circles. Perhaps the musicians to whom he refers simply slipped him information through the proverbial grapevine: Michael Jackson was sleeping with young boys during his tours.

But how untruthful is that really? Is it totally incomprehensible?

Did he not share a bed with Brett Barnes for an entire year while on the Dangerous Tour, according to Karlee Barnes' 2005 testimony?

Did Jolie Levine not testify to seeing Michael Jackson in bed with Jimmy Safechuck while on the Bad Tour?

Did Michael Jackson himself not reveal to the entire world he believed sharing a bed with an unrelated child was a 'beautiful thing'?

It seems, in my opinion, at least, that the likelihood of a so-called 'disgruntled' Jackson musician making up stories along the 'little boys going in and out of Michael's hotel room' tangent because he was let go is very slim.

I wonder how many other people exist with stories of Michael Jackson's pedophilia, those who have not spoken out, or written books, or sold stories to tabloids. Tom Sneddon's document linked earlier in this post mentions other little known Jackson employees.

But what would be the point of saying anything against the King of Pop? Michael Jackson got to exist in a world where families were given Rolls Royces, expensive jewelry, and checks in the millions in exchange for their sons' bodies. He could build an amusement park in his front yard, fill his house with candy and junk food, ply cancer patients with alcohol, and still be canonized as a saint--a Great--upon death.

Because he made Thriller and could moonwalk.

The anecdote of a lowly secretary would mean nothing to the thousands of fans trying to 'vindicate' Michael Jackson; lesser still is that of a little known blogger.

Because everyone is a liar, we know. Even with three accusations of child sexual abuse, two documented multimillion dollar payoffs (well, three if we count the $300,000 given to Ruby and David Martinez of Argentina as part of an ongoing payment plan), a jury trial wherein tons of clues to his alleged pedophilia were revealed--Michael Jackson can do no wrong.

The reality is there were many witnesses to Michael Jackson's abuse or alleged abuse of young boys. It is true that some of them sold stories to the tabloids and some of them were unsuccessful in their lawsuits against Michael.

However, does any of that really matter?

At least with Jolie Levine and James Hudnall it shouldn't; with them, there are two witnesses that can at least vouch for Michael Jackson's 'reasonably suspicious' behavior with young boys. I happen to find them unimpeachable.

_______________________________________________________________________________

* Interestingly enough, this term is the title of a documentary, Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, which features the "man/boy love" advocacy group NAMBLA as well as assorted pedophiles.

It is about an hour long but provides a very interesting glimpse into the mind of pedophiles.

Again, why would you call someone a 'chicken hawk' if they did not exhibit the signs and symptoms of pedophilia? We can only wonder why Jolie Levine reneged on her previous choice of words.

Sadness/Frustration/Rage, a writer's nightmare

So, I had this blog post I'd been writing for a few days now--

It should be quite apparent to any reader who frequents my blog more than occasionally that I post entries rather sporadically. 

It should also be apparent to this same reader that my blog entries are quite lengthy, full of research, and obviously labors of love.

So...

I had a very long entry I'd been working on and was going post Monday, November 22nd. But--

the whole fucking thing was inadvertently deleted. 

Now... I am post-less, and I am working from scratch, trying so damned hard to remember everything that disappeared in a moment of haphazardness. The tragedy of my writing style is that I typically use my typing fingers as the sort of exit point for what streams through my mind. Unfortunately, that is no good when you've deleted a post.

By accident.

The funniest thing is I was sitting at my computer hours and hours before this most infuriating event and, as I marveled at the amount of work I'd put in thus far--because today was a wonderful day of progress and mental creativity, I thought to myself, Desiree, wouldn't it be horrible if all of a sudden this post disappeared?

Naturally, I cringed at the thought and told myself it was impossible.

However, it is not so impossible.....

So, at this point, I am so fucking pissed off and I don't feel like writing. I feel like crying but that is something that does not come easily in these circumstances. At least for me.

