Saturday, November 19, 2011

Jimmy Safechuck findings

ETA 11-24-2011:

A few clarifications on this piece, since many people (not MJ Realists, of course) find contextualizing mentally taxing and, thus, choose not to do it. It's a measure of a writer's skill and finesse to make things simple and override the desire for verbosity... consider it a handy summary.

First, let's go back to Jack Gordon's 1991 interview and that Gordon called Michael Jackson a 'pederast' before he was ever accused of child molestation. So, what's the point of mentioning Gordon? It's twofold:

  1. La Toya Jackson claims now that Jack Gordon was just "jumping on the bandwagon" when the 1993 allegations surfaced. But how did Gordon jump on the bandwagon in 1991, when no one was calling Jackson a pedophile? And, in the event that some perceptive journalist had brought up the idea of Jackson's behavior with children as being 'odd' during that time, is it not interesting that Jackson was then accused of molesting a boy, that charge resulting in a staggering multimillion dollar settlement?
  2. La Toya Jackson claims now that all of what she'd said was fabricated by Jack, but he'd called Jackson a pederast when no one was calling him a pederast (maybe just calling him a 'kooky kid obsessive'); just two years later, when Jackson was accused of the conduct of pederasts, La Toya had stories of her mother showing her a massive check to a person verified as the father of a 'special friend' and admissions that she'd seen her brother's comings-and-goings with various boys at Hayvenhurst, although she admits to have witnessed no incidents of molestation; all of what La Toya Jackson stated in 1993 added to and corroborated the reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson was guilty of abusing Jordie Chandler, hence why it was said
In a nutshell, what has been illuminated above is the fact that people called Jackson a pedophile before the title seemed interchangeable with that of the 'King of Pop'; he was subsequently accused of pedophilia just a short time later. The same goes with the fact of the Lemarques' 1991 claim of Jackson fondling a distracted Macaulay Culkin and his watching of pornography in the Neverland theater with his boy guests, a claim that was then corroborated by two other pieces of evidence: the Arvizo boys' claim that Jackson showed them pornography and the claim by Santa Barbara County police investigator Jeffery Ellis that when Omer Bhatti had been asked about pornography at Neverland he seemed visibly nervous and loss his use of eloquent speech.

Let's move to La Toya Jackson's seeing a large check made out to James Safechuck, Sr. The extended entry details Mr. Safechuck's prolific history in the garbage business, dating back, according to public records, to at least 1983. And what is important to glean from this?

Well, if La Toya Jackson claims now that she was a pawn in Jack Gordon's plan to go after her family, Michael Jackson in particular, and that all of what she'd said was a big lie, it's been 'myth-busted'. Evidence exists to prove that the recipient of that check--a father of a 'special friend'--who'd she claimed then was a 'garbage collector', was, in fact, in the garbage collection business!

Why is this important? As noted in the extended entry, La Toya says she was made to lie then and is telling the truth now; verifying one of her alleged lies (her big story had been seeing those 'checks payable') as actually being true disproves that current claim that she had been lying about her brother the whole time back then.

Not a difficult concept, everyone.

Let's move ahead to the questionable factuality of Tom Mesereau's 2005 assertion that former 'special friend' Jimmy Safechuck had been married at Neverland Ranch. In reality, Jimmy Safechuck was married in 2008 to a woman he's still married to and with whom he has a child. There are no records available out of the state of California suggesting that Jimmy had ever been married before; according to laws regarding the publicity of marriage records in the state of California, had a spouse been available, the name of the spouse would have been listed; only 11 of the 50 states comprising the American union allow for marriage records to be searched for on the web or available to parties unrelated to the couple.


For example, Jimmy's father's first and second (current) marriages are available to find.



Jimmy's current marriage was logged in the state of Illinois, where the marriage ceremony had taken place. Thus, a record of that marriage is not searchable online, although his wife helpfully provided pictures of the ceremony. And what if a marriage had taken place at Neverland Ranch, located in California, the same state where Jimmy currently lives and has lived his entire life? Well, it would be searchable online. No records were able to be located. 

So what does this mean with regard to Tom Mesereau? Well, if the suggestion was that Jimmy Safechuck had been wed at Neverland, and this is not the case, it means that Mesereau knowingly lied in open court in order to defend his clientThe significance of a Neverland wedding having never occurred means that this purported event can no longer be used as a reason or 'proof' that Jimmy Safechuck was not abused by Michael Jackson.

