Dear readers,
It is known that I have access to and/or own all three of Michael Jackson's books featuring nude children that were confiscated by police from the raid of Neverland Ranch in 1993:
- The Boy, a photographic essay, edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson
- Boys Will Be Boys, edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson
- In Search of Young Beauty by Charles DuBois Hodges
Because of the nature of these books--effectively deemed 'child erotica' when owned by pedophiles and preferential molesters--they contain underage nudity in an surreptitiously sexualized context.
This includes genitalia and pubescent female breasts.
This includes genitalia and pubescent female breasts.
To note, however, these books are not child pornography but technically "art books"; as such, it is not a violation of Blogger content policies to show them.
My question to everyone who visits this blog regularly is how I should go about showing them.
As a researcher and a proponent of free speech, I personally believe these books should be shown uncensored. However, because of the fact they explicitly show the body parts of underage children in a sexualized context, I would also be willing to censor the photographs in conformation with reader taste.
So, can everyone reading--whether you comment or not--please vote in the following poll regarding this issue!
UPDATE! 8-17-2010:
The voting is now CLOSED and the results are in:
The first choice was the winner out of 39 TOTAL VOTES although it was no landslide...
Voting is closed due to receipt of Boys Will Be Boys.
Take note of the handwriting (and the sheets)--I am not a male pedophile, as I have been accused of being, but a FEMALE.
Because of the graphic nudity within, I have decided to practice CENSORSHIP of this particular title. The photos from The Boy and In Search of Young Beauty, specifically the latter title, will be done selectively, as there is a higher price for one's head if children's privates are shown on the web, in comparison to breasts.
Thank you, everyone, for your participation. Boys Will Be Boys will, again, be censored in accordance to the voting results!
NOTE: The voting in this poll will be open until
192 comments:
Hmm, this is a good question.
I think the fans deserve to see what their idol truly was and what he was looking at, but on the other hand, I think out of respect for the kids, their parts should be censored.
It really does depend on the context of the shot though. If it's a provocative shot, maybe some caution should be used? I don't know, it's hard.
Well the good thing about censoring it would be so none of the fans will think that you are a pedo! LOL.
I think you should fully reveal just how disgusting his books were to counter the fan propaganda that they were just art books, however I think you should use little white circles labeled "censored by Desiree" to hide the private parts, that way you can fully make your point, without offending anyone or diminishing the respectability of this blog.
According to the DAs, BWBB is pretty graphic, about 90 percent nudity; I've yet to receive it in the mail but I've read a review of it that left me saying, "Oh, shit!" It's obviously pedophile fodder. One of the editors of the book has an interesting background.
I've seen "The Boy" and "In Search of Young Beauty". The former is not so graphic but you'd have to be an idiot to not think, "Yeah... what would a normal adult not into young boys want with this?" The latter is...disturbing. If you actually read DuBois Hodges descriptions of his photography in that book, with its gratuitous child nudity, you know what the purpose is. One reviewer said that it seemed like he just wanted to take pictures of naked kids.
Based on Wade Robson's testimony on the stand about BWBB--the one Michael Jackson inscribed--it sounds really disturbing. I saw a few photographs online of a gay photographer's work the compared to BWBB's and you'd have to be an idiot to not link these books, the three accusations, the payouts, the boy sleepovers, Brett Barnes, Aaron Carter, Pellicano (assuming he's being truthful--I read the article more closely in the issue of Newsweek that comes to my home and I find Pellicano credible) with PEDOPHILIA and ABSOLUTE GUILT.
This stuff is not innocent.
Here's the link to the guy's work they say is similar to BWBB:
http://geraci.home.xs4all.nl/mcbride/mcbride.html
This is the reason for the poll...
I vote to censor. On the off chance I'm ever arrested for anything, I really don't want to have to explain why my browsing history has photos of naked children in it. LOL. Besides, I don't think actually seeing their bits would be all that crucial to understanding what's going on in the photos.
I found an interesting tidbit in a 2001 issue of Spin magazine. They were doing in interview with Wade Robson when he was 18 years old, asking him about choreography. The article was not too interesting but this part was curious, to me:
"Sitting in the bar at the MGM Grand, he bristles at the mention of Jackson. He is asked about something safe: Bubbles....'Wasn't he around in the '80s?' he asks. 'That was before my time.'"
http://goo.gl/8PuZV
Isn't that weird? I mean why would you bristle at the mention of someone's name if you have affection for them? It's be speculated that Wade seemed less than enthused to testify for Mike and that he seems to have distance himself from mike, as opposed to a Brett Barnes type. And Joy Robson most definitely described pimping behavior on the stand.
Interesting quote from a 1993 Time article:
"What we see in the pattern of a fixated offender," notes clinical psychologist Nicholas Groth, co-author of Sexual Assault of Children and Adolescents, "is that he seems to get along well with people significantly older than him and those who are younger. He has a significant absence of peers. He lives more in the world of childhood than the adult world."
Seems to apply to Michael Jackson. When asked by Rabbi Shmuley who is he close to, he said Liz Taylor and Mac Culkin. And all throughout his career, who were his friends? Older and younger people. Liz, Liza, Diana, Jane Fonda; then you have the all special friends. All the people his own age seemed more like acquaintances rather than friends. I can't remember who was quote, either Jennifer Batten or Sheryl Crow or somebody, but they said that he didn't even know everyone's names and he did not hang with them outside of work. Apparently his special friends were there to keep him company (Jimmy on Bad, Brett and the Cascios on Dangerous, etc).
The types most likely don't hang with peers because they cannot relate to them, and possibly don't want to be put in an embarrassing situation that will expose their ineptitude. I believe this applies to Mike as well. And clearly he does live in the world or childhood rather than the adult world. that part is obvious.
It seems like people are wanting to 'censor' completely. I was looking through DuBois Hodges and I think censoring some may actually take away from the shots' purposes.
We'll see about "Boys Will Be Boys". I'm wondering how this vote was going to go. I know how I want it and I guess I could override the will of the People but then a 'poll' would be pointless.
Jessica:
That is interesting about Wade Robson. It's the little details, I think, that sort of string everything together. Fans claim that because he defended Jacko on the stand this means he was never molested.
Far from it.
We know that he and his mother feel indebted to Michael Jackson for helping with Wade's career. Jordie Chandler never said Wade Robson, according to Jacko, was a t Brett's level but that Wade masturbated in front of Jacko. I always think Wade got it less.
The testimony from Joy is telling. I was re-reading Victor Gutierrez's chapter on "The story of Wade Robson" in "Michael Jackson was my lover" where he alleges that he and Joy Robson dished on Michael. I don't know if I buy it completely--I never did--but I think there had to be some conversation.
He then goes into how Orietta Murdock said she used to see Wade going in and out of Jacko's Hideout apartment, something we learned from Joy's testimony. Corroboration is crucial in understanding all of this. Things cannot stand on their own.
I don't think Wade Robson was molested in the way Jordie Chandler was but I do believe he engaged in some activity with Jacko that would bring upon the guilt or cause him to 'bristle'.
Hi Desiree, hi everyone else,
long time, no post (as far as I am concerned). I've been really busy with work and stuff... :-(
As far as the censoring is concerned my opinion is this: CYA. Now, I have not seen these pictures and don't really know what we're talking about here but make sure they're not illegal to put up on the internet or something. We don't want your blog closed down. What would we do without you???
Also, here's another thought: showing the uncensored pictures will definitely make the rabid mob of MJ "fans" go on the rampage and accuse you of the most sinister motives they can think of. You know what they are like. Sadly.
Why don't you put censored pictures in the article that everyone can read and have the uncensored ones available in some sort of restricted section where people have to register and you have control over who sees them and who doesn't. How does that sound?
As always, my love from Germany,
Angela
I agree with Angela though first I´ve voted the last option. It´s a delicate matter.
BTW, did you hear about Gene Simons on the Tribute Concert? The fans are fuming because he called Michael a pedo right after his death and they want to boycott it.(and they´re sending tweets for Gene lol)
Angela, good to see you again! :-)
I agree with what you about covering your ass. I don't want the blog just to disappear, which is what Blogger will do if you violate one of their policies. Although Blogger has millions of blogs and many I've seen clearly violate their policy on not inciting racial hatred but they are still around. But Wacko Jacko has a lot of fans so they could click the "report abuse" button many times which could get attention.
But if the books are art books published in America with ISBN numbers, how can it get Desiree into trouble? It means they aren't illegal, right?
Isn't it funny though, the fans would accuse Desiree of having sinister motivations for having/showing these books, but Mike is completely innocent for having them! Talk about a twisted world! I'd still like to see them; I voted for the last choice.
GirlUndercover,
Is Gene Simmons talking about the tribute concert that the Jacksons are trying to do?
Angela:
That's a good point you're making about covering one's ass. I was thinking that these fanbots probably would want to see the books uncensored so they can report them. As I said, I looked through my photos of "The Boy" and "In Search of Young Beauty" and those photos are definitely not enough to get someone 'in trouble'.
It's BWBB that I am wondering about. I haven't seen the book but I know it's full of nudity.
Personally, the fans can think whatever they like about me. It's textbook projection if they want to consider me devious and not Michael Jackson.
But, no, none of the books are illegal to own. If they were, Jacko would have been in federal prison. Now, that does not mean that anyone owning these books shouldn't be considered suspect.
Except me, of course. I'm just a twenty-something blogger... ;-)
"We don't want your blog closed down. What would we do without you???"
That concern has been festering in the back of my mind. I think Jacko's Wackos will pounce on this opportunity and report the images. Even though they fall within guidelines, blogger may still shut down her blog at the mention of "child erotica". I don't want to see that happen!
By the way, in an unexpected moment of clarity, Pauline raised the possibility that MJ may not have been 100% hetero, and now some of the VMJ crackpots seem to think she's Desiree. LOL. That's ridiculous. I mean, it's not as ridiculous as say, a middle-aged woman switching her internet service to another company as soon as someone blocks her from their blog so she can continue to stalk it (while simultaneously feigning indifference), but it's still pretty ridiculous.
Hello everyone, first post here. Terrific blog Desiree, lots of information here. I've been lurking for the past month and it's good to finally see a site where you can have a differing opinion. I think MJ is very fascinating and I remain a fan for the most part. But I believe he was absolutely guilty of what Jordan Chandler accused (Arvizo remains questionable). But no such opinion can be expressed on any fansite. If you question his sexuality or interest in boys you are immediately banned from their forums. You must believe he had only had two nose surgeries, naturally had vitiligo, the cleft magically grew in his chin, and anyone will certainly be shunned if they dare to question the paternity of his children. It's disturbing because differing opinions are not allowed, they run their forums like Hitler controlled Nazi Germany and anyone who dare questions MJ's behavior will be treated like a Jew! So thanks for all your blog entries.
As for the question at hand, it is fine if you post the photos uncensored, I see no reason to object. However you will definitely get the fanbots riled up despite the material being things that Michael owned. I also looked at the photos in link you gave and I can view it from a few different ways. I don't see a problem with owning material like that but I see how some of it would be appealing to pedophiles. I'm gay and I personally found the pictures of the older boys to be quite erotic, while the photos of the prepubescent boys left me somewhat uncomfortable. But no matter the perspective, photographs like that is definitely 'erotica.' And don't worry, I'm not some old sleazy member of NAMBLA. I'm 20.
Frenchie,
They think Pauline is Desiree? LMAO. Wow, I mean the heffa has multiple personalities but none of them could ever be as smart as Desiree. have you seen her reviews on Amazon? Hilarious, too bad that we didn't look there before we started to beleive goodgirl1978 wasn't her, because goodgirl and Pauline's reviews have that damned double dot idiosyncrasy.
Plus, Wordpress can detect IPs, why don't those losers just look? If it isn't Las Vegas, it can't be Desiree, duh. They are stupid.
Sock Drawer,
Welcome. I agree with you about the photos, I can tolerate seeing them completely uncensored. But it's just I don't want Des to get in trouble. All her work would be lost, can you imagine the horror? No place for the truth, the fans run everything. Have you read the Wikipedia article about the 1993 allegations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Chandler
It's absolutely offensive in its bias. the main source is Charles Thomson, Mary Fischer, Taraborelli, Lisa Campbell. It's sickening. But if you try to revise it, it goes right back to the way it was. They assume Mike was innocent so they don't even give the other side. Hello, Jordie is still alive and you are basically calling him a liar when there is no proof he did.
As for the Will McBride photos, they are disturbing, to me at least. The older guys its completely fine but the young boys? It's very pedophilic.
What do you think about the "Michael jackson was gay" posts? Convincing? Wait till you see the posts with some of Mike's homoerotic books, those guys are HOT! :-D
Sock Drawer,
Unfortunately a lot of fans can´t see beyond the "rabid fan" or "hater". You can suspect or believe he was a molester but still being a fan.
I used to frequent fan boards, they really can be very delusional but I can say also that they aren´t so rigid like that. There is even a thread questioning if he was a repressed homosexual in a board (the boy who opened it excused himself a lot,the poor thing lol). If you use the right words, of course. But claiming he was gay like a fact is like a sacrilege for them. (and a few of them believe he was).
I don´t recall however reading any fan claiming to believing he was a molester. The closest thing was from a fan who just "hoped" he wasn´t a molester, after all they didn´t know him privately. At the same time this is a wonder because fans usually claim he was innocent like a fact.
Can I ask you what do you think about Michael´s sexuality, as a gay man? I´ve read a lot of different opinions from gay man (he was gay, he was asexual, he wasn´t gay, bi...)
Actually some fans believe if a gay man don´t think Michael was gay, it´s a good signal lol, because they believe that gay man don´t make mistakes on it. But as I said, I´ve read a lot of other opinions.
Hi everyone,
yes, it's good to be back. :-))))))))))))))
Oops. I just found the time to check out the link Desiree posted to this McBride guy's work.
There are pre-pubescent boys in full frontal nudity - I have to agree with Sock Drawer (nice name, by the way). They make me feel extremely uncomfortable and I'm not sure I really need to see the details if Desiree includes them in her article. Cover your ass, don't make yourself vulnerable - I stick to that.
And yes, any man with books like these in his cupboard and children in his bed scares me.
I'm interested to hear what Sock Drawer says. Personally I don't get any gay vibes off of MJ but I believe that he was certainly not a heterosexual man. Rather, I think that with a bit of self-confidence, a different background and a lot of therapy, he might have been quite happy as a gay man. I wish he had been. :-((
Angela,
I admit that I as well I don´t see in Michael the mannerisms of a gay man, at least in his moves. Though I don´t have a gaydar completely accurate lol already happened to perceive as gay a man much more masculine than Michael and I was right.
Michael wear a lot of make up but so many other performers. Some of his clothes were a little feminine, like that shirt he used in his anniversary "A Celebration of Love". And the way he modified his face like he wanted to look like a woman. That points are the ones which I suspect that maybe he was.
Sock Drawer, is hat site really yours?
"I admit that I as well I don´t see in Michael the mannerisms of a gay man, at least in his moves."
Michael Bailey, author of the articles Opinionation mentioned in the last post, believed that Michael Jackson didn't fit the profile of a gay man because being attracted to pubescent children is a distinct sexual orientation...
http://goo.gl/XnYIl
http://goo.gl/BBFoH
But, if Jason Pfeiffer is telling the truth, he at least gave it the old college try.
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
About the fans, I admit I was speaking a bit in hyperbole, but their sites are very one sided. A discussion about whether or not he was gay is certainly progression and even surprising because when I use to post regularly on MJ boards, any discussion like that was looked down upon and any controversial discussion was flat out banned. I use to post on the MJJC Forums and they are definitely one of the biggest. But following this death, things just got so hectic with hundreds of members joining that I just totally drifted off. I was never a stan or die hard but I was a really big fan and regular poster on MJ boards from 2006 until his death. At that time, I took their word that MJ was innocent and never asked questions.
When the smoke finally cleared I returned to the fascinating subject that was Michael Jackson and really began to look into his 'eccentricities.' At first, I pretty much just denied everything like any fan would until it just became insurmountable. And I believe that most fans who have seen all of the evidence either don't want to think about it, or are in denial and won't move past that stage. It can be a difficult process. He was one of the most amazing performers to ever live. I remember the days of waiting for pics of him in Bahrain to pop up, the possibility of a comeback and the massive excitement when he first announced This Is It, and of course reading about all of the things he had to go through. I invested a lot as a follower for a couple of years and learning there was a big possibilities some of the allegations were true was saddening, but I found it both too difficult and too simple to just learn to 'hate' him after being a fan for so long. And he was such a sympathetic character/person that his sad life's story allows us to feel sorry for him in the same manner that despite what he did, Roman Polanski still has many fans due largely in part to his sad story of surviving the murder of both his parents and wife.
But absolutely in no way does that defend MJ's behavior. Even when I overlooked the accusations, I always thought his actions were strange. I think there's just too much incriminating behavior to write it all off as a coincidence. Ever since he changed his appearance, his young friends were all very similar. Usually European/latino mix, dark hair, and skinny. The famous Macaulay Culkin being the only exception (a boy he probably he didn't abuse). I always wondered if he adored all children then why did he never have black kids, fat kids, or girls as best friends. When you factor in all of the accusations and evidence, you get a clearer answer. What he did was a serious crime that should not be overlooked. So I make claim to being a fan of the entertainer, not the abuser.
As for being gay (different from being a homosexual hebephile), I've always believed many of the claims in the 70s and 80s that he had same-sex interests or at least curiosities that had to be (mostly) repressed. I don't think Scott Thorson was lying when talked about a fling with MJ that started in the late 70s. And although not always an indicator of the truth, he passed two lie detector tests when questioned about being with Michael. As strange as it may sound, I think its more plausible that he had normal same-sex attractions in the 70s and 80s than afterwards. Probably because during that time period, he still seemed somewhat normal before becoming completely otherworldly thus eliminating any sort of regular or normal behavir. I've also read all of the claims about Jason (introduced through Dr. Klein) which I originally dismissed but now think his story could be true. But what's even more interesting is that I recently read Bob Jones book and it states that Michael Jackson was introduced to Marc Schaffel by none other than the good doctor, Klein himself. Why in the bloody hell does a doctor introduce a patient to a gay porn producer? And why was MJ around all of these bears? IF he were gay I imagine Klein and Schaffel were supplying him with men. Despite the controvery, MJ continued to work with Schaffel even after learning of his past work. Why does a man whose image is childhood innocence continue to work with a gay porn producer after being advised not to? Many advertisers and backers pulled out but MJ still didn't sever ties with Schaffel, who could have delivered him any type of man he wanted... Just a theory.
Oh and sockdrawer.com is not my site! I didn't even know it was a real url when I wrote it down :p
Frenchie,
I too was thinking of Michael Bailey's articles as I was reading this discussion. Michael Bailey does consider MJ a homosexual, but a homosexual autohebephile, which as you say is distinct from a normal homosexual (a gay as he defines it) who is attracted to age appropriate peers. However although these are distinct sexual orientations, both are homosexual so may have things in common for that reason including certain mannerisms. Bailey says that we he first heard MJ talk, he was convinced he was gay, but upon close study, he learned to distinguish MJ's voice from a gay's voice. MJ for example would raise his voice to sound childlike. Of course MJ's voice was an affectation. I sometimes wonder if part of the reason MJ uses that childlike voice is because his normal voice sounds even more homosexual. On the other hand, I saw a pedophile on Dr. Phil who said that when he was with kids, he would talk in a childlike voice and he demonstrated the voice. It was soooooooo creepy. I still get chills remembering it. I don't know if this pedophile was homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, but he was probably an autopedophile, since he wanted to act childlike himself (or was this just his way of manipulating the kids?). Either way it was so disturbing.
I think MJ seemed more stereotypically homosexual when he was younger. He seems absolutely flaming in his video got to be starting something and in the interview MJ and Latoya did at hayvenhurst. There's also this blog (maximum Jackson?) where they have a thread called "Desiree speaks" discussing Desiree's DNA discovery. One of the posters has an avatar of MJ stretching his arms really wide as he smiles at the sky and then suddenly pulling them really close. It looks so flaming.
Whoops, I meant to say his video "don't stop till you get enough"
sock Drawer,
i totally agree with you about Mike in the 70s and 80s. if you've ever read Chris Anderson's "Michael jackson Unauthorized" (it's a great book!), there were a lot of anecdotes from Bob Michaelson, who was a business associate of his. He said Mike always had young men around him, always; so much that when asked, he would have assumed Mike was into men over boys. I think Mike seemed very gay in the 70s and 80s, but he started to seem more masculine by the end, although he still had some "gay" affectations.
One thing I think is pretty interesting is that Mike surrounded himself with men, and had little if any women in the top echelon of his inner circle. I think Grace had the most clout because she was his nanny. But not only did he surround himself with men, many were gay men who were old and proud, like David Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Arnold Klein, Bob Jones, and of course the infamous Marc Schaffel (who Mike loved). Regarding Geffen and Gallin, they are both known to have sex factor into their professional relationships, and in the early 1990s, there were rumors that Geffen and Mike were lovers. I wouldn't be surprised because that is how David Geffen works, and he was good looking back then.
