I am still on a vacation-of-sorts but I did want to do a brief update from the "Desiree speaks...so listen..." Head Quarters.
I never intended I'd owe my Jacko-related fifteen minutes of fame to two tediously researched posts debunking the myth of Michael Jackson's alleged heterosexuality; I had hoped it would be for proving--of course, not beyond a reasonable doubt but definitely surpassing reasonable suspicion--Michael Jackson had had dubious relationships with pubescent boys.
Those entries will come later.
But the Michael Jackson Internet subculture seemed to be abuzz regarding these two entries (well, unfortunately, just the first one, although the second is far better) because Michael cannot be a homosexual. Even though I had given him the benefit of the doubt regarding these semen stains found on his mattress and in underwear and bed sheets (the latter apparently taken away from a hotel stay), suggesting they could have been from legal and consensual gay sexual contact, it is still as bad as saying Michael was a pedophile.
I should reiterate, though: I am not entirely convinced the semen stains were not from Michael Jackson's boy-loving escapades.
Due to my revealing of these bodily fluid drenched belongings of Michael's and suggesting that, in conjunction with all other factors as outlined in my Addendum to the original gay post, these semen-stained items were a strong suggestion--even explosive proof--of Michael Jackson's penchant for males, a fan-oriented 'vindication' website, Vindicate MJ, has made a few posts allegedly 'debunking' these shocking revelations thrust onto the Internet stage in November of last year by Yours Truly.
My suggestion to you, dear readers, is to read these articles and make up your own mind:
DIRTY LINEN in Michael's home and common understanding of the need to find it there
Dirty laundry and cocaine in Michael's home. IT WAS A SET UP.
I believe they are coming up with another post that will explore these details further, or, as they say 'once and for all!' I will link that one as soon as it is put up, so there will be a free flow of information.
Have I read them, you ask?
I have indeed read both entries, as well as the comments, which was the true delice, as they feature me and I can be somewhat conceited.
And what do I think of them?
This thought had occurred to me: Desiree, shall you write another verbose and tedious explanation dissecting some fan's meandering screeds, written only in an effort to get the Michael Jackson ball back into the Court of the Deluded?
I decided to leave it alone. For now, at least, lest something needs to be amended.
But I will say this, and it is one of life's important aphorisms: "The 'most likely' things are most likely."
What does this mean?
Once you have read the articles linked to that piss-poor, quasi-literate vindication website, the aphorism will make sense.
When I found and then read the "14 Items" motion, I could feel the Defense's panic leap off the page. Here was a group of high-paid attorneys representing one of the world's strangest, most secretive, and enigmatic celebrities, one whose whole career had been dogged by rumor and innuendo since it's start. When the Prosecution's forensics returned and so-called foreign 'male DNA'--which is semen--had been found on Michael Jackson's bed mattress and in underwear and bed sheets kept with his own soiled underwear, they knew they had but one important thing to do for Michael Jackson: bury it!
Evidence of Michael Jackson engaging in homosexual activity would not serve him well in front of a jury whose job was to ascertain whether he could have once again sexually abused an adolescent boy, not to mention it would have blew the entire facade of heterosexuality he'd tried to maintain throughout his career.
Michael Jackson's attorneys were successful, and rightly so: while I am convinced those semen stains were evidence of his sexual abuse of the myriad young boys that filtered in and out of Neverland Ranch, if, in fact, they were evidence of consensual sex between he and a male lover, or two, they had no business in the courtroom.
The charges at hand were Michael Jackson masturbating a young boy, not a consenting adult.
As you read the linked articles on Vindicate MJ, as well as the comments, please keep in mind the evidence to which I originally presented to the world, as it gets muddled over there:
Once again, as I will repeat: this evidence was left out because it was irrelevant.
My goal when I wrote the first post was to simply illuminate that there possibly was hard proof of Michael Jackson having been a gay man, as there had been tell-tale semen stains on his bed mattress and semen stains found on bed sheets and underwear kept with his own soiled underwear.
The operative word is 'simply'.
This is a virtue left unacknowledged over at Vindicate MJ, or any other forum wherein my articles and findings are discussed. Because the negative side of rabid fanaticism is sometimes extreme denial, you will read the screeds of a fan (and their readers) desperately trying to explain away the obvious power of these semen stains found on the bed mattress and in hotel bags of a sexually-ambiguous, twice-accused of pedophilia megastar.
I can honestly admit there could be alternate explanations for how these seminal discharges melted into Michael Jackson's bed, ones that go outside of Michael Jackson having had homosexual sexual contact. However, as I made clear in the Addendum to the original post, the simplest explanation that does not have to be predicated upon other variables (which also have a probability of their own) is the most logical explanation.
At Vindicate MJ, you will read of my logic being slammed and read their alternate explanations as to how the semen stains could have gotten onto Michael's bed and in sheets and underwear he seemed to want to preserve over wash.
Sure, they can acknowledge semen on his bed, but he had nothing to do with it; there could also be semen in these bed sheets and underwear, but it was either planted or did not belong to him, seeing that other people lived in the video arcade/library area, despite that these were Michael and his children's belongings in hotel bags.
Dear readers, you will read of explanations regarding how the 'male DNA' on Michael Jackson's bed mattress was never semen, but saliva, perhaps even from Prince and Blanket Jackson! It's a stretch but most things are when Michael Jackson's fans argue his alleged innocence. Again, there was never any mention of saliva being found on the bed mattress. That is factually inaccurate.
On December 4, 2004, Brian Oxman, who, at the time, was still part of the Jackson defense team, spoke to the New York Post regarding the three foreign 'male DNAs':
Oxman's statement to the press was another proactive measure, carefully calculated just in case the actual compositions of these so-called 'male DNAs' leaked to the press in a similar fashion as the Grand Jury transcripts.
However, he did not give an accurate, or even true, summation of how the stains got onto the bed or what they were, as he suggested these 'male DNAs' were saliva!
As you noticed, the 'male DNA' to which Oxman refers was not as 'innocent'--if boys sleeping in the bedroom of an accused gay pedophile with a treasure trove of explicit materials can be innocent--as he described, unless these boys 'crashing' in Michael Jackson's bedroom expelled semen upon falling asleep. The Prosecution later tried to get him held in contempt of court for providing "exculpatory commentary" about evidence already misrepresented by the press.
In other words, Oxman had attempted to put a 'positive spin' on the semen stain evidence by claiming that it was saliva. All of which was untrue and inaccurate.
One thing that should be noted is that many of his fans, as you will read at Vindicate MJ, believe, yes, Michael Jackson was having boys sleep in his bedroom but Michael slept on the floor, offering his bed to his male slumber mates. This is improbable because Michael Jackson has repeatedly stated over the years that there is nothing wrong with 'sharing a love' and sleeping in the bed with unrelated boys. The likelihood of him sleeping on the floor--even after being accused of child molestation, as he explained here--when he 'considers' this seemingly mundane act 'innocent' is slim-to-none.
From Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson:
It is inappropriate, regardless of how much one enjoys Thriller and his moonwalking, for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated young boy.
I continue to be amazed at the level and recalcitrance of denial from Michael Jackson's fans.
This issue of the semen stains in conjunction with the breadth of circumstantial evidence of Michael Jackson not being interested in the opposite sex should have been simple. And, owing to the increased traffic I got over that November post, it was simple and explosive. Fangirls around the Net were angry that their fantasy Michael Jackson in his allegedly provocative golden pants had left evidence on his bed mattress and in bed sheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear of his penchant for males, and I had exposed it.
Now, I am willing to be wrong on any of my findings and I am intelligent enough to bow to people whose arguments are more factual and logical than my own. That is something that my detractors--who, ironically, call me crazy--do not understand; my life is not held together by my Michael Jackson blog entries and analysis. I do other things with my time. For some reason, these people believe I am paid to write 'trash' about Michael or that I have nothing better to do.
All of the above is incorrect. Of course, I enjoy being right and I defend my pieces to the death, not to mention that I will promote them, as would any writer. But it is inaccurate for anyone to read my blog and say that I lie about who I am and what I am doing with regard to the deceased King of Pop.
I have my '100 Things About Me' page where you can see two photos of me and get to know me in whatever capacity one hundred quick bullets will allow. As you'll notice, none of my detractors have ever shown their faces; they then have the nerve to call me insane or a nutcase or anything else along that tangent because they disagree with my viewpoints. (This is while they idol-worship a dead, allegedly child-molesting, obviously pedophilic drug addict.)
All of that behavior is the essence of immaturity and faulty reasoning faculties. I have learned all ready that most people who resort to personal attacks tend to have low intelligence quotients. I do not.
With all of that said, I feel strongly that I am not wrong on this gay bit, especially since the Defense never challenged the factuality of the semen stains, only their relevance to the Prosecution's case.
If that is not a glowing (albeit implied) endorsement to the accuracy of these semen-soiled belongings, I do not know what is! The Defense decided--once again, proactively--that these items needed to be kept out. If they were innocent and representative of maybe his children (if they were ever saliva, which they were not) or a family member, the Defense would not have fought so hard to preclude them as evidence.
Dear readers, when you venture thusly, into the logically-warped jungles of the fan website responsible for these posts I've linked above, please keep in mind that spin is never a substitution for arguments based upon sound evidence.
Complexity is not as virtuous as simplicity; it's overrated. The more implausible an argument sounds, the more likely it is implausible.
At the end of the day, you all have unrestricted access to the files I've linked time and time again on this blog. You don't need me or any of my analysis if you can read words in those black-and-white court documents...
~ Desiree P.I.
I never intended I'd owe my Jacko-related fifteen minutes of fame to two tediously researched posts debunking the myth of Michael Jackson's alleged heterosexuality; I had hoped it would be for proving--of course, not beyond a reasonable doubt but definitely surpassing reasonable suspicion--Michael Jackson had had dubious relationships with pubescent boys.
Those entries will come later.
But the Michael Jackson Internet subculture seemed to be abuzz regarding these two entries (well, unfortunately, just the first one, although the second is far better) because Michael cannot be a homosexual. Even though I had given him the benefit of the doubt regarding these semen stains found on his mattress and in underwear and bed sheets (the latter apparently taken away from a hotel stay), suggesting they could have been from legal and consensual gay sexual contact, it is still as bad as saying Michael was a pedophile.
I should reiterate, though: I am not entirely convinced the semen stains were not from Michael Jackson's boy-loving escapades.
Due to my revealing of these bodily fluid drenched belongings of Michael's and suggesting that, in conjunction with all other factors as outlined in my Addendum to the original gay post, these semen-stained items were a strong suggestion--even explosive proof--of Michael Jackson's penchant for males, a fan-oriented 'vindication' website, Vindicate MJ, has made a few posts allegedly 'debunking' these shocking revelations thrust onto the Internet stage in November of last year by Yours Truly.
My suggestion to you, dear readers, is to read these articles and make up your own mind:
DIRTY LINEN in Michael's home and common understanding of the need to find it there
Dirty laundry and cocaine in Michael's home. IT WAS A SET UP.
I believe they are coming up with another post that will explore these details further, or, as they say 'once and for all!' I will link that one as soon as it is put up, so there will be a free flow of information.
Have I read them, you ask?
I have indeed read both entries, as well as the comments, which was the true delice, as they feature me and I can be somewhat conceited.
And what do I think of them?
This thought had occurred to me: Desiree, shall you write another verbose and tedious explanation dissecting some fan's meandering screeds, written only in an effort to get the Michael Jackson ball back into the Court of the Deluded?
I decided to leave it alone. For now, at least, lest something needs to be amended.
But I will say this, and it is one of life's important aphorisms: "The 'most likely' things are most likely."
What does this mean?
Once you have read the articles linked to that piss-poor, quasi-literate vindication website, the aphorism will make sense.
When I found and then read the "14 Items" motion, I could feel the Defense's panic leap off the page. Here was a group of high-paid attorneys representing one of the world's strangest, most secretive, and enigmatic celebrities, one whose whole career had been dogged by rumor and innuendo since it's start. When the Prosecution's forensics returned and so-called foreign 'male DNA'--which is semen--had been found on Michael Jackson's bed mattress and in underwear and bed sheets kept with his own soiled underwear, they knew they had but one important thing to do for Michael Jackson: bury it!
Evidence of Michael Jackson engaging in homosexual activity would not serve him well in front of a jury whose job was to ascertain whether he could have once again sexually abused an adolescent boy, not to mention it would have blew the entire facade of heterosexuality he'd tried to maintain throughout his career.
Michael Jackson's attorneys were successful, and rightly so: while I am convinced those semen stains were evidence of his sexual abuse of the myriad young boys that filtered in and out of Neverland Ranch, if, in fact, they were evidence of consensual sex between he and a male lover, or two, they had no business in the courtroom.
The charges at hand were Michael Jackson masturbating a young boy, not a consenting adult.
As you read the linked articles on Vindicate MJ, as well as the comments, please keep in mind the evidence to which I originally presented to the world, as it gets muddled over there:
- 'Male DNA' is not saliva, hair, skin flakes, mucus, wine, ketchup, shampoo, or shit; it is semen. The Defense's use of the term 'male DNA', as well as its popularity with fans in denial, does not change what the evidence was: semen, as the Prosecution repeatedly noted in their motion-in-response.
- The Prosecution did not merely determine the semen stains on Michael's mattress with an ultraviolet light (and could possibly mistake the stains with saliva), but the samples were removed from the mattress and tested in a forensic facility in which DNA was extracted from stains determined to be semen.
- As per the documents available, there was no mention of any other pertinent bodily fluids found on the tested articles outside of the bloodstains on Michael's underwear.
- The Defense never challenged the evidence of semen on the bed mattress, in the underwear, and in the bed sheets; the Prosecution even offered to provide samples to the Jackson team in order for that side to conduct its own forensic analysis, but they refused, never disputing the findings!
As the picture of the Prosecution's response shows, the Jackson team never denied the factuality of the evidence of semen stains in Michael's bed mattress (although not listed, it was in the Defense's "14 Items" motion underneath the umbrella term of "DNA of anyone other than Mr. Jackson" along with the other semen evidence) or in these underwear or bed sheets; they only challenged the evidence in terms of relevance.
That is an important point to remember before venturing over to fan territory, where all evidence is skewed in order to be defended or outright denied to exist.
As I noted in my meticulously-researched and expansive Addendum to the original explosive piece, the items listed in the Defense's proactive "14 Items" motion represented aspects of Michael Jackson's life that, if explored or even mentioned in passing, would prove embarrassing and inflammatory while he was on trial for an embarrassing and inflammatory crime.
His attorneys cited California Evidence Code Section 352, which states,
The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.The citation of the statute makes perfect sense as to why none of these were ever mentioned in court. Evidence of gay sex--semen stains from unknown males--would be prejudicial, cause confusion, and mislead the average American citizen chosen to sit in the Jury Box. It would also 'unduly consume' time explaining that these 'relevant' articles had nothing to do with the Prosecution's case-in-chief.
Once again, as I will repeat: this evidence was left out because it was irrelevant.
My goal when I wrote the first post was to simply illuminate that there possibly was hard proof of Michael Jackson having been a gay man, as there had been tell-tale semen stains on his bed mattress and semen stains found on bed sheets and underwear kept with his own soiled underwear.
The operative word is 'simply'.
This is a virtue left unacknowledged over at Vindicate MJ, or any other forum wherein my articles and findings are discussed. Because the negative side of rabid fanaticism is sometimes extreme denial, you will read the screeds of a fan (and their readers) desperately trying to explain away the obvious power of these semen stains found on the bed mattress and in hotel bags of a sexually-ambiguous, twice-accused of pedophilia megastar.
I can honestly admit there could be alternate explanations for how these seminal discharges melted into Michael Jackson's bed, ones that go outside of Michael Jackson having had homosexual sexual contact. However, as I made clear in the Addendum to the original post, the simplest explanation that does not have to be predicated upon other variables (which also have a probability of their own) is the most logical explanation.
At Vindicate MJ, you will read of my logic being slammed and read their alternate explanations as to how the semen stains could have gotten onto Michael's bed and in sheets and underwear he seemed to want to preserve over wash.
Sure, they can acknowledge semen on his bed, but he had nothing to do with it; there could also be semen in these bed sheets and underwear, but it was either planted or did not belong to him, seeing that other people lived in the video arcade/library area, despite that these were Michael and his children's belongings in hotel bags.
Dear readers, you will read of explanations regarding how the 'male DNA' on Michael Jackson's bed mattress was never semen, but saliva, perhaps even from Prince and Blanket Jackson! It's a stretch but most things are when Michael Jackson's fans argue his alleged innocence. Again, there was never any mention of saliva being found on the bed mattress. That is factually inaccurate.
On December 4, 2004, Brian Oxman, who, at the time, was still part of the Jackson defense team, spoke to the New York Post regarding the three foreign 'male DNAs':
Oxman said investigators had found traces of DNA from three males other than Jackson in the star's Neverland bedroom - but none from his accuser.
Asked to explain the DNA that was found, Oxman said: "Kids crash where they crash. They play in his room, and that's where they crash."It should be noted that this sound bite curiously followed the December 3, 2004 raid of Neverland, which sought to not only obtain a swab from Michael Jackson to officially confirm he was the owner of the bloodstained underwear found with the semen-soiled underwear worn by another male, but also to check security systems and measure building layouts.
Oxman's statement to the press was another proactive measure, carefully calculated just in case the actual compositions of these so-called 'male DNAs' leaked to the press in a similar fashion as the Grand Jury transcripts.
However, he did not give an accurate, or even true, summation of how the stains got onto the bed or what they were, as he suggested these 'male DNAs' were saliva!
As you noticed, the 'male DNA' to which Oxman refers was not as 'innocent'--if boys sleeping in the bedroom of an accused gay pedophile with a treasure trove of explicit materials can be innocent--as he described, unless these boys 'crashing' in Michael Jackson's bedroom expelled semen upon falling asleep. The Prosecution later tried to get him held in contempt of court for providing "exculpatory commentary" about evidence already misrepresented by the press.
In other words, Oxman had attempted to put a 'positive spin' on the semen stain evidence by claiming that it was saliva. All of which was untrue and inaccurate.
One thing that should be noted is that many of his fans, as you will read at Vindicate MJ, believe, yes, Michael Jackson was having boys sleep in his bedroom but Michael slept on the floor, offering his bed to his male slumber mates. This is improbable because Michael Jackson has repeatedly stated over the years that there is nothing wrong with 'sharing a love' and sleeping in the bed with unrelated boys. The likelihood of him sleeping on the floor--even after being accused of child molestation, as he explained here--when he 'considers' this seemingly mundane act 'innocent' is slim-to-none.
From Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson:
Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life - when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"
Jackson: "Yes."
Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"
Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."
Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"
Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."
Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"
Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm in a sleeping bag on the floor. I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag."
Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"
Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children."So, if a pubescent boy slept in Michael's bedroom and, fantastically, was one of the depositors of the semen stains on his bed, Michael would be under the covers with this child! Fans who deny Michael Jackson's obvious enjoyment and ritualistic need to sleep in the same bed--not bedroom, but bed--with young boys are subconsciously acknowledging the impropriety of such a bizarre insistence!
It is inappropriate, regardless of how much one enjoys Thriller and his moonwalking, for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated young boy.
I continue to be amazed at the level and recalcitrance of denial from Michael Jackson's fans.
This issue of the semen stains in conjunction with the breadth of circumstantial evidence of Michael Jackson not being interested in the opposite sex should have been simple. And, owing to the increased traffic I got over that November post, it was simple and explosive. Fangirls around the Net were angry that their fantasy Michael Jackson in his allegedly provocative golden pants had left evidence on his bed mattress and in bed sheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear of his penchant for males, and I had exposed it.
Now, I am willing to be wrong on any of my findings and I am intelligent enough to bow to people whose arguments are more factual and logical than my own. That is something that my detractors--who, ironically, call me crazy--do not understand; my life is not held together by my Michael Jackson blog entries and analysis. I do other things with my time. For some reason, these people believe I am paid to write 'trash' about Michael or that I have nothing better to do.
All of the above is incorrect. Of course, I enjoy being right and I defend my pieces to the death, not to mention that I will promote them, as would any writer. But it is inaccurate for anyone to read my blog and say that I lie about who I am and what I am doing with regard to the deceased King of Pop.
I have my '100 Things About Me' page where you can see two photos of me and get to know me in whatever capacity one hundred quick bullets will allow. As you'll notice, none of my detractors have ever shown their faces; they then have the nerve to call me insane or a nutcase or anything else along that tangent because they disagree with my viewpoints. (This is while they idol-worship a dead, allegedly child-molesting, obviously pedophilic drug addict.)
All of that behavior is the essence of immaturity and faulty reasoning faculties. I have learned all ready that most people who resort to personal attacks tend to have low intelligence quotients. I do not.
With all of that said, I feel strongly that I am not wrong on this gay bit, especially since the Defense never challenged the factuality of the semen stains, only their relevance to the Prosecution's case.
If that is not a glowing (albeit implied) endorsement to the accuracy of these semen-soiled belongings, I do not know what is! The Defense decided--once again, proactively--that these items needed to be kept out. If they were innocent and representative of maybe his children (if they were ever saliva, which they were not) or a family member, the Defense would not have fought so hard to preclude them as evidence.
Dear readers, when you venture thusly, into the logically-warped jungles of the fan website responsible for these posts I've linked above, please keep in mind that spin is never a substitution for arguments based upon sound evidence.
Complexity is not as virtuous as simplicity; it's overrated. The more implausible an argument sounds, the more likely it is implausible.
At the end of the day, you all have unrestricted access to the files I've linked time and time again on this blog. You don't need me or any of my analysis if you can read words in those black-and-white court documents...
~ Desiree P.I.
187 comments:
A funny forum blasting my 'Michael Jackson was gay' posts:
http://www.maximumjackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=23899
I've been getting a lot of traffic from this thread, although many people don't leave comments. They have no problem talking trash about my sanity, though. Never a good substitute for a rebuttal and it almost always shows the hand one's playing with.
Desiree,
I read your blog on my break and had a very hard time not bursting into uproarious laughter when I read the rabid-fan websites. Be flattered you have upset them so much. Nothing they have written refutes your research. I do see a lot of panic and denial at anything that would expose their fantasies as deluded. First, I saw the worshipers of the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson insist the semen stains were from Frank Cascio having wild sex in Michael's bedroom, despite the lack of female DNA and Jesus Salas's testimony that Michael frequently changed the code on the lock. Now, the lunatics are convinced it was planted. This is ludicrous! I haven't heard Frank Cascio publicly apologize if he had truly broken into the room. That, alone, would have vindicated his friend and lover. This event, of course, never occurred.
Knowing what I know, Michael was a pedophile, beyond all doubt. The music industry was well aware of his dubious behavior. The legal documents are just further proof something untoward was happening in his bedroom with males. By all the evidence pointing in this direction, he was having sex with little boys, in his room that alarms and locks on it. I hope some of the semen stains were from consenting adult gay men. But I would be wiling to wager a small bet the adults - or at least older teenagers - were from the likes of Brett Barnes, Omer Bhatti, and the Cascio boys. These are people he slept with when they were still children.
Before I forget, the Brian Oxman comments were very, very interesting. Notice how he admitted children were sleeping in Michael's room? He was rightfully removed from the case, for speaking publicly. But the comments should make it obvious to everyone a red flag about Michael's behavior should have been immediately raised.
As always, you wrote a great post!
Des,
Great post! And that forum you linked to was pathetic to say the least! I don't understand why they still care about things that happened in the 80s and 90s; it's 2011, get it together! It's one thing to write investigative or biographical pieces on deceased popular figures, it's another thing to spend significant free time talking about gold pants, Lisa Marie, and whether Mike was cuter during Bad or Dangerous, LOL. And I don't understand how they can call you those names, it's very rude and clearly they don't know how open you are and are willing to put your information out there. They think you're some secret government agent/journalist bent on destroying a most likely gay pedo's "legacy".
I looked at VMJ, what a bunch of losers, I'm sorry to say. They could be nice people outside of Wacko Jacko, but they aren't really putting their best face forward! anyone who would twist the plain-as-day documents into some deluded fan origami argument as to how he wasn't in any way, shape, or form responsible for semen stains IN HIS MATTRESS, than they need help. i think that it comes down to the fact that many Michael Jackson fans are homophobic (actually many people are), but pretend to be accepting so long as their fantasy man isn't gay. I understand that reaction, to a certain extent. If he was gay, just like his music and move onto something else. In fact, I'd think that him being gay would give their brains a break over having to obsess 24/7 about everything Jacko! Gray matter can only be stretched so far.
I agree with Len, Oxman's comments are very telling. Why the next day after the raid, Oxman? And why lie about it? He knew what they were but he implied it was whatever liquid would seep ouof a kid's body when the "crash". Well, Oxman is pretty unscrupulous, always wanting to be on TV talking about the Jacksons and Wacko, etc, etc. He reportedly left a message to Jordie Chandler saying he'd write him a blank check if he didn't testify. So we shouldn't be all that surpised.
I think the fans need to stop saying it was saliva, skin flakes, hair, etc and admit to themselves that it was SEMEN. Get over it, is that so horrible that he might have been gay?! And evidence wasn't planted; why plant vacation bags and semen stains if they weren't Gavin's and wouldn't be relevant? Come on, that doesn't make sense. Space aliens didn't do it either.
We talked a lot about the Cascios here...well do you know one of them will write a book on Michael? Interesting...
btw concernig the gay rumours, a fan wrote on JRT wall that she dreamed Michael told her Ruska Bergaman was his secret girlfriend...well some time ago I dreamed Michael was kissing a man. For real! LOL
GirlUndercover,
LOL about your dream. I hope that crazy fan doesn't think that Mike was really telling her who his secret "girlfriend" was from beyond the grave. These fans are nuts. What makes your dream less believable then hers? ;-)
Desiree,
That site thinks Mike was the daddy of male#2 and male#3? Yea, maybe in the heat of the moment...when they were about to nut, LOL. It's semen, not saliva, fans. Get it together.
J-M-H:
LOL!
Exactly. That's what I thought when I read that comment over there. Michael was 'Daddy' only in a psycho-sexual sense. I was honestly flabbergasted at the idea of anyone even thinking those 'male DNAs' were from Prince and Blanket. It's nonsensical.
I hope the people who read this blog actually read those posts from those fan sites. It's always interesting to hear these people so brazenly display their psychosis.
I linked them because it was a good read and is allegedly supposed to go against my findings. But a friend of mine emailed me and said that they were boring, unlike my work, and that she just skimmed them because of that. Perhaps she's biased, but I tend to agree. The writing on that site is not engaging and they seem to not have heard of breaking up paragraphs.
It's just a lot of ranting against Sneddon and other shadow creatures. Definitely not a rebuttal. But we'll see what they could put out next. I don't normally frequent in Jacko sites outside of this one but I heard of people in that forum I'd linked say their pieces were the antidote to my work.
I don't see that but whatever they feel like reading is fine by me. The truth does not change, although I am as frustrated as Galileo at their blindness at times...
Len:
I am totally flattered by all of this, actually. While I don't necessarily hold Niccolo Machiavelli's belief regarding rulers, it is fun to be feared over loved to an extent.
I definitely get a kick out of it. It makes you feel as if you've done a good job. I loved reading the comments over there about me and my work.
They don't get it that I've written over 15,000 words (not counting the one I'd lost that time) on this subject and I know the evidence.
By the way, Len, have you ever got a chance to read the Statement of Probable Cause? I know you mentioned the importance of police reports and statements. I think you'd like that one. It is because of that document that I wonder if the Arvizos were really telling the truth. I don't know but anything is possible.
It's linked in the Addendum post when I discuss Gavin's underwear.
Suzy:
Funny dream you've had. I personally LOVE Michael gay because he fits it. I've always wondered why you were so in to it? Like you, I think the fans deserve a gay Michael Jackson because most of them are rabid homophobes.
Michael was gay. He looked it and acted it. It's possible that because he was with adolescent boys he doesn't view himself as 'gay'. But he chose Chris Carter, a young black man, after seeing him across a crowded casino. Just out of the blue he hired Carter. Another security staff member who worked with Chris Carter and was responsible for checking Carter out said Michael chose him solely because Michael liked his smile.
The same went for a young white guy who was 17 that Michael hired after seeing him in a surfboard shop.
Obviously Michael was hiring men based on their looks or charm; I've seen photos of some of his bodyguards over the years and some--not all, but some--of them are quite attractive.
I hate to break your heart about Jason Pfeiffer, though. A friend of mine is close to Arnold Klein (she's visited him recently) and she told me Klein disavowed his support of Jason and that Klein says Jason stole from him.
Klein could be throwing Jason under the bus because he was adamant about the relationship previously. But they could have been on it together. Klein is a habitual liar and a fame whore. He's not a good man.
Liz Taylor was struck by his words and let a little too much slip in her twitter message. But, at this point, I don't know what to believe about those two.
However, Michael's homosexuality is not predicated upon the believability of Jason Pfeiffer. He slept with Brett Barnes in 2001, when Brett was 19. I believe they had sex with each other; Brett was legal than, and was no longer a boy.
But I think at that time he was schmoozing Anton Schleiter and Omer Bhatti (well, of course Omer).
One thing is clear: Michael certainly didn't like women. The semen on his mattress proves he had sexual contact with males. And, like I've showed above, he and his defense team NEVER argued with the fact of the semen stains, even when the DAs asked them if they wanted to conduct their own tests.