And how is this relevant to our beloved Jacko, you ask? 

Quite simply, it means that a few arguments in defense of his dubious innocence have been shaved off, invalidated. One can't say, "Oh, La Toya is a liar," if she'd been proven to tell the truth about her most significant revelation, those 'checks payable' to the parents of 'special friends'. And one cannot say that Jimmy Safechuck was not a molestation victim because of that 'wedding bash' thrown at Jackson's Neverland since it's obviously false and most likely did not occur--what occurred was the joining of spirits of his current wife and himself in Chicago, 2008. And one cannot assert that Mesereau is some sanctified Jackson defender if he is also a liar.

Although the extended entry was quite simple to understand, I've been a lamb to explain it once more in easier language and at shorter length. 

Happy turkey time.


~ Desiree, Jacko P.I.
_________________________________________________________________________________


According to Jolie Levine, Michael Jackson was a "chicken hawk", a colloquial term for pedophile.

She did not come to this conclusion overnight, of course; it was founded upon her tenure as his personal assistant. Unique requirements for that job included running errands for Jackson, as well as picking up gifts for those individuals he believed to be 'special'. More often than not, Levine was called to purchase playthings for young boys.

She revealed to police investigators Jackson's penchant for seductively high-priced 'gift-giving' to special families, to which she almost became susceptible (Michael Jackson liked her ten-year-old son, Yoshi). Levine, however, was quite firm in her stance that Jackson giving her presents was totally inappropriate.

She also shed light on her employer's knack for sleepovers with young boys, as well. As per her interview with the police, Levine claimed that, while on the Bad Tour, Michael Jackson repeatedly shared a bed with that moment's chosen young boy 'special friend', even when other beds were available.

At that time, the chosen boy was Jimmy Safechuck.


Most of us are familiar with Jimmy Safechuck, a then-fledgling child actor/dancer from the Los Angeles area who'd first met Michael Jackson in 1987. Perhaps enchanted by the boy's big blue eyes and flaxen good looks, Jackson cast Jimmy as the lead in a Pepsi commercial cum Bad Tour promotional ad where Jimmy plays a “young male fan” who absorbs Jackson's essence in the singer's dressing room.


Sparks must have flew between Jackson and this Jonathan Spence successor right there on the set of the commercial because it was not too long before Jimmy became one of Jackson's 'special friends'--a "Boy of the Year"--joining him on tour and receiving all of the perks attendant to that role.

No doubt young Jimmy Safechuck got whatever he desired from Michael Jackson and someone like his assistant, Jolie Levine, had the job of making sure everything was just right for such a special young boy*. From J. Randy Taraborrelli's Michael Jackson: the Magic and the Madness (1991 edition), page 476:
On one leg of the tour [Bad Tour], Michael brought along Jimmy Safechuck, a ten-year-old Californian boy. Michael had a copy of one of his stage uniforms made for Safechuck so they could dress alike. Most people found the relationship strange, especially when Michael would take him on shopping sprees in toy stores. He spent thousands of dollars on toys for Safechuck in London. At one point, Michael had to cancel two shows because he caught a cold from Jimmy.

Matching outfits.

(Recall: Jackson also caught a communicable disease--the flu--from Jordie Chandler.)

It's important to note, however, that these material perks bestowed upon Jackson's 'special friends' are often not exclusive to the boys themselves. These boys' parents also become the recipients of a similar conspicuous favoritism.

We can only speculate why Michael Jackson gives gifts to the parents of his young male 'special friends' but there is no denying the extravagance of such presents. There does, of course, exist reasonable suspicion that the gifts are payoffs, something akin to the slipping of a wad of c-notes beneath a table into the palm of someone ready to 'supply a favor'.

The 'favor', in this case, would be allowing Jackson unrestricted access to the parents' minor sons.

In December 1993, at the height of the Jordie Chandler sexual abuse allegations, Jackson's estranged sister, La Toya, gave a press conference out of Tel Aviv, Israel, claiming, beyond the more general accusations of her brother being a pedophile, that she'd seen "checks payable" to the families of little boys with whom Jackson had befriended.



