It's been a while since I've posted anything of importance that pertains to the subject du jour on this blog. Just to let the regulars know, I am going on a hiatus, an indefinite one.
I plan to write more entries but, at the moment, I just don't believe I can maintain the type of quality I like to keep with my pieces. As I've always delineated, the pieces are pretty time-consuming to crank out and I'm also a perfectionist; you can imagine how being busy throws a monkey wrench into that already annoying situation.
The last post I'd been writing on just didn't have the quality I like and working on it now seems impossible, given my schedule...and, honestly, there's a lack of interest. Currently, I've been writing (fiction) and drawing extensively (maybe you've noticed my new blog avatar) and it's all I'd like to spend my free time doing.
I apologize for the just lack of any type of new content and I suggest that people perhaps subscribe to the posts feed for this blog so, if you're still interested, you can be notified when I do write something new.
I highly suggest this; it seriously makes me feel guilty having people come on and there's no new anything for people to read!
As always, feel free to use the comments section to report anything you find on Jacko, if you'd like. But this--right now--seems like the necessary evil.
Thanks for reading and I'll probably return sooner rather than later. It'll be good when this is all over and the blog is floating in cyberspace, though.
:-)
157 comments:
Desiree hope you can write again soon. What about the book´s pictures? Will you publish them here or find another way?
If you have time to read things again, I found something really interesting about MJ and his traits of narcissism and BDD.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
Really hits it home IMO! Good luck for your studies, Desiree;-)
Suzy:
The books about the young boys, I will provide a link to a photo gallery off-site when I write the post. The books about the gay men, I'll have them on-site in the post. Those were to be two separate posts.
I plan to write sooner than later. I just felt that letting the readers know would be a good idea so people won't come to the blog and have nothing to look at.
A.G.:
Thank you.
A.G
Thanks for the link
Desiree
as you said before the fans should leave Brett alone. Look at what someone wrote in his profile
Hey Brett! I bet you have tones of memories about Michael, would you care to share? ♥
Sure he has...if he dared to share them the fans would hate him for sure! lol
Suzy:
LOL. It's true. If Brett ever, ever shared the full breadth of memories he has of Michael Jackson, they would not only hate him, I sincerely believe some crazy Australian Jacko fan would try to kill him.
The real question is: would the fans hate him because he exposed Jacko as a pedophile boy-lover or would they hate him because he'd be 'lying'?
For some reason--beyond their denial--I think they'd hate him because of the former. Denial drives their belief in Michael Jackson's innocence, not and never proof.
This is probably why they are so vicious to people who believe Jacko was a child molester; they know it's true (some I think are on Neptune and think Jacko's an angel) but they don't want to be wrong. I think Frenchie was the one who'd quoted something a fan said from a forum (paraphrase): "If it turns out that Michael was a pedophile, that means the 'haters' would have won."
LOL. I really think that's all they care about.
Desiree,
yes, for the fans this is also a matter of wining or losing. They just want the evil to go down lol.
Sometimes I have the sense the fans suspect about the truth...like,no matter he was a pedhopile, they don´t want the evidence to come out.
OMG and lol, there is only ONE narcissist in this place, and it sure isn't Michael
Lol, again, I forgot to "follow the rules" and use a name, but seriously, the only ragining narcissist here is Desiree, so she might recognize herself in that link A.G. so generously provided.
I'm surprised that my comments are showing up. Last time I left a comment, even though Desiree says she likes them and invites dialogue, I was immediately deleted, because I admonished her to look at the "man in the mirror" and stop projecting her stuff onto Michael.
Desiree "knows" the important of considering the source. Who is SHE, inquiring minds would like to know. We wouldn't take seriously writings from a murderer about the sanctity of life, would we?
Oh, and since Desiree filters comments and often advises people to start go somewhere else if they have complaints about what she's writing, here you go:
www.desireespeakssolistennot.blogspot.com
Somebody has got a problem here and didnt read the link information. Otherwise they wouldnt spread such nonsense in a fake blog. Oh well, birds of a feather - could it be that people with narcisstic traits have narcisstic followers? Hmmm...
LOL! Seems like someone has a bit of a crush on you, Desiree.
A delusional female MJ fan must have been so mad at the explosive truths presented that she had to make a blog that was a near facsimile of yours. As if that clear Wacko Jacko's name, LMAO.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but she shouldn't steal pictures of you; it's creepy.
The fascinating mind of a Jacko fan...SMDH.
It's quite ironic that she claims you have too much time on your hands when it is she that created a blog dedicated to you. I think she should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
Funny, no comments allowed on that blog. Hypocritical much?
She most likely wrote her blog between endless rounds of masturbating to a Michael Jackson poster, giving her worn out vibrator a much needed rest. LOL.
That blog has to be the dumbest shit I've ever seen; Michael Jackson fans never cease to amaze me.
I was immensely flattered seeing that this particular individual--dubbed 'Undebatable' in her previous comments on this blog--took the time to open an entire blog just about me.
Imagine that; she'd gotten so worked up when I responded to her typical fan "Leave Michael Alone" junk that she went batshit and had to let it all out. The funny thing to me is that she spent her energy attempting to psycho-analyze me as a narcissist and, yet, never even refuted anything on this blog.
I am--and have always been--the conduit through which information flows. If they have a problem with me, they really have a problem with the information that raises more than enough reasonable suspicion Michael Jackson was a gay pedophile.
Interestingly, that blog has now been removed. I guess she realized how ridiculous she was. You may still be able to view it as a cached page. I know some of the Jacko Wackos that stalk this blog were searching for it frantically. How pathetic.
Whatever... next.
Comment removed? How typical! You can block me, removed my comments, it doesn't matter, because that blog still exists!
Funny how you ridiculed the folks on Vindicate MJ for doing the same thing to you. You can dish it out but you can't take it. The blog still exists, and it will be linked to your name for as long as the internet exists.
Also, might I point out a flaw in your logic. If my making a blog outing you as a narcissist is actually indicative of the fact that I secretly am enamored of you, then by the same logic, this blog actually indicates that you are secretly enamored of Michael -- that you are in fact the obsessed fan, masturbating to his memory; the one who cannot let it go and let it rest.
I have no problem with you deleting my comments by the way, because on my blog, I can talk about you all I want and there is nothing you can do about it.
I don't have to waste time arguing opinion with a narcissist who just wants attention.
You made a blog dedicate in large part to dismantling Michael's character and reshaping it into something the more resembles yourself, and I have made a blog revealing you as the fraud you are. Thus is the way of the world when we can make a blog in two seconds with no problem.
So Undateable dedicated a blog to Desiree because she hurt her feelings? LMAO. Just another example of how unstable these fans are. Any normal person would move on with his or her life after an internet disagreement. F'loons can't; they obsess about everything.
Frenchie:
Perhaps she wanted a post like the one Pauline got on this blog, LOL. I know that blog has been taken down but here's a webcache of it (from 8/30/11).
http://goo.gl/YaOid
I saw it in the morning, then I had school, and saw the blog for a few minutes when I came home and when I'd returned after a few minutes, it was gone. I wonder why. LOL.
Anyway, what struck me is that she said I was molested. Now, she'd contacted me through my blog email form and sent me some crazy emails as well (as two different people, no less) and one of her identities said that I was molested.
Another fan nutjob accused me of being a molestation victim, as well, just because I'd said I'd rather fingerpaint with choleraic feces than read anything she'd write on Vindicate MJ. Allegedly, to her, obsession with feces is a sign of childhood sexual abuse?
I'd only said that because, as someone who knows quite a bit about pathogenic bacteria, choleraic feces is very dangerous.
But I think the take home message people should think about is the antipathy fans have for sexual abuse victims, so much so they would call someone a victim if the person thought Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I think this comes from the fact that they HATE Jordie, Jason, and Gavin for speaking about their alleged abuse and it develops from there.
I think this also drives the disbelief they have about Michael Jackson's molestation as a child, which I fervently believe, as it has been corroborated by others after Chris Anderson wrote about Johnny Jackson claiming it in his book that came out in 1994. Johnny had alleged this when he was a teenager.
The fans can admit that Jacko was physically and emotionally abused but not sexually, never sexually.
What I always found interesting in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book was that Michael Jackson said he'd hated 'big, tall men', or that he was afraid of them. This, to me, when I learned that it had been alleged he was molested by two men (says Johnny Jackson) and that Jermaine Jackson stated Michael would spend alone time with business men while working the Chitlin' Circuit (Bob Jones also stated that Jacko had an interesting reaction to the rumor about Joe Jackson molesting him as a boy, saying, "How do you know it isn't true?"), was highly significant. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Jacko's fear of these men perhaps came from the fact he'd been sexually abused by 'big, tall men' in proportion to him being a small child.
Interestingly, the rabbi pointed out that his bodyguards fit that phenotype and Michael said that he makes sure that they are "nice".
Now this part is just speculation but we know that Jacko was attracted to Chris Carter (I'm sure he giggled like a schoolgirl when Carter was carrying him like a baby, LOL)--who is tall (although very young). Perhaps Jacko was sexually attracted to those type of men (when he wasn't focused on boys), regardless of his abuse history or maybe because his first exposure--sexually--was to those men.
Anyway, that particular Jacko Wacko apparently didn't read the notes about the comment box. If she simply noted that a long comment will not post and then broke hers apart, she would have been able to voice her agitation here on the blog instead of having to make one herself just to trash a messenger.
Like I stated, she never refuted a thing I've said on here, which is not exactly a surprise.
Okay, so Undebatable's comments were put in the spam folder. It wasn't by me; I'll have to report a problem to Blogger.
But I rescued them because I believe Michael Jackson's fans tend to make asses out of themselves and it's important for rational pragmatists to see this. To so defend a man who is reasonably suspected to have molested young boys, not to mention wouldn't give two squirrel shits about any of his fans even if he'd met you in person, is beyond me.
I do not, for the life of me, understand celebrity worship.
To the "Oops" nutjob,
If the blog is unsearchable in google, only the losers you provide a direct link to (which would most likely be a bunch of Jacko fans) will be able to see it. So really, how would that help "spread the message" that Desiree is a fraud and narcissist? You, ma'am, are an idiot.
And no, the fact that you would take the time out to write about a private citizen who happens to think Michael Jackson--a man who you've never met and would never give a rat's ass about you if you met him--is guilty, it shows that you have a problem.
How don't you see that?
If you weren't the tool that you are, you'd realize that most people that think Wacko Jacko was guilty either a) are the general public or b) used to be fans but because they were blessed with the ability of rational thought and possess common sense they no longer think he was innocent by looking at the evidence. If you think that Desiree, or anyone else, wants to get popular off of "maligning an innocent man child", you need to lay off the crystal meth.
Just because Desiree, as she said, is the conduit through which some information showing his guilt flows, doesn't mean you need to attack her. You need to take it up with Wacko Jacko, he's the one you should be angry with since it's his dirty deeds that's making you upset. If you'd stop worshipping a dead pedo, you wouldn't be so hurt by the truth.
I suggest you find a therapist because if you get this angry about someone's opinion on the internet, I shudder to think how unstable you are in the real world. Seriously, you are clinging to a delusion, not just about Mike, but also about a private citizen you don't even know, just because it makes you able to sleep at night.
I think all fanatics (no matter who they're fans of) are pretty crazy. But MJ's fanatics seem to be downright insane. The fact that she spent a considerable amount of time making a blog dedicated to Desiree is just sick. They're totally devoted to the cause. Those people are either delusional or in complete denial (or both).
By the way, I guess she didn't really read the link that A.G posted. I obviously didn't know MJ personally (that would've been interesting lol) but, from what I know about him, I'd say those NPD traits describe him perfectly.
Now kinda off topic, I just discovered the song "Do you know where your children are", which was written by MJ around the late 80s/early 90s (Before the allegations). It's just so weird to hear him sing about child molestation...
These are the lyrics: http://lyricsmusicvideo.blogspot.com/2010/11/michael-jackson-do-you-know-where-your.html
See this line?
"She wrote that she is tired of step-daddy using her,
Saying that he'll buy her things, while sexually abusing her"
Quite ironic for him to say that, right? What do you guys think about that song?
"What I always found interesting in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book was that Michael Jackson said he'd hated 'big, tall men', or that he was afraid of them."
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3979/medgallery21134.jpg
Well that guy is kinda tall and MJ doesn't seem to be "afraid" of him LOL
Elena,
Over at Vindicate MJ, they see that song as proof that he wasn't a child molester, I guess because a child molester wouldn't sing "negatively" about child abuse. LOL. But this song has just a brief mention of that anyway, hardly an anthem to be played at anti-child abuse rallies.
I think it's interesting that he uses a woman as the subject, rather than a man. The song, in my opinion, seems a bit autobiographical, especially with reference to the going to Hollywood to be a star (of course she becomes a prostitute). Maybe this was his way of telling what happened to him, and maybe in his mind, he's been selling himself since childhood a bit like a prostitute (both sexually and non-sexually). According to JRT, he was very interested in child abuse and wanted to learn all about; this is from an anecdote dating back to the late 70s when he was in NY shooting "The Wiz".
But from reading about pedos and from pedophiles' own mouths, many of them have a clear distinction between "by force" child molestation (as described in the song) and the "loving relationships" that are both physical and emotional that they have with boys. Mike's behavior with his special friends would most definitely not be considered harmful and would be seen as loving to most pedos, so it doesn't surprise me that he wouldn't describe what he did as sexual abuse.
That pic you linked, Mike does look interested, LOL. This is the time where he was linked to young men, in the early 80s.
fans are crazy...but to me more crazy is to do an entire blog bashing on someone who's dead.
The only one who are entlited to investigate and accuse someone expecially of such horrible things is the police. desirèe can say whatever she wants to say, but she can not provide REAL proofs,and u can find proofs in legal offices. that's it.
I go on a break and the nutjobs come out...
Not only did I bring up the fact that Lynette from Vindicate MJ changed her ISP just so she could continue to stalk my blog obsessively, she now has changed her name to "Candace" and has pretended that she has never been on this blog before.
Lynette--"Candace"--your comments have been removed and relocated to the appropriate blog entry:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/brett-barnes-redux-michael-jacksons.html#comments
I responded there.
These Jacko fans are completely obsessed and will stop at nothing to silence the spread of evidence regarding his pedophilia. As I stated before, they realize his guilt subconsciously but cannot accept it because, as Opinionation had stated once, they have invested so much energy in worshipping him and do not want to be shown as pathetic duped saps.
Apparently, "Unbeatable" changed the URL but I found it by accident, typing my blog URL into the browser incorrectly.
Clever. The previous link to the webacached page is gone. Here's the link to that blog.
http://desireespeaksolisten.blogspot.com/
Notice that's Desiree speak so listen, instead of 'speaks', with an S.
She's banking on typos to get the 'word out' about me, LOL.
Elena:
I think creating a blog about me is disgusting. Fanatics are truly vile. I think she'll tire herself out eventually.
The song you mentioned is used just in the way Jessica described, as proof Jacko wouldn't be a molester. But fans are not very objective and fanatics are usually less intelligent than average, I think. The greatest indicator of Michael Jackson not being a pedophile would have been for him to fight the Chandler allegations instead of simply giving them money to go away.
This, of course, didn't happen.
I think Jacko's song lyric shows his obsession, probably erotically based, with child sexual abuse. I believe he'd linked his own abuse with his sexuality, unfortunately. It also makes me think of the rumors of Rebbie and La Toya's rapes.
Ultimately, it's no indication that Jacko is not a child molester. Why not mention sexual abuse of boys?
I guess he couldn't go that far, could he?
zeromarcy:
(She's a crazy Italian fan from Vindicate MJ who has also left comments on my Youtube channel.)
"fans are crazy...but to me more crazy is to do an entire blog bashing on someone who's dead."
Now, I imagine you wouldn't say this to a Jewish blogger who devotes a site to bashing Adolf Hitler.
"desirèe can say whatever she wants to say, but she can not provide REAL proofs,and u can find proofs in legal offices. that's it."
