Thursday, January 6, 2011

An Addendum to "Michael Jackson was gay"

ETA 8-01-2012:

For decades, Michael Jackson claimed that R&B legend and gay icon, Diana Ross, lead singer of the Motown group The Supremes, was essentially one of the original "loves" of his life; he even helped spur on rumors the two were romantically involved. Other analysis of Jackson's obsession with Ross is in accordance with this entry: Jackson, as with his other older, female friends (all of whom were also gay icons), was simply smitten with her glamour, her larger than life persona, and her commanding diva presence.

According to The Daily Beast,
...the Oscar-nominated actress recounted finding Jackson in her dressing room one day putting on her makeup.

“Diana did love him in a motherly way,” said a friend of the singer. “He lived with her when he first moved to L.A. as a kid, and she tried to look out for him in every way she could. But there was no romantic relationship, no matter what Michael said or thought. He just loved her glamour.
Another account, in Darwin Porter's Jacko, stated that Diana Ross had once discovered Michael Jackson in her dressing room prancing around in her clothes. None of this is much of a surprise, considering observers also noted that Jackson also began to resemble her when his plastic surgery transformation got underway in the 1980s. Later on, when Jackson's skin was completely white, he appeared to take on Elizabeth Taylor's looks--in a tribute to Taylor in a June 2011 issue of Vanity Fair magazine, "Elizabeth Taylor's Closing Act", it was in fact stated by one of Taylor's closest friends that Michael Jackson tried to model his face after hers.

Also compounding these was Ola Ray, Jackson's co-star in the video Thriller, who stated Jackson enjoyed sitting beside her and watching people put makeup on her face for shoots.

As noted in the extended entry, not only do all of Michael Jackson's purported "loves" end up being fakes, put-ups, or just women he ended up admiring for their magnetic feminine beauty, we also have to remember what that says about Jackson himself: no women, feminine affectations, and deposits of unknown male semen in a bed with his own semen.

The conclusion is quite obvious: Michael Jackson was never heterosexual.
I have to admit it was somewhat of a surprise that the 'explosive proof' I had provided in my 'Michael Jackson was gay' entry was still not enough to, at the very least, shift the 'reasonable suspicion' pendulum in the direction of Michael Jackson having had gay sex with males.*

It is astounding, actually.

But, having been in debates regarding Michael before, I should have known that black-and-white proof is often not enough to cure the affliction of denial. And, as many of us know, the severity and recalcitrance of that affliction is quite great in all of Michael Jackson's most ardent defenders.

For this reason, I feel it is necessary to clarify a few points, so bear with me, as this is very long...

Let's quickly review the facts, since I had assumed (erroneously, of course) that they spoke for themselves.


  • According to court reports, DNA analyses conducted on items seized from Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch found a grand total of four semen samples: on his mattress, along with Michael's semen, the semen of two different males were identified; on bed sheets, a third male's semen was recovered; and, in a pair of soiled underwear kept with the bed sheets, more semen was found, evidently from this third male
  • On January 18, 2005, the "14 Items" motion (Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine to Exclude Fourteen [14] Items of Irrelevant Evidence ["Motion in Limine Group #1"]) was filed proactively by the Defense and outlined various issues the Jackson team wanted to keep from discussion in open court—this included the evidence of so-called 'male DNA' found in Michael Jackson's private quarters; 
  • The Prosecution's filing on January 31, 2005 included their response (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion For an Order Excluding "Fourteen [14] Items of Irrelevant Evidence"), which sought to still introduce the semen-soiled underwear containing the DNA of another male, not the evidence from the mattress or the sheets, arguing that it provided proof to Gavin Arvizo's claim that Michael Jackson held onto his dirty underwear; 
  • The final motion from the Jackson team (Reply to Opposition to Motion for an Order Excluding Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence), filed February 8, 2005, still sought to exclude the evidence of any 'male DNA', citing its 'inflammatory' nature and ultimate irrelevance

Given this loose timeline of documents filed, it is quite clear the Defense, after hearing the results of the DNA analysis done on Michael Jackson's mattress, bed sheets, and on a pair of semen-soiled underwear kept with the singer's own soiled underwear, considered these finding very salacious, so much so the team wanted to keep this revelation of sorts at far reach from public knowledge.

In my opinion, the filing of the "14 Items" motion represented nothing more than a thinly-veiled public relations strategy.

They simply wanted to bar from discussion anything that, if delved deeply into (such as the Attorney General's investigation into Michael's ridiculous police brutality claim) or mentioned in passing (such as the evidence of semen on his belongings), would prove embarrassing for Michael, especially given media presence in the courtroom. Because of this, the defense stepped in and filed the "14 Items" motion before the Prosecution had the opportunity to as much as think about bringing up any of the issues marked on the 'list'relevance be damned. This includes the evidence of semen-staining from three different males.

They wanted all of it hidden.

This proactivity on the part of the Jackson team makes it not hard to speculate that Michael Jackson knew full well how the presence of other males' semen found in his 'proximity' would look.

Is it illogical to suggest Michael Jackson realized that the evidence of foreign semen from three different males would be almost a confirmation of the gay rumors and innuendos that had dogged him his entire career?

I do not believe it is illogical in the slightest!

Seeing that neither Gavin Arvizo nor his brother, Star's, 'male DNA' was found in the cocktail of fluids recovered from Michael Jackson's mattress and linens, the Defense was not wrong in their assertion that the semen-staining was ultimately irrelevant to the charges. However, it's erroneous to state the Prosecution was baseless, tawdry, and tabloid in wanting to still bring into evidence the semen-soiled underwear.

According to the Jackson team's final motion on the "14 Items" issue, this underwear—to which they claimed was totally irrelevant—was found in a "bag of laundry...seized in (sic) a storage area, located on the second floor of the arcade building with numerous boxes of books and other miscellaneous items."

But is that not on tangent with Gavin's claims?

It would seem that, for most people, at least, linens soiled with bodily fluids would be washednot kept and then stored with books and other 'miscellany'

Remember, the storage unit that eventually came into the possession of New Jersey businessman Henry Vaccaro also contained a pair of men's underwear, which also looked as if it had been stained. It is no surprise, then, that the Vaccaro unit was labeled "Item #12" in the Defense's motion.

I find it odd that the Defense failed to notice the obvious correlation between Gavin's claim, the evidence of this semen-soiled underwear in the 'storage area', and the underwear (men's size 28 - small) found in the Vaccaro unit. Perhaps they did see the correlation but the ultimate goal was to keep any and all evidence of Michael Jackson possibly having had sexual encounters with males out of the media.

I must say that I find the whole 'Gavin's missing underwear' conundrum interesting.

Gavin Arvizo did inform police he was missing a pair of soiled underwear and that Michael Jackson had taken them from him. Knowing this, investigators marked off on a search warrant that these illusive underwear were something the search team should look out for.

According to Gavin, Michael Jackson kept his underwear after the sexual encounters, as reported in the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's department's Statement of Probable Cause from November 17, 2003.

Regarding these practices, in his March 15, 2005 testimony, Gavin went into further detail:
7 Q. Did you open your suitcase and go through
8 it.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Was there anything missing.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. What.
13 A. Some of my underwear, some of my shirts, a
14 couple pants, and stuff like that. And they put in
15 some other guy’s pants.
16 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with the
17 defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, about your
18 underpants.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Tell the jury about it.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; beyond the scope.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 THE WITNESS: There was one time that I slept
24 in his room - and he was probably joking but I kind
25 of took it serious - I had pajamas on and -- I was
26 using his pajamas. And I told him I was going in to
27 take a shower in my unit.
28 And then he was like, “Leave your stinking 
underwear in the hamper,” or something like that.
2 And then so -- because I had to change out
3 of my clothes to go to my unit. And then I don’t
know if he was joking or not, but I actually did.
5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did what.
6 A. Put my underwear in the hamper.
Q. Did you ever get those back.
8 A. No.
The Santa Barbara search team never located any underwear reasonably indicating that they belonged to Gavin, or Star, Arvizo (ie. no semen stains from a molestation). But they did find underwear of the exact same brand and size Gavin claimed to have worn.

The pair were clean and unused.

The location of these mysterious Hanes briefs is a curiosity in and of itself. Why are underwear obviously gender mismatched for a little girl located in Paris' bathroom? Likewise, why would Michael Jackson possess boys' underwear that are too big for both six-year-old Prince and two-year-old Blanket?

It seems to reek of deliberate concealment, other more sinister implications notwithstanding.

It is possible that these underwear were Michael Jackson's, as they are close enough to some of the sizes found to be Michael's. But why the same brand Gavin claimed to wear?

Also interesting is Gavin's continued and frequent use of Michael Jackson's pajamas. From his March 10 testimony about one of the alleged masturbation incidents with Michael:
24 Q. All right. What happened after that.
25 A. And then so he -- we were under the covers,
26 and I had his pajamas on, because he had this big
27 thing of pajamas and he gave me his pajamas.
28 Q. Okay.
Later on in his testimony about another alleged masturbation incident:
19 A. Well, we just came back from the arcade
20 again, and then we went up to his room. And then we
21 were sitting -- I think we were watching T.V. or
22 something, and then we were on top of his covers,
23 and he did it again.
24 Q. How were you dressed on this occasion.
25 A. In his pajamas again, because I would always
26 use his pajamas.
From his March 14 testimony:
21 Q. Okay. Now, when you claim you were
22 masturbated, were you wearing pajamas.
23 A. Yes, I was wearing Michael’s pajamas.
There is something peculiar about Michael Jackson's stockpile of pajamas, especially if they are allegedly used during masturbatory games with his 'special friends'. It seems reasonable that Michael loaned these items out for use by a given 'special friend' and, seeing that they are his, he would get the worn garments back, either for purposes of concealment said masturbatory games; for his own sniffing pleasure; or the ease in keeping the boys in his bedroom and, thus, 'sleepover ready'.

All possibilities are likely.

That Gavin wore Michael's pajamas and underwear but no items were found containing Gavin's DNA all the while investigators still located a pair of underwear in the exact brand and size worn by Gavin is more than strange. It begs the question: is it possible any evidence of Gavin having been molested was destroyed?

It's worth remembering that Michael Jackson's house was raided a full eight months following the alleged crimes. During this time, Michael's then-lawyer, Mark Geragos, his private investigator, Bradley Miller,  as well as the other unindicted co-conspirators kept a close watch on the Arvizo family since February 2003.

Eight months is certainly enough time to "lose" evidence or destroy it, especially given all of the scrutiny Michael Jackson incurred following the Martin Bashir documentary.

All of this is speculation.

However, it is worth noting that, in 1993, Michael Jackson's private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, received tips Neverland and Michael's Century City Hideout apartment were to be raided by police.** It was then that both residences were mostly scalped of incriminating and inflammatory evidence possibly suggesting Michael Jackson was a pedophile.

From J. Randy Taraborrelli's Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness, page 500:
On Saturday 21 August 1993 a search warrant was issued for the police to gain access to Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch at 5225 Figueroa Mountain Road in Los Olivos, Santa Barbara.... Moreover, the search warrant permitted the authorities to search Michael's 'hideout' at 1101 Galaxy Way, #2247 in Century City, California, for evidence. Of course, anyone who thought the authorities would find anything incriminating during such searches would have been naive. Obviously, because of the chain of events that had led up to that day, Michael's camp expected that a search warrant would be issued.
Adrian McManus...recalled, 'People were running all about the place, employees taking things off the property in boxes and crates, as if they couldn't get the stuff out fast enough. They took sheets, pillows, bedspreads, towels, and wash clothes.... They took stacks of magazines. They took pictures. I remember that one person who worked for Michael held up a photograph and everyone else gathered around to ask, "Who is that? Who is that?" "Is this Macaulay Culkin in his underwear? It is!" Then, they would take the picture and put it in a box with a lot of other pictures of children in their underwear....
'The next day, when the police came they looked around and one of them said, "Hmmm. Slim pickings, I see." They knew. Of course, they knew.
In Victor Gutierrez's Michael Jackson Was My Lover, Adrian McManus and Ralph Chacon mention the more lurid items hidden from police before the raid. From page 127:
Adrian McManus, Jackson's personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid.... "...I took sheets stained with dried semen and excrement most definitely from Jackson and Brett Barnes [the Australian boy]. They also hid suitcases with photos, videos and documents, video cameras, photo equipment and tripods. The guards took furniture and Michael's spring mattress, which most definitely carried evidence of sexual activity."
Security guards also told of hiding evidence. "I was in charge of taking more private things like the bottle of Vaseline, pants and traces of excrement, not stains, but excrement that he put in a bag so that Adrian could wash it at another location," said Ralph Chacon accusingly. "I also took bottles of alcohol from Michael's bedroom, alcohol that was drunk by Brett and other boys that would come to visit."
Despite the relative salaciousness of Victor Gutierrez's book, it's interesting that he notes alcohol was drunk by special friends while at Neverland eight years before Gavin Arvizo claimed Michael Jackson plied him with booze. The same thing goes for the confiscation of sheets, bedspreads, and mattresses, especially given the foreign semen found on Michael's bed, in bed sheets, and in a pair of underwear in 2003.

It has always been my view that the ability to find corroboration to claims or evidence, as in this case, is usually an indicator of the truthfulness of said claims or evidence.

Also worth mentioning in regards to Pellicano and hiding evidence, Robert Wegner, who worked security at Neverland in the early 1990s, told NBC's Josh Mankiewicz that he was instructed to destroy the Neverland visitor logs, which contained information police could have used to locate more children in their investigation:
Because at the same time that investigators were executing a search warrant, Wegner says he was on the phone with Anthony Pellicano, Michael Jackson's private investigator, who told Wegner to get the records of who had been at Neverland, and deliver them to Pellicano in Los Angeles.
Wegner: "In fact he called me while I was in Michael's bedroom when LAPD was searching his bedroom he called and told me to do this, because he wanted them out of there before LAPD saw -- figured that they should subpoena those."
Mankiewicz: "Wait a minute. So while the LAPD was searching the ranch back in ‘93, Anthony Pellicano, Mr. Jackson's private investigator called you and said ‘bring me the sign-in sheets of all the people who spent the night at Neverland.’"
Wegner: "That's right. And he identified himself by name."
Mankiewicz: "And you did that? You brought them, you brought him the records?
Wegner: "Yes."
Mankiewicz: "Those records were also backed up on computer?"
Wegner: "Yes."
Mankiewicz: "And you deleted those files?"
Wegner: "I was told to delete them."
Mankiewicz: "Sort of effectively wiping a record of who had spent the night at Neverland?"
Wegner: "That's correct, or who was there."
Yes, I find it totally plausible evidence had been destroyed in 2003, and I would be unafraid to wager that was exactly what had happened, seeing it had happened ten years earlier.

But let's return to the evidence of the semen stains found in Michael Jackson's private quarters.

Beyond the sheets and underwear stained with semen from mystery male #3, if we'll recall, according to one of the search inventory sheets, investigators at the scene collected Michael Jackson's mattress pad, a cut-out from his top mattress, and a cut-out of the bottom side of this same mattress.

It should be noted that the so-called 'male DNA' the Jackson team referred to in the original "14 Items" motion was unequivocally and without a doubt semen. In spite of the fact I had shown documents were the Prosecution explicitly stated 'male DNA' was semen, there still seemed to be the question as to whether the 'male DNA' was something other than semen, possibly hair, skin flakes, or saliva.

While both saliva and semen fluoresce under ultraviolet light (among the seventy officers raiding Neverland, there were also forensic experts), both sources of human DNA--as shown in the above chart I've created myself--are completely different, so much so that no scientist would ever confuse the two upon testing of the substances. 

Likewise, in a document dated December 15, 2004 (notice this is before the file date of the Defense's "14 Items" motion), the Prosecution noted the 'male DNA' was from semen:

Again, from the Prosecution's original response:

So, it was semen. Not hair. Not skin flakes. Not saliva. And, of course, no vaginal secretions were found! The Defense's use of the term 'male DNA' to describe what was undoubtedly semen seems like yet another PR strategy to de-emphasize his obvious homosexuality.

So, how did the semen get there? 

In my view, there are only a few logical conclusions--stressing logical--as to how male bodily fluids could have ended up on Michael Jackson's belongings:

  • For the mattress stains, Michael Jackson was having sex (or sexual contact) with males;
  • For the sheets stained with foreign semen, Michael Jackson was having sex (or sexual contact) with males;
  • For the mysterious pair of semen-soiled underwear found in the 'laundry bag' with Michael's own soiled underwear and the aforementioned semen-stained sheets, seeing that he is frequently referred to as having masturbated himself or boys while in underwear, Michael and a male were mutually masturbating in bed (possibly while looking at pornography or without);
  • A male masturbated Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson masturbated the male;
  • Males friends (with Michael's permission and/or involvement) could have been masturbating in his bed, presumably while watching pornography

There are other 'potential' conclusions but I find them rather dubious:

  • People other than Michael Jackson had sex--either homosexual or heterosexual--in his bed, with his permission or without, while he was in town or away;
  • Males sleeping in his bed had nocturnal emissions (wet dreams);

You will have to forgive me for such a scant list because my mind does not seem to function on the setting that allows a typical Michael Jackson fan to come up with the most ludicrous possibilities in order to deny scientific evidence of Michael being into same-sex sex!

Another conclusion would be that the evidence was planted, something many fans in denial about Michael's obvious homosexuality have posited. I find this absolutely impossible.

In order for this to be anywhere near a logical conclusion to the fact two semen samples were found on Michael's mattress and a third sample was found in sheets and underwear, district attorney Tom Sneddon--who would be the one accused by fans of 'planting' semen--would have either wanted to embarrass Michael Jackson or incriminate him.

As proven by the documents, both are invalid.

The "14 Items" motion was filed by the Defense, not the Prosecution; as I've stated previously, the Jackson team was the one who'd mentioned semen and wanted to keep it out of court due to irrelevance. The Prosecution agreed, except with regard to the underwear, because none of the alleged victims' semen was found.

The idea of incrimination implies a sort of conspiracy against Michael Jackson. However, wouldn't Sneddon have been more successful in smearing and incriminating Michael if he had planted relevant samples on the mattress and in the sheets and underwear? Samples he'd be able to use in court?

Of course!

This is why the idea of planting evidence is just a bogus notion! The semen stains were already there when police showed up at Neverland. There really is no way around it and any speculation regarding the samples should assume that at the very least.

The simplest explanation for why a man would have foreign semen stains in his bed is that he was directly involved in the depositing of the semen that caused the stains. Any other explanation assumes that too many other variables would also have to take place for the explanation-in-sum to be possible. 

If other people copulated or masturbated in Michael's bed while he was out of town (a popular 'conclusion' with fans), we'd have to assume that Michael Jackson gave the security code to his bedroom to just about anyone (special friends notwithstanding). We would also have to bypass the fact he'd put a security code on his bedroom in the first place, forgetting that the goal of such practice would be to keep people out

In his April 4, 2005 testimony, former Neverland employee for twenty years, Jesus Salas, testified to how often the combination on Michael's bedroom, and the main entrance to the house, was changed:
4 Q. Now, you spoke a little bit last week about
5 Mr. Jackson’s room. Was there -- I believe you
testified there was a combination to get in that
8 A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was that combination ever changed?
10 A. Not too often, but yes, it did.
11 Q. How often would that combination change?
12 A. I believe the time that I was there, I think
13 it was about two times that we changed it.
14 Q. Okay. Now, when you say you were there, are
15 you referring to the time -- the full 20 years you
16 were there, or just the year or so that you were
17 house manager?
18 A. Just when I was the house manager.
19 Q. And was there a combination to get into the
20 main house?
21 A. Yes, there was.
22 Q. And would that ever change?
23 A. That one got changed more often.
24 Q. How often, if you could tell us?
25 A. I would say that we changed that about every
26 two months, somewhere -- somewhere along that.
27 Q. Were -- do you know if certain people were
28 given the combinations -- the combination to Mr.
Jackson’s bedroom?
A. Not to my knowledge.
3 Q. Do you know if certain people were given the
4 combination to the Jackson house, the main entry
5 into the home?
6 A. Yes. Pretty much all his guests have access
7 to the house so they had to have the combination.
8 Q. And who would give them that combination?
9 A. Myself personal.
From Salas' testimony, we know that Michael Jackson at least changed the code to his bedroom every six months, which is quite frequent. We also know that, according to Salas, the code was not given willy-nilly to any guest that came to stay at Neverland Ranch, unlike the combination to the house itself. I would then find it unlikely, although not entirely impossible, that Michael Jackson had given a guest and their homosexual lover access to his bedroom while he was out of town and the couple had sex in his bed, especially when numerous guest units would be available and easier to access, not to mention many of his celebrity friends found these units especially satisfactory while they visited Neverland Ranch.

Thus, this is simply too many variables implied to explain stains that, if had been found in anyone else's bed or bed linens, we would assume the bed and bed linens' owner to have been involved in making said stains.

I also find the idea of 'nocturnal emissions' unlikely. Sure, they do occur, as many males could attest to, but why in bed sheets and underwear that Michael Jackson decided to keep and keep unwashed? It would also still mean Michael had men sleeping in his bed, or that he was still allowing boys to sleep there following the 1993 scandal.

The same peculiarity exists if the semen was a result of males masturbating in his bed. Of course, I don't know every man in existence but what 'heterosexual' man would allow other men to masturbate in his bed, let alone deposit semen on its coverings? If Michael allowed this, it doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of homosexuality on his part. Neither does the possibility of a 'circle jerk', especially since Michael always seemed to be without a romantic female companion.

But, ultimately, all of the above conclusions are unlikely.

The most logical ones revolve around Michael Jackson being 'involved' in the samples ending up on the bed, in the bed sheets, and in the underwear. They were not planted by police; they did not get there by some biological accident; they were not beamed onto his belongings by space aliens.

Michael Jackson was conscious of the foreign semen stains on his bed and bedding, which is why his attorneys fought hard to keep this evidence out of court, and were successful in doing so. There really is no way of getting around it, no matter what the excuse. 

That he kept the third male's semen-soiled underwear and the semen-soiled sheets with his own dirty laundry (and it should be noted DNA analysis recognized Michael's underwear) should be enough proof for a rational person to speculate that his level of involvement in "Male #3's" 'release' was substantial.

It should also be noted that these sheets were not simply 'guest laundry' that happened to be mixed with Michael's belongings in some giant pile, as his Defense team suggested. According to the search summary sheet, there were only two bags of laundry--"Item #510"--that were seized from the video arcade/library storage area. Both apparently were from Michael being on vacation, and both had bed sheets in them, one bloodied. "Item #511" was a pair of underwear discolored with stains and blood, most likely Michael Jackson's; it was also in one of the bags, although the summary sheet does not indicate which one. 

Michael's attorneys' suggestion is nonsensical in that why would a guest not want their belongings--if they were indeed the owner of the semen-soaked underwear--returned to them, instead of sitting in a storage area attracting flies? Also, why would any guest's clothing be with Michael's, seeing that the guest units at Neverland are remote as to the main house? And why would a guest's clothing be in a vacation bag?

It makes no sense, and the evidence does not support their cockamamie theory. These were obviously clothes dirtied away from Neverland that were merely stored at Neverland.

(Although this could merely be speculation, it's interesting to note is that there was a man's cotton shirt in a very large size, 2XLT, along with Michael's clothing and these soiled sheets and underwear. Could this have belonged to mystery "male #3"? Michael's clothes were noted as both medium and size 39/15 1/2, which is for a chest measurement of a meager forty inches! Certainly, 2XLT was too big for Michael!)

Now, I do understand, regardless of how I suspect these three males' semen got onto his bed and linens, that the presence of semen is not a proverbial 'slam dunk' in terms of absolute proof of Michael's homosexuality. No one can ever be one hundred percent certain, in reality, if they were not in the room when the stains were made.

However, when coupled with other 'evidence', the semen stains on his bed become very solid circumstantial proof of Michael Jackson having been gay.

  • Michael Jackson's overall effeminacy -- voice, makeup (more than just stage makeup), mannerisms since he was a teen that are seen as stereotypically gay;
  • Pervasive gay rumors since the 1970s, even an accusation of his planning a sex change surgery;
  • Hanging out with 'gay icons', such as Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minelli, Cher, Liberace, Diana Ross;
  • A general lack of women, or any seeming romantic interest in them until well into his thirties -- this includes all manner of unsubstantiated rumors Michael never confirmed or denied but ultimately left the general public unconvinced***;
  • Truly dubious 'relationships' with women, such as Brooke ShieldsTatum O' Neal, Stephanie Mills****or Tatiana Thumbtzen;
  • The boysboysboys, scandals included;
  • Plastic surgery obsession -- preoccupation with appearance is a uniquely feminine burden;
  • The homoerotic art books, such as ones showing love between two men, and graphic gay pornography, Man, a sexual study of Man, which was billed by the Prosecution as 'primer' for homosexuals, all found in his possession;
  • The odd marriages to both Lisa Marie Presley (suspiciously poor timing and ended quick) and Debbie Rowe, who'd been nothing more than a surrogate mother;
  • Having all of his children through in-vitro fertilization, as did gay stars Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken, which obliterates the necessity of sex with a woman;
  • The numerous interesting and curious anecdotes over the years from those who knew him, such as: Dr. Arnold Klein, who came out and said he was indeed gay; Elizabeth Taylorwho didn't exactly deny Klein's revelation; Madonna; Stuart Backerman; business associates Gordon Novel and Bob Michaelson; Jane Fonda, who wondered whether she was being used as a 'beard'; even from his longtime makeup artist Karen Faye, whose continued use of 'asexuality' in relation to Michael is more than suspicious*****

We should not quickly forget his own family's behavior toward Michael Jackson's seeming homosexuality as well. 

Joe Jackson blew up at an interviewer over a word as innocuous as 'partner' in reference to Michael's love life. And Jermaine's confession that the brothers did not want to imagine ever having a 'gay brother'. Or how about La Toya Jackson claiming Katherine called Michael a 'damn faggot' and she could not 'stand it'.

La Toya's accusation was completely different from a shifty-eyed, verbally deceptive Mama Jackson in this video, circa early 1990s (please take note of her verbal hesitation--learn more about my technique for detecting lies in statements from this website):

Before we forget, Michael Jackson also maintained a very peculiar relationship with former gay porn producer, F. Marc Schaffel.

(It should be understood that I am not saying an alliance with a gay man--and I do believe Schaffel is gay--from the gay porn industry is necessarily a reflection of Michael Jackson's sexual preferences, but their story is unique.)

Schaffel became a business partner to Michael somewhere around 2000, although it is believed they've known each other since the 1990s. This partnership entailed several incongruous enterprises, including (failed) work on charity singles to loaning out millions of dollars for Michael to go shopping; from allegedly adopting babies in Brazil to paying $300,000 to keep a family in Argentina mum about child molestation.

But what is most peculiar about this relationship is Michael Jackson's repeated, yet wholly contradictory and ultimately unbelievable, protestations that he was ignorant of Schaffel's previous 'business ventures'.

Michael lied about not knowing Schaffel was involved in gay pornography.

According to this article from USA Today dated to July 2002, one of Michael Jackson's many spokespeople, Dan Klores, disavowed Michael's connection to Schaffel following Schaffel's admission he was not only involved in the gay porn industry but had always been up front about his previous associations:
Dan Klores, Jackson's spokesman, seems to interpret the Schaffel disclosure as retaliation.
"It's unfortunate that old stories like this are being leaked to the media in order to further hurt Michael," Klores says. "The perpetrators of this leak have known for months that Schaffel has had no relationship with Michael Jackson. The minute Michael and his advisers found out about Schaffel's background, they cut the cord immediately. This was months ago. (Schaffel) has nothing to do with Michael Jackson, doesn't represent him in any way, shape or form, and has been told this repeatedly by Michael's attorneys."
If there had ever been a moratorium on business dealings with Schaffel, it did not last long! He went on to do work for Michael's FOX TV specials and accompanied Michael to Berlin, Germany, where he was in the same hotel when Blanket Jackson was 'dangled'. All of this occurred only a few months following Klores' statement to papers.

Later on, Schaffel filed suit against Michael in hopes of reimbursement for the gratuitous loans he'd given the singer over the years. As the financial trial went on following Michael's 2005 acquittal, tidbits about their relationship--and Michael--began to emerge.

Michael Jackson continued to deny knowledge of Schaffel's past and told jurors, via taped testimony, that he was utterly 'shocked' by the revelation:
In the sworn testimony, which was taped in London's Dorchester Hotel on Sept. 23, 2005, and May 22, 2006, the pop star says he told advisers to sever all ties with Schaffel as soon as he found out about his past as a porn filmmaker.
"I was shocked by what I saw. . . . [Schaffel] was directing two guys. They were naked from head to toe . . . and he was telling one what to do with the other and he grabbed their penis or something," said Jackson, who was dressed in a dark, striped, button-down shirt.
"I didn't believe it!"
Schaffel's attorneys saw it as a smear and rebutted in a legal brief; according to the same article:
Jackson's insistence that he knew nothing of his ex-associate's porno past has opened the door for Schaffel to return to the witness stand and refute the claim.
In an earlier trial brief, [Howard] King (Schaffel's attorney) warned that if the singer went that route, Schaffel was prepared to reveal "their intimate discussions" and discuss "Jackson's sexual proclivities."
Jackson's sexual proclivities? Whatever could these be?

I am sure some could conclude that these proclivities may be 'normal' but I find it unlikely. It is worth remembering that Michael discussed these 'sexual proclivities' with a man known--and known by Michael--to produce gay porn films. Also, Schaffel and his team would resort to mentioning these proclivities if, and only if, Michael Jackson and his lawyers continued to bring up Schaffel's gay porn past in an effort to bias the jury against him.

As a sort of tit for tat.

For this reason, coupled with Schaffel's past to which Michael was fully aware, it is not hard to speculate that these 'proclivities' shared in 'intimate discussions' between the two were ones that would prove totally embarrassing for Michael if made public.

Given the ambiguousness of Michael's sexuality since the dawn of his solo career, revealing a hetero-normative sexual proclivity, especially following a child molestation trial, would only serve to help him. I think it is fair to say these 'proclivities' were not normal since they would have only been brought up in retaliation.

Consequently, I do not find it unreasonable to suggest these proclivities were probably homosexual in nature.

Of course, that is only speculation. But it is reasonable, as it is reasonable to assume that a Michael Jackson memorabilia item in the Vaccaro lot--one Howard Mann, the Jackson family's current business partner and current owner of said item, had destroyed at the Jacksons' request--was salacious in nature, seeing that tabloids only wanted it for the sole purpose of 'smearing' Michael and were willing to pay seven figures for it.

Everything must be looked at in context.

Of course, we can never know what kinds of kinks Michael possessed for sure, but if his continued association and friendship with Marc Schaffel (a former gay porn producer and operator of several gay porn websites), not to mention that during his 2005 trial, the Defense never brought up any evidence Michael Jackson had been interested in women, is any indication whatsoever as to these 'proclivities', Michael definitely had something to hide!

However, even for those of us who feel convinced Michael Jackson was a gay man, even with all of the things I have noted thus far, there are those proverbial bumps in the road. Try as I might to be totally emphatic, I still wonder about two things in particular and feel the need to discuss them in this entry:
  1. Michael Jackson's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley and her repeated insistence that the marriage was not only 'normal'--as in not a sham--but also sexually active;
  2. The seemingly large amount of heterosexual pornography found during the 2003 raid of Neverland
Let's tackle one point at a time.

It is my view that Michael's marriage to Lisa Marie is not a strong indicator of his alleged heterosexuality, as many gay men have been married to women and it does not cause them to be any less homosexual. However, when debating such issues as Michael's ambiguous sexuality, Lisa Marie represents the only credible link Michael Jackson has had to a woman his entire career, possibly his entire life, and fans cling to the union with a strident zeal.

(The term 'credible' when used in the former context perhaps puts a damper on the true meaning of the word.)

It is for that reason--and that reason alone--their marriage deserves discussion when one is trying to officially canonize the strong, albeit circumstantial, proofs of Michael having little-to-no interest in the opposite sex.

To call the Jackson-Presley marriage 'normal' is not only an egregious overstatement, it's wholly untrue with no basis in reality. Theirs was a union that, from its very commencement, was considered a brazen publicity stunt arranged for the sole purpose of quelling the rumors Michael Jackson was a child-molesting pedophile. There existed the real and reasonable possibility that this woman, who'd only been a 'friend' of Michael's, was weaseled into a phony sham marriage just four months following the January 1994 financial silencing of the Chandler family.

And, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, a marriage rumored to be fishy from the start lasted only a scant twenty months before Lisa Marie bowed out and called it quits.

While I do believe this marriage was a set-up of sorts, I must admit that I don't believe it was organized by Scientology or anything along that tangent, although I do believe Scientology could have been a factor in its dissolution. Nor do I believe this was a conscious business arrangement, at least not on Lisa Marie Presley's end. However, it should be noted their wedlock suffered from terrible timing and misgivings about this 'merger' are legitimate.