The pertinent part of La Toya Jackson's statement:
"I have seen checks payable to the parents of these children, and I don't know if these children were apparently bought from the parents by Michael or not but I have seen these checks... and I have seen these checks through my mother--she has shown me these checks that Michael has written to these children and it is for a great amount, and I am not speaking pennies. The sums are a very, very large amount..."
Much of this La Toya Jackson business is review: we all know that La Toya spoke against her brother for several years while she was with her late ex-husband, Jack Gordon, who she claims abused her; then, according to her, when she managed to free herself from that relationship, she re-joined the Jackson family and recanted her statements against Jackson.

According to La Toya, all of those supposedly ugly statements she had made against Michael Jackson were made under the direction of Jack Gordon; in fact, all of her words--as she so claims--were manufactured by Jack Gordon. La Toya, as she herself maintains, had no part in the synthesis of those statements that had implicated her brother as a pedophile.

From her June 21, 2011 interview with Piers Morgan:
MORGAN: But the worst thing for me -- I remember this as a journalist, when it happened -- was when he made you do that press conference about Michael, when you basically went along with all of the allegations against your own brother at a time when Michael most needed probably support of his family.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

MORGAN: That was a despicable thing for him to do.

JACKSON: It was just the lowest of all. It was the lowest. And that's one of the things that --

MORGAN: Do you absolve yourself completely? There will be people watching and reading the book -- you know. You've had this before. They say you can blame somebody to a point.

JACKSON: Right.

MORGAN: But when you denounce your own brother in public --
JACKSON: Right.

MORGAN: Part of you has to take responsibility yourself for that.

JACKSON: You have to. You have to take responsibility. And I do take responsibility for it, I must tell you. But at the same time, I have to tell you that if I didn't do what he asked me to do, he blatantly told me -- not just me, but others -- my other loved ones -- that he would kill Michael. And I believed him because I believed the actions.

So when he says you get up there, you read this and you say this -- prior to this allegation about Michael, there I was on television saying oh, my brother is wonderful; he would never, ever, ever do a thing like this. This is despicable, the whole bit.

Then Gordon gets this idea, OK, is that what you're saying? No, you're going to change that story. It was like no, no.
Again, all of this is just getting us back up to speed.

But let's focus once more on La Toya Jackson. Since she now claims Jack Gordon forced, coerced, and/or convinced her to speak ill of her brother, there is the obvious suggestion that anything previously professed to ought to be looked upon with suspicion. In other words, La Toya Jackson wants the public to now consider all of what she'd said about Michael Jackson in the 1990s--that he was an abuser of "small, innocent children"--to be a complete fabrication, something that was simply fiction or 'made up' for money.

Not to mention, the abuse suffered by La Toya should also dampen the believability of her revelations.

However, this is nothing more than a historical rewrite. Regardless of Jack Gordon's conduct, it is completely false that he was the creator of La Toya's claims, simply because he would not have been privy to that sort of information. Unless, of course, he was told by someone in the know.

As an example, let's consider an interview La Toya and Gordon gave to a New York Daily News reporter in 1991 during the press junket for her autobiography. In his write-up of the chat, the incredulous reporter stated that Gordon suggested Michael Jackson was a "pederast". Pederast, for the record, is more specific than "pedophile" and has a finesse "chicken hawk" lacks; it refers to a man who has sex with boys.

Now, note that date: 1991--a full two years before Jordie Chandler would allege he'd been sexually abused by Michael Jackson. In 1991, we can assume there were no rumors of pedophilia or allegations--at least present in the media--of Jackson being a molester of young boys**. If that was the case, how, then, did Jack Gordon come to such a conclusion?

It certainly could not have been founded upon just watching Jackson on television, seeing him travel the world with boys who seemed, even to the media, to be "cousins" or something like 'kid brothers'. After all, even throughout the Chandler scandal and in spite of the fact tabloids made an effort to air the most tawdry of Jackson 'scoop', most of the public and the mainstream media respected Jackson's self-proclamations of innocence and perhaps even believed his claim of being an extortion victim.

The most reasonable explanation, given Jackson had yet to be accused of molesting boys nor was Gordon personally around him, is that Gordon had to be told some kind of information that would act as the cause for that aforementioned conclusion to be made at a time when Jackson's knack for being in the company of pubescent boys was not yet looked upon with suspicion; this information would likely come from someone 'in the know'.