Everything on this blog is from news stories, court documents, court transcripts, books, etc. If you cannot refute them, be honest enough to admit this.
Again, you can read elsewhere if the content on this blog gets you so worked up.
Again no intelligent debate I see why is that? Is it that you don't really like debate? I gave the proof that Chacon changed his testimony from 1994 to 2005 and Brett was the original "victim". There is still no debate you just remove or block the "offensive" comment. So much for wanting intelligent debate. Why don't you let your readers decide if the documents and links prove my point instead of removing my comment so they can't see for themselves? It's funny that you accuse others of being afraind of debate when you don't allow it.
If you bothered to read Desiree's post, you would know that your comments were moved to the appropriate entry, and she replied to you there.
Desiree, if you're still in contact with "Robert", would you mind asking him to forward you some photographs (or any other proof) of his friendship with MJ? I came across a comment he wrote elsewhere. I'm curious if he's legit...
robert1 June 20th, 2010 at 12:26 am
I can cofirm Michaels obession’ with young boys dating back at least to December 1982. He stalked and was obsessed with a boy named Robert who lived near his Encino home. MJ talks about this person vaguely in the making of beat it video and from a February 1983 interview with Entertainment Tonight.
Guys Jermaine revealed something about the alleagations
LONDON (AP) -- Jermaine Jackson says his family had secretly arranged to fly Michael to Bahrain if the pop icon was found guilty of child molestation.
Jermaine was quoted as telling The Times magazine out Saturday that a private jet financed by a friend was on standby to whisk his late brother to the Gulf emirate if the 2005 court case ended with a conviction.
Bahrain does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.
Jermaine says his brother did not know about the escape plan but Michael would have "done it in a heartbeat" because "why should he go to jail for something he didn't do?"
The singer was found not guilty on all charges.
He later spent a year in the emirate as a guest of a son of Bahrain's king.
"Candace" aka Lynette from Vindicate MJ:
Give it a rest, crazy woman. My God. I replied to you under the "Brett Barnes redux" post, which is where I'd moved your comments. Additionally, the comments with the all of the links was sent to the spam folder. Its filtration system is beyond my control but if a post has lots of links, there is a greater chance it will be sent there.
Capiche?
The funny thing is that I know you saw your relocated comments and, at least, saw that I'd responded to you; it is then a shock to me that you would even act as if I simply deleted your comments.
No, I moved them and replied under the appropriate post. Perpetuating a fraud against me only makes you look desperate.
There is a difference between deletion and relocation.
As for the point of your comment, you have no proof that Ralph Chacon deliberately changed his testimony from Brett Barnes to Jordie Chandler; you have no proof that there was any collusion to change it from Brett to Jordie. He'd always described Brett; in the DA's "Prior Bad Acts" motion, they mention that Chacon believed the boy to be "Jordie", even though he'd described Brett.
This round and round is simply ridiculous. You are showing your subterranean IQ by not reading the blog entries on this website, specifically the "Brett Barnes redux" entry which has already addressed the tripe you've mentioned.
The thing I don't understand is why you psychotic fans think it is okay to spam and stalk a website that does not believe Jacko was the Second Coming of Christ and we so-called 'haters' cannot do the same thing. Don't even huff and puff about comment deletion!
You do not have the right to spam every anti-Jackson news story, blog, forum, video, etc.; you fans do not shape the debate nor can you decide what can be said about a dead guy none of you even know and one who wouldn't give a damn about any of you if you had met him. If you want to talk about Jacko being God, do it elsewhere. You have some nerve to even be on here when you've been blocked. I guess the ISP change shows your stubborn obsession.
You have not engaged in intelligent debate--most likely due to innate intellectual limitations. You are incapable of doing so because your brain just does not function in a high IQ sort of way. My God, we can look at these comments and your entries over at Vindicate MJ as proof of this!
Any other comment about this Brett-Chacon issue will be relocated to the appropriate entry. The comments' sidelinks will show everyone where they are. You can either respond there (and by 'respond', I mean, make a counterpoint), or you can shut the fuck up. Your choice. Mine would be that you simply get gone.
Please stop obsessing over myself and this blog. It is sick! You don't have the right to post comments, especially when there is no reciprocity for myself. Not that I even care; debating you is non gratum anus rodentum.
Frenchie:
I'll see if I can get into contact with "Robert" again.
Suzy:
VERY INTERESTING! Jermaine Jackson always seems to be the one to let 'things slip'.
Beyond the passive indication that they all believed there was a great likelihood Michael Jackson was guilty (of course, they knew of his proclivities for boys), most interesting is that the Jacksons were well-aware that if Jacko was in jail, they'd get no money.
According to Maureen Orth's article "CSI Neverland", the Jacksons wanted to stop the trial and were peddling conspiracies. They knew there was a HUGE chance Jacko would be found guilty because he'd done it numerous times before. They only cared about money; Jacko was always footing the bill.
However, I don't know if it is feasible, their plan. In the US, a guilty defendant is jailed when he's found guilty, unless there is something special celebrities are allowed to do. Law enforcement would take his passport, too.
Jacko would leave; Jermaine is right. He'd scurry like a cockroach under a refrigerator. We have to recall that he'd falsely claimed he was brutalized by police.
The DAs stated it showed his guilty mindset regarding Gavin Arvizo.
I read Jermaine Jackson's tale too and he really isnt that bright (seems to be a family trait, next to being narcisstic;-)) because he should have known that authorities had Michael Jackson's passport and certainly wouldnt have handed it back to him if he had been convicted to jail! So Jermaine talks hogwash IMO....I remember he talked in public about the same thing while the trial was going on......
BTW...I was quite amused about the reaction about my link by those Jackson fans..they really are Jacko's Wackos....the funniest thing is they have started a campaign to forbid the media to call Jackson Wacko Jacko in public saying this is racist and derogatory. USA Today and ABC changed their articles from Jacko to Jackson - to keep them quiet, I think. Great entertainment!
A.G
You´re right, later after I´ve read the notice I remembered that detail. No way the Jackson family could have helped Michael to flee after the convict verdict, he would be put behind bars right then.
If Jermaine really said that, or he´s ignorant and doesn´t know it or he had intentions in saying that...
btw I heard that Mesereau is writing a book too.
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/jermaines-times-interview-book-excerpt-330483/
jermaine mentions that plan b in his book which has been excerpted to The Times and sb put copies to read onto the forum,-)...jermaine is going round in circles on his twitter defending it to a CNN journalist - really u have to check it out - entertainment has never been better......The Jackson all think they never make mistakes and just their viewpoint counts. I am really struggling at their ignorance to see that this attitude has backfired them for years by now and they still are convinced that US authorities and media are wrong about everything and they are right. he even attacks Dimond on her twitter taunting her that the days of her guesswork as he calls it are over...well, we will see to that!
Meserau writing a book? well, he has been doing lectures and stuff, but a book? I dont think so, as a lawyer he would have to put all the stuff in he knows about Jackson and that wouldnt be favorable to the public as M. knows about all documents that were evidence in both 1993 and 2005.
I think Jermaine is just doing what he always does, crying for attention and trying to get himself some money with the book. If you read the entire article:
"Jermaine, a former Jackson 5 member, said *his younger brother was not aware of the escape plot but would have agreed to flee America in a heartbeat* because he would have not survived in jail."
Michael didn't even know about it. I don't doubt that he would have been a coward and that he would have tried to escape the law somehow, but I think this is just Jermaine trying to get into the spotlight again. However, this shows that they were pretty sure he could have been guilty, they knew he'd done it before after all.
I would have a much easier time believing that my comment with the links had been spammed automatically if it would not have shown on the comment role for quite a while before it was deleted. Just admit that you don't want dissenting opinions that actually make sense.
It's cute how fans always look for a way to portray themselves as victims. I guess it must make them feel more like Michael.
No victimization in that statement just fact. I think it is cute how someone so convinced that they're right just keeps right on eliminating any opposing facts.You do know don't you that you don't sound smart or reasonable at all you all just sound gossipy. You bounce the most insane thoughts off one another and expect real people to believe you.I mean just step out of your box and read what is written.Do you really believe this stuff that she writes or do you all just like that whole mean girl thing she's got going on?You know at some point even mean girls have to grow up but you gotta wonder what they will be when they get there when they sound like you guys.A true reality show in the making you guys are. You know don't you that the popularity of those kind of people and that kind of behavior is diminishing don't you.Time to try a good girl approach no one is impressed with it anymore.
So now you have ranted can you come back and discuss the topic, please?
But our dear Lynette thinks her word salad rants are discussions. Dementia must be kicking in...poor thing.
Lynette as "Candace":
"Just admit that you don't want dissenting opinions that actually make sense."
Here's the URL to your comment with all of those links in it that you claim was deleted. No, it was in the spam folder, then I released it; since it showed up under this entry, I had to delete it and then re-paste it under the appropriate entry:
http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/brett-barnes-redux-michael-jacksons.html?showComment=1315672954502#c5112109212101982342
Hell, I'll even turn it into a nice hotlink for you:
Click me!
When you go over there, you'll be able to see my responses to you.
Or, another hotlink:
Desiree's reply!
Everyone, take note of this insane elderly woman. Not only is she absolutely obsessed with myself and my blog (remember, she'd changed her Internet Service Provider to continue to stalk me), she is too damned cowardly to even read my comments in response to her.
Let us ignore the fact, just this once, that had she had the IQ level to read the "Brett Barnes redux" entry for herself, she'd know I have already addressed every one of those so-called 'points' she believes herself to be making. This would have then allowed her not to waste anyone's time.
She claims I don't like dissenting opinions and, yet, she refuses to engage in any discussion whatsoever.
Again, I believe this is an intellectual issue, not merely something that has to do with just stubbornness. It is what it sounds like: I am pretty sure she is an idiot.
"Candace",
Well, since it's obvious that you are one of the losers from VMJ, it is interesting to me that you feel you should be allowed to write comments on Desiree's blog, when its clear that you haven't even defended yourself under the Brett Barnes post. All you keep doing is whining about how your comments allegedly are deleted. She moved them, and she responded. What more do you want? clearly, you can't defend yourself because Desiree has answered and still you complain. Put up or shut the hell up. I bet you didn't even read her post or her responses. Typical.
It's funny to me that you can come over her and feel entitled to post, but if any single person comes to you and Helena and David's dumbass blog, and they think Wacko is not an innocent angel, you either will spam their IP address or delete their comments. So why the hell do you expect reciprocity here? You aren't entitled to shit just because you are a Wacko defender. excuse my language but you're fucking bat shit insane to expect anything given the way you and your ilk treat people.
This blog is not for f'loons like you, it's for people that are looking for information. I don't know if you can compute this, but most "haters"--as you f'loons call us--used to be fans. We know the PR spin, we know all the erroneous and illogical arguments used to twist the common sense evidence. The whole freaking Internet is filled with nothing but pro-MJ sites. There is only a few places were people can discuss the facts openly and express doubt. This is one of them. It ain't a place for you f'loons.
If anyone was interested in your viewpoint (and no one here is because it's a) illogical and b) we already know the argument), they'd head over to your site. You can continue to propagate the conspiracy theories about Wacko being an innocent black man angel and all the evil white people are out to get him because they are jealous of his success, but it doesn't make sense. He was rich and famous with access to everything he needed; he wasn't a poor black man from Gary, IN anymore (hell, he wasn't even black anymore!). He was handled with kid gloves just like the rest of Hollywood. Stop with the BS conspiracies that just make you look stupid.
Desiree,
It's obvious that the heffa isn't reading your replies. It just gets me that her ass thinks that she should be allowed to post on your blog, and they DON'T LET ANYONE WHO THINKS WACKO IS GUILTY POST ON THEIRS.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me.
^
It is a very peculiar sense of entitlement, isn't it? Besides, if we offend her sensibilities that much, then she should spare herself the displeasure of reading the blog at all. There are plenty of fansites for her to sink her dentures into...no need to hang with the "mean girls."
Lynette as "Candace":
"I think it is cute how someone so convinced that they're right just keeps right on eliminating any opposing facts."
Wowie, that's rich coming from a Vindicate MJ drone. Again, intellectual limitations clearly prevent you from any modicum of self-reflection. I pity you.
There are no such things as 'opposing facts'; there are facts and then there is spin. The reason fans make little sense is because they miss the forest for the trees. When everything is put together--when circumstantial proofs are seen in relation to other circumstantial proofs--that is when one can glean the overwhelmingly powerful and reasonable conclusion that Michael Jackson was a guilty pedophile who got away with his crimes because he was rich and famous and the masses are celebrity-obsessed.
Fans are too driven by idol worship to see things as they are. Jacko is your religion.
"You do know don't you that you don't sound smart or reasonable at all you all just sound gossipy."
Nothing on this site has ever been successfully refuted.
"You bounce the most insane thoughts off one another and expect real people to believe you."
Oh, the irony of this kills me. Do you even read the website you maintain?! Explain to me how semen stains from two different males turns into saliva from Prince and Blanket?
No one on your own website even believed you! As Frenchie noted, everything you write is a 'word salad' and makes little, if any, sense to people with IQs higher than room temperature.
What you're doing is projection.
You are so deep in your own delusions that if some report or finding is negative about Jacko (or is against your worldview), you call it 'tabloid', you attack the writer or reporter, etc. If someone says something negative about Jacko, you say they are after money or try to bring up something in their pasts to make them look nefarious. Case-in-point: Aaron Carter.
This is the type of fan insanity that turns rational people off and causes them to begin to search for information on their own. And look where it got me and my readers.
NO FAN EVER QUESTIONS ANYTHING JACKO HAS DONE; the magnifying glass is only ever placed upon his accusers and detractors in lieu of ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIM!
You are not dealing with a full deck nor are you objective, reasonable, or rational. This is why people laugh at every inanity that is posted on your ridiculous website.
(cont'd)
"I mean just step out of your box and read what is written."
Please take your own advice.
As Jessica pointed out, everyone who posts here and reads this blog (outside of the psychotic fans who stalk it obsessively) have been fans before. We've read the 'vindication' blogs, we've read the ass-kissing books. None of it makes sense, maybe unless you've purposely damaged a third of your own brain cells or, again, have a subterranean IQ.
Logical and reasonable people are usually pragmatists. As such, we cannot accept the behavior of Michael Jackson--which fits every bullet point in relation to pedophile child molesters--as being something normal or safe, even if we like his music or feel a stirring in our loins for little Michael of the Jackson 5.
No, logical and reasonable people possess the intelligence levels to reject sentimentality and forgo ideology for truth.
I can list every reason why Jacko is reasonably assumed, based upon available evidence and information, to be a filthy child molester. However, since you are on this blog, by all means, read the entries (and the all of my comments) and you'll know exactly what they are.
But you will not read, you will not discuss or defend your own viewpoints; not only because of innate intellectual limitations (you are an idiot), but also because of fear.
Fear is a sign of insecurity of belief. Like most fans, you know full well that Jacko was a pedophile (hell, Pellicano pretty much admitted it!) and all of his behaviors and actions speak to this. However, you've dedicated half of your life to idolizing Jacko and, because of human frailty, you cannot admit you've been duped. Therefore, the only option is that you continue to blind yourself to assuage the uncomfortable feelings of dissonance.
Have fun with that.
Michael Jackson
Lawyer Calls BS
On Jermaine Jackson
The lawyer who successfully defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges tells TMZ ... Jermaine Jackson's claim of a plan for Michael to bolt the country if convicted would been for nothing ... because MJ never would have had the chance to flee even if he wanted to.
Tom Mesereau tells us ... Santa Barbara Police told him several years after the trial that they were extremely concerned about possible violence if MJ was convicted. Mesereau says the cops were particularity concerned about the Nation of Islam.
As a result of those concerns, Mesereau says he was told if Michael had been convicted, he would immediately have been taken into custody and helicoptered to a prison facility in Lompoc, CA.
The upshot -- there would have been no opportunity for escape.
