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.*
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.
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.
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 washed, not 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
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
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
1 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
4 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.
7 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 big27 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 arcade20 again, and then we went up to his room. And then we21 were sitting -- I think we were watching T.V. or22 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 always26 use his pajamas.
From his March 14 testimony:
21 Q. Okay. Now, when you claim you were22 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?
Mankiewicz: "Those records were also backed up on computer?"
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.
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?
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 about5 Mr. Jackson’s room. Was there -- I believe you6 testified there was a combination to get in that7 room?8 A. Yes, I did.9 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 think13 it was about two times that we changed it.14 Q. Okay. Now, when you say you were there, are15 you referring to the time -- the full 20 years you16 were there, or just the year or so that you were17 house manager?18 A. Just when I was the house manager.19 Q. And was there a combination to get into the20 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 every26 two months, somewhere -- somewhere along that.27 Q. Were -- do you know if certain people were28 given the combinations -- the combination to Mr.1 Jackson’s bedroom?2 A. Not to my knowledge.3 Q. Do you know if certain people were given the4 combination to the Jackson house, the main entry5 into the home?6 A. Yes. Pretty much all his guests have access7 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 Shields, Tatum O' Neal, Stephanie Mills****or Tatiana Thumbtzen;
- The boys, boys, boys, 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 Taylor, who 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):
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:
- 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;
- 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 called20 “Mr. Jackson’s sex secrets”? Do you remember that?21 A. I know something was written about that, but22 I know sometimes tabloids write other stuff that23 they like to put in, so I don’t know.24 Q. You were quoted in an issue of Star magazine25 titled “Five of His Closest Servants Tell All.26 Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s27 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 this4 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?DIANE SAWYER: We have—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.
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; here, here, 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!
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 very, very 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.
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).
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?
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.