Perhaps someone spilling secrets about her family; someone like La Toya Jackson herself.

As proof of why this is apparently true, let's return to La Toya's claims about those checks her brother paid to the parents of his young male 'special friends'. In an interview with the Today Show's Katie Couric, which directly followed that Tel Aviv press conference, La Toya went into more detail about her explosive statements.

According to La Toya:
  • she never saw Michael Jackson in the bed with young boys but she did see boys coming in and out of his room, and he'd never stay with more than one boy at a time;
  • she'd seen only two checks written by Jackson to the parents of boys;
  • she acknowledges that she did not know what they were for but the amounts were substantial;
  • these checks were shown to her by her mother and these checks date back to at least 1984;
  • Katherine Jackson was outraged by these checks and these payments--and perhaps the entire situation with her son and young boys--led to her calling Jackson a "faggot"


La Toya Jackson also stated that her mother knew of the boys Michael Jackson would bring to Hayvenhurst and that it was her mother who had explained to her--even when she was trying to tell her mother that the checks could have been completely innocuous--all that had been going on with Jackson. La Toya said she understood none of the situation and her mother helpfully clarified.

Later on in February 1994, a month following the Chandler settlement, La Toya did an interview with Geraldo Rivera where she revealed the identity of one of the check recipients; as the interview transcript appears on pages 36-37 in Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love:
[Geraldo Rivera:] "Why are you so convinced in your head that he is guilty?"
[La Toya Jackson:] "Because of what I've seen, because of what I know, because of what my mother has done,"...  "Because of what she showed me.  Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time.  My mother actually was screaming for me one day, and I ran into the room.  I--frantically--I thought something was wrong, something had happened.  And she was showing me this check and I said, 'Yeah, so.  What about it?' And she says, 'Well, look at it.' And the check, of course, was one and a lot of zeros behind it.  And she says, 'Latoya, this is one million dollars!' I said, 'So?' And she goes, 'But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that particular time it was...  Written to the last name of the little boy that he was with all that time.  But it was written to the father, and not to the little boy.  It was in the father's name.  And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name.  There was another check behind that, and I said, 'Mother, please, let's leave.' I said, 'We shouldn't be in here I don't want this.'"

"And you recognize the name?"

"Yes."

"All right.  Don't tell us the name, but describe  the person to whom it was written--the father."

"I don't know the father."

"Was he a show business person?"

"No.  The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time."
Dimond claimed in her book that the father to whom La Toya referred was that of Jimmy Safechuck's, evidenced by the fact Jimmy's father worked in the sanitation business.

Even though La Toya now claims that Jack Gordon had been the man who'd manufactured all of those claims she'd said about her brother, how is that even possible if she knew the identity of one of these parents receiving money from Jackson?

It is verifiable that Jimmy Safechuck's father did, indeed, work for the very business La Toya said he did. In 1983, James Safechuck, Sr. was a part of Santa Rosa Disposal Service. Currently, he is the Vice President of a garbage disposal firm out in Simi Valley called Anderson Rubbish Disposal, Anderson being his wife's maiden-name.


Here is Mr. Safechuck in his company polo next to Jimmy's mother***, and with the rest of the Safechuck clan (Jimmy at center; his father at right).


Seeing that James Safechuck has been involved in his current business field since at least the early 1980s--and was, in some ways, the "garbage collector" La Toya Jackson described--it would seem self-evident that La Toya was shown a check Michael Jackson had made out to at least this particular parent of a 'special friend'. And since La Toya saw this check made out to James Safechuck, we can also assume that this check was for a substantial amount, just as she'd stated in her press conference and in both of the aforementioned interviews.

In other words, La Toya told the truth, a point that needs to made very clear.

La Toya currently chalks every 'betrayal' against her family to a man who knew very little and had very little access to Michael Jackson secrets, unlike herself; Jackson fans have run away with La Toya's scapegoating as well, believing it feasible that someone out of the loop would know anything about Jackson being a probable boy-lover in 1991 or giving extravagant monetary gifts to parents.

La Toya Jackson continues blaming Gordon for having done nothing but place her in front of cameras, microphones, and eager reporters and talk show hosts as she 'revealed all'.