I think you might be right about Schaffel, I think he may have gotten men for Mike, I really do. Outside of the song they were doing, it was a personal relationship, and according to court docs, Schaffel did he knew about Mike's "sexual proclivities" and he would reveal them if Mike's lawyers didn't stop bringing up the fact that he was a gay porn producer (a fact Mike was clearly well aware of). I think to myself "why would a straight guy talk about how much he loves women to a openly gay gay porn producer?" To me it doesn't make sense, and if I was a gay man, I would want to hear a guy wax poetic about the joys of p**sy! LOL. So I think the proclivities he's talking about are gay in nature. And I think he surrounded himself with gay men because he wanted to live vicariously through them since he couldn't be out because of his family and fans' backlash.
I posted this before but it's an interesting anecdote that I think it totally believable about Mike being gay:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/266036e7b0ea650f
To me it doesn't make sense, and if I was a gay man, I would want to hear a guy wax poetic about the joys of p**sy!
Oops I meant I wouldn't want to hear... typo!
Bailey says that we he first heard MJ talk, he was convinced he was gay, but upon close study, he learned to distinguish MJ's voice from a gay's voice. MJ for example would raise his voice to sound childlike. Of course MJ's voice was an affectation.
I don't know, this sounds really arbitrary. What exactly is his definition of the distinction between Mike's voice and a gay man's voice? Plus not all gay men have feminine affectations in their speech, so he may be relying too heavily on a stereotype. People in the comments were saying so.
I think in the 70's and 80's Mike had the stereotypical effeminate gay man's voice. and as he aged, his voice didn't sound childlike to me, it sounded like a woman's voice. I never really got "child" from his voice, although I know his spiritual advisor said allegedly that's what he was doing, trying to keep himself young. could it be he was trying to imitate his own voice back to when he was in the 70s and 80s?
One of the posters has an avatar of MJ stretching his arms really wide as he smiles at the sky and then suddenly pulling them really close. It looks so flaming.
I bet that's from that rare 1983 interview with him and Latoya. Yep, he was really really flaming in that one, and anyone who disagrees has severe blinders on, LOL. He couldn't be more gay-seeming if he tried, real talk.
Sock Drawer,
You can verify by yourself:
http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?25388-Was-Michael-Jackson-a-repressed-homosexual
That thread was opened just two months ago. ;)
I remember also a thread which was asked if Michael was homophobic and the discussion went to his sexuality. A gay fan there said that for him Michael was at least bi and said he had some similarities with Ricky Martin. A fan girl answered why would he believe that, she wasn´t uneducated for him but you could see she was upset. He answered that he was gay and he know how it felt to be gay and his gaydar said he was gay and it wasn´t his fault. The girl had to admit he didn´t say anything bad. lol Interesting enough I´ve found that gay fan on another board which he was banned...because he showed pics of the cover of one of the kiddie books and was indignation by it! Now I don´t know if he changed his mind or he just admires him like a performer.
Do you believe he had a relationship with Jason Pfeiffer, despite him being fat? Some gay men didn´t believe him because Michael would chose someone slim like him...
Frenchie,
I remember reading somewhere that being gay is just a sexual orientation but being a pedophile is a mental disease.
Jessica,
There are some fans that believed (believe it or not) he was gay in the 80´s but they didn´t believe it anymore. What really confuses me is what he made to his face. He looked like a tranny in the last years lol. As I said I didn´t see in Michael the mannerisms of a gay man but his more glistening clothes and waves along with fake eyelashes and red lipstick made me wonder.
As for David Geffen, maybe they had a sexual relationship, look that:
http://www.julienslive.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/3/lot/447/
"Michael Jackson signed letter to David Geffen dated "June 21, 1990" written on MJJ Productions stationary, thanking Geffen for flowers sent during an illness. Letter reads in part, "Thank you for standing by me. You're wonderful!" signed in red marker by Michael Jackson. With original transmittal envelope. 10 1/2 by 7 1/4 inches"
He had sex with Brett when he was an adult. Why would a 19 year old man share a bed with other adult man?
I was imagining Michael choosing good looking men through Schafells porn LOL and asking him for them xD
GirlUndercover,
I saw the letter. it could just be he was being friendly, it could be more than that. One person overheard David Geffen ending his phone convo with Mike saying "Yes, Michael, I love you too." Geffen knows how to get a client, and he managed to become a real confidant of Mike's in the early 90s. Mike followed Geffen's orders to a T surrounding his ATV Music catalog and going into business with Sony and Tommy Mottola. These are big things and Mike completely trusted Geffen.
http://goo.gl/ii8ai
Some could argue that Mike wanted to be a billionaire like Geffen, but to me, I think the fact that Geffen uses sexuality in his professional relationships (he did with Cher, and scores of gay guys), it wouldn't surprise me if he did it with mike, as the rumor alleged.
About his face, in Hollywood, men get plastic surgery; however, I've noticed the most dramatic changes on, and the most habitual users of plastic surgery are, gay men. Opinionation said it best a while back about how Mike's facial changes can be attributed to a desire to obtain a feminine beauty ideal. Sources near Dr. Steven Hoefflin said back in the 1990s that Mike always told him to "make it smaller, make it smaller!", and look his nose did become smaller, which is very feminine and dainty. Some have speculate that he may have been trying to look like the Walt Disney animated Peter Pan. Peter Pan does have a curiously upturned small nose. Liz Taylor's friends said he wanted to look like her, that was in Vanity Fair; I'm guess Liz mentioned it to them? And there are a lot of similarities between his appearance in the early 80s to that of Diana Ross. I suspect that Mike's way of showing is reverance for these women's appearances was by trying to look like them.
"I saw a pedophile on Dr. Phil who said that when he was with kids, he would talk in a childlike voice and he demonstrated the voice. It was soooooooo creepy. I still get chills remembering it."
I have to say, Michael's voice and childlike demeanor were definitely effective on children. I was in kindergarten when he was first accused of child molestation so I don't remember details about pre-scandal Michael as someone older would, but I do remember being absolutely fascinated by him. A lot of my cousins were as well.
In A Behavioral Profile of Pedophile, Ken Lanning describes some pedos as being “pied pipers who attract children". That certainly seemed true with Michael. Children, especially very young ones, were drawn to him.
Everyone:
I've received "Boys Will Be Boys" in the mail this evening.
As many have suggested, I should 'cover my ass', so to speak.
The pictures in this book--which also features some shots from Charles DuBois Hodges--are worse than the other two, and this was the one Michael Jackson inscribed.
The photos are about 90% nudity, many shots prominently displaying pubescent genitals. There are several shots with boys just looking at the camera with legs spread apart, penises the center of focus.
Given everything involving Michael Jackson and boys, I cannot imagine what could have possibly motivated Michael Jackson to seek out such a title if he wasn't interested in boys like a pedophile is.
The book is more innocent and less creepy than the perspective of McBride's paintings and photographs (I gave the link in these comments) but that does not say much.
After people see this, there can be no doubt as to Michael Jackson's pedophilia. NO DOUBT!
As I flipped through the book--which was published during the libertine 1960s--I was starting to wonder whether this could be considered child porn if published today. I just feel it would be.
Because of the gratuitous nudity of young boys' genitals throughout, I wonder if I should practice careful censorship. I don't want my blog to be deleted because rabid stans would continue to click the 'Report Abuse' button. I think even though it is 'child erotica' and we would be discussing Jacko's possession of BWBB in an analytical context, I am afraid Blogger will see the photos and shut the site down immediately.
As such, the voting will be closed today. Thank you everyone for participating.
Desiree, I understand about the book. I think you should do whatever to prevent the MJ stans from shutting the site down. The correct reaction would be for them to see the photos and come to the understanding that this was the reality of their idol, and they would therefore stop all the character assassination of the victims and the people that disagree with them/made statements about Mike that they found distasteful. I think however to expect that reaction for them is probably a pipe dream. I think they will probably a) react like they did in the Aaron Carter debacle--get really mad and than find some way to justify why a man accused of molesting boys and had paid boys off to settle claims of molestation also has 2 books that show naked boys, or b) they will get so angry that they will want your blog shut down so no one will ever be able to see the explosive truth of his nude boy books. I have a hunch that the reaction may be part a.
Hey if the jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said that they, the jury, didn't want to look at the books so as to not "influence" their decision in the Arvizo case, they must be pretty bad! Really, there is no other explanation for his having them, especially taken together as a whole with all the other evidence of his pedophilia.
It will be interesting to see how the fans rationalize this one away... as I have no doubt they will.
The fans will probably say it is "art" and therefore he could have those books. That's the only thing they can say, there are no other explanations.
I am in two minds about this, funnily enough I draw the line because these are photographs, not paintings.
If you look at classical Western art, there are a lot of great artworks that are - in our context here - problematic, to say the least.
For example, this beautiful Cupid by the great Baroque painter Caravaggio:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/-JM9hVSZKu2s/SXIFouOJJmI/AAAAAAABprM/w5rc1DD8pCk/Caravaggio%25252C%252520Cupid%252520%252528Amor%252520Victorious%252529%252520c1600.jpg
Pretty naughty but many respected and not pedophilic people have this at home. Lots of penises in Michaelangelo as well (one of MJ's favourites) - but, as I said, as long as it's in oil and part of the canon, okay.
But books printed in the 1960's with photographs of doubtful (let's put it this way)artistic value? Hmmmm.
But I am aware that some people might see my attitude as not very convincing. Sorry about that. And about this somewhat rambling post.
Oops. When I say people have the Cupid at home, of course I meant reproductions of it. :-)))))
The original is in Berlin, where I was fortunate enough to see it a few years ago.
Oh, by the way, Caravaggio is said to have been bisexual and the boy who modelled for the Cupid was his assistant and his lover. So, there you go.
Angela:
I understand what you mean about paintings vs. photography, although that earlier link to McBride's work I provided featured some of his paintings and I found them pretty 'unwholesome' like anyone would his photographs. For example, what is the point of having a painting with two half-naked boys shooting water guns but holding the guns at groin level? The guns become phallic and the horizontal stream of water from the guns becomes either urine or semen? Or a naked boy playing with action figures?
Paintings of the pedophile variety can be equally disturbing, I think.
The difference between the painting you've linked and the photos in "Boys Will Be Boys" is about focus. You can tell that Caravaggio does have affection for the subject, if, indeed, that is his lover. The penis in many similar works of art is quite minor and is almost incidental.
This is not so with BWBB. The book is described well with the idea of 'boyhood for adult consumption'. It is more innocent than McBride's work, where the objectification of the subjects in quite obvious and hinting at pornography. In BWBB, it is quite different. Not all of the photos are nude but the majority of them are.
I would say imagine the perspective of the editors was to make the reader (boy-lovers, obviously!) be like someone in the bushes, a voyeur, to boys being boys, but only the boys are naked. It is the pedophile being 'invited in' to the world of these boys, which is shown as free and unbounded by our societal rules, one of which being that an adult male cannot be with a boy.
By this, I mean that boys can frolic about completely naked and there is nothing wrong with adult men being a part of this world, albeit they are to look but not touch (the former I mentioned is mental: men cannot BE with boys but they can imagine being with them and the boys encourage these fantasies, but unintentionally). This is, of course, part of the appeal...
I think that is probably the best way to describe it without you actually seeing it. When you see it, you'll see what I mean. It's the same with "The Boy": TB does not show private parts and will not need to be censored whatsoever but you'll see a similar perspective.
The books ooze with boy love. You'd have to be dense or deliberately trying not to notice it if you don't see this.
The interesting thing I've noticed with homoerotic art and photography is that the penis of the male is always prominent. Although most art inspired by the Greeks (we know the Romans merely copied them), as well as their own art, seems to have been glossed over by time as simply being worshipful of the human body, we need to recall that the ancient Hellenes were in a society that was very misogynistic, very anti-woman. This is why I don't think one should necessarily say the art is worshiping the human body because even the statues of women were manifestly male-like. They were worshipping the male form.
(cont'd)
Also, it was common for the males in the society to be in gay affairs; although Greek pedophilia is somewhat different than psychiatric pedophilia (although that may be inaccurate), it has its roots in this homosexual culture.
To note, that's not calling gays pedophiles; how silly. I had to rid this blog of someone saying I said that. I am merely pointing out historical fact.
Bring it all back full circle, the point I'm making is that the 'art' within the two boy-love books by Georges St. Martin cannot simply be excused away as simply worshiping the human form like they did in Greco-Roman art. One must call it what it is: pedophilic.
Then you couple this all with several inarguable facts:
-BWBB was lovingly inscribed by Jacko;
-It and TB were kept safe and sound in a LOCKED filing cabinet;
-He had young boy 'special friends' and no female companions;
-He slept in the bed with boys and stated he had no intention of ending these sleepovers;
-He was accused of molestation on THREE occasions;
-Witnesses--some of whom were credible--claimed to have witnessed him molesting boys (people I find credible: Chacon, Charli Michaels, the people on the train, Blanca Francia, Philip Lemarque) or who've testified to odd behavior around kids (eg. Jolie Levine, Bob Jones);
-Aaron Carter's statements;
-He fits the profile of a preferential child molester to a T
Putting it all together should be an obvious, although circumstantial, indictment of Michael Jackson's pedophilia.
As Jessica pointed out, the fans will probably deny it, like they did with the Aaron Carter story, but rational and intelligent people would be overwhelmingly convinced.
"The fans will probably say it is "art" and therefore he could have those books."
The point for them is that they will say it is technically not child pornography and, thus, it is okay for him to own. This is just dumb. It is absolutely dumb! And they will be obstinate about this detail, even if you point out that this is quite common in the homes of preferential child molesters (pedophiles).
It is all about the fact it was 'legal'. Sure, it was 'legal' but I doubt something like this would make it into Barnes & Noble today. These are boys, not teens, but BOYS of the age of Jacko's 'special friends'.
I mean, the guy had access to the same aged boys that were in these books.
It had to excite him greatly.
The fans can say it's "art" but that is because they don't look at the big picture. This is just one more piece of the puzzle. i remember Diane Dimond talked about "The Boy" and she said had a book like this (or books with naked children) been found with other photography books, it may show in interest in photography; if these books are found in the same area as pornography, the owner may be a pedophile. For the record, she wasn't holding up "Boys Will be Boys", which is the more graphic copy; she has said she couldn't get here hands on that one.
Just because the book is legal doesn't mean that its intent is. Many pedos for instance say don't try to get child porn because it will get you into trouble. They say to be safe, get teen magazines or catalogs or even legal porn that shows adults that look like children (example Barely Legal--they do look like girls!). Obviously the editors of these 3 books were lucky they were in the right decade (1960s) so they could get away with photographing children with their private parts showing... it's a legal way to get the child erotica that they need as pedophiles. I also think that was why nudist magazines are also found routinely in the homes of pedophiles, according to Ken Lanning. Mike had dozens of those magazines as well!
Angela, you seem to know a lot about art: do you know why artists back then made the penis so small--almost to the point that it looks nonfunctional--on their works? I always thought that maybe it's because 1) the culture in which the artist belonged to valued small penises, 2) large penises in nonsexual art is considered too vulgar, or 3) since boy love was so ubiquitous in those days they thought perfection on the male form included a prepubescent sized penis.
I know its a weird question, LOL, but I'm curious.
I am reminded of Paul Reubens who in 2001 was initially charged with possessing child pornography. Cops raided his home and found thousands of books, images, and magazines. He owned mostly gay erotica with men of the legal age but he also owned numerous magazines featuring nude underage males in sexual positions(around 16-17 years of age). That's why he was charged, but the vintage erotica was deemed legal when it was produced so the child porn charges against him were dropped. Strangely enough, they instead decided to charge him with possessing obscene material, to which he plead guilty and was placed on probation for a year. What I find interesting is that he was still prosecuted(on a much lesser charge) for having this legal work while other work deemed legal when it was produced, such as the books MJ had, carry no charges whatsoever. I've only seen a small bit of what each had, so I can only assume that what Reubens owned was worse. But at any rate, I think Michael Jackson was the disturbed one here. As Desiree pointed out, his interests were very young boys, not older teens.
I am also interested in Angela's answer but as far as I know about Michelangelo Caravaggio's Cupid, there are no definitive answer but context helps. Caravaggio is said to have used a teen model named Francesco Boneri for his Cupid. However Cupid has always been a very prepubescent Cherub type symbol. So he more than likely used the model's adolescent body while imagining his own rendition of a more prepubescent genital region. Not just in penis size but in the glaring fact that there's no pubic hair either. And Jessica, in mention of "boy love being ubiquitous in those days," it's important to note that there must be a clear distinction between common pederasty of the Greek antiquity as opposed to the much more closeted area of the Early to Late Renaissance.
And I cannot fully go along with the notion that Caravaggio was a homosexual. After hearing this rumor time after time I had to research it myself. I've read many books on the man and there has been little to actually support the idea that he was gay. This was a reading that came hundreds of years later. The only evidence in believing he was gay comes in the form of his admittedly homoerotic artwork but what many fail to mention is that the vast majority of his work was commissioned, much of it by Pope Clement VIII. I would be more than happy to come across more evidence that shows he was homosexual (like Donatallo, Da Vinci, and Michelangelo) but I've yet to find such things.
I didn't know that about Paul Reubens, I just thought he was caught whacking off in a porn theater in Florida (what else do you do in a porn theater? LOL). Is Paul Reubens gay? If you have erotica featuring men it must be because you enjoy looking at the male form in a sexual way.
See, that's what I mean about Mike too because just because the nudist mags (showing children as well as adults) and naked kiddie books are "legal" because they don't show children engaged in sexual activity doesn't mean the person who owns them doesn't have erotic feelings for children. I think that's what the prosecution was trying to get at in 2005. They were trying to say "Look, this guy has been accused of molesting boys and lo and behold, he has books with naked boys in them. Now is this not good circumstantial evidence that this guy is a most likely a pedophile?" It's just using a little common sense. We are talking about holism here, the forest not the trees. The fans just don't understand that.
Sock Drawer, I wondering why, though, does it seem that even art with a manifestly adult male body have prepubescent penises? I understand that Cupid is young and therefore , he will have tiny member. But what about "David" or "The Sistine Chapel", among other things; why do they have small genitals? I think it may be aesthetic but I'd like to know what an art buff thinks. And I agree with you about the differences in time period regarding ubiquity and boy love, I think mentally I was really thinking about Greek art. My mistake.
The only evidence in believing he was gay comes in the form of his admittedly homoerotic artwork but what many fail to mention is that the vast majority of his work was commissioned, much of it by Pope Clement VIII.
Well in that case, maybe the Pope was fond of men? Although the Catholic church probably downplays many strange phenomena in their history, many Pope of the past were not as saintly as they wanted their flock to be.
Here is a video of Paul Reubens talking about what police deemed obscene material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_0Kap5SbzU
I agree that the circumstances mean a lot. Like you mentioned what Diane Diamond said, if a person had a large photography collection then it would be more acceptable if they had maybe one or two nude photography books of that variety in their collection. But given Michael Jackson's entire dilemma, it certain gives off a more sinister vibe. His best friends for sleepovers are 10-12 years old and so are the nude boys in the books he owned, locked away in his cabinet. The fans will have some excuse. In a way, I think the protection of MJ is just like The Da Vinci code. If the Jackson family or MJ stans found a video of him touching a child they would no doubt destroy the tape and swear it never happened. I believe many are just in denial.
You're right, many of the artworks are like that. I've been a student of art history for three years now so I know a thing or two but I'm far from an expert! It is indeed strange how mammoth the bodies of David or Adam are portrayed by Michelangelo while their genitals are small, especially for how exaggerated all of their other features are. I don't have a specific answer but I feel there are two potential answers. One is that the artists possibly did not want to offend the public. When Michelangelo painted the Last Judgement within the Sistine Chapel he was banished by the church for obscenity because all of their figures were nude. Now imagine how they would have reacted had these large male figures also had very large penises! They may have had to tear down the entire chapel lol. So smaller genitals may have been a way to draw viewers away from obscene suggestions. However this answer is rather PC and probably not as likely.
The more likely answer is that the artists may very well have had an interest in prepubescent genitals. In the famous "Creation of Adam" section of the chapel, Adam is depicted with very small genitals and even stranger, absolutely no pubic hair. It is very likely the artists were preoccupied with their own interests. As I mentioned, the exaggerated proportions of the figures and the fact that the bible states all Jewish figures were/are to be circumcised. However, of the hundreds of nude biblical male figures Michelangelo painted, absolutely none of them were circumcised. This is a clear indication that he cared little for being historically and anatomically correct, but was more interested in depicting the figures as he wanted to. On top of this, Michelangelo wrote numerously of his passion and love of the male figure. Incidentally, it is the work of this particular artist that Michael Jackson mentioned when he spoke of binding one's soul to their art.
About Pope Clement, there's actually a film about Caravaggio made in the 80s that depicted the Pope as absolutely having an interest in rather young males. I never looked into it in real life though, it could be historically correct or something fictitious. But the Pope at the time did request many paintings of young nude males.