Michael knew what he was hiding...
Desiree,
I don´t mind about Jason. Just because he lied, it doesn´t mean Klein had lied about Michael being gay. It´s two diferent things. Besides, a lot of people(not his fans LOL) who believe Michael was gay don´t beleive in Jason. Some of them because Jason is fat and Michael was a perfectionist (I think it was rude but ok...) others because Klein was sued by a bank just BEFORE that story.
I didn´t agree with the death threats thought I agree Klein wasn´t a great friend of Michael.(The pee story was really gross) It´s true he claimed Michael was straight when he was alive (I think) but he should´ve claim the same now even if it wasn´t the truth. When he wrote on his twitter a refutal about Murray saying that Michael killed himself the fans forgave him a litlle about the pee story. If you notice, people got more upset with Klein than Jason. Klein was supposedly a friend for more than 25 years. It´s more damaged. Strange enough there are MJ FANS who still love Klein, for real! I´m like "WTF are they really MJ fans?"
If he really had that male lover I higly doubt they would come out. Even if they´re trutfull they would be afraid because Jason´s case.
Sorry the off-topic but I was reading about the paternity of the kids and about Klein. Well it´s rumoured he claimed the kids are his but he denied it behind a camera. A strange deny I know, but yet he didn´t confirm the rumours. Lester is the one who claimed the paternity.
You asked why I´m so on it? Well (blush) I have a gay fetish. I love slash and yaoi anime and sometimes I see gay porn (hope you don´t mind for me saying that...lol)
If you know what I imagined already with Michael...LOL
GirlUndercover,
I like a little gay porn too ;-), especially with two hot macho looking guys with great bodies! I'm so straight that I prefer to see two guys over anything with women in it! Plus porn with women is degrading. I love men....
Des, I never really believed the Klein and jason story. I'm sorry to say, Mike wouldn't go out with someone his size. His books suggest he liked young men, like Peter Johnson the model in "The Chop Suey Club" and those guys in that book "Bidgood", among others. Klein is a liar and a bit of a celeb stalker. I think he is so obsessed with being friends with clebrities that he will do anything to keep in their good graces, a la giving Mike Demerol anytime he asked for it and hiding his medical records from the police in his trunk in 1993.
Liz fell for Klein and Jason's story and in her defense of Mike's privacy she never denied that he was gay, which is very telling. She didn't even issue an addendum or a clarification on her statements. She basically admitted the obvious.
Good work, Desirée.
These fans are homophobic. I like when they are challenged on MJ sexuality and say “I don't think he was gay, but if he was, this is nobody's business”. A classic. When they discuss MJ relationships with women or whether his dick was DINA4 or DINA3, then this is everybody's business.
I don't trust what Arnold Klein says. He is a liar. He lies about the vitiligo. I hope your friend didn't visit him for medical reasons, because this man doesn't know what work ethic or deontologic code mean.
I've read the article about Chris Carter and Joey... the 17 y/o bodyguard who ended up being the chief of security in Neverland... Apparently, experience wasn't required for the position, just being good looking.
I think he was more interested in boys than in adult males, but after the first allegations and specially his disgusting face from the late 90s onward, it became more difficult for him to manipulate young boys and he turned into adult males or his old special friends like Brett Barnes or Jimmy. I bet many of the kids were repulsed or scared of him.
Jo Jo Elatab asked him personal questions about his sexuality, Lisa Marie, Madonna... I think SOME of his special friends weren't that innocent and they know what Michael was about. They accompanied him for the lavish gifts, but maybe MJ wasn't confident enough to start molesting them. I don't know if Gavin was in that group. I'm not sure if MJ molested him, there are many details in this case that doesn't add up, IMO.
I've found an interesting comment in this page:
http://www.gossiplist.com/2009/07/02/michael-jackson-in-1988-his-fascination-with-younger-men-get-weirder/
“I can cofirm Michaels obession’ with young boys dating back at least to December 1982. He stalked and was obsessed with a boy named Robert who lived near his Encino home. MJ talks about this person vaguely in the making of beat it video and from a February 1983 interview with Entertainment Tonight.”
I'm curious to watch the videos.
Desiree,
I did read that link, in regards to the Statement of Probable Cause. I still waiver back and forth on that case. As I said, because everything the "mouthpiece" has said, so far, has proven true, I still believe he was molested, especially since the criminologist said he had read all documents, and there was never any doubt in his mind Michael was guilty. (I'd give anything to see the documents not yet available to the public.) But I'm still willing to be proven wrong, especially in the face of so much conflicting documentation. In short, I am sitting on the fence.
Des,
A small point: if i understood correctly, you said that mj might have cleared the arvizo evidence - washed Gavin's underwear? Why not get rid of all the evidence then? Why not get rid of the mattress, sheets whatever? Also, why keep Gavin's clean underwear? (Or was that small white hannes underwear not worn?)
Hi Desirée, I've been reading your blog for a while and I find it really interesting.
I don't know where you find all those trial documents and stuff but you must keep up the great work :)
Well, I am one of those "new fans" since I started really listening to MJ after his death. Being born in 92 , with all the bad press shortly after, you can imagine I didn’t really have no choice but to completely hate him. Actually, I remember one of the first times I heard about him was because of the 93 molestation charges and I didn't really understand what happened but I guessed he sure wasn't a good guy. Besides, my father is what his rabid fans would call a "hater" (he's a hater of pretty much everyone really, like a real life troll lol) so when I once I asked about him, he told me he was a very talented artist but he also was completely nuts. He was so racist that he bleached his skin and altered his features to look Caucasian, and he was a pedophile that avoided going to jail by paying money to the kids parents. So even after watching "Thriller" for the time, which I totally loved, I couldn't bring myself to really "like" him.
Then when he died and he, and his music/videos, were everywhere I started to listen to his songs, watching his videos etc And well I had to admit it, as an artist, I loved him, I really enjoy his music and his performances, I even went to see "This is it" and bought some stuff of him.
Then I decided to do some “research” on a more personal level. I watched some of his interviews, and I read more objective information about the child molestation cases and he supposed and convenient “disease” which I still don’t believe he really had anyway.
I guess I now like him slightly better, I can’t help to have some sympathy for the person when I admire so much the artist. I kind of give him the benefit of the doubt about the child molestation, though being realistic I lean more to the “he did it” side.
I’m almost completely sure he was gay, but wouldn’t really accept it or admit it, not even to himself. Actually, I once read about a priest who was also accused of having molested several minor boys, he said that being gay was “disgusting and wrong” however, he didn’t consider there was anything gay about having sexual contact with children because that was all ” pure and innocent” , doesn’t that remind you of someone?
MJ definitely received an education that condemned homosexuality and his mother (whom he loved very deeply and wouldn’t want to disappoint) was obviously against it. So I can understand that he didn’t want to ever admit it to the public and that he probably felt bad about it. I don’t think he was capable of having an adult and healthy relationship with anyone, and obviously not women.
He had a lot of problems and it didn’t help that he surrounded himself with “yes man” that were enables and took advantage of him. I have also realized that he would get rid of anyone who were honest to him or tried to help and actually cared about him (Quincy Jones for example). I saw an interview of Bob Jones where he said that MJ used to tell him “If you bring bad news, I don’t wanna hear them”.
Anyway, I think he was a very complex person and I find him really interesting. I’m always attracted to controversial figures lol Plus, I love psychology and trying to find out why people are the way they are, if you know what I mean. So MJ is quite a challenge.
(Sorry for the looong post lol)
PD: Now that you’re discussing about MJ being gay, Do you guys know the song “Muscles”? It was written by MJ and sung by Diana Ross. Technically, it talks about men because the song was thought with DR in mind but I found it very suspicious that he would write such thing. There’s specially one line that I think it’s very telling, it says: “I don’t care if he’s young or old, Just make him beautiful.” This is the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFJO5LcWGfk
(The video is…well… lol)
Sly:
The idea of the evidence being cleared was only conjecture. I never suggested Gavin's underwear would be washed; I just said that it would have been hidden or destroyed.
While there is really no nexus between the Jacksons and Michael, for example, the Jacksons recently had an inflammatory item about Michael destroyed by Howard Mann at their suggestion. Apparently, evidence of Michael's possible misdeeds are destroyed all the time.
But, like I said, it is just a likely conjecture if, and only if, Gavin Arvizo was molested. That is what we don't know for sure.
As for the beds, sheets, and male's underwear, Sly, Michael probably forgot the sheets contained 'controversial' evidence and he didn't think the mattress would ever come into evidence.
Bottom line: he didn't expect the raid, like he did in 1993. I think that pretty much says it in a nutshell.
Susana,
So you don´t believe Michael had vitiligo? I have that doubt, I confess. I was researching about that and I read that it makes a complete lose of pigmentation. Well I saw a picture of Michael where his arms were completely white and a pic taken after the first one and he had a few spots over his wrists...the vitiligo has any recession? Besides I read claims from people with vitiligo who don´t believe him because he was all white and it have to be spoted.
If Klein lied intentionaly (induced vitiligo can be mistaken) he had to do that, he´s a dermatologist, if he
had claimed to the world that Michael bleached his skin it would be a shame worst than claiming his homosexuality, because as a doctor, denying a skin disease his patient had...
I was thinking something about him and Liz (I think a lot lol)
I saw some pics of him and Liz on his facebook. You can tell she likes (or liked...) him very much. You can see the adoration in her eyes. Klein likes her very much too. I wonder if that was the reason she didn´t deny his claim. I don´t know if they´re yet in good terms but he created an album called "friends" late September, where he posted some photos with her. Or maybe they aren´t friends anymore but he pretende to be...
Really how strange a man who loves a woman so much had the nerve to betray a mutual friend...
(I really wonder how she didn´t react about the pee story, there is even a video confirming it...)
Have you guys actually checked out the links to the VMJ blog? Suffice it to say, they are not in any way, shape or form a rebuttal to a DNA analysis, but I think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on their attempts at maintaining a tightly held delusion; a Ph. D dissertation could be written on the psychological drives of ardent celebrity worshippers.
What I'm most offended by is the level of hatred toward the high and most likely probability that Mike was gay. I mean it's 2011, what is the big deal if he was gay? It's not their lives. But him being a "straight man" serves some kind of twisted pyscho-pathologic purpose that I think they aren't even aware of. Really sick. Mike would have been better of if he didn't have millons of fans demanding an image of him that was not reality. It had to be stressful for a man of his magnitude to continue the charade of heterosexuality in the public eye.
These people, I feel, know that Mike was not normal with regards to healthy adult relationships. They know that there was no women, and they know that he showed absolutely no interest in women. They also know that he had boy books and nude men books, and that there was semen in his own mattress. They know that he was preoccupied with children, in particular boys of a specific age, and they no that they can name his special friends more easily than his "girlfriends". and they know that he settled two child molestation allegations for millions.
Anyone not blinded by idol worship can see plainly what he was. But they can't. They find ways to explain away the unexplainable, by repeating a delusion over and over again until the delusion becomes solidified in their minds and it replaces the brain's feeble attempt at rationality. "He was private, that's why you never saw his girlfriends!", "His insurance forced him to settle!", "Sneddon set him up!", "Mike slept on the floor and the kids slept in the bed", "The semen was saliva, and it was planted" (LOL at that one), "Those books were gifts and he never read them".
All of those explanations are farcical, especially given scientific evidence showing otherwise. Desiree is lampooned as being on shaky ground because she has written 3 posts on this gay matter, but the fans fail to see that the only reason she has written 3 posts is because of their inability to get the facts straight (they're saying it's saliva or skin flakes or hair for God's sake!). Their delusions are ever strengthening and after their momentary laspe in drone fan thinking when they saw the irrefutable scientific fact that he had two semen stains from other men on his mattress, they quickly formed new delusions to assuage the uneasiness of such a revelation, even if such delusions are laughable and factually inaccurate.
I think those posts Desiree linked are hilarious and worth a read, if only for a good laugh.
Or you could just read the comments...true psychosis on display.
Desiree, please don't become disheartened by the personal attacks. at the end of the day, this is a freedom of speech issue. But I wonder why they care so much about him, it's not like he was MLK or Gandhi.
J-M-H,
I believe the problem isn´t exactly homophobia. I saw may fans claiming that Michael had deny many and many times being gay and the offense there isn´t calling him gay but a liar, because he denied it so much, so anyone who call him gay is calling him also a liar.
But the fact is...he was a liar. For God´s saké, he said he only had two cirurghies and Bkanket´s mother were black! Anyone lies of course but he lied on EVIDENT things!
Do you know what really upsets me? That rabid fans, as you said, use the excuse that Michael was a private man so nobody saw the women in his life...but when they want to refute his homosexuality, they claim things like "I never saw him flirting with a man! If he was gay, the most followed man in the world,it would be known by now!"
Oh really?
So why nobody saw the girlfriends?
He was very followed, right?
Are the girls invisible?
Ricky Martin had girls claiming to be his, too. It´s funny how MJ fans mocked RM fans because they thought that was the media that wanted Ricky to be gay. All fans are the same. The media is always responsible for their idols downfall.
I rememeber reading a MJ fan saying that she was shocked when George Michael confessed his homosexuality. It´s a proof that in reality, MJ fans can´t see if Michael was or not gay.
My blood boils when I read childish and immature statements trying to proof he wasn´t gay:
-"He claimed many and many times he wasn´t gay. He was straight". (Yeah because our society is very tolerant with gay men and he would admit it happily)
-"He was married TWICE, man! He can´t be gay! And no way a man with three children can be gay!" (Oh the ignorance...actually gay men can have sexual intercourse with women and make children the natural way)
-"Lisa Marie claimed thousands times (really?)they had sex and the marriage was real! He wasn´t gay!" (see point above)
-"Lisa trashed him many times in 2005, if he was gay she would say that!" (WOWWW REALLY?! Of course, it wouldn´t be a great shame for her, just for Michael...duh!!!)
-"If you believe Michael was gay so you didn´t see his videos and performance!" (yeah because acting counts...)
NOW the WORST OF ALL
- "Look that adorable smile! Of course he wasn´t gay!" (For real? Gay men can´t have adorable smiles?)
The three bodyguards worsened the situation. They believed completely in them when they talked about the girlfriends. If they had claimed he was gay...well you know.
I don´t trust that three. They´re trying to brainwash the fans. I can see it in their FB wall. Some examples:
You should know Ian Halperin. He cleared Michael´s name but claimed he was gay. The bodyguards gave the interview the moment his documentary was announced. Once the fans made them friend requests, they began to invite them to groups anti-Halperin and writing on their wall complains against him. I noticed they posted a status against him just AFTER the complaints. Of course they don´t have an agenda against him. The naive fans think they will slam Halperin someday.
After Jason´s and Klein affair, it was claimed that the three bodyguards said to ABC that Jason and Klein were lying, they will appear again in ABC and interesting enough, they gave more details about the girls. One of them is called "friend" lol and had an european accent.Of course if it did not happened they would never talk about the "friend".
Now I ask, if they really know Michael wasn´t gay...why didn´t they slammed Klein and Jason BEHIND a camera and publicly, there and now?
Though Jason lied, that three surely have no clue about Michael´s sexuality.
I never really had any respect for Michael Jackson until I was forced to sit through a concert DVD of his while on a long bus trip in the Philippines. To my surprise I found myself enjoying it quite a bit. Gay or not, the man could certainly put on a show.
Desiree I believe you are a middle age male pedophile member of NAMBLA using MJs' name to get attention/exposure for the main purpose of this blog, Online Child Erotica. This blog reads more like a pedophiles' fantasy, rather than an exposé of MJ so called deeds.
Since the laws against online child porn are strict and will surely throw your ass in jail if you were to publish such, you use this form to under handily spread online child erotica, the laws in that area are still very vague. But you are going to be exposed and imprisoned as you should be. You can't be left loose in society, kids are not safe with you free out there. As we all know your kind never gets "rehibilated" only more sneakier.
Please Desiree do tell; how did 20 something black chick with no resources get all these (I believe fake) "documents" and so called (fake) "information". If you got this stuff so easy why hadn't every news organization on earth got and published this stuff? (they would kill anyones' mama to break news with this). I think you are a front for NAMBLA, I believe they are the resources behind this blog. Even more so since nobody's has ever heard of you before. You (MANBLA) will be called to account.
Side note: Male DNA comes from a male whether it comes from spit, skin, blood... scientific mechanisms have long since developed markers to determine sex from any DNA source, even a toenail.
You are being used and surly will be used up by NAMBLA. Your work here is pure fiction/fantasy. We are still wondering how you got the "info" and public exposure so fast on this blog? But then you admit you write fiction. Be assured we will find out and report findings to proper authorities. Hope they (NAMBLA) are paying you lots, lawyers are expensive. As for your 15 minutes on fame, dear your 15 seconds have long since passed. However we are monitoring this site for NAMBLA 15 minutes of slip ups.
Jodan Chandler all grown..with all that money to live it up!
http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/time-flies-when-youre-living-off-of-michael-jacksons-money/
We don't care if Desirée is a 20 y/o girl or a lorry driver called Sam, and you shouldn't either. What matters is the incontestable proofs and intelligent arguments that she is showing us. But I understand you can't question Desirée's findings, so you try to discredit her accusing her of being another person and a Nambla supporter. In that regard, I've never read her making excuses for Mjs behavior with kids, UNLIKE FANS. I've read her supporting Sneddon prosecution, UNLIKE FANS. So maybe you should reconsider that actually is fans who are acting like Nambla PRs, parroting all over the internet the exact same things your Messiah (and Nambla members) say about sleepovers with children.
You are so naïve that you think she will be scared because you are threatening her with lawsuits, LOL. Who will sue her... Fantômas? Fans are so infantile... and desperate.
Tell me, why are you so worried of a humble site exposing the truth about Michael? Is Desiree ruining your masturbatory fantasies over a cadaver? Please, go to therapy and do the world a favour.
I'm sure you are so pissed because you know that she is right.
The DNA was extracted from semen stains. You know, semen... or should I say “duck butter”. Maybe we must talk to you in the same language your Messiah used for you to get a clue.
TruthExposed:
Calling me a NAMBLA member is nothing more than a childish ad hominem attack. Unlike the myriad of Michael Jackson fans that have went so far as to slander/libel my character because they disagree with my blog entries, I have a 100 Things About Me page wherein you can see my picture and read about me.
Where are the pages that show who they are? How do we know these Michael Jackson fans who believe Michael's behavior is so innocent aren't NAMBLA supporters? As Susana said, Michael Jackson fans and NAMBLA pedophiles believe it is okay to sleep in the bed with unrelated boys.
The majority of people disbelieve this and, yet, as in some topsy turvy universe, Michael's detractors are labeled the pedophiles! Insanity.
I have nothing to hide. I am a 20-something black 'chick'. There is no funding behind this blog. None of the documents are faked. I've talked to people in the know; whether you believe me or not, that is your problem.
The documents cited and linked to on this site are available for public perusal. Granted, many Michael Jackson fans do not know how to access these documents on the site as efficiently as I do, but they are not fake.
'Fake' would give you peace, wouldn't it? Too bad. There's nothing on this blog that is child erotica. It is astounding that you'd think simply telling the truth about Michael Jackson's predilection for boys is akin to sexualizing children.
It is even odder to me that Michael Jackson fans can label a person who is clearly NOT a pedophile a pedophile, but they are unable to see the glaring neon signs pointing to Michael's obvious preoccupation with boys. Really?
I find you pretty ridiculous to tell you the truth. Your threats are just as stupid.
(sue) We don't care about you, or your obsession with MJ. We're sure you have seen and had more your share of child sex abuse growing up in your house, and you are to be pitied for that. As for all the other crap you said about us, hon you have no idea who we are, and what we can and have done about people that abuse kids online. This is a NAMBLA front site (who knows maybe aided by Sneddon). WE KNOW THIS IS NAMBLA. Go to the NAMBLA site, go into the URL Rss feeds stamps, and what do you know, this site has a URL feed stamp there (I'm assuming you know how to do this). MJ means less as to our purpose here. Why do you think we were here at such an early hour in the AM? All we do is web search for perverts like desiree, or maybe you if be so. So keep slinging slime at us, we'll cry about that later.
Don't go making fun of people dying b/c you see oh lost one, everybody dies. You could fall dead 5 seconds from now, and no one would care, least of the person you are defending here.
We know you think you are intelligent, and it took you hours to find what you thought were big intelligent words to opine insults at us with, that is truly a testament to your stupidity.
Advice to you now, You had better NOT rape your kids, surly you learned the techniques very well from your home life. But if you go near those kids or any kids for the perverted sex you long for, your ass will be in jail along with this NAMBLA guy that getting off spewing all his nasty fantasies at your all to eager guible mind. This NAMBLA child erotica site will held accountable. This is the end of our communication here. Our actions will speak for here out.
A personal insult to you from the writer. You can suck the DNA out MJs sheets for all I care, you seem to be so hung up on that (Personally I'm an MJ fan and don't think your mouth is clean enough to touch his sheets, but will make an exception if you rinse first b/c you want it so bad). Never heard of "duck butter" hmm.. you must have learned that from your childhood home experience (end insult). Just don't try it on any kids!
Desiree, sorry maybe you are a 20 something black chick, but you are still a front for NAMBLA. We didn't care to read the facts about you. The docs are fake and that gives me no peace. They were given to you to by someone who's playing you. That's your problem, hope don't mind serving time for that person. Now no more from us, off to put your child abusing perverted ass in jail.
TruthExposed:
There are two explanations for that screed: you are either young or stupid. No, wait, a third explanation: you are both.
Don't you find it a tad bit hypocritical to make fun of Susana--or anyone--for being abused (I don't know if she was ever abused, or anyone here) and then accuse me of being a NAMBLA front and warning me (and her) not to molest kids?
What the hell is going on here?
By the way, if there is a feed from NAMBLA or to NAMBLA or whatever the hell you are talking about, I have no idea how it got there. I am just a college student who writes about this on the side. I am not being paid by anyone.
These documents are real; only the people who hate what they say claim they are falsified. I am a fiction writer, but that has nothing to do with these posts, and this Michael Jackson = pedophile saga is one I would never be able to come up with on my own.
Fact is stranger than fiction.
I think you should do us all a favor and stick to your medication. There is no 'we' with regard to you, TruthExposed; you are on your own here.
No one will be throwing me in jail anytime soon, as I have not broken the law.
You wish there was no we.
OMG you really don't know you are all in with NAMBLA, you pathetic fool. Who are your pusher "mans"? No homey you are the totally stupid one, and you will see how stupid. You are being used, you dumb nitwit, by NAMBLA. Played b/c they know a fish when they see one. When they are done with you they will toss your anything for publicity hungry ass into the ocean of trouble and not even stick around to watch you drown. Now don't throw any names at me or I'll show how "stupid" and medicated I am. You know Jack about the trouble I can Bring ON YOU clown. And you make it so easy with all the info you on yourself. Now try me. Your ass is aiding the perverts at NAMBLA and you are to dumb, jealous, trying to get attention to realize it. You are a gaugeable hearted jealous bottom feeder.
Why do you people always bring out these old worn out sayings "medication" when you are caught in you own trap. Please try and be original of steal some other clique. Hope you are not on college loans or grants, felons lose all those Gov handouts.
Of course you are to stupid to go into the URL feed and see the facts, all you know how to do on web is post the stuff your puppet masters allow to post. Dumb ass. BTW the reason I said that stuff about sue is b/c the skank came after me, no one gets away with that. Hell she got off easy, but you won't you slime, if you come back with more name calling at me!
(to Mrs D, my boss, beraz, bakarrik sentitzen naiz nahi pertsona hori nor ekin neska aurre ezagutu).
If you, oh lost in stupid one, don't think aiding NAMBLA in online child abuse is law breaking, then you are as dumb as your trainers think you are. Please don't make it too easy by calling me anymore names! I love a challenge. Now I'm truly finished on this site now. You will not publicly hear from me anymore. But you will hear from US i assure you. No matter what you say about me. At least as far as you know child abuse advocate desiree. Sorry it took a while to get back to you, you see I'm bust web searching for other sites like yours.
Mrs Sentitzen D Beraz, ez da mingarria gure kausa espero dut! Hala bada deuseztatuko dut.
TruthExposed, there is a difference between exposing Michael as the pedophile he was and supporting his insistence there was nothing wrong with little-boys sleepovers. NAMBLA supports what Michael did. The worshipers at the Church of Michael Jackson also support what Michael did. You, and people like you, have a lot in common with NAMBLA. Desiree's blogs have been written to show her findings, after her careful research of the documents that are publicly available.
The ridiculous but hostile accusations you have levied at Desiree reveal you are not only young and stupid, but you are dangerous. I'm glad I don't personally know you. I would be in fear of my physical safety.
It looks like the Michael Jackson fans are so terrified of what is being proven on this blog that they are hysterically trying to silence people through psychotic threats, transparent projection and intimidation.
Len,
Well said.
This person needs a padded cell.
reading all the comments 8and the posts) i have to say that I'm 100% sure u all do not even try to understand Michael's fans.
Michael HAD vitiligo(it's even written in the autopsy). for the sexuality : FOR he was so effeminate and so he was gay, for OTHERS he was the opposite. Then NO ONE can really say how many plastic surgeries he had: not the fans, and NOT u.
@opinionation the fans are not terrified: they are annoyed OF BEING insulted. Point.
@Len: associating us to NAMBLA it's an insult, starting for the fact that u do not know as in person.
Go on insulting the others (and of course pretending to know the truth when in truth u don't) enjoy that and do not expect the others insulting u of course....
Bye bye folks and get a life.
Mercy2,
When the FBI files were released, I became curious and read them. They proved Michael neither innocent nor guilty. They did, however, raise a lot of questions that Michael's behavior was less than savory. By this time, I had already learned he did molest little boys and the music industry was well aware of it. Even his own family knew it.
What intrigued me the most were Michael's hardcore fans. Instead of noticing the read flags and saying nothing, wild posts were made, screaming the files proved him innocent. Time and time, again, I saw these people use the words "innocent", "pure", "angel", and phrases, such as "a beautiful angel sent from god on a mission to teach the world about L.O.V.E." I became intrigued with them and noticed the peculiar claims they made so adamantly about somebody they never knew. I finally decided to ask one of them why this particular celebrity was so obsessively important to them, in so many words. I was actually very polite because I genuinely wanted to understand. Instead of getting a reasonable answer, I was virtually attacked.
After that, I decided these people were mentally ill and very deluded with a masturbation fantasy about a dead man's public image that had nothing to do with the real person. Because I don't suffer fools, after being made to step into the Land of No Return, I lost what little patience I had. The lot of you really do have a lot in common with NAMBLA because of your insistence Michael's little-boy sleepovers were pure and innocent.
Look at what you just wrote. Is that the sort of commentary a sane person would make? If you actually read the links Desiree has generously posted, you would see Michael really was a pedophile. Your mind would probably also snap because you can't argue with legal documents, and the idea Michael would never have wanted you in his bed, unless you were a little boy, would burst your fantasy bubble of what you wanted him to be. Do you have anything legitimate to counter aforementioned documents, posted on the Santa Barbara County website for all to see? If you post links to the fan sites, I will laugh.
P.S. I don't have the access to see your IP address, but Desiree does. I'd love to know if you are the same crazy, drive-by troll.
Marcy2:
What can I say...you sound ignorant! So sad, but true.
Len:
You'd be surprised (well, maybe not); these fans do argue with legal documents... Really, it is batshit insane that they believe a 30+ year veteran Prosecutor would lie in his court documents.
These people think the semen was saliva. I wish I was kidding.
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/first-look-at-dna-part-1-the-mattress-and-mattress-pad/
Desiree,
I just read the link you posted, and here is what I have to say about it, as well as the mentally unstable person who wrote it.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
*gasps for air*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The last time I read the legal documents, the word "semen" was written on them, in easy-to-understand typeface. How did they see the word "saliva" on the documents?
Perhaps some of them need better perscription reading lenses. (I'd loan them mine; they're excellent.) Or the fear of having to find another celebrity to masturbate over is so strong, immediate denial has set in. I guess it's too emotionally frightening to face reality, which would kill the joy of doing "knee time" in front of the statue of their new messiah in his gold pants.
I suppose my mother would want me to apologize to them for being so mean, but after being crucified for asking a question on a fan blog, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and a large axe to grind.
It really is crazy, Len.
These people make this issue a lot more complicated than it has to be. I don't understand how people can spin, spin, spin something that is so black and white and, as you noted, in easy-to-read font.
And these people think I am the crazy, mentally ill person.
It's like a through the looking glass world.
But what do you expect? These people write for a blog that is called 'Vindicate MJ'; they believe in their heart of hearts that Michael Jackson was not only a completely maligned and tortured messiah but that they can clear his name.
That is pretty insane, Len. Maybe that is an understatement.
The writer of that post and the head blog owner are women in their 50s or older. Then they have some other people, all, I believe, you are older than I am.
So, to me, it's a bit strange that people you would think have walked on the earth for so many decades would be capable of rational and reasonable thought.
Apparently that is not the case!
I can tell from my counters that not a lot of people have clicked the links to go over to their site. I can understand, of course, because it is just a silly site. But I had wanted you all, or whoever ventures to my blog, to go read their's in the importance of openness.
They think I am the Devil. That I knowingly lie. This is not even me being hyperbolic: they literally believe I know that everything I say is a lie.