Remember, Michael Jackson had never displayed any previous interest in women. The likes of Brooke Shields and Tatiana Thumbtzen—both considered desirable by most male standards—were either paraded around in the role of fictitious girlfriend or given a complete cold shoulder!

What should also be kept in mind is that, immediately following his divorce from Lisa Marie, Michael entered the undeniably bogus marriage to Debbie Rowe, a woman, who--let's face it--was not at all attractive, and was simply chosen by Michael to bear children and nothing else. Interestingly, like Lisa Marie, Debbie never shared a home with Michael and the consummation of that marriage is considered dubious, too.

The contrast of these two marriages (the immediate supersession of the first by the second, which was obviously a total sham) gives us no reason to doubt that this marriage to Debbie Rowe was Michael's preferred arrangement: a marriage wherein the woman did not have to be paraded around on his arm or used to demonstrate his alleged heterosexuality. She would simply give birth to children for her 'husband' and, in exchange, receive a multimillion dollar home, yearly checks in the hundreds of thousands, and an agreement to never speak about their marriage or the paternity of their children.

To me, Lisa Marie Presley was a non-factor in Michael Jackson's life and the short duration of their marriage proves this. No matter how many post-mortem statements she provides about their relationship--and her attempt to understand what it 'meant' and what she may have 'meant' to Michael--it does not change the fact that their union was never a great love or a great romance.

I feel strongly Lisa Marie was the victim of a Svengali's scam and was used in a very heartless way. It is wrong to assume she knew anything about Michael's intentions or that she wanted him for a record deal, as she explains in her July 2003 Playboy magazine interview:
PLAYBOY: When Diane Sawyer interviewed you and Michael, she asked if you two had sex, and you were indignant. Can you see how the marriage looked suspicious to people. 
PRESLEY: I can see that, only because that's his thing, not mine. That always upset me. I was married for several years to a bass player nobody knew and before that never dated a celebrity. I never did anything to try and get publicity. I got caught up in Michael's thing, which was manipulation. I was like, "[expletive] you people, that's not who I am. Why am I being blamed for a publicity stunt? Oh, I'm Miss Aspiring Singer, and now I want a record deal? That's why I'm with him?" 
PLAYBOY: It sounds like you think he used you.
PRESLEY: I'm not going to say he did or he didn't. There are things that don't look good, that's all I can say. And most people saw it at the time except me. 
Lisa Marie clearly acknowledged she and Michael's relationship was, for him, a sham, as she put it: his 'thing'. From her April 2003 Rolling Stone magazine interview:
She says, by way of recap, this: "I understand it did affect people's perception of me. That's fine; I understand why. But I did fall in love with him. I can't say what his intentions were, but I can tell you mine was that I absolutely fell in love with him and fell into this whole thing which I'm not proud of now."
Do you rule out that he fell in love with you?
"As much as he can, possibly. I don't know how much he can access love, really. I think as much as he can love somebody he might have loved me. It was always like a mind that was constantly working. It was a scary thing -- somebody who's constantly at work, calculating, calculating, manipulating. And he scared me like that."
As Lisa Marie put it, all of the suspiciousness was completely of Michael's doing. I believe her; she was a pawn in Michael's PR game. She also expressed, through her use of the words "possibly", "really", and "might have" in discussion of Michael's dubious affections, that she did not feel loved during their marriage.

Ultimately, Lisa Marie fancies herself a 'tough chick', and that may very well be true most of the time. However, like many tough girls, in her attempt to always present herself as strong, street-smart, and perceptive, she is unwilling to accept the near-certain possibility that she may have been duped in one of Michael Jackson's publicity stunts.

He is not stupid. He's very charming when he wants to be, and when you go into his world you step into this whole other realm. I could tell you all about the craziness--all these things that were odd, different, evil or not cool--but it still took me two and a half years to get my head out of it. 
Irrespective of whether or not their marriage was a sham, the most important aspect of the Jackson-Presley coupling for fans is that Lisa Marie represents for them a sort of 'proof' Michael was capable of bedding someone outside of the 'youthful male' template.

But did they really have sex?

Despite the veritable strangeness and obvious calculation on Michael's part, I find that there is no reason to necessarily doubt Lisa Marie Presely's insistence that she and Michael's marriage was consummated. She has maintained this stance since their divorce and consistency seems to be one of the hallmarks of truth-telling. But sex between the two does not mean anything when stripped bare. In reality, many gay men are capable of sleeping with women; this action does not make them any less gay, for 'gay' begins in the mind.

Michael Jackson having sex with Lisa Marie does not mean they were in 'love' or that their copulations possessed any sort of heat.

In fact, the only time any of us have even heard of this nebulous 'heat', of anything resembling passion or amorousness, was from J. Randy Taraborrelli in his biography, Michael Jackson: The Magic and The Madness. In it, we learn of an alleged sexual chemistry between Michael and Lisa Marie from one of her 'friends': Michael was so skilled he 'took her breath away' and the two indulged themselves in sexual 'role-playing' and the wearing of jewelry in bed.

All of this is sort of unbelievable, and it's worth noting that these claims of Michael's skilled bedroom acrobatics were never made by Lisa Marie herself. She typically has kept with the very noncommittal 'normal', or feigned a memory lapse.

She was quickly 'disillusioned' against the idea of Michael being incapable of sex yet she was so quick to say she cannot remember these nights! Perhaps they weren't as breathtaking as Taraborrelli describes?

You have to wonder why Lisa Marie becomes so embarrassed when Diane Sawyer brings up the 'sex' topic. It clearly is a very uncomfortable subject for her, possibly a source of shame or, given her clinginess to the term 'normal', flaccidity?

The good biographer also notes in his book--dubiously--that her relationship with Michael was based solely upon an intense, sexual attraction and that it would not survive without communication; Lisa Marie, as recorded in the Sawyer interview and in print, emphasized nothing about sexual intensity but emotions, 'saving him', and the like.

Taraborrelli undoubtedly has a bias towards Michael and it may be due to his status as Jackson expert and his alleged forty-year-long role as confidant. Whether or not the latter is true is inconsequential, but you have to wonder if his accounts are entirely factual. It seems impossible to me, at least, that Lisa Marie has refrained from detailing the ins-and-outs of her sexual life with Michael with every interviewer except a biographer with a history of Michael Jackson soft-shoeing.

I can't help but wonder if Taraborrelli was somewhat a part of the Jackson public relations machine. Or, is it too far-fetched to suggest that, given what seems to almost be a love/hate relationship with Michael, he could simply be an opportunist, writing torrid fanfictions for Michael's (mostly female) fans to gobble up as proof of Michael's virile maleness, all the while he rakes in the dough?

I think it's possible.

It's interesting to note Taraborrelli's seeming opportunism. In the copy of Magic and the Madness that I own, he presents this love affair between Michael and Lisa Marie, full of passion and sexual intensity, even extending well into his marriage with Debbie Rowe. However, his allegiance to their romance has fluctuated.

He's been quoted in August 1994 as saying Lisa Marie was Michael's 'soulmate' (although he also noted Michael was not interested in the opposite sex until the child molestation occurred; interesting) and then quoted only a few months later, when the two were facing break-up rumors, he was swearing lawyers for both sides were working diligently to annul their marriage!

(Daily News, December 1, 1994)

Why Taraborrelli seems to be all over the place with his story could be seen as an indication that his Michael Jackson/Lisa Marie 'hot romance' is mostly fiction, and he knows it. As the saying goes, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive."

(It's interesting to notice that in the above article, Michael Jackson's former PR man, the late Bob Jones, is quoted as dismissing the break-up rumors as 'outrageous lies' and that people did not want to give the union 'a chance', but in his 2005 book Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask, he says of the marriage, on page 83: "Now, I've been around long enough to know that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Michael had no desire for a woman. Not the natural desires that heterosexual men have anyway." He also believed she was a victim of a 'heartless' scam and that she truly loved Michael.)

As an aside, I have to mention that while J. Randy Taraborrelli cites several of Lisa Marie Presley's 'friends' to paint a picture of she and Michael's sexually-charged love, Diane Dimond--well-known as an expert on the Jackson molestation cases--has continued to insist the two never consummated their marriage. Her belief, as she says, is based upon both mutual friends between she and Lisa Marie, as well as insiders close to the latter. (She mentions it in comments here and here.)

Eyebrows will undoubtedly raise at the mentioning of Dimond in relation to Michael Jackson, for she is, as his legions of fans say, a 'hater'. But the question is this: whom shall we believe?

Both Dimond and Taraborrelli deviate a bit from the words of Lisa Marie, who stubbornly refuses to go into any detail beyond 'normal', displays embarrassment at the subject, and only feebly affirms consummation. And both writers rely on Lisa Marie's 'friends'.

While Taraborrelli is obviously wrong and created an alluring and elaborate mythology for Michael's fans, I find it hard to repudiate Lisa Marie's insistence, despite the fact I mostly trust Dimond's reportage and her source is a mutual friend between she and Lisa Marie.

Who knows in the end.

It had came up in trial in 2005 about a tabloid article detailing the pair's alleged kinky sex. One of the infamous Neverland Five, former chambermaid Adrian McManus, was questioned about her involvement in a seedy story deal to Star magazine in which she stated adamantly she was misquoted and their had been improper attribution to her:
19 Q. Do you recall trying to sell what you called
20 “Mr. Jackson’s sex secrets”? Do you remember that?
21 A. I know something was written about that, but
22 I know sometimes tabloids write other stuff that
23 they like to put in, so I don’t know.
24 Q. You were quoted in an issue of Star magazine
25 titled “Five of His Closest Servants Tell All.
26 Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s
27 Bedroom,” right?
28 A. I don’t believe I said that. 
1 Q. Have you seen that article before?
2 A. I did during my deposition.
3 Q. Was that the first time you’d ever seen this
4 article?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You are quoted in the article, correct?
7 A. I don’t know. I could be. I don’t know. 
If the article had been true, it could have confirmed the seeming fiction of Magic and the Madness. However, according to page 197 of the book Freak! Inside the twisted world of Michael Jackson, other articles supposedly based on the court depositions of the Neverland Five stated Michael would spread out lingerie to make it seem as if he and Lisa Marie slept together; that the two did not share a bedroom, let alone slept together; and that he gave most of his attention to young male 'special friends'.

We don't know if either account is true but the contradictions, both from the same sources, is a good indication that there were no 'kinky sex secrets' to have been given. At least in truth.

But it's interesting to note Michael Jackson's moment of candidness during he and Lisa Marie's 1995 Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer. When Sawyer brings up the inevitable 'sex question', before Lisa Marie can answer, the microphone picks up this gem:
LISA MARIE PRESLEY: Do we have sex? 
MICHAEL JACKSON: (laughs) Sh—she didn't ask! 
LMP: (laughs) 
MJ: She didn't ask! 
LMP: Okay, I won't ask (sic). 
It's a real wonder why, after being accused of molesting a pubescent boy and then roundly criticized for paying millions of dollars at the eve of a deposition which could have been an opportunity to defend his innocence, he would silence Lisa Marie--at least initially, for she later declared "Yes, yes, yes!"--on a question that would make him appear 'normal'. Is it out of line to infer he may have had something to hide in that arena? His supporters would say he was just private but, after their awkward and very public 'kiss' at the 1994 MTV Video Music Awards, privacy did not seem to be a real hindrance.

Whether or not they had sex is ultimately a mystery. I believe, if it did happen, it was for the singular purpose of Michael obtaining children--nothing more, nothing less. When Debbie Rowe offered her womb, I am sure Lisa Marie Presley was iced out. According to her October 2010 Oprah interview, she became 'disposable':
"She was there the whole time telling him that she would [have his child]," Lisa Marie says. "He would tell me, 'Debbie said she'll do it.' That's how he knew to handle it, 'If you're not going to do it, this person will.'"
"That's what you mean by 'disposable,'" Oprah says.
"Yes," Lisa Marie says. "That's exactly what I mean." 
Lisa Marie, in this same Oprah interview, managed to rewrite the past to assuage her own feelings of guilt regarding Michael Jackson and what she knew was a sham from the beginning.
Oprah: Did he have to die for you to recognize that he loved you?
Lisa Marie: I think so, sadly.
Oprah: Is that the first time you recognized or believed that he truly loved you—after he died?
Lisa Marie: The sweeping answer would be yes. When we were together, we were really in love, and then we had the rough patches. And I had to make a decision to walk because I saw the drugs and the doctors coming in, and they scared me. They put me right back into what I went through with my father. That ended it. But we still spent four more years [together] after we divorced.
Oprah: Really?
Lisa Marie: Getting back together and breaking up. ... At some point, I had to push it away.
Oprah: So you still loved him even when you left him?
Lisa Marie: Very much. I was trying to take a stand and say: 'Come with me. Don't do this.'
Oh, the history revisionism!

A rule of thumb is when a story begins to change, deception is likely. This was a woman who told the same story of manipulations done to her by Michael Jackson all during his trial. Previously, she had no clue if Michael loved her, and it is only posthumously she has begun to realize all of the seeming 'puppeteering', as she put it, was nothing more than paranoia on her part? That is doubtful.

I should note that while pictures of she and Michael together post-divorce do exist on the Internet, I would hardly say they were together. In November 1998, People magazine reported that Lisa Marie was in an (ill-fated) engagement to another man. It wasn't very long after that she was married to Nicolas Cage.

Of course, it is not impossible she was simply seeing other men behind the current beau's back. However, Michael stated in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's The Michael Jackson Tapes, pages 219-220, that regardless of what occurred following the divorce, on his end, he was not at all interested in his ex-wife:
MJ: ...After we got divorced she would hang out with my mother all the time. I have all of these letters saying, "I'll give you nine children. I'll do whatever you want," ...she just tried for months and months and I just became too hard-hearted at that point. I closed my mind on the whole situation.
SB: So she thought maybe you could get back together?
MJ: Uh huh.
SB: But children were a major, major issue?
MJ: Of course. 
Michael went on to say that he wanted more children but fell back onto the 'adoption' option, a stance he'd kept since at least the 1980s. But it was crystal clear that he was not moved by Lisa Marie's pathetic gestures.

This, of course, should be no surprise to anyone, for their marriage was fictitious. If Lisa Marie Presley did not conform to Michael's wishes, irrespective of her deep feelings for Michael, the arrangement was to fail. His goals for the union were simple: to diffuse suspicion over his questionable and possibly criminal sexuality, and to have children. You have to wonder which one came first; I feel it was the former; the latter was added to make it look 'real'.

From her 2003 Newsweek interview:
Do you think he was truly invested in the marriage? [Jackson married Presley only months after he was accused of child molestation.]
I can't say what his intentions were with me, but I can say it was the most real thing I think he's had. My mother was like, "Timing--hello! Wakey, wakey!" But I rebelled against my mom, of course, and tried really hard not to think like that, not to believe that.
Believe it, sister.

The hard reality for Lisa Marie Presley is that no matter how much she reflects upon history now that Michael's dead, it still does not change: there was no reciprocity of love by Michael Jackson back unto Lisa Marie, and the short duration of their marriage, as well as her immediate replacement by Debbie Rowe in a union more farcical than the first, the hurt feelings, and the angry retrospectives, prove this fact!

But one thing Lisa Marie does say consistently that is less grating and irritating is that she wanted to 'save' Michael. What does she mean?

Given her Oprah interview and her blog post immediately following Michael Jackson's death, it seems as if she's referring to Michael's history of drug and alcohol abuse--Propofol, Demerol, Oxycontin, Xanax, marijuana, cocaine, hard liquor and wine. Lisa Marie had had a drug problem and it was through her religion, Scientology, that she became clean and clear-headed.

We also know from The Michael Jackson Tapes, on page 208, Michael wanted nothing to do with the religion and that they had warred over it. As Rabbi Boteach had put it, it was the only time Michael did not speak kindly of his ex-wife.

However, while I do believe Michael had a long drug history, we have to think about from what Lisa Marie could have saved him when she was first around Michael in a deep way. I don't believe for a second Michael suffered from a drug addiction in 1993 during the height of the Jordie Chandler scandal, one that could be cured in a few weeks; that had been nothing but a ploy to stay out of the country in order to avoid being deposed or questioned about the case.

Regarding 'saving' and Scientology, Carl Toms, author of Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, offered this interesting analysis on Lisa Marie's efforts to save Michael from what could have been his true demons; from page 343:
We have already heard that she thought she could "save" him.... It makes more sense to interpret "save" in another way. What Lisa meant was that she believed she could change Michael. As an attractive woman, she flattered herself that by sympathetic encouragement she could wean him away from boys and change his sexual orientation.
She had already had reason to believe deeply in the power of personal transformation. She had been heavily into drugs but overcame the problem through a rehabilitation programme.... Her own rehab had been the Scientology Centre in Hollywood. She has said she would be either "insane or dead" but for Scientology.... She may have felt Michael's behaviour with boys was exactly one such form of madness and that through her own personal commitment to him, with the help of Scientology, she could lead him in another direction. It was a delusion, but a very understandable one.
Even thought Lisa Marie has repeated denied ever seeing anything suspicious with boys, this seems to be an especially likely theory, and I give it weight because Toms himself is a pedophile, and gay, as he says, and people of the same tribe tend to recognize each other with uncanny precision.

It would make sense, after all: while many Scientologists have now disavowed previous assertions that their religion believed homosexuality was an error in need of correction, the Church has been known--at least according to defectors--to allegedly organize marriages to quell the homosexual desires of some of it's adherents, such as John Travolta. It was claimed he had been open with his homosexuality and was blackmailed by the organization. (As an aside about Travolta, while the National Enquirer may be looked down upon as a sleazy tabloid, they have had very convincing--and apparently historically accurate--stories about his homosexuality; herehere, and here. He has denied this over the years.)

Perhaps Lisa Marie, as Toms suggested, did believe she could save him from his sexuality, gay or otherwise, because, remember, as she stated, she is convinced she was the realest thing he had experienced. And this was for a man in his mid-thirties who'd previously had no confirmed romantic relationships with women, hung out almost exclusively with young boys, and was accused of being a pedophile.

And, surely, to endure such an overt and heartless scam for so long (almost twenty months!), it had to be for some other reason outside of that dubious 1993 drug addiction. According to Taraborrelli on page 565, it was because of 'great sex', but we know, at least, that the conflicting reports and his own history of flip-flopping, this is most likely untrue.

So what is the sum of this Lisa Marie Presley analysis, you may be wondering?

My point here is that regardless of whether they were married, it does not mitigate the other factors pointing to his penchant for males. As I have noted, their marriage was a far cry from 'normal'--Lisa Marie Presley's favorite word in lieu of being forthcoming--and she was most definitely snowed by Michael Jackson, as she previously admitted.

Also, I can't be sure as to whether or not they had sex but it was not in any way the 'sex life' J. Randy Taraborrelli describes in his book! Actually, all one has to do is pick up a copy and read the interesting language he uses to convince the reader his story is not bogus, such as 'in truth' (how does he know?).

For some reason, I believe Lisa Marie Presley has bought into all the hype following Michael's death, convincing herself of something beyond reality just to soothe her own confusion. Remember, according to her, she got very sick following their parting ways and was reeling from the 'manipulations'. It also seems she has went back to read the section on she and Michael's relationship in Magic and the Madness. But, unfortunately for her, and many of Michael's fans, his book is total fiction.

To reiterate: Lisa Marie was a non-factor and their marriage meant nothing in terms of his sexuality. Obviously!

The other point of contention is the breadth of pornography found in Michael's home. In lieu of having real, tangible women to point to in order to affirm Michael's 'heterosexuality', his fans point to these materials as being indicative of an inclination for the opposite sex.

In my last entry, I made note that it's my belief this porn was mostly for the boys (or young men) with whom he came into sexual contact. I even excerpted an article wherein a Santa Barbara county police detective interviewed Omer Bhatti and stated Omer became 'nervous' when the subject of porn and booze at Neverland was broached.

According to Victor Gutierrez's Michael Jackson Was My Lover, Phillippe and Stella Lemarque--infamously known to have tried to squeeze the tabloids for their stories of Michael Jackson's amusement park cum (alleged) kiddie sex grotto--told police of Michael showing boys pornographic films in his theater. From page 55:
There were two rooms with beds behind the wall of the theater. According to Jackson, the beds were meant for the sick children who visited him. According to the chef's [Phillippe Lemarque] taped testimony, however, "Jackson stayed all night with the boys from seven at night to eight in the morning playing and watching pornographic films." (This tape was received by the District Attorney's investigator Carlos Perez on August 30, 1993, and filed under the number 08860.)
(This same information from Lemarque's police interview was related in Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love, pages 78-79 of the paperback edition.)

It's also noteworthy that, although child actor and friend of Michael Jackson's, Corey Feldman, has repeatedly stated Michael never molested him, in 2005, Feldman stated Michael had showed him explicit images of nude men and women--and their exposed genitals--infected with 'venereal diseases' when he was just thirteen- or fourteen-years-old.
Bashir asks, "Were you ever shown any images that were inappropriate?" Feldman responds, "If you consider it inappropriate for a man to look at a book of naked pictures with a child that's 13 or 14 years old, then your answer would be yes."
One example, Feldman said, was that Jackson had a book on his coffee table about "venereal diseases and the genitalia," which the singer would show him pictures in and "discuss what those meant."
"I was kind of grossed out by it," Feldman said. "I didn't think of it as a big deal. And for all these years, I probably never thought twice about it. But in light of recent evidence, I have to say that if my son was 14 years old, 13 years old, and went to a man's apartment, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass."
Only in hindsight did Feldman realize Michael was being inappropriate. Allegedly, he was shown these pictures before going to Disneyland. Why Michael felt it was important to show images of STD-destroyed genitals to a young boy before seeing Mickey Mouse is anyone's guess.

Some could say Michael's 'instruction' was innocent and harmless but showing sexually explicit pictures is often a way for pedophiles to lower the inhibitions of their victims and get the victims thinking in a sexually aroused or sexualized mindset, making abuse easier to accomplish. Luckily for Feldman, he was not a victim.

I should also note that this particular incident occurred at Michael's Hideout apartment in Century City, California. This was the same house to which Michael's longtime driver, Gary Hearne, testified he had taken suitcases filled with unknown items to Anthony Pellicano's home before the police raided the condo in 1993 in connection to the Jordie Chandler scandal (Be Careful Who You Love, pages 70-71). No one knows what they contained but seeing that Pellicano denied ever receiving the items******, not to mention they were hidden from police, the contents of these suitcases may have been incriminating to Michael.

Outside of the anecdote from Corey Feldman; the curious behavior of Omer Bhatti during his 2003 police interview; the statements given to police by the Lemarques; and Gavin and Star Arvizo's claim Michael Jackson showed them sexually explicit images, little else is known about Michael showing young boys pornography.

All we know for certain is that Michael Jackson possessed what seemed to be great amount of it.

However, as it was documented by veteran FBI agent Ken Lanning--an expert on child molesters and general criminal behavior--in his field guide Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis, it is not uncommon for pedophiles to have vast amounts of pornography for the sole purpose of molesting victims. This excerpt from page 67/160 of the .pdf file seems to fit Michael Jackson nicely:

Notice, curiously, how this excerpt, regarding the typical pedophile action of amassing an assemblage of explicit materials, remarks on the fact that some pedophiles try to use their porn collections as proof of a (more) normal sexuality! 

Of course, I feel this is the case with Michael's collection and it definitely seems to hold true when taken together with Bhatti, Lemarque, and the Arvizo boys. According to police search documents, Michael's porn was found everywhere and on display. He certainly made no attempt to hide it from his staff and, even though one could say it was okay to have their own porn lying anywhere about their bedroom, it should be remembered that Michael allowed children--young boys--in his chambers whenever they wanted.

Recall that Gavin and Star Arvizo 'found' Michael's pornography on several occasions.

However, as cogent as the 'cover-up' explanation seems, I do feel it is lacking.

Is it possible that Michael Jackson could have had at least some of his porn for himself? Of course! It would be naive and foolish to assume that all of it was for the boys, this belief based solely on the fact Michael had been the likely perpetrator of child molestation against numerous young males.

Although this could merely be conjecture, I thought it was interesting that one of Michael's pornographic DVDs mentioned in a search summary sheet following the Neverland raid, called "Michael Ryan's Believe It Or Not", was produced out of Gary, Indiana--Michael Jackson's hometown--in early 2003. I wondered if there was a possible connection between Michael and the pornographer. The video featured plotlines such as: "Unbelievable anal" (wherein someone inserts objects into the anus); "Chicks with Dicks" (women having sex with transsexuals); and "Brown Showers" (self-explanatory, but Michael seemed to enjoy 'doo doo'). 

After all, Michael had been affiliated with F. Marc Schaffel, a gay porn producer. Anything is possible.

I feel the importance, though, lies in holism.

Michael Jackson had heterosexual, commercially-produced pornographic materials in DVD and magazine form. The investigative tech team also uncovered images of nude women on laptop computers. And--as fans love to point out--he had an article on the female G-spot, a cutout from a magazine that he saved. 

But what many fans seem to forget is that Michael also had several homoerotic books, one graphically depicting gay sex, so graphic that it could be considered gay pornography, as it is identical to what is shown in those alternative films, albeit under an artsy facade. In addition to this unabashed 'gay porn', Michael also had several books glorifying the nude adult male form (e.g. Taormina by Van Gloeden, Camp Cove Sydney Men, and Before the Hand of Man); glorifying the nude youthful male form (e.g. The Chop Suey Club and Bidgood by noted gay photographers Bruce Weber and James Bidgood, respectively) and homosexual love (e.g. Bob and Rod by another noted gay photographer Tom Bianchi).

It should be noted that Michael Jackson spent $325 for The Chop Suey Club, which featured then sixteen-year-old Peter Johnson both clothed and nude; he was plucked from a wrestling camp--no doubt a hot bed of homoerotic angst--because of his impressive beauty and immortalized in film. 

We must not forget his cherished Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy: A Photographic essay that were taken from him in 1993 that showed young naked boys, both representing a redux of worshipful Ancient Greek pederasty.

We have to wonder why Michael Jackson had these materials as well, if he was indeed so heterosexual as his fans seem to assert.  To have books showcasing love between men or one intricately detailing gay sex, you'd have to possess some sort of interest in it. It is certainly possible a heterosexual man could have these books for some purpose completely outside of sheer sexual curiosity but it is doubtful.

Perhaps Michael Jackson was the only seemingly effeminate, allegedly pedophilic, and female companionless man not really interested in the homosexual books for which he paid hundreds of dollars!

To conclude...

Now, even after all of this talking and explanation of the circumstantial evidence pointing to Michael Jackson's seeming homosexuality and/or boy-loving, I do not want the main point of that last 'gay' entry to become muddled: In 2003, investigators uncovered the semen stains of THREE DIFFERENT MALES on Michael Jackson's mattress and in bed sheets and in underwear kept in a hotel bag with Michael's own dirty underwear.

It is when this evidence and now the breadth of other factors that have been used, for years, to support the obvious notion Michael was disinterested in women are put together, the case for Michael Jackson having been gay (and/or a lover of young males) is veryvery strong.

I'll close this article with Michael's own words. From The Michael Jackson Tapes, pages 212-213:
Look in the Bible. Women have taken the most powerful men down to nothing because of what is between their legs. Samson, nobody could cut his hair, and he had sex with Delilah.
Did Michael not live by those very sentiments?


* In my last post, I referred to the foreign semen on Michael Jackson's mattress and in bed sheets and underwear kept in a 'laundry bag' with Michael's soiled underwear as having been from men. I was simply extending to Michael the benefit of the doubt. I am not entirely sure if Michael was having sexual contact with men or with young males, such as his 'special friends', or to which group his sex partners belonged. It could be either or it could be both. For this reason, I use the term 'males'.

** Seeing that Anthony Pellicano was involved in 'negotiations' (as opposed to reporting an alleged extortion to the proper authorities) with Evan Chandler and his then-attorney, Barry Rothman, about the molestation of Jordie Chandler, it is not hard to speculate that he knew, if the talks did not go over well, police could be brought in. As a result, he could have easily told Michael Jackson to get rid of anything incriminating before authorities got involved. On page 74 of Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask, Bob Jones remarks that Pellicano was tipped off about the raids while other Jackson staff were kept in the dark about the goings-on at Neverland.

*** Michael Jackson has had numerous put-up women over the years brought out for the sole purpose of convincing the public he was heterosexual, especially during the times he was in the midst of scandal.

In 1993, Tatiana Thumbtzen--of The Way You Make Me Feel fame--had been trotted out to vouch for Michael's virile maleness and that he could not have been a gay pedophile because he was interested in women. However, as I've shown in the video of her above, they never, ever had a relationship, no matter how hard she tried. She imparted these words on the whole situation, as reported in the paperback edition of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized; from pages 222-223:
In the coming years Katherine [Jackson] and family would call on Tatiana to step forward and claim that she had had a romance with Michael. In 1993, when a thirteen-year-old boy accused Michael of molesting him, Tatiana appeared on several television programs to offer firsthand testimony that Michael was heterosexual. "He wanted people to think," Tatiana later said, "that he was an all-American red-blooded male, that one day he'd get married, have kids. But deep down in his heart, he knows he never will."
She was right. Also, from page 392:
Tatiana...had been carted out by the Jackson family only weeks earlier [before the settlement with the Chandlers] to hint at a romantic relationship on national television. She now admitted it was all a ruse. "Quite frankly," she said, "when I read he'd paid the boy millions, it turned my stomach."
In 2003, Shana Mangatal was also brought out to attest to Michael's heterosexuality only one week following his arrest for the alleged molestation of Gavin Arvizo, claiming they had been in a years-long relationship.

[video no longer available]

The timing is suspicious and corroborates the pattern established by Lisa Marie Presley. Although I typically do not want to cite speculation from Michael Jackson fan boards or websites, it seems as if the relationship she claims to have had with Michael Jackson was totally in her own head (read more about her, and the denials against her story, here). 

In early 2004, another put-up woman stepped out. Joanna Thomae was a French fanatic who obsessively followed Michael Jackson around the world for several years and managed to meet him at an Invincible record signing in 2001. As I mentioned with both Thumbtzen and Mangatal, when Michael was accused of child molestation, she emerged to claim he was not only a normal man with an interest in women, but also had been in a relationship with her.

However, marriage proposals and kissing anecdotes aside, a French language article provides details that, when read between the lines, shows that she'd been nothing more than a young girl coerced into a scam by Michael's handlers. (NOTE: you will not be able to read this article without a grasp of the French language or the willingness to input all of the words into a language translator.)

The bottom line with all of these put-ups is that speculation is not enough to convince the more intelligent masses that Michael Jackson was with women. The timing of their appearances in the media--none of whom were ever confirmed by Michael himself--makes one doubt the truth to these 'relationships'. 

**** During Michael Jackson's trial, singer Stephanie Mills did a radio interview and discussed the relationship she had had with Michael in the 1970s, where she claimed to be a girlfriend of Michael's and that the two kissed (NOTE: Michael also kissed Lisa Marie Presley at the 1994 MTV Video Awards in a staged and awkward display; kissing a woman, apparently, is no measure of a man's heterosexuality in Michael's case).

[video no longer available]

However, according to Michael Jackson: Unauthorized, Mills' affections for Michael were not totally reciprocated; from page 70:
After seeing The Wiz for the fourth time, he [Michael Jackson] escorted the musical's tiny, Merman-voiced teenage star, Stephanie Mills, to the chic Park Avenue nightclub Regine's for dinner. Throughout dinner she flirted with him, brushing his hand with hers, bumping his knees under the table, even, for one fleeting moment, laying her head on his shoulder. With each touch Michael became rigid. ...[H]is discomfort became more and more obvious....
Also, from Nelson George's 1984 biography The Michael Jackson Story, page 128-129:
While in New York, Michael added two very different female stars to his list of close friends--Stephanie Mills and Liza Minelli.... By his own count he saw The Wiz eight times, in part because of the upcoming film version but also because he and Stephanie had become friends. Like Michael, and Tatum O'Neal, she was a teen star burdened with adult pressures and popularity. 
Those close to the young star say she was quite infatuated with Michael.... But for Michael she was a good friend, nothing more.
Mills obviously has liked Michael Jackson for years, and I feel there is no reason to doubt her account of events, but you have to wonder if he ever felt the same way, or if he was just going through the motions, which is typical of many young homosexuals struggling with their sexualities. In Mills' case, he was Michael Jackson, after all, and it would not be hard to 'over egg the pudding' and reinterpret friendly feelings for something more, as what many women do with any man.