The question that remains is, "What were the monies for?" La Toya herself speculated that perhaps, owing to the large sums written in the 'amount' field of these checks, her brother had bought these boys from their parents. It's certainly possible, but, in truth, just as La Toya had acknowledged, we do not know why James Safechuck received such a generous check from Jackson, not to mention, according to Taraborrelli's biography, the family was gifted a $100,000 Rolls Royce (it has been noted that Jimmy himself verified this gift given during a grand jury hearing in November 1993). We also do not know why Jackson bought the Safechucks a home, according to page 50 of Bob Jones and Stacy Brown's Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask:
Steve Chabre, a former President of MJJ Enterprises, later told me that Michael did purchase a luxury automobile for this family, as well as a house in the San Fernanado Valley in California--all without informing his lawyer or accountants.
Public records indicate that James Safechuck, Sr. and his wife were granted a deed in mid-1992 to a home in Simi Valley, California, which is connected to the San Fernando Valley.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the check itself was a payoff to quiet claims of Jackson having molested the boy.

However, it is not hard to conclude that, given the gifts he'd also showered upon June Chandler (whose son would go on to accuse him of molestation) and the ones he'd attempted to give to Jolie Levine (whose son was of the right age), the check--and the other gifts given--could reasonably be seen as something of a bribe, a distraction tool, a quid pro quo.

With parents flattered that a superstar was spending his own money on them, it could easily have the effect of lowering their guards and allowing access to the child. In fact, it is certainly possible that after having received fancy cars and a check in an amount characterized by a one with a string of zeros trailing behind it,  the gift-giver could feel a sense of entitlement to as much as the recipient's soul. And if not that sinister, the recipient's favor has been bought and the superstar is now seen as a 'great guy', part of the family****.

Whatever the check was for--and it seemed to be given in the beginning of the his friendship with Jimmy*****--it managed to become something of an 'All Access Pass' to the boy.

Despite all of the fun he may have had with Jackson, Jimmy Safechuck became known as the boy Michael Jackson abandoned, a poster child for the singer's seeming propensity of tossing boys to the side when they grow too old and replacing them with newer, younger 'special friends'. A sixteen-year-old Jimmy did, however, spend time with Jackson and then-bride Lisa Marie Presley during the couple's honeymoon and he and Jackson displayed some sort of closeness, evidenced by the wearing each other's sunglasses.



Now, Jimmy has never claimed he'd been molested by Michael Jackson. However, like other 'special friends' whose protestations of having not been abused are reasonably false, Jimmy's, too, seems unlikely, especially given the bribes, the fact Jackson's behavior with this boy (and others) led to Jolie Levine's calling Jackson a "chickenhawk", and, of course, since Jordie Chandler revealed, in his evaluation with Dr. Richard Gardner, that Michael Jackson told him Jimmy Safechuck masturbated in front of Jackson (Jimmy's alias in the evaluation is "Sam Thomas").

Now, one of the go-to arguments Jackson fans cling to--one which is used as a 'trump card' to invalidate the idea that, in spite of the above, as well as the overall weirdness incurred by being the 'special friend' of an adult male in the first place, Jimmy Safechuck was never a molestation victim--is that, some time before Jackson's molestation trial, Jimmy Safechuck had gotten married at Neverland.

This is not a totally difficult concept to accept, of course; it can be reasonable to assume that the likelihood of sexual abuse having occurred is relatively dubious when the alleged victim of such abuse takes his bride under the eyes of his family and God at the house of his alleged abuser.

So, it is lucid to believe (disregarding the reality, of course, that some abuse victims can have affection for their abusers, especially if the abuser was never violent and filled some kind of emotional role for them) that a marriage event taking place at the Ranch would nullify, or at least bring into suspicion, the claims of Jordie Chandler, Jolie Levine, and other assorted Neverland employees that Jimmy was, at the very least, subject to bizarre and pedophiliac-tinged affections by Jackson.

Thomas Mesereau, Jr., Michael Jackson's defense attorney who managed to get him acquitted in 2005, a man who has been all but crowned a prince--a demigod--in the minds of Jackson's fans, was the first to mention this significant detail about Jimmy Safechuck.