Also, one of the writers, Blaine, believes I only write pieces that are my opinion and are neither cogent nor lucid, nor do they avoid what he calls '1+1=3' logic.
This leaves me puzzled because I always try to check my bias at the door, even though I feel Michael Jackson is guilty. I could easily just link documents on this blog with small, bland captions, but what would be the fun of that, Len? ;-D
I will say, though, I get a lot of compliments, intentional and unintentional, about my writing. They hate this site so much--for some bizarre reason!--because I have a seeming way with words.
I guess these fans are useful for something. They'll block your comments over there if you get to 'crazy', if you know what I mean. It's total cowardice. I don't do that here, although some fans in other places accused me of it.
But we aren't dealing with clear thinking people, but a mob of fanatics. Throwing emotion into the mix of this pack lowers the collective IQ to double digits. They actually are very sensitive to criticism to Jacko. I guess I used to be that way, too, when I thought he was innocent.
Thank God I was never that far-gone...
Here's another link; they pasted a private email from me:
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/an-open-letter-to-haters-about-the-semen-subject-stalinist-regime-and-michael-jacksons-problem-in-disciplining-children/
I mean, Jesus Christ. Do they really think I am making this shit up?
I hope people who come to this site actually learn something, at least to question this '100 percent INNOCENT!!' nonsense. All of this semen and homosexuality and pedophilia business is just really straight forward to me.
Simplicity is so important.
I hope the fans wake up one day. Their disbelief really does not change the fact that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
And, you know, they think I am CRAZY for thinking Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and Omer Bhatti were molested since they denied it. But have they ever heard of a little thing called 'lying'?
I am 100 percent certain he molested Brett Barnes. 100 percent. When I have time, I will write another piece on him.
But, again, Ricky Martin went through the same stuff Michael Jackson did. So did Clay Aiken. So did so many other gay male entertainers since the beginning of pop culture history. The biggest difference, I feel, is that Michael was religious, even after he was ex-communicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses. That tie kept him from coming out.
I still believe he preferred boys, of course, but by his book collection he liked men as well. Perhaps if he had been freed, he would have came out.
Another note about the 'semen', these fans believe that if female DNA was found, ie. secretions, it means Michael Jackson was having sex with women. They would scream this from the rooftops. (By the way, some of them believe that it is possible it was there and that the DAs hid it...*shakes head*)
Hell, if they found saliva that was later karyotyped to be female, they would say he was bedding women!
But if it's semen? Nope. There has to be a million other reasons outside of sexual contact for Michael to have the semen stains of two different males on his mattress and the semen of a third male in underwear Jacko kept and in bedsheets he kept.
Oy, I don't get the hypocrisy.
If they had found the female stuff, I'd say, 'Wow, he was having sex with women.' Of course, he would still be guilty of molesting boys but at least he was 'straight' in terms of his adult sexuality.
But they found semen. And these fans can't stand it!
They hate me and they think I'm an idiot, which is pretty ridiculous. I don't understand why they don't flock to my site and refute me. Instead, these people just slander me on other forums and blogs.
Ha ha, I've arrived... *shakes head*
Desiree,
Goodness, the Vindicate MJ site... the proof they offer is nothing but conspiracy theory. (And citing performance or lyrics as proof is silly: witness George Michael's very straight-appearing late 80s/early 90s songs and videos.)
So when you offer documentation and cross-referencing, you're just a lying hater? Crazy. Initially you were a straight-forward fan. It's apparent that in trying to figure out the truth, you've come to your conclusions based on actual research. Of course, the more you research, the more actual proof you find...
For those people who think someone who's been molested would automatically tell about it (and so a person denying *must* be telling the truth):
It's extremely difficult to denounce someone, regardless.
Then, too, one must consider that often a molester makes the child feel important, loved, and secure. Often the molester may be a close family friend or relative. Often the molester is widely regarded as a "good" person.
The molester who uses coercion rather than force may believe he's not harming the child -- which confuses the child, as well, as to whether he was complicit and maybe guilty himself.
*Nothing* changes the fact that molestation is wrong wrong wrong.
This boy's quote makes my heart ache:
"As for me, I'm quite lost in all of this and just want to cry when I think about it. I wonder whether I could love my father in spite of everything. I have to force myself to say I don't love him. And I feel guilty myself. Do I love him? Do I not love him? It's hard to figure out."
(from /Don't Tell: The Sexual Abuse of Boys/ by Michel Dorais)
Keep up the good work, Desiree! Truth is truth.
(p.s. someone thinks you're working for NAMBLA? WTF!? That makes no sense at all.)
Desiree,
Be flattered.
Obviously, your well-researched posts are spilling the apple cart of the worshipers at the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson and causing a frenzy of fear. Who else are they going to think about when the touch themselves "down there?"
Let's look at the lunacy of rabid fans' spin machine. Even though the legal documents show the prosecuting attorney and the person involved in collecting the mattress samples, mattress pad, sheets, and underwear said there was semen on them, somehow, this has been tranformed into saliva. With this (il)logic, Michael and his "special" friends seem to have left their drool on an awful lot of items. The insanity is causing me to grin from ear to ear, and the image of all that drool is making my stomach queasy.
Posting somebody's private email on a public site demonstrates a lack of integrity. But what dignified person would hold onto an unfounded belief there was nothing wrong with Michael's little-boy sleepovers, especially when there is so much proof his behavior was untoward? And if the fan sites are truly run by older people, this makes the obsession even more mentally unsound. Celebrity worship is for adolescent girls.
Denial is a strange and curious emotion.
Keep up the delicously wicked work!
Michael HAD vitiligo(it's even written in the autopsy).
Michael was a black man with exceptionally light skin so the autopsy report had to explain it somehow, so they just said he had vitiligo since that’s the disease him and his sycophant Dr. Klein claimed he had. I doubt the people conducting the autopsy wanted the PR nightmare of accusing a beloved black man who just died of skin bleaching, especially since it had no relevance to his cause of death. The autopsy did not independently verify that he had vitiligo, and if he had vitiligo, we don’t know whether it was hereditary or the consequence of damage done by years of bleaching.
But based on all the other cosmetic changes Michael made, and based on the fact that all three children he chose to raise have no visible black ancestry, I strongly suspect that Michael lost his color by choice.
Opinionation,
Didn't the Jacksons demand a second autopsy? Do you know if this took place? And are the autopsy results publicly available from the first autopsy or the second one?
I'm prone to side with you, on this one. I still remember the interview with Quincy Jones in which he said he didn't believe Michael had vitiligo. He added at the end he'd been around for a long time in the music industry and had seen it all. Even though Michael's rabid fans screamed liar and other insults, I think Quincy knew more about Michael than they did.
But, again, Ricky Martin went through the same stuff Michael Jackson did. So did Clay Aiken. So did so many other gay male entertainers since the beginning of pop culture history. The biggest difference, I feel, is that Michael was religious, even after he was ex-communicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses. That tie kept him from coming out.
I think the biggest reason Michael could not tell the world he was gay (which I strongly suspect he was) is because the children he shared his bed with were male and he needed the world to believe that sleeping arangement was pure and innocent which is why I believe he worked so hard to convince the world he was child-like. If enough people saw him as as a full developed gay adult, more people would suspect a sexual motive behind these sleepovers, since the children were male.
If however the kids he was sleeping with were female, it would be advantageous to have people think he was gay because a gay men have littke sexual interest in females and thus can be trusted to share the same bed with them. But the children Michael wanted to be with were male, and thus he needed the world to think he was straight, and it also helped to convince them he was child-like himself so they wouldn't question his desire to be around kids.
I remember during the 1993 interview with Oprah, Oprah said that the thing she found so fascinating about Michael was that he had this child-like image, but obviously a child did not create that empire. Oprah had noticed the paradox; on the one hand Michael is shrewd calculating savvy business man, but he expects us to believe he has the mind of an innocent ten year old. It didn't add up.
Didn't the Jacksons demand a second autopsy? Do you know if this took place?
I read that there was a second autopsy requested by the family done a day or so after the first one but the results were not disclosed.
And are the autopsy results publicly available from the first autopsy or the second one?
I doubt the second one are available, but this looks like the first one:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/michael-jackson-autopsy-report
I'm prone to side with you, on this one. I still remember the interview with Quincy Jones in which he said he didn't believe Michael had vitiligo. He added at the end he'd been around for a long time in the music industry and had seen it all. Even though Michael's rabid fans screamed liar and other insults, I think Quincy knew more about Michael than they did.
I think there was also a quote from Cher that she heard Michael was planning a massive transformation and shortly after that, his skin got lighter and lighter.
Also, the fact that he tattooed a dark color on his scalp to hide bald spots tells me he was quite comfortable altering his skin color to fool the public so bleachimg himself white and then claiming to be a victim of a disease sounds consistent with his behavior.
And, you know, they think I am CRAZY for thinking Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and Omer Bhatti were molested since they denied it. But have they ever heard of a little thing called 'lying'?
It's extremely common for sexual abuse victims to deny they were abused because of the shame and stigma surrounding sexual abuse, because they may have bonded with the abuser and don't want to get him in trouble, and because the abuser will often make them feel like a willing partner who was complicit in their own abuse. It's especially common for male victims of sexual abuse to deny they were abused because of the stigma of homosexuality and because males are expected to be tough, not victims.
So even under normal circumstances, we would expect people to deny this kind of abuse, but if the alleged abuser is as rich, powerful and loved as Michael Jackson, the incentive to deny it goes up by orders of magnitude, because who wants such a stigmatized taboo personal trauma to be exploited by the international media, who wants their sexuality questioned on the global stage, who wants to get into a legal or public relations war with someone that powerful, and who wants to be the victim of constant death threats by thousands of obsessed mentally unstable fans.
Opinionation,
I agree with you on the gay thing. But simply, Mike was a pedophile and that was his true sexual orientation. I think gay is just secondary, or it's just an adjective used to describe his pedophilia.
I had a thought: Would the fans be as vociferous in their defense of Mike's "sleepovers" and his bed issues if he had been doing this with 10-13 year old girls? I think that they would be a lot more skeptical of him, because it is ingrained in our heads that men should not be sleeping with little girls and that if this does occur, it might be criminal. I think Mike would have been ripped even harder in life than he was if it had been girls and he was insisting that these were innocent sleepovers and that he wouldn't stop them--just like he said about the boy sleepovers. The fans wouldn't be able to delude themselves about his suspect conduct if little girls had accused him of molestation, rather than little boys. The fans have an agenda, though, to keep the up with the "MJ wasn't a pedo" business because they don't want him to be gay. They know that, in their hearts, if he was gay, the allegations of child molestation are more believable. Not that being gay means you are a pedophile, it's just that many true pedophiles happen to be homosexual, or as Desiree has put it, it's a gender distinction, not an age distinction, that makes you straight or gay. Polanski's treatment aside, I think that Mike's being a pedo for girls would have been heavily frowned on and he would have been a pariah amongst his peers.
But simply, Mike was a pedophile and that was his true sexual orientation. I think gay is just secondary, or it's just an adjective used to describe his pedophilia.
I think both gay and pedophilic are adjectives used to describe his alleged sexual orientation. The former describes his alleged gender preference and the latter describes his alleged age preference. I'm not sure it makes sense to say one is primary and the other is secondary, anymore than it makes sense to say an object's length is its primary size, and its width is secondary. They're two different dimensions of physical size, just as gender preference and age preference are two different dimensions of sexuality.
One might speculate about a third dimension about MJ's preferences and that's race. With the exception of Emmanuel Lewis, none of the kids MJ formed close friendships with were black (unless you count Jordy who is probably less than 20% black, though this is allegedly cancelled out by him also being 25% East Asian), however most were not blond blue eyed Nordic types either. All three of the boys who actually accused MJ of making sexual advances (Jordy Chandler, Gavin, Jason Francia were Mediterranean in their coloring) as were many of the boys he befriended (Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Omer Bhatti, the Cascios) as was one of the kids he ended up raising (Blanket).
This is total speculation, but perhaps MJ liked to be around kids who were light in color, but not as light as he had become. Perhaps it made him feel feminine to be the fairest person in the room, thus he surrounded himself with kids who were darker than him but not too dark and still Caucasoid (thus Mediterranean skin colors). Could this also be why he chose to live in the Middle East during an extended period after his trial?
On the other hand it's possible that MJ liked kids who were as white as possible, but feared the public would revolt if a black man was hanging out with Nordic looking kids, so he played it safe by hanging out with kids who were a touch on the dark side.
I think Mike would have been ripped even harder in life than he was if it had been girls and he was insisting that these were innocent sleepovers and that he wouldn't stop them--just like he said about the boy sleepovers.
I think if the sleepovers were with little girls, he would have been ripped even harder by his fans, because many would believe he had sexual intent because it would fit the fan narrative that he was straight.
However I think the general public would have been more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and a lot of entertainers would have poked fun by saying that MJ couldn't be doing anything sexual with those girls because he's obviously gay.
So while I agree with you that there is more outrage when a girl is molested than when a boy is, I think the public would believe MJ was innocent if he was accused by a girl, simply because many view him as gay, so allegations of heterosexual pedophilia would not fit their narrative and thus would be dismissed.
On the other hand if it were a heterosexual seeming black male celebritry (i.e. Mike Tyson, 50 cent) sharing his bed with little Caucasiod girls, you can bet the public would have formed a lynch mob. However if either of those men were accused of molesting boys, the public would probably dismiss it because they don't seem gay.
The least outrage would probably come if the alleged pedophile was a white woman celebrity, and her alleged victims were black boys. If anything, the boys would probably be blamed for raping her.
Opinionation and Jessica,
You both have posted interesting comments, as food for thought, especially in regards to Michael being effeminate. I'm going to do some more mulling over it. Opinionation, I especially agree with what you posted, in regards to how men cope with childhood sexual abuse. The men in my support group had a much harder time addressing it.
One of my pet peeves with the western world is I have noticed when priests molest little boys, it makes headline news. Yet, when little girls get molested, nobody really pays attention, unless the incident is so bad, it can't be ignored. This is why I was glad people in Chile were outraged enough to speak in public, recently, when they found out priests in the area had been molesting girls.
I have also obsereved how the public chooses to react depends on who did the molestation.
This brings me back to Michael. I don't think being effeminate would have mattered if he had been conducting "sleepovers" with little white girls. In spite of his surgically altered face and bleached skin, he was still a black man. White America, especially White Male America, would never have overlooked that.
And tragically, Opinionation, you are right. If a white adult woman sexually abused black little boys, the boys would probably be accused of rape. America has a long, long, long way to go, still.
remember the book found in MJ's possession at Neverland, "Man, A Sexual Study of Man" with Text by Larry Stevens?
One need not wonder anymore about the inclinations of Mr Stevens considering I've found another book he authored in the '70s.
It's called "Boys together : a psychological sex study of sex between boys (illustrated) ; excerpts from case histories". The cover leaves no doubt in my mind that MJ knew who (or what) Larry Stevens was. The cover says:
for the private contemplation of ADULTS ONLY!
ILLUSTRATED WITH ACTUAL PHOTOS
A Psychological Sex Study of Sex Between Boys
What do they do?
What happens when boys get together for sex?
How do they do it?
What does it feel like?
I wouldn't be surprised if MJ had a copy of this tucked away somewhere. It's quite a transparent attempt to dress up a pedophilia book as a "study".
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0007HMBP8/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1
Opinionation,
I agree with you about the gay pedophilia. Absolutely. But I don't think it would have mattered that Mike was "effeminate" or not if he was sleeping with little white girls. As Len said, he is black at the end of the day--and a man--so they would be very suspicious. The lost childhood argument holds more weight when he was hanging with boys rather than if he was hanging out and having sleepovers with little girls. At least he could say that he was "having the boyhood I never had"...not so much with girls.
Len,
I think that when boys get molested it makes more headlines because the public, rightly or wrongly, sees male molestation as "out of the norm" and it's more shocking in that sense; we don't really hear too much about it happening, as opposed to little girls getting abused. But boys get abused too, and statistics don't really show the actual numbers of male victims since males, as we all know, don't talk about it and disclose it to law enforcement as readily as female victims. Girls are protected much more, in my opinion, since we as a society always tell women to tell someone if they've been beaten, raped, abused, etc, because we are allowed to show emotion and be vulnerable, while men have to hold all pain and heartache inside. If we could change that gender distinction, I think a lot more men would come forth and get treatment for past (and present) abuse inflicted on them. We can only pray that things will go that route. Also I think that the media makes a sick distinction between female molesters and male molesters. Joe Schmoe will get locked up for 10-15 years, while Debra Lefave and Marykay Letourneau will be "glamorized" as "awakening a boy's sexual desires". It's sick. I remember watching Tucker Carlson on TV and he was talking about a female teacher scandal, and he said basically that the boy was lucky and that it's better for a horny 14 year old boy to do it with a hot teacher than with a 14 year old girl. I literally wanted to kick my TV! This is the mindset that prevents boys from coming forward.
Alby,
That is an interesting link! Fans always down play that book like it didn't matter and the only think that showed Mike's true sexual orientation was the multitude of hetero porn in his house (are they forgetting the semen on his mattress?). But he had a few gay books as well, not to mention his treasured boy books. Larry Stevens is obviously a sick man, and "Man, A Sexual Study of Man" is a very very rare antique gay publication, and Mike obviously took pains to acquire it (or someone bought it for him knowing full well that he'd enjoy it, much like the "fan" "Rhonda" did with The Boy). Mike also spent $325 on The Chop Suey Club, which was published in November 1999 and only had one edition, and it features model Peter Johnson when he was 16 years old. The fans are blind.
So Mike had three books written by pedos: Man, A Sexual Study of Man, and the boy books by Georges St. Martin, aka Martin Swithinbank, convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member. It's important to see these authors other works to get an idea of their approach on life. They always say that you can know a lot about a person by looking at the books on their shelves. So far, it's not looking too good for Mike.
It’s amazing how much denial his fans can be in. Here we have an extremely feminine man who personifies every gay stereotype known to man, who admits to sharing his bed with boys, gets repeatedly accused of molesting boys, and according to folks here, possessed gay porn (and straight porn) and had the semen of other males in his bed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots.
But what really convinced me that MJ was guilty was the fact that Tom Sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that Jordan Chandler was able to draw a picture of MJ’s erect penis which included a dark spot that was also present in the same relative location as the photos that were taken of MJ’s penis at a later date to confirm if Jordan’s description was accurate. According to Diane Dimond this spot is only visible when MJ’s penis is lifted as in sexual arousal.
Fans claim that Jordan’s description did not match, but yet Tom Sneddon is willing to declare under penalty of perjury that it did (at least in a very significant way) and was confident enough to want to show the jury the photos and drawings, while the defense was so worried about this evidence they convinced the judge not to let the jury see it. If this evidence exonerated MJ as the fans claim, you would think the defense would want the jury to see it. I wonder if this evidence will ever be leaked or if it will just stay locked up forever.
It’s also interesting that just a month after the photographs of MJ’s private anatomy was taken, the case was settled for a spectacular amount of money (fans say $15 million, but Diane Dimond adds in additional monies for the parents and their legal fees and comes up with $25 million which would be around $37 million when inflation adjusted). Fans cite a court document saying MJ was forced to settle by his insurance company but I think it was MJ’s decision because Tom Messereau said MJ settled because he got bad advice and MJ himself said he settled to avoid an OJ like circus
In a way I can’t blame the fans for thinking MJ is innocent. Afterall there were a lot of people who wanted to see MJ fail, as there always are when a black achieves too much money and adulation. The Arvizos did not seem credible, and as Christopher Hitchens says, nothing is more helpful to a guilty person, than a false, malicious, and disprovable allegation.
And of course the fans will believe MJ is innocent when they have someone who seems as intelligent and ethical as Tom Messereau articulately explaining how MJ was just a child-like innocent victim of extortion and media bias and telling the fans exactly what they want to hear in one media forum after another.
So the real question if not how can his fans ignore all the evidence, but rather how can someone with Tom Messeareu’s apparent intelligence and integrity be so deluded? Does he actually believe what he says, or is he just an opportunist eager to portray himself as the savior of a persecuted black humanitarian, rather than just a slick lawyer who helped a pedophile go free? Perhaps he is both.
Jessica
You are being far too kind to MJ. For a start, you haven't included Wilhelm von Gloeden, author of another book of MJ's - "The Golden Age of Neglect". Wilhelm was an avowed boylover, so famous in his pedophilia was he that NAMBLA has a page on their site dedicated to him!
http://www.nambla.org/gloeden.htm
"His love of boys was shared not only by his high ranking friends who visited with great frequency, but also by the two powerful Catholic priests who served the region. He and his youths had constant access to the great homes of the priests, as settings for photos by day and for marathon sexual revels, with the priests as participants, by night."
Wow.
These are the kind of people MJ admired.
Sorry, Wilhelm von Gloeden's book was titled "Taormina".
So much porn at MJs house I got mixed up!
Alby:
Thank you for the information on Gloeden and on Larry Stevens. I planned to write an expansive piece regarding Michael Jackson's books and this adds more grist for the mill.
Thank you! Why fans believe that these books don't matter--or matter less than the heterosexual porn--is beyond me. As I noted in my 'Addendum to Michael was gay' post, there are verifiable reports that he showed explicit images to boys.
Also, the 'straight' images on his computers... Note, multiple computers. The reason the images were not brought in into evidence was because they could not be verified as to who actually looked at them.
We don't know if Michael was drooling over images of naked women. I think it is interesting that there were tons of Barely Legal magazines, wherein the 'women' look young. And this is an accused pedophile, too. The DAs postured that these were preferred because he wanted to show young boys what girls around their age looked like.
I should note: he also had a book called 'In Search of Young Beauty', which features 'budding' young girls.
I am sure the fans would think it was okay because they are girls (which is sick) but, remember, pedophilia is an attraction to youth, first and foremost, not only boys (that was the Greek model, though, and the vast majority of clinical pedophiles are gay men who like young boys; I won't bother being politically correct).
I will get writing on this books post, as exams, for the moment, are over.
Alby,
I totally forgot about von Gloeden, which is actually a terrible oversight as I've seen the "Taormina" photographs he took, and let's just say, homoerotic art is an understatement. Penises galore! LOL. I thought Mike was supposed to be straight? Yeah right...
opinionation:
First of all, let me say that I agree 100 percent about the white female pedophile and black boy victims scenario. It's a sad reality.
Also, Michael Jackson's sexuality was this: he was a gay pedophile. He liked males, first and foremost, and was attracted to younger males, under the age of consent, youthful. I believe he could get it up for fully grown men, though.
My belief is that if the fans can mentally accept that Michael Jackson was sexually attracted to males--penis--the allegations of him molesting boys would become more real to them.
This is why they deny the semen evidence. They vehemently deny this evidence! They hate it. But I personally believe Michael Jackson seemed gay, if but only NOT in his latest of years. When he was at his most effeminate and most seemingly gay, this was the time he was with special friends.
I sincerely believe Tom Mesereau believes Jacko is innocent.
Mesereau is a black defender. He goes to a AME church in Los Angeles and he dates black women. He said in an interview that his grandmother always told him that black people were more spiritual than white people. I think he interpreted this (if it was an interpretation, or she meant it) as blacks were more closer to God than whites.
He is a black apologist and Michael Jackson is a great person for someone like him to defend: rich, black, with the most Jesus-like image of anyone around.
Jacko made Mesereau cream his silks.
I think the fans are wrong in their belief that Tom Mesereau is the Third Coming of Christ (Jacko being the Second). Sure, the guy is smart but I don't think he is unbeatable.
They latch onto any Jacko defender like hungry young at a mother's teet. It's pathetic. I told them that I believe--and I do believe this--I could have convicted Michael Jackson.
Tom Sneddon did not fight hard enough, in my opinion. Ably linked an article about the jurors. Three of them believed he was a child molester through and through. The foreman, Paul Rodriguez, thought he could have molested boys, probably did, but he wanted what amounted to smoking gun evidence flashing in neon lights, something you'd never get in a molestation case.
A few of the jurors were fans, even though one of them could not get past the Jason Francia testimony.
So, a conviction was possible. They didn't bring Chris Carter on the stand because the Defense threatened to bring up his criminal charges. Who cares? Put his ass on the stand and let him tell his story!
They made mistake, after mistake. They didn't push hard enough; they weren't organized and innovative in thought.
The reason the Jordie Chandler drawing evidence was not brought in was because Sneddon argued a ridiculous point: that it was proof Michael Jackson was not 'too shy' to take off his clothes. He should have argued that, while all of these boys deny being molested (Brett Barnes is a liar), here was a boy who did not deny it, who, by drawings to police detectives, prove that at the very least, not all of Michael Jackson's sleepovers were innocent fun and games.
They screwed up.
Sure, the fans laugh at my bravado, and I admit I am probably not as learned as Mesereau, but put me in law school and give me an opportunity to get 'up to speed', Jacko would have been in jail.
The People messed up the case. Period.
The Arvizos had flaws, but we do know Michael did give Gavin alcohol and I do believe, because Bob Jones said he saw Michael do this with Jordie Chandler, that Michael licked Gavin's head.
So, the molestation is not impossible. All in all, though, they were poor victims because the idiotic American public believes that all victims have to be squeaky clean with no records. These truisms still stand, though: prostitutes and wives can be raped, and even if someone lies nine times, they can tell the truth the tenth.
Maybe not in a court of law can these withstand a skilled Defense attorney's spin, but they will always be true.
Michael Jackson got away with it. Period.
Desiree,
A friend of mine sued a former employer for sexual harassmet and won. Since she had to go to court, she was coached by her attorney about how to handle the defending attorney as soon as he tried to sidestep the fact the trial was about what the corporation had allowed her boss to do to her.
She was told to say, "I don't understand the question" when questions were asked about her character.
The attorney pointed out he would object on the grounds her character was not what the trial about.
She was told one attorney trick is to speak faster and faster when cross examining somebody. Therefore, she was to pause and think before answering. She was also told to ask for any questions to be repeated.
Her attorney aggressivly pushed through documentation the defending attorney wanted left out of the trial.
When witnesses came onto the stand, her attorney used the same tactic, to keep the court focused on what the trial was really about. Who they were as people and anything they might have previously done or not done was not the point of the trial.
The whole thing was an ugly, traumatizing ordeal and it was painful to watch the impact on her. But in the end, she won because her attorney stuck to his guns by pointing out, every time, the trial was about whether or not her former boss had sexually harassed her.
I think Michael would be sitting behind bars, has you been the prosecuting attorney, too.
Because I handle legal documents in my day job, I've seen it all. Sneddon screwed up, and Michael had a very good attorney who successfully kept a guilty man out of prison.
Desiree and Opinionation,
In regards to Messreau believing Michael was innocent, I am wondering if it is just in regards to this case. He had access to all of the evidence. His current behavior reeks of a curious mix of opportunism and fandom.
Jessica,
You have given me more food for thought. I'd love to get back to you on it.
Sure, the fans laugh at my bravado, and I admit I am probably not as learned as Mesereau, but put me in law school and give me an opportunity to get 'up to speed', Jacko would have been in jail.
Desiree, this reminds of the movie Conviction, where Hillary Swank's character decides to go to finish high school, get a degree, and then go to law school just to prove her brother was innocent of a crime. Watch the trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrPtr0aQx3s
An even better movie would be about you going to law school just to put MJ behind bars. It's too late for that now, but it would it would make for a great Hollywood dramma. LOL!
All in all, though, they were poor victims because the idiotic American public believes that all victims have to be squeaky clean with no records.
And the truth is just the opposite. Many victims of sexual abuse are troubled, dysfunctional, often delinquent kids, because they're the ones who are most vulnerable, they're the ones who come from broken homes, they're the ones with parents who will look the other way when someone's abusing their kids, and they're the ones abusers know will not be believed if they tell.
The real problem with the Arvizos though, is that they had sued JC penny accusing security guards of sexual misconduct, and got a settlement out of it, so when they now accused a rich pop star of sexual misconduct, it was very easy to believe they were just extortionists who made these type of accusations to get money.
So just as MJ's history of being accused of pedophilia made him look like a pedophile, the Arvizos history of alleging sexual misconduct against defendants with deep pockets makes them look like extortionists. It was a wash. I wonder if MJ was smart enough to have selected them precisely because he knew that no one would believe a poor dysfunctional mentally unstable Hispanic family who could easily be tripped up, unlike the rich well educated high IQ Jewish Chandlers.
The second major problem was there was no smoking gun in their case. In the Chandler case, you had the drawing Jordy made of MJ's genitalia which in my opinion was the smoking gun that allowed them to win an enormous settlement. But what smoking gun did Gavin have? There was no DNA belonging to Gavin among the semen stains, and no witness beyond his own family members.
The third major problem was the time line. I don't know the case that well, but I believe Gavin alleged the sexual abuse took place AFTER the Bashir documentary, at a time when MJ was in damage control mode and would presumabley be on his best behavior. It seemed counter-intuitive to most people that MJ would begin molesting someone right after the public uproar over him holding hands with the kid on Bashir's interview. But on the other hand it makes perfect sense. If pedophilia can be an addiction, then addicts are most prone to addictive behavior when they are under stress. Just as Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinski right when he was being investigated by Ken Star, a sex addict under stress often feels compelled to satisfy his immediate compulsion precisely during the times when it is most dangerous to do so, because that's when he needs to alleviate pressure. It's also possible that MJ thought if he's going to suffer a PR disaster over Gavin anyway, he might as well go all the way with him, and may have also thought that it was his last chance to do so, and assumed he would be safe if they could dump the family in Brazil as he allegedly wanted to do. It many ways I think Gavin's story is just too strange to be fabricated, though his mother did seem kind of nutty so that may explain it too.