On a similar note and to turn the conversation full circle, I'm not sure if it was Larry Nimmer who mentioned it or not, but I recall reading that Michael Jackson owned bronze copies of both Donatello's David as well as the antiquity statue Boy with a Thorn.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rodgertm/4006635698/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wimpers/485121130/
In the 16th century, when a young boy around the age of 12-15 was in need of money he would head to Florence wearing a large feathered hat, the hat was a sign of availability and an older man would take the hat off of the boy to show his interest for sex. It was a 'code' sort of thing. On the other hand, the biblical figure David was generally portrayed as a young man with a garland headdress. But Donatello portrayed him in sculpture as a 12/13 year old boy with a large feathered hat, the same kind used by young male prostitutes. I just looked it up and Michael Jackson owned a copy of Donatello's David since the late 70s and used it as inspiration for a photoshoot. Ironically enough, the photographer in the linked interview said that Michael specifically liked the tilted hat of Donatello's David and chose to wear his fedora in a similar manner.
http://www.onehellofaneye.com/2010/02/05/off-the-wall%E2%80%A6back-to-the-future/
Mike's collection of nude kiddie books establish his interests in young boys. Actually, he had other books with children in them, some with kids nude as well although the focus wasn't of them nude. There's a book he had obviously just purchased because the cops found it still packaged away, it's called "Drew and Jimmy". I've seen this book because my university has a copy of it. It's a black and white large photography book that focuses on two boys (cousins of the author) as they develop from boys to young adults. Now the book does not show them in any completely nude situations except for them in swimming trunks. But I think him having it is curious because the photos don't show childhood or anything of that nature; it's not really "feel good" nostalgia. It's just serious photos of two teen boys. Why would he have it unless he was interested in looking at young males? It's kind of hard to explain the significance of this book to MJ stans since it doesn't have nudity. But what they don't understand is that pedophiles don't need to see kids naked to have erotic thoughts about them; they just want to see kids being kids! This book to me once agin shows that Mike has an interest in boys/young males. One shot has a very muscular Drew as a an older teen wet and coming out of the water. I personally couldn't see why he'd want it unless he had an interest in seeing boys. It just follows his already established pattern.
About the penises, LOL, I definitely see the reasoning behind obscenity and keeping them small, especially if the art is commissioned to be in churches or religious settings. But I agree with you that that may be the PC answer; it was probably about a fascination with prepuberty, especially the point about the pubic hair. I mean we are talking about Greeks and Italians, these people were hairy! So a man with the body of "David" would have pubes. But I've seen some statues that have pubic hair and the penis is still quite tiny. for those, maybe it was the obscenity reason.
Very interesting about Mike's art collection, but do you think he was aware back in the 70s about the pederasty link? Perhaps he just admired the boy figures but didn't known the significance. Although he may have known about boy centered art; it was in 1983 that he got "The Boy" from an alleged "female fan" whose name was suspiciously in quotes. My gut tells me that this person was not only not a fan, it was not a female, and more likely, it was a male friend of Mike's that knew he'd be interested in a book with boy nudes inside. He would have had to show an interest in that type of "art" for someone to have given it to him, and besides, he kept it (and "Boys will be Boys") away from all of the other books in his home. It was a treasure.
Very interesting about Mike's art collection, but do you think he was aware back in the 70s about the pederasty link?
Ian Halperin claimed MJ knew an incredible amount about art, though Christopher Anderson reported that MJ was generally ignorant on most topics.
Opinionation:
We have that and then we have the fact Michael Jackson claimed to be a vegetarian when he also liked fried chicken. We also have the fact that he refused wine during a Sabbath dinner with Rabbi Shmuely Boteach but he also gave booze to boys and was a heavy drinker.
I'm starting to think Jacko had multiple personalities... it was said that many multiples have abuse histories.
Or, perhaps, he was incredibly image conscious. I think it may be the former, though.
Sock Drawer:
Hi, there. :-)
I didn't know Paul Reubens was gay? I guess I always thought he was straight. But, I have to remember my upbringing: when I was 6 or so, my mother used to say the drag queen RuPaul was prettier than many women but insisted that he was straight, which is nonsensical in retrospect. But I had no concept of gay, really, and she always said people were straight or that she didn't know but most likely the person was straight. It wasn't a bigotry on her part; I think she genuinely doesn't pay attention! She was shocked when I told her he was gay just a few weeks ago. She said, "What? RuPaul's gay?" I'm like, "No shit." LOL.
In the United States, we all know that there is no ex post facto laws so Michael Jackson would never be able to be prosecuted for something like BWBB even if it were ever deemed to be child pornography. But the ownership and the intent is obvious. To me, looking at the book and calling it 'child erotica' or an art book is a semantics game. The point is to look at the whole picture. Sure, the books are not 'illegal' but they are distasteful.
And that's the point.
About Caravaggio, I think the sexualities of yesterday are very fluid. In Greece, these people were pagans and Hellenistic Romans were pagan, too. They had no Christianity, Judaism, or Islam to condemn against homosexual sexual relations. (It seems like many Greek myths hosted bestiality as well, which I believe to be a mental illness, but that's another topic, LOL; the point is that they were 'free' and unbounded by modern religious doctrine.) Naturally, boy-loving (pederasty or pedophilia) was more common.
But I have heard that some Popes engaged in homosexuality and pedophilia, too, and obviously you mentioned the guy I think was mentioned when I was in a freshman Western civ class a few years ago about the Pope who had boy-lovers. Now was this sexuality cloaked or was it cloaked to the masses?
I am of the school of thought that sexuality in general is mostly fixed but still quite fluid. As I mentioned previously, I do suspect a lot of the behaviors were because of a dislike of women. They raised men up on a pedestal; it's unsurprising that they'd be attracted to them to the point of illicit affairs. In Ancient Greece, they viewed it this way, not that women were never considered sexually desirable...
I actually think the point about smaller penises may having been about interest in boys is accurate, although I also think you are correct about the modesty aspect. Perhaps pubic hair is immodest and, therefore, not permissible in commissioned pieces.
Hi guys,
@ Jessica in particular:
LOL. I'm sorry about the discussion I started concerning the sizes of people's private parts depicted in art. I don't know know of any accepted scholarly opinion on this, maybe it's not PC to research this or whatever. All academics do usually is snigger when they talk about, for example, the "David's" shortcomings. Although I have a feeling that for some reason we do not wish to analyze further, women find this funnier than men. ;-)
I think one of the main points here - and Desiree has mentioned this a number of times- is that MJ gave this book to a minor. I believe that according to today's standard (don't know about the 60s) this could be considered sexually explicit material and the FBI guy says in his analysis on pedophiles that any adult who gives sexually explicit material to children should be viewed with suspicion.
@Sockdrawer: There is a very good biography on Caravaggio by Catherine Puglisi. I think you might enjoy this, it's very well written indeed. I think her opinion is that he was bisexual.
And there are a number of good books on the homoerotic subculture of Papal Rome (where Caravaggio worked) in the 16th to 18th centuries that have suggested that there was a market for images like the Cupid and that artists catered to these circles of homosexuals. Interesting subject.
Regarding Paul Reubens, part of the reason people were so troubled by his underage erotica was because it had been discovered through a tip from the Jeffery Jones case (Jones was arrested for getting a 14-year-old to take sexually explicit photos of himself).
I have to say, if a witness to a child porn case gives the name of another guy who possesses underage erotica, and then you go to his house and actually discover underage erotica, I'm gonna be a little suspicious. Sorry, Pee-wee.
Here's an example from BWBB:
http://goo.gl/ziJfk
I've been having second thoughts about censorship of the books. I simply don't want to and I'm wanting to simply take the risk. After all, it IS technically an art book.
Tell me what you all think.
I should mention this is the photo they'd showed to Wade Robson on the stand...
Holy sh*t, that's definitely a sexually suggestive pose--a naked young boy with his legs spread and his junk right in the center of the photo. Sick. If I were you, I'd censor the thumbnails but have the uncensored version available to click on along with some sort of content warning.
I know I've said this before, but you might want to consider reposting some of your previous blog entries to wordpress just in case your account here is shut down.
Angela,
Mike didn't give this book to a minor. "The Boy" was given to him in 1983 by a person whose name was in quotes who claimed to be a fan, which is suspicious. I suspect that Mike liked the book so much that he sought out "Boys will be Boys" sometimes before 1993. Both were found in a locked file cabinet in his closet.
As for "David", of course women will find his "situation" funnier because we would be the ones that have to deal with it! :-p Men probably don't want to talk about it lest we start examining their penises as well, LOL.
Desiree,
wow. Those types of pictures were what Mike was looking at? How is he not a pedophile? It's obvious that the only people that would want a book filled with naked boys is a pedophile. No wonder Wade squirmed. And not wonder, still, that Sneddon thought this boy was absolutely important in establishing Mike's mindset for having these sleepovers. Aaron Carter's tale did a great job of illustrating Mike's desire for boys sleeping in his bedroom as well.
I too wish you could show them as is. I think it makes a powerful point, that maybe if they saw what he truly was, they'd stop harassing and maligning his victims.
Frenchie has a good point. I wonder if an "off the site" location could work to have the pictures there so that people could just click to go to see them uncensored. Would flickr or a photobucket allow them? Maybe one of those domains that the Will McBride photos were on, xs4all.nl. The Netherlands apparently doesn't have a big problem with child erotica.
that Sneddon thought this boy
I meant *that Sneddon thought this book*
Oops
I've been having second thoughts about censorship of the books. I simply don't want to and I'm wanting to simply take the risk
But it's not a risk because the term risk implies uncertainty. It's pretty much guaranteed that the stans will move heaven and earth to have your blog shut down if you reveal such graphic truth about their God. These stans pretend to ignore this blog by they are secretly obsessed with it and have their people reading and monitoring every word. They would sell their own mothers for a chance to shut your blog down, so you know the same dozen or so stans that spam the internet 24/7 with pro-MJ propaganda will be reporting abuse from every computer they can get their hands on. They have no lives. They literally only live to protect MJ's legacy. They are obsessed with you because you're the only one they can't muzzle. They probably go to bed crying hysterically every night: "MAKE HER STOP! PLEASE GOD MAKE HER STOP! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!" Don't give them something they can use against you because that's the opportunity they dream of. You don't have to post the images on this particular forum. Now the stans who are reading are probably terrified you will change your IP (or use another computer) and infiltrate their forum with a link to the truth they are so desperate to hide.
Opinionation,
I literally peed my pants laughing! LOL, your description of their reaction is so true. They've spent years defending or pushing aside the fact that he had these books, claiming they aren't even relevant (that's what one actually said) because they are "art books" and not real child pornography since its not from the Internet or something. But if they really saw the truth reveled in these photographs, they would be flabbergasted. They aren't rational; they don't think of the forest, they think of the trees. He has so much damn evidence against him that solidifies the importance of these books with regard to the pedophilia allegations.
Don't they understand that?
And why punish Desiree for revealing the truth? It was Mike that owned the books; it was Mike that had the friend who gave him "The Boy" in 1983 knowing he'd like it, it was Mike that serach out "Boys will be Boys" to complete his collection, and it was Mike that chose to sleep with boys that were the same age as the boys in these books. Why don't they get mad at him from pulling the wool over their eyes all these years? Well, really, they should be mad at themselves for still being too dumb not to see the truth. They have severely low IQs.
I will censor. I am petrified that this blog will be shut down if I don't. Hell, I'm terrified it'll be shut down even if I do a nice, heavy blur over the kids' naughty bits.
Blogger explicitly states no child porn or promotion of pedophilia (this means kids' images with sexually suggestive captions).
http://www.blogger.com/content.g
I wonder if all of it would be different given the context. I guess I'll have write about something else in the mean time...
You can always try to contact Blogger to get approval in advance.
just to be clear @Sock Drawer MJ quit his work with mark schaffel right after he knew that schaffel was a gay porn producer .'-)
Frenchie:
Blogger is impossible to contact; it's not like wordpress--it's a mammoth because it's ran by Google. I was in the help section but I stopped myself from asking about these particular books because I didn't want anyone to think I have nefarious intentions.
what do you think about this blurring? Too little or too much? I think it keeps the integrity of the piece while protecting the boy within:
http://goo.gl/XlZRT
zeromarcy:
You are wrong. Not a surprise, given that you are a fanbot; most Jacko fans restrict their knowledge about his business to things that make him look like an innocent angel or to his PR tripe. The consequence of this blind faith behavior is that most of you are woefully out of the know.
Michael Jackson never stopped working with Marc Schaffel after he 'found out' he was producer of gay pornography. Jacko always knew he was a gay porn producer; this is obviously how he knew that Schaffel would be a lifeline for him when he needed money (those in the porn industry are filthy rich), or, as Jacko said, when he wanted his "French fries" "super-sized".
Jacko's PR team pumped out the nonsense that he and Schaffel split because other sponsors were dropping out of the "What More Can I Give?" project because they knew Schaffel was a PR liability. Jacko's people said he'd disassociated himself from Schaffel but a few months later, he and Marc were back together. Schaffel was there when Michael Jackson was airing out Blanket over a Berlin balcony.
He was with him in the hotel. Michael Jackson adored Marc Schaffel.
I wrote about Jacko's Schaffel addiction here:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/addendum-to-michael-jackson-was-gay_06.html
Let's not forget that Schaffel helped in the buying of the continued silence of mother-son duo Ruby and David Martinez to the tune of $300,000.
Hey, instead of posting here--especially when you have no intention of actually reading these blog entries--why don't you restrict yourself to Vindicate MJ or other Jackson worshipping sites?
I cannot understand why these people insist on disrespecting my blog. If you don't agree and don't like what's said--and it's only going to get worse--read elsewhere. After all, this is but one infinitesimal niche I am exploiting on the entire Internet. I guess Jacko's Wackos will do anything to silence his critics who are on the right side of history.
All the more reason to be incredibly cautious with the upcoming post on his child erotica books.
Hmmm, maybe you should post censored material here, but post a similar entry with the original photos to a different blogging site? That way, even if the blog is taken down, you won't lose all of your previous work along with it.
I was originally for strict censorship, but that photo is just so unsettling that I think people should see it as is. Anyone on the fence about whether or not MJ was a pedo will know for sure. Everything about it is disturbing--the way the boy is looking into the camera, how his legs are wide open to give his prepubescent peen center stage, and how even his anus is exposed...it's so vulgar. If that's art, then so is a wet t-shirt contest!
I think that is a good dose of censoring, because at least you can still kinda see, but it's tasteful... well as tasteful as a nude little boy can be. But I still think that people should see it "as is".
I was thinking the same as Frenchie: make another account so you can link to the uncensored photos. They need to be shown the way Mike saw them. It's a wake up call.
I wonder, though, if you linked to them would you still get in trouble? I don't see how only because you aren't really breaking blogger's policies if you aren't advocating pedophilia by explaining them in the context of Michael Jackson; you're investigating and analyzing. I've seen popular blogs that are very racist--clearly violating blogger's policies--and they are still up. How do we know they would even have the time to check up on your blog? I mean if the MJ stans come in numbers and click the "report abuse" buttons several million times, they might have a look-see, but other then that. Dammit it's not even illegal material and you aren't some sick old guy! Just makes me mad. People hate the truth.
This is off-track Desiree but I want to draw it to your attention as sometimes thinking about a different but related story sheds some light on the one that you're thinking about. I recently learned something of the life story of the famous British composer Benjamin Britten and it's impossible not to see some parallels. A book was recently written about Britten's romantic obsession with early adolescent boys. It's rather euphemistically titled "Britten's Children" because really it should have been called "Britten's Boys". Here is a Wikipedia link about the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten%27s_Children
Britten's feelings about boys fed into his creative work. Many of his works have boy characters at their centre and he loved to use the unbroken voices of boy singers.
The irony of this situation is not lost on me. Michael Jackson is considered completely innocent in owning these type of books and, yet, here I am having the most difficult time trying to find a way to safely post them here on this blog without deletion.
Can't people see this?!
Well, I have figured out a way to show them, although this is definitely not ideal. I was going to upload them to Flickr, completely uncensored. I will then link to the photos in a series of collections for each book.
I agree with what Opinionation had said previously: there is no uncertainty to the fact that these rabid, putrid fans will be clicking 'Report Abuse' on the hour from their bunkers across this God Forsaken planet.
Frenchie, I agree with you: censoring the photos destroys their context and how powerful a proof they are to Jacko's pedophilia.
In the meantime, I can show the penis extravaganza and homo-eroticism that was his gay books. That will be fine.
But, damn...
What I fear is a deletion without the Blogger Thought Police reading the context. They say, "No promotion of pedophilia via image galleries, etc.," but if they read the piece, there would be condemnation of the world's most famous pedophile.
I am flipping through the book, "Boys Will Be Boys", now and it is over 250 pages of tons of boy-loving photographs. There can be no doubt to the guilt of Michael Jackson and his obvious pedophilia if everyone reading could thumb through this book! Even the pictures that aren't nude are in so much reverence of boys.
I am trying to figure out, as I flip through the book and as I write this comment, what I should do.
It just occurred to me that perhaps I can make a Youtube video of the photographs and embed the video here on the blog.
That may just work. I will have to think it through...
Jessica:
I think the racist blogs have a lower importance than something that could be breaking the law. I've reported a particular blog for racism numerous times but it's still there. So much so for 'policy'. I think potential pedophiles are more on the chopping block. I was reading the guestbook of the pedophile website hosted by the Dutch-based boy love group, Martijn, and I got my photo scans of "The Boy" from the website, and they were in a flurry--over several years--about their favorite boy-love sites being shut down.
By their bleating, I almost felt sorry for them.
The funny thing about BWBB is that most fans think it is innocent; even the yahoos on Vindicate MJ think it's so innocent.
I have to shake my head at those morons. If they could see it without the fan blinders on, they'll know, they'll know... There's no doubt.
Amanda S:
Researching for Jacko earlier this evening, I found a life imitating art with regards to Jacko--
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1995-08-17/news/9508170161_1_boaz-johnson-michael-jackson-impersonator
This Jacko impersonator had sexually abused boys. I remember following Jacko's death, there had been another impersonator who was arrested on suspicion of molesting a boy. I think it was out of Detroit, USA.
Maybe there's a curse of Jacko...
I don't understand, I saw a youtube video once of Frank Tyson defending MJ www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnFwxToajmk
and one of these books was shown!
BUT, fool had the nerve to say this was art...art??!!
How come is it that once MJ does something it's considered art, eccentric, different? yet you see any grown ass man wearing lipstick, a wig etc you think 'gay'?
Any man sleeping with kids (shit, let Marlon who was only a year older than MJ say :Oh gee I did miss out on my childhood like Michael, now I want sleep with kids...it's all innocent!...what will the MJ fans/or family back him up too?
Why the double standard...
I just think Jordie, Jason and perhaps Gavin should be put on a public platform and say what was real...enough already.
And all these damn singers are lining up to do some damn tribute...to a pedophile?
I don't understand, I saw a youtube video once of Frank Tyson defending MJ www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnFwxToajmk
and one of these books was shown!
BUT, fool had the nerve to say this was art...art??!!
I wonder if Frank Cascio has even seen the contents of those books. I bet not, since they were confiscated in 1993 and were never returned until after the 2005 trial. So he probably doesn't even know what's in them to comment.
Any man sleeping with kids (shit, let Marlon who was only a year older than MJ say :Oh gee I did miss out on my childhood like Michael, now I want sleep with kids...it's all innocent!...what will the MJ fans/or family back him up too?
Has any of the brothers even complained about a lost childhood? Mike used that line just to get parents to let their boys sleep with him. And unfortunately is worked.
And all these damn singers are lining up to do some damn tribute...to a pedophile?
It's all about money, and truthfully I bet they don't really care what happened with Mike and the kids. They all have their dirty secrets so they probably feel "Who am I to judge?" Hollywood is very morally relative.
Jessica,
thanks for all your responses.
-Well, Cascio was right there when the lady journalist held the book up...shit, I was watching it and I recoiled upon first sight, he had to know that it was child erotica...
-Yeah, he's the only one who used that line and I've always wondered..."Wait a minute, that can't even be possible...why? come on now, why beat up your golden goose, the star player..that defies logic!! Furthermore, Berry Gordy Suzzane DePasse and Diana Ross ALL say they never saw any physical abuse...shit, Dick Clark, Ed Sullivan would have all said something back then if saw scars...so it's not even possible.
-You're right about the Hollywood Crowd...it's all so despicable!
Foras, when I say Frank probably didn't even see the book, I mean he hadn't seen it outside the context of the interview. It's easy to say those books were art books when you've been called to defend him in the media. But has Frank ever seen them when he was in Mike's room? Not a chance, they were locked away in file cabinet in his closet.
I do think Mike and his siblings were beat up by Joe (and Katherine too), but Mike using that "lost childhood" line is for him to be able to get close to boys. Period.
So Soleil Moon Frye wrote a book, and now some MJ freaks are in tantrum mode because, in the book, she mentions being alone in a jacuzzi with MJ when she was eight...
http://goo.gl/WLozd (3:10 on the video)
Seriously, how can anyone be mad at this woman? She's a cheerful ball of sunshine.
Frenchie
Of course. Had she said they shared a Jacuzzi when she was already an adult and their reaction would be very different! I bet they´re praying for a new about Michael and some woman! lol
Soleil said nothing wrong, the fans are just afraid about what the public would think,since she was a child with him as an adult...