Now, I wouldn't mind having someone to blame but, alas, I can only blame myself. It was my highlighting and my "delete" key. I can't even remember what happened. I guess I was so excited to get a post out that I got sloppy and reckless in tidying up loose ends before moving on to the final segment of the piece--

And, then... sadness.

Now, I've lost work before. I had a flash drive with good fiction on it and, because I am a messy, right-brained person, I think it fell off my desk and into the trash can. That hurt, but not as bad is this. I think it's the aspect of sharing these posts with other people; that lost fiction was private, my eyes only.

So.... for everyone who reads my blog, I anticipate another day or two that you will have to come on and roll your eyes because Desiree has still not posted anything new.

I just thought you all ought to know. This is a very sad way to end this Sunday evening.

I feel sick. And discombobulated. I'm going to have to have some time to get my thoughts together. Yes, I could try to write to something else in the vault but there really is a sequential pattern to these things. This lost post was supposed to be next and nothing else can come before it.

And to think: I've been writing all day long.

I think it's the Curse of Jacko. My mother thinks this is the same reason my hard drive crashed in October, because I was talking 'bad' about Michael.

I don't know... 

All I do know for certain is that, for one brief moment, I could have plunged my hand through a human chest and pulled out a beating heart. With no remorse either. I'm calm now, although madness seems to still agitate every nerve in my body.

Really... this is not me being dramatic. I lost a ton of work. I worry that it won't be as good as the original when I go to rewrite it, too....

Welcome to my fucking (!!!) Hell.

Goodnight,

Your Humble Narrator.

EXPLOSIVE PROOF: Michael Jackson was gay

Desiree's note (5-2-2012): Although this entry is about a year-and-a-half old, it continues to be the most popular post on my website. Because many people every day still search out evidence as to whether Michael Jackson was gay (alternately, some discoverers of this entry are looking for evidence of Jackson not being gay), I urge readers of this piece to also read the other much longer entry about the findings presented here.

PLEASE CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO READ THE FULL AND UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE "EXPLOSIVE PROOF" OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S HOMOSEXUALITY:

 An Addendum to "Michael Jackson was gay"

___________________________________________________________________________

As the title suggests, I have found evidence proving that Michael Jackson was indeed a homosexual (or, rather, had a definite and now tangible interest in males). However, before the proverbial 'reveal', let us briefly note some of the "Michael Jackson was gay" stories, whether they be believable or not, that have come out over the years...

Precursors to the real proof?

I ask that the following be taken and processed in our heads because understanding anyone is a holistic endeavor. That is, while individual pieces of information about a person can be taken or dismissed at will and often on a context-neutral basis, it is much harder to ignore a breadth of information that ostensibly details a common theme. And, in the case of Michael Jackson's mysterious (some could argue possibly criminal) sexuality, the whole is often greater, and more accurate, than the sum of its individual parts.

Shortly after Michael's untimely death, investigative journalist Ian Halperin published his book Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson. Although Halperin spent roughly nine chapters rehashing pro-Michael Jackson spin regarding his child molestation cases in 1993 and 2005, claiming Michael been the victim of 'extortion', 'lies', and 'innuendo', one of the major attractions of his book was that he claimed to have spoken to some of Michael's gay lovers who confirmed the obvious: Michael Jackson was gay. 

Halperin even alleged that Michael had been a 'bottom'--the homosexual partner that is penetrated during  sex--and would dress up as a woman when going out on late-night trysts while he lived in Las Vegas following his child molestation trial.

(My fanfiction along the tangent of Michael's late-night romps with his gay lovers available for reading here.)

However, the believability of Ian Halperin's claims are dependent upon Halperin's ability to prove that these alleged gay lovers--sworn to secrecy through typical Jacko confidentiality agreements--actually existed. But the de facto rule for investigative journalists is that they do not have to reveal their sources of confidential information. Since Halperin's alleged 'Michael Jackson gay lovers' could be neither proved or disproved, the whole story was quickly tossed to the wayside as yet another salacious tabloid rumor, perhaps even made up by the author himself to sell books.