But more fundamentally, Mesereau says Jackson never talked about fleeing and says he obeyed the law throughout the trial.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/11/michael-jackson-child-molestation-trial-guilty-flee-bahrain-jermaine-jackson-tom-mesereau/
Jessica:
She will be deleted from here on out, unless someone has engaged with her. Her stupidity is tiring. This is a place for reasonable and sensible people. She can recite her Jacko Bible verses on Vindicate MJ.
Frenchie:
"It is a very peculiar sense of entitlement, isn't it?"
It is. I don't get how these people think. But protecting Jacko is their number one goal. Jacko must always be defended; if not, they must believe they'll be denied an afterlife. LOL.
Funny thing is that the nutjob who'd created a blog about me has another typical drone website about Jacko and states on the blog that, if she had one wish, at the very least, people all over would have to be compelled to speak about Jacko "with reverence":
"If I could be granted one further wish in regards to Michael, if the general public and the media can't at the very least make an effort to try and understand him, I wish people who choose to write about Michael would be mindful to represent him with reverence."
It was the funniest thing I'd ever read!
http://michaeljacksonfactcheck.blogspot.com/p/who-was-michael.html
Please check the Hall of Shame picture at the bottom of the page. These fans have the nerve to bash Oprah Winfrey when she herself was a victim of sexual abuse, having been raped for years. Of course she's not going to like a man twice accused of pedophilia and who slept in the bed with young boys!
They don't get anything; it's always their own single-minded defense and posturing for Jacko.
Suzy:
As Elena pointed out, Jermaine Jackson was showing that the family thought Jacko was guilty. I truly believe the family tossed the idea around and Jermaine did say that it was unknown to Michael Jackson.
Tom Mesereau is tiring. If he actually makes a book about Jacko, it'll be an ass-kissing fest.
The thing about Mesereau is he can only speak to what he knows in a book. He was obviously not privy to anything about the 1993 case because his questioning of June Chandler was pathetic.
I've mentioned this before but Mesereau kisses black ass. If Michael Jackson was white, ol' T-Mez--who I'm sure fangirls masturbate to, as well--wouldn't care about him.
But since when was Jacko black? His skin transformation still blows my mind... :-/
"Of course she's not going to like a man twice accused of pedophilia"
That should be thrice-accused. Let me not forget Jason Francia, the recipient of yet another multimillion dollar payout.
And you still haven't explained the fact that the guard that identified Brett in 1994 changed the identification to Jordan in 2005. Attacking me does not make you right it is just a smoke screen. Come up with a plausible reason that he saw one person one time and swore to it then saw another person and swore to that. Explain that phenomenon and stop attacking people. Not at anytime have you actually answered a simple question without turning it into an attack on the person asking you for an answer. Not one time.
"And you still haven't explained the fact that the guard that identified Brett in 1994 changed the identification to Jordan in 2005."
I already answered you under the "Brett Barnes redux" entry. Click these hotlinks, please.
Each hotlink is a different comment in reply. You cannot perpetuate a fraud here. Read the replies, or shut the fuck up!
Amazing that you feel you have the right to comment here. Yes, I deleted your other inanity because this round and round is just stupid. Intelligent debate occurs when two intelligent people converse and engage. That has not happened. What you've continued to do is avoid every single one of my comments in reply to the issue you'd originally brought up--Chacon and Brett Barnes--because you are a coward with a low IQ.
How dare you whine about me not debating you when you continue to avoid every post I've put to you in counterpoint? I have stuck to my word and have replied to detractors to my pieces.
No one is as stupid as you are, apparently. Intelligent people can click on the links provided to you and see our discussion under the "Brett Barnes redux" entry. The only person who has yet to do that is you.
I can only wonder why this is; I chalk it up to pure, unadulterated cowardice.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by posting incessantly about my not debating you or answering your questions when I've replied and have provided you easy-to-click links right here in these comments. I can only imagine that your goal is to annoy and nothing more. If this is your goal--and no doubt it is--feigning indignation when I point out your congenital idiocy is dishonest. You've proven that you have no interest in an actual discussion and, as someone with a high IQ, this is reprehensible.
If you have a problem with the way things are done here, you can discontinue your all-consuming obsession with me and simply get gone. This seems to be an amazingly difficult task for you since you even changed your Internet Service Provider to further that obsession and to make sure it is everlasting.
You are only humiliating yourself engaging with me. I pity your loathsome and pathetic status.
Again, if you have a problem with what I've just written, tell it to someone who cares.
I don't want to click on the links that you provided to your hand picked twisted facts. Don't tell me that a self proclaimed bright young black woman like yourself fell for the oldest racist statement in the world. We all look alike don't we.And as usual just more name calling and finally the best comeback when you can't prove your point without twisting the facts a good old "shut the fuck up". How witty.
I'm coming to the conclusion that this sad Jacko-obsessed drone is incapable of debate. It's not a simple refusal; it is an incapability. Her brain is so irreparably skewed and twisted that when her spoon-fed talking points fail to produce a viable justification to a question or counterpoint, she simply switches to "Pester" mode.
I am simply flabbergasted that this pathetic human being is so deluded that she has convinced herself that not only is she a victim (I am here berating her 'personally'--not really), but that perhaps she is also 'winning', when the truth of this is dubious and proven to be so with the simple click of hotlinks provided her.
More evidence of delusional behavior is the fact that she--and the rest of her ilk--seem to look at links to information in the most specious of ways. The links she provided regarding Brett Barnes? My goodness! I only shudder what facilities in her brain have caused her to think those links validate her worldview!
As for Brett Barnes, he was a sexual abuse victim. Not just because people viewed and heard him being abused--and I have discussed that at length in the entry about him--but because he himself, his sister, and mother have verified this. 365 days and 90 days and sleeping in the bed with an adult male until he was 19 is more than just innocent 'sleepovers'! Why did he have such trouble on the stand when asked why he'd stopped his sleeping habits with Jacko? Because Jacko had had kids?
There is no need to stress upon him further because it is a done deal. Brett stated he wanted people to say things to his face; I messaged him three times and he never replied. However, if one goes incognito and kisses his ass, he responds very quickly to such fanfare.
In a nutshell, Brett is a coward. And he is in love with Michael Jackson, as his Facebook love notes have shown; he is desperately clinging on to his late abuser, and it is sad. I imagine he is drinking up the quasi-celebrity these ridiculous, middle-aged Jacko fans have given him. In a way, I'm sure he feels just like Jacko.
What I really like is how pissed off you get. You see that is my real goal. I don't give a hoot about you, you blog or what you write. I am not even a Michael Jackson fan. What I am is the worst part of you. Someone that just likes to anatgonize poor unsuspecting nobody's like you.I don't know if you really are black or not all I know is your'e not very good at it if you are.And you need some drawing lessons.
"I don't want to click on the links that you provided to your hand picked twisted facts."
You've droned on about debate and the links are to my comments in reply to yours under the "Brett Barnes redux" entry.
That was me debating you.
If you don't want to read anything directed to you in a debate, why are you here? Why do you think you deserve to be heard here? Are you not satisfied at Vindicate MJ, where you have an audience for your nonsensical rants?
What are you here for if your very actions belie your protestations wanting debate, you fool?
"when you can't prove your point without twisting the facts a good old "shut the fuck up". How witty."
It was not wit, but an earnest suggestion. Not only are you obstinate to reason, you are also impervious to being helped.
Why am I not surprised?
"Lynette's 7:55PM comment"
LMBAO.
Those denials are a new low, even for you.
Oh man, I love a good f'loon meltdown.
"Oh man, I love a good f'loon meltdown."
When they start denying that they're fans, that's when you know you've got them good. I am taken aback that Lynette would bring up my race. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Maybe she's a racist. I never knew of white women telling a black person that they aren't good at being black.
On the psychotic fans tangent, "Undebatable" opened a Facebook under my name, using my picture!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Desiree-Hill/100002925190492?sk=info
Apparently she's really worked up. She recently changed the blog URL to her fake site about me:
http://desireespeakssolsten.blogspot.com/
And we thought Pauline was a nut! I have to say: I don't think she's that crazy after all.
LOL, why the hell would you deny being a Jacko freak? I mean that is completely stupid. Your blog is about vindicating him, hello! And why would you claim to not give a crap about this blog if you stalk it and had to change to a different internet service provider just to keep reading it? Your actions are speaking much louder than your piss poor denials.
Aren't you a bit too old to be stalking a 22 year old woman that you've never met, and saying that they need drawing lessons? You are more delusional than I thought. Michael Jackson was what he was, get over it, and he wouldn't give a flying fig that you are defending him. He probably woudld have a private chuckle at the f'loons expense because he know what he was and still has the humble throngs gobbling up his self-created madness.
Off topic, but did you guys know that Frank Cascio is writing a book, on sale in November, called "My Friend Michael". I'm willing to wager that he is going to make Mike look like a stud, what do you think? I mean I know he would never admit to Mike's proclivities for boys and his whoring himself out to keep the luxe life. Now that would be a good read.
Desiree,
She really has some nerve trying to point out your race when Michael Jackson was the one who was completely racially confused. Um, he bleached his skin and had white kids. No offense but it's just typical [white] fanatic myopia.
Ugh that blog is digesting, she is psychotic, just because she felt that you harmed her Michael? The f'loons never let it go. I think it's projection, really; I think she is mad that Mike was a virulent pedophile and she can't accept it so she blames it on you being a spreader of lies. But the Facebook, SMDH. I can't believe she'd go so far as to impersonate you. It's crazy. 8-/
"And we thought Pauline was a nut! I have to say: I don't think she's that crazy after all."
Between the deranged geriatric with a persecution complex, and that twit obsessing about you after you bruised her ego, I'm feeling a bit nostalgic for Pauline's antics. At least some of her personalities were entertaining.
"Off topic, but did you guys know that Frank Cascio is writing a book, on sale in November, called "My Friend Michael". I'm willing to wager that he is going to make Mike look like a stud, what do you think? I mean I know he would never admit to Mike's proclivities for boys and his whoring himself out to keep the luxe life. Now that would be a good read."
I'm sure that book will be all the same PR nonsense that we've heard before, but Frank might as well cash in while he still can. Michael has too many skeletons in his closet to keep hidden forever. Since he can no longer hire goons to silence witnesses, I think all sorts of interesting revelations will start to leak. Fans better brace themselves.
Frank always supported Michael, I don´t believe he would write "trash" in the book. As for Jeramine´s book, it seems he lied about the most simple things. He claimed that Michael Bearden asked the TII audience to pray for Michael, because they supposedly received a mysterious call about Michael. Bearden denied it ever happened when asked and got very upset. And you see how simple it was, there´s no reason to not believing it.
More f'loon hilarity:
Lynette as "Candace" has went the 'Undebatable' route of stupidity:
http://aceimnotthatstupid.blogspot.com/2011/09/desiree-speaks-but-she-does-not-listen.html
She made that blog just recently and is pretending to be a 19-year-old girl. LOL. When dumb people try to be clever, it usually never works.
I think these people are seriously mentally ill. I don't mean to give them shine but it's fascinating in some way. They must really hate this content, especially the fact they cannot refute it.
Update on "Undebatable":
http://desireespeakssoolisten.blogspot.com/
So when they're not buffin their muffins to photos of a dead pedophile, they blog about you. What productive lives they must lead!
Of course, by discussing you, they're inadvertently giving your blog more publicity and bringing any fans with common sense over to our side. LOL.
You know, I discovered the fans problem while researching about those court documents. For them the fact that Michael was acquitted was enough for them so they don´t even take the time reading the documents. I´ve just read some fans claiming that.
Thanks for the links, Desiree... but no thanks. Forgive me, but I did not and frankly, will not, visit that crazy old heffa's blog. She's an embarrassment to old people; they're supposed to be measured and reasonable. But I gotta remember young idiots grow into old idiots. Just the fact that she feels that she can say whatever the hell she wants to on your blog and then she, the crazy old Russian lady, and that poor pathetic Black guy David have the nerve to block comments or "edit" them if someone says Wacko Jacko wasn't an innocent angel or if they bring up "hate facts" the fans can never answer.
Why does she feel the need to make yet another "MJ was innocent!!!!1111!" blog? And she's most likely ranting about your "Ralph Chacon debate" I presume, of course now, she has free reign to wax poetic about her "facts" that she was consistently unable to defend when you were around to completely bulldoze her, LOL. Your blog is like the only blog out there that has an alternative viewpoint on Michael Jackson, so what's the big deal? It's a 100:1 ratio! It's because your blog makes sense and that's why they are scared. I always think that they know the truth, or rather, can see his behavior was more than weird and very suspect, but cognitive dissonance allows them to ignore it. But they better get ready because it will all come out one day and there will be f'loons contemplating suicide left and right. Example, Aaron Carter and Anthony Pellicano.
And the f'loon impersonating you would be better serving her community if she'd refute (yea right) your "slander" line by line in a blog rather than attacking you as a narcissist. I don't see how she will convince anyone that Mike was not a pedophile by calling you a narcissistic attention whore, LOL. Unless she could prove that you've been released from a mental hospital twice and are currently on a high dose anti-psychotic and you only. stop taking it to write your blog posts, most people wouldn't be swayed by her dramatics.
S.U.,
It's true. They will just say that him being acquitted (which does not mean innocent) is enough rebuttal for the "haters" common sense arguments. Not to mention they are the first to pull the "stop talking about him, he's dead, it doesn't matter" routine when they are in the middle of a debate about his innocence and they are losing.
Jessica:
I don't blame you for not clicking over. There are enough of Lynette's nonsensical screeds at Vindicate MJ; you don't need to read the ones she writes as she masquerades as a 19-year-old tattoo artist (which makes little sense).
"Your blog is like the only blog out there that has an alternative viewpoint on Michael Jackson, so what's the big deal? It's a 100:1 ratio! It's because your blog makes sense and that's why they are scared."
Here's the deal on that: this blog is but one blog out of many that discuss Michael Jackson and it is probably the only one of it's kind that is not along the fanatic tangent.
In terms of sheer numbers, they've got me outgunned.
So, I don't really understand the source of their discontent. If they don't like what is written here, no one is forcing them to read it. But they feel the need to come on everyday and read until they're gorged. They then have the nerve to be angry!
Perhaps they were never taught that people have differing opinions, and that extends to their idol Michael Jackson.
I'm perplexed as to how Lynette went off the deep-end (not that she wasn't already staring over the precipice) and is now running around claiming she's a 19-year-old. If that's not batshit, I don't know what...
Scratch that, "Undebatable" is the bigger nutter!
Ironically, "Undebatable" believes her obsession with me is similar to what I do here on this blog reporting about Jacko. Let's think about that for a second:
I write about my findings on Jacko and she's opened up a blog--changing the URL numerous times for some unknown reason--pretending to be me and writing solely about me (but not refuting my findings); she's also got a Facebook using my real name and my photo, again, pretending to be me.
Let's not forget the fact that I've stated numerous times that I am getting OD'd on this subject and, when I feel I'm done with my reportage here, I will close my chapter on Jacko for good.
ALSO, let's remember that one person is a private citizen (me) and the other is a public citizen who amassed millions of dollars during his decades long career, sold millions of albums, performed in front of hundreds of thousands of screaming "Undebatables" (that'd be Jacko).
To me, all things considered, what I'm doing and what she's doing are two different animals. One is the product of interest and the other is a product of psychosis.
She's going after a private citizen; the figure I'm writing about has been scrutinized already in books and on TV. What I'm writing about here is nothing new.
(cont.)
In fact, I don't believe anything I've written on my blog is uniquely hateful (not even the stuff on Brett Barnes); I'm simply reporting my findings, or, as you called them 'hate facts'.
What disturbs me most--and I was oddly flattered, previously--is that this nutcase is using my pictures on her fake blog and in the profile she uses for the site. Sure, I have the photos on my site but they are photos of me taken by my camera.
Pretending to be me using my photos is out-of-line, I think. I don't care if she libels and defames me left and right (Google doesn't care about it either) but she shouldn't use photos of me--my photos--in connection with her antics.
Hell, she could keep my photos on the blog but using my photo as her profile pic is batshit nuts. Isn't she pretty enough to use her own photo (I've seen her and she's not; I'll link to it), or a photo of Jacko? I'm sure she has many on her computer for those private moments anyway...