Opinionation,
I agree that there was definitely credibility issues with the Arizos, but have you read the Statement of Probable Cause linked in the "Addendum to Michael Jackson was gay" post Desiree wrote? The affidavit is based on the initial police interviews that the 3 kids and Janet Arizo gave to the police, and there is some interesting things said in there. I think you should read it, if you haven't already. Star said some stuff about Mike locking him out of the room when he wanted to be alone with Gavin. It just seems so believable. Plus I think it's good to read the witnesses' statements to police when they are fresh, rather after a witness has been prepared by an attorney.
Here's an interesting link from an investigative reporter that interviewed Ray Hultman and jury foreman Paul Rodriguez in October 2005. He says the jurors seemed pretty stupid and didn't know the law, especially since many of them thought Mike was a child molester and had molested boys in the past. They (well, really Paul Rodriguez) didn't even want to consider the nude boy books as circumstantial evidence to Mike's mindset regarding young boys. That's pretty ridiculous.
http://larryharriet.bravehost.com/jouranlism17.html
If you look on the sidebar, you can read Paul Rodriguez's interview, as well.
Jessica,
Thank you for poting that link. What an interesting blog. The interview with Paul Rodriguez was interesting and telling. But it brought to light something sitting in the back of my mind about jury selection.
Having been picked to sit on the jury for selection, the process for keeping and removing potential jurors reveals the motives on the part of both defenise and prosecuting attorneys. For example, the last time I was up for selection, (I was juror # 7.) the reaction to my job in compliance was of great speculation. The judge immediately loved me, the prosecuting attorney's interest was definitely peaked, but the defense attorney did not want me on the jury. The three of them also had a quick conference about it. In the end, in spite of the judge's preference to keep me on the case, the defense attorney dismissed me. Curious, since I would have followed due process of law.
Jurors are hand picked not on the basis of whether or not they will follow due process of law. Instead, they are picked according to whether or not they will favor the side of the prosecution or the defense, depending on the case. I have seen people who should be put behind bars literally get away with murder. I have also seen innocent people slapped with a prison sentence.
That jurors from the 2005 case believe Michael was guilty but voted "not guilty" and why they did puts it into question even more. Why would the foreman not read the evidence? Isn't that what a jury is supposed to do?
I still waiver back and forth on the Arvizo case. I have been told Michael was guilty of the charges; one was a criminologist who has handled child-molestation cases who had read all of the criminal documents. I read the testimonies, especially of the children. In addition, none of them have ever recanted their claims, and to the best of my knowledge, the Arvizos have never accepted money. Given that, as I have said, I am still going to accept that Michael did molest Gavin. At the very least, he was guilty for giving a minor alcohol. The link to the blog you gave us makes me lean even more to Michael's guilt. But once more, I am willing to be proven wrong.
Jessica, before I forget, I'm still forming my thoughts, in regards to what you posted about male versus female sexual abuse and the reactions of others. I'm almost tempted to say there should be a different blog about public reactions to child molestations because I'm concerned we could talk about it for days, and it would sidetrack this particular blog.
Len,
You are exactly right in your explanation of how a jury is hand selected. I have been summoned for jury duty many times and pretty much have gotten dismissed by my answers. However, the last time I was summoned for jury duty, I was actually selected to sit on the jury (which the case was also for child molestation and the accuser was found guilty and sentenced to life). I did not stand up to give any input or answer any questions the last time I was called...as a result, I was selected. It wasn't until later on that I learned the following and have heard such from several people: that as long as you remain quiet during questioning during the jury selection process, they look at your silence and most likely use it to select you to serve on the jury, and that's exactly what happened to me. With that they said the opposite is also true (but not always)... the more opinions you offer and the more questions you answer on your feelings about something, the chances of being selected are slim; because you're too biased,I suppose. So maybe the 'silent' ones are the ones they look for??
As for the foreman, yes, he is supposed to look and read all the evidence available to arrive at a verdict. IDK why he refused to look at the evidence...unless, he was already biased to begin with(siding for the defense) and felt that he could bully those few jurors who truly felt that MJ was guilty based on the evidence given to get the verdict that he wanted vs. what it really should have been based on the evidence. What I don't understand is, if he was being so threatening and intimidating to some of the jurors, why was he not reported to the bailiff and judge for possible removal? I thought such tactics are not permitted, yet alone tolerated?? Please anyone, if I'm wrong on any of this correct me.
Jessica, thanks for the links.
I disagree a bit about the jury be stupid/legally ignorant. I think Paul Rodriguez had a valid point in saying that he needed something more than testimony to convict MJ. The fact that Rodriguez thought MJ was probably a pedophile, and still did not convict him actually shows a good understanding of the law because MJ was not being charged with being a pedophile, he was being charged with molesting Gavin Arvizo. It also showed that Rodriguez was not biased in MJ’s favor, because if he were, he would not concede that MJ had probably molested boys.
I will fault Rodriguez for refusing to look at some of the evidence because it might have influenced his opinion. That showed a shocking lack of understanding and/or integrity, because the whole point of evidence is to influence his opinion!
However the evidence, had he looked at it, would only have reaffirmed his opinion that MJ was probably a pedophile, but it would have done nothing to prove he molested this particular boy.
Of course Rodriguez also concedes that MJ probably did molest Gavin, however “probably” is not a high enough level of certainty to convict. The legal standard in a criminal case is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is expressed in the English jurist William Blackstone philosophy that it’s “better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. In other words, you should be at least 90% sure that MJ molested Gavin before finding him guilty at the criminal level.
Even if you’re 100% certain MJ is a pedophile, that does not make him guilty of molesting every child who accuses him, especially since the reported $25 million settlement the Chandlers received could have incentivized countless scam artists to make a false allegation.
I took a look at the statement of probable cause and I agree that the details the Arvizos give sound very believable. However just because something is believable does not make it true. A well-written Hollywood script is believable too. That’s why corroborating evidence is essential.
I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that MJ intended to molest Gavin (why else would he be spending so much time with him?) and was in the process of grooming the family, but does that mean he actually brought those intentions to fruition or even attempted to act on his intentions? Given the counter-intuitive timeline, the family’s history of getting money from sexual allegations, the evidence that MJ actually began to lose interest in Gavin, and the lack of corroborating evidence, there is reasonable doubt.
Jessica,
One thing that struck me as especially believable in the statement of probable cause was the scene where Michael was allegedly showing the boys porn (on the internet?) and turned to his sleeping son Prince and said “you’re missing out.” This struck me as especially believable because that's something MJ actually says.
When Martin Bashir told MJ he did not climb trees, MJ said the exact same thing: “you’re missing out!”
Opinionation,
I almost agree with you, in that Paul Rodriguez had a valid point in saying he needed something more than testimony to convict MJ. But he also said he did not look at all of the evidence. That puts the credibility of the jury's ultimate decision into question.
In addition, what do the documents unavailable for public perusal have to say? Per the criminologist I was in contact with, he told me he saw all of the documents. Considering his position, he had access to even nonpublic documents. He also said before he took an office job, he handled child-abuse cases, all the time. He told me there was never any doubt in his mind Michael was guilty.
What do we not know about, right now, because not all of the records have been released? And if the Arvizos were extortionists, why did they not demand money with a threat? Michael could have easily turned around and convicted them for the crime of extortion, and he did not. Obviously, Michael had every intention of molesting Gavin. But there are too many unanswered questions, which sways whether or not he did do it, back and forth.
What disturbs me is if the Chandler case left Michael vulnerable to further lawsuits, he still compulsively slept with little boys. I'd almost like to say it was as though he were daring somebody to press charges, but it seems more like a compulsion, on his part. Who knows.
Len:
I think there's a very good chance that MJ suffered from OCD. People who suffer from the separate and unrelated condition obsessive compulsive personality disorder are not aware of anything abnormal with them; they will readily explain why their actions are rational, and it is usually impossible to convince them otherwise. This fits MJ to a tee. For example, his rationalization of his sleep overs and sharing his bed with children demonstrates this. He always believed that what he was doing was not in any way harmful, but was done out of pure love and innocence. He never once acknowledged that there was any thing wrong with what he was doing...even after one would go to the extreme of telling him the impact his behavior had on the public. MJ still denied it. IMO, I believe that is where he got his 'self approval' to parade around in public eye with young boys. This made MJ's legal troubles most disturbing because he was alleged to have flouted conventions of appropriate conduct, and he seemed not just unrepentant but completely naive to the fact that some of what he was doing was wrong. MJ didn't have a clue; no matter how hard the point was driven home. His child-like demeanor perhaps made him vulnerable to lawsuits and all the craziness that would follow him. The OCD character was also depicted in his self image as well. While MJ thought that his extreme eccentricities were normal to himself and the outside world, he was seen by the outside world as someone who was as odd ball/freak. Barbara Walters makes this point in her 1997 interview with MJ when she asked him about his odd appearance and the public attention it drew. Again MJ with his denials, said that he did not believe that what he was doing was at all strange. Which makes me wonder, did the concept of abnormality ever exist with MJ, and if so, what did he consider to be abnormal? MJ was also a germ fanatic, like Howard Hughes, another person of OCD who went to extreme, but thought nothing of it.
I can understand your view point where you think that MJ had this 'invincible' attitude about him; daring anyone to file charges against him. But if you really look at it, it kind of makes sense... IMO, MJ had OCD. He did not believe that what he was doing was wrong, and he was not going to bow to the public's opinion of him, yet alone the legal allegations brought against him. I'm not sure of this, but I believe there was even a good chance that he was still hanging around young children after his 2005 acquittal. I too, think that MJ dared anyone to file charges against him, but yet continue to do as he pleased because in the world of MJ, rules did not apply [to him]. If there were any rules, by his standards, they were meant to be broken. After all, he was Michael Jackson and he saw himself as the 'King'. He held this attitude not only where the public was concerned but also in his personal interactions with those in his close vicinity.
Desiree & all commentators:
I really do enjoy reading everyone's opinions and insights on MJ on this sight. The other sites out there are silly and boring; everything is all the same basically!LOL When I come here, I can finally find substance and make some sense out of the whole MJ phenomenon. Piece by piece the puzzle seems to come together, and IMO it's not really hard to figure out based on the awesome research and work that Desiree has outlined...that's if you're one of those fans who won't make it hard by fighting tooth and nail and making excuses against the court documents and evidence presented. It is what it is. MJ was a very interesting individual with a lot of mystery that brought out the curiousness about his life to many, and still does even after his death.
As far as allegations go, I think that MJ had a method for handling them. If boys, and parents, followed his wishes everything was fine and dandy. Parents were kept in line with the gravy train, and as Jordy's interview showed, MJ wasn't adverse to making some mild threats about "Juvenile Hall" to his boys. When allegations might have progressed, MJ brought in his goons such as Anthony Pellicano, Frank Cascio and Bradley Miller to put the frighteners on the families. MJ also used his attorneys to discredit and demolish the families personally if things got too hot. The Chandlers, Francas and Arvizos showed a lot of courage taking him on.
Lady C,
I think MJ may have suffered from autism. People with Autistic Spectrum Disorders often have intensely repetitive thoughts and behaviors, much like those seen in persons with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD):
http://autism.about.com/od/medicalissuesandautism/f/OCDFAQ.htm
A Las Vegas doctor is convinced MJ showed classic signs of autism:
http://www.theautismnews.com/2009/07/12/las-vegas-physician-convinced-michael-jackson-had-classic-signs-of-autism/
Autism is a neurological disorder characterized b obsessive single-minded focus, and impaired social reasoning. This could explain both why MJ was able to practice the same dance moves over and over until he perfected them (repetitive behavior), his obsessions with his appearance (anorexics often have autistic traits) and also why he could seem exceptionally naïve (trusting Martin Bashir) and socially unintelligent (not understanding how eccentric and inappropriate his behavior seemed to others, not being able to relate to adults).
Autistic savants often demonstrate profound gifts in music and art which is also consistent with MJ’s cognitive profile.
Autism also seems correlated with gender identity issues:
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/16287/2/chapter_4.pdf
It’s no secret MJ was feminine.
Autism is also related to insomnia and eating disorders which MJ seemed to demonstrate.
On the other hand, Bob Jones describes MJ as a master manipulator, which is far different from the naïve socially retarded autistic he appeared to be in the Bashir documentary. Is MJ just feigning child-like innocence to evade suspicion, or is Bob Jones overestimating MJ’s manipulative skills? When you’re a world famous dancer, singer, and musician with hundreds of millions of dollars to impress peopke with, people will probably be charmed and seduced by you, regardless of how good your social skills are, so it’s possible MJ was indeed socially unintelligent but compensated brilliantly with his incredible musical genius and obsessive dancing practice.
Lady C,
OCD is something entirely different. Check the definition, under the DSM-IV (Mental and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Michael was definitely mentally ill, though. I'm waiting for his children to grow up and write tell-all books.
It's ironic you should mention fandom. I liked the music of the Jackson 5, and I liked "Off the Wall" and to a lesser extend, "Thriller." (I just prefer the former.) But I was old enough to witness the rise and fall of Michael Jackson. He seemed normal enough, until "Thriller" was produced. Then came the repeated plastic surgeries, the uniformly whitening skin, the increasingly strange behavior, the beginning of his endless public appearances with little boys, and the fact his emotional gear stick seemed to have been shoved into reverse. Everyone, including the media, ignored all of this until it finally became impossible to overlook. Truthfully, nobody was surprised when the Chandler case happened. I always thought his life was a tragedy of epic scale.
After he died, I noticed an increase in rabid fans, many who said they were unfamiliar with him until he died, and then they wrote apologetic eulogies to their new-found messiah. The fans genuinely intrigued me because nothing they said made any sense and contained the religious ferver best kept in church.
But after being maliciously attacked on a fan forum, I have no mercy. I was glad to find Desiree's blog because of her meticulous research, and I especially enjoy watching the worshipers at the Church of Michael Jesus Jackson squirm and cry. They may try to argue away the legal documents. But in the end, black-and-white print is black-and-white print.
Call me mean. I plead guilty.
On the other hand Ian Halperin claimed MJ was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a child which some say is the opposite of autism. On the other hand autism used to be frequently misdiagnosed as childhood schizophrenia.
I've never heard of MJ suffering from schizophrenic type delusions or halluciantions, though Maureen Orth claimed he believed in vodoo to the point of bathing in blood to avenge Hollywood enemies which sounds pretty psychotic, assuming that very odd anecdote is true.
Opinionation,
I think Bob Jones was correct. However, one has to also take into consideration Michael was locked in the house, beginning when he was eleven years old, which kept him from associating with peers. Being in school with kids his own age would have helped him develop social skills.
Somebody who lived down the street from the Jacksons dated a friend of mine. Aforementioned individual had nothing good to say about Joe and Katherine. After the move to California, Michael was homeschooled so that he could focus on practicing. If the child protective services had been back then what it is, today, the outcome would more than likely have been different. You don't lock up a child and isolate him from the rest of the world and expect him to be mentally sound, as an adult.
He seemed normal enough, until "Thriller" was produced. Then came the repeated plastic surgeries, the uniformly whitening skin, the increasingly strange behavior, the beginning of his endless public appearances with little boys, and the fact his emotional gear stick seemed to have been shoved into reverse.
If he was normal until Thriller, then he may indeed have schizophrenia as Ian Halperin claims, because that usually strikes in early adulthood (when Thriller was produced), as opposed to autism which emerges very early life (though Halperin claimed he was diagnosed as a child). Still, I think his symptoms are more consistent with autism, assuming he did have a mental disorder at all.
Len, god point. I’m searching for a biological cause for MJ’s eccentricities when the social environment might have more explanatory power. On the other hand, MJ was incredibly weird, even compared to other child stars, even compared to his siblings who also grew up in show business. Often times when a mentally abnormal person is raised by questionable parents, we assume that unhealthy parenting was the cause of his afflictions, but more likely, the same mental problem that made said parents so disturbing, just got genetically transmitted to their child. The old nature-nurture debate.
Opinionation,
I could be off base, but I lean toward the idea it may be a little of both.
Insofar as nurture is concerned, per my friend's ex-boyfriend, the other Jackson children were allowed to attend school and spend a little time, after school, playing with friends, albeit a very limited amount of time. But Michael was never allowed to intermingle with other children, which stunted his social development.
In addition, the environment was extremely abusive, in every way possible. I can only imagine the impact this must have had on Michael's mind, whose abusive father had unlimited access to him. But there has to be nature in there, somewhere, passed down from the parents. LaToya publicly lost her mind. One of the other children is mentally ill. Jermaine has had the misfortune of seeing his very messy personal life sprayed across the media, which does not indicate a healthy mind.
It's a tragedy none of them went to a caring psychologist, who could have helped them.
Opinionation,
Paul Rodriguez may have been doing his job in not just relying on testimony to convict Mike. But corroborating evidence just doesn't exist most of the times in child molestation cases. Child molestation is usually done in secret, where only the victim and the perpetrator are present. That's why California created the evidence code 1108, so that similar "prior bad acts" can come in as evidence as a way of corroborating the case at hand. Unless the child has sustained bodily injury, there is biological evidence left, or mementos kept (which is more of an indication of pedophilia rather than situational sexual abuse), testimony is the best option a prosecutor has to convict. Evidence of a "child molesting" mindset is also good circumstantial evidence, which is why I don't understand why they wouldn't even consider the nude boy books since they were entered into evidence. Yes, I agree that the books don't "prove" that Gavin was molested, but it goes to show a possible intent that Mike gains from having boys sleep in his bed (or life in general). I think that it would go to show that there is a possibility that the child was not making something up about Mike if he in fact had books that showed nude boys; in other words, it's not off the wall to accuse him of molestation. If Paul Rodriguez thought he molested Gavin, I want to know what made him vote not guilty.
The Statement of Probable Cause makes me question the conventional wisdom that the Arizos lied. Yes, I totally agree that Mike definitely was planning to o down that route with Gavin. But their story is so detailed; you say it's possible that made up in a similar fashion that a movie script is, but I thought they were low IQ Hispanics and not smart like the Jewish Chandlers? So how is it that they now can concoct such an elaborate story? I'm not saying that I don't think there was reasonable doubt, because there is, but I think that the jury was a little dumb to not consider evidence admitted. The other evidence outside of the Arizos testimony is used to tip the game in their favor. The books, the 1108 witnesses like Jason Francia and June Chandler, in my opinion, shows that Mike had an intent to groom and molest young boys. It's strong circumstantial evidence.
As for Miek being autistic or OCD, I just don't believe that is the correct diagnosis for what ailed him. I agree with Len, his childhood with the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, got the ball rolling toward abnormal mental health. Couple that with a lack of boundaries and rules that stardom gave to an already mentally unhealthy person, it was a recipe for disaster. His siblings seem a little off too, which is no surprise since they lived under the same roof. It's just that Mike didn't get help before superstardom isolated him from the norms and values held by society. I personally think he was a sociopath, a view shared by Debbie Rowe. He cared only about his own feelings and needs, and manipulated situations so that he could fulfill his needs. His seduced people and once he had his fill, they were gone. Drug abuse and disregard for norms are very common in sociopathy. Look what he did to Conrad Murray, for instance, he knew that he was financially in the hole and he promised him $150,000 a month if he would agree to administer propofol. I don't think Murray should have took the bait, but I don't think he is this horrible doc that everyone says he is. But Mike knew that this drug was dangerous and that he had to be monitored nonstop while under; he preyed on a financially unstable doctor that he expected to stay up all night and watch him. Clearly he had no other thought in his mind but his own needs.
I don't believe Michael Jackson was autistic, definitely not OCD, or schizophrenic. I definitely don't think he was afflicted with multiple personalities.
He was terribly abused--sexually, physically, emotionally--and he was overworked. He was certainly 'eccentric'. However, I do not, for one second, believe he was 'mentally ill' in the ways to which people claim.
If anything, he was body dysmorphic, but this too seems like bubblegum, entertainment psychobabble. The reality is that Michael Jackson would have had to be evaluated by a psychiatrist in order to know for certain if he was mentally ill.
Sure, psychiatrists could lend their opinions but we all know many aspects of medicine is problem-solving, educated 'guesses', for lack of a better term.
Some illness may have the symptoms of another but they are not related and they are not the same.
I believe Michael Jackson was a sociopath, shaped thusly because of his abuse history. The eccentricities, in my opinion (as I don't know the guy), seemed to be a lot more about showing off and getting publicity than anything else.
Think about it: if I had as much money as he did and felt, through traumatic childhood abuse, that I'd been denied a real childhood, I may make efforts to 'regress'.
But none of this is pathology. None of this 'deep-rooted'.
He was just a sociopath, dyed-in-the-wool. A narcissist, too (as with ALL celebrities). He manipulated people and turned on charm or intelligence or childlike 'innocence' and used guile to get his way.
I think the 'MJ was _____________' argument is nothing more than excuse-making. He was a sociopath, cunning, brilliant. He was a pedophile who predated upon young boys (whether they enjoyed it or not).
He knew what the sleepovers looked like, the way it looked when he was surrounded by boys even after the 1993 scandal, but, you know what, he didn't give a rat's ass because that's how sociopaths are. They know the difference between right and wrong but the don't care.
Is it possible he was afflicted with some mental illness? Yes, it's possible. However, although I put my opinion on the line on this blog all the time--even so much as avoiding a handy qualifier, I personally will not commit to a nebulous diagnosis of his mental state outside of just saying he was a brilliant sociopathic genius.
In terms of mental illnesses, I guess we can say an addiction to drugs, shopping, plastic surgery, and he was a pedophile.
My opinion is not of any more validity than any one else's but I just don't buy the 'MJ had this or that' argument. He was a pedophile because he was sexually abused by men and it, being sexual contact, aroused him at that age, so much so it was imprinted in his psyche, shaping what brought him sexual arousal (an important and strong drive in people). Apparently, given his most obvious sexualities, he was terribly shaped by these experiences and had continued the cycle of predation and abuse. He was a sociopath because he had to be given his life; the hardships shaped him.
Also, as for the image thing, I think it should be taken into account that Michael Jackson hated being black. I think we've emphasized this ad Nauseam. He obviously associated black with bad from the earliest of years: terrible black parents, terrible black men raping him on the Chitlin' Circuit, etc. His only saviors were white; white TV and music and radio, etc. as escapism from the horrors. (I also believe his family is racist as hell; they also hate black people. No one will ever get me to think differently on this one.) He had the money to do what a self-hating minority could only dream of doing.
If skin bleaching (pardon me, 'vitiligo') had as 'good' of results as Michael Jackson experienced, there would be blacks, mulattos, Indians, Asians, Latinos all lining up to undergo this transformation.
Perhaps, in terms of a mental illness, you could say he was really far-gone but, though I want to say, 'Michael was crazy as hell,' I know this is just from the standpoint of someone not possessing a pathology, or what seemed to be one.
Basically, I think he just did the bleaching, the hair, the nose, because he wanted to be white. I guess we could argue about whether his belief in this transformation was insane or so fantastic as to qualify as psychosis. But, I just think he wanted it and willed it to happen because he had the power to do so.
In sum, I think Michael Jackson was totally lucid and, therefore, perfectly sane in doing what he'd done since Off The Wall/Thriller. I think we discount this man's intelligence and street smarts because what he'd done was just so out-of-this-world bizarre to we mortals (as it were).
Someone was quoted in a Maureen Orth piece (paraphrase): 'Michael is as crazy as Colin Powell.'
And we all know Colin Powell is anything but crazy...
(I hope all of that makes sense... I was just going on and on...)
That's a good point, Jessica. If the Arvizos were low IQ Latinos, in comparison to the 'high IQ Jewish' Chandlers, I doubt their story would have been so utterly complex.
I don't think ethnicity has anything to do with it. It always irks me when I read 'high IQ Jewish', etc. I don't believe in IQ, anyway, well, at least not in terms of a hard, quantifiable number (but I do throw it around as a high brow way of saying someone is stupid, I admit), especially one determined by race or ethnicity.
I don't think the Arvizos were stupid; I think they were less worldly. I know Janet Arvizo used to lament with embarrassment that she felt 'less than' being around Major Jay Jackson's 'smart' friends.
That was always sad.
But the point is that if they are low IQ Latinos, that story must not be made up then, correct? Or does their higher intellect kick into gear when masterminding a scam?
There is definitely reasonable doubt in that case but the jurors should be stoned for having the expectation of 'smoking gun evidence' in a molestation case. That says a scary thing about our justice system. On the one hand, we may be able to 'breathe easy' knowing that an innocent person won't be put in jail, but, oppositionally, we will have guilty individuals walking free.
They should have looked at the evidence that was provided for the sole purpose of pondering the charges at hand.
In the end, I will chalk it up to them being starstruck, even if they did believe Michael Jackson was or could have been a child molester. No one wants to put a celebrity in jail. This will always be the case.
But the point is that if they are low IQ Latinos, that story must not be made up then, correct?
Correct. Jessica makes a good point in that the lower their IQ's, the less likely it is that they could have fabricated and memorized such a believable and complex narrative.
It's possible that the Arvizos have high IQ's though, but I think MJ after being burned by the bright polished Chandlers, was looking for a family with as little sophistication, resources and credibility as possible because they would be the easiest to manipulate, fool, bribe, intimidate and discredit (if they turned on him).
People whith low IQ's, little education, or limited fluency in English, can easily be made to look like liars, especially when cross-examined by a polished lawyer. I think MJ liked to fill his staff with such people too, because if they saw anything, no one would believe them, because they would constantly get their facts wrong and their logic muddled, especially when speaking in a second language.
I don't think ethnicity has anything to do with it. It always irks me when I read 'high IQ Jewish', etc. I don't believe in IQ, anyway, well, at least not in terms of a hard, quantifiable number (but I do throw it around as a high brow way of saying someone is stupid, I admit), especially one determined by race or ethnicity.
I think MJ believed IQ was partly determined by race. There's a frequently quoted anonymous comment (supposedly by an insider who knew MJ and Quincy Jones well) that's been floating around the internet claiming MJ believed blacks were intellectually inferior especially at business, and Bob Jones seems to corroborate similar attitudes on MJ's part (though Jones may have sour grapes).
We do know MJ believed that blacks have better rhythm than other races, so if he believed that race can help determine a brain function like rhythm, it follows that he also believed that race could determine higher mental functions like intelligence.
MJ also told Martin Bashir that when selecting a mother for his children, he cared about her intellect, and it doesn't look like he selected any black mothers for his kids (or black fathers for that matter).
There's also speculation that MJ had an interest in Hitler and Nazis who believed in racial superiority and eugenics.
Desiree, I know you have written a paper on IQ and the cultural bias that may exist in IQ tests, and you got a good mark and have also done a lot of research on MJ. What do you think MJ's IQ was?
Also, as for the image thing, I think it should be taken into account that Michael Jackson hated being black.
I'll never forget a moment from MJ's trial where he had a dark skinned black cameraman. MJ jumped on the SUV dancing to impress his fans while his cameraman filmed him. Suddenly MJ went ballistic over his cameraman's incompetence, violently motioning for the cameraman to capture the adulation of MJ's fans instead of filming him and appearing to berate him.
Obviously MJ was under a lot of pressure so it's not fair to judge especially from a fleeting moment, but it just seemed like his dark skinned staff members were treated like sub-human slaves who should bow down to their white skinned master, especially since MJ had a large black man literally holding an umbrella so his precious white skin didn't get exposed to the sun.
There's nothing unusual about white skinned people acting superior to their dark skinned workers, but would made this spectacle so fascinating was the white skinned person used to have black skin himself.
He obviously associated black with bad from the earliest of years: terrible black parents, terrible black men raping him on the Chitlin' Circuit, etc. His only saviors were white; white TV and music and radio, etc. as escapism from the horrors. (I also believe his family is racist as hell; they also hate black people. No one will ever get me to think differently on this one.) He had the money to do what a self-hating minority could only dream of doing.
I also think there was, especially when MJ was growing up, a lot of intra-racism among blacks, particularly in the entertainment industry where everyone is so worried about their image and reaching the lucrative white audience, so I suspect from a very young age, family members, and perhaps other black entertainers made MJ feel like he was too black looking.
It was also especially true in MJ's generation that black kids would go through a stage where they want to be white (which is only natural when they're bombarded by constant media propoganda showing whites to be better, and most of the country is white). A famous study from MJ's era showed black kids prefer to play with white dolls or when asked to draw a person, would draw a white person. Most blacks outgrow this and become proud to be black as adults.
But if MJ suffered from arrested development as some have speculated (which is more common among alleged pedophiles) or if he really was a regressed ten year old (though I suspect that was an act), then it would make sense that he would remain stuck in the stage of child development where black kids want to be white, and thus would call other blacks "spabooks" to prove to the white kids he hung out with, that he was not one of those black people.
He was a pedophile because he was sexually abused by men and it, being sexual contact, aroused him at that age, so much so it was imprinted in his psyche, shaping what brought him sexual arousal (an important and strong drive in people).
I think the sexual abuse when combined with his own unique biology gave rise to the alleged pedophilia. I think for starters. MJ was an extremely sexual being and I think was genetic. His father, judging from the number of kids he fathered, including those outside of marriage, and judging from the number of women he’s been seen with, had an incredibly active sex drive. Joe was also allegedly extremely abusive, according to Latoya.