During the March 17, 2005 cross-examination of reluctant Prosecution witness Kiki Fournier, an erstwhile housekeeper at the Ranch, when the topic moved to Jackson's 'special friends' and Jimmy Safechuck was among them, Mesereau brought up the detail about Jimmy's purported Neverland wedding:
2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
3 government asked you some questions about other
4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew
5 through the years, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And would you agree that, like most people,
8 Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some
9 families rather than others, correct.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the
12 prosecutor referred to would come with their
13 families, correct.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at
16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
17 A. I didn’t even know he was married.
According to Fournier, her employment at Neverland, which spanned approximately twelve years, was 'on and off'.
24 Q. Can you tell me the time frame that you
25 worked for Mr. Jackson.
26 A. I started in September of ‘91, and worked
27 off and on till September 28th, 2003.
28 Q. Okay. When you say -- yeah, you have to 
1 speak directly into that microphone so we can hear
2 you.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. When you say “off and on,” can you give me a
5 little more specific description of what that means.
6 A. Well, I worked a couple years, and then I
7 would take some time off. I had a child back in
8 1993 also, so -- and then I would take a couple of
9 years off, and then I would go back for a couple of
10 years.
11 Q. And you said you left ultimately in
12 September of 2003.
13 A. Yes.

In later testimony, she stated she'd returned from one of her sabbaticals in December 2002 and worked until her final day in September 2003, although it is never clarified when that sabbatical was taken. Given the nature of her employment at the ranch, it becomes entirely possible that Kiki Fournier's lack of knowledge of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" is due to the fact that it may have occurred while she was on leave.

And perhaps she'd been away for so long that the potential chatter about such an event had dissipated before it could migrate through the grapevine, alerting her.

Or maybe Jimmy Safechuck was never married at Neverland.

Good evidence does exist to reasonably suggest that Tom Mesereau fabricated the aforementioned claim (for which he failed to provide at least an approximate date), namely the fact that Jimmy Safechuck--who now refers to himself as "James"--is currently married to and has fathered a child with the same woman he'd wedded back on October 18, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois.



Jimmy's wife gave herself a congratulation last month on her Facebook; it was their third year anniversary.


To be sure, though, the fact that Jimmy has been married to the same woman for three years and has started a family does not necessarily indicate that he had never been married before; nevertheless, however, it does bring into suspicion the feasibility of that Neverland wedding Mesereau spoke about.

Let's consider a few points.

Noteworthy was his back-and-forth with Kiki Fournier, who'd been more familiar with Jimmy Safechuck the 'special friend' but not Jimmy Safechuck the married man. During the discussion of Jackson's propensity of befriending certain boys and their families over others, Mesereau brings up the piece of evidence as a non sequitur. Fournier then clarifies her lack of familiarity and Mesereau quickly abandons the topic without confirming his claim to Fournier, assuring her, as well as the judge and the jury, that, in fact, Jimmy Safechuck had been married at his friend's home.

The significance of this may seem small. However, it rings odd that, while defending a client accused of sexually abusing both past and present (at that time, Gavin Arvizo) 'special friends', Tom Mesereau would buck the opportunity to illuminate how the 'fact' of a marriage of one of these allegedly abused 'special friends' thwarts the notion of alleged abuse. Not only that, the evidence of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" would reasonably indicate that this alleged victim was both incredibly comfortable around and had maintained a friendship with his purported abuser.

Simply, it would have went a substantial distance in disproving the supposed molestation of Jimmy Safechuck.

Mesereau, however, promptly left the subject, choosing not to elaborate any further. It also seems reasonable to suggest that he'd been relieved this longtime Neverland employee had no clue about the validity (or lack thereof) of any such event, allowing him to safely throw a piece of unsubstantiated information before the jury without anyone calling his bluff.

Kiki Fournier had been the perfect witness to question; she'd had lots of gaps in her tenure as housekeeper and any wedding could have easily been unfamiliar even if it never occurred.

In addition to Kiki Fournier's being unfamiliar with this alleged "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding", it is a testament to the sneakiness of Tom Mesereau's insertion of this piece of evidence among such disparate questioning that, when verification about this claim was sought from two prolific Jackson journalists, both Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, who'd sat in the Jackson trial courtroom every day, had not even realized Mesereau mentioned anything about Jimmy Safechuck.



Also worth considering is when would a wedding have taken place. 