***** There are many anecdotes floating around in books, articles, and available on the web and what I'd mentioned was a scant list. Some sources:

Madonna, page 289 of Christopher Andersen's paperback edition of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized:
"I'd love to turn Jose and Luis [the two gay dancers who taught her to vogue] loose on you for a week. They'd pull you out of the shoebox you're living in. Anybody's who's in a shoebox in the closet cannot be in one after hanging out with Luis and Jose for a while." To all this, she claimed, Michael "keeps saying yes."
Business associate Bob Michaelson, page 157-158, Ibid.:
"Michael always seemed to be around young men," said his former friend and business partner Bob Michaelson. "On the road, in the studio, he always had some good looking guy with him, usually somebody between seventeen and, say, twenty. Never a woman. Never." .... 
"All people around Michael thought he was gay, no matter what they said publicly. The people who worked for him knew it. His family knew it. It was a real shame, the way they kept talking about his 'romance' with Brooke Shields. But if you had asked me or anyone else at the time, we would have said it was young men, not kids." 
Business associate Gordon Novel, in Maureen Orth's "CSI: Neverland";
On March 17, nearly a month into the trial, [Gordon] Novel went to Neverland to strategize. Maximo's first thought was that Michael was in need of "an extreme makeover" of what he calls "imaggio."....
The general was blunt with Jackson. "I told him, 'Get rid of the weird persona. You look like the weird pedophile. I'm talking about the hair, lipstick, eyebrows. Just be yourself, and say why you're doing it. Say that's your show-biz personality. It's just what you do to sell LPs.' He said, 'No. I just want to be me.'" The general also told him to find a female lover. "He didn't want to go with girls, do the romance thing either. He didn't want to come to Jesus; he thinks he's already religious. I said, 'Why didn't you stop fooling around with kids?' He said, 'I didn't want to.'"
Former publicist Stuart Backerman in an interview he'd done a day after Michael's death with the Vancouver Sun:
SUN: Did he ever have a relationship with a woman, a real relationship?
BACKERMAN: Not really. Not with Lisa Presley, not with Debbie Rowe, not with anybody in terms of a romantic, sexual relationship. He had his hairdresser and other women, his mother, but he wasn’t...built that way, you know?
SUN: Do you think he was gay?
BACKERMAN: I don’t know if he was gay. I would say he was maybe...not that interested in sex, per se, he was put off by it, not feeling comfortable enough in his own skin to go that step, in a sense, you know what I mean? 
SUN: As a child star he would have had lots of opportunities to have sex when he was a kid.
BACKERMAN: Well, you know the story goes that he slept in the same room as his older brothers and saw some very strange happenstances, and that maybe turned him off, to a certain degree. Maybe his own innate character was that he was a little turned off that way. Maybe there was a predisposition to being gay in a sense, although he didn’t followup on it, certainly in an adult sense. Maybe his ability to express himself that way was done via his relationships with these younger prepubescent boys.
Longtime makeup artist Karen Faye (and other stylists) continuing the notion of his nebulous 'asexuality':

Many people will assume, given their emphatic and self-assured composure, that these three stylists are telling the truth. However, one wonders, given the constant cover-ups by handlers, family, and friends of Michael's alleged homosexuality, if these people have an ingrained auto-response to the typical "Is/Was Michael Jackson gay?", so much that they can deliver the rehearsed answer without the tell-tale deceptive twitch.

I find there is no huge reason to doubt the stylists' sincerity, if only at face value, but I cannot help but think, like Stuart Backerman, they are hiding a sexuality that deviates from the hetero-normative. Instead of validating his heterosexuality in the face of an unconvinced interviewer (or of an unconvinced public, like the put-up women previously mentioned), they fall into the stock 'asexuality' defense, that he was incapable of intimacy, or had a fear of it. 

Conversely, though, when taking note of the evidence of semen stains on his bed and in sheets and underwear from three different males; the multimillion-dollar payoffs to at least two boys; and the variety of heterosexual, homosexual, and pedophilic materials found at Neverland over the years, one can conjecture that either these stylists know nothing of Michael's sexuality, or they are not telling the whole truth.

****** Information about Pellicano and the mysterious suitcases from Michael Jackson's Hideout apartment from Maureen Orth's March 2004 Vanity Fair article, "Neverland's Lost Boys", page 420:
In 1993, according to sources, Gary Hearne, Jackson's chauffeur, testified he had delivered a black briefcase and a suitcase belonging to Jackson to Kat Pellicano [Pellicano's ex-wife]. On Anthony's orders, she says, she accepted them, but she cannot remember what they contained. In a deposition for the case, Pellicano denied under oath having the briefcase and suitcase in his possession, and Kat Pellicano was also asked to testify about them to a Santa Barbara grand jury. She told me that her husband had cut a deal so that, instead of her having to appear in person, she could testify on speakerphone from his lawyer's office. She said she had taken her cues from the lawyer, who would nod yes or no for her to answer. She said it was a farce.
We can only imagine what was in the items hidden before police got to Michael's residences. Anthony Pellicano was known to do things 'mafia-style' and hiding evidence from police seems up his alley. That his ex-wife was instructed to lie is another indication that the contents of the suitcases had to be incriminating.


Len said...

Desiree, as always, I'm truly impressed by your research and unwillingness to be blunt about your findings! I'm looking forward to Michael's rabid fans giving themselves a hernia, over this.

Some comments I'll make:

1. I don't know if anybody will know whether or not Lisa Marie had sex with Michael. There are so many different accounts. He definitely manipulated her for his public-relations stunt, so my gut tells me he may have Done her a few times, just to prove a point. To get her pregnant would have further put the public at bay, although the issue he did not want black children raises a LOT of questions. But a few things come to mind. I have heard gay men say they were once married or engaged to a woman. But the more they came to terms with their sexuality, the more they fantasized about men, while screwing their female partners, just to keep It up. In that event, I doubt sex for Lisa Marie was enjoyable, and I doubt it happened very often, especially since this did not curb him from sleepovers with little boys. I also question that she would have stayed in the marriage for as long (although the word "long" is dubious, at best) as she did had Michael not been sticking It to her, once in awhile. I suspect when it became more and more obvious she wasn't going to cooperate, sex stopped, altogether. Someday, I hope somebody can find out the truth about what happened because it's obvious Michael didn't love and desire her.

2. The Stephanie Mills story is interesting because she admitted she was very aggressive in her pursuit of Michael, but said he never got naked with her, even though he kissed her. I remember going to a gay bar with my former roommate, who only felt comfortable in gay environments, out of concern for his own safety. When I left the bathroom, a very handsome man said to me, "You're a beautiful woman. Can I kiss you?" Of course, I let him tongue kiss me, but that definitely didn't mean he was planning to take me home. He just wanted to kiss me and no more. I'm sure Michael kissed Stephanie, but he obviously had no intention of doing anything more. She also admitted Michael saw her as a friend and nothing more. I'm sure he saw her as a beard.

3. I have always personally believed Karen Faye is a "fag hag", in love with Michael, who wished he would reciprocate her sexual desire, deep, down inside.

4. I wish I could give Michael credit for sleeping with grown men. Maybe he did. (I hope so, anyway.) But my bad gut feeling is, given Michael's history and whom he publicly paraded around with, the males were basically little boys, with the exception of Brett Barnes, who continued sleeping with Michael until he was about 19, as well a Omer Bhatti. Too bad the DNA of the mystery males was not pursued, further. But this is where therapy would have helped him when he was young. He would have, unfortunately, been forced to hide his sexuality, Liberace style, but at least he would have had normal sexual relations with grown men.

5. I don't think Katherine Jackson realizes how much suspicion she cast on her son's money-making public image by announcing how good Howard Mann has been to her. I wonder who leaked it into the press he had destroyed certain "items", at Katherine's bequest. Makes me wonder what Howard is holding over her head.

6. I'd love to have a conversation with Schaffell and a few of the others. I think they should write tell-all books, since Dileo and Schmuley want to write books that will more than likely whitewash Michael's little secrets.

Len said...


I reread my post and realized a sentence in my first paragraph was wrong. It was supposed to read, "truly impressed by your research and unwillingness to be less than blunt..."

Sorry about that!

Sarah said...

There are lots of things in MJ's life that just don't add up. His apparent painful shyness, which was apparently an act, his sexy dance moves which corrolate not at all to his shy sexless persona. His lack of interest in sex and yet he had enough porn to sink a ship, most of it hetero. The desire to have kids with Lisa Marie but the apparent lack of interest in conventional marriage. His religion, yet he sometimes treated people without respect or any human kindness, I've read countless times where it has been said that he could just "freeze" someone out if they didn't go along with his plans. Not to mention the fact that he was an inveterate liar, the plastic surgery, the Princess Diana BS, the denials of the drug problems, the I'm not gay routine. He lied and encouraged others to lie also, eg "just tell your parents we are watching the Simpsons!" Yeah right, we all know what they were really watching. He even got to Jordy Chandler to colude with him, remember the alleged sickness in Monaco just so they could spend time together alone? I think it is safe to say that MJ told the truth about very little. He even told Martin Bashir that he had sex with Debbie Rowe! That's the best one of the lot.
Just as a little aside, which is related to what I am talking about, I recently came across a documentary by Jacques Perreti ( who is hated by MJ fans for his doco in 2007 which was not complimentary to MJ). It is called MJ's Secret Hollywood. Nothing really new in it except it metioned a bit about some nurses that sued Dr Steven Hoefflin for his unprofessional conduct during operations. We all know that Hoefflin was MJ's doctor for years, but they apparently fell out. I researched some articles and will post the link below. In short, the nurses alledge that he exposed gentalia whilst famous patients were asleep and made disparaging comments some of them, guess what MJ and his beard Elizabeth Taylor are mentioned! It is telling the Dr apparently comments that MJ has "never used it". i'm not sure when this quote is from but he stopped working on MJ around 1998. So it could include the time period that MJ was married to LMP.

Here are a few links

Just follow the links on you tube for the other parts of the documentary.
As Desiree said in her post the porn is a bit of a mystery. Why would a gay man have so much hetero porn? I have asked someone I know who is gay and he said that he looks at it as he likes to look at the macho guys that they use! I think MJ also used it to sexualise the kids he had around him. He got off talking about sex with these kids, and introducing the idea of masturbating, it stands to reason that he would enjoy showing them skin mags. Whichever way you look at it he didn't get laid the traditional way. Although I have read it here that people think that he had a sexual relationship with Grace! WTF, I have a hard time with that one but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. She just doesn't seem his type, for a start I thought he was ashamed of his color and therefore would not pick a woman of color as a mate, if he couldn't do Brooke or Tatum.......just saying? He also made it clear the he thought his employees were beneath him, I think Bob Jones states something like that. Look I don't know the answer but would love for Len to fill in the gaps is she can.

J-M-H said...

Great post Desiree! So this is why you take so long, to give us a well researched blog! :-D

It seems like its pretty self-explanatory that the male DNA was semen, and with that chart, I think the scientists would know the difference between semen and other fluids. Fans need to stop being in denial! Also, that is what I thought about the bags of clothing, that it was from a vacation. No guest stuff would be in the video arcade/storage area, that is a ridiculous notion. Just goes to show, you definitely can't trust what comes out of a defense attorney's mouth. Also, notice how Tom Mesereau doesn't diavow the accuracy of the DNA tests and especially doesn't deny the presence of semen on Mike's mattress. He just says that the DNA is irrelevant and has no probative value because it doesn't belong to the Arvizo boys. Seems like Mesereau knows how the DNA could have gotten on the mattress, and it doesn't conform to the fantasies of MJ fans, that it was put on there when he was gone or some people had sex in his room etc. People having the code for his room to f**k in his bed is highly unlikely given what Salas said. Great point about the purpose of the lock was to keep people out, not let them in when he is away.

I agree with Len, I don't think that anyone will truly know if Mike consummated his first marriage. However, I always find it suspicious why she never says anything about them being together in that way besides to say it was normal is telling in my opinion. I think Mike had relations with her just enough so he could have a kid. I mean, Lisa could at least say something nice about him in that way now that he was dead. I do have to put stock in Diane Dimond though, she is a great reporter, who is not as biased as people think. She believes what she has been told. I think that she really was told by a person she trusts as a reliable source that Lisa said it was never consummated. So who knows? I think the only thing that is clear, in my mind, is that she was used. Plan and simple. That she would write letters begging, in Mike's words, for reconciliation and that she would have his babies and he didn't give two squirrel shits about it, shows he was never interested in her as a wife and mother. he preferred the Debbie Rowe "Brood Mare" situation, clearly. And I think she is not being truthful when she paints that they were getting back together and breaking up 4 years after their marriage. Seems to me that from Mike's own words, he wasn't interested. Plus she was engaged in 1998 and I assume it wasn't a shotgun courtship. She said she had 2 relationships between her 2nd and 3rd marriages. See, I think she is exaggerating about those "4 years after the divorce".

J-M-H said...

I totally agree with what you say about the porn. People need to remember that he had the gay materials too, and I've seen that book "Bob and Rod" and those guys are hunky muscular and clearly in love, as they were a real gay couple. What man who is heterosexual man wants to look at a naked gay love story told in pictures? And that's so proof that he bought "The Chop Suey Club" with 16 yr old Peter Johnson for $325! He must have really wanted that book! He clearly had a thing for young males.

and why does all his people stick with the "he was asexual" answer, rather than exposing his, fan-alleged, virility? I think that it would have helped him in the media if he was really so straight. I think the simple answer is because he wasn't straight, and his people don't want to admit it. I mean he had sexual materials so that is evidence that he wasn't asexual, along with all those different semen stains on his mattress. They were covering up something, Stuart Backerman's quote says in all. (Also Stuart clearly states that Mike's "not really" had a real relationship, not with anybody in terms of a romantic sexual relationship, not with Debbie and not with Lisa. I think Mike told him that or he witnessed it. More proof that he didn't care about Lisa and IMO, that Diane Dimond may be correct.)

Rebekah said...

Love the way you pull so many different pieces of information together and show lots of evidence for your theories.

When I read hypotheses on Michael's relationships with women, the "just knowing" often cited as proof seems rather laughable. One would assume he'd want to flaunt relationships with women rather than keep them secret, considering how adamantly he maintained he was not gay.

Your conclusions make sense.
Thanks for the hard work you put into your posts!

J-M-H said...


That People magazine article, published in November 1998, said Lisa Marie met Johnny O. "The couple met last May and became engaged just before Christmas, when Oszajca went to Lisa Marie's mother, Priscilla Presley, and asked "for her daughter's hand in marriage," said spokesman Paul Bloch. After receiving her approval, Oszajca formally proposed to Lisa Marie." So I highly doubt she was courting Mike during May 1997-at least November 1998. She married Nick Cage on Aug 10, 2002 and divorced him on Nov. 25, 2002. Remember on LKL, she said there was two relationships between her divorce from Mike in 1996 and marriage to Nick Cage in late 2002. And 4 years would be 1996-2000. Who's the other guy? 1997 to at least the end of 1998 was with Johnny O. It's either she's a disgusting cheater that two-times her boyfriends or she is exaggerating the whole "getting back together and breaking up" thing with Mike.

Desiree said...


I was fair in the entry about Lisa but I have a hard time believing their relationship was incredibly sexual. I think ti was mostly emotional. She stated in the Rolling Stone link that they initially had sex but it stopped after a while, possibly when Michael realized she was not getting pregnant? Or perhaps to make her think he was 'normal'?

It's a mystery. But if they had sex, it had nothing to do with anything Taraborrelli described. That's what i was getting at because the fans act like it was some big love affair. But Lisa's own words defy that notion.

Sexuality is on a continuum and a gay man making it with a woman does NOT make him not a gay or even bisexual. That was my main point. Just look at the way Michael has always talked about women.

Marc Schaffel knows a lot... I don't understand why these people won't let a little slip.

I totally agree with you about Karen Faye. I think she's besotted with Michael; her comment about wigs said it all. I think she's covering things up.

I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. This was the entry I'd lost but I think this one is a lot better than the one I would have posted. This is much more thorough.

Desiree said...


Thank you for the links. I will read/watch them later...

I know Dr. Arnold Klein had mentioned something about Hoefflin in a video on TMZ where he said Hoefflin was in a tree shooting people and other crazy things. I have an issue with Klein because I thought he was generally not truthful in much but I am starting to come around. It seemed so crazy but I usually pay more attention to such accusations made in court.

A lot of things in Michael's life don't add up, that's right. and if things don't make sense, they probably are not true.

I remember someone at Lipstick Alley saying that there seemed to be a lot of time period overlap with Michael's 'girlfriends' and they wondered if he could have been two-timing. But they never thought that it was because all of them were PUT-UP WOMEN, shams. Duh! ;-)

Desiree said...


That's a good point. That is a fallacy in the defenders' arguments about his virile sexuality. He never confirmed any of these women and rumor is not enough to convince the intelligent public.

Now, it could be enough for those with a bias, those who want Michael to have been something of a womanizer and not gay, but not for people who have a functioning brain.

Typically, whenever you see a man (or woman) in Hollywood who is not connected to an opposite sex partner, it's because they are gay. Sometimes you'll have a beard relationship but usually these people are 'single'.

The National Enquirer recently insinuated Queen Latifah was gay and that her female trainer, who she shares a home with, could be her lover. They had a pic of them hugging and the trainer's hands were very close to Queen Latifah's ass. It looked VERY intimate.

And she's never been linked to anyone.

Years ago, my aunt, who had been exploring lesbianism at the time (I think this was in the 1990s?), saw Queen Latifah at an alternative party in Los Angeles. It didn't get out or get a lot of attention because the media generally does not care about black celebrities...

But a rule of thumb is if someone's 'single' well into their 30s, they are probably gay.

Think: Andersen Cooper, Ricky Martin, Clay Aiken, MICHAEL, Tyler Perry (I know he's gay). John Travolta was finally married in the 1990s, I believe. He is gay.

I feel Michael was the same way...

Desiree said...


I think that is the biggest thing I want people to remember when they read this piece: SEMEN WAS FOUND! All of the talk around it is merely the pedestal for this former evidence.

Lisa Marie's time line does NOT add up, unless she was a slut. She's delusional. She was with other people! And was Michael even interested in her? Did she ever get the slightest hint of reciprocity?

I doubt it.

But the forensic evidence is what I want everyone to remember. Porn does NOT trump a foreign semen-soaked mattress in a man's bedroom, especially a man who's first 'legitimate' (I'm using that word loosely) relationship was following a scandal wherein he was accused of sexing a young BOY.

That outweighs everything and that is what needs to be kept in perspective.

Good analysis on Lisa's fabrications, J... I guess I should have quoted the article but, at that point, I was lazy! I just linked it.

Lynette said...

Hi, Desiree, I know that you like Kim Kardashian as a celebrity and was wondering if you have ever done a yahoo search with her name and Michael Jackson's. Kim used to date his nephew TAJ and even had her 14th birthday party at Neverland. She really admired Michael and even tweeted on his last birthday how much she misses him.TAJ credited her with helping him through the death of his mother.

Desiree said...


I am aware of she and Kourtney's relationships with two of the 3T. I also know that Michael Jackson was not at Neverland when she had her birthday.

As much as I think Kim Kardashian is a gorgeous woman, and, yes, her appearance is the biggest reason I like her because she is not intelligent, she was not genuine in her 'tweet' about Michael. After all, it's cool to be on the Jacko bandwagon, now.

I wonder if she'd visit OJ Simpson in jail, or 'tweet' on his birthday? OJ was a friend of the Kardashian family--more so than Michael--and he is also a previously acquitted criminal. Unfortunately for OJ, he cannot moonwalk.

I can bet he will not get such a heartfelt 'tweet' from Kim Einstein. Talk about disloyalty! But I guess possibly killing your wife and her friend is worse than possibly molesting young boys and silencing at least four families with millions of dollars.

So, Blaine spreads emails around. Lynette, what say you on this entry? Any (feeble) defenses?

Sarah said...

I agree with the comments made about Karen Faye, she is a very fickle. One minute she is saying one thing the next minute something else.She seems to constantly be communicating with MJ's fans instead of getting on with her life! She did this before he passed away also and made some pretty bold comments also I might add. She recently got all matey with LMP after years of hating each other, now they are BFFs! Funny that, they both seem to love the limelight which is why they hated each other in the first place. Anyway KF has been caught out big time, someone found an email that has been posted on a fan site and tweeted it around the net proving the sort of things that Karen had been saying about LMP as late as 2007 when she was no longer in contact with MJ. She must have harboured some strong resentment. I'll post the link at the end of my comments. Anyway KF's motor mouth got her in a bit of trouble with MJ back in the day as he found out that she had been communicating with fans and discussing all types of personal stuff on fan websites! Here's some of the stuff that I found.
Tatiana Thumbzten never had any chance with MJ, she was a nutjob that used to write him disgusting letters and chase him around the world, not surprisingly he wasn't interested in her!
Joanna Thomae,also a nutjob, she is described as invasive, she ended up banging Frank Tyson, but we all know that one.
Naomi Campbell told MJ on the set of In the Closet that she wanted to suck his dick and he freaked out. Are we surprised!
Just before the 30th Anniversary concert MJ was very stoned and the Dr nearly called off the concert, but MJ suddenly pulled it all together and pulled it off, well kinda he looked spaced out and weird that night.
The chick in the photos in Hawaii in 1988 that everyone tries to say is Mj's lover is Jimmy Safechucks mother! Who else would it be? He didn't like girls so it wasn't a lover now was it.

Here is the email link

Len said...


I wholeheartedly agree the Michael/Lisa Marie union was passionless, at least on Michael's side, especially since he didn't even like women. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post. Sexuality is definitely on a continuum, and I was trying to show more information that a gay man might screw a woman, but he still gay. Does this explanation help?

I've always been thoroughly stumped on that union. I remember when they got married, I was convinced she was not laying across the bed for him. I failed to see how Michael would be able to get it up for a woman, and I couldn't understand why Lisa Marie would want to spread her legs for a self-mutilated, bleach-whitened man. Then, right after they got divorced, Lisa Marie said they did have sex, and she came across as humiliated, angry, and revolted she had done such a thing. She never said anything about him being a great lay, either. Since then, her information has been so contradictory, I'm prone to believe she'd have to be drugged before somebody could pull the truth out of her.

As with J-M-H, I also read Diane Dimond had been told by a reliable source Michael and Lisa Marie did not consummate the marriage, and I'm prone to believe her. (I really need to read her book.)

On the other hand, Carl Toms actually brought up Taraborelli's statement about the "awesome sex" between Michael and Lisa Marie. He discredits the supposed "hot nights" in the bedroom by saying he believes Michael boinked her just to get a child from her, to help his tarnished public image, but found sex with her distasteful because her body wasn't a little boy's. His information about Michael was mostly valid, except my problem with the book, as you know, is it's a biography that is really a thinly veiled promotion in favor of pedophilia, using Michael as the poster child. So Toms sidesteps some obvious facts, such as the sexual abuse Michael suffered, as a child. Toms didn't deny it, he just tried to steer the reader around it. To state Michael was victimized by childhood sexual abuse would reveal the obvious link between the abused becoming an abuser, which would show how unnatural and abhorrent sex is between adults and children. But I digress.

The end result is between Diane Dimond and Carl Toms, I am what I refer to as skeptically neutral. I've been told they screwed, in the beginning, but more and more I just find it hard to believe, although Michael was a very calculating man, who did what he felt was necessary to get his way. A child would have given him control of the Elvis Presley estate. (I remember Priscilla publicly screamed about that one.) Maybe it's because I'm so repulsed by Michael? I just don't understand what was in it for Lisa Marie.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Susana said...

Desirée, wow impressive. Very well documented and argumented entry. Congratulations.

I'm more inclined to think that the marriage with Lisa Marie was a sham by both sides.

-Lisa told her manager or publicist that she did something big that will help her with her record and recommended him to look the press the next day, when he married michael.
-People saw her and her ex-husband acting like a couple during vacations together. In fact, some people say they still living together during the marriage with MJ
-They didn't sleep together in the Dominican Republic, even they stayed at different hotels
-The judge who conducted the wedding was perplexed by their behaviour during the ceremony: no kisses, no affection, no taking the ceremony seriously, her ex-brother in law was best man...I don't think Lisa Marie was in love, but trying to gain exposure in the press. She was famous, but not as interesting for the press as she became after the marriage, let alone the foreign press
-Lisa's friend went to the Enquirer to disclose the information about their sexual life. That sounds fishy to me... so many efforts to convince us. If they were a real couple, why they were so concerned about the perception the general public did have. Why they need so bad to display their intimacies.
-Their “romantic” and “secret” dates with “cameras” at “the Ivy”
-The infamous kiss. Michael's stance couldn't be gayest. Look at his leg...his pose was so gay. As I said previously, too many efforts to convince us. That reminds me of the video with Naomi Campbell. Michael body language says it all. He was uncomfortable with women, clearly he wasn't used to be “physical” with them. I can't imagine him sticking his tool inside a woman, or getting an erection in their presence.
-The first thing that went out of Lisa's mouth in her last interview with Oprah was something like: I don't make this interview because I have a new record coming soon... ahem, Lisa. She was trying to generate interest for her next promotional campaign.
-They couldn't get their facts together in the Diane Sawyer interview. In fact, the whole interview is the proof that their marriage was a farce and Michael was a gay paedophile.
-Many people says they never sleep together and lived in different places.
-I still convinced that Bob Jones lied in the book regarding Lisas feelings. I remember he was pleased with Lisa when they visited Graceland. I think he wouldn't publicly discredit her.
-I agree with you all. Gay men could marry and have sex in heterosexual relationships for varied reasons, but frankly, I don't think all of them could do that, and IMO Michael enters that category.
-The explanation for the break-up was part of the plot. The pills, the kids...what Michael said to the rabbi (the letters where Lisa begged and the 9 children blah, blah, blah) all is a farce. Obviously, they needed a public explanation for the end of the relationship, and they came up with that. The real motives would look very bad. They reinforced the legitimacy of the relationship and the masculinity of MJ with this lie, also people would believe easily that racism could have played a part in Lisa's reluctance to have kids. They closed the circle which started with the marriage and Lisas friend going to the Enquirer. If at all, he proposed her to have children Debbie Rowe style or adopted, I can't think of him having kids by conventional means.

Michael was a liar, as Sarah mentioned previously, remember his nerve when he said Princess Diana and him were discussing marriage, but Lisa was in the same boat.

Susana said...

The porn was there for the kids, I think. A rabid fan make a list and linked to the magazines covers. Most of the hetero porn was about girls looking like teenagers, which seems more appealing for young boys. There were several articles regarding “shemales” (I didn't know this world until then) and “well endowed celebrities” in different numbers and different publications. I think MJ was more than the regular gay man, and I am not speaking about his paedophilia now, but he had some transsexual traces also.

There were very, very few magazines with big and old woman on them. But they weren't relevant if we compare the number of young girls magazines he had. Maybe Omer or Frank bought them, they strike me as disgusting guys. I think the collection wasn't enterely his.

lynette said...

Well Desiree I suppose I could start with the fact that when none of it was used in court the prosecution agreed not to use the underwear found in Paris's room and the various items of laundry found in the 2 bags.It had 2 blood spots on either side of the back of the underwear and had previously been laundered as were all of the various items of clothing found in the Garden City bag and the Disney bag located in a storage closet in the video arcade. I know it would be much to logical for you to think that Michael Jackson didn't take his laundry out of the house in a duffle bag and walk about seventy five feet, into anther building and up the stairs and into a locked undereave storage to put his and his kids clean laundry and dirty socks and various pill bottles in there. You are a student of Microbiology so you know as well as I do that the identification of the owners of the DNA which is refered to as such in later Motions is the only thing that mattered. The prosecution called it semen because they were building a case against Michael Jackson and wanted to prove that Gavin Arvizo's underwear and semen were found at the ranch. The thing is urine, semen, vaginal secretions and saliva all glow the same color in the alternative light source (black light)so the prosecution jumped on the fact that DNA was found.In the end they ended up with 2 small spots of drool at the top of the mattress and one semen spot belonging to Michael in the center of the mattress. Now I suppose that we can all wonder who drooled on Michael's pillow's but when they say unknown male maybe we should look around his life and see who could have been sleeping in his bed and drooling. I can think of 2 little droolers right off the top of my head can't you?
The funny thing is that Brian Oxman was held in contempt of court for saying something about the DNA to the New York Daily Post or News(one of the two) and Diane Dimond did run with the story that the DNA belonged to Gavin according to her sources.So you see the whole DNA evidence is very old news.
The one thing I do know is that you want to believe he is guilty and would like to convince everyone that he hated to be black, was homosexual,hated women and little girls, and a pedophile and nothing I can say that is going to change that just like I tend to use more logic and frankly don't care about your take on his sexuality. Michael Jackson said over and over and over again that he was not gay but you choose not to believe it because you like to believe the worst.Why don't you tell everyone how Evan Chandler questioned Michael while he was under the influence of some medication if he was gay and Michael denied it. He did however give him unknown information on another Hollywood star that they do not name.You know that there are as many questions about the Chander's and the Arvizo's in the FBI files and court testimonies as there are about Michael in the tabloids. That is why Michael Jackson was not convicted.

Susana said...

In my opinion, Michael was abused when he was a child.
I leave an excerpt of an interview with God Magazine he gave in 2002.
“I relate to Shirley Temple. I met her in San Francisco and I sat at her table and I cried so bad. She said,’What’s wrong Michael?’ I said,’I love you. I need to be around you more.’ She goes,’You’re one of us, aren’t you?’ and I said ‘Yes, I am.’ Somebody else said,’What do you mean?’ and she said,’Michael knows what I mean.’ And I know exactly what she meant – to have been there as a child star and to have graduated to have succeeded in making that transition to fame as an adult is very difficult. When you’re a child star people don’t want you to grow up. They want you to stay little for ever. They don’t want you to work afterwards. It’s very hard.”
When she says “you are one of us” she isn't speaking about being just a child star, IMO. It was obvious that MJ was a child star, so why after they eyes met she was convinced that Michael was “one of them”? The explanation that Michael gave afterwards is preposterous; as I said, it was clear for her that Michael was a child star and, as such, he endured the problems that children stars suffer, but there was something more that Shirley Temple recognized, and when I read the interview I made the connection: the sexual abuse.

J-M-H said...

I think the biggest thing people need to remember, at least in my opinion, is that he had 3 flavors of semen in his mattress and on sheets and underwear in his vacation bags. I think that seals the deal. Ask yourself this: what man has semen stains from 2 different men on his mattress if he wasn't doing them? And what straight man brings home bags from, clearly, a vacation to disneyland and the Garden City Hotel (which is in Long Island, NY...aren't the Cascios from NY? hmmm) with underwear and sheets stained with the semen of another man? Just ask yourself, if this was a guest who accompanied him, why does his stuff need to be with Mike's? Wouldn't he want to have his undergarments back and them not to be left in a video arcade/storage area? I think this evidence is enough to show he was gay, because I can't think of a straight guy who would have all this semen everywhere.

Len, Carl Toms, to me, just seemed to be analyzing what had been published about Mike's relationship with Lisa, rather than saying it was true for a fact. That was what he had been doing the entire book with any media accounts of Mike's life. He was saying if this account is true, then it was probably not for love of a woman because of the suspicious urgency of Mike wanting children. He thought some of the statements Taraborrelli made in his book were contradictory and dubious at times. I think he is right, and as Desiree mentioned, Taraborrelli does say a lot of "in truth", "fact is stranger than fiction", etc. almost to convince the reader of the incredible, because he knows it BS! And coupled with the fact that Lisa never says more than "it was normal", I believe Diane Dimond and her source.

I personally don't think that Elvis Presley estate had anything to do with Lisa and Mike's marriage because if it did, Mike would have went back with her when she allegedly spent time chasing him and writing him letters saying she would have 9 kids. She said on LKL that Mike never talked about her dad's music or that he liked it, and even in his book "Moonwalk" he said he wasn't into Elvis. I think that was Priscilla's fear (well founded, because of his shrewdness in aquiring the Beatles catalogue, but utlimately IMO wrong).

J-M-H said...

Susana, you have a good point about Lisa wanting fame. Whenever I hear or read her statements about her intentions in the marriage, she always seems truthful that she wasn't interested in fame. But I think the reason they met was over a demo tape of her's or something, so she did want to have a music career. And look at the situation surrounding all her public statements about Mike: all coincide with a CD release! So she does use Mike as a way of getting publicity for her albums; why not the same when she married him! You are right about them on Diane Sawyer, their "how'd we met" story was all weird and totally unbelievable. I think had they told the truth, people would see it for the sham tha tit was, that the sole purpose of the marriage was to make Mike look straight and divert attention away from the huge 8 figure settlement he just paid to a young boy over sexual molestation.