I suspect MJ genetically inherited from his father this predisposition to be highly sexual and allegedly abusive. Karen Faye, though not a reliable source, claims MJ had a large penis, which suggests that MJ’s alleged obsession with sex may be rooted in his biology, as his anatomical traits are consistent with his alleged behavior.
But there’s more to biology than just genetics, which brings us to the prenatal environment. Because Katherine gave birth to so many male fetuses before giving birth to MJ, MJ developed in a womb that dramatically increased the probability of him being born gay:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/ns/health-health_care/
So here you have an allegedly gay boy (who may have genes to be abusive) forced by his religious mother and homophobic father to suppress the insatiable sexual appetite he genetically inherited from his father, constantly exposed to sexual behavior at a young age, and allegedly even molested by men. It was probably the perfect storm of genetics, prenatal biology, and the social environment that made MJ allegedly become a gay pedophile.
Desiree and Opinionation,
In kicking all of this around in my mind, I still think Michael was mentally ill. But I also believe a lot of his problems were the result of severe abuse and could have been dealt with in therapy. We can only speculate what he had. A good psychiatrist would have been the person to diagnose and treat him, through a combination of talk therapy and appropriate medication. One may be born with a predilection toward a mental-health disorder. Yet, whether or not it expresses itself and how deeply it does determines on what takes place, during childhood. However, the bottom line is - and I agree with Desiree on this - no matter what he had, it still does not excuse his criminal behavior with little boys. Ultimately, he was responsible for his own behavior.
Opionation,
Karen Faye makes me laugh and roll my eyes. I have always thought of her as a "fag hag" who was in love with Michael.
I also get my panties in a wad about the IQ business with the Arvizos. Uneducated? Yes. Less sophisticated than the Chandlers? Yes. English as a second language making communication difficult? Yes. But I doubt they were stupid. IQ tests, overall, are geared for people of white priveledge. No matter what is said and done, the testimonies do corroborate. I still sit on the fence, and lean toward the belief Michael was guilty. The admission by the jury foreman he did not look at all of the evidence now causes me to lean even more in that direction.
So the Chandlers were/are high IQ educated Jewish who were almost broke... maybe they have a high IQ, but basic arithmetics weren't their forte?
They let their son be molested by a paedophile, under their own roof, for recovering from their financial problems...
They pimped their son for a Cartier bracelet, an Italian handbag (I expect at least it was made of the best leather), and 20 millions... as any other high IQ/intelligent person would do.
Mother and son didn't speak to each other for at least 10 years... that we know of.
The father tried to kill his son with a brick... a very rational behaviour.
His son is scarred for life and until his dead will be labelled as MJ toy boy and receive threatens from crazy fans.
Curious interpretation of what intelligence is...
Opinionation,
You gotta explain this to me. You say Mike was "an extremely sexual being", that he got this from his father (Jermaine and Jackie and Randy, even Janet seem to have this trait as well), but as we all know Mike showed little interest in women outside his sham marriages and faux girlfriends like Tatum O'Neal and Brooke Shields, and he cultivated a persona that was based on asexuality. So what would you consider as evidence of Mike's "extremely sexual" behavior/mindset? All I can see that fits this bill was his near pathological need to seduce, surround himself with, and sleep in the bed with young boys, so I presume that you mean his compulsive pedophilia? I mean we can name each special friend from the 80's till present but can't name any women outside of Debbie and Lisa. His collection of pornographic magazines aside, he also had those gay male and boylove/nude children photograph books, as well as nudist magazines that featured naked men, women and children. And of course the semen of 2 different guys on his mattress and another guy's semen on sheets and underwear in one of his vacation bags. His sole intimate contacts with people seem to be boys, as victims and witnesses have both described the only sexual behavior we have heard of done by Mike was with young boys (outside of J Randy Taraborrelli's farcical piece about he and Lisa Marie). Terry George was only 12 years old in 1979 when Mike, who was 20-21 at the time, asked him if he masturbated and if he ever done it with lotion, and said he was actually masturbating on the phone while talking to him. If Mike was sexual, evidence seems to point in the boy direction.
Len and Susana,
I agree with you 100%. "High IQ Jewish" vs "low IQ Hispanic" is ridiculous. I highly doubt that Mike even considered their IQs when picking families to befriend. More likely, what he took into consideration was whether the parents were malleable and easily bought off and whether he was sexually attracted to the son in question. It doesn't matter if they were Jewish, Latino, Black or Asian, all Mike wanted was parents that would turn a blind eye and allow him to be alone with their sons.
Lady C,
Before I forget. If somebody is threatening and intimidating the jurors, that person is supposed to be reported to the bailiff and judge for possible removal. I would like to know if anyone reported this and nothing happened or if nobody reported it. I have heard rumor a couple of the jurors who did believe Michael was guilty are writing books, which would be very revealing. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. I'd love for them to write books. I'd be the first in line to buy them.
Insofar as the jury selection I was on is concerned, we had to state what we did for a living, in addition to our names. The potential jurors were also thoroughly grilled. I am in San Francisco, so perhaps jury selection is different in your area?
Jessica, you answered your own question. MJ genetically inherrited his father's enormous sex drive and lack of sexual restraint, but allegedly not his father's heterosexual teleiophilia.
Jessica, I'm not saying MJ consciously considered IQ when selecting post-Chandler families to befriend, but I think he was looking for people who could easily be manipulated, intimidated, bribed, and silenced, and who could not tell their stories in a coherent articulate way, and if he was guilty, he probably didn't want a kid bright enough to remember specific marks on his private anatomy.
I think the same was true of MJ's Neverland staff. Because these people could allegedly see how much time he spent with boys, it was not in his best interest to have people smart enough to connect the dots and remember names (Brett Barnes vs Jordie Chandler), details and dates, credible enough to tell the police, and articulate enough to testify in court.
MJ's servant Blanca allegedly saw too much about MJ's relations with boys, and although she probably had a good IQ, she could not easily to tell her story because English was her second language, and being a poor minority, it was easy to discredit her in the eyes of the racist public as someone who just wanted money. The Arvizos were also poor minorities and they could be discredited as Hispanics on welfare, or worse. I suspect MJ might have been shrewd enough to understand this.
Opinionation,
If you read the document of what the defense team wanted from the prosecuting team, a specific list was requested for witnesses who were employees. Now, Messereau and company were within their right to ask for a list of witnesss. But why a separate list of witnesses who were employees? Those people could have easily been marked on the full list. That a separate list was requested gave me cold chills. I can't help wondering which of the other employees would have been on the witness stand and what happened to make them not testify against their employer. This is something to keep in mind.
Something else to bear in mind is the Neverland Five were very explicit and articulate in their description of Michael's illegal sexual behavior with little boys. Mixing Jordan's name with Brett's is understandable because they physically resembled each other, quite a bit. In addition, it should have been taken into consideration the amount of time that had passed, since certain events had been witnessed. Aside from that if your employer asks for vaseline, opens the door to his hotel room obviously aroused, and there is a child in the bed, with the lights out or at least dimmed, I think it would be hard to distinguish which little boy was in that bed.
I'm having a bit of fun reading "Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson".
I'm not sure how factual it is but just as an example of MJ cross dressing (gulp!) see this page:
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-01/jraf/jraf28.html
He was only 11 at the time so I'll cut him some slack and say it isn't proof of anything we've been discussing here...
As for how MJ chose boys and their families, Bob Jones (his former publicist) explained it rather too well:
"Michael had a sinister gift for identifying these boys; it was as if he had some sort of radar. I was continually amazed by how he could determine which of the many children he came into contact with might be 'woo-able,' whose parents could be bought off and counted on to keep quiet about what was going on. I came to understand that Michael manipulated people and events with a great deal of finesse."
I've already said I don't believe in IQ--it's a tool of supremacists and Eurocentrists--and its shaky and questionable scientific standing has only been reaffirmed by this dialogue. I cannot directly ascertain whether Michael Jackson was a genius but I definitely believe he was of so-called above average intelligence.
Evan Chandler--the so-called high IQ Jew--stated Michael was one of the most 'street smart' individuals he'd ever met. And, as Len pointed out about the 'white privilege factor' in IQ measurements, we all know street smarts are not measured on these Western tests for IQ.
A favorite Pan-Africanist of mine said, 'It ain't about remembering shit!' This is absolutely true.
But all I do know was that Michael Jackson was intelligent and he was extremely perceptive, which has nothing to do with IQ anyway.
Also there is a huge difference between 'low IQ' and limited knowledge of the English language. I have to admit that, as a fluent speaker of English, sometimes I have the tendency to believe that a foreigner with a loose grasp on the language is not as bright as I am, when this is not necessarily the case. Poorer individuals, like the Arvizos, are, again, less worldly but they are not necessarily stupid.
Michael Jackson lived in California and, as such, hired a lot of Latinos to work for him. The attraction of these workers is that they will do what you say with little fuss. I think he did enjoy the 'ignorance' factor, something to which I agree he was fully aware. Blanca Francia stated that Michael told her he liked her because her motto was something to the effect of 'It's none of my business,' and 'It's not good to know too much,' and 'See/speak/hear no evil'.
Basically, he wanted workers who were compliant and wouldn't make trouble. I have to agree that he was fully aware of this; he had to be, given his dirty deeds. By the way, I do not bother with 'allegedly'; he was what he was and the writing was always on the wall, let's be honest.
The Quindoys were foreigners, but Mark Quindoy was a lawyer in the Philippines and, according to Orth and Dimond, they were worldly. I believe Michael made assumptions about these foreign workers that was based completely on typical American ignorance. I agree, as well, that he was looking for people who would either not make a fuss or, if they did, they could be easily defeated. Definitely.
I don't think he had the same mindset when it came to his special friends and their families. As Alby quoted Bob Jones, he was (a) looking for wooable families, and (b) also making determinations based upon if he was attracted to the boys.
Omer Bhatti's parents were wooable but I doubt they were ignorant. Hungry with ambition and wanting a champagne lifestyle, maybe, but definitely not stupid people. I don't think lack of intelligence and/or ignorance was a factor, only lack of scruples.
As for the genetics business, eh... I know Galileo was laughed at for heliocentrism (and was, in turn, correct about it, as history shows) but I believe too many people search for genetic bases for behavior and I have a hard time believing in it.
Tabula Rasa is the only thing I believe in at this point when it comes to discussion of pathological or seemingly pathological behavior.
I am not trying to get into a debate about this but I do not believe in inborn homosexuality. It's a farce and is ridiculous, and I doubt anyone is going to find a biological basis for it any time soon without some manipulative trickery in a lab or data or in analysis of data.
The study linked regarding prenatal environment is nothing more than codswallop and ultimately politically expedient conjecture. I don't know why anyone would want to say they were born gay, especially when, as that article quoted, only 3 percent of the male population is exclusively homosexual.
If, by a frozen Hell's chance, they do find a 'gene' or genetic factor designating 'gay' (and I won't hold my breath), insightful observers would see the low percentage figure as evidence of biological error (anomaly).
Anyone with just a cursory knowledge of evolution would know that, for a species, it is not genetically advantageous to go against reproduction. I think it was Bill Maher (not exactly the intellectual but it's worth repeating) who suggested that homosexuality was evolution's way of curbing humanity's seemingly exponential population growth. Well, of course, that is just stupid, as homosexuality has existed since the Dawn of Human history or a bit later when we had not yet colonized every corner of the globe! Not to mention, gays still have the urge to procreate.
I have been done with the 'born gay' argument for years. It makes no sense to me and, as Judge Judy noted, 'If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true.' Sexuality is on a continuum, and is both actively and passively chosen as well as socialized into. Yes, that's what I believe. Why gays want to make it look like they have biological screws loose is beyond me; I will never understand that.
Forgive the tangent but I believe Michael Jackson was just sensitive and, if temperament is genetic (and I cannot be sure of it), this is what he got from Katie Jackson's womb, not homosexuality. And a sensitive child is more likely to be predated upon than a confident one. Of course, couple this with the fact he was talented and his family loved money and was unscrupulous, bam, we have a perfect environment for abuse.
Michael was pimped to men and sexually abused. I mentioned this in a post a few months back. To me, this is the reason behind the pedophilia, and it ain't 'alleged', baby! ;-)
By the way, Opinionation: Are you black? And what is your gender? (I'm wondering if this is a ladies' discussion board.) I was thinking you were black because you used the word 'Caucasoids', which is something I hear blacks use...
Evan Chandler--the so-called high IQ Jew--stated Michael was one of the most 'street smart' individuals he'd ever met
I find this comment very ironic, because I’ve sometimes regarded MJ as conspicuously lacking in street smarts. I do think MJ had above average intelligence overall because he was a musical genius and made an extremely savvy business move (purchasing the Beatles catalog), and could be very articulate at times (yet shockingly inarticulate at other times). However I disagree a bit with the idea that MJ was brilliant at managing his image and manipulating the media and the people around him. I think he was successful because of his musical and dancing genius, and if anything, his attempts to manipulate the media and craft his image were his downfall.
For example MJ’s image first began to decline when he started planting false stories in the media about wanting to buy the Elephant Man’s bones and sleeping in oxygen chambers. Katherine Jackson wisely warned MJ’s people that these stories were making MJ look like an idiot, but MJ ignored his mother, saying “Kate just doesn’t understand show business”. MJ assumed he was cleverly manipulating the media into giving him free publicity, but Katherine had the street smarts to know it was negative publicity that was making MJ look like a freak.
I also think MJ showed a lack of street smarts in that he repeatedly underestimated the intelligence of the American public to his own detriment. To people with above average IQ’s, it was pretty obvious that MJ had more than two plastic surgeries, that he was probably bleaching his skin, that his marriage to Lisa Marie was a publicity stunt to recover from child molestation accusations, that his kids have virtually no black ancestry, but MJ continued to think he could fool the public in the most outrageous ways, and ended up utterly destroying his credibility in the process. Katherine once again showed more street smarts, by confessing to Oprah that MJ did have more than two surgeries. Katherine was savvy enough to know that there’s no point lying about what people can see with their own two eyes, and if that you do lie about obvious stuff that doesn’t matter, people will be skeptical about the important things to.
MJ also showed a lack of street smarts when he held Blanket out the window, oblivious to how bad that would look and how much of a firestorm it would cause.
MJ also showed an alarming lack of street smarts in getting exploited by Martin Bashir. MJ was trying to manipulate the media but instead he got manipulated, as Bashir cleverly lured MJ into exposing his most freakish self (the tree climbing, admitting to sleeping with kids, holding hands with a boy on international TV). MJ seemed utterly oblivious to how much damage he was doing to his image, and that documentary led directly to a second round of child molestation accusations.
So I never understand why people like Evan Chandler, Bob Jones, and you Desiree, praise MJ as some sort of master manipulator. He’s a music and dancing genius, and at times a brilliant business man, but I don’t see manipulation as one of his strengths, and his career would have arguably been much better off if he had stuck to making music, and left the image making to the PR department.
I suppose he was a master manipulator in that he could allegedly seduce and groom little kids and their families for years without getting caught, but this level of skill is evident in any prolific pedophile, and they are able to pull it off without the star power to entice, the wealth to bribe, and an army of staff and fans who can intimidate.
By the way, Opinionation: Are you black? And what is your gender? (I'm wondering if this is a ladies' discussion board.) I was thinking you were black because you used the word 'Caucasoids', which is something I hear blacks use...
No I'm not black, nor am I Afro-multiracial. I'm not female either.
Desiree, you're quite right in that any gay gene(s) poses a paradox for evolutionary theory, because genes get selected when they are replicated with each generation, so how could a gene that impedes reproduction reproduce itself? A similar paradox occurred when biologists wondered how altruism could have evolved, because any person who sacrifices her life to save the life of another would not pass on her genes. The paradox was resolved when biologists shifted the unit of analysis from the individual to the gene. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the individual fails to reproduce, as long as his genes do. So if you sacrifice your life to save the life of someone who happens to share a lot of your genetic traits (a relative, a friend who looks or thinks like you etc), you are actually saving your own genes for future generations without reproducing yourself. Some have speculated that gays may replicate their own genes by saving the lives of other gay men they fall in love with during a war, while heterosexual men are less likely to self-sacrifice for other heterosexual men. However it’s very easy to throw out ideas without any kind of empirical verification.
We do know however that identical twins are much more likely to share the same sexual orientation, however this could be because they share such an identical environment, including the prenatal environment, and not because of identical genetics.
As for Bill Maher’s explanation; we do know that a large number of genetic mutations occur when an organism is under stress (this phenomenon probably evolved because by mutating prolifically, an organism is more likely to randomly produce in its offspring a genetic adaptation to solve whatever problem is causing the stress). Overpopulation causes competition for resources, which may stress a person enough to genetically mutate, giving rise to some homosexual gene or gene variant. So Maher’s line of argument may not be as far fetched as it seems, but in the absence of empirical verification, it remains nothing but conjecture.
I'm going with Bob Jones on this one, since he knew and worked for Michael for so many years. Michael was a master of manipulation. He was also a compulsive liar. Whether that stems from the entertainment's obsession with public image or he picked it up from his parents is in speculation. Ultimately, his strange behavior and bad personal choices were his own downfall. Insofar as the "planted" stories are concerned, it is Michael who said they were leaked by himself. But Michael lied about so many things, who know who really spilled those stories to the media. However, Michael was very successful in manipulating his fans into believing he was a victim of bad press and that he was a misunderstand, pure soul.
Katherine herself is also a compulsive liar. When Michael was alive, she stated he only had two nose jobs; she also claimed Joe disciplined the children but did not beat them. Now that Michael is dead, she admits the truth. However, she still insists her son did not molest boys, even though she knows better, and still claims she is not money obsessed.
Len, MJ was very good at manipulating his fans, but only because they already worshiped him and wanted to believe whatever image he was selling them. But the fans worshipped him not because he manipulated them into doing so, but because he’s a profoundly gifted music and dancing genius so all the adulation he received was totally justified.
My point is that MJ didn’t need to be a master manipulator because his music and dancing talent alone was enough to mesmerize the world, and when he did try to manipulate the media it usually backfired in my opinion (i.e. Bashir interview) suggesting he wasn’t very good at it. I think Bob Jones saw the power MJ has over people and assumed it was because MJ was a master manipulator, when the simpler explanation is that people were just in awe of MJ’s fame, fortune, and breathtaking talent and would do anything to be around it, even put their own kids into questionable situations.
To me real master manipulators are those people who can seduce and influence others using only charm and mind games; they have to trick people into worshipping them because such reverence isn’t justified. With MJ it was justified. People worshipped him because he was one of the most talented artists to ever live. No manipulation necessary.
Opinionation,
I should have known you were a man, although it seems that most people into Mike are women LOL.
Mike only lacked street smarts in some of those situations you've mentioned was because he started to become addicted to drugs and was using them quite regularly. when he took drugs, it most likely altered his ability to distinguish right from wrong (e.g., the baby dangling), and made him out of tune with reality. It doesn't mean he wasn't shrewd and calculating. Lisa Marie Presley said his mind was constantly "working and manipulating, manipulating, manipulating" and that it was frightening sometimes. So he definitely had this ability. Besides i don't see how he was able to successfully transition from child star to adult superstar without having an intelligent head on his shoulders.
By the way, I wouldn't describe Joe Jackson as a heterosexual teleiophile, as to distinguish from Mike's pedophilia. Joe is just being a normal human being that would be attracted to his age appropriate peers, so there is no term necessary for normal. Most likely, that term is used to designate a person who isn't an adult who likes an adult, like, say, the child in a adult-child sexual relationship. Not a regular person.
About you explaining Bill Maher's "theory", remember Occam's razor. Or more colloquially, Judge Judy, LOL.
Len,
The staff at Neverland did mix up Brett and Jordie, as you said. On the stand, Ralph Chacon said the boy he saw with Mike receiving oral sex in a pool restroom was Jordie, but his description he gave to police was that the boy had "long dark hair" and was tanned. The only boy that fit this description was Brett Barnes, and Chacon even said that he had difficulty telling them apart. In 1994 two DAs from Los Angeles and Sneddon flew to Australia to attempt an interview with Brett but were rebuffed by his parents. This was about one month after Chacon testified to the investigating grand jury. To me, the fact that Chacon gave a description of the boy he saw, saying it was Jordie but that it could have been Brett because he got them confused a lot, gives credence to his story and makes me believe him. He could have easily said that he saw Mike with Jordie because Jordie was already in the media. But he didn't. I think the fans try to discredit people just because they talked to a tabloid or on a TV show or sued. But reality is is that not everyone is a liar.
I should have known you were a man
LOL! I have a feeling that's not a complement.
although it seems that most people into Mike are women
I don't know about that.
Mike only lacked street smarts in some of those situations you've mentioned was because he started to become addicted to drugs and was using them quite regularly. when he took drugs, it most likely altered his ability to distinguish right from wrong (e.g., the baby dangling), and made him out of tune with reality.
Well it's certainly possible that drugs impaired his IQ, and it would explain why a man who was smart enough to buy the Beatles catalog, later became dumb enough to acquire hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Debt that allegedly caused him to have to work himself to an allegedly early grave. I do agree that he seemed high when he dangled Blanket, but was he high when he agreed to let Bashir follow him with a camera for months? Was he high when he confessed on TV to sharing his bed with boys and calling it the most loving thing you could do, while holding hands with Gavin? Was he high when he climbed a tree on TV, or allegedly planted stories about the elephant man bones and oxygen chambres or thought he could fool the public about his skin, nose, and the ancestry of his kids? I just see far too many PR blunders to believe he was street smart.
Lisa Marie Presley said his mind was constantly "working and manipulating, manipulating, manipulating" and that it was frightening sometimes
Well he certainly was constantly trying to manipulate and fool other people but that doesn't mean he was particularly good at it. Most of the public did not seem to buy his claims about his skin, his face, his marriage, and his kids, and his image took a huge hit.
Besides i don't see how he was able to successfully transition from child star to adult superstar without having an intelligent head on his shoulders.
And I don't see how he could transition from being the coolest guy on the planet to the world's most infamous freak show without being stupid in certain areas. Of course when it comes to music and dance, he was an absolute genius which explains how he became such a superstar to begin with.
Jessica,
I didn't realize Brett Barnes's parents were aproached, after Chacon's testimony, in 1994. I'm not surprised they showed Sneddon and company the door. Who knows how much hush money Michael paid them to "enjoy" their son.
I, as with you, find it hard to understand why fans think everyone who testified against Michael was a liar. Chacon's testimony was believable and chilling. I think Chris should have been allowed to take the stand, during the 2005 trial. The trial was not about his character or misdeeds. Regardless of what he did, that doesn't make him a liar. In paying close attention to the times that cause people to be the most truthful, the emotion of anger is one of those most likely to get people to pull out those dirty, hidden secrets, such as Michael's criminal activities with little boys. The Neverland Five were justifiably angry. Telling the truth about ugly behavior is a great way to get revenge, in most situations. But superstars are hard to bring down, and Michael showed great skill at manipulation by getting people to doubt truth telling, in spite of the mounting evidence against him.
Opinionation,
I have to disagree with you. Firstly, I don't praise Michael for being a master of manipulation. I find it sociopathic. Please also take into consideration Michael didn't think there was anything wrong with what he was doing, i.e., sleeping with little boys. Severe abuse from childhood did not leave him with a healthy mind, but people actually did overlook that, in the early days.
I can only speculate, but I have never thought Bashir conducted the interview with the intent of presenting Michael in a bad light. This is the man, after all, who salvaged Princess Diana's image. However, I do believe he was more and more appalled by Michael, as the interview progressed. Who knows what he actually left out of the interview that was even worse.
Secondly, Michael was a drug addict. Drug addiction is a cruel taskmaster. To satisfy the demands of the addiction, too much money is required. Hence, why Michael went into debt. Drug addictions also cloud the judgment of even the most intelligent people. Had all of his faculties not been blunted by the haze of drugs, I suspect he wouldn't have been so broke.
Finally, that Michael successfully made his rabid fans believe he was a victim of the press shows, in spite of it all, he was still successful at manipulation. The press, along with anybody who truthfully states Michael was not as pure as the driven snow, has had a hard time maintaining its credibility in reporting the truth. This factor has successfully kept other people from talking. Quincy Jones already got crucified for discussing how Michael did not want to be black. Gene Simmons was crucified for stating he believed Michael was a pedophile. (I admire him for not backing down.)
Please also take into consideration Michael didn't think there was anything wrong with what he was doing, i.e., sleeping with little boys.
But for someone so concerned with his image and supposedly so skilled at manipulating the public, he should have been shrewd enough to see what an incredible PR nightmare his behavior on the Bashir documentary would provoke. He played right into Bashir’s hands and fell for his trap.
I can only speculate, but I have never thought Bashir conducted the interview with the intent of presenting Michael in a bad light. This is the man, after all, who salvaged Princess Diana's image.
That’s because Princess Diana was a revered figure so Bashir wouldn’t dare try to make her look bad. MJ by contrast had so poorly stage-managed his image that Bahir knew he could get away with getting MJ to expose himself as a freak and a potential pedophile, simply by encouraging MJ with disingenuous praise. It was Martin Bashir who proved to be the master manipulator, and MJ fell for tricks hook, line and sinker.
Even Oprah commented after the Bashir interview that she saw how manipulative Bashir was being from the moment he told MJ to climb the tree. Oprah said that when she was starting out, she was warned to not let reporters follow her around for even one week because everything she did would be open to someone else’s interpretation, and so she was stunned that MJ’s people had allowed MJ to be followed around for MONTHS with a camera.
Who knows what he actually left out of the interview that was even worse.
Well there was an extended discussion about the 1993 molestation case where MJ got extremely upset, but Bashir was legally not allowed to show this because of the agreement MJ had signed with the Chandlers.
Secondly, Michael was a drug addict. Drug addiction is a cruel taskmaster. To satisfy the demands of the addiction, too much money is required. Hence, why Michael went into debt.
Or maybe there were payoffs that the press wasn’t aware of. I don’t know how else to explain how MJ ploughed through hundreds of millions of dollars that quickly. Drugs aren’t that expensive.
Finally, that Michael successfully made his rabid fans believe he was a victim of the press shows, in spite of it all, he was still successful at manipulation.
Well Tom Messereau was successful at manipulation. But even still 75% of the American public thought MJ was guilty. Yes a tiny minority (the crazed fans) continued to remain loyal, but it was only because he made Thriller and could moonwalk and was the cute little kid they remembered from the Jackson 5. It was these factors that gave him the support, not any manipulative skills on his part.
Roman Polanski had half of Hollywood defending him. Was this because he skillfully manipulated them into do so? No, it was because he was the guy who made Rosemary’s Baby and he was an iconic Jewish filmmaker. MJ only had support from crazed fans, while Polanski had support from the show business elite, and this despite the fact that Polanski was actually proven guilty.
Quincy Jones already got crucified for discussing how Michael did not want to be black. Gene Simmons was crucified for stating he believed Michael was a pedophile. (I admire him for not backing down.)
When were Jones and Simmons crucified? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember them getting any flack at all in the media. I do however remember MJ getting crucified in the media, being spoofed in major films (Scary Movie 2) and mocked as a pedophile in a video by Eminem and even in death getting attacked as a pedophile by congressman Peter King, and dismissed by president Obama.
When he was alive it got so bad that MJ left America and spent most of his final years living in exile in the Middle East. It was only after he had been reduced to a total pariah who died a lonely and very early death did the media and public felt guilty and decided to build his legacy back up again. But even that has been short-lived.
Opinionation,
It wasn't a diss. I just knew you had to be man because of your comments; they are very clinical and rational. Not a woman's way, LOL. Most of Jacko's Wackos are female, since he is a male celebrity, which is only natural. Mike himself said to the good Rabbi that his female fans will fight you about him. And he wasn't kidding. His most ardent defenders are women and most of the Michael Jackson forums are filled with women. Most male fans seem not to obsess over his personal life, they seem more about the music and dancing, his artistic side. So it's shocking to me when a man is interested in his personal life. Take one of the writers for the blog Desiree linked to in this post; he is an obsessed male fan, I thought he was gay by his level of adoration, that there must be some sexual component to all his rants defending Mike, LOL. Probably is.
Mike probably was high when he climbed that tree, LOL. He did things that he wanted to do,regardless if anyone thought they were weird or not. He felt entitled and above everyone so why would he care what anyone thought? He was a pedophile so it make sense that he wouldn't care if he was seen with boys or if he admitted that he still slept with them; pedos think that is normal behavior and not inherently evil. I really believe in what all his associates say about him, that he was a master showman skilled at giving the people what they wanted. If Lisa, Bob Jones, Evan Chandler, etc. said he was a manipulator then I will believe them, since, unlike us, they've actually sat down and talked with the man! I think, especially in his later years, drugs played a large role in the collapse of his mind. But before, with the "PR nightmares" that was the hyperbaric chamber and the Elepant Man's bones among others, we may seen them as failures but Mike may not have. He clearly thought all publicity was good publicity. The National Enquirer has said that mike even used to tell them when they would run a story on himto make sure and use the word "freak". He obviously was enjoying his power and still he relished in the publicity that came with it; he became more famous. He once said that the longer he keeps the public guessing, the bigger and more famous he will be.