LOL about Soleil Moon Frye. He just cannot stop himself, can he? He cannot stop being inappropriate with kids. I was reading Diane Dimond's book just last night and I read a passage quoting from one of the five Hayvenhurst bodyguards who'd attempted to sue Michael Jackson (they claimed they saw a naked picture of a boy and that Jacko told them to destroy it).
This bodyguard said, "...but as far as when you look at a grown man with a young kid, in a jacuzzi, sitting down. It will make you think, like, why would you want to do that?"
This, of course, is the normal reaction of a non-pedophiliac adult. Most people don't like children so much to want to be around them the way Jackson surrounded himself with them. Pedophiles do, though.
To me, what was unsettling about that interview with Ann Curry is how quickly she changed topics from that anecdote of Frye's. I think since Jackson is dead no one wants to 'remember' that he was a pedophile.
To me, at least, I find it offensive and really sad. I'm sure you all read the recent comments of some fan who was posting last night (early this morning) and it is really starting to get underneath my skin, this history revisionism, this 'Poor Michael' routine. As I research for this blog, which I do quite often (I'm currently trying to finish up a post now), I stumble upon magazines that have truly common sensical commentary on this guy, calling a spade a spade.
So, right now, if you bother to notice, you can see the difference in coverage. I think it is tragic.
By the way, on a forum, the fans were discussing the "Boys Will Be Boys" photo I'd linked in these comments and, even before they see all of the book, they started to rationalize his ownership of titles with nude kids. Someone had seen "The Boy" and attempted to say it was innocent because it didn't show genitalia, just butts.
"The Boy" is 90% clothed, by the way, but there are nudes in it, just no genitals, like "Boys Will Be Boys", which Jackson obviously searched out and inscribed. They forget the fact that, even unlike "In Search of Young Beauty", TB and BWBB were kept protected in a locked file cabinet. They were not among '1000s of books'.
I mean, the lengths these people will go to defend this perp in the face of good, albeit circumstantial, evidence that he was a pedophile child molester...
It's truly sickening. It really is. But my site is not for fans, but people interested in the unvarnished truth. I hope more telling anecdotes about this guy emerge in the future. His music wasn't that good to forget his sins and his victims.
Interesting about Soleil Moon Frye. She is a very bubbly sweet person and did not even condemn Mike for his obvious perversion.
Okay, so if she was 8 years old, that means Mike was 26. So why the hell would a 26 year old man want to spend time alone with an 8 year old child to talk about "life, love" and secrets of the world? How is that fun? It's only fun to a pedo.
Another interesting thing is how she mentions that her parents thought she was with everyone else but she was actually with Mike. Its that similar "isolate the child away from other adults" tactic that people like Bob Jones and security guard Charli Michaels mentioned. Michaels said in either 1993 or 1994 that Mike always instructed them to preoccupy the parents so he could be with the children alone. It's suspicious behavior to say the least.
Funny how fans would get mad. They must know in their hearts that his behavior with children is suspicious. But they are the only ones that still defend his actions as perfectly normal. I mean what the hell is Soleil Moon Frye supposed to say; that it's "normal" for a grown as man of 26 to want to isolate an 8year old kid and jacuzzi with them? Uh... NO! The fans lack common sense, unlike everyone else who can see this was an unusual circumstance.
I also wonder about the significance of him wanting to spend time alone with a 8 year old girl with the fact that you mention "In Search of Young Beauty" has naked little girls in there?
GirlUndercover,
"Had she said they shared a Jacuzzi when she was already an adult and their reaction would be very different! I bet they´re praying for a new about Michael and some woman! lol "
LOL, never, ever will that happen. He did not like women. He liked men and boys.
Desiree,
Really that's not a surprise that the fans would rationalize the importance of the boy books away. That's what they do. And who cares if it's just butts (in "The Boy")? Really? How many grown ass men want a book filled with photos of young boys, let alone boys with their asses and genitals showing? He didn't even have children at the time when he first received "The Boy" in 1983, but he did only a couple years earlier masturbate on the phone with a boy of the same age as the boys in these books. He inscribed the dirtier, naked book himself, which is significant. Yes, these books were hidden away, not in the library of the "millions" of books Tom Mesereau likes to talk about. What a bunch of BS.
"Another interesting thing is how she mentions that her parents thought she was with everyone else but she was actually with Mike. Its that similar "isolate the child away from other adults" tactic that people like Bob Jones and security guard Charli Michaels mentioned. Michaels said in either 1993 or 1994 that Mike always instructed them to preoccupy the parents so he could be with the children alone."
Really good point, Jessica.
It's all about corroboration of behavior when it comes to me and Jackson.
Aaron Carter was corroborated by others claiming drug use and booze given to children. Bob Jones corroborated the head-licking claimed by Janet Arvizo. Johnny Jackson was corroborated by La Toya and Jermaine Jackson about Michael being sexually abused.
Corroboration is KEY!
Soleil Moon Frye simply is adding to the reasonable suspicion that Jackson was interested in more than friendship with these children. I've always doubted that Jackson would have molested a female child, and his employees--like Jesus Salas--say Jackson was always with just boys (as his license plate read). But it's not impossible if he found the right young girl.
I wasn't going to mention this but I was informed--and this was doubly verified by two people in Hollywood, including the producer himself--that Jackson was erotically interested in the 11-12-year-old daughter of a producer he'd worked with. He was in his twenties.
This person emailed me (personal email, not the form) and asked, "Do you think it's possible for a man to molest both girls and boys?"
I told him, "Yes...? Why?"
And he then told me that the producer had told him this about the daughter Jackson was interested in and that this had recently been verified by another Hollywood mainstay.
So, when I saw that he'd had "In Search of Young Beauty"--which I thought was a mistake purchase on Jackson's part because it has nude girls in it--I figured it was possible that he could molest girls as well.
Frye may have had fun then but who knows what Jackson could have done to her if given the opportunity. He was prurient. One book of his, called "Room To Play" featured the vaginal labias and clefts of young girls (in innocent poses).
Any thing is possible.
"I think since Jackson is dead no one wants to 'remember' that he was a pedophile."
Speaking of that, I was getting rid of old magazines, and I came across a little item about MJ's public image transformation after his death. The article suggests that our custom to speak well of the dead is based on fear. I'm not sure I believe it, but I thought it was an interesting take...
http://goo.gl/6C3g8
"They must know in their hearts that his behavior with children is suspicious."
Really, how can it not cross their minds? At this point, it does seem to be all about "winning" to them. His fans would rather sweep the truth under the rug than acknowledge they were wrong. I believe it's only a matter of time before something explosive is made public. If MJ was dumb enough to photograph a special friend nude, then he was probably dumb enough to videotape one as well. Bill Dworin did say that when they arrived at Neverland, they knew MJ's people had time to prepare because in his video room, one shelf for videos was conspicuously empty.
"Had she said they shared a Jacuzzi when she was already an adult and their reaction would be very different!"
lol. Exactly! If Soleil had been 18+ instead of 8, fans would declare her their queen.
MJ obviously preferred boys, but considering Desiree's info about his romantic interest in a very young girl, Soleil's anecdote about him inviting her into his jacuzzi with him at 8, the book of male and female nude children, MJ's strange Shirley Temple obsession, and the Arvizos' story about him simulating sex on a little girl mannequin, it really does seem like MJ was titillated by youth in general.
The evidence that MJ had any sexual interest in little girls sounds pretty weak, but I agree with Desiree that it's possible. The way I look at it, it seems there were two demographics that turned MJ on: males and children. Little boys fit into both demographics so they seem to be who he was most aroused by, but adult men are at least male and little girls are at least children, so he may have on rare occasions experimented with either because being either male or children, at least they fit half of his alleged criteria. However adult women are neither male nor children, so he probably had no sexual interest in them whatsoever.
Opinionation:
Those are very solid points.
That was what this person told me, that Jacko had an interest in this particular girl. However, it would be a stretch to look at this incident, something like hot tubbing with Soleil Moon Frye, or even his interest in 14-year-old Brooke Shields (allegedly) and suggesting that he could have been interested in anyone beyond young boys and/or young men.
The knowns are as follows:
-3 molestation accusations from boys (Jordie, Jason, Gavin);
-3 payoffs to boys and their families (Jordie, Jason, David Martinez);
-various employees and acquaintances attesting to either molestations (Ralph Chacon and Charli Michaels), odd situations (Blanca Francia claiming she'd heard him in the shower with a boy, Bob Jones, Robert Wegner, most people, etc.), or general boy-loving MO (Jolie Levine called him a 'chicken hawk');
-2 foreign flavors of semen on his mattress and a 3rd variety in underwear and sheets he'd kept with his own soiled underwear;
-young boys as 'special friends';
-sleepovers that were almost always with young boys;
-2 books kept in a locked file cabinet--away from his so-called 'vast personal library'--that featured nude young boys (the graphic one he inscribed)
And what do the fans have?
-Porn;
-Jordie Chandler said 'circumcised' when Jackson was 'uncircumcised';
-Janet Arvizo had a shady past;
-employees of Jacko's tend to do stupid things that make them look reasonably incredible
Am I missing anything? I know the list is scant!
Apparently, it isn't much, nor can it stand up on its own.
All of Jackson's porn can be reasonably explained to indicate that he used this for boys. We know pedophile experts say pedophiles typically have enormous collections of porn, both for their victims and sometimes used to convince others that they are not homosexual or pedophiliac.
Does that mean all of Jackson's porn was for boys? No, of course it doesn't mean that; he did have Vaseline and a Barely Legal in his office bathroom (NOTE: BL contains very YOUNG looking models). However, when you couple this seeming porn collection with the contradiction of a lack of women or even a tangible interest in them (unless they were 'fag hags'), not to mention the fact the Arvizo boys and Corey Feldman claimed Jackson showed them porn and nude images, respectively, as well as when police questioned Omer Bhatti about porn, they stated he became very nervous, the idea that all of that porn was for some stereotypically heterosexual male purpose becomes incredibly specious.
I forgot to add that the LeMarques claimed in 1991 that he was showing pornography to boys in his theater; they also said back in 1991 that Jackson was a molester. Unfortunately, they, too, have some credibility hurdles that are hard to ignore.
(cont'd)
Jackson had no interest in women, despite his collection, which is typical for pedophile child molesters who predate upon boys the ages of his special friends to own anyway.
Although fans have rationalized it away--tossed it deep into the abyss of their subconscious--I believe the semen stains on Jackson's mattress and in those sheets and underwear is the BEST, hardest evidence of his homosexuality.
Fans stated his bedroom was like a Motel 6 but this is not consistent with evidence. Jesus Salas, the house manager, said Jackson's room was "pretty much" off-limits when he was not at Neverland. Couple this with the fact Jackson frequently changed the lock on his bedroom, not to mention felt the need to keep those alert bells that were triggered when someone was outside in the hall in front of his door, this is good proof that Jackson's bedroom was no Motel 6.
I won't even address the stupidity of saying those stains may have not been semen but any (fan-approved) 'male DNA'. Does that not show how homophobic these fans are?
The stuff about Jordie Chandler is just ridiculous anyway. I've been writing on all of that business recently; lots of information to compile and put together for a solid, holistic post, hence the typical Desiree delays.
As for Janet Arvizo, it should be remembered, first and foremost, that she was not around her sons while at Neverland, and that the issue is about Gavin, not Janet. Did she have problems that reasonably made her suspicious? Yes! Does that really matter when it comes to Gavin and beyond a court of law? NO. Janet was a neat defense diversion tool in a court but she's useless as a real argument point outside of one.
I also accept that Jackson's employees have done stupid things. But this is what stupid people do, especially stupid people who are working minimum wage. Some of them, however, like Chacon and Blanca Francia, are highly believable, regardless of their tabloid exploits.
As I've pointed out before: the fans miss the forest for the trees. They need to grasp the whole picture.
I think they don't want to. Like Frenchie pointed out, I, too, believe they are just interested in 'winning', not in truth or any kind of revelation.
"The evidence that MJ had any sexual interest in little girls sounds pretty weak, but I agree with Desiree that it's possible."
Since there's been no indication of MJ grooming a girl as he did his special friends, I think the most he would have done, if anything, was "accidental" touching...the sort of thing that wouldn't even register as wrong to a kid because it didn't seem deliberate.
Desiree,
Did you read it already?!
http://www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php?24037-Desiree-Lies....A-Lot
About Janet, then fans believe she had a shady past but at the same time it doesn´t stop some of them to believe she had a relationship with Michael...LOL
It's possible he was interested in girls, but what little evidence there is negated by evidence that he actively avoided girls, as you have documented in your no girls allowed post, as Maureen orth has documented, as the rabbi alluded to.
The Arvizos has credibility problems, but you made a compelling point about the head licking anecdote being corroborated by bob jones who also described head licking by Jacko on a boy. It's too much of a coincidence for two completely independent people to have dreamed up the same lie, so I'm strongly inclined to believe both of them, especially since they made the claims at times when they were very unlikely to have known about each other's anecdotes. A shady past means nothing but when you have a smoking gun like that. And in a way, the shady past makes it more likely that Gavin was molested because as Maureen orth intelligently noted, why would MJ befriend such a shady family unless he had an agenda.
The fans come across as incredibly naive when they undermine the credibility of MJ's employees. They ask why the staff never reported the molestation they claim to have witnessed, but Blanca had a good point: who is going to believe some poor Hispanic maid speaking broken english over the most famous entertainer of the 20th century? Even a rich well connected Jewish family like the chandlers were depicted as extortionists, so no wonder the staff didn't report anything. Who wants to be terrorized by the goons MJ can afford to hire and threatened and smeared by the psychotic fans and black listed from working for other rich celebs? Damn right they sold their stories to the tabloids. They would be fools to tell these stories for free given the personal price such revelations would cost them.
LOL someone is obsessing over Brett:
Martina Olsson
I love you brett
Yesterday at 2:12pm · Like · ·
Brett Barnes I love you too
Yesterday at 2:34pm · Like · 1 person
Martina Olsson This made me feel warm and happy inside, thank you for youre love.
5 hours ago ·
Martina Olsson
You have beautiful eyes, a cute little mouth and I just can't stop thinking about you, I guess I'am crazy about you.
I'm just sending you some more love Brett.
I love you Brett.
6 hours ago · Like · ·
Interesting enough he´s the only friend she has...and she has a pic of him lol.
LOL. Fangirls just want to gobble his knob so they'll have something in common with Michael.
I don't think little girls were anywhere close to Mike's preference. Nope. But I agree that since they are children, it is definitely possible for him to have shown a tepid interest in them if the right one came along. But boys were the ones that were sleeping over, the ones that were special friends, and hence, the ones being molested.
About the semen, why are they still debating that point? It was semen, it said it was. And the underwear with the semen was found with his own dirty drawers. Had it been size 6 ladies' underwear found in exactly the same way the male's dirty underwear was found, the fans no doubt would say not only was the ladies panties evidence of a woman in Mike's life, but it is also indiction of him having sex with her. LOL. But no, even if the male's semen soaked drawers were with Mike's underwear in a bag obviously from a vacation stay, it was just a whole bunch of dirty clothes put in one bag; it's not sexual. Shaking my damn head at their logic.
As Desiree listed and explained, there is just way too much evidence that Mike was male-oriented sexually. The fans talk crap about the male art books and the graphic homosexual sex book "Man A Sexual Study of Man" like it doesn't matter because he had porn. It's baloney though; ask yourself: how many heterosexual men would have books showing naked men and their penises? How many would have a book that shows men engaging in oral and anal sex? NONE. 99% of men who would have these types of items are gay. And yet Mike isn't gay? And how many straight guys would spend $325 on a book filled with pictures, a few nude, of 16 year old wrestler/model Peter Johnson? He spent $325 to get one of the only copies of this book (The Chop Suey Club). What straight guy does that? NONE.
Like, Deisree, I'm not going to say that every piece of porn was for the boys, but EVERY PIECE of homosexual oriented material he had was FOR HIM ALONE. That is undeniable. I suspect that he most definitely collected porn for his special friends, especially the older ones. He also supplied alcohol to them, according to testimony from witnesses, the Arvizo boys, and Aaron Carter. He probably did all of this to lower the inhibitions of boys that may have been too "tough" to groom, like he did with younger, more "innocent" and vulnerable boys like Jonathan Spence, Jordie, Brett, and Wade. Seems like he would have to get them tipsy to get them to be more receptive to his advances. Obviously, Aaron Carter was given this "treatment".
Hi Jessica,
Johnathan Spence...was he a victim as well?
Was that the guy in the pepsi commercials or was that Jimmy Safechuck?
Heck, was Jimmy a possible victim as well?
In addition, is it just me or like Katt Williams said in his joke back in '07 did he know to AVOID black children?
Besides Emmanuel Lewis and the kid that played "MJ" in Baby Bad...(Moonwalker)I have hardly seen him around black kids...??!!
Also, on the subject of pedophilia...I had read somewhere that Jermaine Dupri allegedly molested the dudes from Kris Kross and well, was that why Janet left him?
Just curious since you and Desiree seem to know so much about these supposed stars.
Hi Desiree,
1. Who is David Martinez...another pay off? I NEVER heard of him?
2. Was #1 presented in court and yet again overlooked?
3. Will there be an eBook creation of these posts?
Thanks.
Foras Aje
Foras Aje:
I don't know if I'm going to make an eBook yet! :-) I'd have to think about how to go about it. I mean, it would involve cleaning up posts and finding all the articles to paste onto Word docs to be included in the book. It would involve transcriptions of some of the videos. Gathering links.
In short it would be a mammoth task for a college girl, like myself. I probably should start on the information, though, lest the links die in some black hole in the Internet.
Also, I have more to write about.
I'm a perfectionist so I am most likely to put everything together in a different way, in book form. So, when a book is plausible? It's indefinite at this point. The other option now is for you to maybe paste the posts as Word documents for yourself to keep if you want something now.
As for David Martinez, he came up during a case between Jackson and Marc Schaffel.
Here was an exchange I had with some nutjob Jackson apologist about the issue (no surprise they'd never heard about it because they are completely ignorant about any facts that do not suggest Jacko was a maligned angel--check the links):
"You have not refuted that Michael Jackson paid $300,000 to a mother and son in Argentina, something his employees had testified to: Whitman and Malnik (the jury saw email exchanges between Geragos and others about the 'travel expenses' relating to that 'transaction'). They testified under oath that there had been a $300,000 payment but I suppose you believe they are not reputable because there is "former" in front of all of their job titles as they relate to Michael Jackson? If you have information, instead of fan-based innuendo and conspiracy, that is untrue--that what his employees said is UNTRUE, please provide it. Prima facie, there was a payment.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-07-13/news/18349529_1_marc-schaffel-santa-barbara-county-law-michael-jackson
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-07-13/news/18351020_1_marc-schaffel-santa-barbara-county-law-personal-matter
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-07-15/news/18352383_1_marc-schaffel-jurors-verdict
Just because there was no receipt from Schaffel does not destroy the testimony from Malnik and Whitman (and emails from Geragos) that indicate this payment was made. The judge even acknowledged that the payment was made and said that the issue would be referred to as a 'personal matter'. Again, if you have proof that a payment was not made, please provide it. The most logical and simplest explanation is that the payment was made. The most logical and simplest explanation as to why there was no receipt for a payment that was made is that it was made 'under the table' as to avoid a paper trail.
Simple as that. Trying to push a conspiracy that it is all made up is in opposition to the facts of the case."
(cont'd)
More, when the fan asked me about the email from Geragos about the payment situation:
"As for the 'email' you're asking about, it's in the articles linked, plain as day. A juror was quoted saying the 'accountant and lawyer' testified to the payment, which is why he, and reasonable people, believed it occurred, even without a 'receipt'. If it bothers you that it's a so-called tabloid, then, naturally, there will be a suspension of belief. None of us have access to court documents in that case, which is why that it had to be related to the public via a reporter. What, do you think they are lying? Nevermind, don't answer that. I don't care and I already know what you're going to say...
Roger Friedman mentions the email here and, unless you only find him reputable when he says something you agree with, it's self-explanatory:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202306,00.html"
The fan then suggested that Al Malnik could have never said anything that made Jackson look guilty because he'd paid Jackson's bail (which is stupid):
"Okay... seriously. You have not refuted anything about the payment. Al Malnik is rumored to have posted Jacko's bail and, like Schaffel, funneled millions of dollars to the broke and faded King of Pop. You know who Malnik was also in connection with? Meyer Lansky, a criminal mafioso. Malnik, like most attorneys, has criminals as his bedfellows all the time. Michael Jackson was no different. However, when on the stand under oath, Malnik was forced to tell the truth, which included attesting to a $300,000 payment to a Ruby and David Martinez."
That should help you know about David Martinez, who was on Schaffel's witness list.
Foras,
Jonathan Spence was not in the Pepsi commercial. That was Jimmy Safechuck. Jonathan was hanging around Mike when he was doing Captain EO. All indicators point that both boys were most likely causalities of Mike's obvious pedophilia. According to court papers, in 1993 they found a photograph found in Mike's home (I don't know if it was at Neverland or Hayvenhurst) of a young white boy completely nude, and police believed it was Jonathan Spence. The Prosecution in 2005 requested it be admitted into trial along with Mike's naked boy books (this was not the only nude photo they found, there were two). Therefore, it is most definitely reasonable that Jonathan Spence was a victim since Mike took a naked picture of him.