It was then in May 2010 that I chronicled the tantalizing story of Jason Pfeiffer, an attractive but corpulent man, and his revelation that he had been in a two-month love affair with Michael. 

(Check here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a refresher course on that story.)

There is no point in rehashing the whole story, given the above links, but Jason Pfeiffer did not strike anyone as a particularly believable sex partner for Michael due to his heft. Most people thought, at the very least, that the King of Pop would bed a svelte partner.

As of yet, there has been no one to come forward denouncing Jason's story as 'lies'* outside of Michael's family; however, it is well known that Michael Jackson was not close to his family and kept them out of his personal life. All we have is Dr. Arnold Klein's confirmation and Elizabeth Taylor's response to Klein's lack of scruples in airing out a patient's dirty laundry.

(* NOTE: Dr. Arnold Klein has since changed his story on Jason Pfeiffer; he has stated that Jason lied about his relationship with Michael. However, my own contact with Jason and talks with a mutual friend of ours has steadfastly convinced me that Klein's about-face was largely provoked by Jason Pfeiffer's lawsuit against him. PLEASE CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jason Pfeiffer redux: Arnold Klein retracts his "Michael Jackson was gay" comments?)

Taylor never disputed Klein's claim about Michael having been gay, nor did she ever clarify what she meant by her words. All of this caused many fans to either deny her words (or lack of them) through obfuscation or grow angry over the ambiguity. What Taylor had done was merely deride Michael Jackson's former dermatologist for having a big mouth. Despite the obviousness of her lack of a defense of Michael being a tacit confirmation of his homosexuality (or, rather, definite and now tangible interest in males), many fans simply dismissed it; in their dismissal of Taylor, Jackson fans could have missed out on a clue to their idol's conspicuous lack of female companions, let alone interest in them.

Looking in to this whole Jason/Jacko-Klein-Taylor tale, a reader of this blog went 'undercover' investigating Jason Pfeiffer and any web-available friends of his. One friend she came into contact with was a man named Paul Camuso, who had tweeted (look at the tweets around May 2010) in support of Jason following his Extra TV interview in which he revealed he'd been with Michael.

It was via Facebook that she got a hold of Camuso and he sent her the following message:

The support of Jason is strong. But again, if we give Michael Jackson the benefit of the doubt, that above support could be reasonably dismissed as nothing more than hearsay of an alleged relationship that may have never been. It does not mean Camuso himself is a liar or complicit in Jason's alleged 'con-game'; it simply means, because Camuso and Jason Pfeiffer are friends and friendship tends to breed trust, he was gullible enough to buy the story, even if it may not be true.

The alternative, of course, is that these individuals believed Jason because they knew Michael Jackson was, in fact, gay.

But Jason Pfeiffer was not the only man who'd alleged sexual contact (Jason did claim he and Michael's relationship was 'consummated', whatever that may entail) with Michael Jackson.

In April 2004, the late Liberace's ex-boyfriend, Scott Thorson, told the National Enquirer he and Michael had had gay sex back in 1979. That issue of the magazine is unavailable but this site provides an idea of what Thorson said:

Scott also made claims to American tabloid the National Enquirer, alleging he had sex with pop star Michael Jackson. Their sex took place in 1979, shortly after they were introduced by Liberace in Las Vegas, Nevada. Scott recalls,

"The day Michael and I met we hit it off. We spent days running around Las Vegas together. Michael wanted to spend all his free time with me. We are only five months apart [both 20 y.o.] in age so we had a lot in common with each other."

Scott claims his relationship with Jackson intensified in London in the early 80s, where Liberace was performing and Jackson was working on a selection of songs with Paul. Scott continues,

"We were two young men extremely attracted to each other. You could've cut the sexual tension with a knife. I was standing only a few feet away from Michael when he motioned with his hand to come over to him and join him in bed. I climbed onto the bed. Our lovemaking session lasted about an hour."