I had no idea that Lisa's friend was saying things about their sex life to the tabloids! Maybe that's the same friend that Taraborrelli talked to. That really makes me suspicious that they ever had a "normal" marriage. I remember reading that he had proposed to Brooke Shields and said they could just adopt children. We all know that they never had a sexual relationship, athough Brooke did try to put the moves on him and he didn't bite. If he didn't want to be with Brooke in that way, and she was super classy as he claimed he liked in women, why should I believe he would have been interested in former druggie Lisa Marie? It doen't make sense. I think he preferred to have a brood mare like Debbie, and that's why he never went back to Lisa. She knows that all that "getting back and breaking up" is BS. And why does Lisa now talk about "seeing the doctors and the drugs"? I don't really believe her, I think she is just saying all that because that is what everyone is saying post-death; she describes exactly what is being said in the media.

I totally agree, Susana, about the porn. It was for the boys and I think that was why a lot of the magazines had really young looking women in them, so they could appeal to the young boys he liked. I didn't know that he had "shemale" stuff, only the DVD with the trannies in them, and also the well endowed men. Says a lot about his tastes! But he also had that boy with 16 year old Peter Johnson in it that he paid $325 for!!! The fans make a big deal about his porn but really, a magazine isn't a substitute for a real woman and he didn't have that. There is evidence that Desiree shows that suggests the porn was for the boys. But these fans should really make a big deal about all that semen in his mattress!!

J-M-H said...


I wonder if Karen Faye knew about all that semen they found in his mattress when she, in that video, appeared so absolute about Mike not being gay? Makes me wonder what she would have said if she was confronted with that evidence?? Hmmmm...

Also what would Katherine and Joe say? I'd bet they'd hate it. It would be Louis Theroux part 2 if you told them that LOL!!! I know Katherine, that saint, left the courtroom when Chacon was testifying that he say Mike give oral to a young boy because she knew the truth about him and didn't want to hear the details.

uptownsnoopy said...

I think you guys are a little too obsessed with Michael Jackson.

Desiree said...


You searched for me in Yahoo! so I am pretty sure you knew that everyone on here was discussing Michael Jackson.

I hope the 'obsessed' accusation will also extend to the vindication/conspiracy blogs; the blogs obsessing over who Michael was (not) sleeping with 20 years ago; and the sites hailing Paris, Prince, and Blanket as the next idols to worship.

Michael's fans are very sad individuals. I am merely writing about the fruits of my research into his issues.

I will be done with all of this very soon and afterward there will be not a peep from me regarding Michael Jackson.

Desiree said...


There will be no one-ups on 'logic' because we are both fully aware that your blind adoration for Michael Jackson prevents you from seeing everything as it truly is. (I am guessing you doubt he was a sexual abuse victim, too?) Of course, in your insanity, you will deny this little fact of your 'blindness' but we will both do our best to circumnavigate the problem.

Let me first say that my goal is not to slander Michael as you and Blaine believe. That is preposterous. Nor do I err on the worst case scenario; hardly. I am a very deliberate person and a very intelligent person; I pride myself on stating plainly what is fact and what is fiction. I am simply writing about the fruits of my research. And these fruits happen to give you a veritable bellyache!

I am sorry about that, Lynette. I find the fruit sweet and delicious.

Anyway, since you and Blaine find it necessary to continually harp on my Microbiology major with a totally misplaced touch of sarcasm, I will wield my education for you. As well as that 'logic' we have decided to ignore due to the lack of it on your end.

First of all, you mistate the facts and the evidence in question. I've written over fifteen thousand words on this evidence, Lynette; I know it like the back of my hand. But, being the cautious person that I am, I double-checked to make sure I was as meticulous as I believed I had been. Sure enough, I have accurately stated the evidence, as well as provided all of the links to my readers. Click away, Lynette; court documents are much better resources than fan forums.

It is not a complete surprise that you mistate the evidence because that really is the only way to absolve Michael Jackson of real culpability and guilt. However, it is a far cry from reality.

I don't know where you are getting 'drool' from because that is simply untrue. Where did you get that, Lynette? Please cite a court document. Saliva was not stated in either of the sides' motions; semen was stated in the documents, and the defense used the term 'male DNA', which is a fancy, nonprejudicial word for semen.

The prosecution called it semen because they were building a case against Michael Jackson and wanted to prove that Gavin Arvizo's underwear and semen were found at the ranch.

That's not even a good argument! Did that even seem cogent to you?

What you are failing to understand is that this is all of the Prosecution's evidence. They know their own findings. The Defense was forwarded the lab reports and saw where these DNAs were extracted, hence why they wanted to keep it out as irrelevant. Be sure to note this was to be excluded based upon Evidence Code section 352, which precludes evidence of a prejudicial nature. I am sure evidence of Michael Jackson being a gay man could harden a conservative jury when the charges at hand was molesting a young boy.

Desiree said...



Note that the Prosecution had no intention of trying to bring in the semen on the mattress because Michael's private sexuality had nothing to do with the case. They weren't even going to bring in the bedsheets; they just wanted the dirty underwear with the semen on it.

Your explanation is weak and has no basis in reality. Why would Sneddon and his team need to lie about DNA reports in sworn court documents when the judge has already seen these reports (as judges see all evidence) as well? That does not make sense, Lynette. They stated it was semen and the Defense never, in any documents, denied this fact.

I provided a picture in this post of what cuttings to Michael's mattress were made: a cut-out from the top mattress and a cut-out to the bottom-side of the mattress. Plain as day; they also recovered his mattress pad. There were no cuttings on the top end of the mattress. They stated 'top mattress' as in the top mattress on the bed frame. Read carefully, Lynette.

Mystery males 1 and 2 were not drooling, unless they drool semen.

As for Brian Oxman, you are referring to this story

and this document

Oxman's explanation is ridiculous, unless these kids are crashing and expelling semen at the same time. I am surprised he was not reprimanded by his side regarding such damaging commentary. His luxury was that the media did not know it was from semen; how embarrassing that would have been for Michael Jackson in Oxman's context!

I hope you don't believe Oxman to the New York Post over the Prosecution in sworn documents. That would say a lot about how you go about thinking of these issues.

Funny that you hold up Michael's groggy admission of not being a homosexual but if Jordie was groggy from pain medication administered to him by his father and he admitted Michael Jackson had touched his penis, he was 'suggestible' and, therefore, not to be believed. You cannot have it both ways, Lynette. I don't think either of them were completely under. You've obtained Victor Gutierrez's book; Michael Jackson was lucid enough to assure Evan Chandler that a gay man was not sleeping in the same bed as his teenaged son.

Desiree said...



I am not trying to make Michael Jackson seem like anything else than what he was: a gay, non-exclusive type, fixated pedophile who molested little boys. He did not like being black. Are you black? If you are not, you don't know anything about how a black person can become self-loathing. If you are black, you obviously lack the awareness that would make a black person question someone like Michael's behavior regarding his skin, wigs, and plastic surgery not to mention always being with white people.

What, Lynette, do you think Quincy Jones is a liar? How about the millions of blacks in this country who raised their eyebrows at Michael's 'transormation'? Michael Jackson disavowed his blackness and stepped back into it like an old, neglected pair of shoes when he saw that it was expeditious to do so.

And, yes, Michael was a sexist, and he tolerated little girl children. Sure, he liked some of them but, above and beyond it all, he liked little boys. He was obsessed with boys. The special friends, the boy books, the Peter Pan mishegoss all go to show-casing his love of pubescent boys.

The reason I disregard what Michael Jackson has said about his alleged homosexuality is because of everything I have enumerated in the entry. Because of people like you and Helena, he could not come out of the closet. I am not making up his being gay; it's pretty apparent to me. Remember, Clay Aiken and Ricky Martin denied being gay as well. Denials are meaningless!

It's not toally surprising but you could at least not be so damned naive.

But you are right on one thing, Lynette: while I am always willing to have my mind changed about Michael Jackson, my conversion is unlikely. The evidence is what it is; what I do not understand is why you are so blind. You can enjoy the man's music and dancing but making him out to be some saint is an insult to his flaws and his problems. I imagine being a pedophile is a tough burden to bear.

I am still shocked you'd say that the semen was drool, let alone on items not even seized as evidence. Why would drool be prejudicial? Even if it was Gavin's it's not a crime for a kid to sleep in an adult's bed and that would not have proven any molestations.

The Defense wanted to keep the 3 samples out because they would be humiliating to Michael Jackson. I imagine he was embarrassed for the world to know he was looking at men have sex with each other in 'Man, A Sexual Study of Man', the only explicit gay porn they found in his house.

I'm sorry you fail to 'get it'. Definitely a Bell Curve amongst the fans and you and Blaine are at the low end.

White Guy said...

Desiree said:

"If you are not, you don't know anything about how a black person can become self-loathing.If you are black, you obviously lack the awareness that would make a black person question someone like Michael's behavior regarding his skin, wigs, and plastic surgery not to mention always being with white people."

Where do you fall, then, Desiree: Black or White? Should I ask your 'high yellow' mother('high yellow' being the hallmark of European ancestry), or, your white grandfather, or, the many white relatives whom, judging from your complexion and admission that you are, in-fact ".25 percent" racially white, undoubtedly, extend from your multicultural family tree?

Desiree said, on SBPDL:

"I am as uncomfortable in an all-white university as I am at an all-black store."

The scale of the contradiction in your two comments is measured by, and, is a consequence of, the inherent confusion of being bi-racial. In your case: not racially black or racially white and, as such, you can't fully identify with either - even though you are [ethnically] black, and, to a certain degree, identify with black culture, you still feel uncomfortable around a majority of [racially] black people.

This is why you prefer a pluralistic society where nobody knows who they are, or where they came from, and everyone has been racially bastardized to the extent that the unique genetic and biological legacy, of every race, has been washed away in a mud colored fatherless tide.

Desiree said...

White Guy:

Don't bring your trash here. Michael Jackson hated being black. That has nothing to do with me. I prefer diversity; I don't like being around all one race of people. That's always how it's been. Nationalism is okay for minorities but not for people in power.

We all remember what happened in Germany.

Your disturbing adherence to Arthur Kemp's crazy tomb says a lot about you...

Rebekah said...

I, too, believe Michael was a victim of unknown abuses that affected him throughout his life.

Somewhat off-topic:
Re: Michael's interview with God magazine in 2002: I was wondering where you'd heard of Shirley Temple being a victim of child abuse (other than working like crazy when she was a kid). She didn't make the transition to adult star like Michael did, so his explanation of their connection was somewhat suspect and a repeat of what he'd said many times before.

It's still true, though, that the experience and infamy of having been a child star can only really be understood by another who has been one -- so it makes sense that there would be a deep connection of shared experience between them. I wasn't a child star, LOL, but the book "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" by Dick Moore gives a great discussion of working as a child star and how that experience affects growing up.

Is there more to Shirley Temple's story, or are you just going on gut instinct in assuming she and Michael had abuse in common?


Desiree said...


I actually think everything you said regarding Lisa Marie Presley is pretty spot on. I did notice while reading those articles--Playboy, Rolling Stone, and Newsweek, as well as her interview with Diane Sawyer--that they did seem to always ask her the same questions.

You have to wonder whether or not she was somewhat prepared.

And she is always releasing a CD whenever she was talking about Michael Jackson, which is also suspicious. Maybe she did try to get with him for her career. I was just trying to give Lisa Marie the benefit of the doubt....

The interesting thing about the Primetime Live interview is that they were very much on the rocks when it was filmed. Maybe her sort of rabid defense of him was because she wanted to work it out. Who knows.

I agree with you about the pornography as well. There was just a ton of porn featuring teenagey looking girls, as well as those types on his computer. We can't know for sure if Frank's porn was in that mass that the investigators found. He did live there.

I think it was for the boys. The Lanning excerpt about pedophiles and their porn, as well as the other points I noted re: the Lemarques, etc. intensify this belief. Again, I was trying to be as fair as possible and look at all possibilities.

But I think you are really spot on.

Desiree said...


I don't think Shirley Temple was ever sexually abused. Maybe not even physically. She seemed to turn out right, unlike Michael Jackson. I think Michael was just obsessed with her and, like he did with Princess Diana, made interactions bigger than they were.

That's what I think at least.

sarah said...

It was me who asked Diane Dimond on her website about her reasons for believing that the marriage was never consummated. You can see this from the comments on her website. I also read on her facebook page that she said she is friends with JRT but strongly disagrees with his take on the MJ/LMP union. As you can see from my comments on her page, she says that her sources are very trustworthy. I also tend to believe Stuart Backermann, he also said that MJ did not have a proper relationship with any woman. He did go onto say that he didn't think that MJ was a sexual person, however we all know this is wrong from the porn collection etc. when SB was asked if MJ was gay, he said maybe, not an outward denial just a maybe. It should be noted that SB sometime was in cahots with Marc Schaffel, who I think has the answers to a lot of our questions. Maybe he'll write a book like Dileo and Backermann, that would be interesting. It is also worth noting that during his lawsuit with MJ he said that if MJ's lawyers persisted in mentioning his adult film career, he would spill some of the beans on MJ's sexual proclivities, consequently they stopped mentioning it! Like there's a lot to tell! I recently went onto a fan site where the main topic of the posts is about the "sham marriage" as we know it. OMG these people are totally nuts, some person was masquerading as one of LMP's close friends and answering all kinds of stupid questions about their sex life. Nothing more that fan ficiton I'll wager! This chick even asserted that they would like dinner parties early so they could go upstairs for a bonk! What do you reckon? MJ didn't even look like he could hold a woman properly let alone bonk her, he blushed at the term "make love" when Martin Bahsir asked him about his fave things. I think it is hardly unlikely that they went upstairs to bonk, probably to play with his latest train set or barbie dolls. That's another thing, what is all this BS about bondage barbie dolls, does anyone else find it creepy that he had these in his office for all to see, including kids! (reference Jesus Salas testimony). He also carried baby dolls around when he was at his unhappiest with LMP's non breeding activity apparently. I am currently searching the web for a pic of this.

Len said...

Susana and Rebekah, Michael was definitely sexually abused.

J-M-H, Carl Toms's book made me want to get into the shower and scrub and scrub the scum off my skin, which would have taken hours to accomplish. I'm still skeptically neutral about what did or didn't happen between Lisa Marie and Michael. It would be nice if Diane Dimond would expound on that more. I regard Taraborelli the same way Desire and you do; he caters too much to fans to be a reliable source of information. I could be off base, but I've always gotten the impression he was a big fan, himself, and had trouble being objective.

Michael actually did acquire the rights to some of the Elvis Presley songs. But a prenuptial agreement would have protected the Elvis Presley estate. On the other hand, a child would have gotten a big foot in the door, regardless of how it was acquired.

Desiree, I'm amazed at the deep hostility of Michael's rabid fans! I hope they don't start sending you death threats. I also admire the way you verbally skewer them. I hope your comment about blogging posts about Michael truly are from nearly being finished with your research and not because of any rabid-fan harassment.

Desiree said...


No, it would be from me being done with writing about everything I've found; definitely NOT from the rabid fans. They could never ever silence me. I'm not easily intimidated, especially over the Internet.

I just know that one day, and one day soon, I will have written about everything and that's it... I definitely have no intention of drawing it out.

But we will see how it goes. :-)

Desiree said...


It really isn't very shocking that fans would 'pretend' to know something about the Lisa/Michael union. I remember reading something the fans thought was true about Michael's sexuality. I will paste it here, as it's pretty damned funny (and obviously false because many of the 'facts' are inaccurate). It's obviously from a fan:

You people are so gullible! I love it, it's hilarious.

Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight - almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn't look like the most masculine of brothas. You're so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you'd know how weirded out Michael was by Scott's advances. Michael's not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn't completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male....which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the '80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven't spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about '84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley's makeup artist. The two haven't spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.

One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ's "strategy" of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn't he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with "claims," why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you've seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael's nightstand)?

Desiree said...

Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin' the life with all of Liberace's dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of "memories." Isn't it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?


Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don't like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It's no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular '80s/early '90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy's relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn't want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn't love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn't like to break his mother's heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren't "together," they were just fucking), until he met his third child's mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father's son, so he wasn't entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it's the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it's accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain't my boss anymore, so he's just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of shit, Michael isn't gay and he sho' as hell ain't a pedophile.
1. He's weird, he's rich, he's black and he never bows down to anybody. He doesn't fit any stereotypes of what a black man "should" be, which makes people uncomfortable and enables them to believe anything sinister about him. If you need proof of that, just look no further than this very message board.

Desiree said...

2. I think I outlined most of the girlfriends for you, if you think hard enough you could probably figure out names, but it's not my job to spoon feed this to you. He kept Diana a secret because that's what the hussy wanted and by the time he got his shit together enough to move on and get with other women, he was so obsessed with his privacy that he didn't want the public to know anything about him that didn't have to do with music or business (and rightfully so, everything he does is misconstrued, manipulated and taken out of context).

3. Can't help you there, that's something you don't really discuss with Michael. All I can say is that it got more out of hand after he and Diana were officially no more. Nobody around him ever condoned it, I know I certainly didn't. In all fairness to the kid, most of it is exaggerated. He's had a lot, but to a fairly localized area, none of this crazy cheekbone, eyebrow, eyelid, forehead stuff. But what does plastic surgery have to do with whether or not he's a pedophile or a homosexual? Nothing. He's got a good heart, I don't give two shits about his face.

I'm about through here, maybe a repeat performance or two, but probably not. Just keep all I've said in mind before you jump to conclusions about Mike.

Total fanfiction! Michael's fans are not sane. All of this was in response to Scott Thorson saying he and Michael Jackson had had gay sex in the late 1970s.

Anytime anyone says Michael Jackson was gay, they freak out. Pedophile is one thing--because they disbelieve all of that very easily. Without actually proving Michael was innocent, they go to discredit his detractors and accusers.

However, I think the majority of Michael Jackson fans know Michael was weird when it came to adult sexuality. They know there were no women, no believable relationships...

What I do not understand is that in their insanity, they don't realize that making a mythology of Michael's virile maleness does NOT make it all true.

And it definitely does not change the fact the semen of 3 different males were found on his mattress and in bedsheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear.

Not drool.... ;-)

Susana said...


Years ago I read somewhere that Shirley Temple was abused.
I found it on the net. I'm sure there are more articles somewhere.
Now that some "public" figures like Oprah and Marilyn have shared their stories, this issue is getting more of the attention it deserves. Other celebrities who have spoken out publicly include: Shirley Temple Black, Delta Burke, Sandra Dee, and Patty Duke. As more and more people have broken their silence, we've seen growing interest and concern about incest and more willingness to address it.
I think the sexual abuse of children stars isn't uncommon. Children stars attract paedophiles and the entertainment industry is a perfect medium for them to act with a certain degree of impunity. We have witnessed the passive attitude towards Mjs conduct over the years. There are plenty examples of children stars abused in many countries. Often children stars are/were from a poor background, what somehow made them more vulnerable.
Many of them never speak of the abuse until they are old. The subject is still considered taboo and I imagine is one of the worst experiences a human being could endure.

It is clear to me that they weren't speaking about work schedules, isolation, living in a world of adults or entering puberty, that was implicit in their condition of children stars. In my opinion they were referring to something more profound, hidden, and even more hurtful than this.

Shirley did not become an abuser as Mj did. Not every person abused become an abuser, specially women. Women, abused or not, rarely are victimizers.

I don't recall if it was in the Bashir documentary, but Michael hinted (in my humble opinion) to the sexual abuse in another televised interview.


On the porn... they weren't magazines about shemales or well endowed celebrities, but several articles on the matter located in different publications. It caught my eye. I was intrigued by mjs porn collection and I read the contents because I suspected it would be something odd or revealing in it.

J-M-H said...

Shirley Temple said that if she misbehaved, her mother would lock her in a cold black box. She learned that the "lesson of life was profound and unforgettable. Time is money. Wasted time means wasted money means trouble. Time spent working is more fun than standing in an icy black box and getting an earache."

I don't think she was sexually abused but she was clearly mentally and physically abused by her mother. Maybe she was referring to that she and Mike had a parent that would hurt them if they didn't perform well. But Mike of course was sexually abused, as was La Toya and Rebbie. Both Jermaine Jackson and Johnny Jackson said that Mike was sexually abused.

Len said...


I'm relieved you aren't letting Michael's lunatic worshipers intimidate you. I do love the sarcastic way in which you slice and dice their arguments into dust. It always gives me a good laugh.

I sent you an email, a few days ago. But I had an epiphany about a plausable theory. I'm going to test its validity with the "mouthpiece." I'll let you know the results.

Desiree said...


The reason I have to skewer these fans is because most of them--maybe all of them--are willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.

If the police found Ninja Turtle underwear stained with semen on Michael's nightstand or magazines of child porn, they would say it was planted.

You try to show these yahoos the light, the tangible proof (as we saw in that last entry that had over 200 comments), they will explain it away with some cockamamie, half-baked, illogical theory. I've never seen so many willfully stupid people in my life. It's insanity.

You have to wonder if they were born with the predisposition for low brain functioning or do they just turn the power off when it comes to Jacko. It really could be both, I think. I really, really believe his rabid fans are stupid, and functionally stupid.

We all saw the documents regarding this particular issue. I stated everything clearly in both entries. I don't know where Lynette got 'drool', let alone know where the semen stain from Michael was located.

Are they just making it up as they go? It's pretty nuts to deny the probability of foreign semen stains in a man's bed--one who's never had any real, believable relationships with women--going towards meaning that the male bed owner is gay or, at least, bisexual. Ultimately that some form of gay sex occurred.

It is explosive proof that he was having contact with males. If they were able to do profiles, it could have been explosive proof he was having contact with all of these young boys and teens he had around him.

It's not a surprise these people never return to refute me after I've turned them into shish kabobs. One fan, and I know from the IP address and location, lurks on occasion and she saw the newest post but never checked it out. This person was saying, 'I hate that bitch,'about me on an MJ forum. All of it is fear of the truth.

But to be willfully ignorant? At least have some knowledge of the documents. They don't even bother to read them; it's nuts. I provide the links to them for a reason: to prove I am not talking out of my ass about a dead guy.

It's crazy how the human mind will reject all rationality when it's controlled by fanaticism. This is the reason I am not a fan of anyone. It makes you stupid, for the most part. Since I used to be a fan, even if I was late to the party and it was after the fool's death (pre-death Jacko fans say those aren't real fans), I know all of their arguments, all of their evidence, because I once believed he was innocent.

And all of it is bullshit, Len.

This is the reason I can refute them with the air of superiority that I use. Check out these people on Youtube sometimes. They say I lie about these documents and Michael Jackson. I mean, they're just horrendously dumb. IQs hovering around 85, maybe 90...

All of the points I've enumerated in this post, along with the DNA evidence, should be good circumstantial evidence towards Michael Jackson being gay. It really is that simple.

Or a pedophile, or both.

Anonymous said...

This site is funny, if he's gay he's gay! I wouldn't be surprised but all this energy you're using is crazy! lol He was different thats fore sure

Desiree said...

Saint Louis, MO (Anonymous):

Please use a screen name. I would prefer if I didn't have to post your IP and location.

Yes, Michael Jackson was a homosexual, as was proven by these documents. I am not expending any more energy in writing these posts as is spent by the tons of Jacko fans who write Michael Jackson/Lisa Marie Presley fanfictions and spend hours in fan forums talking about who he could have (not) dated in the 1980s.

You can decide who's expending more energy for yourself: someone reporting on court-sworn documents, or someone creating a heterosexual mythology about a dead gay man.

The semen staining on the mattress and in these bed sheets and underwear, when I discovered it, was simply proof that the womanizer and heterosexual labels Michael is given are incorrect.

Besides, (1) it's funny, and (2) I enjoy being right. Michael Jackson was obviously gay; denials in the world of celebrities are nothing new. You can't really trust what he says; after all this is a guy who lied about his plastic surgeries.

However, DNA reports do NOT lie, and they do not bow to popular opinion.

None of this matters, of course, as it didn't prove a crime but it is some sort of proof that he had sexual contact with males. If they were female secretions--instead of semen (and they weren't)--I'd say he was having sex with women. And everyone would love all of these posts.

But none of that has happened.

I encourage you, and everyone else, to open all of the documents and read them in full. You will have a greater understanding of the evidence in this post and the other one dealing with the evidence of semen-staining.

Len said...

"Or a pedophile, or both."

Definitely a pedophile, and with the evidence you unsheathed, probably both. I don't understand Michael's rabid fans. Turning somebody into a demigod is dehumanizing at the least, delusional at the worst. To be that obsessed with a celebrity shows these people are both stupid and have empty lives.

Growing up in L.A., I rgarded celebrities as people who walked around and around LAX, until they were fnally recognized. Then they went home. I wish I were making this up. The worst was Bob Hope. He used to drive around in his car, until he was recognized. The, of course, he went home. I saw him do this, once, when my mother picked me up from the airport. She said he did this all the time. As a result, I am a fan of people's work, but not of the people themselves. I've seen to much.

Suzy said...

Girl I love your blog lol.
I have a lot in my head about that subject. It´s intersting you talked about Stuart Backerman because I made a research and he was planing his book since 2004, with Marc Schafell! He said the book would have bombsheels. I wonder
In his interview just days after Michael´s death it was intersting when he said he would not publish the book. I wonder if there were something in the book that Backerman thought he shouldn´t show to the public now that MJ is dead...though the book was anounced last October. I wouldn´t wonder if he edited a lot of the book or even write "MJ wasn´t gay".
Poeple who trashed him in the past now is coming forward with nice words. David Foster claimed this week that Michael and Lisa were 100% in love and he knew it because he was around. BUT in his autobiography, he said that the marriage was a "tabloid nightmare"...
You should´ve noticed that people who denies his homosexuality justify themselves too much...
I´ve read again the claim the three bodyguards made about Klein and Jason. They just talked to ABC making a PROMISSE to talk again on an interview about Klein and Jason´s lies...if they´re so right he wasnt gay and had girlfriends why not being interviewd right in that moment? It was like they´re afraid to be against a man who knew Michael for more than 25 years.
DiLeo, LaToya, also are coming with tell alls. LaToya said the book will reveal the dark side of the Jackson family...
It´s patethic how the more rabid fans find always the dumbest excuses. The worst of all is that Michael used to be married to two women and having three children...and calling a man who KNEW Michael for 25 years a liar is really low!

Sarah said...

Do you know when Stuart Backermann's book will be released? I know it is called "In the Court of the King" I bet Marc Schaffel won't be involved this tie, he is too busy smoozing upto tbe Jackson's at the moment! I read a couple of week's ago that Frank Dileo is writing a book too, my guess is it won't be very revealing and will probably just justify his existence in MJ's world around the time of his demise. The 3 Las Vegas bodyguards are touting a book called "In Defense if the King" which is really just that, but the publishing houses won't touch it unless they give them more dirt and salaciousness. No one wants to read about the King of Pop cooked pancakes for his kids and watched golf on TV which is what they are waffling on about on Twitter. People want to hear about the girlfriends/boyfriends (depending on your point of view) porn and the drinking and drug abuse. I think any book being published now really needs to contain new information, all of the existing biographies pretty much tell the same stories. How about a book by Gavin Avizo or even Arnie Klein, he knows where all the bodies are buried! Is Latoya going to write a book, her first one wasn't bad, better than Michael's fluffy attempt.

GirlUndercover said...

Sarah (I´m Suzy lol)

Someone said the book was released last year but it isn´t on amazon...I don´t know if the book is on sale in other shops. Stuart talked about the book in 2004 and he said he had a book in 2009, so the book probably was already written. His way of talking was very suspicious. First he said he didn´t know if MJ was gay, then he said that maybe he had a disposition to be gay...if he wasn´t why didn´t he say that? Especially when he was nice to him before (always defended him)
I don´t know why but I don´t buy the bodyguards story about the publishers. I noticed they do a lot of questions to the fans and their claims against the publishers are very similar to what you read around the net concerning the positive books (a man with a life like his...can a book on him be whole positive?!) Besides they contradicted themselves about Lisa Marie. First one the ladies Michael supposedly saw was her, then they claimed they never saw Lisa in their life lol.
A book by Arnie Klein would be interesting :P

Lady C said...

I do agree in your posting regarding Michael Jackson being sexually abused as a child. I recall reading in Bob Jones' book, The Man Behind the Mask, that there was a questionable incident where MJ may have hinted that he was sexually abused by a family member (his father I think). When Bob told Michael of the rumors that were circulating about him being sexually abused as a child, Bob told MJ that he told the media the rumors were false. Michael surprised him with his comment on the matter. Michael said to Bob, something to the effect, "And that incident about my father, how do you know that it did not happen?" Bob said that he was lost for words as MJ's comment completely caught him off guard. Was MJ hinting to him in a indirect way that the sexual abuse rumor was true?? Michael did not come out and admit it, but he did not deny it either. IMO, I do believe that he was sexually abused as a child. If so, it's really too bad that he did not get the help/therapy that he so desperately needed to help him cope. Perhaps if he had gotten help, it would have helped him to come to terms with other "special" issues that he was struggling with that carried over into his adult personal life. Perhaps he did recognize with Shirley Temple because she too endured some kind of child abuse, not to mention that she too was a young movie star who lost their childhood early on?? Maybe it was the same way with Elizabeth Taylor as well. Who knows.

Lady C said...


I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your blog. Finally, I can say that I have found a blog about MJ that is worth my time reading. The others out there; with the dumb MJ fans are stupid and repulsive. You keep it real. Sad to know that your blog will one day soon come to a close. Is there any chance that you will continue this through the Dr. Conrad/MJ investigation trial? Either way, I do plan on sticking around to continue on getting concrete evidence and info. regarding MJ and his issues. After all, inquiring minds wanta know!LOL Honestly, you have a real good knack for this kind of thing, and I like it.

I have to say that I agree with you regarding books on MJ. Anything new that comes out needs to be different vs. the ones already out there. The current stuff is all the same story; just told in a different way. I too, have several books on MJ, and I must say that I do enjoy reading up on the man or "sheman". I recently read 2 books, Theresa Gonsalves', Remember the Time, and Leonard Rowe's, What Really Happened to Michael Jackson. Both were interesting. Of the two one was a lot more believable than the other.
First let's discuss, RTT.
First of all, Ms. Gonsalves has a very colorful imagination. I don't think she's completely truthful. She was a fan who was very infatuated with MJ, wrote him often over several years and met up with him in LV when she was turning 16 years old. Through out the book, she was one lucky and fortunate girl; I mean that in a sarcastic way. In her description of every meeting/interaction she and MJ had, it always happened @ the right place @ the right time. She always seemed to unknowingly chose someone in his camp who could put her in contact with MJ. There were never any stumbling blocks what so ever. Everything was too "perfect" and coincidental. Also she would know to be some where, and alas, MJ would just happen to be there too. Yeah right. LOL Another thing, was that she made certain to mention to the reader of precise dates and time frames of when things occurred, except for one date; one that should have been very important to. She talks and describes there sexual encounters as well. The first encounter, I can say MAY have some possible truth in it.

Lady C said...

It happened when they both were 19 yrs. old, and MJ had not quite reached the pinnacle of his career. Both not that experienced, it was quick, nothing "mind blowing". Okay. However, when she talks about the second time they had sex; IMO it was far fetched and elaborated. First of all, this is where she could not give an exact date as to when this "encounter" took place.... makes me even wonder if this encounter or the previous one even happened at all. Well anyway, on this particular time of their sexual rendezvous, she could vividly remember all kinds of details; what sundress she wore, what MJ wore, the license plate number of his car... but she could not remember the exact date of that particular day. Only that she remembers it being sometime in the late 80's. How odd is that? If I was with a star that I was infatuated with and we were getting it on, you better believe I would be able to remember the date! LOL They had car sex. Call me naive, but I truly don't think that this incident happened completely the way she described. I don't believe MJ who was then VERY well know and at the height of his career would do anything that risky. I don't think he would take a chance on getting caught having car sex with a fan submitting himself to public embarrassment/scrutiny. Now that is not to say that he didn't have that mind set later on in his career; because as we all know that completely changed and some "special" things did come to light. I truly think that Ms. G elaborated on a lot of things in RTT and retold the story according to the way she wished things had happened. Some of the comments she made in the book were also some what off-the-cuff. One comment that stands out really well was this: “Are you cold in your casket sweetheart? Wish I could keep you warm. I am going to stop here…my heart is crying for you again.” WTF? I saw a comment about this on another blog and they said the exact same thing. As a matter of fact, they put it quite perfectly. They said that it sounded like something out of a Stephen King novel; Misery.... go figure. The bottome line is this: there are a lot of holes in her story. In the beginning of the book, she comments on what Michael Jackson said in his interview with Oprah when she asked if he was a virgin. MJ's reply was, "I'm a gentlman"; meaning he was not a person who kiss and tells. Theresa praises him and says that was a good answer. But on the other hand, she takes it upon herself to kiss and tell. Now is she being a lady?Lol I say this because we all know how MJ valued his privacy... Gonsalves says she wrote the book because she was tired of all the bad press about MJ; his sexuality, virginity before marriage, molestation, etc. (that was not her exact wording, but you got the idea that was what she was trying to say), and to let the world know he was not what he was being made out to be. She didn't want to take her story/secret to the grave. Well IMO, if she thought that telling their relationship & sexual encounters would eleviate the bad press and rumors about him, she was terribly mistaken. Hell, while MJ was VERY much alive, the same stuff was being said about him. So what was the purpose?? Her story is out and there's been no change. Where was she when all this was coming out when he was alive... why wait until he's dead. Just because they supposedly had sex, does not mean that he was not gay!! Again, if she thinks her story would clear that up, she's mistaken. Gay men have been known to have sex with women; that's nothing unheard of. I do strongly believe that MJ was gay. What about the man who is on the DL and married and has children?? It's no different. Someone on another blog said that perhaps having sex with her was a turn off and MJ didn't like it. Perhaps it was then that he realized that women were not his forte?? IDK.