Q and Gene Simmons, particularly Gene Simmons, were ridiculed by the fans. Yes, they have little power so conceivably they make no real dent on either man's reputation, but when it omes to non-clebrities, the fans can have quite an impact. These peole are harassed and ridiculed on the internet and many have received death threats, just for speaking against Mike, their Jesus. The public has a right to malign Mike and bash him in the media. He USED to be good, but he became a shell of his former self: the plastic surgeries, the bleaching, the white kids, the erasure of all Blackness. Plus he was a criminal, a disgusting pedophile that predated on little boys, many whom were his fans, so they were easy prey.
Len,
You know what else I think is interesting about the DAs visiting the Barneses in Australia? When Lauren Weis was telling Mr and Mrs Barnes about a guard having seen Mike perform fellatio on Brett, Liz Barnes had her head down the entire time and was completely silent, while Mr. Barnes looked at his wife at his wife in anger, although nothing was ever vocalized. I suspect that Brett's mom knew that the allegation was true and couldn't believe that she had allowed that to happen to her son. Mr. barnes probably was pissed that his wife let Mike have so much access to his son. They both were aware that mike was sleeping in the bed with their kid every time Brett was with them, and that Brett often flew from Australia to Neverland alone. Actually the boy that the FBI documet talkes about, where that couple saw Mike and a young boy on the train together and they witnessed Mike being really possessive of him and that they heard strange sounds coming from Mike and the boy's compartment (they were CPS workers so you know the strange sounds were probably in their minds either violent or sexual), was Brett Barnes. He had been traveling the world with Mike alone in March of 1992.
Jessica,
I can only imagine what Brett's father had to say to his wife, after that interview. Yet, Brett was still allowed to spend time alone with Michael. I guess ultimately, money was more important, although I'd be curious to know what Brett's mother said to his father, afterward.
I have wondered who the child really was, in the train with Michael. I didn't realize it was definitely Brett Barnes. I'd love to know what ultimately came of that. But I suppose we'll have to wait until the remaining FBI files are available. It must be juicy.
By the way, whatever happened to Brett Barnes?
Opinionation,
You've presented a good argument against Bashir's motives. However, I still question whether or not he went into the interview to present his subject in a bad light. Michael just did not think there was anything wrong with what he did. Pedophiles don't. If I had gone in with a camera, I think I would have walked away shaking my head, too. In reading comments by Michael's rabid fans and if Oprah really did make those remarks about Bashir, he had everything to lose if he intentionally cast Michael in a bad light. Ultimately, Bashir is the only person who can explain why he created the documentary the way he did. Aside from that, we have to remember Michael released a retaliatory film and used a well-known journalist to narrate it.
When Bashir interviewed Princess Diana, she was not a revered figure, at that point in time. Her separation from Prince Charles, her eating disorder, her choice of lovers, etc., had turned her into an object of scorn.
You are correct in reminding me Michael did pay off a lot of people. Per the "mouthpiece", LaToya told the truth. She did see the checks to the families of little boys. But drugs are also a very expensive habit.
Yes, many people in Hollywood rushed to Roman Polanski's defense when he was under house arrest in Switzerland. Yet, many retracted their support, at least publicly, due to the public outrage. This is a man who raped a child and was convicted, albeit for a lesser charge. Then he fled the country to avoid sentencing. Just because the child had a vagina instead of a penis doesn't mean Hollywood should have rallied around him. For me, it raised the lengthy history of the objectification of women, which feminists have fought against. Had he been convicted of raping a boy, would Hollywood have been so keen to support him?
Finally, by what those who knew Michael had to say, I will go with their comments about him being manipulative. As Jessica stated, they knew him.
Jessica, I agree that MJ was an extremely manipulative, perhaps even sociopathic person who was constantly trying to play mind games and trick people, I just see no evidence that he was any good at it. As I said, he was outwitted by Bashir in the manipulation department, but I can’t rule out that he was impaired by drugs. I think MJ’s entire superstar status is based on the success of Thriller. He built his whole career on the genius of that one album. He spent the rest of his career trying to keep his star alive, however his attempts at media manipulation did far more to damage his image than enhance it. Maybe he didn’t care because all publicity is good publicity, but I think a truly shrewd manipulator wouldn’t deploy such a shortsighted strategy. But it’s an admittedly arguable point.
I’ve never viewed MJ’s fans as primarily female. I suppose when he was a little kid, a lot of little girls would have had crushes on him, but as a teenager, he went through a very unattractive stage which I think would have alienated his female base. He recovered with cosmetic surgery, and looked good in the Thriller era, but by 1993, he became so pale and feminine, he could not be considered good looking in any conventional sense.
However, perhaps certain women (and gay men) were attracted to his increasingly androgynous appearance? Perhaps women on the border of gay and straight were able to find a sexual outlet in MJ gender neutral image, and that’s what attracted them to him so strongly? Debbie Rowe was a huge MJ fan before becoming his wife, and with her tough biker chick persona, perhaps she’s a little confused about whether she’s attracted to men or women, and MJ, looking like both sexes, met all of her sexual fantasies. Maybe such sexual confusion is typical of MJ’s fans. Maybe MJ’s desire to look both male and female is also rooted in his own sexual confusion, as might be his alleged pedophilia (since children are kind of androgynous, having not yet fully developed the traits of a men or women) and his eclectic mix of gay and straight porn (though the straight porn was allegedly used to entice kids).
I think MJ also has a lot of male fans who admire him enormously just because he used to be really cool. For minority men in particular, it can be incredibly inspiring to see a black man making hundreds of millions of dollars, owning the Beatles catalog, having thousands of white women screaming for him, and being able to create some of the most exciting music and dance moves the world has ever seen.
It’s also interesting that MJ’s most influential detractors in the media are all women: Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Nancy Grace (even Desiree if you count the internet media LOL!). I wonder what that’s about.
Len, Bashir had nothing to lose by intentionally casting MJ in a negative light. MJ was extremely unpopular at that time (at least in North America and Britain) so making MJ look bad helped Bashir's career enormously (he went from a British journalist to an American one, hired by influential ABC). The hardcore fans hated him, but they're less than a quarter of one percent of America (though they're well organized and extremely obsessed). Now MJ's popularity suddently sky-rocketed after he died (much like Bush saw a huge increase in popularity after 9/11), but in both cases it was fleeting.
Opinionation,
My reasons for balking on the idea Bashir did the documentary to make Michael look bad has to do with the fact Princess Diana was so unpopular when he conducted his interview with her. This is the person who thanked Paula Yates for being so hated because it took attention off of her. Bashir's career may be doing well, now, but at the time, there was negative publicity about his documentary. Again, Martin Bashir is the only one who can explain why he edited the material the way he did.
I sincerely believe Tom Mesereau believes Jacko is innocent.
Mesereau probably does believe MJ is innocent of molesting Gavin, but I question how a man as intelligent as Mesereau could believe MJ was innocent in the 1993 case when Tom Sneddon tried to introduce into the 2005 trial, the sketch Jordy drew of the splotch on MJ's penis and the photos Sneddon claimed confirmed them. Certainly Mesereau must be aware of this evidence, but he never talks about it and is never asked to explain it.
If Desiree ever decides to start conducting interviews for this blog, she should try to land an interview with Mesereau and get him to explain that.
opinionation:
Does Mesereau openly disbelieve the 1993 case? If he never talks about it, one cannot assume he thinks Michael Jackson was innocent of those accusations.
But, like I said before, Tom Mesereau loves black people and will always try to make a black man look the best. I think this clouds his judgment because the bias is just so incredibly strong.
It isn't that their is a pocket of 'idiocy' with Mesereau, but I do think he is somewhat incapable of being objective.
I imagine that if even the fans saw the picture of Jordie's description and the photos of Jacko's penis side-by-side they would try to find the tiniest differences just so they could absolve Michael Jackson of any guilt.
Maybe this is how Mesereau is.
Desiree,
Tom Mesereau said to Jay Leno that MJ would never hurt a child and that some people invented a claim in 1993 and MJ made a big mistake by paying (contradicting fans who claim he was he forced to pay):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39Pom4YQgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew0jww_FGNM
So based on this it would seem Tom thinks MJ was innocent in 1993.
Tom even says MJ is a very honest person. LOL! Regardless of whether one thinks MJ was guilty or not, the one thing he is not is honest. He lied about everything under the sun including things that were obvious to anyone with two eyes, like his surgeries. Maybe I’m wrong about MJ not being a brilliant manipulator because he sure seems to have Tom Meserau fooled.
The way Tom goes on in various interviews about MJ as so trusting, child-like an innocent who is constantly being taken advantage of, he almost seems to be describing a mentally retarded person (much like he was portrayed by Flex Alexander in the movie The Man in the Mirror ). It seems that to believe MJ is innocent, you almost have to believe he was a simpleton. By contrast the people who think he’s guilty at least tend to give him credit for high intelligence, even if they frame it as a manipulative, cunning, criminal intelligence.
I also think Tom has a very simplistic and naive view of pedophiles. One reason pedophiles are able to get away with their crimes is this common misconception that pedophiles are the boogeyman, so if you're kind, generous, and philanthropic, you couldn't possibly molest children. The truth might even be the opposite. For what it's worth, a popular online personality test claim that male pedophiles tend to have a "healer personality":
HEALER
(Submissive Extrovert Concrete Feeler )
Like just 9% of the population you are a HEALER (SECF)-- caring, good with people, and patient. You are completely selfless and full of love. As a concrete feeler, you do well with your emotions, which are very strong. You understand and appreciate *why* you feel the way you do, and for the most part you're at peace with yourself.
Suffering in the world really pisses you off.
In relationships, it's easy for you to get hurt. Avoid all kinds of dominant (D***) people, *especially* in dating or marriage. You are a motherly figure, even if you're a guy. If you're a girl, make sure you're a mom some day. The world's children need people like you. If you're a guy, don't even think about it. Most pedophiles are HEALERS.
On the rare occasions when you try to assert yourself, you're cute and awkward, but highly effective.
http://freak.no/forum/showthread.php?t=13890&page=2
In some ways MJ seems very much to have a healer personality (he sings "Heal the world" and describes himself to Bashir "as some guy trying to heal a child". He's certainly a motherly figure. Walking around with dolls because he longed so much for a child, and suffering in the world does seem to upset him to the point of breaking down in tears to Bashir about kids being neglected by their parents.
Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but it's another interesting theory to add to the mix.
I imagine that if even the fans saw the picture of Jordie's description and the photos of Jacko's penis side-by-side they would try to find the tiniest differences just so they could absolve Michael Jackson of any guilt.
You’re probably right, at least about the more fanatical fans. The human capacity for denial is enormous. How else would creationism and other superstitious hooey persist so strongly in the face of evolutionary theory and other scientific insights?
Speaking of scientific insights, I’m starting to reconsider your argument that MJ had designer babies. At first this argument made no sense to me, because you argued that Prince’s suspected vitiligo was evidence that he was MJ’s genetic child who was genetically engineered to look white.
But to me this argument seemed inherently contradictory, because the whole reason to think that MJ revered whiteness enough to mess with his kids' genes, is based on the idea that he also chose to make himself white. But to concede that he had hereditary vitiligo and thus did not entirely choose to become white, undermines the argument that he worshipped whiteness enough to engineer his kids.
However one of your commenters (J-M-H?) suggested the missing piece of the puzzle, arguing that the hazardous bleaching MJ did, not only damaged his skin to the point of getting vitiligo, but also damaged his DNA (mutating it causing hereditary vitiligo) and this self-inflicted mutation was passed to at least one of his designer babies.
I still think it’s far fetched because Time magazine denied such complex genetic engineering was possible, at least back then. I also don’t know if bleaching can actually mutate DNA to the point of hereditary vitiligo, but it is a pretty coherent theory.
Opinionation,
Tom Mesereau definitely thinks (at least on the surface) that Mike is innocent of the Chandler scandal, and from court documents, I don't think he has ever seen the photos of Mike's penis. Which would partly explain why he is so convinced of Mike's innocence. He just argued that they weren't relevant in the manner that the prosecution argued in its brief. Also, I think Desiree is right about his delusions about black people. If he thinks they are "above" whites, he will do anything to make that delusion a reality. I will admit that I was flattered at first about his love for black people (refreshing in America), but now it's just weird, LOL, especially if it's used to further the lie of Michael Jackson's innocence. Mesereau had ample opportunity to bring these so called "witnesses" to dispute Jordie Chandler's allegations, since the 1108 evidence was brought into trial. But he just gave himself an out on that one, by making the condition of bringing out these "witnesses" only if Jordie himself testified. Mesereau knew that Jordie wasn't going to testify, and according to Maureen Orth, Brian Oxman allegedly left a message for Jordie Chandler saying that he "could write his own check" if he wouldn't testify.
Fans are ridiculous if they think that Mike was forced to settle. Mesereau said he was forced to settle by his insurance company, but in California, an insurance company can't settle things amounting to crimes, as what molestation would fall under. Besides, in court and out of court, Mesereau said he got bad advice. Why not say he was forced, as he argued, if it was true? Because it was a lie. In this instance, I will agree with you about Mike: I don't think he manipulated Mesereau, I think Mesereau was just susceptible to his "game", since he has delusions about his beloved black people.
Have you ever watched that "Chickenhawk" documentary under Desiree's "Little Known Witnesses" post? Pedophiles, if they didn't want to diddle the kids, would be a great resource for society since they really do care about children, much more than the average person. Mike said to the good Rabbi that he so desperately wanted to make films about children and that he identified more with kids than adults. I think he was partly pulling our legs about his benevolence toward "all children" (Little Renia would disagree!), but there is some truth to what he said.
Opinionation
I'm J-M-H, for reference. Just using my real name.
I totally stand by my theory of his kids being genetically engineered. If those are indeed his kids, he did something to their genes. I sometimes think that it is just too big of a coincidence that Prince as vitiligo-like spots and Mike claimed to have vitiligo, and that Mike said that he used all his own sperm cells for his kids. (Funny that he admitted to using "sperm cells" when he also said he had sex with Debbie in the outtakes of the Bashir doc, presumably that he was saying it was a natural conception. Another lie!)
My line of reasoning that bleaching can damage your DNA is because hydroquinone is considered a carcinogen in the EU. If it's carcinogenic, than it has the potential to damage DNA. DNA is very fragile. I've seen an Asian woman that bleached her skin and she, in turn, got vitiligo. Latoya said that he was bleaching in the 80s and I've seen pictures of a very raw red face Mike was sporting, obviously due to bleaching.
I don't think him having genetic children hurts the theory of him loving whiteness. In his quest for whiteness, he bleached so much that he gave himself vitiligo. And luckily for him, he was rich enough to bleach his whole body. So in reality he achieved what he was after but possibly at the price of his DNA material. I just have a hard time thinking that he intentionally chose a sperm donor that was both white and had vitiligo, when he had it. Too many variables, don't you think? I think Mike was mad, but not that mad LOL. I think it's just more likely that they were genetically engineered and their genes were isolated for the desired phenotype, and the desired phenotype was anything but black. Sounds crazy too, I'll admit, LOL. But both are possibilities. He was in debt after all. Maybe these "procedures" are among some of his other bills?
You might think you can't have a carcinogen mutate DNA, but didn't you theorize why Bill Maher could be right? Now that was far-fetched, LOL.
About Bashir, I think that he didn't intend to make Mike look bad. I think what happen is this:
Uri Geller introduced Bashir and Mike and Mike talked about wanting to clear the "rumors and lies" about him in the media. Mike wanted to just show how he was in his natural state. Bashir possibly said let's do an interview, since that's what he was know for, and they started shooting. After the first few days of shooting, Bashir witnessed bizarre behavior from Mike and he told the Granada Television head hanchos. They told Bashir don't do anything, just keep shooting, don't try to "intervene" to stop all the BS that Mike was doing. Bashir agreed and kept kissing Mike's ass to continue to make him feel comfortable, and Mike did the rest, digging his own grave.
I think the only truly bad thing that Bashir did was with the voice overs. The actual footage didn't seem all that bad, in terms of intentionally distorting Mike's persona. Mike's undoing in that documentary is his own. He believed that there was nothing wrong with sleeping with boys, and in typical pedo fashion, thought the public would agree. He thought people would think his lavish spending was okay. He thought that we would buy his lie about having only 2 surgeries on his monstrous nose. It's rather funny to think that he intended to clear up rumors when it's more clear that he intended to spin his versions of truth rather than be completely honest.
Len is right. I don't think that Bashir went in there with the intent to nail Mike to the proverbial cross. It just happened, and if I may say, that was some damn fine TV. I will always love that documentary.
By the way, I saw the "Why" music video with 3T and Mike the other day. He was really creepy in that video, especially the way he interacted with his nephews and the way he looked at them. He straddled TJ(?) with his leg and had googly eyes when he looked at them. Keep in mind this video was shot sometime in 1995 and a year earlier in 1994 DeeDee Martes, 3T's mother, died. Jermaine said that Mike was on the bed with Tito's sons comforting them and held them "weirdly", enough to cause the family to be concerned and shaken. The youngest was in his preferred age range, I think he was 14. Remember that weird note Mike had written to DeeDee about child molesters being in the family and uncles molesting their nephews. Sounds like a cry for help. Intrafamilial sexual abuse is common and pedophiles will often prey on their own family members. I'm not saying they were abused, more that Mike "liked" them in "that way".
Jessica, I agree with you that if those are MJ’s genetic kids, they were genetically engineered, however I’m not sure that level of genetic engineering is even possible today, let alone way back when those kids were made, so I remain skeptical that they are his kids.
On the other hand recent genetic research has identified genetic markers linked to age, eye color, skin color and hair color
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/dna-hair-color/#
which allow police to determine from blood, hair or semen samples, what someone looked like and how old they were (wonder if the technology was available when the semen samples discussed on this blog were found)
Is it possible MJ located doctors who were able to identify genetic markers that would make his offspring look white? The science may not have been considered possible back then, but perhaps there was enough speculation in the scientific literature to make it worth trying. But MJ’s oldest kids are more than just light skinned. They have a whole genetic syndrome of Caucasoid traits. But maybe certain genetic traits go together, so by selecting for something simple like light skin, other Caucasoid traits came along for the ride.
Of course the much simpler explanation is that MJ just used a white sperm donor. Indeed Diane Dimond states categorically that Arnie Klein is Prince’s father and marvels at the physical resemblance.
But that still doesn’t explain where the white spots came from. Is it possible that Arnie Klein has vitiligo ( or tinea versicolor?)? It seems like a huge coincidence that he would have the same disease (or similar disease) that MJ appears to have given himself, but on the other hand, maybe that’s why MJ chose Klein to be his doctor (“I want you to give me your disease” LOL!) or maybe Klein’s own skin problems explain why he decided to become a dermatologist in the first place (which is how he met MJ) and why he’s so good at it .
Is it possible that Prince’s vitiligo was faked for media consumption? It does seem suspicious that kids who were once so protected we could not even see their face, were suddenly photographed in bathing suits with a white spot conspicuously visible in a location that could later be covered up. Did someone rub bleaching cream on him? If fake oxygen chamber stories (with MJ posing inside) could be planted for the tabloids to speculate over, why not fake vitiligo photo shoots? The motive for such propaganda would be great because not only would it make MJ look like the biological father (and thus look straight, and not look like he adopted white kids) but it would also undermine the rumor that MJ bleached himself white (since if his son had vitiligo, it was hereditary, not self-induced)
Now your theory that the vitiligo might be hereditary and self-induced (through MJ damaging his DNA by carcinogenic skin bleaching) and then Prince inheriting the DNA damage because he’s MJ’s son, is brilliant, but pushes the scientific envelope a little too far to be convincing. First of all, the idea that self-inflicted vitiligo can be genetically inherited, smacks of the largely discredited theory of Lamarckism. I agree that skin bleaching can cause vitiligo (and probably caused MJ’s vitiligo) and that it probably damages DNA, but would the damaged DNA result in the child having vitiligo specifically, or just mutations in general? In addition, your theory also requires us to believe that Prince is his real son, which requires us to believe he had access to a level of genetic engineering that sounds unlikely especially back then. Still, the pieces of your theory fit together quite nicely, especially since as you say, skin bleaching is carcinogenic and carcinogens damage DNA. MJ also had an interest in medical books and DNA (he talked about humans and chimps sharing so much DNA) so genetic engineering is something he had the interest and money to pursue.
All of the theories have question marks. More information is needed to decide which one is most credible.
Opinionation:
I do not believe Arnold Klein is the father of those children. I don't believe Arnold Klein was even that close to Michael Jackson, as he claims he was.
Klein is way too light-skinned to be the father of those darker-skinned children. It's false; Diane Dimond--bless her--is wrong. A journalist's information is only as reliable as it's source. I think she got bad info.
LOL Opinionation and Jessica, have we all just forgot about Occam's Razor? ;-)
These theories are just off the wall!
Well, it's been pretty quiet lately on this blog, and nothing new has been posted. I come here just about every day to check for new postings LOL! I was doing some web surfing yesterday, just to see if anything new about MJ surfaced or reading something that I've not already seen before... found some crazy and twisted stories. I just wanted to share my thoughts since this blog has been mainly about MJ.
In my searching I really came to the realization that there are many of MJ fans that really think the King of Pop is not dead and that his death was faked; he used it as a ploy for him to vanish from the spotlight and live a peaceful life elsewhere. I know that this is not nothing new and has been going on for quite some time, but it amazes me that there are a lot of people who really do think this. Now that's not to say that for someone to deliberately disappear or fake their death is completely unheard of, but the rationality behind it gets weirder and weirder depending on what website you go to , that is. However there was one website (www.conspiracyzone.com) that really took it, IMO, to another level. LOL!!! While I read it, I just laughed and laughed. The gest of it was that MJ supposedly died secretly shortly after the Pepsi commercial burning incident, and his death was tightly kept from the public at the request of Pepsi and the Jackson family. Because MJ was at the height of his career at that time and was doing very well financially and also supporting his family financially, the Jackson family decided that it was necessary to find a way to keep the 'Golden Goose' alive and continuing. Thus a 'New MJ' was born, and has been in existence since about 1985 up until the day he died in 2009. So what they were saying is that there were 2 versions of MJ! LOL!! The Thriller era MJ was black, shy, and still in very good standing in the public's eye... It was shortly after the Pepsi incident that the 'new' Michael emerged and all hell broke loose after that; the weirdness kicked in and stayed. From what I read was that it was MJ's physical height that gave suspicion that he was not the original MJ, but an impostor instead. This was determined by older pictures of MJ during the early 80's, comparing his shortness to other people. It seemed that it was determined that MJ was not as tall as it was stated on his mug shot from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office, 5'11 (I think), and his height was compared to Brooke Shields in the early 80's. It is said that Brooke was 6'0 tall, but MJ appeared to be a lot shorter. Now I know that there was a possibility that she may have been wearing heels, but from the picture (her, MJ, and E.Lewis) they said that she is not wearing heels, but flat shoes?? Yeah, right! MJ is wearing his trademark loafers which really do not have much of a heel. They also compared his height to others; family members, D.Ross, and Q.Jones, and said that there was some differences in MJ's height compared to these ppl. But what they were trying to get at was that after the 'new' MJ emerged, his height all the sudden shot up.
This 'new' MJ was now seen in pictures being just as tall as Brooke Shields. Now I know that MJ sometime wore boots with heels on them, but this is really stupid. I don't buy it. There was a lot of comparison of the black MJ vs. the white MJ along with other things mentioned on the site regarding his falsetto voice vs. the deep voice he sometimes used (like during his concert announcement in London in 2009), the impostor MJ was most likely castrated (BS!) in order to hold on to the high pitched voice that he was known for, etc. The impostor MJ was also a member of the occult and displayed this by the lyrics of his songs...But I guess the impostor faked being MJ for as long as he could so he decided it was time to to 'check out', and that is where it ends with his 'supposedly' death in 2009 or vanishment; depending on which side of the MJ fan camp you're on. LOL LOL! So if he was not the 'real' MJ, who was he all this time? BTW,someone also on the website(in the comments section) went so far as to give a name of the actual person who the impostor of MJ was. It's stupid, twisted, and crazy is all I can say!!! The whole MJ thing has really gotten out of hand as we have gone from MJ death hoax to two MJ's and one of them being an impostor.
I know that Pearl Jr. has a documentary movie out called, Alive! Is MJ Really Dead? I saw it a couple of days ago, and IMO, I am NOT convinced that he's still alive based on what evidence she presented: MJ's name on his autopsy report and living will are wrong as well as two of his children's names in the Will, MJ's name not on his tomb, not being able to locate his body at Forest Lawn Cemetary, MJ's signature in the will is not really his but a template found online, MJ's importance of the date July 2011 that he autographed on a photo of him and Kenny Ortega, books about MJ's death being released the day before he died, MJ's fascination with the number seven, MJ's dancing in the "This Is It" movie was different than his usual style of dancing (Billie Jean)as if he was trying to tell his fans something in code, the transferring of MJ's body in the helicopter was moving, and body on the gurney was first strapped down but removed from the helicopter unstrapped, the ambulance taking MJ to the hospital was moving out of the drive way at at very slow pace for someone who is supposedly dying, the tires on the ambulance did not match, the ambulance photo of MJ was a fake(I have to admit, I did always wonder about that photo though - if legit or not as I have seen MJ in such lying position in other past pix), the whole "This Is It thing" that it was always planned to be a movie and had nothing to do with the O2 concerts...she mentioned quite a bit of things that led her to believe that MJ faked his death and is still alive some where. I truly believe the man we have known as MJ is dead and he is the same MJ that we have always known him to be, never an impostor. What's next? Anyone care to comment on this?
I almost forgot and failed to mention that another reason for the existence of 2 MJ's on this website was due to the difference in the way that MJ looked in pictures through out the years...Duh??? Let's not forget the man had plastic surgery (SEVERAL that I might add), and when you have that many procedures, it can have a drastic effect as to how you will look! LOL. I think the last time I checked, that was one of the reasons that some people have it done, but maybe perhaps not to the extent that MJ had. Besides, according to MJ's autopsy report, it was stated that there were many surgical scars found on the face and behind ear/neck area. So, for MJ to look totally different in pix from earlier in his career to the later years is not surprising...it makes complete sense. It's obvious that his new looks are result of his surgeries.
I'm sure someone/many people have come across this particular website already, but I just ran across it recently and thought it was an interesting but crazy read.
Lady C, it's pretty over the top for these people to think MJ died during the pepsi commercial and had been replaced by an imposter ever since. It is however possible that MJ became a different person after the pepsi the commerical, especially if the burning of his head caused brain damage, explaining his increasingly strange behavior and diminishing talent. That's wild speculation though and I have no evidence to support it.
Continuing wild speculation mode, one could make a case that MJ faked his death, as he had the motive, means and personality to do so.
As stated before, MJ has impersonators who look a lot like him and some of them must be crazy enough to sacrafice their life to help MJ save MJ's legacy and save his kids from financial ruin (two goals accomplished by the spike in popularity his death produced). Perhaps one of these fans rubbed MJ's bleaching cream all over themselves constantly to give themselves chemically induced vitiligo, and then when Dr. Murray wasn't looking, lay in MJ's bed and overdosed on propofal and then poor Dr. Murray came rushing in to save MJ, not knowing it was actually a dead fan. Meanwhile MJ made his escape, knowing the racist public would just assume the death was caused by a black doctor's incompetence.
Latoya is on record saying that MJ kept a lot of cash in the house that went missing. Why would MJ have kept so much cash on hand? Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but perhaps it was because he was planning an escape, which would also explain why the cash went missing. We also know that MJ had contacts with very rich people in the middle east (who he lived with after the trial). If Osama Bin Laden can hide in the Middle East evading detection for years, so can MJ.
Faking his death sounds like something MJ would do. He was fascinated by the living dead (zombies in Thriller). He loves to fool the public with child-like games. Claiming he had natural vitiligo when some people suspect he just bleached himself. Claiming he only had 2 operations, when his mother admits he had far more. Claiming those kids are genetically his, when they don't appear to have any black heritage. Claiming he was in love with Lisa Marie, when most people thought that was a publicity stunt to salavge his image. Planting tabloid stories about sleeping in oxygen chambres to live to be 150 and buying the elephant man bones. Claiming he was a victim of police brutality when the evidence suggests the opposite. Claiming to have an injury when Gavin was testifying so he could try to spend the morning in the hospital.
A man with such a twisted sense of humour and arguabley capable of faking marriage, skin disease, injuries, and even paternity, all in the effort to manipulate the public, is not above faking his own death to achieve the adulation and wealth (for his estate) he so craved. MJ was nothing if not a showman. Perhaps this was just his final act.
MJ was on tape saying he wanted to escape from the public eye before they had a chance to see him grow old. What better time to do so then age 50? MJ must have been incredibley jealous of all the adulation that another black man Obama was getting as the first black president and needed to do something extreme to get the attention back on him. His death achieved exactly that, and knocked Obama off TV for four days.
Another reason to suspect MJ faked his death is that at the time he was arrested, his mug shot listed him as 5'11" and 120 lbs. Prior to his death, everyone was shocked at how skinny he was so presumabley, he had become even skinnier than he was in the mug shot. Yet his autopsy reported him as 5'9" and 135 lbs. Did the mug shot got his stats wrong? Did he get shorter and heavier? Or was it not MJ's body?
Also, both Maureen Orth and Geraldo have reported that MJ had so chipped away at his nose through operations that he required a fake nose, yet the autopsy report said nothing about this.