And to think that she's doing all of this just because I not only believe a man who slept in the bed with young boys, owned books of them nude showing their genitals, and was thrice-accused (publicly) of molesting them was a pedophile (I cannot get away from common sense, here), but also because I possess the intelligence to write about it convincingly, just as you said.
And that, above all, is the source of the anger.
I mean, these people have no lives. They'd hear that and want to say I have no life, which is laughable. Hell, I can't even get blog entries out regularly! Not only does the Blue Haired One write on a blog obsessing over Jacko the Angel, she's also found the time to come on this blog everyday--multiple times a day--and write a blog about me, too.
"Undebatable" is a loser. They both are. I wish I could go to Lynette's 30-something year old daughter and tell her that her mother's harassing me just because I don't think Michael Jackson was innocent of child molestation.
I wonder what she'd say...
OKAY, we can be done with this tripe; it's been real and it's been fun but it hasn't been real fun. I'll try to write something very soon, seeing that it pisses these losers off to the Nth degree. The more posts I get out, the faster I don't have to talk about Jacko anymore.
Too bad I can't say the same for them. Oh, by the way, Lynette as 19-year-old "Candace" wrote on her blog the semen-to-saliva transubstantiation, something NO ONE on her own blog--Vindicate MJ--even agreed with; they at least had the rationality to admit it was semen, as said in the court docs. We know she has a low IQ, terrible grammar, and atrocious syntax but if that's not the biggest giveaway to her real identity as a fucked-up oldster, I don't know what is.
Like I've said previously, when dumb people try to be clever, it usually never works.
Okay if someone with a different IP address show up you can say that they changed their IP address to stalk you? How does that work exactly? I don't know but maybe more than one person doesn't like you.I guess maybe I'm right considering that you went to blogger and whined about defamation when someone said you were a pedophile "why isn't blogger helping me"? boo hoo
Lynette as "Candace" as "Ace":
"Okay if someone with a different IP address show up you can say that they changed their IP address to stalk you?"
Give it up, idiot. I can say it because I can see your system specs -- Windows 7, 1366x768 screen resolution -- and they are always the same as the tool who hails from Bemidji, Minnesota. You typically use IE 9 but, recently, within the last day or two, you've switched to various browsers such as Firefox and Safari.
Most telling, of course, is your constant use of Yahoo! as a search engine, typing in the same phrase "desiree speaks so listen".
So, it never mattered that you've switched to a SprintPCS connect card because I've blocked your other IP address. Luckily for you, that card gives you a dynamic and, therefore, unblockable IP address, which has localized itself in your region of the country, the Midwest.
I could also expound on the fact your syntax is always the same. I've read enough of your lobotomized rants to know how you put sentences together. It's a fingerprint, baby. Try to be more clever, although that is doubtful.
There are several even more powerful indicators:
On your 'I'm 19 and stupid' blog, you titled a post "Desiree Speaks but she does not listen". You then, using your normal Internet connection, searched it in Yahoo!, ending up on my blog. Now, as someone who's blogged using Blogger for some time, a brand new blog is NOT searchable.
This pretty much verified your identity as the batshit blue-hair.
Another indication is something I'd mentioned to Jessica; it was your posting about the semen stains on that new blog where you ludicrously claim that those stains--euphemistically called 'male DNA' by Jacko's defense--were saliva from Prince and Blanket Jackson.
This was like seeing your social security card, Lynette. That cockamamie theory was your baby, a baby everyone on even your own blog thought was ugly.
Your identity has been well-confirmed.
"I don't know but maybe more than one person doesn't like you."
I'm sure this is true. Jacko fans have a tendency to shoot the messenger. Shooting Jacko for his atrocious behavior with young boys seems more prudent, don't you agree?
"I guess maybe I'm right considering that you went to blogger and whined about defamation when someone said you were a pedophile "why isn't blogger helping me"? boo hoo"
I did go to Google Help and they provided nary a service. Now, that's not a surprise. My disgust with the psychotic Bonnie to your deranged Clyde is that she's using my photo for her profile pic. It's creepy and out of line, seeing that I'm a private citizen.
And all of this craziness is because I don't worship Jacko. Whoddathunkit?
Here's proof of Lynette being "Candace", as she searches for her new blog:
http://goo.gl/keoy5
I did some research and found out that Lynette--er--"Candace" is a 55-year-old woman who lives in a trailer park--the Skyline Village Mobile Home Park--in the tiny town of Bemidji, Minnesota, pop. 13,000 or so.
http://www.whitepages.com/name/Lynette-M-Anderson/Bemidji-MN/391a272
I have to say, I'm not especially surprised by Lynette's housing situation. It explains a lot, IQ-wise. I think her 30-something daughter lives with her, too. Perhaps she knows exactly what Mommy does on her computer at night, harassing college students as she pretends to be a 19-year-old tattoo artist.
As for "Undebatable", she recently changed her picture that went along with her email address. It's now Jacko (what a surprise). So, no link to give on what she looks like but she's a dark-skinned black woman with big hoop earrings in her ears; she resembled your typical WNBA player. LOL.
Email her and tell her she's crazy: chrisjacq@netzero.net
I did some research and found out that Lynette--er--"Candace" is a 55-year-old woman who lives in a trailer park--the Skyline Village Mobile Home Park
LMAO. The age fits, the 35 year old daughter fits. to be 55 and stalking a 22 year old kid. SMDH. And in a trailer park? Totally explains her cognitive deficiencies, oops, abilities. From where I live, not much good comes out of the trailer parks, unless you like meth, LOL.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44515210/ns/today-entertainment/
Katherine Jackson gets $30 mil from the estate; I bet she creamed her silks at the news. Now how long do you think it will take before Latoya, Joe, and Jermaine come begging for a hand out?
I just learned the fans are hoping for some "tea" in Frank´s book LMAO
Proverbs 26:'4 Do not answer a fool with his own stupidity, or you will be like him.'
It is foolish to refute any of your opinions because anyone who attempts to do so ends up spinning just like you, as you twist and turn and distort everything that is said to match your own distorted thinking.
The next bible verse seems to directly contradict the first:
Proverbs 26:5 'Answer a fool with his own stupidity, or he will think he is wise."
But it doesn't. Sites that put up articles and information addressing your lies and slander do so to combat your own stupidity.
Is that your sister, Jessica commenting? If so, does she not realize that revealing your mental disorder makes it clear that any thoughts or opinions that your offer are also disordered. There's no need to address them.
You are not a private citizen. You decided to create a public blog and open it up to criticism, praise and comment. So therefore, just like Michael, since you are performing a public service, you are open to being challenged, criticized and denounced.
Had you not wanted to be open to critique, you should have kept your ill-founded commentary to yourself. You did not choose to do so, so live with your choice.
Now with your handy dandy i.p. trackers and your foggy, dusty crystal ball, tell us who is making this comment -- is it Undebateable, Candice, Pauline, Ace?
Maybe we are all one and the same?
Its whatever you decide at the moment isn't it? There doesn't need to be any factual basis or thinking behind it, just your mind creating its reality.
Pardon me (or any sane, thinking person) for not wanting to join you in Bizarro world.
God, Desiree, I feel sorry for you, having these Jacko delusionaries spending time poking you and yet ever can come up with a defense against the evidence at hand. That's the problem, I think it's all projection. They are mad that he was what he was and they take it out on the messenger.
But as Kandi Burruss says, "You ain't doing nothing if don't have haters... fly above all the drama." LOL.
All that crap is opinion and she knows it. She just hope she can pass it off as fact, but who will believe it when they can come and see for themselves, instead of having it regurgitated from a sad Jacko fan's mouth? She needs help if she is that obsessed with Michael Jackson. Seriously.
Oh and isn't it funny that Lynette/Ace is a white woman that lives in a trailer park and she is a into a black man (although Wacko Jacko was hardly black by the end)? I was just thinking how it fits the common American stereotype that poor white women like black men. LMAO.
S.U.,
No doubt the fans hope for some "tea", LOL. and I'm willing to wager that he will provide them with some. That's how it works. I bet Frank will say Mike was a womanizer/ladies man/romantic that was just "private". LMAO, I can smell it from here.
If so, does she not realize that revealing your mental disorder makes it clear that any thoughts or opinions that your offer are also disordered. There's no need to address them.
Well isn't that convenient? Say the arguments, made by other people besides Desiree, are a "product" of disordered thinking, and you don't have to refute them. Too funny. I had a feeling that f'loons engage in this way, disregarding important questions/anecdotes about Michael Jackson and pedophilia by saying someone is a) a liar, b) out for money, c) out for publicity, or d) crazy.
If this isn't cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is.
The only one living in a Bizarro world is a pathetic anonymous black woman (you, if you didn't know) who worships a clearly self-hating black gay pedophile, and wants to impersonate someone for pointing out the obvious facts that they fail to see.
Pardon me (or any sane, thinking person) for not wanting to join you in Bizarro world.
Apparently you do want to join her world since you're here all the time.
I was looking around and *shocker* there is absolutely no Candace Beardsley in Bemidji, MN. So if "Ace" is claiming to be her niece, it's impossible because there isn't even one in Minnesota.
Just another crazy blue-haired Jacko freak up to no good.
Like you said, when dumb people try to be clever, it usually never works. And the "Minnesota Trailer Park Mama" is no exception. LMAO.
"Why anyone thought my brother was incapable of fathering his own children was beyond me, as was the idea he’d use a donor when it was his personal legacy that mattered to him. I think it’s fair to say that Debbie had a dominant gene (Prince had white-blond hair when he was born) but when I look into that kid’s eyes or catch his profile from the side, his similarity to Michael as a boy is obvious. But, to nail the myth once and for all, Michael has passed on his vitiligo to Prince. My brother’s paternity is irrefutable when Prince removes his shirt. What really matters, though, is that my niece and nephews know without a shadow of doubt that Michael was their biological father and they were born out of love."
Ah well, Jermaine...if he really believes what he writes in his book, then all the Jackson family members, living or dead, are indeed morons....LOL always good for a laugh and I am looking forward to the day on which they have to explain an 18 year-old with a good education how they were concieved biologically.......;-)
This is what Granny Clampett said to Pauline after Pauline's shenanigans on your blog. Talk about projection...
"I know that this will come as something of a shock to you but on this I think Desiree may be right. I think that there is something wrong with your desire to connect yourself to Michael Jackson, his fans and his detractors. When you post to all of these blogs on both sides one has to wonder what your thought processes might be. In my opinion they are definitely altered."
Frenchie,
You know, I'm starting to think Pauline may not be so bad after all. Sure, she was nuts going all out to say she was goodgirl1978 and perhaps even making up the Brett Barnes reply. She could be an evil genius for all we know (I still think the jury is out on whether she was capable of writing the Brett response and than simultaneously attacking it as made up... LMAO, crazy self). She probably just gets a kick out of Internet pranking, but I do think she is a fan.
Curious, what was she saying negative about Michael Jackson that would cause that those nutters at VMJ to accuse her of playing both sides? All the stuff I've seen Pauline do is think he was innocent. Could it be that she was just being rational and they took offense because they are deeply delusional fanatics?
A.G.,
Interesting. I distinctly remember Jermaine saying that Mike picked a sperm donor out of a book. So why is he now changing his tune?
And Prince's hair was almost black when he was an infant. Mike dyed his hair blond, probably because of the white fantasy world he wanted to live in. shows how little the Jackson siblings know about Mike's life and how he kept them at a distance. And he doesn't know exactly what that is under Prince's arm.
Funny how he really goes more on feelings that Mike was the father, rather than proof. All they need to do is a DNA test. Allegedly those kids think they are biracial; clearly, they are confused. Mike was way too black to be their father. Unless he was splicing their genes or engineering them to come out more on the white side, he ain't the daddy. LOL.
"Curious, what was she saying negative about Michael Jackson that would cause those nutters at VMJ to accuse her of playing both sides?"
Pauline raised the possibility that MJ may have been bisexual, and Lynette retaliated by whining about Pauline posting on blogs like this and basically told her to pick a side. I love how she implied that Pauline is obsessed. Excuse me, but who's the one who scurried to find a new internet service as soon as she was banned from a "hater" blog? Not Pauline! LOL.
Here's the full post:
http://goo.gl/knCig
Look at this stupid ass email Lynette sent me. I'm going to go the route of Vindicate MJ and post a private email. LOL.
Subject: Blog removed
Sent: 1:27 PM PST
Desiree,
This email account is being used as it is the only way I have of accessing you directly.I have been watching with interest your latest activity and engagement with my niece. (No shit; she was her niece, LOL!) After some discussion we have come to the conclusion that your mindset is not one that can be safely engaged. (And, yet, she cannot prevent herself from coming to the blog everyday. I was blocking her for her own good!) We have agreed that it would be in my family’s best interest not to continue with her new found interest and her entire blog has been removed. It is clear you are not only a cyberbully but have reached the level of cyberstalker. You have employed others as well as yourself to attempt to track down not only me but members of my family. (I honestly think this is wishful thinking on Lynette's part--she wants a post like Pauline had. LOL. Of course, the obsessive would love to imagine the obsession is reciprocating but, remember, we know this is not true in this case because I'd attempted to block her.) While not entirely accurate (it was accurate, which is why she got upset) it is in fact close enough to be considered a threat to certain members of my family. (LOL.) Facts exist as to special circumstances regarding my family that you do not need to be aware of.
I know that you must be completely unaware of the laws of those crimes that I have mentioned above. It would be in your best interest to research those crimes to acquaint yourself with the boundaries that one must remain within to prevent crossing the line to crime. I will provide you with links to those statutes in your home state if your home state is Nevada if it is not I will provide a link to the NCLS and you can then research the appropriate state.
Now I will also acquaint you with my further intention that if you do not cease your activity regarding me or my family members I will be seeking the assistance of the proper authorities. (*dead*) I do not have to engage with you to further explain that above statement my suggestion is to remove your comments in regard to me or my family as that would be the easiest action on your part. You may continue to blog and comment at your pleasure and even continue to call Michael Jackson fans any name you like in a generalization but do not single one out for harassment as this crosses a legal line that I am sure was not your intention. Here is the link that you can reference for you to access that information. Also I will give you the benefit of that doubt that you were not aware that your actions can be considered criminal because the laws have only recently been enacted and you could not be aware of certain circumstances in regard to my family. (Linking to publicly available info is not criminal--Lynette plans to sue the guys who made the White Pages. LOL.)
Sincerely,
Lynette
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/CyberstalkingLaws/tabid/13495/Default.aspx
Is this not crazy or what? It's not my fault she lives in a trailer. And it's also not my fault she's not a 19-year-old cosmetology student/body piercing and tattoo artist...
The other email she'd sent.
Subject: For your consideration
Sent: 3:14 PM PST
Desiree,
I will also add that if you feel you are the victim of internet stalking from the blog that was linked to Candace’s I will not only advise you but encourage you to report that as well. As I said these crimes are becoming growing concerns and need to be reported. I will also advise you that I have no link to that particular blog. If you were to report it you would then find out who it is. I believe that you would first contact your local authorities and they can advise you who you are to contact if it is not them.
Sincerely,
Lynette
Okay, here's the deal: Lynette and her alter ego "Ace" should realize that Lynette's not wanted here, which is why I blocked her. However, she doesn't get that. There's a lot of things ol' Lynette doesn't get like the goodness of debate.
The thing that strikes me about this email is that she brings up that crazy girl's anti-Desiree blog, as if she even gives a rat's ass about me being harassed. This was a blog on which she called me a 'sick bitch' and said that I sucked as a human being and mocked my asking about defamation on Blogger Help.
No, Lynette was not affiliated with that nutjob's blog but she relished in it during her brief stint as "Ace" the tattoo artist. I don't call it 'guilt by association' but I believe it's enough to question the 'sincerely' she closed the email with.
It still gets me that this woman may be post-menopausal. Grown-ups shouldn't act the way she does. I find it horrible; college kids, high school kids... but 50-somethings? No, just...no.