Lady C said...

As for Leonard Rowe's book, What Ever Happened to Michael Jackson, The Evil Side of the Entertainment Industry, it was quite interesting. Rowe does go into extensive detail regarding MJ's contract with AEG. The man breaks it down bit by bit, and he does this quite well. Which is not surprising; I mean after all he has been in the concert promting industry for several years, and he knows the ins & outs of a promotion contract and it's legitimacy. But to make a long story short, according to Rowe, MJ was badly cornered by AEG. The contract that MJ signed with AEG was not your 'typical' contract; it had A LOT of red flags. There was a lot of suspicious activity going on that was being kept from him, along with a lot of "entrapment" stunts to keep MJ right where they wanted him. A lot of people from MJ's past; lawyers and managers who had been fired by MJ years ago and sworn off were suddenly reappearing in his life. Then he talks about MJ's living will and signatures on it not matching and the time in question of when MJ was supposedly was to have signed it. According to Rowe, MJ was in NY doing his Sony tirade against Tommy Motolla, not in California like John Branca says he was. It is an interesting read. If what Rowe says is really true which I do believe to be for the most part, MJ was in a real pickle. Too bad he couldn't get off the drugs long enough to see this. Michael Jackson was his own worst enemy. People like his family wanted to help him, but MJ didn't want their help. He wanted his inner circle of people (the people that supposedly had his best interest) to help him and look what it got him.

I heard that Kai Chase, MJ's chef is supposed to be coming out with a book?? If that is true, I'm curious to know what she has to say??? We shall see. Please except my apology for a very long winded comment, but I just wanted to put it out there. Have you/anyone read any of these books? Curious to know what you think.

Lady C said...

Sarah & Desiree:

Okay. I have to admit that perhaps I jumped the gun and may have been wrong in my previous posting regarding MJ and Leonard Rowe's book, What Ever Happened to MJ. I did some re-reading and I question's Rowe's insight regarding the "Fraudulent Will" of MJ. First, MJ, I believe made out the will taking into consideration what kind of family he had. They may have been his real family, and wanted give the impression that they really cared about him and wanted to help him. But they always seemed have an ulterior motive when it came to "helping" MJ.... money was always behind it. When the 1993 allegations broke out, they weren't going to publicly defend MJ unless he paid them. They say they wanted to help MJ during the all the chaos that was taking place in the last months of his life... but at what cost? What were they going to get out of it, other than truly helping a loved one who was in desperate need?? Michael's family (at least some of them) don't seem truly sincere in wanting to help him without any strings attached. As far as I'm concerned, Jackson did right by structuring his will the way he did; especially regarding the penalty for protesting the will. He knew what kind of people he was dealing with. Now with that said, Rowe gives the impression in his book, that John Branca should not be the executor of the MJ estate at listed in the will because MJ fired him back in 2003; the will was signed in 2002 with Branca listed as the executor. MJ to our knowledge did not update his will; revoking Branca as the executor of his estate. Now it is common knowledge that when you have a will and changes are made to that will, you have to have it updated?? Please, please correct me if I am wrong on this. But Rowe states, that when Jackson fired Branca via letter; he requested that Branca turn over ALL records and documents that he had in his possession regarding his affairs. Rowe says that Branca did not turn over everything as requested including MJ's living will. So with that being said, could Branca be held responsible for "misrepresentation" of MJ's will. I think that is what Rowe is getting at. Please give me your input on this as you may thought of something I did not. I truly hope that I don't sound stupid; it's that I'm trying to understand some things and not take all the things that I read about MJ at face value. It is sad as to what happened to MJ and how his life ended, but MJ was ultimately responsible for himself, IMO. Yes, he had some greedy "blood sucker" that did not have his best interest, but I also believe he had some (or a very few) people who really cared about him and wanted to help him, and they couldn't compete with his need for drugs. They did not stand a chance. However, Rowe, does mention some thing that I do find puzzling....he said while he respected MJ's mother, Katherine, why was it that she did not take it upon herself to lend a helping hand to her son MJ like a concerned mother would?? Even MJ's father, Joe, realized this. He wanted her to talk to MJ to find out what going on (he didn't stand a chance w/ MJ with their relationship history; MJ worshiped his mother) and to see if they could get him the help that he needed.

Lady C said...

Sarah & Desiree:
However, Katherine did not want to "interfere" with MJ's privacy?? MJ may have been a grown man who indeed valued his privacy, but as a concerned parent, she should have been a little more insistent; his life depended on it. All thoughts of money at that time should have been laid aside, and true genuine love should have kicked in. They all knew something was very terribly wrong with their son. A mother protects her young. I'm sure Martin and Charlie Sheen can identify with this; dad has very much interfered to "take care" of business. But by the same token, MJ was very stubborn and difficult to deal with. He was a "yes" person who never wanted to be told no, and most of the people he was around were that way. The ones who were not that way, and really cared for him; MJ got rid of them. I'm not really sure if MJ could have been helped; he seemed to have crossed the point of no return. I also read online that the night prior to MJ's death, he "snapped"; got into an argument with official about his finances, he demanded to cancel the O2 concerts; he demanded to talk to his father, Joe. He was crying and hysterical not to mention his very odd and total isolative state that he was in. Asking to speak to his father, was pretty unusual for MJ. After all he became very distant from his family and went to great length to keep them away from him; not seeing them or taking any of their phone calls... Was his "snapping" a desperate cry for help because he had hit rock bottom and saw no way out anymore?? MJ was a great manipulator; he was like "the boy that cried wolf". I guess he didn't think that one day it would eventually catch up with him.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

I know you're talking to Sarah and Desiree, but I just have to say that I personally think that Leonard Rowe is an unscrupulous individual, I don't think he is one to talk about whether people were trying to squeeze Mike into doing things and getting his money. Actually he was fired by Miek and sued successfully by both R. Kelly and Ne-Yo for fraud and breach of contract (it could be for something else but I don't remember). He could have an axe to grind because he was given the boot. I think Rowe is in cahoots with Joe Jackson and is using them to get rich by propagating this "Michael Jackson was murdered" conspiracy. I don't think Mike was murdered, I can't see why anyone would want him dead. I think his death was the culmination of years of drug dependency and Murray, being in financial trouble, sidestepped his Hippocratic oath and administered care that was DEMANDED by Miek the drug addict. Murray was at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Mike was responsible for his own death ultimately. Even after Elvis' death, people were trying to blame his doctor, but finally realized that Elvis was in a downward spiral for years. Miek's death was a horrible, yet predictable, accident. I hope that Murray is acquitted or takes a plea deal; he doesn't deserve to sit in a cell with real criminals.

I think Rowe, along with the Jackson family, are just trying to get rich off of his death. simple as that. The Jacksons are not good people and they love money. I do not believe that story that Mike demanded to speak with Joe Jackson before his death; that sounds like something that Joe perhaps made up. Joe, of all the Jacksons, was the least liked by Mike (and the feelings were probably reciprocal). Joe Jackson is responsible a lot of what went wrong with Mike mentally, and he is the root cause of Mike being attracted to young boys. He allowed grown men to molest his son, Mike, just so they could "make it" in the music industry. Not only did he sexually abuse his daughters Rebbie and Latoya, he also abuse Mike as well. Don't forget the physical and verbal abuse. And I believe the relationship that he had with his mother was one of a "love/hate" situation. Katherine is very cunning and appears to have this sweet old lady thing going on, but that persona is fraudulent, she loves money possibly more than the rest. I think Mike probably resented her for allowing Joe to sexually and physically abuse the children and never trying to leave him to protect her own children. I think that is where Mike's hatred of women comes from, and him always trying to find an older woman to act as a mother figure. But he also still did "love" her, and this was where Katherine, and by extension the rest of the family, could extract funds from Mike. He said himself that he could only give money to her.

Partly, Mike was untouchable and wouldn't listen to anyone who would disagree with his plans, and on the other hand, his family didn't really care about him all that much. Blood is thicker than water, but the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Oh, and I always figured that Theresa Gonsalves was a nutter, so it's no surprise that she concocted such a sad and pathetic fanfiction about her being Mike's first. She has never so much as hinted that they were anything more than friends. Funny, all the women that were supposed to have been with Mike are either delusional (Theresa, Shana) or Mike made it up (Brooke, Tatum, Tatiana, Joanna, etc.). But we can name all his special friends and he never hid them. Doesn't really help him in the normal sexuality department, does it? LOL

Lady C said...


Thank you very much for "putting it down" for me. You made some real valid points regarding Rowe and the Jackson Family; some things that I never thought about. When you mention about MJ trying to find an older woman to act as a mother figure; it donned on me that he had a tight relationship with Liz Taylor. Perhaps to him, she was the mother he never had. Maybe that explains why his mother Katherine was always resentful of her (and I think Diana Ross too; didn't he look at her the same way also?). It was always said that MJ "adopted" certain celebrities to be his family (Elizabeth, Liza M.) I love this blog and have been spending hours reading through it. It amazing all the research of vital information that has been found that a lot of people like myself don't know about. It's pretty straight forward; it is what it is! But sadly enough, there will always be those who cannot and will not face the hard truth about Michael Jackson. I know, I too liked him (to an extent; not crazy about him), but deep down inside I ALWAYS had my suspicions about him; his lifestyle and the allegations. Yes, he may have been a humanitarian and did a lot of good, but he's not a "God" IMO. I don't care how much he/or other people claimed that he was "pure, moral, and innocent", he was not. Period. He was human just like the rest of us who had faults. I think it's safe to say that he was a very talented individual who could sing and dance, but that's it. Nothing more.

Michael Jackson, the Jackson Family... that whole concept is really, really screwed up all the way around. I see why ppl used to joke about them being a "dysfunctional" bunch. Sadly they really are. And it is sad that the horrible things that happened to MJ and his siblings have really taken their toll on them emotionally and mentally. It really messed them up. Like we all will some day, Papa Joe and Mama Katherine will have to give an account for their actions. I found your comment about MJ and his mother also interesting. I did not know that he had a love/hate relationship with her. Especially since all the books I have read, MJ seemed to have always talked positive about her. As he would put it, she was "angel" or a "saint" in his eyes.

Yes, Gonsalves is a nut; you described her perfectly. I don't know why, but she strikes me as being a wannabe stalker. LOL

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

I think dysfunctional is an understatement to describe the Jacksons. That family is downright devious, sometimes. It's criminal. I just read a story about Rebbie on "The View" and she said that we she looks at Murray, she sees a murderer. Now I always thought that Rebbie and Janet were the least repulsive Jacksons (maybe Marlon and Tito and Jackie too), but I don't know, her saying that turned my stomach because she in the breath said that the family had tried interventions many times. So how is Murray truly a murderer? Did Mike not ask for the propofol and hire a doctor that he expected would not only illegally administer propofol but sit there for 8 hours and watch him? Seems pretty "I'm Michael Jackson and I will do what ever the hell I want" IMO. Then she plugs some tour she is doing, after saying she misses him everyday, blah blah blah. Really? I get that that was her brother but how many times did she talk to him when he was alive, held up in Neverland or wherever with some little boys? Probably never. The Jacksons were not a tight knit family and Mike felt the were greedy, one time calling his own brothers "lazy". I think that all the "Katherine is an angel and a saint" is not true. Yes, I do believe that Mike cared for him mother and that is why she always got financially supported by him, but it is a telling thing that he, for instance, called Liz Taylor to his rescue in 1993 rather than his own mother. I think there was a psychological need for him to say that she was a saint, even though his actions didn't back that up. It was definitely a love/hate relationship. Katherine is not a saint, she is very greedy and loves money. It wasn't just Joe that demanded to be paid for interviews defending their son in 1993, it was Katherine too. What kind of saintly behavior is that? But to give her credit, maybe she wanted to be paid because she (like the rest of the family that lived at Hayvenhurst during the 80s, which were the beginning of Mike's boy crazy days)knew her son was indeed guilty, and she didn't want to lie without an incentive? Who knows what motivates the Jacksons' avaricious hearts.

I used to like Mike but I don't anymore, although I get a heavy heart when I hear his music from Thriller and before. But I like other people much better. I've always found that it is best to only like celebrities for their work and nothing else, because they will disappoint you with their personal behavior. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why his nutjob fans insist on defending a person they never met. They just like his projected public persona; they don't know Mike the real man. And so they create these delusions and myths around him, trying to explain the weird and most likely criminal behavior he did in his life, just so they still like the man who made Thriller and could moonwalk. It is like some sick cult. They know the truth but they deny it. Mike was a liar and they believe his lies; once a lie is told enough it starts to become true. They are insulated by their delusions they have created about him and there is nothing that Desiree or any one of us can say that will even chip away at the armor of delusions. I mean he isn't MLK or Mother Theresa or Gandhi. He didn't cure polio or smallpox or make anything that is worth all this idol worship. Anyone can sing a song about "the children" and the earth, anyone can throw money at a charity, that doesn't make them the Second Coming. All Mike could do was twirl, moonwalk, sing on key, grab his crouch, make a good beat. His music is pretty generic, he just came out at the right time when people wanted a new sound. He was lucky, but he was human. Get over him. If you think like I do, you will be called a hater, but I'm just being real. He was just another celebrity. But he happened to be a gay pedophile as well.

Lady C said...

Again thanks for your comment from one "hater" to another. I have seen and still continue to see MJ for what he really was: a homosexual, pedophile, molester, and manipulator. True, true, ppl like you and I will never be able to convince the "worshipers" of MJ otherwise. That in itself is a damn sham, IMO. What is it about them that they cannot see him for what he really was? Is it that they want to believe in something so badly, regardless of what the circumstances are that they are willing to compromise their own moral beliefs for a false sense of security? If so, what a sad world we live in is all that I can say. Dr. Murray IMO, most like will not be found guilty. And I do agree with you; Michael was totally responsible for what happened. He knew what he was doing, getting himself into. Hell, his having a doctor to give him meds to put him down was nothing new. He had his own anesthesia doc who did the same thing for him years ago. His family was also very much aware of MJ's dabbling in various kinds of drugs way way before any of this happened. It wasn't new to them. IF anything, what may happen to Murray is that he'll get probation for a period of time and maybe is license completely taken away. That's all; nothing more. Who knows he may not even get that. They really don't have an actually "case" against him to prosecute him, IMO. Point is very cut and dry: Michael was a junkie, who made a very bad choice that ultimately cost him his life. He wanted the drugs, got them the way he saw fit, it killed him. Period.

Lady C said...

I was looking at Oprah a few minutes ago, and she was talking about behind the scenes of the infamous interview with her, MJ's mother & his children. When looking at Katherine Jackson during the interview, she really does give you the impression of the sweet and innocent old woman (I could never hurt anyone) like you said, but then reality sets in (depending on which side of the "Church of Michael" you're on that is) and you see her as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Yes, you are very right that it was not only Joe Jackson who did the dirty like everyone says, she was in on it too. As a matter of fact, she probably "orchestrated" a lot of the ill things that went on in that family behind the scenes. I believe it was in LaToya's book where I read she said that she realized that her mother was not the person she thought she knew all those years. In her eyes, Katherine, would "throw the rock and hide her hand". I'm certain that this interview just like all the others concerning the Jacksons is just one of several that we'll see come to be used for money making on their part.

Lady C said...

I have question... what did you think of Oprah's interview with Lisa Marie Presley a few months back? IMO, I felt that I couldn't believe a word that LMP said about her relationship with MJ. This is how I feel about it. No, I believe their marriage was a sham, I do believe that there was some "hidden" agreement about it having to do with her wanting a recording career despite her denials, they did not have sex the way she says; who knows perhaps not at all (i can't see MJ wanting to do this very often considering his sexuality issues; I think it would have been a very difficult feat for him to do on a continuous basis). I don't buy her reason for ending the marriage; his drug addiction. I truly believe she left the marriage, because deep down she had those ill feelings about MJ and his very unhealthy attraction to children and was worried about the welfare of her own children, and not to forget his struggling sexuality. She knew she could not save him, and don't know why she ever thought she could. After all he had put himself thru with the 1993 allegations, he still was parading around in public with kids, and I think that really bothered her. THE WRITTING WAS ON THE WALL. The drug excuse was just a valid reason to use as a cover up for his sick behavior. Years back she was doing an interview (i can't remember with who), but they asked why she left, and she said something to the sort that she saw "things" going on, but she said that she would not elaborate on them. I think she was indicating his questionable behavior with children. I also don't buy her comment in the interview about her so-called last phone interview with MJ either. I'm going out on a limb when I say this, but that was fabricated fluff. I don't believe that conversation took place. MJ was not interested in LMP and never really was. He used her for his own agenda. She loved him, but he did not love her back. MJ was a very calculating and manipulative person and has been that way through pretty much his whole career. LMP from her own mouth has even admitted that he was manipulative. MJ did whatever it took to benefit MJ at any cost, and his marriage to her was no exception. She knew that. If it wasn't apparent early on in their marriage it became apparent shortly thereafter. I feel the same way about his marriage to Rowe, just another sham to add to the other sham. I think Presley's motive for the interview was a last ditch effort to save face in public's eye (especially for those of the MJ fanatics) to help promote her recording career. BS on top of BS. In her interviews in the past about MJ, she always came across as bitter and resentful after their relationship ended. I even have a hard time believing that their relationship continued for many months/years after the marriage ended. And if she was saying all the negative things about MJ publicly, like she did, why would he even want her around him; following him with her kids around the world?? Or what it her that was actually doing the chasing not him? But now all the sudden she has this "coming to Jesus" attitude. I don't buy it.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

Always good to talk to someone who sees it clearly! About Murray, I have a feeling that he will be found guilty but not because of the evidence but because the jury will fold to public opinion. Now that doesn't mean that he will get the maximum 4 years in jail, but he must be found guilty. I don't agree with this, because I feel that probation and taking his license away is enough. I mean think of this, he went to 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school, raking up probably hundreds of thousands in student loan debt, but he made it and now just because he acquiesced to the demands of a rich drug addict, he will lose the only thing he has in his life. That is punishment enough, there is no need to deprive him of his liberty for 4 years. Even taking away his license forever is too harsh in my opinion. It was Mike's fault, no one else. If you watch Intervention, you can see that these junkies are very obstinate to getting healthy and they will do ANYTHING to get their fix. Plus, it's a chemical dependence, their brains basically run on the drug and need it to function. So Mike was doomed, especially since he had people that wouldn't tell him no.

Yes Katherine is just as bad, maybe even more, as Joe Jackson. she is not the sweet woman she appears to be. And for the life of me I couldn't understand why she wanted to do an interview with his kids in the first place. It wasn't like she said anything new, besides saying his nose looked like a toothpick, and Joe jackson "admitting" that he beat his kids. I think it was all a money grab because everyone wanted to see his children sooner or later. By the way, what do you think of his children? I don't know whether they are his or not for the sole fact that Prince seems to have depigmented areas on his armpit and fingers and small spots on his neck. I've seen birthmarks on white people that have looked like that but I'm just thinking of the coincidence of Prince having that and Mike having vitiligo (which I should say I think he gave himself that from his use of bleach to lighten his skin). But Paris and Prince look like Mediterranean whites, not biracial in the slightest. Mike was a medium dark black man with large features, so I find it highly unlikely that he would father 3 children with straight hair and white/latino features. Doesn't make sense. But anyways, I also think that P,P,&B seemed isolated and almost feral, like they had no home training and didn't know how to speak to adults, especially Prince and Blanket. All the other Jackson grandkids were sweet and well behaved. I don't think Mike was raising them right. But they are too young to realize it. Just my opinion.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

About Lisa. I didn't watch the interview but I did read the sum up on Oprah's website. As far as I'm concerned I think Lisa is a liar and/or delusional. That marriage was a complete sham, whether or not she wants to see it that way. She may have had feelings for him but Mike in no way, shape, or form, reciprocated those feelings. I believe that had 1993 allegations not became public, he would have continued having young boy concubines until the end of his life. He was the King of Pop he could have had any woman he wanted, in any flavor and texture. But he never did, until he was accused of molesting a 13 year old boy. He finally "showed" an "interest" in a woman at 35. But he had been bedding young boys (and attempting to) since at least 1983 (and Terry George got his risque phone calls from Mike when he was 12 in 1979). That is suspicious. Lisa was a non-factor, and I don't know if they had sex, but I doubt that Mike, as you said, would want to have sex with a woman more than necessary. He did want to get her pregnant after all. But Diane Dimond has a mutual friend with Lisa and this friend told her that Lisa herself said Mike was too afraid to have sex. And doesn't that go along with Mike's own words? Yes. She has always maintained that it was "normal", but what does that mean anyway? She never goes into detail, just says it was consummated. could it be that if she went into detail, she would be forced to lie? Or maybe just leaving it at "normal" was to save Mike the humiliation? Who knows, but Lisa always, in my opinion, skirts the issue of sex, and she does not seem like the kind of girl that would be embarrassed about talking about sex. I bet if asked in an interview about sex with Nicolas Cage, she wouldn't say "normal" or leave it to bare-bones descriptors. The only place we hear about Lisa and Mike being "hot and heavy" is in "The Magic and the Madness" by JRT, never from her own lips. and we know that JRT is an opportunist.

Lisa is full of it when she talks about drugs. I don't buy that that's the reason she left him. I think she is just saying that because right now in the media, his drug addiction is all they talk about. So basically she is jumping on that boat. She talks about picking him up from doctors and him being "out of it", and I don't believe that. She has never mentioned drugs in any of her past, and hostile, interviews she has done, so i think she is just making it up. And she has always stated that she didn't think Mike loved her and that she didn't feel loved, but when Oprah asked her post-mortem if she felt Mike loved her, she says yes. I think she is full of it. How can you be consistent in your stories all those years before his death, and only now you are like "Oh come to think of it he did love me"? It doesn't make sense. I think she is saying all of this for publicity, and the Wacko fans will eat it up because they will cling to anything that makes their idol look normal, because in their hearts they know he was anything but.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,
Lisa also claims to have spent 4 years with him after their divorce. Again I don't believe her. She makes it seem like he and her were an item, but she even said there was 2 men between Mike and Nicolas Cage. A People magazine article, published in November 1998, said Lisa met Johnny O. "The couple met last May and became engaged just before Christmas, when Oszajca went to Lisa Marie's mother, Priscilla Presley, and asked "for her daughter's hand in marriage," said spokesman Paul Bloch. After receiving her approval, Oszajca formally proposed to Lisa Marie." So I highly doubt she was courting Mike during May 1997-at least November 1998. She married Nick Cage on Aug 10, 2002 and divorced him on Nov. 25, 2002. Remember on LKL, she said there was two relationships between her divorce from Mike in 1996 and marriage to Nick Cage in late 2002. And 4 years would be 1996-2000. Who's the other guy? 1997 to at least the end of 1998 was with Johnny O. It's either she's a disgusting cheater that two-times her boyfriends or she is exaggerating the whole "getting back together and breaking up" thing with Mike. I think she is full of it and delusional. She wants to convince herself that she wasn't a part of a scam but she was. Mike didn't like women; he liked little boys and young men. I also think she was saying that to get back at Debbie Rowe for having his kids. She still seems bitter.

I will say I don't necessarily disbelieve her when she says she never saw Mike acting inappropriately with kids. Even with all her vitriol against him in past interviews she always said she never saw that. And I think she didn't. I don't think she was around him enough to see that. He was putting on a show for her so of course she wouldn't see that. She didn't live at Neverland, so she wouldn't have seen. Omer Bhatti was bought in 1996, and Lisa wouldn't be privy to their relationship as she was kicked to the curb. Omer was with them in South Africa in 1997 (or whatever year that was) but I doubt Mike messed with Omer in front of Lisa. Besides Mike probably knew that she would disapprove and blow his cover. She would not know. But interesting, Mike didn't stop his boy tricks when they were married, vacationing with the Cascio boys when he was supposed to be with Lisa, and bringing Jimmy Safechuck along in 1994 to film that History teaser in Eastern Europe.

Lisa only talks about Mike to promote some record, which is slimy of her. If they had such a "real love" why didn't she defend him in 2005, saying he was "normal" on the stand? Before he died, she said that although she never say anything, she could only go on what he told her, so she didn't know what happened because she wasn't in that room. By the way, isn't it interesting that the Defense never tried to bring on any evidence of his heterosexuality? Porn isn't a substitute for real women, and he had gay books and boy books as well. I've seen the boy books, and he is definitely a pedo.

Don't you get the feeling that Oprah thinks Mike is a pedophile? I love her for that because she is honest. As a victim herself she sees things clearly. I bet she would have loved to grill Katherine and Joe on Mike's "boy issues".

Lady C said...

The Dr. Murray's trial will be interesting to see out it comes out... but can you just imagine the backlash that will come about if he's not found guilty. The MJ fanatics will have a field day with that one!! Lol But anyway, I'm not sure about MJ's kids. Some times I think that they might be his, but at other times I say to myself, there's no way. Having bi-racial sisters my self, you can't always tell that they are half African-American; mostly their skin color looks to be of Latino race, but they do not have the 'straight and silky" hair like that of MJ's children. Yes, I agree with you when you said the older two look like white Mediterranean, especially Paris. So IDK. But I suppose having children biologically does not make you a parent, does it? Ok, so he wanted children... but why not do it the way he always said he would; adoption. MJ said several times over the years, way before he married; that he did not want to procreate, but wanted to adopt children instead. He even made this proposition to Brooke Shields back in the day and she turned him down. Blanket obviously is very shy (at least on camera anyway). As for Prince's mysterious skin markings; it may be Vitiligo, who knows. But if he does truly have Vitiligo and he's suppose to be MJ true child biologically, then his Vitiligo is extremely different from that of his father. MJ apparently had the MOST extreme case of Vitiligo that anyone of us has ever seen!! Hmmm.... Especially since MJ claims that his disease was the result of a very distant relative?? Prince is no distant relative; he's MJ's immediate relative, right? To be honest, I never really bought into MJ's story behind his Vitiligo. The question one has to ask is this: which came first, the Vitiligo or the bleaching?? IMO, I honestly believe, the bleaching came first. I think MJ ran into serious problems when the whole 'bleaching' thing went awry, and he was forced to go completely one uniform color (white) when he realized that he wasn't bleaching to an even tone. And when that happens there's no reversing it because the pigment/melanin has been permanently removed. So he had no choice but to go white. Of course, MJ didn't want to admit this to anyone (at least publicly) so he used the "I have Vitiligo" bit as an excuse to cover up his mistake. Vitiligo from a long distant relative... bullshit; that's highly unlikely. Then he used that as an 'insurance' policy to make sure that it could not be traced back to his so-called 'distant relative' because most likely if they were just that, they would be deceased and no way of tracing it. It was just any easy way out for him; after all MJ never liked confrontation of any kind. He didn't know how to handle it. MJ's life was nothing but one big incredible lie. You know that saying, "you better have a good memory to be good liar", well that didn't fit too well with MJ. You couldn't believe a word that was coming out of his mouth. Some times I think MJ confused himself with so many of the stories that he has told to public over the years...and I think that some of the details to those stories he had forgotten.

Lady C said...

Katherine, from what I understand, has put MJ's children in a private school; so they are no longer home schooled (what MJ was doing) and will finally have the chance to be some-what normal children; having friends and relationships. I truly hope it works out for them;I really do. They deserve and need that interaction with other people, and not live as hermits. Perhaps MJ really thought that he was really doing his best in raising and protecting his kids, but I tend to think differ. I think he was really doing more harm to them than good. A parent protecting their child is one thing, but to 'mask' them and completely cut them off from the outside world is dangerous, IMO. Being a parent myself, you have to be careful how you choose to raise your child; it can have dire consequences later in life that can be damaging and have devastating effects. We already saw this happen in their father, MJ. He didn't beat or sexually molest his children (at least from that we know of), but a lot of his parenting skills were questionable.... I don't think that they were the best choices for raising a child. That too, can be if not, just as bad as abuse itself. He's setting up that same pattern for his own children, and that is very unfortunate. After all, like all of us, none of us asked to be here. And his children didn't ask to have a famous celebrity father as well; and he knew that. But what he did know, was that he was extremely famous and he chose to bring those children into this world. He should have made more of an effort than he did to see that they had a normal and HEALTHY childhood; one that is loving, trusting, and thriving.

Lady C said...

LMP.... well, what can I say more about her. Nothing at this point. Between the both of us, I think we pretty much said it all. Except for one thing.... yes, I do agree with you about LMP telling sex details in a different light if asked about Cage. Lisa, no doubt about it, likes sex and intimacy, and she would be singing a different tune about him. When her mother was married to Elvis, they had a very sexless marriage after she became pregnant with LMP. Apparently Elvis thought it was appalling to have sex with the mother of his child. He wouldn't touch her after that, and I guess he went to other women for his sexual needs. Lisa Marie was determined to not have a relationship like that. Intimacy was very important to her. That is why, for the life of me, cannot understand why she would go to MJ of all people?? When they were dating before they married, did she not see it then? Makes me wonder...

It's funny that you mention Oprah and her possible view point regarding MJ's pedophilia. I was suring the web one day and ran across a website called, ( There they were talking about some well known celebrities that possibly had negative reservations regarding MJ: Oprah, Prince, and Bruce Springstein. You should read it; interesting. I have always been curious to know what other celebs thought about his "boy issues". Yes, I do believe Oprah does think of him as a pedophile deep down, and to be honest I'm not sure if she has come right out and said it publicly? Do you know if she has? If she has not, I'm sure it's for reasons which are very obvious, of course. Oprah did ask her staff before hand what questions would be barred from her interview with Katherine Jackson. Her staff informed her that NO questions would be off limits; she could ask her anything. As for Joe Jackson, Oprah was kind of surprised to see him there at the interview because it was understood that the inteview was going to be between her, Katherine, and MJ's children. I truly believe deep down that Oprah really wanted to "go there" with questions about MJ but did not because of his children involved. Prior to the interview, she made it very clear to her staff that she did not want it to come across to the public that she was using this interview to exploit MJ's children. Therefore, she had to be very careful as to where she went with the questions and how far even though majority of the interview was with Katherine and not the kids. After all, there was a lot riding on this particular interview for "O"!Lol She beat the competition to the punch and it would be the first public interview with MJ's children since his death. She wanted to make sure it went off without a hitch... and it did.

MJ may have been a really great artist, but his private life was very different from what you see on tv or read in books. It's that simple. Michael was not a bad person per say (because we all have done some terrible and embarrassing things in our lives at some point-none of us are perfect), but he had serious problems and needed help. That was very apparent. I'll say it again, I believe if he had gotten the help that he needed, I believe his life would have been different for the better.

Lady C said...

In his 2005 trial, the jury said there was simply "not enough" evidence for a guilty verdict. And a good reason to believe there was not enough evidence was because the Defense was able to bury it and keep MJ from taking the stand. Had the 'buried treasure' been brought out into the open, I truly believe the verdict would have been entirely different; no doubt. And we thought the MJ 'fanatics' went nuts with all the pedofile and gay rumors after he died??... well, let's just say that if he was found to be guilty, they would have thought "the sky was falling"! Lol Speaking of evidence, there is a list of the porn collection that was found in MJ's bedroom during the NL raid. I believe Desiree has the documented list on somewhere on this sight? I read the list and saw that yes, he did have enough porno to sink a ship, but there is one thing I question. That is, why was there a cut-out article about the female G-spot?? I'm curious to know what's that all about. I mean, if MJ was not interested in women sexually, then why would he show interest in something like that by keeping the article about it? Wierd! Since he was apparently having male sexual preference and possibly sexual identity issues, why would that be of interest to him. When I read that I found that to be odd.

Dr. Murray... you brought up a very good point about him that I did not think of. He just might be found guilty solely on the basis of the jury bowing to public opinion and nothing else. What I think happened with Murray, is that he simply got too relaxed in what he was doing. He probably felt that he had done this thing a million of times before and thought that he had it under control; no big deal. But the reality of it is like what you said before, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately many doctors get too 'relaxed' in doing some of their work, because to them they've never been caught of guard, and they take it for granted. I've known plenty of people who have worked around doctors, and they can attest to what I'm saying. I have one question... whatever happened to the infamous photos of MJ's strip search? I imagine that they are under lock and key? I wonder some day, if they will surface. What do you think?