Jimmy Safechuck was mentioned by Jordie in his interview with Richard Gardner that he was one of the kids that Mike said he masturbated with. Bob Jones wrote in his book about a trip during the Bad tour (which young Jimmy was a guest) where he was told that they had to confiscate a love note Mike wrote on a hotel sheet to Jimmy, and also one with feces on it. Logic says that Jimmy was a victim as well.
Of course both boys have denied it, but Jimmy's father was given a million dollar check, and his family got luxury cars. Jonathan, when he was older, would call and request concert tickets, expensive gifts, and a new car; Mike fulfilled all requests. My gut tells me this boy knew how to get stuff since he had a huge secret that Mike wanted to keep hidden from the public--that he had had sexual contact with this boy. That's the price you pay for being a rich pedophile.
About black kids, I don't think Mike liked black children because he didn't like being black. he called black people "splaboos" in front of Mac Culkin, according to Bob Jones. His help also said he called blacks "spabooks", which is probably a foreign distillation of "splaboos". Why would he want to be around black kids? I think all of the black kids at Neverland were photo ops. His special friends, besides, the two you mentioned--and Alfonso Ribeiro--were nonblack. I think as he got more famous, he felt he didn't have to rely on solely having black special friends, he could have the white kids now. Doesn't it seem that most of the black kids (Manny Lewis, Ribeiro, etc) were also when he was still more physically black looking?
I never heard about Jermaine Dupri molesting anyone.
I should also mention, Foras, that Jordie Chandler brought up another boy called "Garcia".
In Diane Dimond's "Be Careful Who You Love", she had copied down the DCFS report made about Jordie back in August 1993. She recorded from the document (on page 22 of her book):
"Exploitation Unit Officer refers to four other cases--RC [reporting child] had names. One is Macaulay Culkin. One lives in Australia [Brett Barnes]. One is a boy named Garcia that lives in Santa Barbara."
Dimond didn't get the fourth name, apparently. She says she was feverishly jotting down the document and her hand had cramped a couple of times.
Garcia is not Jason Francia; Jordie didn't know about Jason. If "David Martinez" is a pseudonym, this could be him. Or it could be another boy entirely.
I happen to believe every bit of Jordie's story so if he mentions other boys, it's an indication that other boys could have been abused by Jacko. As I'd mentioned in another post, Jordie implicated Jacko as using Vaseline on Brett Barnes' anus.
This is a believable story. Brett and Jacko's relationship was undeniably sexual and I've proved it in the following link:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/brett-barnes-redux-michael-jacksons.html
Is this Jonathan Spence?
http://goo.gl/smQK2
Creepy photo.
Yep that's him. It's creepy. This boy was pretty tall compared to Mike actually, so it's beyond creepy that he is straddling his leg while sitting on Mike's lap. I've seen another at Disneyland and once again Jonathan is leaning into Mike, resting his arm on Mike's thigh.
It's the body language that let's you know that their relationship was more intimate than meets the eye. Mike had Jonathan calling him daddy, and according to those around the Captain EO set, he would only talk to Mike.
All of this makes the naked photo they found of him all the more important to identifying Jonathan as yet another victim.
Opinionation:
I've always said that selling material or secrets to the tabloids is not necessarily a sign someone is lying. I'm even questioning does it even make someone look suspicious at all. I don't think it really does.
Fan arguments are nearly all theoretical and show an incredible ignorance about the ranges of behavior people can showcase in particular situations:
-"Why would you take money if your kid was molested?"
-"If you saw molestations, why didn't you report it to police?"
-"If these boys really were abused, why would they defend Michael?"
The first should never be asked. Rational people would always take money in a situation as unique as Jordie Chandler's. If someone wanted to fight--instead of take money--I'd consider them 'noble', but stupid. We have to remember how good the evidence was against Jackson in that case; Jordie could have been killed. Alternately, however, we must also remember Jackson's celebrity status.
What jury would put "Little Michael" in prison? I admit it would even be hard for me to do it! Sometimes--in my moments of a lack of clarity--I feel so sorry for the "Little Michael" of the Jackson 5. Hence, to maintain objectivity and stamina in my reportage here, I don't listen to the guy's music. (NOTE: It makes me feel weird to listen to it knowing his crimes and his hatred of his own blackness.)
Therefore, it would be ridiculous NOT to take money. If Jacko was not convicted, it would be harder to get money anyway. This wouldn't be like the OJ Simpson trials, where everyone thought he'd gotten off Scot-free.
As for the second, Opinionation, the reason I actually find Blanca Francia credible is because she was that little foreign maid with the broken English, not to mention she said Jacko liked her because she knew to 'mind her own business'. But, as with your point, NO ONE would believe lowly Neverland staff reporting molestations!
I think because many of Jackson's current fans are younger, they don't realize that this guy, until August 22, 1993 when the story broke in the media, was so beloved. I don't think people even noticed the 'special friends' as being creepy until after the scandal. Everything is in hindsight. A good Samaritan maid or chauffeur, etc. would never be believed.
Why don't they get this?
They seem to be of the school of thought that says because everyone seemed to come out with 'stories' when the scandal happened, it is all convenient. I can certainly understand that logic; however, that is not factual, but an opinion, even if it is reasonable. But if we do use that as a litmus test, Philip and Stella LeMarque made their claims in 1991, according to Christopher Andersen.
(cont'd)
For me, at least, that gives them credibility in spite of the fact they'd changed the 'over the shorts' to 'under the shorts' for extra cash until it was stolen by Paul Barresi. They originally said 'over' Mac Culkin's shorts and also said this to police.
Returning to the point, imagine this: would any of us believe reports that Bill Cosby had sexually abused a child?
I know I would definitely question it! Sure, he did like kids, like Jacko did, and he had "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" TV show. He also was very interactive with the children on "The Cosby Show", always giving them prominent roles. But it would still be improbable to me, though. Now if a kid could describe his genitals, it would be much much more believable.
Actually, the thought of Bill Cosby being a molester is such a hard sell, even for making a point! There's many of his parenting books here in my house! :-p
But I think you all get the idea...
I like what Star Arvizo said: "Celebrities have a pre-established credibility that no one can falter (sic)." I think that's what no one thinks about but it's true. With this upcoming Murray trial, our American/Western celeb-obsessed culture will most likely show itself: Celebrities can kill people, but people cannot kill celebrities.
As for point three, well, I think people cannot (or refuse to) accept that sometimes legal 'abuse' is not actually abuse. Sometimes these boys are actually in love with the men with whom they have sexual relations. This is obviously the case with Brett Barnes. I think fans have it in their heads that pedophiles look like creepy old guys and force themselves upon boys but often that is not the case. Many of the people in prison for raping or molesting kids aren't even actual pedophiles. It's the situational molesters that frighten the kids and say, "If you tell anyone, I'll kill your whole family."
Pedophiles, because they actually like children and enjoy their company, will brefriend these boys, turn it into a relationship, in some cases. There've been books on the subject of people loving their abusers.
(Interestingly, I've seen many of these books on online pedophile book shops.)
Fans have a rigid worldview and acute blind spots. Everything isn't black or white.
Hi Jessica and Desiree,
the more I read up on MJ, the more I really am just...disappointed!
Man, he was such an idol of mine and till I read MJ unauthorized in 1998 it was and got the first glimpse of what he most likely was, I was just like any of his die-hard fans.
But after that book, Be careful who you love, The magic and madness (The madness parts), my own research online and now this impeccable blog, wow...I am sickened to my stomach!
I truly believe there should be an undeniable exposure of his crimes for all to see but like you said Jessica, it probably won't happen anymore...
The fans say he was found not guilty: well so were OJ & R Kelly as well and the majority of the world's population views them as criminals.
I dunno...it's just not fair.
Makes you wonder why God allows them to get away with it cause they were rich, I mean I believe in eternal judgement , but still...MJ should have been exposed.
The memorial, tributes, shows in his favor I mean it's all disturbing and has to hurt the victims but hey...maybe as someone told me once, the situation with most of his alleged victims were probably consentual so...
Oh well, one day the undeniable truth will be out.
I hope one day it's all over the news : Jackson's '93 accuser FINALLY speaks on what happened!!
Peace
Desiree:
KEEP ALL YOUR POSTS:
I am surprised your blog is still up and running.
Back up your articles in case this blog gets deleted by blogger.
Hence the reason I suggested you host your own blog on wp or something.
The information on this blog and the obvious impeccable research put into this has to stay visible.
all the best to you!
As much as the fans hate this blog, they couldn't get it deleted just for that reason.
Desiree, I think that you're up against many general music fans as well as Michael Jackson fanatics in your efforts to prove the case of Michael Jackson's paedophilia.
In the UK, a well known pop star called Gary Glitter from the seventies was exposed a paedophile who preyed on young teenage girls a number of years ago. The result is that his music has been pretty much expunged from the airways in the UK, even though he had had a number of top ten hits (I believe that one of his songs was done in Glee recently - not a problem in the US were his story is not well known).
Many people might have been concerned about Michael Jackson's behaviour and eccentricities when he was alive but since his death, it's been possible to go back to just enjoying the music he made and not to have to worry about what we might be enabling by supporting his work.
He's had such a big influence on pop music that it's hard to imagine suppressing his work. But then many people find it hard to enjoy the music whilst at the same time acknowledging the behaviour.
"This boy was pretty tall compared to Mike actually, so it's beyond creepy that he is straddling his leg while sitting on Mike's lap."
If I came across this photo and knew nothing about the man and boy depicted in it, I would still find it alarming. Jonathan looks at least 11 there. By time boys reach that age, they aren't sitting on laps anymore...let alone straddling a man's thigh and, with their own leg, brushing up against his crotch. For Jonathan to do that, especially in front of other people, he was clearly conditioned to believe it was appropriate.
I cannot comprehend how anyone can turn a blind eye to reports that Michael had a nude photo of this boy! That's incredibly damning. There is no innocent explanation for why a grown man would have a nude photograph of his adolescent playmate!
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/25/michael-jackson-prosecution-wants-to-exclude-molestation-in-mj-manslaughter-trial-santa-barbara-dr-conrad-murray-steve-robel-jury-testimony/
Can former court cases be relevant to the People vs. Murray case? what chance is there to here the information?
Prosecutors in the Dr. Conrad Murray manslaughter case want to block all testimony related to allegations that Michael Jackson molested children.
According to court docs obtained by TMZ ... prosecutors want Judge Michael Pastor to bar Steve Robel -- a key Santa Barbara County Sheriff's investigator in the 2005 MJ molestation trial -- from testifying in Murray's defense. Robel is on the defense witness list.
In fact, prosecutors want all references to alleged molestation barred from Murray's trial, on grounds it has nothing to do with MJ's death and would merely inflame the jury.
And, prosecutors have also asked the judge to block the testimony of a number of doctors who treated Michael Jackson but were not involved in caring for MJ on the day of his death.
This is a huge motion that could have a profound impact on the case. As TMZ first reported, the defense will argue that dozens of doctors had addicted MJ to prescription meds -- including Propofol -- and they are largely responsible for the condition Michael was in the day he died.
Judge Pastor has not ruled on the motions.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/25/michael-jackson-prosecution-wants-to-exclude-molestation-in-mj-manslaughter-trial-santa-barbara-dr-conrad-murray-steve-robel-jury-testimony/?adid=recentlyupdatedstories
Diane Dimond wrote an article about Klein. Jason posted it in his blog.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/25/dr-arnold-klein-michael-jackson-s-longtime-physician-courts-substance-abuse-allegations.html
"Can former court cases be relevant to the People vs. Murray case? what chance is there to here the information? "
They found a pharmacy of drugs during the raid:
http://goo.gl/cvL93
If the judge prohibits evidence from the molestation case, perhaps that means the defense won't be able to mention the narcotics which were discovered at Neverland?
that is the question, isnt it? I also looked at the court website where all court documents are available.
https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/ui/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=Peo+v+Conrad+Murray&casenum=SA073164&date=2010-05-04%2010:54:51
Note the list of witnesses who were mentioned by the defense but until now not questioned by the defense as prosecution notices. Even Pfeiffer is mentioned as a potential witness of the defense!
http://www.wesh.com/r-video/28963766/detail.html
Simmons stands by his words about Jackson, but no word at all whether KISS ever agreed formally to partake at this so-called "Tribute for Michael" in the first place.....;-))) LOL
I don't think it's relevant to talk about molestation in this case; it's inappropriate, although I'm not gonna lie, if it would bring out some truths I wouldn't mind hearing it. LOL.
I think they shouldn't bar Steve Robel from testifying about all the drugs found at Neverland. It shows that Murray was indeed treating an addict that had previously not only chose to take illegal Rx drugs, but also actively sought out doctors to get them. The fact that the prosecutors don't want other doctors to be allowed to testify tells me that if people on the jury knew about Mike's "doctor shopping", they wouldn't feel so sympathetic about Mike's predictable death.
Jason Pfeiffer is on the witness list because he saw Mike drugged up after leaving Klein's office and he had to help him get to his car, etc. Also, he claims that Mike asked him about where he could find an anesthesiologist. His testimony would show indeed Mike knew what he wanted and that he knew about propofol before he knew Murray.
Really, if you think about it, how is Murray to blame? It was an accident. Mike clearly was an experienced drug abuser with enough wealth (disregarding his $500 million debts) to purchase whatever he need from doctors. But I doubt Murray will be acquitted. Perhaps that's why they wouldn't want mention of the molestation stuff... than people might want to give Murray a medal. LOL.
For Jonathan to do that, especially in front of other people, he was clearly conditioned to believe it was appropriate.
Well Jordie was told about conditioning and had a "special box" that Mike told him to keep all their secrets in. Jonathan probably got the same psychobabble lecture as well.
Mike doesn't know appropriate boundaries with children because he is a rich pedo that thinks his behavior okay. He had Jordie sit between his legs on national television at the World Music Awards. What grown man does that? NONE. A responsible adult would have got a chair for the 13 year old. He probably wants the boys to feel his boner.
I cannot comprehend how anyone can turn a blind eye to reports that Michael had a nude photo of this boy! That's incredibly damning. There is no innocent explanation for why a grown man would have a nude photograph of his adolescent playmate!
The prosecution thought it was damning too, that's why they wanted it as official evidence. I don't know why he was able to not be charged with child porn possession in 1993. Maybe because a nude photo isn't exactly "illegal". According to Ken Lanning, a photograph of a child the child molester actually knows may be a good indication that the child was sexually abused. And knowing Jonathan was naked in the photo, I can bet a million dollars he was a victim.
Off topic but did anyone read the current Enquirer story claiming Omer Bhatti is Janet Jackson's son? I know Desiree is a fan of the Enquirer (I'm not) so I wonder what she thinks about it. My first thought was if this story is true, it makes MJ's claim that Blanket has 2 black genetic parents (the genetic father being MJ) more plausible, because if Janet and another black can produce a child who looks very much like Blanket, then why can't MJ and another black conceive Blanket?
But I'm skeptical of the story. To me Omer looks like a non-white caucasoid with ancestry in the middle east or South Asia.
Opinionation,
I think the Enguirer is full of shit. That is not a true story. No one knew of Omer Bhatti until Mike met him in Tunisia in the mid 1990s. Then Mike was the one that took him as a "protege" and let him live a Neverland while his parents were put on as staff. The Jacksons had no clue what Wacko was doing in his personal life in general, let alone anything about this 12 year old boy Mike picked up over seas.
Omer looks like his parents (unlike Mike's kids). He has Pia's chin. He had Riz's small stature. She is his mother, not Janet Jackson. He is a caucasoid, as you say.
Why do you think that this story proves the "2 black parents = a kid that looks like Blanket" theory? I haven't read the article.
Uh, Ettelene Debarge is the one claiming Omer Bhatti as her grandson. LMAO. Her ass is lying. they must be broke or something. she knows she never heard of Omer until after Mike's death--just like everyone else in the world. These are the same greedy yahoos trying to say Brandi Jackson was Janet's secret daughter with James Debarge.
http://news.lalate.com/2011/08/25/omer-bhatti-janet-jackson-bizarre-report-hits-enquirer/
Why do you think that this story proves the "2 black parents = a kid that looks like Blanket" theory? I haven't read the article.
I'm saying that IF the story is true (and I'm very skeptical especially after reading your post) then it would prove that a Jackson and another black could conceive a child who looks like Blanket (because Omer looks like Blanket in the opinion of manya) and the Enquirer's source (Janet's former mother-in-law Etterlene DeBarge) alleges he is the genetic child of Janet and James DeBarge. James DeBarge would be considered Black by American standards, though he appears to have much more non-black ancestry than most African Americans (based on the pictures the Enquier shows which were probably selectively chosen). So if Janet and this "Black" man could conceive a child as non-black looking Omer, then why can't MJ and a "Black" woman produce Blanket? But as you say the story is probably BS just like Mj's claim that he and a black woman conceived Blanket.
The Enquirer quotes Etterlene DeBarge claiming that around 27 years ago she teased Janet about looking pregnant and then Janet disappeared to Europe a few days later and came back claiming she miscarried. But when Etterlene saw Omer on TV she knew that was her grandson because he had the same smile, bone structure, and eye brows as her son James DeBarge when he was a boy. She believes that the Jackson's sent Janet to Europe to hide the pregnancy and payed some European family to raise Omer because they were afraid being a mother would hurt Janet's budding career.
Opinionation:
I like the NE when their stories make sense. They've gotten big stories right in the past, such as the John Edwards love child story; that Tiger Woods 'accident' was because Elin Nordegren chased him with a golf club because he was a putrid cheater; and that Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken were gay. They also reported back in May 2010 that Mariah Carey was going through in-vitro fertilization to have twins. That was true, even when her people were denying it.
That doesn't mean they don't get stories wrong. There is a higher premium on salacity over accuracy. But these papers frequently have spies and insiders everywhere celebrities are so they get lots of info.
As for this story, it's total bullshit. Yes, because Janet Jackson is definitely going to let her 'son' engage in 'suck and fucks' with his uncle (this is from insider info I've heard), not to mention look at porn and drink booze. Because if he were related to Jacko, it would be incest.
Knowing how shady and unscrupulous the Bhattis are, I wouldn't be surprised if they peddled this story to the NE. Omer looks like his father and mother. There is no mistake in that. He doesn't look like a Jackson.
Oh, so the Debarge mother is claiming this tripe... It had to be some failure in life.
Her ass is lying. they must be broke or something.
That's the problem with the Enquirer. Anyone with any association to a celeb can make up anything knowing the Enquirer will pay them and they know it's virtually impossible to be sued for lying about a public figure in America. I don't believe anything in the Enquirer unless the Enquirer claims to have administered a lie detector test and even then I'm skeptical because those have a very high error rate. Desiree's approach of corroborating all claims with independent sources is an intelligent approach.
But Omer looks like his parents. It's like "Heffa if you're gonna lie at least do your research!" LOL. The Debarges are half black and half white. I don't think a James + Janet relationship would result in an Omer Bhatti.
I don't know why she feels the need to say all of this. It's an obvious lie. A blatant lie. Omer Bhatti's origins have been well established. He was just Mike's live-in boy toy, all done under the guise of being a "protege". his parents are pimps, and by their own words after Mike's death, tried to "stir the pot" by making very enigmatic statements regarding Mike's relationship with their son, and saying Riz was his "step father". It's all a money making ruse. They pimped their son to a known pedophile for money, and they want to ride the gravy train as long as possible. there's a reason Omer fled to Norway once the police started the Arvizo investigation. he didn't want to be interrogated and have everything revealed.
Tabloids are notorious for lying. Sometimes they do strike gold though. Desiree is right about her tactic when dealing with them.
Here is an interesting article called "Spy vs Spies" about how they work and come up with their stories. It's eye opening and sometimes illegal.
http://goo.gl/RsW85 (it starts on page 32)
Omer is a common Arabic name though it's usually spelled Omar and Bhatti is a common name in India. The fact that he has an "exotic" name which matches his racial appearance tells me the parents who raised him and gave him their name are probably his genetic parents as Jessica asserts.
They've gotten big stories right in the past, such as the John Edwards love child story; that Tiger Woods 'accident' was because Elin Nordegren chased him with a golf club because he was a putrid cheater; and that Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken were gay.
Well who didn't know that Ricki Martin and Clay were gay? That was obvious to everyone with even the most rudimentary sense of gaydar, except for fan girls living in denial.
It's impressive that they broke the John Edwards story but this Omer story is at least the fourth time I've seen a story from them that sounds like total hooey. But then again even the so-called legitimate news media is wrong a lot too. As you say, most sources should be treated with skepticism until they are independently corroborated to some degree (i.e. the head licking anecdote). The agreement of multiple sources triangulates on probable truth.
We have that and then we have the fact Michael Jackson claimed to be a vegetarian when he also liked fried chicken. We also have the fact that he refused wine during a Sabbath dinner with Rabbi Shmuely Boteach but he also gave booze to boys and was a heavy drinker.
We also have the fact that MJ complained about how black artists are exploited by racist music execs and yet bleached his skin, acquired caucasoid features and raised only non-black kids.