And to think, all of this because her Jacko religiosity has prevented her from allowing me to blog freely about evidence in court docs, transcripts, news stories, books, videos, etc. if I don't believe he was a saint.
In a word, all of this recent silliness on her part is because of Michael Jackson. Let that blow your mind...
Unbelievable, that correspondence style of Jackson's fans and his own ilk.....Jermaine Jackson for instance complains on his twitter that he didnt have knowledge of the pending sale of Hayvenhurst via the estate and his mother. As if the Estate has to give any notice to JJ when they want to sell off the house!BTW the documents mentioning creditors to the estate and the setting up of the 30 mio. fund are online to be had, so for the first time, it is possible to check out facts and figures around MJ finances. IMO these show that there was indeed a lot of hot air blown around in the last 20 years;-))))
Thrown in for good measure, the links corrobating:
http://twitter.com/#!/jermjackson5
http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/JacksonDistribution.pdf
In these papers a sale of the house is not mentioned. maybe it is in an additional document that wasnt published yet as the sale is pending.
Frenchie,
If one day all the truth come out the fans will desire that Michael was just bi or gay. See how they just can´t stand the idea of Michael being with a man, for them he just had to be with a woman! How´s negative raising the possibility of him being a bi? --'
LOL @ threatening to sue someone for using the white pages.
How´s it negative raising the possibility of him being bi?
Fans are only allowed to believe that MJ was a p*ssy loving heterosexual. Anything that diverts from that makes you a hater...it's in the rule book.
Just think... all of this foolishness--the two f'loons creating a blog, pretending to be someone, etc--is over Michael Jackson, the singer of crappy bubblegum pop music who had a fake nose. LOL. They act like he was the god of music or something, it's ridiculous. Seems to me that they have too much time on their hands. And why the hell would she think you even care enough to "cyber stalk" her? She's the one coming onto your blog when she's been blocked. LMAO at the level of myopia this f'loon has.
Seriously, heffa, you're too obsessed about Wacko Jacko, get help.
And to think that she'd even have legal standing to sue. LMAO. Please. She's just mad that she is too stupid to be clever and that she lives in the trailer park. Seriously, no one cares about her or any other f'loon.
Frenchie,
That convo was pretty sick, in my opinion. Those fans are incredibly homophobic. And Pauline was hardly a "hater" for suggesting that Mike wasn't straight as an arrow. It's funny how angry they get over the life of someone they don't even know and who would never even care about them.
Mike, at the very least, was bisexual. That is what they should be hoping for. A man doesn't have 2 different flavors of semen in his bed and 1 in some underwear and sheets that he's decided to keep, if he wasn't into d*ck. He wouldn't have books with naked men, either, or a gay sex guide. Or rumors, or a believable gay lover.
They just fail to see all the facts. Being ignorant is safe. They just better hope that being into men was his only "problem" (it wasn't). I wonder how many of them have even clicked the link to see the photo of the naked boy with his legs wide open from one of his boy books. That should give anyone who can put two-and-two together an idea of what his sexual orientation was.
"And why the hell would she think you even care enough to "cyber stalk" her? She's the one coming onto your blog when she's been blocked. LMAO at the level of myopia this f'loon has."
Being a full-time victim must be exhausting. I sort of hope she does seek the "assistance of the proper authorities." If they investigate, she will be forced to explain why the logs show that she obsessively stalked the blog of a college student everyday, and, when she was finally banned, someone from her location instantly sprouted up using a computer with the same operating system as her, as well as the same screen resolution, and an identical browser...right down to the version installed, and that this mysterious person followed her same pattern of obsessively stalking the blog (before finally going off the deep end and opening her very own site bashing Desiree). I'm sure they'll take her complaint very seriously...
Desiree, you should write an e-book. Many of the facts and the documents you have exposed on this blog, aren't known by the public.
Off topic, but did you guys know that Frank Cascio is writing a book, on sale in November, called "My Friend Michael". I'm willing to wager that he is going to make Mike look like a stud, what do you think? I mean I know he would never admit to Mike's proclivities for boys and his whoring himself out to keep the luxe life. Now that would be a good read.
A more accurate title would be “My follamigo Michael”, LOL. I'm pretty sure he will portray him as a macho man lusting after women... Frank strikes me as a very primitive guy. Like Teddy Riley defending his manhood, lol. So ridiculous.
Frank has no class, no manners and I bet no scruples. His brother and him did look like rascals when they were little. The kind of adolescents that do “whatever” they are requested for a new pair of sneakers.
He was in the Virgin Store signing videos acting impolite and rude, laying on the table, sitting doing contortions like a little boy who is bored and can't behave in public. Disrespecting fans, making sexist comments about the girls very blatantly. Maybe it was a desperate measure to make Jacko look interested in girls. Unfortunately, Jacko reserved his most seducing glance to an adolescent when he signed his CD, lol.
His “friend” Michael should have shown him a book of etiquette instead the pile of porn magazines.
Omer is starting a “music career”, the Cascios selling fake songs and writing books... the day the interest in Jacko fades away and the money stop coming, all those follamigos would have a hard time returning to reality... where people works and do something productive. I predict their future is in porn, LOL, like many nobodies who are famous for some random reasons when they go back to the place they belong. They should keep Marc Schaffel's number.
A more accurate title would be “My follamigo Michael”, LOL.
LMAO! I love that word!
Yep, I really think Frank will spin some yarn about Mike being a ladykiller. If only I had a million dollars to wager on this, LOL! And no doubt the fans will eat it up and regurgitate it under every news story and in every forum to combat anybody claiming that Mike was a gay or a pedo. To think that they'd cling to Frank's word (someone they should realize has a stake in how Mike is continually portrayed, because of his status as "special friend") over the hard scientific evidence of semen in his bed. This will be yet another addition to the Michael Jackson mythology pantheon.
And why would the fans choose to believe Frank's word over Aaron Carter's (who said Mike crept in his bed) or Bob Jones', or Stuart Backerman's, or Jason Pfeiffer's? Frank Cascio was a freaking un-indicted co-conspirator in Arvizo case, for God's sake!
He was in the Virgin Store signing videos acting impolite and rude, laying on the table, sitting doing contortions like a little boy who is bored and can't behave in public. Disrespecting fans, making sexist comments about the girls very blatantly. Maybe it was a desperate measure to make Jacko look interested in girls.
LOL. He was acting strange. I know this was where we saw our first interaction between Joanna Thomae (Mike's "secret girlfriend" LOL) and Mike. The fans think that Mike was acting "interested" in Joanna, like he wanted her. But Frank seemed like he wanted Mike to get her attention so he could have her for himself. We all know that Frank took advantage of his connection to mike to get vulnerable fangirls, and this was no exception. Come to find out, Frank and Joanna were later doing it in Mike's hot tub. I don't think Wacko Jacko liked when his little special friend showed more interest in girls than in having heavy petting sessions with the King of Pop, LOL. Remember, he asked his baby Frank to "stop fishing". Jealous much? LOL.
I´ve learned that Jermaine wrote in the book that Michael interacted with three hookers during the Thriller Era lmao
S.U. said...
I´ve learned that Jermaine wrote in the book that Michael interacted with three hookers during the Thriller Era lmao
Yes, they gave him some tips on make-up... that explains everything, LOL.
LOL. He was acting strange. I know this was where we saw our first interaction between Joanna Thomae (Mike's "secret girlfriend" LOL) and Mike.
I always thought some of these fans were “hired”. I spotted one from my country and she acted like she was meeting him for the first time. In actuality this girl knew him years before the Virgin thing, she said it herself in a forum where she writes. She was in the Prince Azim birthday party in London... inside the party, dressed up, like one of the VIPs. Go figure.
The dialogue with Joanna sounds strange to me. She was there for image purposes, they were filming it, so it was calculated. She said they meet when she was 13. But maybe it was the first time Frank saw her... LOL.
I agree with you, MJ was jealous because of her relationship with Frank (remember what JC said about MJ being jealous if he showed interest in girls)... and to make matters worse, they "desecrated" his hot tube; the place reserved for "innocent" activities with special friends LOL.
Sbibak,
So the girl you recognized, she knew Mike before or Frank before? And why the heck would they hire fans? That is so ridiculous, LOL. And did you see the girl who lifted up her shirt to show her navel piercing? You know that shit was staged, LOL, even Mike couldn't pretend that he was interested. When she wanted to hug him, she stood there for a while and Mike seemed to have to force himself to touch her. Typical Mike! LOL.
Actually, Joanna seemed to admit that Dieter Wiesner was the one orchestrating her media blitz as Mike's "love interest". Not a surprise really, Gordon Novel did say that Mike "didn't want to go with girls or do the romance thing" to try to help his image in 2005. So it's pretty obvious his PR team was once again trying to make him look hetero. Did they not do that all throughout his career with Tatiana Thumbzten, Sheryl Crow, Siedah Garrett, etc, etc? It's a typical tactic from Team Jacko. He wanted to be with his little boyfriends, but that just doesn't look good so bring on the girls.
and to make matters worse, they "desecrated" his hot tube; the place reserved for "innocent" activities with special friends LOL.
Oh my god, I laughed so hard at this! I bet that is exactly how he felt; Jesus Salas said Mike didn't like Frank to bring girls in his house and no one was supposed to be in his room when he wasn't there. It's too funny, actually, that Wacko Jacko would think that Frank would only be his. Only Brett and Omer seem to have that level of devotion, LOL.
I´ve learned that Jermaine wrote in the book that Michael interacted with three hookers during the Thriller Era lmao
Here we go again, the Jacko family trying to re-write history to keep the money from the f'loons flowing in. To think Jermaine would think the public would be so stupid to buy that lie. the only story about hookers I remember is the one about Joe locking young Mike in a room with two to try to extract some virility out of the clearly queer teen. LOL. And if they were hookers, I would think they would have talked already or Mike must have been paying them a lot of money (perhaps $25 mil) to keep they from going to the gossip rags.
And Jermaine is the one I'd expect to be with hookers. He said Mike kept women away like the plague and attracted gay men (both true. Why is he changing his tune now?
The dialogue with Joanna sounds strange to me. She was there for image purposes, they were filming it, so it was calculated.
I know, he was acting like he knew her, asking where she was staying, if it was with her friends, etc. Total BS. All a part of his PR spin machine. And yes, if it was filmed, it was to be disturbed to the media, most likely in order to make him look good.
So the girl you recognized, she knew Mike before or Frank before? And why the heck would they hire fans? That is so ridiculous, LOL. And did you see the girl who lifted up her shirt to show her navel piercing? You know that shit was staged, LOL, even Mike couldn't pretend that he was interested. When she wanted to hug him, she stood there for a while and Mike seemed to have to force himself to touch her. Typical Mike! LOL.
I was referring to Mike. She's no attractive at all, I doubt Frank could be interested in her... he seems too cocky, if you know what I mean.
I said “hire” with “”. I know some of those weirdos who followed him over the world, were tipped off Mj's whereabouts and were useful in publicity stunts like the Virgin signing. I suppose Mjs camp did facilitated them the access to this kind of events. Don't you find strange the presence of some loyal fans in the prince birthday? This girl was standing next to Faye Dunaway and Jerry Hall at the party.
Michael's ego loved the hysteria of the fans, even though he hated them at the same time. I can understand him to an extent, LOL.
"Only Brett and Omer seem to have that level of devotion, LOL."
I think Omer might be partly using MJ's name to piggyback off of his fame. I'm sure he cared for MJ a lot, but I don't get that same creepy fanatical vibe from him. After all, he fled the country to avoid getting involved with the trial while MJ's obedient lapdog did just the opposite.
I found a clip of Omer on youtube where he was responding to fans' comments. A fan going by "justice4michael" wrote him a question (he didn't read it aloud, but based on the username, I assume it related to MJ). Omer replied to the fan by saying the question was none of his business, so he wouldn't comment. Unlike Brett "I wouldn't shed a tear if Jordan died" Barnes, he at least seems to know how to take the high road.
The clip (see 0:36)
http://goo.gl/bMFFs
Sbibak,
I totally think that it's weird, it's like do these losers have anything better to do than follow a suspected pedophile wearing makeup and a fake nose all around the world? LOL. But of course, it's more than strange that he'd allow them such access. I think Mike must have been worried about how his image took a hit after the whole child molestation thing, so as a "just in case" measure, he'd make sure he had at the very least some fans around him to make it look like he still as popular as ever. Back in the mid-1990s, after Jordie, Mike was alleged to have wanted to hire people to stand outside and scream for him during a music awards performance or something. I remember also that he'd wanted to hire someone to jump on stage like a crazy fanatic, too, but I don't remember when this was, it could have been in the 1990s.
Michael's ego loved the hysteria of the fans, even though he hated them at the same time. I can understand him to an extent, LOL.
Oh, he totally couldn't care less about his fans, but he knew that he needed them. The slight antipathy for them was pretty evident in the first Rabbi book. He said in the 80s that they think they own you just because they bought your album, LOL. But why would you like them? Their nuts, they stalk, they gossip about all sorts of inanities (like his love life and his private parts), not to mention how I bet it must have felt weird for him to hear them defend him and call all the victims liars when he knows all of the pedo stuff is true. Or maybe it gave him a chuckle at their gullibility.
I'm sure he cared for MJ a lot, but I don't get that same creepy fanatical vibe from him.
I don't the vibe from him as well. Brett Barnes is by far the creepiest and saddest of the special friends. I was just mentioning Omer because he was the live-in "loved boy" of a boy-lover. But all of that must have been contractual, set up by his greedy parents. Omer was smart to flee to Norway, seeing how he studdered and stammered when police asked him about the porn and booze in Wacko's room. But I agree, he's mainly using Mike's name as a spring board into to music industry.
Brett's pathology, on the other hand, is all because of his own doing; he's keeping it alive. Yes, he was the little lapdog to testify; I bet Mike gave him a cookie for good behavior. I mean, what do you expect, really, this dude was the only one still having "innocent sleepovers" with Mike. He must have been manipulated to the nth degree. I shouldn't make fun but the comment about Jordie is f*cked up, in my opinion, and unforgivable. He knows what was up but allowed himself to take a swipe at another victim.
Omer replied to the fan by saying the question was none of his business, so he wouldn't comment. Unlike Brett "I wouldn't shed a tear if Jordan died" Barnes, he at least seems to know how to take the high road.
LOL, that made me laugh when he said it was none of their business. These fans think they gotta know every little detail of Michael Jackson's life. It's both comical and highly pathetic; do they think he would have reciprocated the interest or something? Actually, that's called the "intimate stranger" phenomenon. I guess Omer isn't the smitten loser Brett is, LOL. Good for him. I always think Wade was lucky in a way to be able to have cut the ties with Mike before he turned into a Brett; both of them we really young when they first met but Wade stopped the sleepovers when he was 13. Same with Mac Culkin.
Frenchie
wow what was the fan question? Omer was a little harsh, he could have answered that was a private question so he chose to not answer...
Jermaine sent again a tweet to Dimond about reading the autopsy report. He surely feels like he´s the big one now.
Dimond doesn´t answer him yet but she´s answering some fans. Look that one she sent to one fan.
Every night I think about people who are blind to the FULL TRUTH, those who idolize false gods. Have a great weekend
"Every night I think about people who are blind to the FULL TRUTH, those who idolize false gods. Have a great weekend"
Gotta love Di Dimond, she always keeps it real. Jermaine is just trying to rewrite history for money; it's disgusting. She knows a lot of information from having talked to so many sources. I wish she'd spill but she has to keep her journalistic promises never to reveal her sources. I know she mentioned that she talked to families that cried. I wonder what was said, and what Mike had done.
"wow what was the fan question? Omer was a little harsh, he could have answered that was a private question so he chose to not answer..."
I'm not sure what the question was; he didn't read it aloud. I checked justice4michael's youtube page, and the videos are primarily about Dr. Murray and fans "demanding justice" for MJ so the question may have been something along that line. Watch the link I posted above. Omer didn't come off harsh, in my opinion. He basically said that, since he had nothing to do with the subject, he wouldn't speak about it. I appreciate that he knows how to shut his piehole. Brett should take note.