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

Mike definitely was bleaching first, no doubt about it. Don't you think it is strange that when you see "proof" of his vitiligo in pictures that his crazy fans post, they always involve dark spots on white skin? I want to see a picture of Mike when he was dark and had white patches appearing. And I seen Latoya Jackson on Geraldo back in 1993-early 94, and he asked her if they had a relative that had vitiligo. She said no. Then after Latoya went back in the fold of her family, she said they had a relative on her father's side with vitiligo. I'm always of the opinion that she was her most truthful when she was away from the control of Katherine and Joe (she told the truth about the abuse and Mike's boy issues). I don't think there was any distant relative. Mike's "vitiligo" was very severe and that for is ultra rare, to have universal pigment loss. And you'd think that Prince would have inherited a really severe form too, but his is like a birthmark. He was supposed to have been diagnosed with the disease in the early-mid 80s, and I think he said in his Oprah interview that he got it during the "Off the Wall-Thriller" era. He couldn't even get his dates right, which is the hallmark of a liar. I've seen pictures of him in the 80s where he is only in swim trunks and I didn't see any spots anywhere, and his face had no makeup on it, but it did look like he had been lightening his entire face with bleaching cream.

As for his kids, hopefully they won't try showbiz, please, I don't want to see any more Jacksons! LOL. I think Mike was an unfit parent becuase he did drugs around his children. I read in an 2005 article in Vanity Fair that when Mike was high he put on a children's movie and watched it over and over and that Prince had cavities in his teeth because he was allowed to eat so much candy. Remember, even in the Oprah interview, Prince said he and Mike would walk on the beach and drink soda and eat candy. I don't think he knew wha the was doing, but I hope the kids get it together and separate themselves from their greedy relatives and be independent. Mike cloistered them away and they had absolutely no friends. Maybe his death was a blessing in disguise, I hate to say.

I didn't know about Prince and Bruce Springsteen having reservations about Mike's behavior. Interesting. I think the fans, and maybe the general public too, don't realize that Hollywood is tiny and everyone knows everyone, and people talk. But celebrities are good at keeping secrets because they don't want their own dirty deeds exposed. Did you notice how no one defended Mike in 1993 or in 2005? I read in a book that supposedly at the World Music Awards in 2006, Jon Bon Jovi refused to give Mike his award because he thought he was a child molester, so Beyonce had to give it to him. Also in 1995, some member in a British rock group jumped on stage while Mike was performing as a way to protest him presenting himself as a Messiah and having children up there when he had been accused of sexually abusing a boy. I think many, many people think Mike was a pedophile and perhaps they know, but they won't tell. Everyone jumped on the Michael Jackson train when he died, but they couldn't care less about him when he was alive and he was a joke; I think it was just the "cool" thing to do to like him post mortem.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

I don't know about Lisa's head, all I can say is that that was not a real marriage and no amount of her "hindsight 20/20" reflections will change that. He always wanted to adopt children, as you said, which in my opinion, was his way of never ever having to be sexually involved with a woman. It was a cover. I will always believe that he would have continued messing with boys until he died had it not been for Jordie; marriage was never his thing and never would have been. If he would have taken the stand in 2005, he would have been exposed as the pedophile he was. He would have crumbled under questioning and even if he didn't molest Gavin Arvizo, the Prosecution would have got him on Jordie, Brett, Jimmy, Jonathan, etc. Mike never wanted to talk about Jordie and he always plead the 5th when he was able to. But he couldn't risk doing that in a criminal court because we all know how that would have looked. I wish he would have been put on the stand, but Mesereau isn't that dumb. Mike was a liar and would have quickly choked in his own tangled web of deceit.

I don't know about that g-spot article. Maybe he found it interesting? Who knows. What I do know is that he was semen from other men on his mattress, and semen on bedsheets in his vacation bags. And paper isn't a substitute for a real woman. Fans like to say "oh MJ was private" but I don't buy that excuse. If he was some womanizing cad, we would have been assaulted daily with all the women coming out and telling their stories of trysts with the King of Pop. Hell, he wouldn't have even been accused of molestation if he had shown a tangible interest in women. But he clearly had a more than tangible interest--unhealthy interest--in boys of a certain age. He didn't like women, if he did, we would have known by now, and in 2005 they probably would have used these women to defend his sexuality on the stand. But alas, there was no one.

I don't think that those pictures will ever surface because that would be wrong...legally. LOL. Now for a good laugh and hard proof of his misdeeds, I'd love to see them released. You know, Mike tried twice to get those photos out of police custody, but of course he was unsuccessful, since they don't belong to him and they are police property. The first time he tried to get them was in 1994, right after he had bought the Chandlers' silence with an 8 figure settlement. I think it was like in February or March 1994. The second time was after he was acquitted in 2005. He really has some nerve to think that just because he made "Thriller" and could moonwalk, he could get those pictures. Well, we all know why he wanted word: proof.

Lady C said...

I'm with you 100%, about MJ not ever marrying had it not been for the Chandler case. As a matter of fact, it might be even safe to say, that his children, PP&B, probably would not exist. Michael would have continued his 'boy escapades" through out the remainder of his life. If children were to be brought into the mix, they would have been acquired through adoption and not the circus that he put on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the archives in this blog, I get the understanding that MJ had SEVERAL out of court settlements for accusations of molestation that were kept out of light from the public. I think the only two cases that stand out in my mind prior to the 2005 trial was the Chandler and Jason Francia settlements. If that is true, then those were the only case that I was aware of and probably most of the public as well. MJ was a very busy man!! Lol Well all I can say is, God does not like ugly and your sin WILL find you out. MJ may have very well tried to keep the public fooled about his 'private life", but it was a shenanigan that he could only keep up for so long. Eventually it caught up with him. In the 2005 trial, Mesereau and his defense team knew exacting WHO they were dealing with; no doubt about it. They knew exactly what the outcome would be if MJ had been allowed to take the stand. Yes, MJ would have definitely cracked under pressure and they knew that too. What I can't understand is why the third 'mysterious' semen sample was not tested for ID?? Why did Judge Melville not intervene and allow MJ to take the stand and even allow all the semen evidence, mattress, soiled sheets, and underwear to be admitted even though the defense did not want it submitted? ESPECIALLY, since they ALL knew what kind of history MJ had with allegations of child molestation. That also includes any "secrete" settlements that were kept out of public view. A judge is always aware of any and all legalities that a person has had in the past before they go on trial. Melville knew all about MJ's past. I thought a judge had the power to over rule any side of the court at any time?? I mean, what did Melville have to loose?? If I were a judge, my mentality would be, "if you've truly done nothing wrong, then there should nothing to worry about; nothing should oppose as a threat to you". But with MJ, we all knew the answer to that...

Lady C said...

You're right about the 1993 & 2005 allegations.... not one celebrity came to MJ's defense. The only one that I can think of that may have come close, would be Liz Taylor, and that would have been during the 1993 allegations. She was NO WHERE to be found during his 2005 trial? I think, she too, knew what kind of person MJ really was and did not want to come out and publicly say it. She had to have known that his unusual and obsessive interaction with children was not healthy. And for those parents who fell prey to MJ and his sick escapades, they should really be examined closely. I'm talking about the parents who would "rent" their child to MJ to be left all alone with him, locked up in some hotel room unchaperoned, half way across the world! WTF kind of parenting is that??? IMO, those parents are just as guilty as MJ for allowing that to happen. No decent parent in their right mind does that! Please, if I'm dead wrong on this, correct me. But that is how I see it. I think that Mac Culkin was the only or one of the few boys who traveled with MJ but had a chaperon. I do know the Manny Lewis' mother eventually got some sense and nipped that relationship with her son and MJ in the bud; real quick! Speaking of Manny, was he ever called into questioning about his relationship with MJ at any time? June Chandler, was another person... she did testify in the 2055 trial, but did even ask her why she and Jordie didn't testify against MJ in 1993? The answer to that is that the court knew why; their 'silence' was bought off with the understanding that they could not say a word about the case after the settlement or they would be in violation of the 'gag order' stated in the contract. However, MJ could AND would violate that contract stipulation with his and LMP's infamous interview with D. Sawyer on Prime Time Live. It was also to my understanding that Johnnie Cochran, MJ's lawyer from 1993, would also admit 'indirectly" that MJ would violate it by giving his side and feelings about the whole ordeal. Out of curiosity, why did MJ not use Cochran to represent him in his 2005 trial? Was it perhaps, Cochran, really 'knew' that MJ was really guilty of what he was accused of in 1993, and shouldn't have gotten away with it so easy; so he decides he's going to step this one (2005) out? Or was it simply that MJ didn't ask for his representation for this trial? When all this was going on, I kinda kept up with the trial and I kinda didn't. With all the 'circuses' in the crazy and bizarre world of Wacko Jacko, makes one wonder, if he would have succumbed to the same circumstances again had he still been alive?? Sad to say, I think it would have happened the saying, "you can take the child away from the molester, but you can't the molesting out of the molester".

Lady C said...

MJ was a piece of work, that's for sure. He always said that there was nothing more amazing than watching the masters at work. I think he saw himself that way. But the true reality of all is, MJ got exactly what he had coming and he deserved it. All these years since he thought he was "Michael Jackson" and he was "Invincible", the world was his and he could get whatever he wanted. Rules did not apply to The King of Pop... and where there were any rules, they were meant to be broken. I'll say it again, he was is own worst enemy. I think all the stress, anxiousness, loneliness and misery that he endured through out his career since the start of the 1993 allegations until his death was, in some sense, a punishment in its self for him. HE NEVER FOUND ANY PEACE!!!
11 His life was full of misery and torment. Perhaps it was karma... coming back to haunt him. The funny thing about it, was that MJ did not believe in karma. According to his statesman to Rabi Schumley, in the MJ Tapes, he said that he felt that karma was nothing but crap. LIFE'S A BITCH ISN'T IT?! Lol

The only comment that I have regarding Dr. Murray and the trial is this... MJ was mostly responsible for his own demise. The only thing that I can think of Dr. Murray being responsible in any way, is that he chose to trade his years of hard work and education for a junkie's fix. He was very unwise in letting his greed/or getting money any way he could for his own benefit, get in the way of responsible reasoning. I like to think on the optimistic side and think that some good can come out of all of this. Hopefully this will be a 'wake up call' to ALL those in the medical profession, that as medical professional they have a responsibility to themselves and the people. Doctors especially, choosing that profession, need to be held more accountable for their actions as well as their CHOICES. NO ONE MAKES ANYONE DO ANYTHING!! Unfortunately Conrad Murray made a bad choice and compromised his ethics, morals, and responsibility to the Hippocratic Oath. If he's guilty of anything, that's what he's guilty of. After all, there were some doctors that simply refused to give into the demands of Michael Jackson; regardless of how much money was involved. I know the world is by no means a perfect place, and this thinking may be a little far fetched, but the buck needs to stop here! MJ's demise due to drug use is not the first time its has happened... as a matter of fact, it's deja vous.

J-M-H said...

Lady C

The statement about Murray trading in his education and hard work for a junkie's fix is so so accurate and very true. I LOL'd at that. But he doesn't deserve to be in prison for it, period. I don't know if you've ever seen the show "The Boondocks" by Aaron McGruder on Adult Swim, but one of the characters, Tom DuBois, is a prosecutor who has an irrational fear of going to prison and being anally raped by inmates. But he still likes to win his cases, but on one episode he went to a prison as a chaperone and it got shut down. He was accosted by a particularly "insatiable" inmate that "wanted" him. Suffice it to say, at the end of the episode he was reconsidering his job as a prosecutor because he "didn't want to sent anyone to get anally raped". It was a funny episode, but that's how I feel about Murray: he doesn't deserve to go to jail and potentially get violated in prison over a death stemming from a "junkie's fix".

Oh, and I forgot to mention one other interesting thing about Lisa. You know how she said in that myspace blog post she wrote after his death that Mike talked about her father a lot and his death and how he might end up like him, all that? Well interestingly enough when she was on Larry King in 2005 when he asked her if Mike liked her fther's music, she said he never mentioned it, like he never talked about her father. And Mike himself said in "Moonwalk" that he wasn't an Elvis fan. So I think that's good evidence that she is a liar, making up some connection where there wasn't any. We would be wise not to trust her word, especially after his death. Clearly that relationship was a sham and she is delusional. By the way, Liz did defend Mike in 2005 on LKL, she said everyone will "eat crow" when he is acquitted. But this is the same woman (and I like Liz Taylor) that made Mike compensate her financially in order for her image to appear on his "Michael Jackson Home Movies" special. Blanca Francia, his maid from 1986-1991 said that when she saw Liz, she and Mike were not the lovey-dovey friends they appeared to be on camera. I believe it, especially since Blanca Francia offered up that little tidbit without provocation.

J-M-H said...

Lady C

I think that Mesereau has convinced himself that Mike was innocent, but we all know lawyers lie good, so he could be fooling and just representing his client even post mortem. I bet Johnnie Cochran thought OJ did it. By the way, it was Johnnie that recommended Mesereau, because Johnnie was in the hospital at the time with a brain tumor (he died Mar 29, 2005). But interestingly enough Johnnie defended OJ, who many people believe did it and yet he couldn't even defend Mike! That says a lot doesn't it, that this brilliant civil attorney couldn't defend some "false" child molestation claims, but rather agreed to a settlement amounting to 10% of Mike's net worth in the early 90s. As for Melville, he is a judge and I don't think he wanted to risk not being impartial. The semen stains were just tested for Gavin and Star's DNA, and the government can't compel anyone to give a DNA sample without probable cause, it's a violation of the right to privacy and the state probably had no idea who the semen could have came from. My suspicion is that one of the stains is from Omer Bhatti, and possibly Brett Barnes, but it could be from any guy Mike had the hots for. And since the DNA was from unknown sources, it was rightly irrelevant and inadmissible.

I can't believe the fans cannot see how strange it is for Brett Barnes to admit that he slept in the bed with Mike until he was 19 years old. I mean Mike--an unrelated stranger, essentially--started sleeping with Brett when he was just 11 years old and he was still sleeping with him when Brett was a grown man of 19? That doesn't sound sexual at all to these crazy fans? Clearly Mike was molesting him and Brett must have developed feelings for him at that age, being all confused because of the abuse. It's sick and sad, and Mike deserved all the pain he got for abusing a child like he was abused.

The only publicly known settlements are with Jordie (of course) and with Jason Francia, yes. But his lavish gifts to boys and their parents amounts to something of hush money in my opinion. But I can guarantee that he has paid off more families. One example is of that family in Argentina, David and Ruby Martinez. We don't know the whole scoop but that is definitely a family that was bought off. So that makes at least 3. Mike liked young boys and bought parents off accordingly.

Lady C said...

No you are right, about Murray, and I hope that I didn't give you the wrong impression otherwise as that was not my intent. He should not go to prison and risk being gang raped, but he does deserve to have his medical license taken indefinitely. Let's just say that it's no longer a good idea for him to practice medicine anymore;for reasons which are quite obvious. No, I have not seen "The Boondocks", but I have heard of it.

I forgot about Liz Taylor speaking out on LKL on the 2005 trial. Now that I think about it, she did say something to him after the trial that most of the country thought that he was guilty of the molestation charges. She also mentioned that MJ was seriously considering leaving the US because of the public's opinion of him. Yes, Liz Taylor did nothing for free; even for MJ. As Bob Jones put it,"that was one expensive friendship". Liz and MJ may have been good friends, but she was also his "front girl". Do you remember the interview from (1992 or 1993?) that Oprah did with MJ at Neverland? Do you recall the "unexpected" interruption that occurred when the fire alarms when off, and they had to go to a break during taping? Then out of no where comes Miss Taylor to the rescue! LOL!! Oprah's surprised to see Taylor, and asks her questions about MJ; what kind of man/friend is he, etc., the look that MJ had on his face was unforgettable. His whole body language gave him away. While Liz was talking, he was standing there with his arms crossed and looking away from the camera with a "guilty" look on his face!!LOL I'll never forget that. I'm sure the "alarm dysfunction'' and Ms.Taylor's unexpected appearance was planned on MJ's behalf...and he paid her handsomely for it too; in a piece of expensive jewelry. What's funny is that MJ and fire alarms have a lot in common... remember when the fire alarms went off at the hospital where he was pronounced dead and the whole facility had to be evacuated. I guess you could say the MJ knows how to put out a fire before it starts. Hell, he's had much experience doing it through out this career, he ought to know.!! LOL (I know, I'm terrible w/ the sarcasm) But on a serious note, I thought that it was very unfortunate and sad that his legal shenanigans led to the break up of a family. Take for instance, June Chandler; at the 2005 trial she testified that her son, Jordie, had not talked to her in 10 years since the 1993 allegations. She was heart broken. I'm glad MJ couldn't sleep at night!

Yes, Michael did mention in his book, Moonwalk, that he was not a fan of Elvis. But isn't it ironic that MJ's whole outlook on Elvis ended up being completely opposite of what he didn't want. He mentions that he did not want his life destroyed the way Elvis' was...and it was... he said that people felt he might die like Elvis if he kept secluding himself... and he did...he felt there was no need to be concerned about it because the parallels were not there...and they were.

The MJ fanatics... well, what more can we say? Of course, MJ's sicko affair with Brett all those years is nothing but sexual. It's got sexual written all over it! But no, the fanatics cannot see this because they are blinded by the "purity and innocence" of their fallen hero.

black male said...

I got the link for this blog off Diane Dimond's web site. Interesting connection. Very well written blog. Your main thing here seems to be proving all the evidence, FBI and, all those trail witnesses wrong, good luck with that, because Jackson slept in same room, bed with boys. I'm a 44 year black male my lover of 2 years is a 19 year old white boy, who only stays because I lavishly support him, I'm fine with that. I live in the Mid-West, and the whites in my office love Katt Williams and despise Barack Obama, wonder why that is.

As a grown man Elvis slept with and had sex with a 13 teen year old girl, and many other teen underage girls as well in his 20s and 30s, why not do an investigation or hit piece on him? Is it because he was white and his victims were girls?

Desiree said...

black male:

My goal here is to show that there is strong evidence in existence to suggest Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I know he slept with boys and in the same bed.

The FBI documents have at least one document proving Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and that is one where Brett Barnes accompanied Michael Jackson on a train ride. Sounds were heard and troubled a social worker couple on the same train that something untoward was happening between Brett and Michael in Michael's train compartment. Obvious indication was that it was sex sounds. And Brett did sleep in the bed with Michael Jackson until he was 19, unlike all of Michael's other 'special friends'.

I am sorry but you seem like someone else from Daleville, AL (I can see where all of you are coming from) who went batshit insane on the site a day or so ago... Your location is only a short commute away so you can understand my suspicion...

Desiree said...

Oh, and Elvis was not a pedophile like Michael Jackson. Roman Polanski would be the closest white sex-offending celebrity in which to compare Michael Jackson, although Polanski is a rapist, not a pedophile like Jacko.

It's funny that R. Kelly and Michael Jackson got along so well. Similar belief systems?

black male said...

I'm with the same group, all our IP addresses will come from that location. You will be getting more. I'm not physically there. No of us are actually live there. You can understand we need that wall for protection. That's all you need to know on that. You go crowshit on every post. Elvis was a pedophile, sorry to burst your bullshit opinion bubble, but he also dead and we are interested in the living ones. What do think of my before mention relationship? You sound like Diane Dimond. Why this stalking obsession with Micheal Jackson? Almost to the point of mental illness.

Desiree said...

LOL, 'black male'...

We are here having a civil conversation and all of a sudden you go from saying my blog is 'well-written' and 'interesting', to me having a 'bullshit' opinion.

Me thinks you are just another Michael Jackson fanatic, probably the same one previously.

You know, if you can muster the cojones to say Elvis Presley, a man who slept with all of his female movie co-stars, was a pedophile, you should be able to clearly see that Michael Jackson, who never had any kind of real relationship with a woman but paraded around with pubescent boys and was then accused of molesting them, was also a pedophile.

What am I saying? You are just a Jacko fan. We all know they don't know much, as they are too blind to 'get' anything.

Len said...

As an aside, I don't think Elvis was necessarily a pedophile. But after reading "Elvis and Me", by Priscilla Presley, I think the age he got involved with her was inappropriate. She was an underage 14-year-old girl when they met. Per Priscilla, they did not have intercourse until they were married, but they were doing everything else, which basically boils down to them having sex. I saw an interview with her in which she described her book a cautionary tale, in so many words.

However, Roman Polanski is both a pedophile and a rapist. I don't how many little girls he molested, and I don't know how many other little girls he raped. But he is just as much as a criminal as Michael. And like Michael, he had the money and celebrity to stay out of jail. The recent Switzerland fiasco is just further proof.

Susana said...

Len, I couldn't agree more on Roman Polanski. I have first hand information, and I tell you, this man is a criminal. I don't know much of Elvis, I've never been interested in him, but I see he was another piece of work.
What "black male" was trying to say is we are scrutinizing Michael because he was black. I hate when fans use the race as a way to silence people who see Mj for what he was: a paedophile.

Personally, I was a big fan of MJ in my adolescence... OTW/Thriller era. Michael was on top when he was black, he reached the peak of his career when he was black, he was adored by black and whites when he was still looking black. He lost millions upon millions of fans (black and whites) when Bad came out and he was turning white.
I don't think Michael was perceived like a black (or white or whatever) artist or personality any more. He was an entity in itself, a strange creature LOL.

Really, people should avoid the moral relativism based on people's ethnicity. A paedophile is a paedophile, no matter if he is white, black or blue.

Desirée is exposing Michael facts, and we discuss him, no Elvis. Elvis died in the 70s and Michael two years ago...

Len said...


I have noticed a number of Michael's rabid fans levy pedophilia to Elvis, which is why I added my two cents. Pedophilia is pedophilia, and this very sick illness exists in every race. In spite of NAMBLA and other pedophiles' effort to get the age of consent lowered so that they can freely prey on children, I'm glad those laws exist. I wish "black male" and other rabid fans could get out of denial, where Michael's pedophilia was concerned. Perhaps they could then help the efforts of those who are working to protect children from these criminals.

Priscilla wrote a very blunt autobiography about her relationship with Elvis Presley. There's nothing more to search for. Roman Polanski's behavior is available for all to see; his well-known infamous trial and subsequent fleeing the country to avoid sentence is also well known. There's nothing secret to dig up. The recent incident in Switzerland proves, even more how a convicted criminal is still getting away with it because of who he is. I find the man disgusting, and I was even more disgusted by the way certain celebrities tried to excuse what he did and to plea for his freedom.

But as we all know, Michael's criminal behavior was hidden by his successful manipulation through his carefully constructed public image, a highly controlled PR team to protect that image, and the best lawyers to keep him out of prison. There are also too many people who knew him, especially in the music industry, and what he was doing, but have no desire to step forward, which is why I've kept my mouth shut about how I got my information. This is why I, too, love Desiree's blog so much, as you do. Where public documents are concerned, there's no paying off somebody to hide them, there's no one to intimidate or beat up to get them and then destroy the evidence.

When Desiree comes up for air, from her studies, I know we can definitely expect another deliciously revealing blog!

Lady C said...

I'm with you...I can't wait for "our girl", Desiree, to get back! Looking forward to what else she has to say.

Desiree said...

Girls, I have an idea of what to blog about next but I have seriously had no time and--let's face it--have been lazy to upload the pictures in the blogger editor.

I just wanted to chime in about Elvis Presley.

The tough thing in this country is the definition of pedophilia is so muddled that people confuse statutory rape with pedophilia. It is frustrating to me.

I know I have never read 'Elvis and Me' but I really, really don't believe that Elvis was a pedophile in any way, shape, or form. He is not! This is a guy--like I mentioned to 'black male'--who had so many normal-aged female lovers.

I'm of the opinion a 14-year-old girl can (and they do) consent to sex, regardless of what the 'law' has to say about it. And what did Priscilla Presley look like when she was 14? How mature was she?

That Michael Jackson fans call Elvis a pedophile is just an ad hominem attack. Michael was the pedophile, NOT Elvis. Elvis didn't siphon young girls to his dressing room after shows like Michael Jackson did. Jesus Christ, it's ridiculously ironic.

I don't know about Roman Polanski but I don't feel it is right to speculate on how many 'little girls' he's 'raped' when we only know of one. He's not like Jacko, where you have names of boys and 'witnesses', regardless if they are unscrupulous or not. Susana said she has firsthand knowledge of Polanski so she may know more about it than people in the media but, as of now, I just think he was a rapist, not a pedophile. The girl he offended against looked older than the standard 13-year-old girl. Of course, it doesn't change the fact of her youth but she definitely wasn't a 'kid'.

I personally believe there are lots of people in the industry--music, Hollywood, etc.--who have sexual proclivities that are way left field. Some people believe Michael Jackson is targeted because his victims are boys. That may or may not be true.

But Jacko is the pedophile, not the others. That's my belief anyway.

Desiree said...

I should note that I do know there are non-exclusive type pedophiles but I honestly just don't think Polanski (I won't even mention Elvis) was one of them...

Desiree said...

Also, I think it is a misconception due to political correctness: most pedophiles choose boys, not girls, because these pedophiles are homosexual. Some don't consider themselves 'gay' and would never want to; I think this was Michael's lot, although I think he was attracted to adult men, as well. It is a media creation that pedophiles like girls, because, since we live in a patriarchy, girls need to be 'protected', not to mention, the gay lobby will get up-in-arms.

The origin of pedophilia is pederasty, an ancient Greek tradition that flourished in most of the patriarchal European, near-Eastern, and Eastern societies. Pederasty and homosexuality (which is also an offshoot of the pederasty tradition) in ancient Greece was based on the hatred of women, misogyny.

Pedophilia grew out of this tradition, real pedophilia, the stuff advocated by the NAMBLAs, the Carl Toms of the world.

Girls are just not victims of pedophiles at the rates boys are victims; it's just a myth. Ken Lanning discusses a lot of this in his field guide about child molesters and pedophiles. He states that sex rings and child pornography are almost always boy-centered, not girl-centered.

People who sit on their couches watching Law & Order will think otherwise. Again, this is due to political correctness.

Many times when a man 'legally offends' against what we consider a 'young girl', it's just biology. Men are hard-wired to be attracted to or respond to a developing female. Remember, it was during the Victorian era that children's youth was extended.

So, a young girl is only socially a young girl. Legally, maybe psychologically, but not biologically. This is why you have girls with periods liking Hannah Montana. A couple of centuries ago, they would have been preparing for marriage!

I went off on a rant because I just don't think it is fair to label someone a pedophile when they are NOT one. That's a huge pet peeve for me. Pedophiles are mentally messed up, and some of them are just boy-lovers. Michael Jackson was a pedophile, through and through, the boy-loving and being messed up mentally as well.

Len said...


Your comments are definitely thought provoking. But have you ever read or heard of the book "Lolita?" The child is about 10 or 11, in the book. Roman Polanski has openly praised the movie. He also had sex with Nastasha Kinski when she was still an older child. (I refer to teenagers as older children, and she was about 14.) I don't know the list of how many more older children he molested. We don't know how many other girls Roman Polanski may have raped. We only know about one. But he is notorious for preferring girls as opposed to women and molesting them. I always said it was good the book "Lolita" was written because it's important to know what the child molester thinks. But I'd like to see a book written from Lolita's perspective. What is it like to be a child and to be sexually abused by a very sick man.

I don't believe Elvis fits the profile of a typical pedophile. His affairs with his adult co-stars are well known. But he did behave inappropriately with Priscilla when she was still underage. Because adolescents are going to experiment with sex, as their hormones are raging, I just want them to be educated about the choices they make, for reasons of protecting their health. But that doesn't give an adult license to take advantage of that. Insofar as Priscilla's appearance is concerned, per the photographs in her book, she was always a beautiful child.

The idea about biology vs. age of legal consent is interesting. But there have been a lot of advocate groups for young girls that are deeply opposed to regarding an older child as a woman because her period starts. She still doesn't have the emotional maturity for adult relationships. I actively seek women's literature from around the world, so my perspective is different. There is a woman from India who wrote a fictionized account of a young girl who is married at 13 and the constant battles with her mother-in-law and the husband she finds repulsive. It's definitely a topic that could be discussed outside of this forum.

However, in order to not get off the topic at hand, I know the posts you have written are about Michael's pedophilia, and he was definitely guilty of child molestation.

Jessica said...

I get what you are saying Desiree. Actually, I was watching "Beyond Scared Straight" last night and you know they have those bad kids on there acting wild and what not. Many of them look like adults (and would be treated as such if they were convicted of a crime). My theory is that the reason American and many other Western adolescents act out is because they're biology is fighting against the artificial social construct called "adolescense" which is just an extended childhood. That is the reason that many teens are moody, unsure of themselves, have sex; basically do the things that they aren't "supposed" to do because Western society has mandated that it is wrong for adolescents to do since they are still "children". Adolescents have run ins with the parental units because they really should be in the world already rather then having their normal biological urges curbed because of a Victorian era (I think it was called "the cult of innocence" or "the cult of children", something like that) desire to keep people children until, at the youngest, 17 years old.

All one has to do is look at the animal world to see how biology is carried out without artificial constraints. For instance, bears will raise their cubs for 2-3 years and then they are physically driven out of the den to fend for themselves; I believe this process is probably driven by pheromones that an "of age" bear releases to signal when its time to leave the den. And all one has to do is look at other nations of the world: many have childhood end once puberty ends, and these "new adults" have already developed the mindsets needed to be a fully functioning member of their societies. Jewish tradition has adulthood marked at 13.

I'm just saying that there really is no "adolescence" in the biological sense. We as Westerners probably were able to create this construct once life wasn't so tenuous, as it was in years before the Industrial Revolution where life expectancy was short so delaying adulthood has disadvantageous. But in delaying adulthood where biology is still running its normal course, we have created situations were teenagers aren't mentally prepared to deal with the changes that come with the onset of puberty, both mental and emotional; and situations were the law and science aren't adding up, for example statutory rape laws (even the feminists think these laws are just a way to control a female's sexuality!). I'm not advocating any crime against actual children, absolutely NOT, I just wanted to put the whole thing in perspective. Many teens aren't ready to deal with any of the emotional baggage that comes from early sexual experience (and I should say American teens, specifically), but that has to do with society, not biology.

Jessica said...


Thanks for the information about Polanski. I didn't know he have sex with Nastasha Kinski, who is the mother of one of Quincy Jones's kids as a fun factoid. Polanski might be a pedophile, as Mike was, but I highly doubt Elvis was. Polanski is clearly showing a preference for adolescent girls, but Elvis' relationship with Priscilla would hardly count as the necessary criterion for pedophilia because he isn't showing a preference. We all know a pedophile can ave relations with adults but they all still clearly have a preference for children, and it is easily recognizable. I think a great example of a non-exclusive type pedophile is Kenneth Parnell. He had relations with women but the main goal of his kidnapping of Steven Stayner and Timothy White was his desire to sexually abuse young boys. The TV movie "I Know My First Name Is Steven" talks about this case in detail.

Jessica said...

About Roman Polanski, I take that back, I don't think he is a pedophile (unless there is evidence that we are unaware of but that would be wrong to speculate). He did raped Samantha Geimer when she was 13 and that is beyond wrong. But the poor man's parents died in a concentration camp and the beautiful Sharon Tate was murdered with their baby inside her. The man has went through enough, without having all the "pedophile" labels thrown against him. From Wkikpedia:

"In 1976, Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, who starred in 'Tess'. She was between 15 and 17 years old, and he was 43. Their relationship ended at the completion of filming. In an interview with David Letterman in 1982, she described their relationship and gave her opinion about his sexual assault case, claiming it was 'ridiculous' and his remaining in France was 'a loss for America.'....In 2004, Polanski sued Vanity Fair magazine in London for libel. A 2002 article in the magazine claimed that Polanski made sexual advances towards a young model while traveling to Tate's funeral. The trial included testimony of actress Mia Farrow and others, and it was concluded from the evidence that the event could not have happened, and Polanski was awarded £50,000 in damages by the High Court in London."

Nastassja Kinski clearly doens't have a problem with their relationship. Maybe she was one of those girls who were mature when entering into the relationship. She ended up shacking up with Qunicy Jones who was an older man, maybe she likes older men, and 15-17 (especially 16 and 17) is hardly an older child. Just saying. And he took the initiative to sue Vanity Fair for libel becuase he clearly felt that he would win becuase they lied. Michael jackson had ample opportunity to sue British tabloids where he could have easily won if they were lying, but he refused. Something tells me he would have been afraid to have the truth revealed in civil court.

(Desiree, by the way, this is J-M-H, I just wanted to use my real name)

Desiree said...