We also have the fact that MJ made anti-Semitic comments and surrounded himself with the nation of Islam yet loved Rabbi Shumuely and Arnie Klein and wanted to become Jewish (though this may have been a lie by Shumuely to promote his faith) and used Jewish parent(s) to conceive his two oldest kids.
We also have the fact that MJ was intelligent and articulate when being interviewed by Oprah and Jesse Jackson but a childish buffoon when interviewed by Bashir.
We also have the fact that MJ made one of the most brilliant business moves in the history of entertainment (purchasing the Beatles catalog) yet manged money so poorly he ended up roughly a half a billion in debt.
I'm starting to think Jacko had multiple personalities... it was said that many multiples have abuse histories.
Interesting theory. Ian Halperin claims he was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a child, and although this is a very different illness, they have several similarities and a multiple could easily be misdiagnosed as a schizophrenic by a sloppy professional.
Or, perhaps, he was incredibly image conscious.
Well he was definitely that which may seem hard to believe given how badly he screwed his image up (or was image consciousness just one of his personalities?). But I think a lot can be explained by his image consciousness, especially with respect to Rabbi Shumuely. For example, Shumuely thought MJ was innocent of molesting Gavin because MJ seemed to ignore Gavin when the Rabbi observed them. However elsewhere in his book Shumuely claimed that Jackson befriended Shumuely in part because Jackson wanted a credible character (a rabbi) to be able to testify to Jackson's good character in the media or wherever else was required. So perhaps MJ purposely ignored Gavin and avoided booze when the rabbi was around so that the rabbi would tell the public that MJ has no interest in boys and alcohol.
MJ was intelligent and articulate when being interviewed by Oprah and Jesse Jackson but a childish buffoon when interviewed by Bashir.
I think he was under the influence when he did that interview. That's why he seemed so "out of it". Maybe the drugs made him unable to manage his image as effectively as he used to, or perhaps the way he came off was the real deal and we weren't used to it.
But in general, I think many of his fuck-ups were because he was a drug addict. he also was an over the top spender. And I bet paying families off (Jordie getting 10% of his net worth at the time) didn't help the finances either. LOL.
We also have the fact that MJ complained about how black artists are exploited by racist music execs and yet bleached his skin, acquired caucasoid features and raised only non-black kids.
Well, according to Blanca Francia's police interviews in 1993, Mike told her he didn't want to be black because people didn't respect them, and that's why he was bleaching. He could have been in a vicious cycle of self-hatred and anger at American racism. He did seem to resent the fact that Elvis was famous because he was a "white man with a black voice".
So perhaps MJ purposely ignored Gavin and avoided booze when the rabbi was around so that the rabbi would tell the public that MJ has no interest in boys and alcohol.
I absolutely think this is the reason he acted a certain way around the rabbi. Gavin was a special friend, he wasn't one of the kids from the Boys & Girls Club there for a photo op. Even the rabbi said maybe he was putting too much stock in his importance in Mike's eyes. Mike was just using him for his image. Nothing more. According to Lisa Marie Presley, he would act a certain way around a person depending on how interested he was in them. And Mike was interested in what Shmuley Boteach could do for his public image.
I didn't know Shmuley said that MJ ignored Gavin, but it doesn't surprise me. I'm pretty sure when Shmuley and Michael parted ways, Gavin was still bald and frail. I doubt Michael was sexually interested in him then...
Hi guys,
My mother saw the NE issue with Etterlene "Mama" DeBarge the other day and bought it for me. The first thing that caught me was this big picture of Omer Bhatti in the article and I was struck with how good-looking he was. He was 17, I believe, but looked 14 or so. They then had a picture of Jacko and Omer back in 1996.
It's just so creepy. Of course 'Etterlene' is full of crap with her tales; she needn't even be brought up. This woman has no concept of genetics. Half-black/half-white plus black--even if this is a genetic oversimplification--does not make Omer Bhatti. I'm half-black/half-white plus black (an oversimplification)--and my mother is light-skinned and so is my mulatto father--and I don't look anything like Omer's coloring. It's just silliness. The funny thing is that the DeBarges have been harassing poor Janet for so long with mystery babies. I think they want Jackson money.
Anyway, but the article mentioned how Jacko saw Omer in Tunisia in 1996 and it was only a short while after that he brought the boy back to Neverland as a permanent resident, Pia and Riz becoming employees, etc., etc.
I doubt they lived at the Ranch with Omer--Jacko probably put them up somewhere. Or, they definitely didn't live in the main house.
It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain what that set-up was about. It was a child sex trade deal: help Omer with his career and/or give us money and, in exchange, we'll give you Omer.
Bill Bray said if Jacko ever said he'd had a secret son--and Jacko'd been telling people Omer was his son--he was lying. This is, of course, true: Jacko was 'vagiphobic'.
So, what was up with this?
I think this Omer-living-at-Neverland thing was one of Jacko's most successful set-ups. Sure, a willing Brett Barnes who was desperate to please was nice but this was better. He had 24/7 access to this 12-year-old kid and he didn't have to worry about anything because it was all arranged beforehand.
I know the fanbots that stalk this blog think Omer Bhatti and Michael Jackson were like father and son and it was all innocent and L-O-V-E and yada yada yada... It's complete bull. Why did he get nervous and jittery when police asked him about booze and porn?
So, I'm looking at Omer and seeing how good he looked and I think, "How was he able to get away with having a houseboy?" There's this thing about reasonable doubt and benefit of the doubt; he was neck-deep in it given his celebrity status. We know all of this. But I want to know why the fans don't put two and two together. Why do they keep making excuses when it is so obvious?
I am of the mindset that it is NOT DEBATABLE that Jacko was a pedophile/boy-lover. There is no question; there is no doubt. He was a pedophile. He loved boys; he died loving boys. But we can discuss whether his pedophilia crossed over to child molesting.
But this Omer set-up... two years after a child molestation scandal--right after he dissolved his farcical and orchestrated union with Lisa Marie (which he got into only because a boy claimed he could describe his penis). Isn't that suspicious to these fans?
I just don't get it... I really don't, especially when they downplay his parading of these boys in public and thrust forward marginal, unverified 'girlfriends' in its place.
I'm trying to figure out when these posts will hit home for these fans. Although I don't care what they think because every argument they make is emotion-based, fallacious, or simply ridiculous fantasy, I write these posts with them in mind.
Why? Because that's what you do. When you play their hand, you'll better know yours. It works. It doesn't hurt to have occasional insider info...
As posts stand, the next I'm still writing but school resumes Monday and I've been sidetracked with a bit of fiction-writing. I'll try to get it finished as soon as possible; delays also annoy me. Sorry.
I should add: Jacko just couldn't stop. Apparently, Dr. Farshchian's Depo-Provera cocktail wasn't working. Or Jacko refused to take it.
Because, you know, I definitely believe that report; yes, in spite of the fact these dumb ass, delusional fanbots called his office in Miami and asked him if the story was true. His secretary or desk clerk or janitor said Farshchian had never or will never speak about Jacko 'out of respect'...
Like they'd tell the truth to Jacko's Wackos, not to mention reveal private medical records to people who'd quit their jobs to protest against Gavin Arvizo during Jacko's trial.
If they said, "Yes, Mr. Jackson was given shots of Depo-Provera," Farshchian's successful practice would be bombed. These folks aren't stable. Anyone who talks bad about Michael will have a price on their heads.
Me, too. Some Brazilian forum had a poster saying "Desiree, die please." LOL.
I might write a short blog entry on something else. This piece now is very important to the Jackson saga and I want to make it as solid as it can be so people can link to it when arguing with Jacko defenders.
The recent Brett redux entry--wherein I proved Brett was molested (so much so Brett is a done deal in my book; just link to it!) and my Addendum to the first Jacko was gay post are representations of the type of high quality material I strive to put out. I have to let this current one sit so I can lay it out with more clarity and perfection (as I'm a perfectionist).
I have some things I can touch on in the meantime that are pretty important, too.
Patience is appreciated. :-)
Opinionation:
I had no idea Ricky Martin was gay. When he first came out as a solo act, I was 10-years-old; I had no concept of homosexuality then. People were either straight or they were celibate. That was in spite of the fact I went to a gay wedding ceremony when I was 9. I do know that Ricky Martin was damned fine, and he still is. He has perfect looks.
Clay Aiken? Who was he fooling? My thing is that if you are a guy and you get into more fights or spats with women than with men, you are probably gay (in terms of the more effeminate ones, that is).
The test tube babies says a lot, too. I remember thinking that was odd with Ricky Martin.
That's one of the things that convinces me Jacko was gay, because he couldn't bring himself to have sex with Debbie Rowe to get her pregnant. Well, that, and the semen in his bed (that was NOT SALIVA from Prince and Blanket--that was peddled by the fan looney who changed her ISP after I blocked her ass; shows the type of obsessive low IQ fans we're dealing with, here).
Semen stains and gay porn books and 'intimate conversations' about 'proclivities' with a gay man-gay porn producer that said producer would have only brought up in an effort to embarrass Jacko if Jacko kept bringing up the fact he'd been a gay porn producer.
Hmm... care to take a guess what those proclivities that would be embarrassing were about? Couldn't be hetero-normative; that would have made him look good, seeing that everyone thought he was a pedophile.
Could they be similar to proclivities that would lead to a man having two types of semen on his mattress and a third semen stain in underwear and bedsheets he'd kept with his own dirty underwear?
Obviously.
Jessica:
I agree with you. I don't think Jacko's interviews count. He wasn't a druggie when he was interviewed by Oprah and I'm sure he got himself sober enough to talk to Jesse Jackson because that was a time he was courting the blacks he'd abandoned and needed to look lucid.
I remember his interview with Steve Harvey and Harvey brought up Mary Fischer's hack GQ article, "Was Jacko Framed?" He'd said, "Mike, I'm telling everyone to go and get a copy of this article; call GQ--" etc., etc.
And you know Jacko's response? He was silent. He didn't say much at all when Harvey was trumpeting his 'innocence'. I thought it odd when I listened to the interview; I was a fan then. Now, I'm sure Jacko didn't want that broached because he knew he was guilty.
I think it goes beyond that 1994 confidentiality agreement because he'd claimed he was innocent when talking with Bashir. I think Harvey's earnest emotion for his friend's 'innocence' threw Jacko off-guard. When one cannot lie well--and Jacko is the worst--the next best thing is silence and a hope the topic will blow over.
LOL.
Frenchie:
"Gavin was still bald and frail. I doubt Michael was sexually interested in him then..."
There's a video of Gavin being pushed in a wheelchair by Star and they are walking with Jacko around the Ranch. It was an obvious publicity stunt, I think; Jacko knows he's a phony but pretended like he wasn't with these cancer kids.
Anyway, they end up going into some building and Jacko arrives at the door first. He tosses his umbrella on the ground like a heathen and barely holds the door open for Gavin's wheelchair. It was repulsive to me. It was obvious he didn't give two shits about these boys, I think. Alternately, there were reports, according to Christopher Andersen, I believe, that Jacko used to attend dinner parties during "Off The Wall" and he used to eat with his hands when everyone used silverware.
So maybe Jacko was just impolite.
It's possible that when Gavin returned to Neverland, he was tall and strong and healthy, just like the boys Jacko craved.
LOL. I remember that Steve Harvey interview. It was a very curious reaction. Mike thanked him and all for the support but he was clearly taken aback by the whole thing, like you said, that he almost didn't want the subject broached. It was really weird to me. I agree; Mike knew he was guilty so having someone like Steve Harvey trumpeting his innocence and begging for his audience to get the back issue of GQ, was more than uncomfortable for Mike. You'd think he'd be quick to seize the moment to re-push the "fact" of his "innocence". It's not like the confidentiality agreement barred him from declaring he wasn't guilty.
Mike had a guilty conscience. Sorta like his reaction in the 1995 video where he was asked about molesting boys. When he was asked about Jordie's lawsuit he looked visibly uncomfortable and he fluttered his eyelashes really fast as he hard swallowed and stiffly repositioned himself in his chair. He did not want to talk about Jordie. About Steve Harvey again, I also think that Mike knew that the GQ article was all a bought-and-paid-for PR tool. I firmly believed that the timing of the Fischer piece is more than suspicious. I'm willing to wager that she was a hired gun to make Mike look good and the Chandlers look bad without having to violate the confidentiality agreement.
Jessica:
I think Jacko courted the black public as a last resort. But he didn't care about blacks when he was in a good space. Hell, he called us 'splaboos'.
I bet fans don't believe he said that but he did. Maureen Orth said his foreigner employees said he said 'spabook' about blacks. Bob Jones said 'splaboo'. Sounds awfully similar to me. That's what you call good corroboration. And she wrote the article before Jones wrote his book. It was in "Losing His Grip" from 2003.
Now when I think about Steve Harvey I think, "Damn, you are such a fool." It makes me cringe when I hear other blacks say Michael Jackson was maligned and mistreated; I say, "If you knew the truth, you wouldn't be cheerleading him." Blacks are very much against the sexual abuses of children; everyone is, but in the black community, it's just considered insurmountably horrible.
If blacks woke up and noticed Jacko's dirty deeds, they wouldn't ever defend him.
Interestingly, some of the most vile Jacko fans I've come across are black. They hate what I say and attack personally. They can't stand the idea of Michael Jackson--a black man--being this pedophile predator.
These are also the same raced fans who want to deny Jacko's homosexuality by saying he was a womanizer, of which there is ZERO evidence.
I believe many blacks try to downplay the Jackson madness. They try to downplay Jacko's pedophilia. It's because it is something we cannot comprehend on black people. Katt Williams kept it real, though. My heart breaks that someone as hilarious and intelligent as Paul Mooney believes the Jacko tripe. If Jacko was white, he'd be condemned as a gay pedophile in the black community.
As for Mary Fischer, I also believe she was hired to write that piece. Howard Stern said in an interview that he Jackson camp wanted to use his show back in the 1990s and for Stern to say Jacko was maligned and innocent. Stern said it just wasn't something his show did, although he admitted that back then it was very tempting to get on any Michael Jackson project. He said he'd offered for Jacko to do an interview on his radio show where he'd ask his typical very direct questions. Jacko, of course, declined.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8V1Jj50qmE
That he was going to use Stern--not to mention that Primetime Live interview was a complete scam--shows what he was capable of. A little article in GQ magazine is nothing. The fans cling on to it like it's the gospel truth but it's all PR.
I know there's a book by Lisa Campbell these fans also push that is total PR garbage. Hell, Bob Jones--Jacko's PR guru--wrote the damned foreword!
It just goes to show how ingrained this PR misinformation about Jacko is in fans' heads. It's why they can't look beyond it. This was what Star Arvizo was talking about, "Celebrities have a pre-established credibility that no one can falter (sic)."
Virtually everything about Michael Jackson is a lie. And these fans will defend the lies to the death. This is how celebrities make millions.
"A little article in GQ magazine is nothing. The fans cling on to it like it's the gospel truth but it's all PR."
Mary Fischer should be ashamed at herself for saying a child abuse victim lied using sodium amytal. Do fans still believe that crap? So, they believe SA without any type of proof whatsoever, but they'll disbelieve in the semen stains, coupled with the fact Jesus Salas said the people who slept in his room were boys. Never women, never adults.
Talk about low IQs.
Interesting video about Howard Stern. I don't know why they'd even ask him of all people. But to turn down a straight forward interview? Shows that he probably would have f*cked up with Stern on his tail. bob Jones said that the Primetime Live interview was scripted, in the sense that during the commercial breaks, lawyers and whatnot would instruct Mike on how to answer questions, etc. Not a surprise. If I was Diane Sawyer, I would have asked him very very specific questions, like details about Jordie's allegations. "He said you ate his semen and performed oral sex on him numerous times at his mother's house, his father's house, and your two houses. Is that true?" all the while the camera never leaves his face to catch all of his body language.
I think that's where she dropped the ball; her questions were so blah. It was too easy for him to not have to give direct answers. allegedly, he and his people, Sony, etc, spent $60 million on the whole ABC thing.
It's clear the intent of Mary Fischer's article: to prop up Mike and sling mud onto the chandlers. Her article is an op-ed piece, it's hardly investigatory. And look how she misquoted the taped phone conversations of Dave and Evan? They were cut and pasted together to give the appearance of extortion, when in actuality there was never any mention of money. The Jackson side didn't even allege extortion until Pellicano said he was being extorted and the LAPD said they had no extortion complaint on record. Oops! Negotiating with an "extortionist" for 3 whole weeks and never once going to the cops? Yeah right. Bert Fields later said in a defamation sued filed against him by Barry Rothman, that he wasn't liable for any false characterizations about Rothman being called an "extortionist" because they had always been negotiating to settle a civil claim. so the truth comes out after the fact. SMH. It was never extortion. It was a payoff. You can't effectively extort someone with a lie. You'd have to have something on the person.
LOL look at the Birthday Message Marlon Wayans sent for Michael:
marlon wayans
@MARLONLWAYANS
Happy Bday MJ you are and forever will be celebrated. The only Man that make men scream like bitches! U that DOPE. MICHAELLLLL!!!
:P
LMAO look at this
Your Mind wrote at 2011-07-01 04:43:23
Yes I know that he is homosexual or bisexual because I have had a homosexual relationship with Michael Jackson.
It started in 1991 we met while recording the video for black or white. I played one of those people dressed up as Indians and dancing around Michael in the Black or White video. When I locked eyes with Michael I felt this otherwordly attraction to him and I know he felt it too. He gave me a flirtatious smile then looked away, seemingly embarassed. After we finished shooting the video for the day, I hung around so i could get a chance to talk to him. I said Hi then we started chatting with each other. He spoke very softly and something in his voice, his speech and manner attracted me too him. I could feel he was attracted to me and I leaned over to try and kiss him and he kissed me back. Here we were two adult men kissing each other and it felt so right.
By the way I made this up. See how easy it is to make up lies? Point is don't believe everything you read in a tabloid, newspapaer or on the interent, ANYBODY could have written it and if there motivation is money, the more believable and plausible they will try to make their lie.
LOL of course I already know the story was fake. You can tell by the way it was writen. Besides it´s from that year.
GirlUndercover,
Someone has too much time on their hands to make up a "I was MJ's gay lover" anecdote, just to "prove" that lies can be created.
I hope this person also extends the same level of scrutiny to all the supposed "MJ's girlfriend" stories, too, and the fact that they all arose out of suspicious timing (like when he was accused of being a child molester). Example, Theresa Gonsalves. She's been interviewed by Taraborrelli in the very early 90s, and a documentary about Mike's secret childhood, and she had never ever mentioned that they had sex, let alone were lovers. they were just friends. Only now since he died, she wants to push that she was Mike's first or something. LMAO, she's a crazy fan, and crazy fans are the only ones that believe the unbelievable. If he was running away from Tatiana Thumbtzen, he was definitely not looking at a dog like Theresa. LOL.
Seriously, Jason is the only believable adult relationship he had (that we know about), and that was just a fling. Maybe Lisa, as well. My thing is that if Mike was straight he would have been proud of it and would have showed it off to the world. Like a regular man. We would have known. I know, some say the same about him being gay, but he would have had more of an impetus to hide being gay (or bi) since the world and his fans would condemn him for it. Of course I think he was just a pedo, which the media has clearly seen most of his special friends since the late 70s.
Desiree, you know that video I mentioned previously of Mike being asked about the allegations and boys? The one called "Video Nasty" by the News of the World, in March 1, 1996. I found an article about it and it had parts that were not in the actual video. Here's a quote:
But his demeanour is shattered when asked by Ring: "Mr Jackson, in the latter portion of 1993 there were some allegations levelled at you concerning improper conduct with some young boys."
Jackson's face breaks into a weary smile before he straightens it and answers: "Yes". When asked "Are you familiar with a person named Jordy Chandler?", the distracted star at first looks stunned and asks: "Who?"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84b_1246742467
A few seconds later, as Ring and one of Jackson's aides discuss legal issues about whether or not the star will answer questions about Chandler, the singer bites his lip, picks up papers in front of him and hides behind them for a second before putting them down and trying-and failing-to stifle a huge yawn.
He said who. Why would he saw "who" when asked about Jordie Chandler. This was only 3 years after the scandal, and less than a year after the Diane Sawyer interview. How would he not know who Jordie was? I think, of course, this was a deception technique on Mike's part, so he could have more time to get his "answer" formulated if he was made to answer the question (he wasn't). Just like his body language in the video, it's clear he was uncomfortable about the molestation questions. No wonder they settled before he was deposed in 1993, he would have been sent down he river!
That person Ring, is that by chance perhaps Paul Ring CEO of Global Live Entertainment in the US? You now that Michael Forever Tribute?
Yesterday the judge in the Murray trial ruled that Klein and Pfeiffer are not to be heard as witnesses, but Klein's medical records are in. Roben is also not heard. Cherilyn Lee and Dr. Adams are in. Branca is out, but MJs finances over the last few years are covered by the probate anyway, so it is logical that the judge doesnt need that at the trial.
A.G.
The person Ring is Michael Ring, the attorney for the Neverland Five: Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall, and Sandy Domz. It was from their lawsuit that they filed for wrongful termination.