"the comment about Jordie is f*cked up, in my opinion, and unforgivable. He knows what was up but allowed himself to take a swipe at another victim."
He must be convinced that what MJ did to them wasn't really wrong. He did say on the stand that he considers a child to be "under the age of 10". It's an interesting cutoff considering that's also the age he became MJ's bedmate.
Oh I didn´t understand. I got that Omer said that it wasn´t the fans business.
I just saw a pic I never seen on Brett´s facebook, someone who apparently know him posted it, it´s a pic with Michael, Brett and his parents and sister I think. Brett seems to be on his lap or Michael is seated behind him...Michael Bush liked the pic lol
I haven't noticed Lynette/Ace come onto the blog as obsessively as usual since she'd been exposed as a typical fanatical impostor.
For shits and giggles, here's more proof of Lynette's fallacious claim of being "Ace", her alleged 19-year-old 'niece':
http://goo.gl/6ECXy
I attached this picture to the email response I'd sent her. Funny, she sent me those two previously posted emails through the Vindicate MJ email address because she knows that if she'd used the email form on this blog, it would be yet more explosive proof she and "Ace" are one and the same.
Now, my stalker--who's identity has also already been firmly established and will be published on this blog soon--believes I am mistaken in this belief that Lynette is "Ace" but she has not a clue that I've watched Ms. Skyline Village Mobile Home Park for over a year from my webcounter.
But that type of ignorance is not a surprise from a Jacko fanatic. I love slaying the f'loons. LOL.
"He did say on the stand that he considers a child to be "under the age of 10". It's an interesting cutoff considering that's also the age he became MJ's bedmate."
I didn't know he said that. Damn, that would have been a wonderful addition to that "Brett Barnes redux" entry.
So, when Brett was getting his anus lubed up by Jacko, he didn't feel he was being improperly handled because he was 'of age'.
That's a riot.
According to the statement analysis technique, every person has their own internal dictionary; so, reasonably, if he'd been asked if he was a victim of child molestation, he could have said, "No," and not appear to be deceptive. We all know that he and his sister believe that being a victim of child molestation is shameful; maybe he absolves the shame in his own mind by saying that, when his abuse occurred, he wasn't a child. However, I don't think Brett did very well on the stand either way.
So, Brett didn't think anything was wrong with having sex with Michael Jackson. I think a lot of his anger is not so much about him being accused of being a victim but that he doesn't want people to think of him as gay becuase he'd enjoyed himself, like many boys (and sometimes girls) do with their abusers. I don't believe Brett is gay; I do believe he was gay for Jacko. He loved him. He still does.
Actually, his testimony was an eye-opener. Given his low IQ, you'd have to wonder why he wanted to testify anyway. Lying is for smart people, Brett. LOL.
I don't mean to give Brett a hard time but his whole 'Fuck Oprah' thing, when she was a victim of abuse, has put him on my shit list...
Suzy:
Where is that picture of Brett that you are talking about? I didn't see it on his Facebook, unless it's for 'friend's only'. Is the picture you're talking about this one?
http://goo.gl/D5cpQ
Yes, that one. btw I can see the pic on his profile without being friend.
Regarding Brett's obsession with Jacko and his possible belief that he was never molested, I found this odd letter written to NAMBLA by a 30-something gay man, who'd related his experience with a camp counselor when he was 13-years-old. He titled his letter, "'Molested' and Glad!".
http://www.nambla.org/mglad.html
He says at the end, "I was not molested. I was loved and I feel I am better for it."
It seems the molester/victim relationship is not so black and white. Just because Brett says he was not molested (in the face of believable and credible eyewitnesses who say otherwise, not to mention the telling testimony from his mother and sister), does not make it so.
Look at this story. it mentions Joacko's Wackos trying to "protect his legacy" on the eve of the trial.
http://news.yahoo.com/fans-protect-jacksons-name-trials-eve-163039952.html
Get ready for a history rewrite everyone!
"Around the globe, the King of Pop's supporters are already scanning headlines and airwaves for stories that contain inaccuracies about the singer's life, brand him a pedophile or describe him by the dismissive moniker "Jacko."
The items quickly result in calls to editors, reporters, producers and a flurry of Facebook and Twitter posts to press for changes. In some instances, the references are removed."
Don't you just love fanatics?
Hopefully, most of you recall the "semen-to-saliva" mindtrick Lynette authored and tried (unsuccessfully) to foist upon her own audience at Vindicate MJ. The semen stains issue is old news at this point but I sometimes shake my head at how the Dementia Victim came up with that one. Maybe a voice a la "Poltergeist" told her about it one midnight as she watched TV on her trailer park's analog set... I don't know.
Anyway, to bolster this unpopular and dubious theory, she cited a Larry King Live panel Geragos participated in on December 29, 2005 (following the trial). King brought up the case. About biological findings,
KING: Were forensics ever involved in that?
GERAGOS: Yeah, there were all kind of forensics involved in that. And forensic searches that were done and then forensic evidence that they tried to develop. Everything ranging from fingerprints to DNA to saliva.
There you have Geragos differentiating between "DNA"--which is what Team Jacko referred to the semen as, "male DNA"--and saliva. So much for her theory.
Like I've said, I don't know how these fans think. I try to remind myself that there is a difference between having a low IQ and being in denial--and that people in denial can be reasonably intelligent--but, when it comes to these Stans, I have my doubts.
I chalk the refusal to accept that Jacko had semen in his bed to homophobia.
Jessica:
That's the type of stuff I hate. What we see now is history revisionism. The sad thing about it is that I believe many media outlets, if not most, are willing to kowtow to the demands of these fans for the simple reason they are the main consumers of Jacko-related products.
Most people don't give two squirrel shits about Jacko. The only people interested in Jacko are fans. And that includes so-called 'haters' who used to be fans and remain interested in him.
So, essentially, Jacko's legacy--which I'm sure will be tarnished substantially by the revelations come trial time--can be shaped by these losers who masturbate to Jacko at least once a day. That includes the allegedly heterosexual male fans who'd "go gay" for Jacko.
Look forward to hearing people say Jordie Chandler admitted he lied; that Evan Chandler killed himself due to guilt; and that Sneddon had a vendetta.
That's it: I have to build some more websites. Jacko I can deal with singularly, in him, I can find some humanity seeing that he was sexually abused and beaten, but these fans peddling lies about these abused boys is enough to make any decent human being pissed off.
My hope for all pedophiles is that they can learn to moonwalk and sing "Billie Jean" so they'll be able to diddle in peace and without scrutiny. *rolls eyes*
I'm continually amazed at how people worship celebrities.
By the way, is it me or that, outside of the Jacko subculture, most people loathe him?
Link to the transcript, I forgot: http://edition2.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/29/lkl.01.html
Also, the article links to a couple of "MJ is innocent!!!!111!!!" websites.
They need to link to "Desiree speaks" and "Wacko Facts" for some balance.
It wasn't all sunshine and roses at Neverland; more like booze, porn, and drugs. LOL.
LOL, Desiree. Of course that trailer park dweller is wrong. Funny, Geragos could have lied and just said "fingerprints to saliva" but he didn't. It said what it was, why do we even need to talk about it? LOL.
Yes build more sites. As much dissemination of the facts as possible. They have multiple sites peddling the same trite, inaccurate, fan garbage, so why not have more "places of sanity" for those looking for the total story.
What do they think if they defend Michael Jackson enough they will get to sit next to him in the afterlife? It reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians that try to do everything in their power (financial, political, spiritual) to protect Israel because they think this will bring back Jesus. LOL. All f'loons, regardless of religiosity, think alike.
By the way, is it me or that, outside of the Jacko subculture, most people loathe him?
No, it isn't just you. The only people that think Jacko is innocent are his fans, and to a smaller extent, black people, who try to defend him because he was black (and I say to them, wrong Negro to defend LMAO).
I don't quite get all the back and forth with Vindicate. Are they wondering if a Trojan Horse has volunteer as a writer on their site? Maybe they should use Desiree's Statement Analysis. I find it very beneficial.
Hi Everyone
Apparently last week there was a programme on TruTv with Diane Dimond and a few others discussing MJ. It seems to have caused a stir on Diane Dimond's FB page. There is a short clip there which looked really interesting where she gives it to a Mj flunkie! I can't find it on YT or a transcript anywhere, did anyone see it? I think it is unlikely that I will get to see it here in Oz. Thanks
Sarah, I didn't get to see the segment. But luckily the obsessives over at VMJ had watched it, and the male f'loon over there DVR'd the program. He also 'transcribed" the segment about the allegations, although who nows how reliable they are given the level of blindness they have to the truth.
Funny, the male f'loon said that Mike's own former publicist Steve Manning, and bodyguard Mike Garcia, couldn't defend him, which left the male f'loon disappointed. LOL. Hmm, I'm thinking maybe they couldn't defend him because they a) don't know another about the situation to defend him, and b) there is really no way a rational and logical person could defend him.
Ryan Smith: What was it like at Neverland Ranch? Was it a place of fantasy? Tell me what it was like at Neverland.
Steve Manning: I would say it’s a place of pure fantasy. At first I went there was around 10 years ago, when I went there with Jermaine, his wife, and his kids, and I was astonished! I said “My gosh!” It was something to behold, especially as a black man, to see another black man own this type of property, it was unbelievable! I mean, he had a 5,000 square foot French chalet for movies to watch. It was just tremendous! He had these private cottages on the lake. It was something to see; it was a true luxury. It was a 10-star hotel.
Mike Garcia: I think he was able to actually walk around and just be himself.
Steve Manning: And he loved inviting fans, and people………speaking of molestation charges, there was a bed that he had inside the movie theater, inside the booth where the projections were, and people said that he used that bed for children, and that was so insulting, so outrageous! It was for kids who were terminally ill! (In a mocking voice) “What’s that bed doing in there?!!” It was a king size bed for kids in their dying days from the Make-A-Wish foundation could come there, lay down, and watch a movie there. But it was something that he was very happy about.
Ryan Smith: There was talk that there were secret rooms inside Neverland Ranch. There was a lot of speculation, especially when the molestation charges came up, that those rooms were dubious, in certain ways.
Mike Garcia: I think that’s the media kinda twisting it.
Diane Dimond: I’ll tell you what, the secret room of Michael Jackson’s, in the bedroom, used to be a fur vault for the woman who lived there before. He made a bedroom out of it, and each step going down there was a little doll on each step.
What was Neverland like? I don’t know, because I was never there. I’ve seen lots of pictures, lots of video of it, and it was opulent and beautiful! Tudor style mansion, gorgeous! I will tell you what they said at the criminal trial: they said it was a child magnet! It was a beautiful place with swimming pools, and slides, and a movie theater…………
Steve Manning: I disagree! That’s outrageous!
Diane Dimond: And that’s what they said at the trial!
At this point, Dimond’s face turns red as she angrily turns to Steve Manning, and chastises him for interrupting her!
Diane Dimond: You know what? I don’t interrupt you!
Steve Manning: Ok, I’m sorry!
Mike Garcia: I’ll say, in security terms, a lot of people do have those rooms because we call them panic rooms.
Ryan Smith: Ok, first Diane, I want you to finish your point about “their saying this at the trial”
Diane Dimond: That’s not ME saying it……
Steve Manning: Oh ok, alright.
Diane Dimond: I know it’s hard to hear me Steve because I’m talking over this way.
I don’t know what Neverland is like because I never got inside, but I did see a lot of video, at the trial. I did see lots of pictures, and layouts, and diagrams; it’s beautiful! It’s a sanctuary! But, I also remember at the criminal trial the prosecution said “it was a child’s magnet”. It had swimming pools, and movie theaters with all the popcorn and candy you can eat, it had its own amusement park with a petting zoo, and giraffes, and Ferris wheels. If that was Michael Jackson reliving his own childhood, that’s one thing, but that’s not what we heard at the criminal trial.
Ryan Smith: Now Steve, talk to me about that, because the question so many people would ask when they would talk about Neverland is “Why are so many children there?” Why was he around so many children?
Steve Manning: Because he thought children were innocent, and they were innocent, and childlike. And again, there were adults there. I’ve been there maybe 28 occasions at the ranch, and always had a good time. There were adults there also. And, he did tell me when the police raided the place that he would never step foot in there again. He was violated, that he was raped.
Mike Garcia: He told us the same thing. He said he wouldn’t go back because the place was scarred. And from a security standpoint, we felt that it wouldn’t even be a smart move because there’s no telling what’s in the rafters, or inside the walls, after everybody’s in there.
Diane Dimond: Do you mean eavesdropping equipment?
Mike Garcia: Yes.
Diane Dimond: Oh, interesting.
Ryan Smith: Ok, so he felt that way about Neverland after that raid, but was he aware that he was a grown man spending a lot of time with children, and that people would ask questions about it?
Steve Manning: He didn’t find anything wrong with that because he was innocent, and nothing was happening, that’s what he told me.
Mike Garcia: If you know Mr. Jackson, and he’ll probably agree with me, if you know Mr. Jackson then you’ll know that he shouldn’t have been in that trial. He’s a child himself, and at the same time there’s probably not a whole lot of people telling him saying “Hey, it doesn’t look right”, because there were a lot of “yes” people, but Mr. Jackson was a child himself.
Steve Manning: I had a conversation with Mr. Jackson; that trial killed Michal Jackson!
Mike Garcia: Absolutely!
Steve Manning: That’s what really killed him. Even though he was found “not guilty”, he never was the same after that.
Ryan Smith: Why?
Steve Manning: It drained him. It drained him; it drained his soul and spirit.
Ryan Smith: Let’s talk about the trial, and as Mike just said, you think that trial should have never happened. Diane, what did you think?
Diane Dimond: Well, I’m listening to what the former employees and friends have said about him never wanting to go back to Neverland, because he felt “raped”. I know some members of the prosecution team who said they didn’t want to go back because he had been exposed!
I’m not saying that Michael Jackson was a pedophile! A judge and jury ruled that he was not.
Steve Manning: Thank you!
Mike Garcia: Absolutely!
Diane Dimond: But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story! Of how the child was manipulated to come and see Michael Jackson, manipulated to be alone with Michael Jackson, maybe the adults in their lives were over-protective, or over-reacting, but Michael Jackson made the first charges “go away”, as I outline in the book, by paying $30 million dollars! Who does that? And don’t tell me it’s because he had a lot of money back then, because he wasn’t working at that point!
Steve Manning: Mr. Jackson brought Johnnie Cochran in, and I had a conversation with Johnnie Cochran personally about this, Mr. Jackson brought him in late, before they settled that, and he begged him not to settle it, but he wanted it to just go away. And he regretted it later on.
Diane Dimond: That is just not true! Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman negotiated that monetary settlement with the first young boy.
Steve Manning: Mr. Jackson asked him not to settle…
Diane Dimond: That’s just not of the facts!
Mike Garcia: A lot of the things your saying is hearsay because I was with him when he went to the lawyers, and things like that……
Diane Dimond: You were there in 1993?
Mike Garcia: No, I was not there.
Diane Dimond: I was there in 1993.
Mike Garcia: But the things that you’re saying is hearsay. I’ve been with him, with lawyers, and I know that he, just like you said……..
Steve Manning: I’m not going to scrupulate Johnnie Cochran, but Mr. Jackson did bring him in like that, and he begged him not to settle. He wanted it to just go away.
Diane Dimond: Ryan, that is not the facts!
Steve Manning: That’s what I was told by Johnnie Cochran, and by his mom.
Mike Garcia: Absolutely.
Ryan Smith: Mike, you’re saying that what Diane is saying is hearsay; what did you learn from Michael Jackson?
Mike Garcia: The information that she’s saying is things from secondhand. Like I said, if you knew Mr. Jackson, you would know he didn’t do it.
Diane Dimond: Michael, I sat and talked with young boys, I sat and talked to their families, that’s not secondhand.
Mike Garcia: If you knew Mr. Jackson, you knew he didn’t do it.