I have never read 'Lolita' but I have seen the film adaptation by Stanley Kubrick and it is one of my favorite films. I don't know how similar the book is to the film version (I'll have to put Nabokov's book on the reading list, as I've always wanted to read it after seeing the film), but Lolita was definitely a little tease in the film version.

Yes, I do know she was technically an 'older child' but she definitely manipulated Humbert Humbert.

But, as you said, Len, the book is written from Humbert's perspective so naturally she will come off as a tease and manipulative.

Of course! What am I saying? That exactly why she was that way! It was through Humbert's eyes! No wonder, hmmm...

But for argument's sake, let's say Lolita had been exactly as she was in the film version towards Humbert Humbert. You couldn't say she was exactly a victim. Societally, yes, she may be considered someone who is a 'victim' but not really.

I do believe Sue Lyons' Lolita was damaged at the end of the film. I doubt she would have turned out to be married and living in a ramshackle house if Humbert had not pursued her in the way he had but she was very much in control. (Like I mentioned before, this was all of Humbert's perspective so of course Lolita comes off less sympathetic than Humbert Humbert.)

Jessica made the points about the biology argument. I think we should protect our children from predation by adults with power over them but we should also realize that they are not 'little kids'.

I was a teenager not too long ago (I'll be 22 in March) and I remember not feeling incredibly immature. Even psychologically. I contend that I would have been able to handle an adult sexual relationship with an older man at, say, 14.

The only thing we cannot control in these types of situations is the manipulation factor. When you see those female teachers on TV having had crossed the boundaries with male students, there is definitely manipulation going on (and we should remember that in terms of this psychological adolescence that kids enter, boys mature much more slowly than girls, and are more easily manipulated).

Desiree said...


I don't think an adult should knowingly and actively deceive a teen because teens have the bodies of adults (sexual curiosity) but the 'minds' of children. That would be wrong. But we delude ourselves in thinking a teen girl or boy, sometimes as young as 13 but usually a little older, can't 'consent'.

But the scary part of this viewpoint is that the wrong people latch onto the idea and bring their perversions and kinks, and abuse does/will occur. There is always a fine line, I think.

Ultimately, my point is this: I just don't think it's fair to label anyone a pedophile when they are not. Michael Jackson was a pedophile, as well as a sociopath. He liked young boys, and searched ones who could produce 'duck butter' (he's so sick!). He was a boy-lover, even beyond sexually. A true blue, dyed-in-the-wool pedophile.

Jessica mentioned Polanski's life struggles and I remember my ex-boyfriend was saying something similar (he was Jewish, so maybe that was part of his sympathy). He is a rapist, but he's no pedophile. I think it's time to let that one go. No one cares about it anymore, not even the victim.

Len, I know you said you were a victim of abuse, so I hope none of that offends you. I was never abused so I cannot really fathom what it's like and I'm not in the business of minimizing trauma. But abuse history or not, I think it is important that we all put our biases aside when advocating policy or a change in the status quo. It really is the only way to go about it without the risk of some group being hurt in the process.

We don't want apologetics to bad behavior but we also don't want hysteria. Regardless of what Law & Order says, not everyone is a victim.

(I can't stand for the Carl Toms of the world to latch onto this; they are genuinely sick, and it has nothing to do with the homosexual contact aspect. There's the slippery slope, unfortunately.)

Desiree said...

The scary thing about the law is that it's dealt out in a blanket manner. We created it that way to prevent favoritism (we haven't done a good job at eradicating that, of course) but we have also made it so Defendant A and Defendant B get the same charges and the same sentences when Defendant A's crime could be several orders of magnitude less severe that Defendant B's.

It's sad. I like Law & Order but it angers me when they go so hard against a suspect and beat him with the word 'pedophile' or 'rapist' when they just aren't.

Shows like that play to the kneejerk reactionaries within nearly all American people. let's not forget the To Catch A Predator type shows (I think the Perverted Justice people are sickos, by the way! They get off on that crap).

Len, you should read Dr. Richard Gardner's book 'Sex Abuse Hysteria' (1991). I should note that if Jacko fans read his books on false abuse claims, and were honest in their evaluation of the book, they would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that if Gardner believed Jordie was molested, Jordie Chandler was molested!

But Gardner discusses these reactionaries, these child abuse experts, these psychologists. He says that these people revel in the abuse of children on some level. He makes stringent note that over 95 percent of abuse claims are true, and he is no Carl Toms! He is an extremely intelligent medical doctor and a true skeptic, which I love. Hilariously, he actually says that some of these flame-throwers are unintelligent, which I tend to agree with.

The 'pedophile' label is the worst label you could ever apply to someone so it is absolutely essential that we know if someone is an actual pedophile. I cringe when people throw that term around like peanuts. It's atrocious, and inaccurate.

My blood boils when I see some talking head sex crimes prosecutor call every accused person a rapist or a pedophile. What, is the 1692?

Michael Jackson was a pedophile and he got away with it because of his status and his money. Roman Polanksi is not. Elvis definitely was not. I don't know about R. Kelly, because he likes young girls around 14 and up, but I guess I'd say ephebophilia, since the vast majority of pedophiles are gay and like male children.

Len said...

Jessica and Desiree,

We have to remember we are seeing the film through the eyes of the child molester. The film was also produced by a man, a fact I take into consideration about how Lolita is portrayed. The book was even more appalling, and it was also written by a man. How would a woman author and or filmmaker have handled the subject matter? How would a man who is more sensitive to the issues of females have handled the subject matter?

In an interview I read, Roman Polanski felt that Samantha Geimer was already a woman because she was nearly 14 years old. He also failed to see what was wrong with what he did. I still think he is a pedophile because he openly admitted he prefered underage children and discussed why he felt nothing was wrong with sleeping with underage girls; hence, my insistence he is a pedophile. I don't buy into that story about him having a tragic life. Yes, he did. But it's just an excuse for what he did to a child, inasmuch as Michael's bleating about his lost childhood is an excuse to molest children. In other words, although I don't want to start an argument, I cannot accept a double standard. As a child-abuse victim, I fully understand what was going through Samantha's mind, with the recent events. She doesn't want to have to relive it.

I do think western culture extends childhood, longer than it should. But there are two sides to how other cultures view the end of childhood. Foremost, they are raised from the start to take responsibility for the adult life of the society in which they are going to participate, unlike video-game-playing children in America, in western cultures. Girls have the beginning of menstruation to mark their change from childhood to womanhood. Boys also have rites of passage. For example, the barmitzah, which occurs when a boy is 12 or 13. Or, in other cultures, the boys are circumsized around 13 years old, and then they are considered to have crossed that line from childhood to manhood.

But the flip side is reading the stories of females who have written about being sold off at a young age to older men when they were still very attached to their parents. It discusses the powerlessness to choose their own fates, the objectification of women, and being thrown into marriage when they weren't emotionally and psychologically ready for it. I have also watched films, in regards to this. There are two that stand out in my mind. One is "Finzan", the other is "Osama." Both of those films left me distraught for days.

I also felt very mature, as an adolescent. But in hindsight, nothing could have been further from the truth. I did not have the emotional development and experience to justify a relationship with an adult man, had I wanted that. Experimenting with older children in my own age bracket would have been one thing. Unfortunately, I knew girls who developed crushes on one of the school's coaches. It ended tragically for both girls because the balance of power between adults and children is too unequal. Desiree, I fully agree with you about what you wrote, in regards to adults being responsible, since an older child may have an adult body but still has a child's mind.

I do find witch hunts appalling and horrifying. I think there needs to be careful examination of documents and the history of the accused before the label of child molester is slapped on an adult. Roman Polanski was guilty. Michael Jackson was guilty.

Jessica, can you validate the age Nastassja Kinski had sex with Roman Polanski? She made the film "Tess", after her mother brought her to Roman, and the sex began around that time. I'm trying to recall the interview, as it mentioned Roman did sleep with older children. I will have to hunt down that interview with her.

Desiree said...


I think the ultimate question is when does a child stop being a child. 'Older children' is pretty nebulous, in my opinion; why not call them young adults?

I agree with your points on Polanski's tragic life. Point noted and tallied, Len. The difference between Michael Jackson and Polanski is that I don't think Polanski himself whines about his life, whereas Michael Jackson used it as a thinly-veiled excuse to have sleepovers with boys who could produce 'duck butter'.

Also, the note on Lolita. Nabokov said he just wondered what it would be like to write such a book from that perspective but it was not art imitating life. Naturally his view of a young girl from Humbert Humbert's perspective would be tangental to a man's view of a legal aged coquette. So I agree with you there; I know a woman would have definitely treated the subject matter differently.

I think this whole discussion needs to take into account context. First of all, I am against adopting foreign cultures' ways of dealing with things because it would be foreign to our citizenry here in the States. Adopting the Netherlands ideas on child-adult sex would open this country up to lots of problems on the community level. (We all should have noticed by now that they have tons of child porn being pumped from those Northern European countries, not to mention a lot of the men from those countries travel to other regions of the world to predate upon foreign kids.)

So I am not advocating that we swap cultures with somewhere else. No way!

However, the need for context is there. Not every teen (not kids, never children) is violated in an adult-teen relationship. The simple answer would be No, I don't think it is a good idea for a teen girl or boy to be with an adult. There are too many risks of manipulation. However, I think it is fallacious to believe every interaction will leave the teen broken and despondent.

If I can bring up my teenhood, I never thought that I was immature. I was always more mature, intellectually, emotionally, than my counterparts. I will probably always believe I could have handled a relationship with an adult male.

The most important part of this is that people who've had bad experiences with adults as youths and those who've had more positive experiences should not use their own lives as templates for the rest of society.

The reason Carl Toms' book disgusted me was that he was advocating the sexual libertinage of children. Not teens, not young adults, but of kids. There is a distinction between these groups.

So, ultimately, my point is this: I just don't think it is proper to label people pedophiles when they aren't, and label victims when they aren't. Children cannot consent, regardless if they are curious, but teens can. Naivete on the part of a teen is not enough to put people in jail.

Desiree said...

In some states, an 18-year-old guy can be put in jail and labeled a sex offender when his 14-year-old girlfriend's parents learn that their innocent daughter is having sex. Completely retaliatory. This is how wonky some laws are.

If a 13-year-old kid can kill another person and (rightfully) be put in jail, they are capable of consenting to sex. Murder is several orders of magnitude more worse than intercourse! Innocence really is not a universal thing once a kid hits puberty. Some people are just more mature than others.

I am not trying to come off as superior or condescending regarding these beliefs because I am strongly against the abuse of children. I also hate when adults take advantage of teens. Because it happens. But not all teens are victims, but participants. Not all of them can take the emotional ramifications of the contact, but some can, even if they are in the minority.

This is obviously the case with Natassja Kinski. She didn't feel harmed in her relationship with Polanski. Samantha Geimer has fully moved on and I believe she holds nothing against Polanski. I think it's beyond just not wanting to relive it; I think she truly and deeply does not care and has relinquished whatever demons she'd had about it. She might even care about the guy.

My thing is if the victim doesn't care (and 'not caring' is not the same as nonchalance or ambivalence; I am talking about a psychologically mature and sound decision to move on), I am not going to care. I don't know how many teen girls Polanski has been with but, as Jessica noted via Wikipedia, he successfully defeated a salacious rumor about himself in the press. I wonder if Polanski has control issues, and likes a young(er) woman to be with to assuage those control issues. Or, maybe he's a chauvinist.

I just don't think he was a pedophile. Rapist, yes, but not a pedophile.

I don't ever want to come off like the Jacko fans, who are unknowingly being pedophile apologists. I know there exists these fine lines and slippery slopes. But I won't brandish a torch and pitchfork searching for Polanski's mystery victims because we have no names, no legitimate allegations. He's just a rapist!

Michael Jackson is a different animal. No celebrity support for Jacko because the whole industry knew he was a pedophile for young boys. But Polanski had loads of support, and I don't think it's because he was a popular director (Rosemary's Baby is one of the best horror films ever made). It was because he was not a criminal in that regard. I think everyone knew Michael was one, and was he not even bigger and more loved?

If he'd been innocent, you'd think he'd have a fleet of supporters. Not so...

Len said...


There are certain parts of your post I definitely agree with and certain parts I don't and certain parts I just perceive in a different way. What I do agree with you is that adults should not be taking advantage of teens, or as I call them, older children. What you posted on that subject was well written. Likewise, I agree we can't adopt other cultures' views as our own framework because of the can of worms it could open. I also agree with the idea set forth that each incident involving an adolescent should be taken on a case by case basis.

Where I take a step in a different direction is wanting to know why an adult would want to be with an adolescent, who just doesn't have the experience to make wise choices. (I think all adolescents like to think they are mature.) Since the balance of power is not equal, I remain firm in my belief adults should not be sexually involved with adolescents, even when the adolescent consents.

I heard about that law in which an 18 year old can be jailed for having sex with a minor. A boy was dating a girl a year younger than him. As soon as he turned 18, the father caught them and pressed charges against the young man. Naturally, his life was destroyed. I heard about this from a friend who had met that man, so I was horrified by what happened. So, yes, I agree with you the laws are a bit questionable, in certain cases. I would have to say the definition of "adults" can be ambiguous, at best. An 18 year old who is having sex with the 17 year old he has been dating for two years is much different from a 40 year old who preys on a 13 year old. The question you posted to me about when childhood should be considered over is something I have not yet found an answer to. The big issue is I can't look at the question objectively, on account of what happened to me and what happened to the people in my support group, as well as my ex-boyfriend. You hit a nerve in that I have trying to find an answer for a long time, without having a bad reaction.

Roman Polanski actually met Nastassja Kinski and her mother when she was still a child. They immediately became friends. I'm trying to remember the truth of how old she actually was when she first had sex with Roman because I seem to recall (accurately or inaccurately) that she was much younger than 16, and I remember people questioned why her mother would let a child somewhere between 12 and 14 years old spend time with a man who had a questionable reputation, at best. (It's been a long time since the movie and the interview were released, and I remember Nastassja was also asked about her mother.) I do vividly remember the public's reaction, after Roman's interview. If I hadn't read that interview of Roman, I would regard him as a rapist who should have accepted his sentence. But after I read his printed words, I was so appalled at what he revealed so nonchalently about himself, I came to the conclusion he was a pedophile. What man has sex with a 13-year-old girl? Why does he like sleeping with girls that age and wants to continue doing it? The difference between Roman and Michael is that Roman openly admits he likes them young and Michael pretended it was all an innocent desire to recapture his lost childhood with "slumber parties."

Len said...


However, I have also noticed a tendency on the part of society to side with a man when there is a question of behavior between males and females. For example, I remember the Robin Givens-Mike Tyson fiasco. He was beating her. The public was openly vile toward her, claiming she made it up. Then after he bit off part of Evander Holyfield's ear, during a boxing match, people's eyebrows began to raise. Then he was convicted of rape. Somehow, I have an impression people don't speak as negatively of Robin, anymore. Unfortunately, during the incident, it was the man the public automatically sided with, while the woman's character was raked through the coals.

Now, if Mike had beaten up Robin and worked through his issues so that he never did it, again, I would have thought very poorly of a society that continued to condemn him for something he regretted and chose not to repeat. I agree with you in that there are times people should let go of past incidents.

Another pet peeve of mine is how outraged people become when they learn priests have sexually abused boys but don't bat an eyelash when it comes to priests sexually abusing girls. It shouldn't matter if the child has a penis or a vagina. Abuse is abuse. Thankfully, in Chile, people were finally outraged enough to make a lot of public noise about priests who were sexually abusing girls, in their community.

If Roman had raped a boy, he wouldn't have had so many people support him. But the child he raped was a girl.

As a survivor of sexual abuse, I would waqer a bet what happened does still matter to Samantha Geimer. In what capacity, though, I don't know. In my support group, it still mattered to the men and women who had survived such a trauma. We all wanted to heal and move forward; part of that process is learning how to forgive the abuser. Yet, it's not a question of no longer holding it against the person. It's how to heal and move forward, and I realize each person has his or her own way of addressing the trauma.

I also don't know if Samantha went to therapy to overcome the harm or if she is still badly damaged from it. The one article I read, during Roman's arrest in Switzerland, came across as more of a justification to let a convicted criminal be dismissed from serving a sentence. The article did not mention what she did - if anything - to get past the trauma and how it impacted the way she lives her life, today.

Insofar as the lawsuit is concerned, Liberace sued rags that claimed he was gay. I find the idea of Polanski "hitting" on somebody during his wife's funeral ridiculous. However, it doesn't mean he hasn't done other things that are not appropriate. It's what came out of Roman's own mouth that led me to my conclusion he was a pedophile. It was hearing a pedophile who wouldn't tell me his real name (I was going to turn him in to CPS.) support Roman's right to sleep with girls that also put up a red flag. The same person supported Michael's right to sleep with boys, in the same breath.

Desiree said...


I think we will have to agree to disagree on Polanski, Len. I am not saying that he is wrongly maligned or is not a criminal but I don't think there is enough evidence there--for me--to proclaim that he was a pedophile.

And if the evidence is not there, I cannot bring myself to label him thusly. He just seemed like someone who liked teen girls, and, to me, they can consent on a case-by-case basis.

This is different from Michael Jackson, I believe, and it has nothing to do with the fact that Michael's victims were boys and Samantha Geimer was a female child.

I can never fully empathize with an abuse victim, as I was never abused. That's all I can ever say on that front. We come from two different backgrounds. My lack of abuse history may make it seem as if I am not sympathetic enough to those who were abused but that's not the case at all. Likewise, Len, your abuse history (and forgive me but your experience was several orders of magnitude more worse than what Geimer or Kinski experienced, the former because since she was drugged and probably can't remember the horrible details, the latter because it was psychologically consensual) does color your worldview on the topic.

I don't think this discussion is important in the grand scheme of things. I know Robin Givens was maligned and I was not around during that. That same boyfriend who defended Polanski stated that Givens was a gold-digging Sarah Lawrence-bred whore. He was a chauvinist and boxing fan.

Ultimately, I think that damaged people and undamaged people should not bring their biases to the table when looking at someone else's situation. Natassja Kinski likes older men, apparently, as she also had a baby with Quincy Jones. She says she wasn't hurt; fine. Sam Geimer does seem like she's moved on. If she didn't want to relive her rape than I don't know why she'd go on Larry King or appear in that film about Polanski.

I think it is possible that abuse victims can heal completely and totally. I don't think it's fair that others want to put trauma on people who deeply and truly do not feel traumatized.

That's all I have to say on it, I guess. I won't pretend to know everything and everyone's situation.

Jessica said...


The wikipedia page said that Nastassja Kinski was between 15 and 17 when her romantic relationship began with Polanski. She was forthcoming in Letterman's questions about her relationship with him in 1982, I believe, and she said all the hulabaloo around him, the charges and whatnot, was ridiculous. She loved and respected him and thought that America was losing out big time when he left the country.

If she doesn't care, I think that that is as far as peole should take it, at least regarding her relationship with Polanski. Just my opinion.

Len said...


I agree with you, in that we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not Roman is a pedophile. We definitely look at it from two different angles, and we're looking at it through the lenses of completely different experiences. Aside from that, we'd have to start researching him. Unlike Michael, I don't know anybody who knew Roman and has information to spill. Right now, all I have to go on is what he said in his interview.


Thanks for the info! I saw her on the David Letterman show, in 1982, and my opinion of her had more to do with how she came across. (I'm afraid at the time I was laughing at her. But I was young and not very nice.) My beef is with Roman's fondness for 13- and 14-year-old girls and his insistence he did nothing wrong to Samantha Geimer. But as with Desiree, we can just agree to disagree.

Susana said...

Polanski is a paedo. Years ago a friend of mine and her husband spotted him in Bangkok with two girls who appeared to be like 12 years old. He isn't vocal as MJ and he is married to a beautiful woman (I've seen them twice because the spend holidays in an island near mine where I go frequently). Obviously, he doesn't dare to be with little girls in Europe, but as many Western men, he go to thirty world countries. I've seen this kind of tourism in many places: Senegal, Cuba, Brasil, Thailand...
My sister knows someone who worked for him in the 70s, and believe me, he is a chicken hawk. The rumours about Polanski being a paedo are well known.

Jessica said...


It's okay that we disagree, I still totally see were you are coming from and I respect that. I've always said to myself that I feel I can empathize with people but on this issue, sexual child abuse, as someone who has never lived through it, I really have no idea what kind of pain it causes. I just pray that anyone who has been subjected to that, in any form, will find peace. If they find peace, I am happy. If I offended anyone with my words, my apologies. I don't want to justify any abuse.


Interesting info on Polanksi. If he is a pedophile, what can we do about, he's in his 70s; there is no redress besides name-calling and I don't think that will change anything. I'm still of the opinion that even if he was a pedo, these teen girls aren't complaining and we would just be causing an undue fuss talking about something that has no baring in our own lives. Yes, he is sick if his brain is oriented that why, just like Mike was sick, but...ah, I don't know, I guess I'm just not invested in Polanski. Please don't get me wrong, I abhor pedophiles and the way they take advantage of young people.

If I'm allowed to bring it back into the Michael Jackson realm, I think it is interesting the parallel between these two celebrities. If Polanski was vacationing with two young girls in Bangkok, isn't that analogous to Mike's vacationing/world travel with his special friends? Both of these men are seemingly flaunting their "love" of these kids. I think it would then be naive to not realize that a grown man who is spending an exorbitant amount of time with unrelated children should be viewed with suspicion. Mike obviously was a pedophile, although unlike Polanski, he never admitted to liking young boys. But that is most likely because his "love" is expressed not heterosexually like Polanski, but rather homosexually and society would not take so kindly to his admission as they did to Polanski's. Plus he was a Jehovah Witness and they have proscriptions against that kind of behavior, regardless of the age of the "partner". Does anyone think we will ever get the truth about Mike from anyone in the know? My feeling is that since he has three children, people will be hesitant to say anything. I always wonder if any of his special friends, like Brett or Omer will reveal their relationships. Maybe if Omer spaks out we will finally do away with all that "son" talk.

Len said...


It's ironic you made that parallel about those two men. The same thought had crossed my mind. Insofar as Michael is concerned, people who knew him do know he was a pedophile. What I've always wondered is whether or not anyone of those aforementioned people will ever speak publicly about it. I think if at least one of them couched it by speaking of the concern and heartbreak, it would be better received by sane people. I don't think Michael's rabid fans would ever forgive such truth telling. They'd scream for a crucifiction.

When I learned Michael really was a pedophile, I felt I had just been burdened with a horrible secret I really didn't want to know. Even when I finally admitted on this site the "mouthpiece" spoke, it was with a certain fear of it getting back to that camp and having terrible repercussions. Hence, why I just don't dare tell where the information came from.

I'm also curious to know if Michael's "special" friends, who continued sleeping with him, after they grew pubes, will ever admit it, which of course, are the likes of Brett Barnes and Omer Bhatti. I'm perplexed why the press went wild with that "secret son" crap. I can only guess who leaked that load of b.s. Love child, my ass. Love toy was more like it. There was no DNA test hitting the media, with a frenzy, and he wasn't mentioned in Michael's will. If he had been Michael's son, Joe and Katherine Jackson would have used that information to try and get Michael's will null and void; thereby giving them access to the money they love more than any human being. That he says his relationship with Michael was private should be an obvious red flag.


What you posted was very interesting.

Susana said...

Len, I've read somewhere that Omer Batti was threatening with selling some "videos" or information when he was kicket out of Hayvenhurst, but I'm sure he has been silenced with money, like Grace Rwaramba or this situation with the proofs destroyed by Vaccaro or Mann...I don't remember exactly.

I've lost all my hopes. I dont think we will see the truth revealed in the near future. Everybody is changing their tune after Mjs dead: DiLeo, David Gest, Ola Ray... Maybe when they run out of money, or the Jacksons stop buying people...

Len said...


The tragedy is Michael really did molest little boys. That I know for a fact. Unfortunately, it's getting some of those people to talk that makes it difficult to shatter the masturation fantasies of Michael's rabid fans.

Think of those who knew Michael and did talk. La Toya was crucified. Bob Jones was crucified. Jermaine was crucified, for the book proposal he was penning with Stacy Brown. Even reporters, such as Diane Dimond, got crucified. The problem is people who are not catering to Michael's rabid fans by writing books, designed to justify their "stroking off", don't want to be likewise crucified. Insofar as those writing erotic books for the worshipers at the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson are concerned, I get the impression they don't want to speak ill of the dead and want to profit off Michael's deranged fans. Maybe somebody also paid people off to retract what they would have said. We can only speculate. This is why I like Desiree's blog. She has sleuthed her way through documents that ARE publicly available for perusal and finds easy-to-prove evidence.

However, remember when Grace Rwaramba gave that interview in which she spoke of Michael's drug addictions and Katherine's greed? She tried to retract it and got pulled into Hayvenhurst, only to be kicked out. Guess what? It's now come into the public Michael was a drug addict! Every time Katherine opens her mouth in public, she digs herself into deeper hole by proving she really is greedy! Sometimes life surprises us all in such delicious ways.

Do you have a link for the story about Omer Bhatti threatening to sell videos? I'd love to read that. I wouldn't be surprised if he was paid off. He was pimped by his parents, after all, to further his career.

P.S. Now that it was all over the news Jermaine couldn't get a new passport until he paid child support, people should encourage him to push through with his book. I'd buy it.

Lady C said...

Michael Jackson's fanatical fans are in a very desperate need of a reality check!!! Here's a group of fans who are so blinded that they have truly forgotten who he was. Yes, indeed MJ was a great entertainer, but he was also HUMAN with many us all; nothing more. I too, was a fan of MJ to some extent, and was disappointed to know that he was capable (and proven guilty based on the proof of evidence given on this website) of doing the things that he was accused of. However, I do not hold him to a "holier than thou" glorification. Why? Because I'm a child of God, and I know who the true God is, and it is not in MJ or any man! It's something that I don't apologize for. Like all of us,MJ too, fell short of the Glory of God. While this does not excuse him of the things that he did or his inappropriate behavior with children, he did makes some serious mistakes. Yes, he did do some good things around the world, but we all are capable and have done good things as well. Someone on this posting put it quite well (J-M-H I believe), "Only like celebrities for their work and nothing more. Because if you do, they will disappoint you with their personal behavior". That is so very true. But unfortunately, there are those who have become so in awe of MJ that they've lost all sense of rationality and reasoning. He's become an idol that the fanatical fans hold to be perfect and untouchable; even more so now that he's gone, sad to say. No matter what is proven about MJ, yet alone said, nothing will move them and the hold that he has over them. In their eyes (by their actions) Michael was and is a god. The fans need to wake up and know what time it is... and that is, Michael Jackson was not God by any means, and to play with that idea is very dangerous! The Bible clearly states in Exodus 20: 3-5 (NIV) "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God." The fanatical fans of MJ are putting their faith in a "trophy" rather than the true King; King of all kings, and God of all gods. On that accounted day, when we will all stand face to face with our maker, do you think the words that spill from our mouths will be Michael Jackson? I don't think so. So what is the point that I'm trying to make? The point is, be very wise as to where you put your faith and glorification. Put your faith in God our Heavenly Father; the true King, and the God of all gods;not man himself...he will fail us every time. This applies to everyone, especially the fanatical fans (aka Worshipers of MJ)who have seem to become very lost and disillusioned by the world of celebrity, it falsities, and the strong pulling effect that it can have. I know that this is a blog about Michael Jackson, and by no means am I trying to turn it into a religious medium, but I feel that it's something that needs to be strongly addressed. The actions of the fanatical fans have gone past plain ridiculous, and they need to come back down to earth.

As far as the real truth about Michael Jackson? I have to agree with you; I don't see the answer(s) forth coming anytime real soon. I do however, believe someone or some people know the real story about MJ and his life secrets, but they aren't talking. IMO, as long as money can be used as leverage, those answers, if any, will be few far and in between. I don't know if the public will ever know the real story; only the man, Michael Jackson, himself has all the wanted answers...and we won't be hearing from him any time soon!Lol

Susana said...


I read that like three months ago somewhere, I can't find the link right now. Apparently, Omer leaked pictures and videos of Mjs children and he was threatening with videos and information with more salacious content. One of them was of MJ trashing the hotel in Las Vegas.
I'm sure he was blackmailing the Jacksons when they showed him the door.

I remember the interview with Grace Rwaramba. What she said was very interesting.

Lady C,

I'm an atheist, so I look at this matter from a different perspective, nonetheless, I draw a similar conclusion. Since I do not believe in god, much less I will believe in Mj, LOL.
I applaud Jarvis Cocker for what he did to Michael in that show in London. Mj portraying himself as the Messiah was just obscene.

I hate even when celebrities “speak” for good causes. They use this kind of thing to boost their inflated egos, or for publicity at worst. Somehow they banalize it. The same people speaking of the Global Warming travels the world in their private planes, lol. Like Michael, he used to close theme parks all over the world for himself and his entourage... the power necessary to run Neverland could light up a whole town, but he was “very” concerned about ecology lol.

A friend of mine works for an international luxury firm. He told me that a famous irish singer treats people of his entourage like slaves. For example, when he is in a boutique buying clothes, he throw them and make an assistant to pick them from the ground. But he is very concerned about some lost tribe in the Amazonas, the Sahraoui people, or Darfur... depending on who is making more news headlines at the time.

But we, the general public, are the ones to blame. Apparently we choose to listen to them, instead of people who really knows what they're talking about.

Sorry for my disjointed argumentation. Is very difficult for me to write in English.

Marcy2 said...

Lady C: do ur research some celebrities came for michael in 2005, and elizabeth taylor November 26, 2003

Elizabeth Taylor (actress/friend of Michael): ”I believe Michael is absolutely innocent and that he will be vindicated.” She went on to blast the media for their coverage of the scandal. ”Their whole reaction is that he is guilty. I thought the law was ‘innocent until proven guilty,” she said. ”I know he is innocent and I hope they all eat crow.” Taylor is refusing to comment on camera as a protest of media treatment of Jackson..
- the others were donald trump., and people like alicia keys. bye bye have a good life and better learn how to do a research.

Marcy2 said...

of course i intended for the arvizo case (that started in 2003)when i wrote "2005"

Lady C said...


Thank you for your opinion. There is no need to apologize...your opinion is your opinion. I think the important thing to realize is that we can agree to disagree on some things regardless of what the subject matter at hand is, and that's okay. However, I do believe that you have a very valid point in putting the real blame where it should be. We,the general public, are the ones to blame; we make the "monsters" so we better know how to tame them as well. No one tells us to place them on pedestals, go fanatic over them/what they do, or even see them as perfect individuals that can never do any wrong or harm. It's us the public, that sees their movies, concerts,etc., buy their books, become members of their fan clubs...we do it all. It seems as if the public refuses to see that celebrities are really no different than them, and they back this up by their actions. Take away all the status symbols that celebs have: money, fame, mansions, entourages, clothes, jewelry, etc., and what are you have left with? Just a person; nothing more. So I guess it's honest to say that the general public is the creator of these "monstrous celebs" and their own celebrity fanaticism. The celebs think so highly of themselves because the public does things that allows them to feel the way that they do. Now when I say this, I don't speak for all the general public; because there are those who like celebrities for their craft and nothing more; it does not go beyond that. My commentary would mostly apply to the celebrity fanatics that are out there that are star struck and cannot think things for themselves; but bow to the opinion of others.

Btw, your English was just fine. Thanks!Lol

Lady C said...


Miss Thang, if you go back and read my answer to J-M-H, you'll find that I realized that I was wrong on my part concerning the people that came out and supported MJ during the 1993/2005 allegations. I did mention Liz Taylor as one of those possible people and what she was talking about to Larry King. Liz Taylor's defense of MJ is a given;however the other celebs that you mentioned I was not aware of. Perhaps I didn't know because if there were any celebs that rallied him, they very FEW far and in between, and many of them would not publicly admit how they truly felt about him and the situation(s) while it was happening...but thanks for the info. If I had to guess...I would think that you're one of the MJ "fanatics"?? To each its own I guess!Lol

Jessica said...


Is the hotel in Vegas that you're talking about the Mirage? Because after he stayed there, the hotels on the Strip in Vegas blacklisted them. Bob Jones was asked about the Mirage incident, how it was trashed, and he refused to speak about it with the camera and sound on, this was 2007. Clearly there was something that happened there (in 2003) that was really really bad. And according to reports and Diane Dimond's book, he had a group of German teen boys staying with him and they smoked and talked on cell phones really loudly and disturbed the peace of the suites at the Mirage. A maid reportedly found a sheet stained with doodoo among the wreckage. See, I always knew that Bob Jones knew A LOT about Mike's misdeeds with boys but out of loyalty and class, he didn't reveal much in his book and acted like he didn't know anything on the stand when it was in the emails to Stacy Brown.