I guess I understand why some of the witnesses are not allowed in, like Jason Pfeiffer and Steve Robel. It may not be entirely relevant to talk about Mike's drug history, although I do see it as a logical defense since Mike was an addict always looking for drugs, including propofol. But it really doesn't technically excuse fact that Mike died under his care, even if I believe that Mike should be entirely responsible for his own death since he had used the the drug before and most likely knew the risks involved. How do we know that if Murray stayed in the room, called 911 on time, etc, Mike would have still been alive? Cardiac arrest is almost always fatal, even if the doctors know what triggered it.
Kinda off topic, but someone posted this on another forum. Apparently, it's about a girl whose aunt worked at Neverland. She could have obviously just made it up, but there are some interesting bits:
[i was really young. i just remember they were in diapers and baby carseat carries. and one of them lifted up my mom's dress to take a peek.
my aunt was a security guard at neverland ranch for about 5-7 years. michael loved her and trusted her (She thinks cause it was the early 90's and she was openly gay.) lisa marie tried to have her fired. my brother got to go to the ranch one time and won a bicycle, for which we gave him ENDLESS *beep* in our teens. ("Oh yeah J, you WON that bike? are you sure you didn't EARN it." we're sick)
it's funny though, when I rented the house from the chimp trainer, i told him about my aunt babysitting the chimps, and he just laughed in my face and said that would never happen. when i told him my aunt's name he apologized and admitted that she had been one of the very few people trusted with watching the chimps on occasion.
she worked there during the first child molestation trial and that piece of *beep* anthony pellicano tapped all our phone lines. (My aunt, my parents, my grandma, etc.) i don't want to give too much away, but she also ended up suing michael later in a pretty well known law suit.
we've been talking about it lately, and despite everything that went down, she has very fond memories of the ranch and michael. he was just a broken individual, in her opinion.
(This is another story from the same girl)
dude. it's kind of crazy. this has always been the craziest part to me, and i actually asked her to confirm it last time i saw her, because i thought maybe it was something i had made up as a child. but, everyone who called neverland ranch went through the operator, and there was a list of people who would get through to michael's bedroom, no questions asked. macaullay culking, the coreys, and wade robson (i think) were on the list to get through immediately, but lisa marie was not. and this was DURING their marriage! so shecalled one night asking if he was home and my aunt said she couldn't give out that information, and she got really upset and kept hanging up and calling back. my aunt offered to take a message (which was the only thing she could do, say "I can't give out that info/i can take a message.") and so lisa maire finally agreed to this, and my aunt being a smart ass, and fed up with her attitude, had the audacity to ask who was on the phone, and then made her spell out her full name. last name too. haha i love her. so lisa marie was there with her kids a few days later and my aunt was stationed in one of the gardens where lisa marie was hanging out. she marched up to my aunt and asked her name (cause she had asked for her name on the phone) and when my aunt told her she replied, "Uh huh. Thought so." and walked away.
her supervisor gave her a 'warning' but laughed when he told her about the fit that lisa marie threw. michael didn't care.]
Talking of stories and corrobation, I found this:
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/jc-agajanians-stunning-interview-about-michael-jackson-he-will-never-be-replaced/
“Amy was a very close little pal to Michael in the early 90s, kept up with him a little over the years, is a young woman now who, along with her family, is utterly devastated by Michael’s death. I talked to her on the phone for over an hour a few months ago.
She doesn’t remember or know much legal stuff, other than the whole family was at the airport waiting to testify on MJ’s behalf, when they were disappointed to get called by the lawyer and told they wouldn’t be testifying. She also was at a Neverland celebration afterward and said it was so joyous! Everyone singing! Her older brothers were allowed to sleep over at the house, but even though she was MJ’s closest pal and spent far more time with him than the boys, she was relegated to a guesthouse with her mother. She was pissed! Michael explained to her it wasn’t proper for little girls to be in his house overnight unchaperoned. Michael’s feelings about this explain completely why it was always boys overnight. But you hear nothing about his little girl pals.
She said she thinks she was MJ’s best friend (but of course she wouldn’t really know for sure) until Lisa Marie came along. She told me about accompanying the couple to a few outings, and she BURNED with jealousy, the poor little thing. She said it was obvious they were in love, always holding hands and kissing. So Michael started finding less and less time for her.
Oh, in the interest of fairness to LMP , she said LMP was as sweet as could be to her and she did come to like her.
And… she said she’d love to come on this forum and answer questions, loves to talk about MJ but no one ever asks her (?!).
She was the one on Oprah, and who walked with him hand-in-hand at the Superbowl. She described the thrill of it to me. She said she had no idea it was that big a deal or that Michael was that big a deal, and was utterly stunned and overwhelmed. Michael just told her they were going to a concert, so she had no idea what to expect. She hadn’t known Michael was famous until that moment. Can you imagine?”
Interesting isnt it? It was not ok for girls to be unchaperoned but for boys it was? MJ indeed had a strange sense of behaviuor towards people. Of course in the text is mentioned that the press always interprets MJs POV negatively.....
Um, the fans are completely stupid. How is that explanation to Amy legit? I mean HELLO, it's freaking obvious why he didn't want her there. Because she was a girl and his sleepovers were sexual, involving only boys. Booze and porn. Remember Aaron Carter? He proved what Mike was up to. That's the reason. It ain't that completely and utterly ridiculous about them being "unchaperoned". What about Brett Barnes often flying unchaperoned at age 11 to Neverland from Australia, according to testimony? What about him accompanying Mike across the world by himself? What about Wade Robson, at the tender age of 10, walking across the street from his hotel to Mike's condo at night and back again in the early morning? Not to mention young Mac Culkin and his kid brother sleeping in his room without a "chaperone". Jimmy Safechuck going on the Bad tour. The examples are endless.
So what, I'm supposed to believe that Mike thought little girls were so delicate that they need a chaperone just to sleep in the main house? And that boys as young as 7 are "man enough" to sleep with him alone? Wade Robson said Mike frequently talked to him as a kid about the propriety of adults and kids sleeping in the same bed. I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to "condition" him into thinking it was normal.
No girls were allowed, it's obvious. If she was such a best friend to him, why would her "not so close" brothers get to sleep with him in his room? It defies logic really. I think she must have convinced herself that she was as close to him as she thought. She was a kid, after all. Maybe she's delusional or something.
Mike's reason is BS. she just wasn't wanted there, period. The fans will lap up anything they agree with like a thirsty dog.
Interesting story, Elena. what forum did you find this from and do you know it's source?
She must be referring to Melanie Bagnall as her aunt, if she was the security guard involved in a well known lawsuit (the Neverland Five). Interesting that her aunt thinks Mike liked her because she was gay.
I think the story sounds legit. Pellicano did absolutely tap phones, so I wouldn't be surprised if he help harass the Neverland Five. And the stuff about the phone calls sounds familiar to Orietta Murdock saying that his special friends always were put straight through to Mike, never having to wait. About Lisa Marie, sounds like she was a jealous "wife", and seems also that Mike didn't really care for her (not a surprise since it was a publicity stunt). According to Spike Lee, on the set of "They Don't Care About Us" was when Mike found out that Lisa had filed for divorce. Spike said Mike didn't even care! Well he was surrounded by Brazilian boys and had the Cascio brothers to keep him company. He probably was in deep pedo bliss, without a care in the world, LOL!
This is a document from the defense team for conrad Murray. It's highly interesting because it shows witnesses to Mike's drug abuse, and how prolific a drug abuser he was.
http://ww2.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/5bli04i4cmqvd555ztthgzmw/1468308454.pdf
What really interesting to me is the testimony of Grace the nanny. She said the drugs became a really big issue after the birth of Prince and the first intervention was done in 1997! also there is a mention of the children calling her in 2002 that Mike was passed out and couldn't be revived. She said Arnold Klein was giving Mike drugs in 2009.
Her testimony definitely makes that story that Daphne Barak did on her seem highly legit, even the part about the stomach pumping and his children being afraid of him (most likely when he was on drugs). I don't think Daphne is such a liar; Grace probably just backtracked because the Jackson family asked her to shut up.
The judge rejected Grace along with over a dozen other proposed witnesses for the defense. Dr. Murray doesn't stand a chance. :-/
I know. It's so unfortunate because I think it's very powerful information that Mike was getting propofol from other doctors and that he knew what it was even before he ever met Dr. Murray. also, isn't it possible that his prior use and exposure to the drug made him more susceptible to complications from it? Like maybe it could show that even if Murray was in the room, Mike's body was still could not handle the drug to a certain extent, and cardiac arrest was inevitable. I said earlier that cardiac arrest is nearly always fatal even if one is rushed to the hospital (of course it helps to go to one, but the stats are still pretty bleak).
How can Murray possibly have a fair trial when the judge is doing everything to stack the deck against him? At this point, I think the defense should start leaking information to the press about MJ's long and dangerous history of drug abuse. If Murray's attorneys can win over the court of public opinion, they might be able to win over the jury.
Changing the subject for a minute, this is the fb message MJ's loyal Australian lover sent Miky:
There are lies being told everywhere, my friend. The more voice you give them, the louder they are heard.
My mother always told me that ignoring the bullshit is better than smelling it
by next year Lloyds vs. AEG will shed some more light on the whole mess IMO, so dont worry if the documents are not in yet, they will be next year at the next case!
Honestly I´m not surprised that Klein and Jason were banned from the witness list. All that mess between them gave the impression to the judge they´re not trustworthy people. But at the same time I´m disappointed.
I´m anxious about AEG´s trial too. We still have to wait a year.
Frenchie, I don´t see anything like that on his wall.
Is this the real Murray twitter?
http://twitter.com/#!/DrConradMurray
Look his tweets
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Michael stood by innocent until proven guilty, please extend me the same courtesy.
27 Jun Favorite Retweet Reply
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
For fans who are supposed to carry Michaels message of love, setting my possesions on fire and endangering my life would be shocking to him
27 Jun
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
I have just had enough. My life has been in ruins for the past two years.
27 Jun
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Time and time again the tabloids will fabricate stories during a trial.
16 Apr
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Good morning. I am doing well. Thank you for your concern. God Bless.
12 Feb
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
I have been offered many other alternative options. However I am not searching for media attention. God Bless
24 Sep
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
It could not be done any other way or my words would become tainted. Please understand this.
24 Sep
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Many are inquiring why I have used the platforms of YouTube and Twitter to convey my messages to you, the public.
24 Sep
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
The media will manipulate any facts to generate the outcome that will create the most public interest. Things are not always as they seem
3 Apr 10
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Please consider that I too am a father, do not judge or condemn me until you have walked in my shoes. Please pray for my family
9 Feb 10
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
I have been advised to speak no further. This is my last thank you to my friends and supporters. God Bless
27 Aug 09
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
Thank you for such kind words of support. There are many lies surrounding me, I ask you not to judge, but to wait for the truth. God Bless
26 Aug 09
DrConradMurray Conrad Murray
I ask for your prayers for my family and I at this very hard time. Thank you all for your support and kindness. God Bless
19 Aug 09
^
It's hard to say. Those tweets do seem legit, but the internet is full of nutcases looking for attention.
"Frenchie, I don´t see anything like that on his wall."
It was a private message. That quote from his mother is so crude. If my mother ever spoke like that, I would be embarrassed. I certainly wouldn't brag about it to anyone! I guess he doesn't realize how trashy it makes her seem.
How can Murray possibly have a fair trial when the judge is doing everything to stack the deck against him?
I was thinking the same thing; it's like this judge is a Jacko fan or something. I don't see how he could have ruled out some of the witness testimony that was in that document. I think many of the witnesses are highly relevant.
But I also think that Murray should switch attorneys, he is getting terrible advice, Even though he only faces up to 4 years max in prison, he should be negotiating a plead deal with prosecutors. I mean, he technically is "guilty" based on the California statute, although I think that had Mike been a worthless junkie on the street and Murray had shot him up, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There is no way he will be acquitted; the public has been tainted by the media coverage and the fact that Mike was a "beloved" celebrity (although I've seen many people saw that Murray should get a medal for getting rid of a child molester, LOL).
I guess he doesn't realize how trashy it makes her seem.
Brett's mother seemed trashy even before this quote. The way she bitched and moaned because she couldn't go to one of Mike's concerts. And of course the way she pimped Brett to an obvious pedophile. Her reaction to the district attorney telling her that a guard saw Mike performing oral on her son shows she "knew" there was something odd about his and her son's relationship.
It's highly funny that Brett's so cowardly that he wouldn't respond to Desiree's messages. He must love the attention he gets from the floons.
(although I've seen many people saw that Murray should get a medal for getting rid of a child molester, LOL).
I've seem people say much the same. When Latoya went on her publicity tour alleging MJ was murdered for his music catalog, I saw a message board comment say: "Even if it was murder, GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!"
How can Murray possibly have a fair trial when the judge is doing everything to stack the deck against him?
I hope Murray can appeal if he loses this case. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor sounds pretty biased.
Like maybe it could show that even if Murray was in the room, Mike's body was still could not handle the drug to a certain extent, and cardiac arrest was inevitable. I said earlier that cardiac arrest is nearly always fatal even if one is rushed to the hospital (of course it helps to go to one, but the stats are still pretty bleak).
I remember Diane Dimond saying something about how MJ would drink vast quantities of alcohol and consume pain killers and that the combination was bad for his heart. Just the fact that Ian Halperin was able to predict the date of MJ's death so precisely makes me think his death was inevitable and would have happened around age 50 with or without Dr. Murray and it's unfair to pin it on him. I even have an issue of Globe magazine from a couple years before MJ died predicting that MJ had only five years to live.
Opinionation,
Michael himself claimed around 2001 that he would just live one year. Some people believe in the aids rumors because of that.
Supposedly his last words to Paris were, "Stop fighting with your brother. I’m not always going to be here, and you’re going to have to be the lady and watch over them." Michael seemed to believe he would die soon. Why else would he say something so chilling to his 11-year-old?
Frenchie, are you registered in the Lipstick Alley?
Frenchie, are you registered in the Lipstick Alley?
No, why do you ask?
"Brett's mother seemed trashy even before this quote. The way she bitched and moaned because she couldn't go to one of Mike's concerts. And of course the way she pimped Brett to an obvious pedophile. Her reaction to the district attorney telling her that a guard saw Mike performing oral on her son shows she "knew" there was something odd about his and her son's relationship."
Brett didn't appear too well-cared for as a child. He has a sloppy Joe Dirt look in a lot of his old photos/videos. That doesn't reflect on him, it reflects on his parents. I think they neglected him. Rather than bothering with much parental responsibility, they just let him navigate on his own before he was mature enough to do so. Really, what responsible parents would allow their young child to fly across the world alone? What responsible parents would pull their 10-year-old out of school so a grown man can have a bedroom plaything while he tours? What responsible parents would continue to let their child sleep with that same man after they were warned by police that he might have been sexually abused by him?
Instead of giving their son the sort of guidance and protection that he needed, they did whatever was easiest for them. They should have never had children if they weren't going to behave like decent parents.
"It's highly funny that Brett's so cowardly that he wouldn't respond to Desiree's messages. He must love the attention he gets from the floons."
He's terrified of her. It's pretty hilarious. lol.
Because someone opened a thread about Murrays case and wrote a text very similar to yours.
After I wrote mine? Maybe they lurk here...
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/do-you-think-dr-conrad-murray-will-have-fair-trial-328462/
it was in the same day. Some things are very similar, like Grace, the drugs, the witness...
LOL. The first paragraph is practically verbatim to what I wrote. I'm kind of flattered.
I think it would be very easy for someone close to him to predict his death. He must have been in really bad shape. He didn't even have on his prosthetic nose tip when he was rushed to the hospital. He was shrunken, skinny, and lifeless because of the drug use. The autopsy said he weighed 137 lbs; I think it's most like 120. I most definitely don't believe he was murdered but you have to wonder why they'd think he'd ever be able to do all of those concerts. Granted, he'd been an addict at least since the mid 1990s and AEG/Kenny Ortega had been working with him for a very long time. Maybe they thought that since he pulled it off before he could do it again? I don't know... maybe they assumed they could always sue if he f*cked up.
I think Mike did those concerts knowing he was really not in the best shape because he liked money. Period. It's not for the fans or any of that; it was for money. And I wouldn't be surprised if he would use that money on buying more drugs.
I think they neglected him. Rather than bothering with much parental responsibility, they just let him navigate on his own before he was mature enough to do so.
You know, I haven't really thought of that. Not that his parents didn't love him, they just loved the luxury life more. Mrs. Barnes, IMO, absolutely was cognizant of Mike's infatuation with her son (I don't think Mr. Barnes was as aware). Maybe in her mind she hoped that Mike wasn't really "like that", but I think she knew. The same with Joy Robson. As you said, to allow Brett as a tender young child fly alone and travel across the world alone with a grown ass man who was showing a peculiarly strong interest in him is more than turning a blind eye; it's willful. Joy Robson had to be doing the same thing; if a grown ass man called for my 10 year old in the middle of the night, I'd have a lightbulb moment--is this guy a pedo?
And now because of all of this, you got a guy that is still whipped over the King of Pop, sucking up all the adulation by proxy from the fans. Brett's in bad shape and I blame his mother. Just because they still stick up for Mike doesn't me they are any less like Evan Chandler, choosing money instead of putting this dude behind bars. These other parents just didn't accuse him but they could have easily. But financial compensation is the best you can hope for in celebrity cases. That actor Matthew Fox assaulted a woman on a party bus but the prosecutors are most likely not going to charge him (as per usual) so the woman his currently suing him civilly even before the criminal investigation is concluded. She has no real chance at justice so why not take money? it's a smart move, just like the Chandlers filing their civil case to make sure they got something.
Some people believe in the aids rumors because of that.
LMAO, Mike didn't have AIDS. Where would he get it from? Boys are clean. LOL.
Jessica,
I don´t believe too but there are kids who catch AIDS from infected blood transfusions. And who knows he had an adult lover who could have the disease? I just find strange why he asked for a aids test in the early 90's, unless he hadn´t any clue of how the disease was caught LOL.
I looked through lipstickalley's picture threads, and I noticed that MJ's children inexplicably fluctuate from tan to pale to tan again in photos that seem to be shot around the same time. I wonder if their being spray tanned to look more like Jacksons. lol
*they're
GirlUndercover,
I don't know why Mike would ask for an AIDS test. i do remember reading in "Michael Jackson: Unauthorized" about him getting an AIDS test before going on tour or something, and asking about Magic Johnson if he could get it from him. I don't know, maybe he was also concerned since he was hanging with Ryan White. I heard he asked a doctor if he could still go into the jacuzzi with Ryan. LOL, always the pedophile still trying to get into compromising situations with kids. SMH.
Maybe he had an adult lover, I doubt it. Although I do believe he was spotted with grown, albeit, younger, men in the 1980s, and I do think Mike did like men, I think predominately his passions were for boys. So an AIDS rumor, IMO, is unlikely to be true.
Frenchie,
I think the fans alter some of those photos to make the kids look darker so they can appear more "mixed". They do that with Mike's pictures to "prove" he had natural vitiligo. It's ridiculous. I've seen paparazzi photos of all the kids and they never look as dark as the ones the fans have. I smell photo shopping.
"And now because of all of this, you got a guy that is still whipped over the King of Pop, sucking up all the adulation by proxy from the fans. Brett's in bad shape and I blame his mother."
Maybe the reason he's so fixated on his dead abuser is because he had such apathetic parents. Michael at least made him feel valued and loved, while his parents just let him run loose. I can't imagine Brett felt too nurtured under their care, and considering they let him cuddle up with an accused pedophile even after they were warned, they obviously didn't put his safety high on their priority list.
I do feel a bit guilty for ragging on Brett whenever I see a photo of him young. He looked so vulnerable...like a little orphan boy with his unbrushed hair and ill-fitting clothes. If someone had intervened then, he could have gone on to have a normal life. Instead he's a mess, and those idiot fangirls are only making it worse for him. He's wasting his life away on a dead man. I don't think Michael would even want him to do that.
LOL, Frenchie, I see what you mean about seeing brett younger. I feel the same way when I see a little Michael Jackson, pre-madness and still black. That's why I don't listen to all the songs i have of him on iTunes because I can't stand what he became and get emotional. I personally can't understand how anyone can separate the man from the music if you know as much as I do. It's like in the Matrix, once you take that red pill, you can't go back and "unsee" what you've seen is the truth.
Michael at least made him feel valued and loved, while his parents just let him run loose.
Maybe that goes for many of his special friends that seemed to have parents (or fathers) that were ancillary, like Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, and Omer Bhatti; maybe even Jordie Chandler. He was the "nice" pedo that loved them and listened to their problems (although corey Feldman got kicked to the curb although Mike promised to always be there for him). That's why they never told on him and keep the secret. it's like when people can't even fathom that that nice guy could be a serial killer, these boys probably couldn't even imagine aligning Michael Jackson's "activities" with boys as the same as those with the stereotypical creepy child molester, even if they did the same stuff, molestation.
like a little orphan boy with his unbrushed hair and ill-fitting clothes.
Maybe his clothes were ill-fitting because in most of the pics I seen of him, he was always wearing Mike's clothes. Mike seemed to love having "mini-mes", that was apart of him MO; most of his special friends dressed like him, perhaps because they were mostly always fanboys. Easy pickings.