Diane Dimond: That’s not secondhand. And you weren’t there in 1993, and I was. When did you first start working for Michael Jackson?
Mike Garcia: So what he had a petting zoo! So what if he had a Ferris wheel! It doesn’t matter!
Diane Dimond: When did you first start working for him?
Mike Garcia: In 2006.
Diane Dimond: Ok, he wasn’t even at Neverland!
Mike Garcia: If you knew Mr. Jackson, then you knew that he didn’t do it. That’s all I have to say.
Diane Dimond: You were not even around when he lived at Neverland.
Anthony DeCurtis: To tell you something about kids and families like that, they’re not bringing suits, they’re not doing anything? What is motivating them like that?
Mike Garcia: Who’s not to say that their parents didn’t push them on? They’re a lot of things that could have happened.
Diane Dimond: That’s right.
Mike Garcia: You’re sitting there and pointing things out, but at the same time, I’m not…………to be honest, I get asked that question a lot, when people find out that I was with Mr. Jackson, they ask “do you think he did it?” Absolutely not! He was a very gentle man!
Steve Manning: Diane, isn’t it true Diane that the Ryan father who pushed this whole thing, later admitted that his father made him do it?
Diane Dimond: No, that is not true! That was put out on the internet that the first young man recanted, and it absolutely was not true. That came out after his father committed suicide, and people said “Oh look, his father committed suicide! Chandler’s gone, it was all a hoax!” Mr. Chandler committed suicide because he had a degenerative disease that was robbing him of the ability to stand up, to speak, to swallow, or to think.
Steve Manning: Well, I wish you would have went to Neverland, and you’re family. It was something for families; it was a beautiful place……
Diane Dimond: I’m sure it was a beautiful place, but Mike, with all due respect, you started working for him in 2006, he didn’t even live at Neverland! You don’t know what went on at Neverland, and I don’t either! I just know the people I spoke to, not secondhand.
Mike Garcia: When you’re embedded with someone 24 hours a day……like I said, there was no entourage, it was just us, Michael Jackson, and the kids, and when you’re embedded with someone like that, you pick up on things. I have a great attention to detail. I watched how everybody does everything. There’s no way that he did it. There’s absolutely no way. And him being a child himself………..you want to talk about his house at Neverland, he had this, and he had that, he probably had it for himself first.
Steve Manning: But the bottom line is, like I said earlier, the trial killed him, it drained him. He was dead already!
Mike Garcia: Drained him!
Mike Garcia: A lot of things, like how people turned their backs on him……I heard that there was a party after the trial, and a thousand people were supposed to be there, and only 200 people showed up! He saw a lot of things! He saw a lot of people’s true colors. Honestly, we didn’t get paid for several months, but we stayed with the guy because we saw his naiveness, and the way he was treated by the media and everybody else, and the control. The guy was a heart of gold.
Ryan Smith: Let me ask this, of both of you. You both spent a lot of time with Michael; did Michael ever spend time alone with boys? The rumors that he spent time in bed with boys?
Mike Garcia: I never saw anything myself.
Ryan Smith: You never saw anything?
Mike Garcia: The only children I saw him with were his own, and he was a great father.
Diane Dimond: And you do know Ryan, if indeed the charges were true…………nope, let me say it this way………you do know Ryan that a child molester does not molest in front of other people! They’re very secretive, they’re very crafty. Anybody at the FBI, who wrote the profile of what a pedophile is, will tell you that they’re the most charming, fascinating, engaging people in all of criminal life! They first must seduce the parent to get to the child. I’m not saying Michael Jackson was a pedophile, but to say “Oh golly, he’s such a nice guy, and he’s so sweet, and he’s like a child himself”, that could also be a crafty subterfuge. I look at both sides to everything, and I know that angers some people!
Steve Manning: But the Santa Barbara jury found him not guilty.
Diane Dimond: Absolutely!
Ryan Smith: And that’s a good point Steve! And why was he found not guilty?
Diane Dimond: Because I think the state did not prove its case! I sat in that court every single day, and the case that was filed became so complicated with conspiracies, and phone numbers, and phone trees, and this, and that, they forgot to just tell the story, and let the jury decide on that.
Steve Manning: But look at those charges, I mean, an all-white jury, a black guy……..
Diane Dimond: It wasn’t in Santa Barbara, first of all, it was in Santa Maria, which is 120 miles north from Santa Barbara.
Ryan Smith: I’ll ask this one other question, and Steve and Mike, let me get your thoughts on this: as Diane’s saying, it’s been documented that he paid families of children that accused him molestation, so the question is……..
Steve Manning: She said they didn’t come forward, just one family, the guy Ryan…..
Ryan Smith: Ok, so let’s assume it’s one family then, assuming that, I think the question that would occur to a lot of people guys, is “Why would you pay somebody off for something that you didn’t do?”
Steve Manning: Well he regretted that he settled that case, he regretted it. He should have let it go to trial. In the second trial he was vindicated, and he wished he could have done that with the Ryan case.
Diane Dimond: And I think that’s a very good point because, if he had not settled the first case, and it had gone to trial, there never would have been a second one. He made himself a target by paying $30 million dollars to a boy’s family. Every ne’er do well in America could have come forward and said “Hey look! He pays people! Let’s go file a false claim!” There weren’t any for 10 years, and in 2003, a young boy, suffering from cancer, alleges that Michael Jackson did untoward things to him. The jury declared him “not guilty”, and I say that’s the way we need to remember Michael Jackson.
Steve Manning: Thank you!
Diane Dimond: He was a genius, a talented genius, and a tortured soul.
You can attempt to read his rant about "fact checking" Diane Dimond on their site, if you'd like.
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/fact-checking-diane-dimond’s-lies-from-trutv’s-“in-session”/
"I don't quite get all the back and forth with Vindicate. Are they wondering if a Trojan Horse has volunteered as a writer on their site?"
You mean they're concerned that one of their contributors is actually a "hater"? LOL. They shouldn't worry. No f'loon parody could be anymore embarrassing than the real deal.
The Russian's comments are my absolute favorite. Just recently she wrote that the blood of Prince's "black ancestors is boiling in his veins," and she blamed Debbie Rowe for MJ dangling Blanket off a balcony (because Debbie once suggested that he show Prince to fans from a window). Her delusions know no bounds.
"Yes build more sites. As much dissemination of the facts as possible. They have multiple sites peddling the same trite, inaccurate, fan garbage, so why not have more "places of sanity" for those looking for the total story."
I second this. It's ridiculous that if someone googles MJ's name, all that shows up are fan pages. F'loons seriously must sit in their double-wides all day building internet shrines to their beloved Messiah Jackson. Pathetic...
"Yes build more sites. As much dissemination of the facts as possible. They have multiple sites peddling the same trite, inaccurate, fan garbage, so why not have more "places of sanity" for those looking for the total story"
Yeah you cannot search for Michael being gay or a molester without see f´loon´s phrases like "he was NOT it or that!" It´s exhausting.
Jessica,
Is this Mike Garcia one of the three bodyguards who are writing a book? Mike isn´t already with them.
Check out all the MJ fans on the jury. Murray is royally screwed.
http://goo.gl/NO1C8
Assuming Blaine did not delete anything from the transcripts, Diane Dimond is a spitfire; she knows her stuff. The reality is that Jacko is indefensible when it comes to his 'other' legacy. Completely indefensible. He was a pedophile. She is the only Jackson journalist that has been around since the beginning of Jacko's Fall from Grace. She knows everything about him. Blaine cannot 'fact check' Dimond.
He was pissed with the Jacko ass-kissers because it was a reflection of how poor--when the bullshit is pushed aside--the fan theories and talking points really are.
I wonder if Blaine thinks he can take on Diane Dimond? In their delusional state, I'm sure all of them over at Vindicate MJ think they can handily defeat Dimond in a debate. LOL!
They don't even want to argue with me... how could they ever think they could take her. I'd love to see it, though. One counterpoint to Dimond fails to have weight, they'll be screaming, "Liar!" or "Hater!" in 0.8 seconds.
It'd be great TV.
S.U.:
"Is this Mike Garcia one of the three bodyguards who are writing a book? Mike isn´t already with them."
That's the guy. There's a clip on Dimond's Facebook about that roundtable discussion where he says that Jacko "absolutely liked women", which is crap. I remember you sending me a chat those bodyguards did with the fans--I think it was from IMDB--where someone asked them about the Jacko girlfriend story and they said they'd been misquoted and that they'd said they meant 'friend', etc.
This was from the email you'd sent me quoting them on Facebook talking to a fan:
FB Friend: Hey, at first lemme say thank u for everything u do, thank u for the way u show your devotion and yourlove for our dear Michael, there is a question that interests me a lot and if you have time i will be very grateful u to answer me-so can you tell me what kind of women Mike liked?I mean what should a woman look like... to attract Michael's attention? thank u beforehand and God bless you.
MJs Bodyguards: ok for the LAST TIME! though I should wait for the book I will say this; MJ admired the way women styled their hair and the way they dressed. He commented about diffrent women just walking buy. He would ask us what did we think about certain women, he liked talking.
I don't believe they're writing a book anymore, however, I don't understand how talking about the way a woman styles her hair or the way she dresses, etc., are any indication that Jacko was into women.
Karen Faye said the same BS and went on to say Jacko was asexual. Perhaps Jacko wanted to look like a woman. There's no doubt he was trying to look like Diana Ross in the 1980s and he'd tried to look like Liz Taylor at some point, according to her friends. He'd had a shrine of her, according to Corey Feldman, something Jacko tried to deny.
I believe, like many gay men, Jacko admired the way women looked. That's no indication that he was interested in them; his marriages were suspect (loveless), even though I have no real reason to disbelieve Lisa Marie Presley that they'd had sex (Di Dimond says that's untrue--she was told this by a mutual friend between she and Lisa Marie). The only believable 'lover'--and he wasn't a lover but a friend Jacko'd 'played with', I guess you could call it--to come out was Jason Pfieffer. He never went into detail about their sexual exploits together--and neither will I reveal what I'd been told--but, yeah, Jacko's gay.
I know fans disbelieve Jason but he's genuine. He's not a charlatan. He's the real deal. I'm a cynic, too, so I'm not just believing Jason because it fits my viewpoint on Jacko's homosexuality. Jason is just very open; he's a good guy.
I bristled at Mike Garcia bringing up that "MJ liked women" tripe again. I wonder how he'd feel if someone let him know Michael Jackson had two foreign male semen stains in his bed and a third stain in underwear and bedsheets Jacko kept with his own soiled underwear.
There's an interesting thing about those underwear. I actually think they belonged to a young male, not a legal-aged male. All of the underwear in that particular hotel bag were size 30-32, nine total: 2 pairs of Jockey brand and 7 pairs of more expensive brands. The sizes were on the small end.
Jacko is on the thin side but not many adult males are as thin as he was. Now, unless he was doing something with a guy his size that caused semen to be placed on a sheet and in underwear, then okay. But how many men are that small?
Gavin stated he'd wore size small and he was an adolescent boy.
I'm thinking they were from a kid. I'd been meaning to write about this finding. I didn't think about it in the "Gay" piece I'd written in Jan 2011 because I was giving Jacko the benefit of the doubt but the underwear with the semen on it was of a small-medium size (we don't know which but it's within that range).
I think it was semen from a younger male.
Frenchie:
"Check out all the MJ fans on the jury. Murray is royally screwed."
The make up doesn't look good, in my opinion. A lot of them seem like TV/media-guzzling losers (ie. the makeup of the average Jacko fan). I'm surprised (well, not really) that he only has one black juror on the jury. I would think since he's black and the decedent was black (???), there would be no worry about bias.
I don't know if it's because I'm black but they worse (in terms of complete delusions) Jacko fans are the black ones. Look at Sabine Faustin, the 40-year-old nut who'd attempted to blog about me. Granted, you had the elderly white woman trying to do it, too, but, from my experience, the black fans are especially batshit.
Not only do they believe Jacko's innocent, they believe that he was some womanizing stud. That's two layers of delusions there.
I believe Dr. Murray will be found guilty; celebs can kill but you can't kill celebs--they're God's Chosen! LOL. I think he should just hope to be spared the pokey.
It was a damned accident. Jacko was a hardcore drug addict and he was looking for someone to give him propofol. Murray was broke and blinded by celebrity.
No one's to blame, I think. It just happened.
Frenchie:
"Just recently she wrote that the blood of Prince's "black ancestors is boiling in his veins," and she blamed Debbie Rowe for MJ dangling Blanket off a balcony (because Debbie once suggested that he show Prince to fans from a window). Her delusions know no bounds."
LOL @ black blood. And LMAO @ blaming Debbie for the baby-dangling. Was Debbie there? That fool was higher than a kite; he dangled Blanket because he wasn't lucid.
"Living with Michael Jackson" was the best TV. I was (about to be) 14 when I saw that and, at school the next day, my fellow 8th graders and I went on and on about what a nutter Jacko was. Priceless TV.
About Vindicate MJ thought processes, Helena outright thinks Sneddon lies in his court docs, specifically about the description matching. And I've pasted stuff about her Aaron Carter piece. That level of boneheadedness--calling everyone a liar--is to be mocked.
Calling people 'liars'--and she'd had the nerve to tell me that I know I'm lying on/about Michael Jackson, LOL--is childish and stupid. there is no intelligence in that.
New rule: someone calling someone a 'liar' without explaining why and/or how and supplying no corroborative evidence in support IMMEDIATELY loses the debate.
"I second this. It's ridiculous that if someone googles MJ's name, all that shows up are fan pages. F'loons seriously must sit in their double-wides all day building internet shrines to their beloved Messiah Jackson. Pathetic."
Hi, Lynette. LOL! They are his professional fans; they feel they are a part of his life and his family. They are insane. I think anyone who can write and think should open a website about Jacko's guilt. You won't be in want of facts in support!
I wanted to build another that is nothing like this blog--just info, commentary, no comments, etc.
Is there any site that talks of his highly probable guilt besides mine? There's a white-washing going on... I don't want his pedophilia to get lost in time, I really don't.
:-(
"Helena outright thinks Sneddon lies in his court docs"
I should add that this is without any proof whatsoever, just a 'gut' reaction based upon the way she feels about Sneddon. I always say that if there is no evidence of something--not even circumstantial evidence (like with Jacko's pedophilia)--then, prima facie, you have to take it that the particular belief, whatever it may be, is untrue and moot.
The fact Sneddon said, "We got him! We got him!" means nothing more than he wanted to get a pedophile off the street, especially one who was rich and killed their first case against him by silencing the victim, Jordie.
The way Helena thinks means you can never debate her. I think she's a coward; she always seems to be deathly ill whenever a 'hater' goes onto Vindicate MJ or when I am asking her something. LOL. The funny thing is she didn't become a Jacko fan until his death. She even claims she thought he was guilty beforehand; I guess it was because of 'researching' him--and encountering the innumerable fan sites--she became a zealot.
Again, another reason to make more sites! ;-)
I really like this background, Desiree. It makes me think of Dreamland, LOL.
Anyways, I think Murray is screwed too. I mean yes Murray is technically guilty, but for some reason, I just don't think he should go to jail for Wacko Jacko. He was a junkie and how many junkies on the street get high with each other, and one sticks the needle in the other's arm and they die? should they go to jail too? I think the biggest reason people are "upset" about all of this is because Mike was about to make a comeback (allegedly) and it was such horrible timing. But seriously, there was not malice in Murray's actions; it could have been anybody, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's tragic.
And how come there is only one black juror? This is Los Angeles county, there' like a billion black people living in there LOL! But I agree with Desiree, maybe the black jurors might be biased against Murray because many of them think the best about "Lil Mike and the Jackson 5" days.
Speaking of professional fans, I was watching Showbiz Tonight (yuck I know) and they were talking about some Jacko's Wackos getting kicked out of the court for mad dogging Murray. They then had a fan talk tot he media on HLN. She seriously was a big fat white woman in her 40s and she said that she had a history with Murray in that he knows that she is in the community making it known that they think he's a murderer.