Today, Jimmy Safechuck is thirty-three years old. It had been in 2005 that Tom Mesereau claimed Jimmy was married at Neverland; Jimmy was around twenty-seven that same year. We know that between the time of Mesereau's claim in court and early 2003, Neverland Ranch was in a commotion egged on by Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson, which was probably inhospitable to a marriage ceremony. We can also eliminate back to December 2002, when Kiki Fournier was re-employed--she had no knowledge of a wedding. Earlier still, Jackson was traveling, dangling his infant son, receiving awards, doing concerts, and making and promoting Invincible; all of this dates back to the year 2000******.

Is it possible that Jimmy's alleged wedding could have been squeezed in during all of this? It is, but we must also consider Jimmy's age. From 2000 to 2002, he would have been between twenty-two and twenty-four years old, respectively (and if we go back even earlier, Jimmy would be younger still). Certainly, both ages are old enough to get married but, if the wedding had occurred at Neverland, wouldn't that be an indication of it being 'special enough' to deserve such a gaudy and festive setting? However, if this marriage had taken place, the union must have ended quite abruptly; both Jimmy and the wife he'd wedded in 2008 work for the same company, a company he'd began at a year following the consummation of Jackson's child abuse trial, and they'd married only two years after his being with the firm.

It should be noted that Jimmy Safechuck's current marriage is not necessarily an indication that he'd never been married before but it is reasonable to assume that because he has been married since 2008 and has a child--all indications of 'wedded bliss' and stability--he was never married beforehand, a marriage that would have been undergone when he was a very young man and was obviously a failure. And while it is true that divorces can be had and that the United States divorce rate is close to 50 percent, it seems reasonable to conclude that one apparently successful marriage (and successful courtship in the months or years before the wedding itself) entered into at the age of thirty resulting in a child is more likely than two marriages, the first entered into while Jimmy Safechuck was in his very early twenties.

At the writing of this piece, contact had been made to Jackson's defense lawyers Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu, Jimmy Safechuck and his wife, and three of their relatives to confirm or deny a Neverland wedding. All requests for comment were not returned.

Is it an absolute fact that Jimmy Safechuck was never married at Neverland? Without a confirmation either way, all that exists is that initial non sequitur from Mesereau, a claim, not a fact. Sure, we cannot rule out a Neverland wedding but we also cannot confirm it.

Of course, there is the question of whether Tom Mesereau, a highly skilled and intelligent defense attorney, lied in defense of his client. Had he made it up, taking advantage of Kiki Fournier's sporadic history at Neverland Ranch? Had Jackson told Mesereau to make up the story because he knew that Jimmy Safechuck was not going to testify? 

None of this is known for certain but it is definitely possible. Jimmy Safechuck has been married for three years and has a child; while divorce is a reality, it is not enough to refute the evidence of his current marriage, which tends to suggest, prima facie, that Jimmy had never been married before. Probability--based upon the seeming stability of his current union; the fact that Jimmy witnessed marital stability between his parents; and that there is really no evidence to suggest that he was married before--seems to be on the side of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" being dubious.

On the other hand, what is not ambiguous is the fact that La Toya Jackson, despite her claims to the contrary, had seen a large check payable to Jimmy's father, James Safechuck. Because it has been verified as factual (Safechuck had been in the garbage collection business since the early 1980s), we must also look upon the rest of La Toya's claims against her brother as having more credibility, not as the fruits of being 'brainwashed' by an abusive husband.

The Jimmy Safechuck findings mentioned herein tend to add to the reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and that Jimmy Safechuck, despite his alleged protestations otherwise, was one of Jackson's victims.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*  According to the Prosecution's "Prior Bad Acts" document, former MJJ Productions administrative assistant Charmayne Sternberg stated that Jackson put children into two categories: children who had "problems"--meaning those kids who'd had illnesses and would make for a good photo-op--and those who were his 'special friends'. Sternberg also revealed that Jimmy Safechuck's calls would be diverted directly to Jackson and that Jonathan Spence could call and receive whatever he wanted.