Is that Irish singer you mentioned Bono? Sounds like him. I agree with you completely about celebs and causes. They all get a cause to their name but I don't think half of them really believe in their heart of hearts that what they are sponsoring. Some of them probably don't even know what the hell they are supporting. But it's easy to throw money at a charity in Hollyweird and call yourself a benevolent philanthropist. i always wondered why Mike never gave any money or was vocal about vitiligo research, seeing tha the was the most notable vitiligo sufferer the public had ever seen. But I think it's because he would have been exposed as a skin-bleacher rather than someone who got the disease organically.

Lady C,

All one has to do to see how crazy and rabid these fans are is visit their little blogs and forums. Desiree linked to a blog called "Vindicate MJ" (the title alone tells you that we should be worried about their sanity if they think they can single-handedly vindicate a guilty man)in another post and they say the most hateful things about this blog and Desiree... seriously evil stuff. I wonder what Mike would say about their behavior.

Susana said...


Yes, it was that incident. I remember someone said there was rotten food all over the place, furniture burned with cigarettes and sheets stained with faeces. 50000 dollars in damages, if I remember correctly.
It might have been serious, because I don't think the Mirage would have banned a celeb like him because a messy room. No way... even for 50000 dollars in damages. I'm sure that he wasn't the first celebrity trashing one of their rooms. Maybe there is something more that we don't know of.

Bob Jones was protecting him holding back information. Even if he was angry at Michael, he humiliated himself in the trial to protect him. You can see how in his book, he still loves Michael.
Bob Jones struck me as an intelligent and upright person and I wonder why he didn't say anything about Mjs behaviour with kids before, but as he said in this documentary, he didn't see anything personally because he wasn't in the bedroom and who would believe him anyway? Well, I'm sure many people could believe him, but publicly nobody would admit it until the 1993 allegations. And also, the parents were there, as Bob Jones said. And of course, his career as a PR would be over.

Yes, I was referring to Bono. What an arse.

Jessica said...


I agree with you about the hotel incident, it has to be far worse than just damage to the room. $50,000 is chump change to a celebrity of Mike's status. I bet it had more to do with what he might have been "doing" with those German boys in that room and how he allowed them to crash the place anyway. Maybe the Mirage had had enough of Mike's shenanigans. Funny, he took Jordie to the Mirage and "slept" with him there. Maybe the Mirage was one of Mike's favorite places to take his boys. Who knows.

I wish Bob hadn't done that 180 on the stand, but I think that what he said was pretty damaging especially the stuff in the emails. Stacy said Bob talked about the hair licking a lot so there was no reason why he would suddenly "not recall" the incident. Bob said that he tried to get those kids off his lap but Mike did what he wanted to do. He also said on the stand Jordie and Mike were embraced into one another on the flight out of Monaco. Why does Mike needed to be touching and holding onto a 13 year old boy, especially if he so heterosexual? Bob said to Stacy that "the stuff with Jordie will bite him big". Sounds like he knew a lot.

Lady C said...

Susana & Jessica,

MJ did have a history of badly trashing hotel rooms. Apparently the Mirage Hotel was not the only hotel room he destroyed. According to RJT's book, The Magic,The Madness..., back in 1993 just prior to MJ going to rehab for his drug addiction, he trashed a room at the Presidente Hotel in Mexico City while on the last leg of his Dangerous Tour. According to the hotel staff, they were horrified at what they found... all the carpets in the rooms of MJ's suite were stained with vomit, cracks and dents in the walls, trash and rubbish every where; enough to fill a couple of trash bags, drawings and graffiti scribbled on walls and bed sheets (I wouldn't surprised if it was done with feces since that appears to be the medium of choice - LOL!) and the furniture upholstery, & wads of chewing gum grounded into the carpets. What a pig!LOL I wouldn't be surprised if MJ had paid them to keep the incident on the DL. I can't say that I blame the hotels on Vegas' strip for banning him; utterly ridiculous. He also later developed a reputation for being evicted from hotels because of his inability to pay due to not having any money and his credit card being declined (this I think happened more in the last years of his life than earlier, according to Jackson's body guards).

I too, wished that Bob Jones had REALLY let the beans spill on all what he had seen MJ do over the years; his very "special friends", hotel room lock-ins, extravagant gifts and shopping sprees for the "pimping parents", and those same "pimping parents" begging MJ and his camp to see their very own children after days of isolation. Jones certainly did butt heads with MJ on many occasions regarding his continuous public parading with the young boys and inappropriate displays of public affection with them. As Jones would put it, those boys were going to be Jackson's downfall and cost him a lot of money, but Jackson couldn't be told anything ,and he wouldn't listen to him or others who expressed concern. Jones said that when his day in court came, he was adamant that MJ should not have been where he was because he had been warned several times by those concerned who saw what was taking place. Why Jones held back? That is a good question. Especially since he was fired from MJ for no apparent reason and thrown out like yesterday's trash. Jones had been very loyal to MJ all throughout his career along with the turmoils that he faced, and to be stabbed in the back by the person who you cared for and protected is quite shocking...Jones was very hurt. Apparently loyalty didn't mean jack to MJ. If I were Jones and he had done that to me, it would have been so on! Showdown in the court room!! LOL Its just that I thought that since he went as far as to write a book about his relationship with Wacko Jacko, he would go ahead and tell it like it really was?? It's not like if any of the stories he would have told about MJ would not have add up. There were too many other people who were also suspicious of his bizarre behavior and witnessing inappropriate behavior with boys as well to seem far fetched. Based on MJ's "history" over the years and what had occurred, I think Jones would have been easily believed. After all, other than MJ's head security man, Bill Bray, Bob Jones was the last of the Mahicans; they both had been with Jackson at least since he was a young teen. Maybe perhaps Jones held back was because of MJ's children being involved...if MJ was convicted he couldn't stand the thought of his children being fatherless as it was bad enough that they were motherless?? Although Jones was hurt over being fired by MJ, he still cared for him; MJ was like a son to him after all those years together. Another possible reason it that Jones may have feared not ever being able to get another PR job in the industry if he went public with everything?? IDK.

black male said...

And you people call MJ defenders "fanatics". You are so MJ obsessed that it's more like a well developed mental defect that feeds a psychosis so in bedded no facts could ever alter your opinion on MJ. Now that's fanaticism at it's core. (I so glad I'm not that way). I'm not here to try and change any closed minds. That's your burden, live and deal with it. Nor am I here to defend MJ, there are millions of people worldwide already doing that quite well. I believe that Elvis, among many other gross things, was a pedo. That's that. MJ beat Elvis in every talented way, including being more loved by the public. A black man beat your "king". MJ lived in a self imposed delusional world that was in noway reality, and that fantasy world cost him dearly. I don't buy into he was a pedo sicko thought. After his death I researched his supposed crimes (so sorry I didn't do this when he was alive). The '93 charges, 2003 trails transcripts, FBI 10+ year investigation that found zilch (FBI stuff was quite uneventful, save the fact that over 12 of Jacksons' computers were forensically scrubbed for evidence of child porn. NONE found, to me that's a huge event). So call me a fanatic if it gives you relief of your own ah... Who cares. I base my beliefs of truth on hard facts. You base your "facts" on the hate and envy MJ that you so want to keep in place no matter what. FANATIC! I don't think MJS' family or friends care nothing of what you think about him or them. I do believe that desiree would change her mind on him in an iota, if someone else gave her the attention she is so, so desperately seeking but not getting on this particular line of bullshit. She would flip on a dime. She has not convictions, whoever can get her noticed more is who she allys with.

Looks life you had a hard days night here Dree.

Len said...

Black Male, I can't speak for others. But I will give you my opinion. And as I don't suffer fools, I won't even pretend to be nice.

For somebody who claims others are obsessed with Michael, your hositility is a strong indication of your own rabid groupie worship. By your post, you obviously haven't done the research, and if you have, then you either sidestepped the obvious, or you pretended you didn't see it. If you read Desiree's careful research and opened the links she has posted, it would remove all doubt, and you would know Michael really was a pedophile, who molested little boys. Unfortunately, like most deluded fans who cling to a masturbatory fantasy in desperation about a man they never met, I suspect you would shove your gear stick into strong denial, even more, because it would mean finding another celebrity to wack off to, during "those moments alone."

On another website, I politely asked why the blogger needed to believe so strongly in Michael's innocence. Instead of a reasonable explanation, I was flamed and called a "hater." This is why I like Desiree's website so much. Rather than jump to conclusions, she actually researches it and posts the results of her findings. Aside from that, I learned from somebody very reliable, inside music industry, Michael really did have little-boy problems. They all knew it. His family knew it, although they denied it out of fear of having their generous income reduced. As Desiree's posted research seems to draw more and more frightened fans, it brings me to the conclusion the fruit of her research is rocking the boat awfully hard. It delights me to no end. If I am personally obsessed with anything, it is popping the make-believe bubble the likes of you live in. I don't hate Michael. I do think he was a very sick man who needed to be under the care of a licensed psychiatrist. However, like breeds like, and by the number of websites dedicated to desperately trying to prove Michael was innocent of child molestation, he definitely attracted fans who were equally sick in the head.

Reread your post. Are those not the words of a worshiper at the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson? Explain why it is so important to you and others like you to prove Michael did not molest little boys when the legal documents prove otherwise.

Desiree said...

Black male:

You are so MJ obsessed that it's more like a well developed mental defect that feeds a psychosis so in bedded no facts could ever alter your opinion on MJ. Now that's fanaticism at it's core.

Takes one to know one, I guess.

(I so glad I'm not that way).

Oh, but you are!

I'm not here to try and change any closed minds.

Then why don't you go away? The fact you've returned belies your statement to the contrary.

I believe that Elvis, among many other gross things, was a pedo.

Astute analysis. Why you cannot see that a man who paid over $20 million to one boy accusing him of molestation, over $2 million to another boy, and at least several hundred thousand dollars to a mother and son in Argentina was a pedophile is beyond me. No, wait; I take that back--you are in no way astute.

Delusional is more like it.

MJ beat Elvis in every talented way, including being more loved by the public.

I do believe Michael Jackson was more talented than Elvis but it was not exactly a landslide. And, no; Michael Jackson is not more loved by the public. Many--if not most--people outside of the fans believe Michael was a pedophile living in a boy-trap called Neverland.

A black man beat your "king".

Race has nothing to do with it, Black male. If you could step away from your fanaticism, you'd realize Michael Jackson was no longer 'black'.

MJ lived in a self imposed delusional world that was in noway reality, and that fantasy world cost him dearly.

Yep, a delusional world filled with boys and booze and Demerol.

The '93 charges, 2003 trails transcripts, FBI 10+ year investigation that found zilch

You can continue to believe this if you'd like. No one is stopping you, but you should know that the FBI documents revealed nothing exculpatory. They did reveal that a couple heard strange sexual noises between Michael Jackson and a young boy on a train...

So call me a fanatic if it gives you relief of your own ah... Who cares.

You're right; no one gives a shit about what you think.

I base my beliefs of truth on hard facts.

No, you don't. Your 'beliefs of truth' are based upon your emotional feelings for Michael. I am simply an observer who'd came to the conclusion, based on facts, that he was indeed a child-molesting pedophile.

I do believe that desiree would change her mind on him in an iota

You used 'iota' wrong. I believe you mean that I'd change my mind in a 'second', and that assumption would be incorrect.

if someone else gave her the attention she is so, so desperately seeking but not getting on this particular line of bullshit. She would flip on a dime. She has not convictions, whoever can get her noticed more is who she allys with.

This is just ridiculous. If you give me good, logical, unemotional evidence to the contrary, I would have no problem reevaluating my stance on his guilt. At this point, though, Michael's defenders need to acknowledge that in the presence of numerous boy victims and eyewitnesses, all they can say is that they are not sure. Anything more than that is based on zealotry, not fact.

And, obviously, this blog bothers you, so much so you feel the need to return without a cohesive, rational argument against the points laid out on this blog, not to mention you know full well no one cares what you have to say.

I'll quote you, Black male: That's your burden, live and deal with it.

Sarah said...


I have read before that you were told from a source within the music industry that MJ did have a boy problem and i know that you can't divulge the source but can you be more specific? Why is this source so reliable? I do believe that MJ was a pedo but I just wonder when someone will come out and actually speak about what they know. I do belive that the Jacksons knew about his problem and that Mrs Jackson also called him a faggot! In fact although Latoya is a bit wacky, I do believe alot of what she said in 1993 was true. Please elaborate if you can.

Len said...


About all I can divulge is the "mouthpiece" is from the camp of somebody who worked with - not for - Michael. Let's just say problems were seen. If I went into more details, I would be terribly afraid the repercusions would be unpleasant.

I wish somebody within the music industry would speak out, though. It was no secret Michael had little-boy problems and that his family knew about it. I don't know if the people are afraid of harassment and death threats from his rabid fans, or intimidation from the Jacksons, (The story of Jesse Styles getting badly beaten because Katherine wanted Michael's diaries may or may not be true, but I'm prone to believe it, until proven otherwise, due to her history.) or if the Jacksons have offered hush money.

But Katherine Jackson is the same person who publicly thanked her "business partner" for destroying Michael memorabilia. We can only speculate what it was because about all she did was put Michael into an unfavorable light. Greed turns even the nicest people into monsters. But this is why I admire Gene Simmons, for what he said. However, he may in the same boat. The source(s) of his information may have preferred anonymity. The current fiasco that hit the news was Alejandra Oaziaza refused to move the condo and continue to be financially supported because Katherine wanted her to sign a contract, stating Alejandra would not write a book. Curious.

The irony is I was told LaToya would someday be regarded as a heroine because she told the truth. It's a shame she retracted what she said when she left her husband, in order to get back to the family fold.

I actually feel sorry for LaToya. Her mind broke, from so many years of abuse, beginning with childhood.

Sarah said...

Thanks for your reply, I think there are a lot of people who alledge that they "know" MJ was a boy lover. Stacy Brown being one of those, I think most people who read Desiree's blog have read the book that he wrote with Bob Jones, it was very clear what his thoughts were. I have had some contact with Stacy before via email and again his opinion was clear. So I found it very strange when I stumbled across a site with links to an recent article that says that Stacy Brown is Rebbie Jackson's manager! WTF? I know during the ttial that Stacy was a prosecution witness and has been very vocal about his strife with the Jacksons. So what does that tell you about Rebbie? I believe that she is one of the Jacksons that has always known that her brother is a pedo, but associating with Stacy Brown she is shouting it from the rooftops as Stacy has not changed his stance at all. Here's the link it is a fan site so you have to wade thru the BS to find it but it is there.

Len said...


The "mouthpiece" told me the entire Jackson family knew about Michael's little-boy problems. They just publicly denied he was a pedophile. That's why LaToya was crucified by her family: She spoke on television about her brother's "activities." The doing-the-dirty-laundry-in-public book was upsetting enough for the public-image obsessed Jacksons. But to say something negative about the money maker? Lordy.

I appreciate your link, by the way. I didn't realize Stacy Brown was Rebbie's manager. That speaks volumes. Perhaps she can convince Jermaine to begin the book he started to write, with Stacy.

What does Jermaine have to lose, now, by writing the book? Due to his messy personal life blasted across the news, he owes a lot of money in child support and was left out of Michael's will. This would be the best time for him to write a tell-all book.

Jessica said...


Thank you for posting that link! How telling! You and Len are right, this really shows what kind of person Rebbie might be. The whole family were well aware of Stacy Brown's opinion's about Mike as he was on the news as a commentator and wrote a book about Mike's boy issues, and he was on the stand basically saying that Bob Jones was telling the truth about seeing hair licking. If they were so disgusted with Stacy's obvious belief that Mike was a pedo, why even talk to him agai? Makes me think that behind closed doors, they agree with what he's saying. And of course, the other reason could be that Stacy told them privately that he doesn't believe Mike was a pedo anymore, that's always a possibility. But if that was the case, I highly doubt that they would continue to speak to him--what would be the point?

The fact that they are friends also makes me believe in the validity of all the stuff Stacy has reported in his book with Bob Jones, and also the stuff he and ermaine were writing in their book, that Rebbie was sexually abused, and that Mike was abused by business men at his father's permission. It also gives validity to Latoya's claims as well, what she said about Rebbie and her father and of course about Mike. I just can't understand why they continue to lie about everything.

I'm with you, I don't understand why none of these celebrities in the music industry or who've worked for Mike, have came out and said he was a pedo. Their silence has allowed victims to be ridiculed in the media and by looney fans. Maybe they feel it's none of their business and maybe they have dirty laundry that they don't want the public to know about. It's just unfortunate that no one has the guts to silence the rumor and reveal the truth.

Sarah said...

With regard to Stacy, I know that he hasn't ever changed his stance on MJ. I have some emails from him as he replied to me when I found his hotmail address. He also has a blog on which certainly holds no punches. If I find the link to it I will post it. Stacy said that Chris Carter knows for a fact that MJ was a pedo and that he was put in jail before he had a chance to speak. He certainly won't be speaking whilst he is in jail as he knows what they do to snitches! I also have read the police statements of both Chris Carter and Mike Lapparque (ex MJ security)both very interesting, I will post the link for that, interestingly enough attached to those statements is the detailed lab report for the cocaine undies! Interesting reading, still blows my mind as to what MJ was doing with cocaine in his undies!

Len said...


I'd love to know whether or not Stacy and Rebbie can get Jermaine to continue writing and then publishing his book. I'd be the first in line to buy it. At this point, he has nothing to lose.

So, Stacy has a blog? Do you have a link to click on? (I just don't have the time to search for it.) When does Chris Carter get out of jail? I always thought it was ironic he went to jail just in time for the trial. How convenient. Do post the link for the police statements of Chris Carter and Mike Lapparque. I'm sure Desiree would be interested if she hasn't already found it and would write a fantastic blog about her research.

What do any of these people, including those who worked with Michael, have to lose? The family has already lost credibility by getting caught in their lies, as well as for Joe and Katherine's methods for "silencing" people. I respect people who are honest. If Jermaine would be honest about his own behavior and feelings, it would couch the bluntness about his family's closet skeletons, including his brother's.

I really fail to understand why people won't admit the man was a pedophile. Sane people, which is most of the world, are aware he was a child-molesting pedophile or at least find the behavior of a grown man who sleeps with little boys to be questionable. And publicly available records on the Santa Barbara County website are too damning. Is it the attorneys trying to protect the interests of the estate, in order to get the rabid fans to continue spending money so that they can pay off the debt? At this point, they should use business acumen and concentrate on investing money rather than pushing Michael memorabilia and work. As the trial is exposing Michael's severe drug addiction and the great lengths he went to get his drugs comes out, his public image is becoming more and more tarnished. So much for rabid-fan worship turning him into the new messiah.

Susana said...


I would love to read the pages you cite.
Rebbie never seemed very supportive of Michael.
Didn't she confirmed that Stacy was a family friend and he was talking with the family approval during a tv interview by the time of the trial?
Stacy was well aware of all the interventions of the family because of Mj drug-addiction. He said Mj was hooked on heroine for 13 years and, as Dieter Weisner and Schaffel, he said the spider bite was a lie (Mj eluded to declare in a trial because of that). They said it was a broken syringe what caused the wound. I bet he obtained all the information from Rebbie and Bob Jones.

He said in 2005:

"I don't think Michael Jackson will be alive in 10 years time.

"It's amazing to me that what happened to Elvis hasn't happened to him. He lives on the edge. He's bound to crash and burn. He's 87 pounds and six foot tall - that's unhealthy.

"I don't think he has it in him to take his own life. I don't see him putting a gun to his head. It'll be an accidental overdose - something like that.
I don't know if he was hooked on heroine... all is possible. Didn't they found methadone in his house or it was just rumours?
I doubt this goody goody two shoes image in the 80's was 100% real. I could believe that he was doing illegal drugs and alcohol at least since the 90's. Jermaine talked about cocaine in the book he was co-writing with Stacy.

The cocaine in MJ's underwear... maybe Omer was sniffing a line and right after started rubbing Mjs crotch and transferred it from his

Desiree said...

I have already seen the Mike LaPerruque and Chris Carter documents. Very telling. It's a shame Chris Carter got into so much trouble and was unable to testify as to what he knows.

I was going to link that doc in an upcoming post and discuss Michael's drug use because it's pretty extensive. I like to reveal things in a sort of tabloid-y way, not going to lie.

I can't find the link off hand, actually... But it is interesting.

Desiree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Desiree said...

Great theory regarding the cocaine, Susana. You could be on to something, as crazy as it seems. All we know is that it definitely was not planted.

Sarah said...


I have the link I think I have sent it to Desiree in the past. I won't post it as she is going to put in a post. Just wait it's great reading!

debbii100 said...

Thank you Desiree for your informative blog. Which I have read through from beginning to end.

I am, yes, one of those ignorant, obsessive 'Jacko' fans! A lifelong one (I am 48).

So what I surmise from your eloquently written thesis is that due to certain 'stains' on Michael's bedding and items of underwear, which you insist must be semen, although as we both know could also be Urine, saliva or even sweat. The term 'MaleDNA' covers multiple sins. So what!!! So lets say it was Semen, Michael is gay...Wow. I think if you question a lot of us closely many would (under duress) admit the probably had their suspicions. However what that doesnt make him is a Paedophile! Lets remember Sneddon cast his net far and wide to encourage anyone to come forward to state that Michael had interfered with either them or their child....NADA - nothing! Even the FBI investigated Michael ...again - zero, zip!

Now Michael maybe many things - a Diva, niave, stupid, stubborn but a Paedophile he is not! As Janet testified in a recent GMA interview, Michael surrounded himself with 'yes' people if you werent a 'yes' person, you were frozen out! This was his biggest downfall. Michael felt that (justifiably) he worked damn hard and as such he deserved to have his 'downtime' where he could relax and do what made him happy. This is where you just dont get the essence of the man. He thrived over a childs smile and laughter,their unconditional love - no strings attached. There is no two ways about it Michael may have had lovers trysts in Neverland but NEVER, NEVER WITH A CHILD!

There is one other major factor you have overlooked when accusing Michael of Paedophillia is that he was a very religious person and that is one of the main reasons I also believe that Michael would never ever 'pray' (pardon the pun) on another child.

Desiree, I have spent the past 6yrs reading, watching, listening and there has been nothing that convinces me that Michael is guilty of this awful sin and subsequently gay or straight, black or white I will always love the very bones of this flawed genius.

BTW his name is Michael Jackson and not 'Jacko'

Desiree said...


I am glad you enjoyed my blog to the extent it is possible for a Michael Jackson fan to do so. I hope the truths weren't TOO explosive for you.

Debbi, let me put it to you like this: your argument against what I have revealed here on the blog, not to mention just the typical points articulated by people like me who believe Jacko was guilty, is tired. It's old news; it's boring. It's not persuasive, either.

I won't even try to convince you of anything. It's almost painful for me to have to do so. So I won't. If you were not convinced by the news stories and court documents linked, the videos, the analysis, the books, etc. then you are too far-gone.

Jacko fanaticism has a religiosity that no amount of revelation can weaken. That is just the way it is.

If you cannot put two and two together given all the evidence against Jacko now--a man sleeping in the bed with boys, calling them special friends, employees (not just the ones who went to the tabloids) witnessing strange romantic behavior, and then he's paying out millions of dollars? Come on.--I don't think you ever will.

But I live in reality. If you don't want to believe he was child molester and that Sneddon's only 'vendetta' was due to the fact he sincerely believed Michael Jackson was a prolific pedophile living in a veritable kiddie trap, that is your cross to bear.

He was guilty and was a pedophile. I doubt you even believe he was sexually abused. (He was.)

Enjoy that fantasy world; the only people who think a grown man without any girlfriends sleeps in the bed with pubescent boys for 'innocent fun' are his fans. And most of them are idiots.

Len said...


I tried to download the link and wasn't successful. But I see you removed it in order to write a blog about Mike LaPerruque's and Chris Carter's testimonies. When you come up for air and post it, I shall be among the first to read it!

P.S. I just read your response to yet another rabid fan who kneels on bended knee before the statue of Michael Jesus Jackson in his gold pants. Touche. I stand amazed that fans still insist the DNA was anything but semen. Semen written on the legal documents? Messereau declining to have the samples retested? Messereau agreeing with the forensic-lab results? *shakes head*

Callaway X22 Review said...

I could also not locate the download link.
it will be helpful if you can notify us in some other way too.
It sounds interesting all in all.

Disneychild said...

My very strong belief is that he was an MK-ultra victim. Sexually and mentally abused since early childhood. MJ, the popstar was created for a purpose. Money as usual.If not even more. How better could you control someone then making him a pedophile and being able to blackmail the person for the rest of his life in case he wanted to break free from being a moneymaking machine? There are plenty of signs to his MK-Ultra victimship. Check the new album, Michael's cover. Thats an Monarch butterfly sitting on his shoulder. And then check the meaning of that. Please!!! The Bashir interview shows evidence that he had multiple personalities. Multiple personalities are often the result of traumatic antecedents. A high percentage of patients reports child abuse. I know this sounds farfetched, but people need to wake up. Once you understand how the child MJ has been abused, used and tortured since his early childhood, you might rethink his guiltyness.

Disneychild said...

Desiree, if you have time, please research on this topic and check for traces of MK-Ultra in MJ's life.
If you need help, I would be more than happy to help you. Unfortunately my english is not good enough for writing. But I can show and collect material for you to work with. Let me know. My email is: You can get in touch with me there. Thanks.

Desiree said...


I appreciate your suggestion of linking Michael Jackson to MK-ULTRA but that is not the focus of this blog. One of my favorite radical thinkers, the late Brother Del Jones, also believed Michael was used by MK-ULTRA and was a part of the New World Order to get blacks away from Pan-Africanism.

He said this because Michael Jackson bleached his skin and hated being black.

I know Michael Jackson was terribly abused; I wrote about it on this website. But I have to be honest with you and say that I do not believe this line of conspiracy theory.

I believe in some, mainly as it relates to black people on a global scale, because I am black, but I don't believe in it with Michael.

I do not believe he was manipulated and framed and killed, etc.

He was a sexual, physical, and emotional abuse victim, yes, and I realize the conspiracy theorists like to relate this to mind control and all of that but I don't believe he was an 'agent' or a 'tool'.

It is just not a focus of this blog, definitely not a viewpoint I take.

Foxee said...

Desiree, girl, your research is sumthin' ELSE! I just don't know what to say........

Desiree said...


I hope that's a good thing.

Ruth-Ann said...

You, ma'am are utterly amazing. I had a slight doubt (because of Diana Ross lol), but otherwise you just confirmed everything I thought and backed it up with facts. *applause*

Desiree said...


Thank you. I do not mean to toot my own horn but this post has to be one of the most detailed posts on the web about Michael Jackson's sexuality, simply because it does not ooze the typical talking points.

Semen stains say more than any PR agent could ever say. They speak louder than Lisa Marie I've had conversations with insiders that doubly confirm what I wrote in this piece.

None of this, however, addresses the boys (inside info on that, too, and if you're a fan--which I am not--you might not agree with those bits) but it seems pretty obvious he was interested in males.

Thanks for your post...

Undebatable said...

Desiree, you said in January:

"I will be done with all of this very soon and afterward there will be not a peep from me regarding Michael Jackson." ~ Sat Jan 08, 08:47:00 PM PST

Please, can you let us know when it will be over?

You've written so much, much of it highly repetitive; there can't be much more, could there?

Sooner or later your vitriol will find its focus on someone else. The sooner the better.

Desiree said...


Instead of whining like a feces-strewn infant, why don't you either refute what I have to say or read elsewhere?

And I'm assuming it's okay to express 'vitriol' towards anyone but Jackson, correct? Because there's absolutely nothing about Jackson deserving of reproach!

Put a cork in it. No one has a gun to your head to read my well-researched, very solid, expansive pieces. You're boring. I don't know why fans insist on torturing themselves. You can either wake up and realize that this is not simply me 'being mean' ("red pill") or you can continue in your pedophile apologia ("blue pill").

Choice is yours. I don't give a damn either way. Yes, when I'm done, I'll be done. Simple as that. You will never be done because you're an obsessed fan.

That sucks.

toupietara said...

This blog is written by a person full of hate and jealousy, she knows absolutely nothing on Michael Jackson.

Desiree said...


I must disagree.

Regarding 'hate and jealousy', neither are true. Michael Jackson was a tortured soul and died a shell of a man--in that respect, I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry that he experienced traumatic childhood sexual abuse at the hands of his father and other men; it angers me that such a beautiful, sensitive, and talented child was trotted out like a prized pony by his evil parents.

No one cared how the abuse was shaping his sexuality. No one care about Jacko enough to intervene in his private pain. And we know he had enough pain for a thousand years: look what he did to his face!

Most of all, Jacko's fans care very little about him; they care only about how he can fulfill their sexual fantasies. As such, he is made into a completely 2-dimensional character.

Do I hate Jacko? There is antipathy, certainly, but it is for his actions. His actions and choices can turn the warmest heart ice cold.

Regarding the accusation about my knowing 'nothing on Michael Jackson', please. The problem is that I know too much and you know very, very little.

Hence your conniption. There was no way in hell that you could read this entire post in twelve minutes. Thanks for your comment.

toupietara said...

Have you personnally met Michael Jackson? Have you spoken a long time with him?

Desiree said...

It is actually a shock to me that you would even ask, "Have you met Michael Jackson?" You obviously have no idea how ridiculous that makes you seem; I will enlighten you.

My knowledge of Jacko is based upon everything that is also available to you. Because you have chosen not to take advantage of the information that is also available to you but I have taken advantage of this information does not make me 'hate' Jacko. The most authoritative conclusion is that your lack of knowledge has caused you discomfort.

This is called 'cognitive dissonance'.

In order to relieve this tension is to educate yourself about Jacko beyond the PR and fan propaganda. Learning will set you free.

My website is a great place to start.

Have a good one.

toupietara said...

OK, in spite of what your are writing it's evident that you never spoke to Michael often and on very private matters. One more point he hated the word Jacko.

Desiree said...

It wouldn't matter if you had a million and one dinners with Jacko, you were never in the room with he and Jordie Chandler. Jordie got millions of dollars after accusing Jacko of sexual abuse. Read the newest entry on this website.

Then, after you do, if you are still not at least convinced that you--as a fan having about as much proximity to Jacko as I do--don't have any standing to whine about someone writing about publicly available information on this guy, feel free to whine elsewhere.

May I suggest for you Vindicate MJ?

REMEMBER unless you have read and deeply considered, using rational intelligence, the posts here, you have no right to whine to me. I have zero patience/interest in what you believe; I feel sorry that you are interested in what I believe, to the point you are wasting your energy and time telling me why you disagree.

Hey, don't you have a Jacko poster to kiss?

toupietara said...

And you, you were never in the same room or bedroom with Michael. Now it's my last answer to you, I have no time to waste with a brainless person. All your information comes from tabloids. Your right place is a psychiatric hospital. Bye bye and good ridance

Desiree said...

"And you, you were never in the same room or bedroom with Michael."

Yes, neither of us know Jacko personally nor were we in the same room with he and Jordie Chandler. However, the best indicator of Jordie Chandler's truthfulness is the fact that he was paid a multi-multimillion dollar settlement following his allegations that Jacko sexually abused him.

Given that that is a reasonable indicator to most intelligent people that Jordie Chandler was, in fact, a molestation victim--and that Jordie's molestation adds to the reasonable suspicion that Jacko was a pedophile--I can say with a fair amount of certainty that, despite the fact neither of us knew Jacko nor were in the room with him while he was with Jordie, Michael Jackson was a guilty child molester.

Do you understand?

"I have no time to waste with a brainless person."

No, you wasted your time because, like many of Jacko's rabid fans, your rage is over two things: (1) the evidences on this blog--undoubtedly stuff you've never read or heard of before--prove with a good deal of certainty that Michael Jackson was a homosexual boy-lover and you hate it; and (2) you cannot stand that I not only have a different opinion than you do but also that I write about my findings with incredible clarity and authority.

In a nutshell, it's all the same song and dance.

"All your information comes from tabloids."

LOL. Proof you haven't read anything here; why are you exposing yourself? You could at least have more self-respect to pretend you've read it so I wouldn't be proven in my opinion that you are willfully ignorant.

To note, it is never good to dismiss information by assuming it is "from tabloids"; this post--like many of them--is based upon a court-sworn legal document that stated scientific analysis uncovered 3 different male semen samples on items that also had Jacko's semen on them.

"Your right place is a psychiatric hospital."

Aww, toupie, is that how you argue? So, because I disagree with your worship of Michael Jackson, I am not only brainless and green with envy but also need to be in a padded cell? Really? Just because I believe that a grown man who insists on sleeping the bed with unrelated young boys, has been accused of child molestation 3 times, paid two boys multimillion dollar settlements, and was witnessed by countless employees of odd behavior and sometimes outright sex abuse is a pedophile?

It seems to me anyone in disagreement is willfully ignorant and woefully naive of this world. With that attitude, toupie, do you also think kids should take candy from strangers? You just might...

"Bye bye and good ridance"