I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. who do they think they are trying to slander his name? If that's what she is doing int he community, and by community she means where the jurors are, why the hell did this judge not sequester them?
If I believed in God I'd pray for Murray right now.
@Desiree
Re Jacko liking the hair thing, rememeber in Ian Halperin's book he posed as a gay hairdresser and the first time he actually got close to MJ they discussed famous actresses and their hair (ie Ava Gardner etc). Incidentally IH also mentioned that MJ stared deep into his eyes and almost actually cracked onto him! I worked with a gay man, he was always commenting on my hair or makeup, infact they are more attentive than straight men, my husband once didn't notice when I changed my hair colour from blonde to red!
It seems Katie Burrell Bussin is the woman who spread that absurd myth about Jordan being a raging MJ fan, repeated damaging lies about the Chandler family and presented them as facts (like claiming Evan wrote MJWML), and was foolish enough to make up a name for Jordan's friend in that recent photo with Jordan...which, as we know, isn't remotely close to his actual name. She's a famous "insider" in f'loonland. LOL.
I posted this before, but here's a refresher for anyone unfamiliar with her work: http://goo.gl/CkT9w
"Michael Jackson saw salvation in dangerous drug"
Michael Jackson was physically exhausted from a day of grueling rehearsals for his marathon 50-night comeback tour. But his nightly battle with insomnia had just begun. After showering and getting into bed, he called for his "milk," a powerful drug he had been using to escape into unconsciousness.
Jackson saw the anesthetic known as propofol as his salvation. On June 25, 2009, it became the King of Pop's death potion....
The prosecution claims Murray was grossly negligent in giving Jackson propofol at home without proper lifesaving equipment available and then left the room long enough to find his patient not breathing when he returned.
His defense team claims the singer, desperate for sleep, swallowed an additional dose of the drug when his doctor was out of the room....
The defense theory, based on evidence that a trace amount of propofol — .13 milligrams — was found in Jackson's stomach, may be a hard sell.
The drug is administered intravenously, usually during surgery. Scientific witnesses may be asked to explain how it could have gotten into his stomach. Some doctors say ingesting it orally is almost unheard of....
Jackson's reliance on propofol was first disclosed to The Associated Press days after Jackson's death. Cherilyn Lee, a nurse nutritionist who treated Jackson with vitamins, said he pleaded unsuccessfully with her to get the drug he knew as Diprivan. He said his doctor told him it was safe and he described falling asleep as soon as the drug dripped from an IV into his vein.
"I said, 'Michael, the only problem with you taking this medication,' and I had a chill in my body and tears in my eyes ... , "'You're going to take it and you're not going to wake up.'"
Lee, who said she treated him from January to April 2009, is on the trial witness list. She said she never saw Jackson use other drugs.
"He wasn't looking to get high or feel good and sedated from drugs," she said. "This was a person who was not on drugs. This was a person who was seeking help, desperately, to get some sleep, to get some rest." [she obviously didn't know him that well did she??]
Murray, who had been consulted by Jackson in his Las Vegas office, was promised $150,000 a month when he signed on as Jackson's personal physician six weeks before he died.
The rest at: http://news.yahoo.com/michael-jackson-saw-salvation-dangerous-drug-154850067.html
Michael Jackson was clearly a hardcore addict. I don't know why Cherilyn Lee would say he wasn't a person on drugs. She didn't know him.
Interesting how the propofol got into his stomach. I don't see how that could have happened if it was an IV injection. Maybe he did drink his "milk".
I received a cocktail of drugs, including propofol, when I got my wisdom teeth pulled back in Oct 2010, and the dentist had me hooked up to a heart monitor and an oxygen machine. I also had a nurse supervise the machine as he worked. It's dangerous stuff. Murray was negligence in a sense that he left the room, but Mike's insistence and previous use of the drug is important, in my opinion. He had to have known the risks involved, and he clearly didn't care, just like the addicts who take meth and heroin. They know the risks too.
Jessica:
It's been a while! LOL I too, watched the interview on HLN regarding MJ/Conrad Murray, and all I have to say is that there was very poor judgement on both sides; MJ and Murray. MJ who was known to use Propofol in the past on several occasions knew the risk. However, when you've come to the degree of addiction that he had, hang the risk...you get the mentality of 'let me get my fix on now, and we'll ask questions later'. Unfortunately for MJ, asking questions later would never happen. Dr. Drew made an interesting point about the case....he said that he felt sorry for Dr. Conrad Murray because the guy initially just didn't have any real inkling to know what he was really was setting himself up for when he took himself on as MJ's private physician...He was way in over his head. Not only that, but when he did finally come to the conclusion as to what 'really' was involved and where MJ was physically/mentally, Murray should have stepped up his game and took on a more responsible role in helping MJ with his Propofol addiction; if that was what he truly was trying to do in weening MJ off his drug addiction. But unfortunate for Murray, he should have had the sense to 'cover his ass' and take whatever steps that were necessary to provide sound medical treatment to MJ as a patient with safety in mind. If those particular steps required getting other necessary medical staff /equipment to help monitor the administering of Propofol, then so be it. I do feel bad for Murray, but he should have covered his bases - completely, and as a doctor, he knows this. Murray had a responsibility to not only his patient, but also to himself as a physician, and he failed to do that. This is where I believe the other side of poor judgement resides on Murray's part. Yes MJ had a 'history' of drug use/addiction, but I don't think that will matter to the 'jury of MJ'. It will all fall on Murray's shoulders and his responsibilities or lack thereof; regardless of any of the responsibilities that MJ should've had. But I honestly don't think what Murray did to MJ was done intentionally...just an unfortunate, untimely accident. Neglectful, but an accident. Dr. Drew was also right in saying that no one including a celeb, should take it upon themselves to have a private physician...That's a very unwise and dangerous situation that can lead to catastrophe. Having different physicians for different health conditions acts as a 'checks and balances' or safety net for both parties, the patient and doctor.
But when you're talking about MJ, remember rules don't apply. I saw the angry MJ female fan you mentioned earlier...All I can say is that Murray's fair day in court looks like it's already done for before it really can begin.
Lady C,
It has been awhile LOL! Good to see you again, girl! ;-)
I see what you mean about Murray having to bear some responsibility; he was the only one looking over Mike at that moment in that room, and dealing with a dangerous drug that needs constant doctor supervision, he is somewhat to blame. However, I think, for me, is whether or not he should go to jail. And honestly, I wonder if it is even right to have his license suspended permanently.
Seriously, Mike was one patient out of hundreds Murray had throughout his career, and he was the only one to die. All of his other patients report stellar care and commitment from Murray, so why is this one death--of a drug addict no less--enough to erase all his good deeds as a physician? There is only one reason and that's because the deceased was the King of Pop. That's the fact of the matter: you can't kill a celebrity. And for that, Murray will pay.
I get the argument that he should have known better because he was a doctor and he took an oath, etc, but this is not a normal circumstance. It was Michael Jackson, he was promising $150,000 per month to a man who was vulnerable because of his financial situations. It was most likely a very intoxicating experience to be "wanted" by a celebrity. No one really knows how they'd react in that situation.
Bottom line to me, people are only upset about this because it's a celebrity. They did the same thing with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe trying to blame someone for their deaths. And I think had this not been right before a concert comeback, no one would have cared (besides the fans). If this happened during his exile to Bahrain after the trial, it would have been a "tragedy" involving a yet another drug addled celebrity, but it would have been accepted.
It seems Katie Burrell Bussin is the woman who spread that absurd myth about Jordan being a raging MJ fan, repeated damaging lies about the Chandler family and presented them as facts (like claiming Evan wrote MJWML), and was foolish enough to make up a name for Jordan's friend in that recent photo with Jordan...which, as we know, isn't remotely close to his actual name. She's a famous "insider" in f'loonland. LOL.
Frenchie, LOL. Seriously, I don't get how they can knowingly lie about Jordie. How does creating a false story help put their mind at ease over the 1993 allegations? It must be some sort of psychological voodoo that happens to allow themselves to believe what they just made up is true.
This woman, Katie, is so... I don't know... cocky in her lies about Jordie Chandler. It's disturbing. I wonder what her mental health chart looks like. LOL. I seriously think some of these fans get off being "mini-celebs" in the world of Jacko F'loondom.
Now thinking about it, maybe Katie doesn't know she's lying per se. Perhaps she is just repeating secondhand or thirdhand information that really is just a culmination of embellishments and factual inaccuracies? I mean that other girl I mentioned a while back, Josie Zohny, who was on the witness list for the defense, and is a superfan; I think she knowingly lied (saying she was Jordie's friend and he said "interesting things" but yet never revealed them--especially if they are exonerating, and basically saying Jordie's disgusting yet she's supposed to be his friend) due to her level of fanaticism. But Katie got dude's name wrong. It's probably a case of her hearing [inaccurate] things through the grapevine and passing it off like she has the scoop, again due to her fanaticism.
Tom meserau said in a Havard University lecture in 2005 that This all came out in a Harvard University examination of the case in late 2005.
Mesereau had numerous witnesses lined up, if he needed them, who said Jordie had insisted to them that MJ never touched him & he hated his parents for making him say that he had.
Is that the reason MJ fans believe that JC recanted although he never did officially?
A.G.:
That's exactly why fans believe Jordie Chandler somewhat recanted. There are several delusions that the fans cling to, all of which are false:
-There is actually no evidence that Mesereau had any believable witnesses to 'refute' Jordie Chandler if he supposedly wanted to 'lie' and say he was a victim, so believing Mesereau (especially when he'd the opportunity to bring in those witnesses to perhaps refute June Chandler or Chacon, etc.) is really dubious. He's a defense attorney; it's very easy to say you had all the evidence to refute Jordie Chandler when you aren't under court scrutiny. There were no documents--that we know of--available on the SBC website that deal with any rebuttal witnesses. I won't say he was lying but he was definitely not telling the truth.
-Mesereau mentions that Jordie Chandler emancipated himself to get away from his parents (because they'd made him 'lie' about Jacko) but that is not consistent with known evidence. Jordie stopped communication with his mother but he was still communicating with his father; legal emancipation may have been a way to protect his assets, and was probably suggested by his family and his lawyers.
-Fans say that Jordie refused to cooperate with the DAs to testify in Jacko's 2005 case and that he threatened to take legal action if they tried to make him testify; this is allegedly detailed in the FBI files. They use this as 'proof' of a guilty conscience. well, that FBI doc was NOT referring to the 2005 case, but a case an FBI group could have brought in dealing with the Mann Act, which would have essentially prosecuted Jacko federally for transporting Jordie all around the country (and out of the country) for the purposes of sex (referring to their vacations together); it had NOTHING to do with the 2005 case. Fans have twisted the evidence; Diane Dimond does mention in her book that he did not want to be a part of the case because he'd moved on with his life but that is a far cry from what the fans claim. It's the typical BS.
-Fans suggest that the report of Evan Chandler attacking Jordie about two months after Jacko was acquitted as proof that the 1993 case was a scam. There is no evidence to support any of this! They also use the fact that allegedly Jordie stated it had been 'abuse', suggesting more than just the incident. This is typical fan garbage; all we know is that the fight was due to a domestic argument. Nothing more. Becuase Jacko is the center of their lives, fans believe he is the center of everyone's life.
-Let's not forget Evan Chandler's suicide following Jacko's death; there's no proof he killed himself because he felt guilty over Jacko. We do know he had a terrible disease that forced him to visit his doctor regularly.
The fans lie about everything. There is no proof that the 1993 case is a lie. None, so they feel the need to make things up, instead of looking at all the evidence available (and authenticated) that supports the idea that Jacko was a filthy pedophile and guilty of molesting that child.
"Mesereau had numerous witnesses lined up, if he needed them, who said Jordie had insisted to them that MJ never touched him & he hated his parents for making him say that he had."
So he claims, yet the only known witness is Josephine Zohny. Josie is an MJ fanatic and has been for years. She's also a publicist and a blogger. If she truly knew anything that could help clear the name of her idol, she has both the motive and the resources available to make it public. What's stopping her?
Jordan was estranged from his mother for many years, but he maintained a relationship with his father until he was 25. The court records show that they were living together in 2005.
Jessica:
I agree that, in all likelihood, Katie receives most of her information from other f'loons, judging by how wildly illogical and distorted it is. But, because she met MJ during the trial, she claims that her tales are from sources close to MJ or MJ himself. Fans hang onto her every word. If she lies about simple things like the names of Jordan's friends to present herself as an all-knowing expert, then it's foolish of them to believe anything that she says.
Desiree,
You often speak about the challenges of maintaing high quality posts especially when you are busy with school, but I think you could make your life easier if you lowered your standards a bit. Not every blog posting has to be a masterpiece full of deep analysis, links, extensive documentation, pictures, videos. I've seen popular blogs where postings were no more than a one sentence observation about a current event. Indeed almost every comment you make in the comment section is worthy of being it's own blog post. Your well documented high quality posts are unbelievably enjoyable and informative, but no blogger can be expected to maintain that standard every post
Opinionation:
I generally agree with you on that but, honestly, I don't quite know how to be brief.
Brevity is not really a strong point for me; my brain doesn't work that way. I also have no idea how many postings one can really make frequently about Jacko-related business.
Desiree
"Mesereau mentions that Jordie Chandler emancipated himself to get away from his parents (because they'd made him 'lie' about Jacko) but that is not consistent with known evidence. Jordie stopped communication with his mother but he was still communicating with his father; legal emancipation may have been a way to protect his assets, and was probably suggested by his family and his lawyers."
This is a misrepresentation of the facts by Mesereau.
On January 24 1994, June and Evan resigned as guardians of Jordy's affairs, and a retired judge, Jack E. Goertzen, was appointed the boys guardian (the Guardian ad Litem as mentioned in the settlement). This is standard procedure in these sorts of cases involving minors.
While we're at it, lets have a laugh about fan assertions that an insurance company paid the settlement to Jordy. Here are some quotes from senior employees of the insurance company involved - Transamerica.
http://tinyurl.com/6ax8mhg
...I used tinyurl lest fanatics think I am you :-)
Alby:
Excellent link! I will use that most definitely when I write about the settlement in detail.
There is tons of evidence in support of his settling, not the insurance company. We all know Jacko himself always said he just wanted to put everything behind him. In fact, it was Johnnie Cochran--who went on to defend murdering OJ Simpson (but not Jacko--hmmm...)--that tried to pressure Transamerica into footing the bill.
But there is a CA statute that says that cannot be done.
So, of course, Jacko ended up paying out of pocket.
Again, thanks for the link!
Desiree
The amusing thing is, if you point out to fanatics that an insurance company couldn't have paid the settlement they immediately change tack and say that Mike was forced by his lawyers to settle, and will point out it was "MJ's word against Jordie's". Point out the fact that there were penis photos and Jordie's description, and they will say "There wasn't a match" as Mike wasn't circumcised. I just wonder how they managed to read Jordie's description when it is locked in a safe deposit box in Santa Barbara :-)
"The amusing thing is, if you point out to fanatics that an insurance company couldn't have paid the settlement they immediately change tack"
Yep. This is a common tactic of people who are not only losing a debate--handily--but are also completely humiliated by the fact that they are wrong. Instead of kowtowing to the argument, the point, that is more salient, supported by more facts (conclusive ones), and makes more sense, they try to save face.
They rather be more wrong, more ignorant, and more illogical than to just to suffer a slight "I told you so" moment and come to the right side of history.
Unfortunately, this is not restricted to Jacko fans, but anyone. Makes it a tough place to live.
Someone posted on here a while back a comment by a fan on a forum saying that they wanted to be right because if they were wrong, that means "the haters would win."
LOL.
So... this is the reason they trashed Aaron Carter, who was totally believable and revealed Jacko was trying to get into his damned bed! This is why they trash everyone who says anything negative about Jacko. Including myself, apparently.
Smearing someone's name and attacking their character seems to be the only thing they really do, actually. And it's the only trick they have up their sleeves. Because we all know they cannot refute any of the facts...
Post a Comment