Maybe the fact Brett looks so disheveled and in ill-fitting clothes is because he was constantly wearing Michael Jackson's signature red shirts. Interestingly, it seems like Jacko got Omer Bhatti's mini-Mike duds tailored to fit. While Brett sauntered around with long elephant trunk-like sleeves, Omer Bhatti was looking sharp.
Although this is just speculation, perhaps because Omer Bhatti was bought while Brett Barnes was merely loaned, this is why the latter always looked worse than the former.
Jordie was a loaned boy, too. http://goo.gl/ickGd
"I do feel a bit guilty for ragging on Brett whenever I see a photo of him young. He looked so vulnerable..."
I don't feel guilty. Is that wrong? I just don't.
Brett repulses me actually. Although he does not have to admit his abuse to the world, the way he takes joy in shit-talking other abuse victims (he's in the 'Fuck Oprah' club, after all) with these rabid Stans... he gets zero sympathy from me. I pity him.
What I find most humorous, actually, is the fact his behavior belies his protestations of having not been a victim. Even more humorous is that these Stans don't get it.
Think about it: compared to other 'special friends' who are now men, Brett is still going on and on about Jacko; it's obvious, too. He's completely in love, head over heels. I don't want to get graphic here but it makes you wonder if he thinks of Jacko and all they 'did' together during his morning showers....
Also funny to me is the way these fanatics uphold Brett's word on the stand in the face of pretty solid evidence to the contrary. They say, "Well, Brett said that he wasn't molested on the stand under oath. I believe it." Well, Chacon said, under oath, that Brett was molested. He said it twice under oath; the other was 1994. (How many times was Brett Barnes questioned under oath? Brett's parents wouldn't even LET him be questioned by police after they knew what Chacon had claimed to see!) His sister and mother, under oath, admitted that Brett and Jacko slept together in the same bed every time they were in each others' company; Karlee said Brett slept with Michael Jackson because "he wanted it." Brett also said, under oath, that--at the very least--the last time he'd slept with Jacko was when he was 19 and admitted that the only reason he stopped sleeping with Jacko was because he had kids.
(cont'd)
Intelligent people can understand that, by this, it means Brett would have continued to sleep with Michael Jackson had Jacko not had kids. Alternately, intelligent people would note that seeing that he was still sleeping in the same bed as Jacko when he was 19--which would be around the year 2000--his "he's got kids now" really means, "Well, I'd continue to sleep with Michael if his kids weren't so old to notice that their father was sleeping with a grown ass man."
LOL.
Remember, he stuttered because he was revealing to much. Brett, I think, has a low IQ.
Brett is a coward, I think. He didn't respond to my messages on Facebook because he knows everything I've written is fact, not opinion. He cannot refute anything written here. Too bad, because I thought he wanted people to say stuff
Funnily enough, I read of some fan suggesting that, because Karlee's testimony about 365 days and 90 days of repetitive private sleepovers between Brett and Jacko was SO VERY interesting, she probably lied on the stand.
So, what we have there is deep, deep denial. Surprisingly, many fans can recognize that much of Jacko's conduct is damned suspect and inappropriate. However, what we see is cognitive dissonance: they simply deny that he did the creepy stuff that he did.
I just wonder why these fans feel it is intellectually prudent to accuse everyone of being a liar who says anything about Jacko that is negative. It just...isn't.
And don't get me started on this 'beyond a reasonable doubt' crap they spew!
Alternately, intelligent people would note that seeing that he was still sleeping in the same bed as Jacko when he was 19--which would be around the year 2000--his "he's got kids now" really means, "Well, I'd continue to sleep with Michael if his kids weren't so old to notice that their father was sleeping with a grown ass man."
LMAO! I co-sign on this. Can't let the kids know what's going on between Daddy and his grown male bed buddy.
"Maybe he had an adult lover, I doubt it. Although I do believe he was spotted with grown, albeit, younger, men in the 1980s, and I do think Mike did like men, I think predominately his passions were for boys. So an AIDS rumor, IMO, is unlikely to be true."
Okay, I think there is some confusion.
People seem to be getting 'gay'-the cultural term and 'gay'-the orientation term mixed up.
For ease, Jacko was a homosexual pedophile, which means he was a man who liked boys. Alternately, you could, within reason, call Jacko a pedophilic homosexual; I would characterize that as a gay man who is attracted males of all ages, including boys, maybe especially boys.
Either is good to me.
I understand Suzy is invested in Michael Jackson's homosexuality but Jason Pfeiffer is the only believable male 'lover', and he wasn't even that. It was just a fling between friends. Sure, there were anecdotes of him with men. I find those likely.
However, he was mostly with boys. I just think that is something people should accept. So, he was a gay pedophile. He wasn't with women, if that is the concern. But he was not going around with all of these guys.
I'm not ruling out his adult homosexuality; I find his relationship with David Geffen--the rumors of it anyway--and his always being around gay men interesting. But, I'm just saying if one is looking for males for Michael Jackson, they should look at guys 18 and under. That's obviously what he liked...
I'm not saying he wasn't attracted to legal men or that he couldn't have sex with them; I'm saying it wasn't his preference. His preference seemed to be largely boys.
Jessica:
"LMAO! I co-sign on this. Can't let the kids know what's going on between Daddy and his grown male bed buddy."
Yep! So, in 2000, Prince would've been 3 and Paris, 2? That was most definitely what Brett meant to say! Just 2 years later, Prince and Paris would be calling Grace to tell her their father was passed out on the floor from a drug induced stupor...
So, they must've been pretty smart. It didn't help that they were always with Jacko and we know that kids say the darndest things! They would've been like to company, "When Daddy and Uncle Brett go to sleep, they aren't wearing underwear."
Hi!
I have found a goldmine, lol. Not really. Maybe you know the book already.
It is authored by a clinical psychologist (Theophilus Green), an expert in child abuse among other subjects, and he speaks about Michael Jackson, his paedophilia and relationship with Disney.
The author was connected to Disney at some point. He says Disney had confirmation of MJ's behaviour with kids in the late 80s when a child accused him, and they cancelled some contractual relationship they had with him. So, if the author is correct, the first "formal" accuser wasn't J. Chandler.
He mentions some shocking information about Clifton Davis and Diana Ross...
At first I thought the author was one of those white racist Republicans, but he is a black man, which for me adds credibility to some of the stories, but I don't know what to think. He connects too many dots. I have a headache right now, lol.
Well, since most of you are Americans, I'm sure you have a better insight.
It is not the first time I read "old" black people linked to the entertainment industry at the time, confirming the affair with Clifton Davis. I am almost sure it was some truth to the rumours.
The link:
http://books.google.es/books?id=eZFrUHx-SKgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Proper+Criticism+of+Some+Decent+People:&hl=es&ei=nv9kTtrpAobKswa2pIT3CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20jackson%22&f=false
page 188 onwards
Speaking of Michael “mini-mes”, here is the link to a video with Omer in South Africa. The video was filmed by Omer's father. So creepy and ridiculous at the same time. Mj with a neoprene suit, the white socks, a hat and lipstick practising aquatic sports...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JptAwFCRyL8
Notice that Omer has tape in his nose “Michael Jackson's style” and wears more eye-liner than “la Charito”, lol.
I have never seen one of his kids wearing make up or looking like a replica of himself, like the “special friends”.
Speaking of double standards, in an interview he complained about the girls loosing the innocence, and expressed his disgust with 13 years old girls wearing make-up and bags!!! So mysoginistic, he couldn't stand even little girls. I wonder if had he been alive, he would have competed with Paris for the attention of her boyfriends, lol.
In the second Rabbi book, he says he doesn't spoil his children and presents or even the rides at Neverland were limited for them, because it is unhealthy for the kids to have whatever they want. It's just curious how this pedagogical approach was overlooked when dealing with other people's children (he used to spend thousands of dollars in toys for the boys), and even more curious how the fans refuse to see the truth. Jacko behaviour was so blatant.
"What I find most humorous, actually, is the fact his behavior belies his protestations of having not been a victim. Even more humorous is that these Stans don't get it."
Seriously, Brett might as well wear a sign on his forehead because his behavior fits the profile of a male sexual abuse victim to a tee. He's so dripping with anger that I'm concerned he'll end up harming himself or someone else one day. I don't want that to happen. I wish he'd seek out help, but I think he's too lost in denial to accept that there is anything wrong with him. His parents certainly won't inconvenience themselves by intervening, and it's not as if those facebook cougars he wastes his time on are any sort of support system either. They're just using him to feel close to Michael. The guy is a mess, and it's a shame he won't do anything about it. He can improve himself with just a little effort but, sadly, I think he's resigned to be miserable.
"Interestingly, it seems like Jacko got Omer Bhatti's mini-Mike duds tailored to fit. While Brett sauntered around with long elephant trunk-like sleeves, Omer Bhatti was looking sharp.
Although this is just speculation, perhaps because Omer Bhatti was bought while Brett Barnes was merely loaned, this is why the latter always looked worse than the former."
I never noticed that, but you're right. Omer was always so perfectly put together--from his tailored little outfits, to the neatly plucked eyebrows, to the pageant princess make-up. He was definitely MJ's most high maintenance special friend. MJ must have spent a fortune playing dress-up with him. On the upside, Omer can probably still fit into all his old mini me clothes. lol.
susana,
Thanks for the link to that book! Very interesting, I think a lot of people know things but just have never been asked or have told it to the media. This guy seems to know a lot.
In the FBI files, there is mention of Mike allegedly molesting two Mexican boys around 1986, so of course it doesn't surprise me that he had victims in the 1980s. What I find so curios is how the author says Mike didn't switch over to boys until the 1980s, him still having men during the 1970s. One one hand, I totally believe it because many anecdotes have been said he surrounded himself with men in the 1970s and early 1980s. But I think he was still showing his penchant for boys in the 70s as well. I remember that documentary about Michael Jackson's secret childhood, and their was a black kid who was an actor of some sort, probably like 7 years old, and he said Mike would call him all the time and even the boy's mother wondered why Mike wasn't spending time with people his own age. Needless to say, the relationship ended once "Off the Wall" got big. Then of course, there was Terry George in 1979.
The author is definitely connecting dots, I think. Mike wouldn't have had all of those books with naked men and the one with gay sex if he wasn't interested in men. And he wouldn't have semen in his bed, either. I agree with you about the Clifton Davis rumors. I think they were true. Many celebrities from that era (and before) were much more "in the closet" about their sexuality, and many had girlfriends and wives, so if Clifton was denying it, it probably was to save face. Rumors are many times based in truth. and Mike has been dealing with gay rumors for years!
The one thing that is curious to me is the allegations about Diana Ross. Of course I believe the part that he wanted to be Diana, because she even said that (she has always made it seem like Mike wanted to "be" her rather than "liking" her like a man would). I just am not sure that he was actually "intimate" with her. It seems like this took place when he was relatively young, and I've read rumors that Mike might have been touched by her when he was a kid/adolescent. Funnily enough, the fans think that is okay if he was intimate with Diana at a young age, because she's a woman! Anyways, I don't know if I buy it, but perhaps it could be another reason why he absolutely hated women.
Speaking of double standards, in an interview he complained about the girls loosing the innocence, and expressed his disgust with 13 years old girls wearing make-up and bags!!! So mysoginistic, he couldn't stand even little girls.
This is disgusting. another example of his hatred for the fairer sex. Fans need to stop dreaming he didn't like girls and he didn't like women. He even once said that a girl would have to act like a boy if he was to be interested in her!
For some reason, when I read this Brett barnes came to mind...
"Which Child is Most Likely to Become a Victim?
Certain children are especially vulnerable to abuse--especially the boy who is predisposed to homosexuality. The prehomosexual boy is very often lonely, alienated from his father, and experiencing frustrating and deficient same-sex peer relationships. He quite naturally craves male attention, affection and approval.
Often the same boy is also experiencing an overly intense and intimate relationship with his mother, which makes normal masculine individuation difficult. An intimate relationship with a man is one place of separation and individuation "where Mother cannot go" (15).
When this lonely boy receives flattering attention from an older male, then a link is established between love and homoerotic sex. The boy comes to believe, "If I want love from men, I must have sex with them." Thus the normal and natural developmental need of same-sex love and approval has become eroticized. The boy may then develop a compulsive, promiscous sexual habit pattern, which in gay life is seen fairly frequently."
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
Alby,
Interesting quote. I know NARTH is very controversial, but I think that quote seems like common sense in sexual abuse.
It is known that many pedophiles will prey on gay youths, especially because many pedophiles feel they can identify with them because they were homosexual/questioning when they were young. Actually, I've read fantasy stories written by actual pedophiles and frequently, the boys in their stories are gay. Those types of boys seem to be the ones the favor, because they are more "receptive" to their level of affection, while straight boys are not.
I don't know if Brett is gay or bi, but there is something about his character that made him (and I suspect Omer Bhatti) have a longer attachment to Mike. Sleeping in the bed with Mike at 19 years old isn't very normal, even among the special friends.
"Speaking of Michael “mini-mes”, here is the link to a video with Omer in South Africa. The video was filmed by Omer's father. So creepy and ridiculous at the same time."
This video didn't bother me until I heard Omer talk at the end (~5:24). He had such a baby voice. For me, it really hit home just how young he was when his parents started handing him over.
Jessica
While I can't say if any of Mike's special friends were gay or had gay tendencies, they were all certainly quite fey and passive. In photos some of them look extremely nervous or even fearful. Why is that?
"I wasn't going to mention this but I was informed--and this was doubly verified by two people in Hollywood, including the producer himself--that Jackson was erotically interested in the 11-12-year-old daughter of a producer he'd worked with. He was in his twenties."
Was the producer who verified this the father or another producer?
Brenda:
I won't speak explicitly but I think you should be able to glean about who's who from the excerpt you quoted. I was pretty clear...
Thanks Desiree. I have a pretty good guess who the father is but I wasn't sure if he was the source of the information. I was trying to figure out if it was the story going around or the producer/father himself revealed the info. And if it was the father, if he put his foot down.
***
The Theopilus Green info was really good.
Brenda:
I guessed who the producer was as soon as I was told about it.
As for Dr. Theo Green, my sister bought the book and it discusses the "Johnnie Cochran defense strategy" of buying off witnesses. That part isn't available in the scan I don't think, but it was pretty much exactly what happened in 1993. I plan to elaborate in a future post, which I am about 55% done with but it needs a clean up.
It's really interesting, though.
Opinionation said...
We also have the fact that MJ complained about how black artists are exploited by racist music execs and yet bleached his skin, acquired caucasoid features and raised only non-black kids.
Jacko was so funny at times. When his career was in decline, he wanted to be portrayed as the supreme victim of racism... something he clearly was not. He made all those rants against music execs when Invincible flopped, yet he was the artist with the most lucrative contract in the music industry... along with Janet in the 90s, and to my knowledge both of them were black, and Janet wasn't bleached or ashamed of being black.
The white execs and the white press hyped him in the 80s and made him the superstar he was. Yes, I know then he showed a great talent, charisma, image... but it is virtually impossible to become that big without the support of the industry, no matter how talented you are, specially in the pre internet era. I have read “Howling at the Moon” by Walter Yetnikoff and it gives a good insight on the matter.
Yes, we know the MTV or Rolling Stone magazine were reluctant to give him space or a cover, but at the same time, the white execs who represented Mjs career forced them to publicize him.
Also, those kind of disagreements with royalties or rights, aren't exclusive to black artists. Like Paul McCartney. He wrote or co-wrote the songs included in the ATV catalogue. He didn't wanted to pay an astronomical amount of money for his own work and creativity. Apparently, this sense of “justice” and his pride was one of the reasons for not buying the catalogue. And what did MJ once he was the owner? PM called him to get a raise on the small percentage he was receiving for the songs, and Jacko refused to talk to him or meet his demands. Yet he had the nerve to complain about artists being robbed.
Fans love to brag about the contracts, the high royalties etc. and two lines after they picture him as the poor victim of a conspiracy because mean white people do not want him to be bigger than Elvis, lol. Yes, as if the people who rules the industry is more concerned for some dead musicians reputation, than making money with the ones they have under contract. For this people the only colour that matter is green.
Anyway, Michael's changes, eccentricities, allegations, strange behaviour, etc. overshadowed the racial questions, IMO.
By the way, I'm Susana.
I do not believe you are black or female. You sound like an old white man spreading hatred,lies and specialized information for real pedos to find what they seek.
Lynelle:
So, you came here from the IMDB link...
Pretty ironic that when someone links to an image from "Boys Will Be Boy"--a book with 90% nudity (including full frontal) and was lovingly inscribed by Michael Jackson--fans want to call the supplier of the book, seeing that they believe it to be disturbing, a 'pedo' but they never consider Jacko the pedophile, given that he owned the book and was accused at least three times of molesting boys.
Fans are strange.
As for not being black and female, I am black and female. I'm also young. Why would I have to be white to be spreading lies about Jacko? Are you saying that only white people are intelligent enough to realize that Michael Jackson was a pedophile?
That's not nice!
Desiree (and Lynelle, if you are still reading)
Did you see that Jerry Sandusky is using the 'Michael Jackson' defense? He is saying that yes, he showered with boys but never molested them and wasn't even sexually interested in them.
It was only a matter of time before other pedophiles would use Mike's tactics, they will have studied the 2005 trial carefully.
attorney is claiming that there are no victims, they are merely trying to get money out of Penn State.
It is ridiculous the way this is panning out. This guy, if guilty, may get off because MJ fans have been mouthing off in support of pedophiles all these years.
Alby:
LOL. No, Lynnelle, like many other fans, give hit-and-run comments and never come back to see the reply.
I saw on another blog (not Jacko-related) someone who wrote in a comment: "Two years ago America mourned the death of a pedophile. What's the difference between Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky?"
And I thought, "No difference, no difference at all."
Sandusky is just like Jacko: dumb. If he were a smart pedophile, he would have just stayed quiet. But he admitted to the 'horsing around' in the showers, just like Jacko admitted he slept in the bed with young boys.
And it goes back to a similar ol' question we always ask fans, "Why would a 50-something year old man want to shower and 'horse around' nude with unrelated young boys?"
The answer is that the man would have to gain at the very least some sort of gratification from that activity. Just like the way Jacko slept in the bed with boys; Jacko needed 'sleepovers'.
These are need-based mistakes, as Ken Lanning called it: pedophiles trying to cover their tracks but still exposing themselves to suspicion.
And did you catch the part where Sandusky's attorney said, "Jerry's just a big overgrown kid"?
I shook my head at that but chuckled. I thought, "He's just like Michael Jackson, it's crazy!"
"It is ridiculous the way this is panning out. This guy, if guilty, may get off because MJ fans have been mouthing off in support of pedophiles all these years."
One of the worst parts of this scandal are the people who are getting blamed for the actions (or alleged actions) of Sandusky. This isn't like the Catholic Church who'd been hiding and moving around pedophiles since at least the 1960s. This is different. The administration is looking for scapegoats; I have sympathy for Joe Paterno who lost is damned job because an alleged pedophile was in his midst.
You have to think about some of the Neverland workers. They 'saw' but never went to police for the simple reason they believed no one was going to believe them. McQueary told his dad and only 9 years later Sandusky's getting arrested and charged with sex crimes. It doesn't mean he never saw it; it doesn't mean he's a bad person. People need to realize that sometimes people don't react the way we'd want them to--hell, we don't even know how we'd respond if we saw something as shocking as anal sex between a 50-something man and a 10-year-old boy!
There's a lot of judgment going on and heads are rolling before people make sense out of the whole situation. Paterno, who'd reported it to a higher up instead of going to police, is an old man with 61 years at the school; he's not to blame. The admins feel the pressure for there being that long window of 'inaction' but they are just going about it the wrong way. Let's focus on Sandusky.
End rant. ;-)
As for Jacko fans, they say the same talking points pedophiles say. "Love", "innocence", "childhood", etc.
What's funny to me is that these fans will be the first people to scream at the top of their lungs that Sandusky is a dirty pedo, but Jacko could never be, even when they are similar and similar to all pedophiles, actually.
I remember my ex-boyfriend had made a good point (and this was said to me when I was a fan) about why don't Jacko fans rally awareness for other falsely accused people? Why not make this "Jacko is innocent" movement more broad? None of that will ever happen because to fans anyone who behaves identically to Jacko but is NOT Jacko is a pedophile.
It's only about Jacko. The f'loons are delusional. And it's hilarious how dumb they look.
I actually wonder if there is chatter about Sandusky on any fan websites, or there is silence (or more likely, censorship). I can't be arsed to look if there is or not, but I am astonished at the parallels in this case.
Mike's fans will be hard pressed in the future to repeat their blithe comments about Neverland witnesses not going to the police immediately after seeing Mike in compromising positions with boys when witnesses in this case didn't, as you say, behave as expected either.
I have come across many fans who, when pressed, will say they are defending Mike because they are 'defending someone who is innocent' - we all know that's total bullshit or at best partly true because their focus is so narrow (i.e. we'll defend you if you sing pop songs and moonwalk!). If indeed they were so sincere they would be rallying to the defense of Sandusky too, he is using the same excuses as Mike!
Will Mike's fans take on those 'evil extortionists' who are trying to get money out of Penn State? I doubt it.
Post a Comment