Scott, who claims he had sex with Jackson again for the final time a day later at Lord Montague's house in the outskirts of London, says he visited the singer on two occasions years later at a hotel where he alleges Jackson was in possession of what looked like gay porn magazines featuring young boys.

While Scott's romance with Liberace later fizzled, his friendship with Jackson also deteriorated because of the singer's alleged porn habit. Scott later fell into a spiral of drug abuse and is now battling hepatitis C.

National Enquirer says it put Scott through a lie detector test over the claims--which he passed in the presence of an expert. And now Scott declares he's willing to testify about his alleged affair in Jackson's current child molestation case. He adds,

"If the district attorney wants to talk to me about my experiences with Michael Jackson I would be more than happy to tell him the truth. And if Michael tries to deny what I've said about our homosexual acts in London, I challenge him to take a polygraph. I did."

Although entirely not as believable as Jason Pfeiffer (Jason, at least, had a man with undeniable proximity to Michael Jackson who could vouch for his story, not to mention another longtime Jackson pal, Elizabeth Taylor, didn't exactly refute Jason's story either), Scott Thorson's tales of sex with Michael Jackson could, in fact, be true. After all, since he is not the only man to claim gay sex with Michael, one could reasonably argue that that increases the probability of his claims having merit.

The caveat to believing Thorson's story, however, is that Thorson has a long drug abuse history. Even though his use of drugs is theoretically irrelevant to the truthfulness of his claims, it justifiably raises a red flag. Perhaps Thorson could have concocted a story for the Enquirer because he was hurting for cash.

Given these circumstances, he proves to be a witness with serious credibility problems.

(NOTE: As of May 2012, Thorson is still saying that he and Jackson had a sexual relationship, according to this story from Entertainment Tonight:

Today, Thorson drops a bombshell regarding Michael Jackson, claiming he and the King of Pop shared an intimate, sexual relationship in the eighties.

"Michael and I had a relationship that... would cross the boundaries," Thorson reveals in an exclusive sit down with ET's Christina McLarty. "That's about all I'm comfortable saying… We were both young."

While he concedes that not many will believe that he and Michael were lovers, he says that the two became unlikely friends while he was dating Liberace. After a period of friendship, their relationship blossomed into more.

It is unclear whether the story is true, but it is telling he continues to maintain it now that he is sober.)

It should be noted that 'Michael Jackson was gay' anecdotes from Ian Halperin, Jason Pfeiffer, and Scott Thorson are not the only stories coming out over the years that add to the idea Michael Jackson had a sexual interest in males. However, the reason they are mentioned here is due to the type of proof I found in support of Michael's alleged homosexuality: if their stories are true, they would corroborate the findings nicely; if not true, they provide evidence to the fact that, in addition to these new findings, Michael Jackson 'seemed so gay' to the point that these men believed that a story claiming Michael was gay would be believable and 'would stick'.

In that context, true or not true, these stories are relevant.

What about the massive collections of heterosexual pornography?

This is a fact that is frequently mentioned by Jackson fans, often out of context and lacking the benefit of multiple prospectives on why it was there and what it's presence could mean; the most important point for Jackson's mostly female fanbase is that it was there. But it is true: police did find lots of pornographic material in Michael's home, loads of it, enough to make Michael's most ardent female defenders blush.

(top: here; bottom: here)

The fact Michael owned these heterosexual materials (more than what is listed above, also read here) would seem to suggest he had at least some particulate interest in women. As the argument often goes, "'Straight men' nearly always have pornography of women." This is a point I will not quibble with: men with a sexual interest in women also have an interest in pornographic images of women. However, this is a trite oversimplification, especially in Michael Jackson's case.

Although Michael did possess heterosexual pornography, there exists nuances. 