Perhaps somewhere in a room in the middle east, MJ and some 12 year old kid are laughing hysterically at how brilliantly his plan worked, and how everyone fell for it, and complaining about all the fake celebrities and family members who are suddenly being so nice because they think he is dead.
opinionation:
LOL! That was a very funny read. ;-)
I don't believe Michael Jackson faked his death and I think it is patently absurd for anyone to think otherwise. Fans just hate when their 'idol' dies: Elvis is alive and Tupac is alive, too? Please!
I can see your line of reasoning, however, but the probability is closer to zero than one.
As for his mugshot photo, the police do not measure or weigh the arrestees; people being booked report their own measurements. For example, Christina Aguilera had been arrested for public intoxication recently and listed her weight as '100 lbs'.
But this is clearly untrue. I am an inch shorter than her--5'1"--and 100 pounds on someone 5'1" to 5'2" does not look the way she looks; she is fatter than 100 pounds. She's obviously lying.
Diane Dimond stated that Michael Jackson's reporting that he was 120 lbs and 5'11" showed how image conscious he was, that he wanted to appear thinner and taller than he actually was. In the FBI files, there was an 80s era driver's license of Michael's were he was 5'9".
As for his nose, I believe Arnold Klein said his nose had collapsed--which would explain the reports of a prothesis--but that he had rebuilt it. Blanca Francia said Michael Jackson had a jar of fake noses and I believe everything she's stated about Jacko so I believe this was also true. But he did dress in disguises.
I think he probably did where a prothesis for a time; that nose was wrecked! I remember Rolling Stone magazine stated that someone on the set of 'Scream' said Michael Jackson freaked out when his nose came off.
We can never know what's true but the continued reports of a fake Jacko nose has to lend some kind of credence to the story. I think he died with his natural nose, though. However, i do believe that autopsy was 'sanitized' to make him not look like a drug addict so Michael--and thus the Jackson kids--would not lose that AEG insurance money; AEG stated, I believe, that if Michael passed away due to drugs, he would lose that insurance money. Jacko was a total drug addict.
I think his fans just need to get over it. I am actually embarrassed for them that they like a guy most people--rational people--think was a pedophile.
Long time no see, Opinionation! Everyone's been under the "No girls allowed" post. Pretty interesting conversation about Mike's nanny Grace...
Funny speculation, but I doubt that Mike faked his death. I think the fans want to believe that their idol is still alive, much like the fans of Elvis and Tupac, because they cannot truly fathom a day without him, especially since he didn't say goodbye.
I also wonder why they would say that he was replaced with an imposter after the Pepsi burn incident. Is it because they subconsciously think that Mike's behavior, especially with the boys (he had been "with boys" since at least the late 1970s), was wrong, suspect, and perhaps criminal? I truly believe many of his fans know that Mike had a boy problem, but they just don't want to ascribe it to him. This could be their way of acknowledging it without, of course, saying he was guilty.
About the height, in the FBI files released, they had a copy of his driver's license from 1984 or 85 and he listed his height as 5'9", the same as it was on the autopsy. Actually, Mike has always looked short to me, so the 5'11" figure never seemed true. I read somewhere that Mike liked to say he was taller and thinner than he really was, so that would explain why he would say he was 120lbs and 2 inches taller on the mugshot. Singer Christina Aguilera was arrested recently and she said she weighed 100lbs, but clearly she was lying because any picture around that time shows she ut on a lot of weight since her divorce. It's just how celebrities are.
Wow, Desiree we said the same stuff LOL.
LOL. I agree with Désirée and Jessica. Imagine MJ visiting this blog from his hideaway in the Middle East LOL.
He is dead and I think that's what he wanted. In my opinion he was unable to perform a single song, let alone 50 shows, and he was broke... dead was the only way out of his situation with some dignity.
I saw This is it and I felt so bad for him... Yeah, he was a paedophile, but anyway, one time he was cool, beautiful and talented, and it hurts to witness his decadence.
I don't understand why people believes the publicity of AEG. The whole movie seems a bad joke. The staff looks like mocking him when they pretend to be in ecstasy at his clumsy performances. It looks like they are tricking a little boy or a senile person. Poor guy, couldn't even walk a ramp...
Jessica, thanks for telling me about the Grace discussion under the “No girls allowed” post. I just now posted some comments there, though I don’t know much about her.
Desiree/Jessica:
I didn’t know about MJ’s driver’s license confirming the height listed on the autopsy. With that additional information, the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests he really is dead.
Interesting that MJ would allegedly lie to make himself sound even skinnier than he was when he was already so skinny. I would like to see Diane Dimond’s original quote about that. Most men who weigh around 135 lbs would probably lie to sound a little bulkier and more manly. Lying to sound super skinny is something a woman would do, which is more evidence that MJ was gay (not like we need anymore).
Ladies
The quote from Diame Dimond is on her website, I asked her about the autopsy report in a comment section of one of her posts and she replied to me saying that she thinks the mug shot information was inaccurate, as Desiree said the cops don't weigh or measure arrestees. With regard to MJ's height I saw him twice in person and it struck me that he was as tall as he was. When I saw the autopsy report state that he was 5ft 9" I thought it was wrong. I saw him in Perth in 1985 when he came to purchase the Beatles catalogue from a rich business man here, also saw him in 1996 at the History concert, I was 5 rows from the front. He was amazing, that was when I was a fan, which I was up until he died. Then I started to do research and found too much out, like most of us here!
He was all about the mystery! Or so he thought!
"Lying to sound super skinny is something a woman would do, which is more evidence that MJ was gay (not like we need anymore)."
Opinionation, I am compelled to comment about that sentence. Michael's sexual behavior showed he preferred males, which naturally leads to the conclusion he waw gay or at the very least, a very, very, very gay-leaning bisexual. (In his case, the evidence shows he was a pedophile who only wanted males of a certain age.) But the bulk of gay men actually prefer being ultra-male and prefer ultra-male men. I just don't want stereotypes about an already disenfranchised group perpetuated, in the research and discussion of Michael.
Girls, It seems Klein changed his mind...I saw a board where a girl posted a note from Klein´s facebook. Here it is:
Michael was not gay
by Arnold W. Klein
Michael Jackson's sexuality? I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Jason Pfeiffer an ex-emloyee of mine together with a lawyer,my ex-accountant and a shady business man sold the story of Jason's so-called affair with Michael to the foreign press as well as the US media. I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. I apologize to Michael's family for any damage this might have caused. Nevertheless, I feel the accusations of Michael's so called pedophilia forced him to live a tortured life with even his own sister accusing him of this behavior.
I always suspected Jason may be lying but Klein here denies even him being gay. I ask myself if he did that because Liz has died...
Suzy:
A friend of mine is friends with Klein (real friends, not facebook friends). We argue about him all the time because she likes him and I think he's scum. But I can tell you that Klein's denial means nothing. Jason could very well have been lying. It's hard for me to believe Michael Jackson would want to be with a man as fat as Jason. I was always skeptical...
However, Klein was in on this whole scam and it is curious to me that just now, in light of the fact Dr. Conrad Murray's defense team wants to see Klein's medical records--they want to know what drugs Michael Jackson had been given, he is trying to win over people.
I question as to why he is doing this now. Surely Klein knows that people remember him being so adamant about Jason Pfeiffer telling the truth back in May and will be suspicious of such a turn-coating. I believe it is because Klein knows he was one of Michael's drug peddlers.
Suzy, this guy still tells my friend that he's the father of Paris and Prince Jackson, even though he denied he was the father on TV, even though Prince has what appears to be vitiligo. And, remember, Klein believes Michael Jackson had vitiligo.
He also claims that he has DNA of the kids to prove this, which I don't believe for a second. He claims that this is his 'secret hand' to be played if AEG, etc. try to smear him.
Klein is a liar, and what my friend tells me, even though she likes Klein, is 10 times worse than what you read. He's a very bad person. He and Jason were in on it, or Klein jumped in on it.
Don't pay him any mind. There are a number of suspicious things in that statement alone. He's just trying to protect his ass.
Klein's statements don't change the fact that Michael Jackson had semen in his bed and explicit gay books. Straight men don't have these things. I think he'd change his stance on this if he knew about what I've revealed about Michael's homosexuality on this blog.
Desiree,
Maybe your friend should have Arnold read this blog. He'd wet himself, especially after reading about the NAMBLA-recommended books Michael had lovingly stored away, complete with a note he wrote inside one of his treasures. At this point, I question whether or not Michael ever slept with an adult of either gender, with the exception of his few "special" friends, who still slept with him after they grew pubes, such as Brett Barnes and Omer Bhatti. But their bedtime romps with Michael began when they were children.
Desiree, I know he´s just saving his ass. Remember, Elizabeth Taylor died and he should be very remorseful. But I and others didn´t forget his tweet about that subject towards her. If he really was out of that subject he should have deny it since the beginning.
I heard some stuff about Klein being a bad person when Jason came out but it´s natural because you know the fans were very angry at him. I believe some of that statements are from the fans themselves. Really I´m amazed he has people who admire him yet.
You know many people believes Klein lied about Michael having vitiligo and some others say that spots Prince has on him is a colouration very common on kids of his age.(I can´t recall the name though).
Interesting is also the fact after Jason came, I read about a blog someone wrote that Debbie knew Michael´s girlfriend and she would claim on media it was all a lie.
Why that girlfriends rumours just came after stuff like that? lol
A fan who grown on the 70´s comfirmed he had gay rumours since that time.
Len,
But a "Study of the man" is about little boys? So why that title?
Ladies
I must admit to being a little confused, first Klein says that MJ is gay and then he is not WTF? I think Klein is a little worried right now, last time he was asked for MJ's medical records he hid them in his car, why? Is Paul Camuso lying as well in his email to a poster on this blog? I don't know what to think at this stage, Elizabeth Taylor seemed to be admonishing Klein on twitter when all this happenend in May, not for the content of what he said more for breaching a confidence.
Desiree, does your friend say that Klein has admitted that he lied about MJ's gayness? I am surprised that he has admitted that the kids are his, the oldest son does bear a resemblence to AK. I recently saw some photos of Prince at a basketball game and thought then that he looked a bit Klienish! But who knows, maybe one day Klein will decide to tell!
For the time being I think that what you have revealed on this blog is enough, ie semen on sheets is abit of a giveaway!
Sarah,
Just because Michael hadn´t an affair with Jason it doesn´t mean he wans´t gay. I mean, just because he could have been gay he didn´t have to date all the men who claim to date him. Klein now denies both things but am I the only one who noticed the "timing"? Liz Taylor passes away and he makes that statement? But amazing enough a MJ fan blessed him for that as an answer and called him an humble man...besides Klein asked for excused for MJ family but surely they don´t go to his wall...
He also is claiming against AEG and Dr Hoefflin.
As for Paul Camuso, Jason and Arnie are buddies for him. Of course he would defend them. Paul Camuso was the one who saw him when he was rescued fro the fire. He appears on the pic with Klein. What is strange for me is Paul Camuso talked about that subject for himself. He could have said nothing.
I have to admit, sometimes Prince looks like Klein to me...but maybe I was wrong and Prince really has vitiligo.
Arnold Klein is a real piece of work. If he was such good friends with Mike why is he saying all those things about his kids? If I was asked to donate sperm and was the father of those kids, I would have took that fact to the grave. Mike's kids do not need to know that they may or may not be his. What's the point of them knowing that?
I think Klein was most definitely saving his own ass, and his denial means nothing. It's not even a strong denial in my opinion. "I don't believe AT THIS TIME that there is any evidence to indicate he was gay." WTF? That is NOT a strong denial AT ALL. It's almost as if he is leaving room for evidence to come out. But as Desiree said, all he needs to do is look at the DNA report from 2005. Mike was sure having "fun".
I think all these so-called friends of Mike know he was gay, but they are just covering it up.
In my opinion, there are only two explanations for his sexuality: 1. he was a gay pedophile, and 2. if he was innocent, he was a closeted gay man. He was NOT into women, at all. I think if he was we wouldn't be discussing whether his marriages were a sham, and whether those kids are truly his.
By the way, I'm not understanding why people think Prince looks like Klein. He is a liar, those two kids are dark and have a brown undertone to their skin. Both Debbie Rowe and Klein have pink undertones. If they were the product of those two people, wouldn't Paris and Prince have pink undertones as well? Unless Debbie and Klein have a dark non-white person in their family tree, which I doubt. Those are Mike's kids, guys, or at least not a white man's kids, unless he was a dark skinned Spainard, Greek, or Italian. Not a pink-faced Ashkenazi Jew like Klein.
I found a link for Gene Simmons's further comments about Michael Jackson's little-boy problems. Here it is.
http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/simmons-jacko-was-an-abuser/
He said he never heard of Michael being with any adult - male or female. I didn't realize he had dated Diana Ross, though. In that case, he must know where a few of the skeletons are buried. I'd love to read the full interview.
I wish he could get some of the musicians to talk. Maybe they have their own buried skeletons? Then again, why be afraid of people finding the skeletons? If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to be intimidated into staying quiet. I remember reading how the public was shocked when they learned Marilyn Monroe had posed nude. Her comment about why she did it: "I was hungry." End of discussion; end of scandal. I respect honest people.
Klein denied publicly the paternity of the kids. So if he really is telling anyone otherwise, we don´t know.
Arnold Klein is a liar and an unethical doctor. He is unable to honour the Hippocratic Oath. He's one of the doctors who bleached MJ. I don' believe a thing coming out of his mouth. Whatever he says, is a lot of bollocks.
Michael Jackson was smart enough to avoid using the sperm of one of his friends or acquaintances. Look how they run their mouths after his dead. If one of them were the father, it would have cost
him many millions, because they would have blackmailed him forever. Also, remember what Jermaine said about MJ “purchasing” semen.
Debbie Rowe was the necessary evil, because after the allegations, I doubt MJ would have been allowed to adopt. That would have required psychological tests and investigations, if those things work in the US the same way as in many countries. Very risky considering his twisted personality and life. He even needed Debbie to make it look respectable and maybe prevent further investigations. With Blanket he did it without a “mother”... I think he felt more confident almost a decade after the scandal.
Debbie Rowe cost him millions and was the sword of Damocles hanging over MJs head for years. So, why make things more complicated adding a father. I think he used the sperm of an anonymous donor.
The kids aren't his biological children, in my opinion. No matter how tanned they look, they aren't the product of a black man. Anyway, he is the father.
Girls remember Stuart Backerman? He gave an interview 1st April (lol). It seems he will not publish the book. Look that excerpt:
Valmai: Stuart, in 2008 you did an interview with the MJFC in which you spoke of Michael in a very positive and loving way, but in another interview you did immediately after Michael's death with The Vancouver Sun, you talk about him quite differently. There is just a huge difference between these two interviews and what you are saying. It begs the question, why?
Stuart: Could be a little more specific? What did I say that was different?
Valmai: Well, like I said, the 2008 interview with the MJFC was very positive toward Michael. In the 2009 interview however, you say Michael was a class contradiction; too much money; too much material focus, and too much of the prescription drug situation following the unfortunate scalding of his head. You mention that you saw him being disloyal to people, that he was not all there at times, that he wasn’t so swift on the business side, he wore wigs that made him look strange, that he was an idiot with the Bashir documentary, “That was the stupidest thing in the world, and he was warned about it, but Michael does what Michael wants.” And, “I’d like to think that Michael Jackson had innocent relationships with these boys, similar to what a lot of 12 and 11 and 13-year-old boys might experiment with, in a sense. Kind of innocently. ‘I’ll show you mine, you show me yours’ kind of situation, at the most.” Etc…
Continuing:
Stuart: I can’t compare what I said in that article to another time and place because I am not sure how they are set against each other. I will say this, the interview I did with The Vancouver Sun was the day after Michael passed away. Number one, I don’t know if you know this, but I had knee surgery the day Michael died and I did this interview the next day. I think I revealed some things that I wouldn’t normally reveal if it wasn’t for the fact that I was still a little “punchy” from the surgery.
Number two is, clearly I was feeling very upset. A lot of things sort of came up and I think it’s important to understand that. Like I said before, Michael and I were about to go on a huge trip that he very much wanted to do. When that didn’t happen because of the raid and the charges, I think I was still feeling a little upset about the disappointment that we weren’t still working together. That was a function of Michael allowing, being quite honest with you because he was in a very vulnerable state of mind, I’ll say that, but nonetheless, allowing the Nation of Islam and their followers so to speak, to basically take over his affairs was very upsetting to me.
So I think when I heard that he had passed away, and again, right after the surgery, I said some things that were probably more revealing that I normally would have said about him. I guess I was sort of ruminating about the whole sadness of the situation in that Michael had insomnia; he couldn’t sleep, he really couldn’t, and because of that situation he did take sleeping medication. That clearly had an impact on his life.
More:
We didn’t see him during the day because he stayed up all night and slept in so to speak. Obviously that stuff affects you. It affected his ability to gain weight, it affected how he felt about himself, it affected how he acted in a general way, and normally I wouldn’t have went there at all. Because he died suddenly, and I was in surgery that day and did this interview, I wasn’t as guarded as what I normally would have been. I probably said way too much that I would normally say in an interview.
That’s the best I think I can explain. After I read the interview, I was a little upset about how I was quoted, but it’s not the reporters fault. I said those things, but my excuse so to speak, is that I was a little foggy and I was depressed about Michael’s death. It brought up a lot of old feelings about still being a bit resentful about the fact that our relationship ended so abruptly with the Nation of Islam; a group that is so anti-love, so anti-Michael Jackson philosophy that it always disturbed me.
I haven’t done all that many interviews frankly, after I left Michael’s employ, and I guess a lot of things kind of coalesced in my head the day after The Vancouver Sun called me, which was the day after he died. That I think is the best way I can explain it; why and what I said during that interview. I hope that explains it.
Valmai: It does explain some things. Stuart, you wrote a book titled, In the Court of the King. Has this book ever been published?
Stuart: No. I decided that I didn’t want to publish the book in respect for Michael. By the way, the book was a very positive reflection of my experiences with Michael. Some fans thought that it might be negative, but I wrote this long before he died; a couple of years before he died and I was frankly in the process of publishing the book at the time. But I decided when Michael died that I just didn’t want to get involved with looking like a blood-sucker so to speak, or taking advantage of his death.
I just felt that I had talked to the media and said enough about Michael that it didn’t really require for me to publish a book about him. But let me be very clear, if I ever do publish this book, it’s a positive story about Michael Jackson. It is not a dig; it’s not a tell-all in sense that makes Michael look bad at all. I love Michael. My experience in working with him was one of the most dynamic, exciting and most loving experiences in my life.
More:
I consider myself a reasonably honest and straightforward person, but this is very, very important to me; when you love somebody, whether it be a family member, a spouse, a close friend, even if they are in trouble so to speak, you support them and love them. That’s the way I always felt with Michael Jackson. Even though I saw some things in Michael that were troubling which he himself saw; his anxiousness, his lack of sleep, sometimes some very knee-jerk reactions and decisions because of the state of mind he was in etc, wasn’t important to me in terms of the way I judged Michael. I did not judge him, and so like a family member you love the person, but you’re honest enough to see some of their weaknesses and of course their strengths.
The book I wrote about Michael was a very positive, very loving story about my experiences with Michael. In terms of publishing it, to tell you the truth, I just didn’t feel that it was a good time to kind of pile on, in a sense, with everybody else publishing books about Michael. It just didn’t feel right and it wouldn’t have looked right. But even if I did publish the book, the fans shouldn’t have been concerned that it would have been a negative book or that I would have been another Ian Halperin or some of those other dirty dogs who wrote books that don’t make Michael look good. The book I wrote would have made Michael look the way he is; loving, beautiful, sensitive, caring, but also a little nutty and complicated just like me and you, you know?
Michael had his stuff too. He wasn’t a God, he wasn’t a Jesus incarnate, he wasn’t Buddha, he was Michael Jackson; a tremendous, incredible, dynamic performer, a loving father, generous and good to his friends, but he had his things, you know? He was eccentric, he did have sleeping problems, and he did try and address his sleeping problems in a kind of negative way in a sense, and that impacted his life. So, you are either honest about somebody or you put them on a pedestal, and look the other way about the things that maybe or should be addressed; that maybe or should be mitigated in some fashion. When you talk about someone, it doesn’t make sense to be anything else but totally honest, but in conclusion, while Michael had some weaknesses and stuff he desperately needed to work on, overall, he was one of the most amazing people that I ever, ever met in my entire life.
Valmai: Do you think that this description for your book might have led the fans to believe it was negative and a tell-all?
“Backerman gives the reader Michael without his make-up in his riveting depiction of what happens when celebrity cracks up and damage control starts. Packed with anecdotes and fascinating inside information, In The Court Of The King is a unique and stylishly-written memoir, engaging and profound, a highly personal portrait of Jackson and his world that is unflinching in its honesty and disquieting in its implications.”
Funny. He said he revealed too much because he had surgery the day before and he was out of his guards...so he was saying that was the truth but he shouldn´t have said that things.
What a pile of BS! Stuart Backermann probably told the truth in the Vancouver Sun interview. He said that Jackson made himself look guilty by paying Jordan Chandler off, he also said that Jackson could be heartless and cold. He poked fun at his wigs, and plastic surgery and commented that MJ had never had a sexual relationship with either of his wives. I think he said quite a lot really, whoops looks like he regrets that now. I also read a post from someone who was speaking about the Heal the World foundation and Melissa Johnson, who claims to have emails from Backermann saying that Mj was crazy and he was pleased to get out from the madness that surrounds him! Sound familiar, why can no one tell the truth and stick to it! MJ was not a nice person that schemed and manipulated situations to suit himsef. He was a drug addict who used his children like possessions and deprived them of a mother's love! Even their own mother branded him a sociapath prior to the 2005 trial and then did an about turn on the stand. Why I wish I knew, I think Debbie Rowe saved MJ from jail that day, her testimony made the prosection look very weak, although I believe ther Janet Atvizo did a very good job of tha unaided! Right charges wrong family, if it had been the Chandlers MJ would have been in jail year ago!
I have learned people are at their most honest when they are caught off guard. I just read the Vancouver Sun article. Stuart was being honest. Now, he is just back tracking. He has also obviously joined the boat of people trying to make money off Michael's rabid fans, by writing something the authors know will make the lunatics buy it.
What ever else anyone may say about Gene Simmons, at least he's honest and sticks to what he believes and or knows is the truth. However, both Gene and Stuart, in his Vancouver Sun interview, state Michael was not interested in relationships with adults. Telling.
Really I´d love to read his book. Whatever he wrote on it, he doesn´t want to make it public. If the book was so positive...what´s his fear?
Ironic how he choose precisely Ian Halperin to make an example of a book published right after his death ande to made him look bad,when he claimed first that Michael maybe had a "predisposition" to be gay...
I´d like to know what private conversations Michael had with Marc Schafell and he threatened him to disclose...
I will be honest here, I´d like to believe he made nothing wrong with boys-out legal age. For me the ideal book would be Halperin´s. Not a paedophile, just gay. Maybe I´m being naive, but Halperin can be mean. Sometimes I believe if Michael was really a molester, he wouldn´t hesitate and write that. But I have to admit, his behaviour with boys was creepy. And there are rumours that he was only absolved because he was ill and he would to die...?
Here is the whole interview.
http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/issue/rising-from-the-ashes/article/interview-with-stuart-backerman
The interview date is funny...xD Very telling.
GirlUndercover, Mike was a molester. He was also gay. He was a gay pedophile. I think Ian Halperin was just trying to make money since Mike just died. He thought he was guilty before, and if you read his book, he didn't do any real digging to show Mike was innocent of molestation, he just took what was written already and copied and pasted.
Your gut is telling you the right thing when you think his behavior with boys was creepy. Because it was creepy, and criminal.
But thanks for the story.
I think maybe the Jacksons might have got to Stuart Backerman and made him recant. He did this interview after the first "revealing" one, which says a lot. And he said he was "punchy" because he just had knee surgery. I got my 4 wisdom teeth pulled last year and that medication, that anesthesia they give, is like truth serum! I just couldn't contain myself, according to my sister. Also when he gave the interview with the fan club, OF COURSE he was only going to say nice things about Mike; the fans wouldn't have it any other way! And I believe him when he says that Mike never had a real relationship with a woman, and that he definitely DID NOT have one with LMP and Debbie. He couldn't even deny that Mike was gay. Well, I bet if he knew about he semen stains, Backerman and everyone else would immediately put two and two together and say "Well of course he was gay; finally physical evidence so I don't have to keep repeating the lie about Michael Jackson being straight!" I think it would be a huge weight of their shoulders!
He claims Mike was innocent, but if he was truly innocent in Backerman's mind, he wouldn't have alluded to the notion that Mike was probably just "experimenting" with 12-13 yr old boys!!
I think these people need to stop lying all the time. If I was him, or any one else with dirt, I'd spill the truth. I'd sing like a canary! Maybe it's because he has 3 kids that will grow up and have to sort through their "father's" mess.
Sarah, interesting about the private messages he had with that Melissa Johnson woman. I bet many, many Michael Jackson associates have stories like that. Seems Bob Jones was the only one with the guts to speak the truth. I don't think we will ever get the truth. Latoya Jackson is on "Celebrity Apprentice" whoring out her brother's image every chance she gets, it's sickening.
Oh I should also say that the anesthesia that I got would not have made me "suggestible" as many fans try to say about Jordie Chandler. I was completely in control, just that my scruples and reservations were lifted. So if the fans want to say that Evan Chandler giving his son "truth serum" as anesthesia (no evidence of that ever happening) as a way of planting memories, I don't buy it. And if that was the case, which it wasn't, I'd make a wager that Jordie finally told his dad the truth after the tooth extraction.
UndercoverGirl,
Michael did molest children. That's an undeniable fact. If you have any doubt, just click on the links Desiree has posted. Personally, and these are my own thoughts, I think Michael would have come out, at least to himself, and would have lived a comfortable life as a gay man had he sought therapy. Unfortunately, he continued the cycle of abuse and became the abuser, insofar as little boys are concerned.
Jessica,
I agree. You can't plant false memories with that stuff. It just removes the censor button. When I had my wisdom teeth pulled, during my adolescence, my sister used it as an opporunity to find out what I had been doing. I just couldn't stop spilling it all, to her glee!
I think the cat's out of the bag, with documents to which Desiree has been posting. Michael's rabid fans sure are openly getting their panties in a wad! No matter what kind of book is written, the documents don't lie. I'm sure it's getting around, now. I've always liked the saying, "You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all the time."
Insofar as his children are concerned, I suspect they already know what their father was about. If they don't, it is their right to know. I've known too many people who discovered family secrets when they were older and felt horribly betrayed. A child's ability to comprehend is different, but couched appropriately, they can handle family secrets a lot better than when they learn they were deceived, in adulthood.
I thought also on the possibility of Backerman being well aware of what he said but someone, the fans or the Jackson family said him something and he thought on an excuse (a dumb one lol.
The great part of the fans just bashes someone if that person is direct on bashing Michael, but I bet that time they even didn´t notice Backerman´s chose of words. Of course they didn´t like the Vancouver interview.
You guys ever thought about joining the Westboro church?
Steve:
And how would joining the Westboro Baptist Church benefit us? They are popularly know as being vehemently against homosexuality. You do not see anyone here advocating against gays.
Therefore, it would be nonsensical for any one of us to join an organization whereby we'd all be swiftly ejected for our opposing opinion.
If it is you who has a problem with the fact of the late Michael Jackson's homosexuality, I think you should take your own advice and seek membership with the WBC.
“I am not entirely convinced the semen stains were not from Michael Jackson's boy-loving escapades.”
Michael Jackson did say he allowed boys to sleep in his bed, however, it is a know fact that boys and men have 'wet dreams' and awaken every morning with a 'hard' on.
After the allegations surfaced of Michael being a 'child molester' a concern parent would have, at a minimum, had a physical examination to detect anal penetration, and check to see if there are any behavior differences. A child that has been raped or abused does not eagerly want to be around their abuser.
Anonymous from Detroit, MI:
Host Name: c-98-209-108-75.hsd1.mi.comcast.net
IP Address: 98.209.108.75
Location: Detroit, Michigan, United States
The most likely explanation is most likely: if a man who has dodged homosexual rumors since the 1970s, has been accused of molesting boys, and has never had a believable relationship with a woman has semen stains on his bed in three flavors other than his own--in his private bed--chances are great it's because he was involved in homosexual sexual contact with semen-producing males.
Saying he allowed boys in his bed and they had wet dreams does NOT look good for a many-times-accused child molester. You'd be better off assuming he was gay; unfortunately, fans cannot take the reality of Michael Jackson being gay.
I think something fans don't realize is that Michael Jackson's bedroom had a lock on it. I'm glad you weren't one of the ones to say other people could have had sex in his bed or used his bed for XYZ and ended up with semen on the mattress.
Kudos.
Please read this entry:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/addendum-to-michael-jackson-was-gay_06.html
Also, you've brought out the old tired trope of the abused hating their abuser. That's not always the case, clearly with Jacko and his 'special friends'.
Please read this piece about child molesters:
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
God, when am I ever going to have fans not leave completely brain-dead comments on my blog? Please, tell your friends: if they ever happen to stumble upon "Desiree Speaks...so listen..." from Google, make sure they read ALL posts pertaining to a topic, click all links, and read EVERYTHING before leaving a comment.
This will greatly reduce the fan inanity I'll have to respond to. Thanks.
The insanity comes from any person with the belief that since Michael Jackson did not have a girlfriend he must be gay. I won’t go into how obscured that analogy is since I do know many Christians who are saving themselves for married. Wasn’t MJ a Christian?
Nevertheless, what you failed to address was the issue of a concern parent. A loving, caring, and protective parent if suspicious would not allow their precious commodity to spend the night with a child molester. A parent with any suspicion of abused would have their child checked by physician for signs of tear in the rectum and/or have their child seen by psychologist who is trained in detecting sexual abuse.
Feldman, the defense attorney in the 1993 case where Evan Chandler accused Michael of molesting his son Jordan, sent the family to a psychologist to uncover whether there might have been sexual abuse. Dr. Stan Katz said in his opinion Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile, but a regressed 10 year old.
Not the FBI, LAPD, Child Protective Services, Psychologists, and the Court System could find any supporting evidence to convict Michael Jackson as a child molester. All of these professional entities are very well-trained in uncovering misconduct, however, NO improprieties were ever found which why Michael Jackson remained a free man until his untimely death.
Bottom line, what you believe is irrelevant since you were not there, and you don’t have any evidence that has not already been ruled upon.
Therefore, since it has been determined Michael Jackson was not a pedophile (not interested in boys), yet you are determined Michael was gay could possibly mean he was having sex with men since you haven written 9 pairs of men, not boy’s underwear were found upstairs in the arcade room.
The semen stains you keep referencing is not a big concern, however, what would be alarming if rectal fluid from different men was found in the mattress since men like penetration. Semen stains from boys sleeping in his bed can be explained away since fluid from ‘wet dreams’ and fluid from morning ‘hard-on’ make sense.
Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the evidence was fabricated being that 74 LAPD cars went to the Neverland Ranch to gather evidence. I smell opportunity!
Undercover Broad:
You have to forgive me; I tire easily from having to respond to such BS from fanbots. It's always the same arguments and the same illogicalities over and over again. I often wonder why people who disagree with me even come to my blog. You will not change my opinion given my extensive research and people I've talked to. It will not happen. Similarly, if one is neck-deep in the brain-liquifying psychosis of MJ fanaticism, I will not change their minds either.
So, what is this for? Why waste my time?
Oh well, here goes...
"The insanity comes from any person with the belief that since Michael Jackson did not have a girlfriend he must be gay."
There's your strawman. I never said that because Michael Jackson never had a (believable) female companion that automatically means he was a homosexual. However, it's an exercise in cognitive dissonance to hold on to a belief in heterosexuality for a man who had made it into his mid-thirties without showing any tangible interest in women, only injecting himself into an obviously fake, short-lived marriage with a woman he had little respect for after he'd been accused of sexually molesting one of his male 'special friends'.
If you do not live under a rock, you should know that most men--perhaps not all but most--who enter adulthood without ever having an opposite sexed partner usually turn out to be gay. Couple this near-truism with the fact Jacko was plagued by gay rumors since his teenage years (given his obvious effeminacy), it's a glowing indictment of Michael Jackson being gay.
Only fans deny this.
Again, please read:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/addendum-to-michael-jackson-was-gay_06.html
"Wasn’t MJ a Christian?"
I'd say he was spiritual and he had a belief in God but he was not a 'Christian'. He deflected from his Jehovah's Witness faith and then was found to be in possession of pornography. Given Michael's effeminacy, the "I'm saving myself for marriage," crap was a convenient way to not have to be seen with women.
He was no Christian; that is all PR.
"Nevertheless, what you failed to address was the issue of a concern parent. A loving, caring, and protective parent if suspicious would not allow their precious commodity to spend the night with a child molester."
A 'concerned parent' is not of issue here and I also think this is where fans get into trouble. You cannot base your argument on what you believe a person should do in a situation. Sure, if a fire occurs, I would expect people to "stop, drop, and roll" but, statistically speaking, there would be a handsome segment of people who'd end up sucking in smoke anyway. People often don't 'behave' in the way stereotypically expected of them. This is the reason it is faulty to say, "Well, a concerned parent would do XYZ and since they didn't do XYZ, that must mean this accused person is beyond reproach..." No.
Furthermore, no parent believed Michael Jackson was a child molester--at least not publicly--and, as a result, they would not have suspected any type of sexual abuse between Jacko and his 'special friends'. And that is the point: no one suspected--again, at least publicly--that Michael Jackson was a child molester and, therefore, the thought of getting a medical examination for their sons would never cross their minds.
(cont.)
"sent the family to a psychologist to uncover whether there might have been sexual abuse. Dr. Stan Katz said in his opinion Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile, but a regressed 10 year old."
First of all, Dr. Stan Katz never interviewed Jordie Chandler and he never interviewed Michael Jackson. Technically, his opinion on Michael Jackson's predilection for boys is as much conjecture as my belief that Jacko was indeed a pedophile based upon the FBI report, "Child Molesters: A behavioral analysis". Katz would have had to interview Jacko to verify that he, indeed, was sexually geared towards young males. But he still believed he was a child molester.
Oddly, Katz interviewed Gavin Arvizo and definitely believed he was molested. I'm sure that does not mean anything to you.
Jordie Chandler was interviewed by a brilliant child psychiatrist named Dr. Richard Gardner, and Gardner absolutely believed Jordie was a victim of sexual abuse. If Gardner believed Jordie, then Jordie was molested--period. Read Gardner's book "Sex Abuse Hysteria" and you'd know that he would never believe a false claim.
Gardner stated over 95 percent of child abuse allegations are true and, again, if this man believed Jordie, Jordie was molested. It does not hurt that Jordie was, too, paid a multi-million dollar settlement.
"Not the FBI, LAPD, Child Protective Services, Psychologists, and the Court System could find any supporting evidence to convict Michael Jackson as a child molester."
Good God.
First of all, the FBI documents available to the public are not the complete set of files. Likewise, what is available is heavily redacted that they are virtually unreadable. Essentially, the FBI files, as what is available for all of us to see, neither condemns nor vindicates Michael Jackson of child molestation. There was a very interesting document about a couple on the train who heard strange sexual noises between Jacko and a boy (Brett Barnes) in 1992. That was interesting.
(cont.)
Second, it seems like fans have no concept of this: child molestation is often a crime that is physically unprovable! The conduct that Jordie alleged to have happened between he and Michael Jackson--kissing, oral sex, and masturbation--cannot be proven to have occurred. Jordie never alleged penetrative sex.
Unless penetration occurred, child sexual abuse cannot be tangibly proven, only circumstantially proven. Additionally, unless there is a credible adult eyewitness to the sexual abuse of the child, a case will be difficult to prove.
Third, many fans seem to forget that Michael Jackson paid off these alleged victims and their families. No one was going to testify against him.
Please let all of that percolate...
"Bottom line, what you believe is irrelevant since you were not there"
Ditto! And, by all means, tell every vindication blogger the same thing! It seems that unless someone thinks Michael Jackson was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, all Michael Jackson fans believe they know exactly what happened between Michael and his 'special friends': nothing.
And it's ridiculous. None of the boys who publicly accused Michael Jackson of molesting them--Jordie, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo, two of whom received multimillion dollar settlements--have recanted their accusations. You should be honest enough to admit that there exists at least a 50/50 chance Michael Jackson was guilty of molesting those boys.
I'll add that you obviously think what I 'believe' is totally relevant, otherwise you would have went about your merry way without forcing me to respond to tedium.
No, you care very much indeed, which is too bad because I couldn't care less what you think. I find your conundrum quite hilarious.
Again: you weren't there either.
"you don’t have any evidence that has not already been ruled upon."
Oh, blah. The point of a blog like this is to go over the evidence available and look at it without the legal red tape and BS that exists in a courtroom, i.e. the 'presumption of innocence' and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' crap that make Michael Jackson automatically innocent. Michael Jackson was a huge celebrity and was treated as such by the justice system: with kid gloves.
"Therefore, since it has been determined Michael Jackson was not a pedophile (not interested in boys)"
No, no, no. Michael Jackson absolutely was interested in pubescent and adolescent boys. This is undebatable. We can, however, debate over whether he was guilty of molesting them. But he was interested and if you think differently, your head's in the sand.
If you have any information that verifies Michael Jackson was proven to have not been a pedophile, feel free to link it. Otherwise, I will chalk your statement up to being arbitrary, and ultimately irrelevant, claptrap based upon nothing whatsoever.
"The semen stains you keep referencing is not a big concern"
It was a big concern to Michael Jackson's majority homophobic fans. It was not a big concern to me, seeing that it is totally expected for a gay man like Jacko to have the semen of other males on his mattress. I just did not expect three different samples!
(cont.)
"Semen stains from boys sleeping in his bed can be explained away since fluid from ‘wet dreams’ and fluid from morning ‘hard-on’ make sense."
So you've already decided the semen stains were 'boy' in origin? LOL!
Many fans believe Jacko stopped allowing boys to sleep in his bed following the child molestation scandal but you seem to believe that he continued in this weird behavior.
I don't know how a 'wet dream' from a boy is more logical to you than homosexual activity. This was two different flavors of semen on his mattress and a third sample in bed sheets and underwear kept in a hotel bag with his own soiled underwear, presumably from an away trip.
You seem to conveniently forget all of the other variables that, when put together, represent a strong case for Michael Jackson having been a homosexual.
Again, read this entry before responding; here, I'll hotlink it for you:
An Addendum to 'Michael Jackson was gay'
It's not just semen stains, although this is the hardest evidence available indicating his homosexuality.
Your 'wet dreams' argument is complete and utter bullshit wishful thinking. And, once again, boys having 'wet dreams' in the bed of a man who'd been constantly accused of pedophilia DOES NOT LOOK GOOD!
"Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the evidence was fabricated being that 74 LAPD cars went to the Neverland Ranch to gather evidence. I smell opportunity!"
Wait a minute... I thought you said the stains were from 'wet dreams'? Now, you are alleging a conspiracy? Well, which is it because you cannot have it both ways.
I've seen fans rationalize these stains in numerous ways, from it being a damned set-up to it being from people having sex in Jacko's bed. It can never be what it was: evidence of homosexual sexual contact between the bed's owner--Michael Jackson--and the bed owner's sexual conquests, males.
And explain to me why anyone would 'plant' evidence that would not even be used in court? The DAs did not even USE the semen evidence! Did you even read the posts on the stains?
Please, accept Michael Jackson's homosexuality. You have my permission to get the fuck over it. I have inside information that he was absolutely a guilty pedophile from the PR man of a huge musician connected to a high up in the Michael Jackson camp. I know lots of information about his homosexuality as well, including tastes. I don't write what I write to smear, but to cut through the inordinate amount of fan-generated BS turning Jacko into a saint.
Remember if you disagree with my content and have no intention of reading anything at all with an open-mind, do not waste my time or yours writing a bonehead comment I've already responded to in my posts. Thanks for playing.
PEDOPHILE ALLEGATIONS
Michael Jackson was a victim of failed extortion plots both in 1993 and 2005.
Evan Chandler the father who accused MJ of molesting his son Jordan in 1993 did so to extort money from Michael. When Michael refused to give him the money for a business venture, Evan became angry and wanted to get back at Michael, therefore, made up the false allegations, which is well-documented in a phone conversation Evan had with his ex-wife husband. Michael wanted to fight the allegations but was advised to settle because he stood to lose millions had he cancelled the Dangerous tour.
However, Karma dealt with Evan as he became isolated from family and friends had plastic surgery to become unrecognizable to MJ’s fans out of fear. Evan was paranoid and very depressed and finally could no longer deal with destroying Michael’s life, therefore, took his own life with a gun shot to the head.
In 2005, Gavin Arvizo made the allegations in retaliation by the family after the family members realized that Michael Jackson was not going to continue supporting them financially indefinitely. The family was portrayed during trial as exhibiting a long history of attempting to extort celebrities. The jury found Jackson not guilty on all fourteen charges, which included all of the above plus four lesser-included misdemeanor counts.
INVESTIGATIONS
The M.O. of child molester has more than two alleged victims. Take the case of the Catholic Priest who molested over 200 boys. These victims were credible and the Catholic Church paid out millions to the victims. Pedophiles are predators who seek out their victims.
In the case of Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo, they sought out Michael for financial gain, in other words, Michael was their target. Michael has never branded a pedophile by professionals who claim Michael does not fit the profile of a predator.
On the other hand, what was discovered his accusers had a laundry list of criminal activities and were in trouble with the law.
GAY RUMORS
In the '80, Liberace's lover, Scott Thorson came out with a memoir called "Behind the Candelabra.” The writer who worked on the book, Alex Thorliefson, says Thorson told her that he and Michael had been close friends, but never mentioned anything about being lovers. Thorliefson says Thorson was in dire need of cash, hence the story sale to the National Enquirer. "As for him coming out with it now, I'm sure he sold the story for a lot of money at the opportune moment while Michael’s sexual peccadilloes are in the news.”
Back in 2009, Dr. Klein told TMZ ... Jackson was gay but that Jason Pfeiffer's alleged relationship with the singer was the only gay relationship MJ ever had. Klein told us Jason was "the love of Michael's life."
Now on his Facebook page, Dr. Klein says "Allegations about ... Jason being Michael Jackson's lover are ridiculous. That story was made up ..."
You have NOT represented any reliable evidence that Michael was gay. If you don't have video then it's hearsay. If you don't have credible victims then it’s unbelievable. However, what you do have is Michael refuting all allegations of being gay.
WHO MICHAEL JACKSON REALLY WAS
MJ was a savant musical genius, incredible intelligent businessman, and prolific humanitarian.
The real estate agent who helped him find and acquire Neverland shared a profound revelation about him in a recent book she published. She was concerned about the monstrous costs involved in maintaining such a large expanse of land, and his plans for a zoo and amusement park. His response to her was “Don’t worry about the money; the Lord will provide.”
The Neverland Ranch was created for the sick and under privileged children so they could enjoy a day in a fairy tale setting that they would never be able to afford otherwise.
Michael was NOT driven by money, rather he use his money to help other than to keep it for himself, which explains why his entire $200 million earnings for the Dangerous Tour went to Charity. Same with his Victory Tour earnings, countless hours of hard work with concerts in jam packed stadiums in the world which he performed with blood, sweat and tears absolutely FREE because all earnings went to charity. Michael’s total charitable contribution is $350 million, the largest ever for an entertainer in History.
The majority of people have no idea of the magnitude of what the world lost on June 25, 2009.
That FACT is Desiree, Michael Jackson was never convicted as Pedohile because nothing ever happened.
Until you can come up with some REAL evidence to convict, then you are a WASTE OF TIME!!!
Undercover Broad:
I wonder did you obey my request and read, read, read before posting your bullshit? Me thinks not.
You have spent so much time writing nothing new, as per usual. I cannot believe you would use my blog as a platform for your screeds. This deeply offends me. As I've said, you will not convince me given my research and my insider info about Michael Jackson being a homosexual and a pedophile. And seeing that you are teetering along the brink of fan psychosis and slight mental retardation, I will not be able to convince you either.
But let me refute your predictable talking points one last time. Please do not comment afterward or I'll be forced to delete your posts.
Again, you will not use my blog as a platform for your tired defense of a gay pedophile. That will not be tolerated. If you want to rehash why you believe XYZ 'proves' Michael Jackson was never a gay pedophile, take it to a vindication blog. This is a blog for people looking for the truth behind the bullshit.
You are not convincing me and, once again, I do not care what you have to say.
Here goes, and let this be the last time...
"Michael Jackson was a victim of failed extortion plots"
Michael Jackson was never a victim of extortion. There was never an official allegation or complaint of extortion until after Anthony Pellicano characterized the Chandlers in such a way to the media. This was following the negotiations.
Why would anyone negotiate extortion? You report extortion to the police because it is a crime.
Police then investigated Evan Chandler and his lawyers and found there had been no evidence of extortion against Michael Jackson. It should be noted that Pellicano was quickly 'let go' after these foibles of his.
"Michael wanted to fight the allegations but was advised to settle because he stood to lose millions had he cancelled the Dangerous tour."
Well, at least you didn't say he was 'forced' to settle because that's untrue. Jacko settled because he didn't want the world to know he was a child molester. Michael Jackson paid almost $30M to Jordie and Jason to settle child molestation claims. Following the settlement in 1994, his popularity took a huge nosedive and if he was innocent and had decided to fight, he would have easily recouped any of the losses from one cancelled tour leg. Please. Your argument is garbage.
"However, Karma dealt with Evan ... Evan was paranoid and very depressed and finally could no longer deal with destroying Michael’s life, therefore, took his own life with a gun shot to the head."
You've got to be kidding me with this garbage. For you to state Evan Chandler killed himself over Michael Jackson, you've got to be sick. Evan was plagued with a painful degenerative disease. Unlike for fanbots, people's existences do not center around Michael Jackson.
As for the Arvizos, they went to court and told their story. I wouldn't call that extortion, regardless if you disbelieve their claims.
"The M.O. of child molester has more than two alleged victims."
Michael Jackson has had numerous victims!
Jacko had three boys who accused him of sexual misconduct (Jordie, Gavin, and Jason), and three boys who received money over sexual abuse (Jordie, Jason, and David Martinez). That's a total of four boys Michael Jackson allegedly molested that is known by the media.
Additionally, we have credible eyewitnesses who claim that, despite the boys' protestations that nothing having ever happened, they saw Brett Barnes being sexually molested.
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/brett-barnes-redux-michael-jacksons.html
Michael Jackson's secretary Jolie Levine called Michael Jackson a 'chickenhawk' to police, which is the slang term for pedophile only after having accompanied him on the Bad Tour and seeing him constantly in bed with Jimmy Safechuck.
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html
Charli Michaels, a security guard working at Neverland, saw Jacko grab Wade Robson's crotch area. Wade and his mother, Joy's, own testimony on the stand implicate Michael Jackson as a pedophile.
Terry George says Michael engaged in graphic masturbation talk with him over the telephone when he was just 12.
Michael was obsessively calling little Alex Manchester on the telephone for hours on end when the child was just 5 or 6.
I have inside information that the Bhattis pimped Omer Bhatti to Michael Jackson and Omer then became a live-in boy lover when they all returned from Tunisia. You cannot make this stuff up. I know too much about the Bhattis.
If you think that there is only two alleged victims, you haven't done your homework at all and should shut it before leaving a boring comment in my direction!
"In the '80, Liberace's lover, Scott Thorson came out"
Scott Thorson is a non-issue. I never stated that he was a make-or-break gay story for Michael Jackson. Please! It's well known he was a drug addict, although The National Enquirer says he passed a lie-detector test. Thorson just represents a gay rumor, not the summation of them.
Re: Arnold Klein:
Who gives a shit what Arnold Klein has to say? He's a known liar. You do not even know the full story of the Jason-Michael-Klein saga, like most fans. I happen to actually know Jason Pfeiffer and he is absolutely telling the truth about his relationship--which was short and sexual--with Michael, unlike Arnold Klein who is a habitual liar.
I wrote a post on Klein and my source was a mutual friend between the two of us. When he found out this friend had spilled all of his secrets, he cut them out.
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/04/jason-pfeiffer-redux-arnold-klein.html
Because of that post, I got into contact with Jason Pfeiffer, who is a very nice and warm person mischaracterized by homophobic Michael Jackson fans. You know absolutely nothing. Had Klein stuck to his original line, you would not have believed him.
"You have NOT represented any reliable evidence that Michael was gay."
Do you mean 'presented'? All of my evidence, when put together and viewed without celebrity-obsessed blinders on and with common sense, is absolutely reliable, which is why so many fans, such as yourself, spend energy trying to convince me my evidence is 'garbage'.
"If you don't have video then it's hearsay."
You really are a fucking idiot.
"If you don't have credible victims then it’s unbelievable."
Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia were paid millions of dollars. Neither of them has recanted their stories. They are absolutely credible if for only that reason. You and the rest of the fanbots choose to disbelieve them because Michael Jackson can moonwalk, made Thriller, and is a masturbation fantasy. Please tell these men that they are unbelievable. Dr. Richard Gardner--trained in detecting false abuse claims--found Jordie Chandler absolutely believable.
"However, what you do have is Michael refuting all allegations of being gay."
Jacko is not credible given his repeated lies regarding his surgeries, his skin, his marriages, his children. He was a habitual liar, having lied since the Jackson 5 days. Michael 'denying' he was gay and yet continuing to flounce around like a fairy and embody every gay stereotype known to Western society, is more than enough for me to disbelieve him. If you don't take Jacko's word with a grain of salt, then you are completely brainwashed by his celebrity.
Re: Michael's 'true self':
I can accept that Michael Jackson was talented but that is where I draw the line. So what?
"The Neverland Ranch was created for the sick and under privileged children so they could enjoy a day in a fairy tale setting that they would never be able to afford otherwise."
Wow, you've bought into every bit of Jacko PR spin hook, line, and sinker! According to Mary Coller, Jacko's assistant during Bad, said Jacko divided kids into two groups: "special friends" and "photo ops".
"Michael’s total charitable contribution is $350 million, the largest ever for an entertainer in History."
I don't give a damn. It doesn't change the fact he was a gay pedophile.
"The majority of people have no idea of the magnitude of what the world lost on June 25, 2009."
We lost a tortured talented man who happened to be a child molesting gay pedophile who squandered his gifts for drugs and boys. I'm sure he'll be greatly missed!
"That FACT is Desiree, Michael Jackson was never convicted as Pedohile because nothing ever happened."
Didn't you tell me the other evening that I was not 'there'? Please, apply that to yourself. Since Jordie, Jason, and Gavin have never recanted their stories, you should be honest enough to admit that there is at least a 50/50 chance Michael was guilty of child molestation.
"then you are a WASTE OF TIME!!!"
And yet, here you are, wasting your time by calling me a waste of time. If I do not matter, feel free to read elsewhere. Again, you won't change my mind and, seeing that you don't like to read, I won't be able to change yours. I don't care what you have to say.
LOL, Undercover Broad!
You believe every public relations concoction Mike ever dreamed up! No wonder he was able to sleep with boys over and over again, settle multi-million dollar child molestation and say it was a "big lie", bleach his skin and call it a "disease", use white sperm and still say those kids are his, and have multiple plastic surgeries with reckless abandon. His fans are literally the dumbest 10% of the human population!
You people ignore what is right in front of your eyes just because he made marginally acceptable music. He was a child molesting pedophile and homosexual and yet you still deny it.
How dare you even say that there needs to be a tape of the sexual abuse for it to be true. How many child molestation cases have video/audio evidence? Barely any unless you are dealing with a child sex ring. Child abuse by a beloved coach, uncle, friend, priest, etc, will absolutely not have that kind of evidence. That does not mean a child was not abused. child molestation is a very secretive act.
That's the problem with you fanatics, because Michael Jackson, your idol, was accused of abuse you have turned your back on all victims and have casted a shadow of doubt on children that claim to be abused. It's sick; no wonder victims, especially boy victims, never disclose sexual abuse. Funny, you fanatics have so whitewashed and defended the suspicious acts of Michael Jackson and have so demonized victims of sexual abuse, you have unwittingly aligned yourselves with pedophiles and sex offenders! Not only do you people talk about sodium amytal and false memories of sex abuse, pedophiles say the EXACT SAME THING! But it is not surprising really since you are defending a pedophile so naturally you would use pedophile talking points.
He settled because he was guilty. He settled after the Dangerous tour was cancelled, so what the hell are you talking about? He would have lost money? Please, that doesn't even make sense. here's a reason, from Carl Douglas, a lawyer that worked for Johnnie Cochran:
"...in our [Jackson's defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to "silence" the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of "If we don't get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson"...
Settled because of the photos, the same ones Sneddon wanted admitted into evidence in the 2005 trial. Why would he want to admit the photos if they didn't match and he would look the fool in front of the entire world media? They matched!
Another insider, a PI named Dave Corbett from Palladino and Sutherland private investigations firm that worked for Larry Feldman in 1993:
"We worked for the fourteen-year-old boy and his family in the child molestation case, and we tried the best we could to help the police, but we kept finding out from the sergeant who was out liaison at LAPD that they would assemble a witness list from our reports, pass it up the chain of command, and it would inevitably come back with certain key witnesses cross off. The suspicion was that, with Johnny Cochran at the helm of Jackson's defense, he was pulling strings with old contacts in the DA's office or with cops he knew. We could never prove this, and it was just a suspicion. But it all became moot when Cochran, fearing his investigators has been taped trying to tamper with witnesses - they'd been instructed by Cochran to go out and find ex-employees, tell them,"Michael loves you," and offer them their jobs back at salaries they could hardly refuse - Cochran had a high-power conclave with his client and promptly pitched almost $20 million at the kid and his family. An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know."
Is everyone a liar. Sandra Sutherland also said to Martin Bashir that although she finds the word "predatory pedophile" a hard term to say, she most definitely believes Michael Jackson was one, and she interviewed hundreds of people in 1993. Unlike you, she was there in the thick of the scandal.
Until these men recant, you know damned well that you cannot say that Michael Jackson was innocent. As Desiree said, there is at least 50/50 chance that these things occurred. You must be able to admit as much if you are to be taken seriously.
And if you've seen the three books of the naked children that he lovingly hide away in a locked file cabinet in his closet, you wouldn't be so eager to defend him. And if you've seen the homosexual pornographic book "Man a Sexual Study of Man" and his homoerotic art books that show penises everywhere, you wouldn't be so quick to denounce the conclusion that he was indeed interested sexually in males. I've see them, and they are a but a very compelling piece of the already convincing puzzle that proves that he was a gay pedophile. You fanatics have no concept of the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
Well said, Jessica, well said...
Dizzie: You are having a hard time facing the fact that the crap you keep reciting has been declared INSUFFCIENT EVDICENCE, in other words, NONSENSE by the:
FBI - One of the world's foremost intelligence gathering agencies had surveillance on Michael for over a decade came up with precisely – NOTHING!
Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department - Cites interviews that were conducted with the accusing family by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged victim: "Michael is like a father to me, he's never done anything to me sexually." He added that he "never slept in bed with Michael," and that his mother is "always aware of what goes on in Neverland."
One of the Parents - The mother said, "Michael is like a father to my children, he loves them and I trust my children with him." She added that her children were never left alone with Michael and that they'd never shared a bed with him. Of Michael, she said he had "never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing." The boy's sister was teary eyed while being interviewed and defended Michael, saying "Michael is so kind and loving."
Department of Children and Family Services – “These allegations were concluded to be unfounded.”
The Court System – NOT GUILTY on all fourteen charges.
You should never be allowed to give your interpretation of any case, even one of a broken toe nail coz you will come back claiming Michael fucked it off because your perverted friend, who no one believes, told you so.
In other words, your insight is a non-motherfucking factor.
Undercover Broad, blah blah blah. You're obviously running on repeat, with no argument.
Typical ghetto trash from Detroit, a city that is a "non-motherfucking factor".
Next!
"You're obviously running on repeat, with no argument."
I'm comfortable with NOT GUILTY, this was a just and fair verdict based on the evidence or lack of. Nuff said!
I pray one day you will see the LIGHT!
And why are you so angry? Why do you even waste your precious time trying to convince someone that your Messiah was innocent, if their opinion is a "non-motherfucking factor" (real mature, by the way, Laquisha)?
The fact remains that your ghetto mind cannot comprehend is that there are three men that have not recanted their stories. So once again let's reiterate the fact that there exists at least a 50/50 chance that Michael Jackson is indeed guilty. I understand that this concept is difficult for you, Laquisha, but until these men issue a mea culpa, you cannot in good faith declare he was innocent of all wrongdoing, especially if two of these men received multi-million dollar settlements.
Clearly you fanatics have no concept of the power of celebrity. OJ was found not guilty as well. Does that make it so? No it does not. There were jurors that refused to look at his child erotica books and the 1108 evidence because they didn't want it to "color" their opinion. Many did in fact think he was a child molester and that he probably did molest boys in the past but they just wanted to rule on the evidence as presented in the Arvizo case. One woman did believe Gavin was molested but still felt that there was reasonable doubt that she felt she couldn't overlook.
Just because Michael Jackson was found not guilty in Gavin's case does not remotely mean he wasn't a pedophile. It just means that they established enough reasonable doubt (and it didn't hurt he was a celebrity).
Still can't refute sources, still can't refute the opinions of those who were there that think Michael Jackson was most definitely guilty. Still can't give a coherent argument as to why a prosecutor with the eyes of the world on him would want to admit pictures of Jackson's genitals if they did not match, the same photos that were the reason he settle the Chandler suit only days before he was to give a mandatory deposition to Larry Feldman.
What is your point of even trying to refute Desiree, Laquisha? Why are you still here, because no one cares what you think.
I don't need your prayers. Michael Jackson needed them, he needed all the fans to stop kissing his ass and giving him a reason not to change his behavior. You people condoned his psychosis, like you do every celebrity. You people are the reason they die. They have no one to make them self-reflect on their destructive ways.
I hope you don't spend the rest of your life worshipping a flawed and mentally sick individual. Given the average age of his fans, you are probably in your 30s to early 50s. He was a pedophile. Period. he was gay. Period.
Undercover Broad/'Laquisha' (LOL, Jessica):
Please do not reply with the same blather I've heard over and over again since June 25, 2009. Please do not post the same blather in lieu of actually reading the linked materials. You will be deleted.
Again, thanks for playing and hopefully Detroit starts to look up.
Heal the World!
Post a Comment