For example, although Michael Jackson had commercial pornography featuring women, he also had expensive books featuring nude adult men, most notably a very graphic homosexuality 'primer' called Man: A sexual study of man, as well as a large collection of vintage Nudist periodicals featuring nude men and nude children--experts in pedophilia have often found that pedophiles will collect, specifically, Nudist magazines and images of these resorts because they feature naked children. 

Additionally, the size of Michael's 'collection' of heterosexual pornography should emphasized. It was a collection, not a stash of magazines hidden between a mattress. Michael's female fans will typically cite that Michael was wealthy and, because of his wealth, could 'afford' such quantities. Pedophile experts instruct that size and variety (Michael's was as varied as it was massive) of pornographic materials in the home of someone accused of pedophilia is one of the most dependable factors in proving that that person has a sexual interest in children. Often these very large and very diverse collections serve as ways to lower the inhibition of male children and increase their arousal, making sexual victimization likely. 

(Check out one of the most important pedophile typologies compiled here, published by the United States FBI, which details much of the above information.)

Because of these perfectly logical alternative explanations of Michael Jackson's porn collection being for the purpose of seducing the young boys that, quite frankly, shared his bed, it would be something of a 'rush to judgment' by Jackson defenders to believe that Michael's porn meant he was heterosexual, case closed. It would be especially hasty given that Michael's massive porn collection cannot be corroborated by an outward and obvious interest in the opposite sex: Michael seemed to have no interests whatsoever, as his failed marriages to women seem to suggest.

Ultimately, what the pornography means is entirely debatable and, therefore, cannot be used as any kind of infallible proof that Michael Jackson was a straight man.

The Big Reveal

Of course, in light of newly found evidence, the epic debate over Michael Jackson's 'heterosexuality' seems to be moot. Although it had been moot before, given the serious lack of female companions until after the Jordie Chandler scandal when, all of a sudden, Michael felt the need to be involved with a woman. 

But let's get to the revelation I found as I was digging for documents.

In January 2005, Michael Jackson's defense team sought to exclude certain pieces of evidence they believed to be incendiary, prejudicial, and irrelevant to the case. These pieces of evidence were termed the "14 items", among them being any discussion of the 'Baby-dangling' incident, Michael's gratuitous plastic surgeries, Ray Chandler's All That Glitters, and Victor Gutierrez's Michael Jackson Was My Lover. 

Apparently, the defense team was successful in their motion because none of the "14 items" on the list made it in front of the jury or even into the media (well, no report to which I am aware).

But it was "Item #13" that is of special interest in this post.

(read the original source document)

Did everyone read that carefully?

DNA analysis done on Michael Jackson's mattress uncovered the DNA of TWO UNKNOWN MALES, as well as the DNA from Michael Jackson himself. More DNA analysis uncovered the DNA of ANOTHER UNKNOWN MALE on the bed coverings.

For those too 'shocked' to do the math, IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC TESTING found a total of four semen stains (referred to euphemistically as 'male DNA') on Michael 'womanizer' Jackson's bed.

Blood stains were also found on the mattress, as well as wine stains. From the search transcript:

It would seem that Michael was having a good time: wine, drugs (as evidenced by the blood), and sex.

(A NOTE ON SO-CALLED 'MALE DNA': It needs to be made very, very clear that what was called "male DNA" by the Defense in their "14 items" motion was SEMEN--this was a euphemism on their parts. It was the Prosecution's lab that did the testing on these samples and discovered that they were semen, as you will be able to note in the document link and photos below. It was not saliva, skin flakes, nail clippings, or any other cell that can yield genetic material. It was SEMEN, the biological substance that can only be deposited on mattresses, sheets, mattress pads, and in underwear by MALES.)

It should be noted that no DNA from any woman (that is, no vaginal secretions or menstrual blood) was found on Michael Jackson's bed, only the semen of males, including--and it does bear repeating--Michael Jackson's semen. There had also been semen from a male other than Michael in a pair of underwear in the laundry bag with the semen-stained bed sheets and Michael's own underwear.

From the prosecution's response:

Because the prosecution sought to still include the underwear in their case-in-chief, though it did not contain either the semen from Gavin or Star Arvizo, as proof of Gavin's claim that Michael Jackson would keep the semen-covered underwear in his possession (perhaps after sexual activity with males as well), the defense countered with the suggestion that the underwear in a laundry bag could have been from a guest or family member visiting the ranch. That explanation, however, does not explain the semen stains (referred to as 'male DNA' by Team Jackson) from two different males on Michael's mattress.

Also strange is the fact that, if the Defense's explanation of the semen-stained underwear from this third mystery male is to be seen as reasonable, why would Michael Jackson have his own semen-stained underwear with guests?

That does not seem likely. Those were Michael's nights and the evidence of his sexual activity with males in his own sheets on his own previously-stained mattress!

Interestingly enough, in that motion in response, the Defense stated this particular laundry bag was allegedly found in some sort of storage area at least eight months following Gavin's alleged molestation. But how does that disprove the notion Michael Jackson kept soiled underwear containing the semen from men (or from boys or teenage males) to whom he engaged in sexual activity (his own underwear, it bears repeating, was found with the sheets and the soiled underwear from the same unknown male)? Eight months seems a long time not to wash the linens, especially when he has a fleet of staff who can do the wash for him!

As a strange corroboration, soiled underwear had also been found in the storage unit obtained by New Jersey businessman Henry Vaccaro. (To note, any mention of Henry Vaccaro and the Jackson items found in his storage unit, labeled "Item #12" among the defense's "14 items", was to be barred.)

Ultimately, the underwear in question did not have relevant male DNA (semen from either Gavin or Star Arvizo) and was rightly excluded.

However, there had been reports from staff members that Michael did keep soiled sheets (semen, blood, and feces-encrusted) and segmented them from other laundry to be cleaned. A particularly gruesome report alleged that Michael Jackson's pre-trial stay at the Las Vegas Mirage Hotel resulted in a completely trashed room and feces-strewn sheets. There is no way to verify that story but Michael was blacklisted from staying at any of the hotels on the Las Vegas Strip following the incident. 

All of the above, of course, is ancillary to the fact at hand: Michael Jackson's mattress, mattress pad, bed sheets, and a pair of underwear found in Michael's possession contained the semen of three different males.

If Michael had been uninterested in sex or deemed 'asexual' publicly, he was having sex with males in his own bed at Neverland. This was proven through scientific testing.

Putting it all together...

We have to recall that idea of all of this being a 'holistic endeavor' into understanding Michael Jackson's mysterious sexuality: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 

So what about the aforementioned gay anecdotes? Is it possible that Halperin really did talk to Michael's gay lovers? How about Jason Pfeiffer--could he have really been in a short romantic relationship with Michael as he has suggested? Or what about Scott Thorson's tale? Could their stories now be more plausible, owing to the fact Michael had sexual contact with males?

And what of the rumors Michael Jackson had to face his whole career regarding his sexual orientation, the fact that the public (disregarding his fans) found it plausible that he was gay, so much so they continued to believe and pass on the rumors? What about Jermaine's assertion that all of the Jackson sons hated the idea of having a gay brother? What about Joe Jackson's blow-up at the word 'partner' in relation to Michael's love life?

For me, it always seemed rather obvious that Michael was gay; his legions of female fans simply refused to see what had been right in front of their faces. They cling to Lisa Marie Presley, for even though her union with Michael began suspiciously and ended very quickly, it was at least some proof Michael had been with a woman, someone ("Thank God!" they say) outside of his usual companions of choice: young boys. 

Of course, these fans ignore the fact gay men can have sex with women, as well as the obvious goal of Michael's marriage with Lisa Marie: he wanted children and sex with a woman was the only way to have them, or so he believed at the time before he considered the Debbie Rowe option and using the donor sperm of white men.

But denial and spin--from friends, confidants, and family--does not erase truth, and, in this case, the truth had been established through the scientific analysis of semen stains on Michael Jackson's mattress.

What is quite interesting, retrospectively speaking, is that Michael's defense attorneys never tried to show any kind of evidence of Michael being with a woman. You would think that, had there been any women at all, they would have put them on the stand to repudiate the idea that Michael was sexually interested in young boys like Gavin Arvizo. 

When Wade Robson was questioned by Tom Mesereau on the stand, the only woman he'd seen with Michael was Lisa Marie Presley, a dubious choice if there was any:

7 Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson with women in your

8 lifetime?

9 A. With what kind of woman? A woman that he’s

10 in a relationship with?

11 Q. That he’s been married to.

12 A. Yeah, with Lisa Marie.

It seemed as if Tom Mesereau had to help young Wade: he could not easily recall any woman having been with Michael!

A similar moment of unfamiliarity of the concept of 'Michael + women' occurred when Ronald Zonen questioned Brett Barnes, who'd traveled extensively with Michael while he was the current 'special friend' of choice:

7 Q. Was there ever a woman traveling with Mr.

8 Jackson while you were traveling with him?

9 A. A woman?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I’m not -- what do you mean, though?

12 Q. Somebody with whom he was close to. I don’t

13 mean an assistant. I mean a friend or a girlfriend.

14 A. Not that I recall.

15 Q. At the time that you were traveling with him

16 in South America, was he ever traveling with a

17 woman? And I don’t mean an assistant. A

18 girlfriend.

19 MR. MESEREAU: Object as beyond the scope.

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

As we can see, both men had to evaluate the question before answering it because Michael Jackson never had women around him who were not working for him, save Lisa Marie Presley. The idea was evidently quite foreign to both of these 'special friends' who easily remembered each other, Jordie Chandler, and other boys.

There are innumerable examples of Michael's disinclination for women but I will not list them here. I will say, however, his collection of books showcasing naked men, sometimes engaged in graphic sexual activity, is not the type of collection you'd expect from a heterosexual man, especially a former Jehovah's Witness!

Maybe the notion of the heterosexual pornography being primarily for the boys is not so far-fetched. According to this story on the Smoking Gun, Omer Bhatti, who was questioned following the raid, became nervous when asked about porn:

Investigator Jeffrey Ellis testified [to the Grand Jury] that when he "broached the subject of pornography," [Omer] Bhatti became nervous and "seemed to have trouble forming a sentence. It was almost like a stutter." Ellis added that when he asked Bhatti a series of questions about the consumption of wine and alcohol and references to "Jesus Juice," he saw "that same type of uneasiness in him that I noticed when I started talking to him about pornography."

Whatever the pornography was for (and I believe it was for the boys) and whatever fantasy it represented, the images stayed between the glossy magazine covers, never being realized.

Now, the reality is quite clear, no longer innuendo or cruel rumor, and the evidence speaks for itself: Michael Jackson had sex with men and his semen-soaked mattress proved it back in 2003.


Michael Jackson was gay. Anyone thinking otherwise--even going so far as to try to rationalize these explosive and irrefutable, scientifically-proven facts to provide Michael some possibility of heterosexuality--just need to accept it.

Michael had gay sex. The evidence is there, in black and white, to support this bombshell. What's it to you? Why do we even care if Michael was ever gay? He was; so what?

I will close with an excerpt from page 265 of the paperback edition of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized:

[Kenneth] Choi, who according to staffers "practically lived" at the ranch for a time, claimed that Michael developed an intimate friendship with him as well. Choi and Michael sat on Jackson's bed, and said Choi, "cuddled each other, laughed, and cried. I told him I loved him, and he said he loved me."

It was during one of these "cuddling" sessions in Michael's bedroom, Choi said, that Michael confided in him the reason he could never be intimate with a woman. "Only a woman," Michael claimed, "can destroy me."