**  In the Author's Note to Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson Unauthorized, Anderson remarks on how, in 1991, he'd received information that a couple who'd worked for Jackson at his Neverland Ranch had alleged to have seen Jackson fondle a boy; from page vii:
In early 1991, while I was still hard at work on my biography of Madonna, a fellow journalist called in the middle of the night with an amazing story. Two former employees at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch claimed to have seen Michael fondling a little boy. It was not just any boy, but one of the biggest child stars in the world. My initial reaction of shock and disbelief led me to begin an investigation of my own into the life of the world's most famous human being.
Andersen apparently is referring to Phillippe and Stella Lemarque, who had tried to sell this exact story to the National Enquirer that same year about Jackson molesting Macaulay Culkin (he denied the abuse, although Phillippe Lemarque claimed the boy was hypnotized by the video game he'd been playing at the time while Michael Jackson was allegedly groping him). According to Maureen Orth's January 1994 Vanity Fair article, "Nightmare in Neverland", the Lemarques were rebuffed by the paper; the Enquirer felt, at the time of the story tip, that investigating it would be time-consuming and legally risky.

In addition to the Lemarques' claim, a newspaper (the October 3, 1993 issue of London's now defunct Today) reported that back in May 1992, another employee allegedly told the Santa Barbara county Department of Children's Services that he'd seen Jackson behave inappropriately with young boys at Neverland. The gardener was fired and later told that an incident to which he claims he'd seen--and deemed inappropriate--was not as it appeared to be. As it is related in Carl Toms' Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, page 122:
His complaint to social workers that Michael was molesting youngsters was lodged back in May 1992, over a year before the Chandler allegations, according to a press report sourced to one Mary Comstock, programme manager with Santa Barbara county department of children's services. It led to the singer being put under surveillance. The gardener reportedly told authorities that Michael was engaged in "unwholesome activities with children". He said he'd seen Jackson hugging, fondling, and videotaping a number of youngsters who had stayed as guests. He told how some of these activities had taken place in special hidden places, such as the hot tub, which could not be overlooked--except, presumably, by the gardener himself, perhaps peering through the bushes. 
On one occasion a young boy from Los Angeles who was a frequent visitor at the Ranch had been invited to Michael's private theater to watch films.  The gardener told the social workers he happened to walk in because he wanted to ask Jackson something. He saw Michael fondling the boy. "As I entered the room, they jumped apart and Jackson was furious with me for entering the room at all," he said. There was a showdown. He was "threatened and ordered to leave". Later he was told that what he had witnessed was "not at all what it appeared to be". The child had been upset and afraid and Michael was "just trying to comfort him".
Note that, like other Jackson employees (notably the "Neverland Five" and the Havyenhurst Five), this gardener claimed he, too, was threatened when it was found out that he'd knew too much about Jackson's behaviors with his young 'special friends'. That he was also told that what he'd witnessed between Jackson and a boy was 'innocuous' lends credence to the explanation other employees gave about not going to the police: they wouldn't be believed.

While there was no media knowledge of any allegations of abuse against Jackson that could be the reason Jack Gordon, in 1991, called his brother-in-law a 'pederast', it is quite peculiar--and telling--that there was, from more than one source, a corroboration to his claim.

***  It has been claimed on a fan blog that a woman appearing with Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck during a 1988 trip to Hawaii in this set of photographs is 'unidentified' and, therefore, could have 'possibly' been someone with whom Jackson could have been involved. However, the woman who appears in the pictures with Jackson and Jimmy was his mother.

****  We can recall June Chandler's April 11, 2005 testimony where she described Michael Jackson's apparent expectations with regard to herself, Jordie, and Jackson being a family, and how a gift was received after she allowed Jordie to sleep in the bed with Jackson. Jackson had previously had a tantrum when June merely wanted to know where Jackson and Jordie had been when neither of them showed up at a show:
12 Q. Now, could you describe for the jury Mr.

13 Jackson’s demeanor at the time that they came back

14 to the room?

15 A. He was sobbing. He was crying, shaking,

16 trembling.

17 Q. Michael Jackson was?

18 A. He was.

19 Q. And what about your son’s demeanor?

20 A. He was quiet.

21 Q. Now, at that point in time, did Mr. Jackson

22 tell you why he was upset or crying?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. All right. Tell the jury what he said.

25 A. He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a

26 family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not

27 allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is

28 with you.”

1 He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my

2 bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun.

3 Boys” --

4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;

5 narrative.

6 THE COURT: Narrative; sustained.

7 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us what -

8 Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep

9 with him in his bed - what you said to Mr. Jackson.

10 A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” --

11 “This is not anything that I want. This is not

12 right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to

13 do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants

14 to sleep.”

15 Q. Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking?

16 A. I was saying this. And Michael was

17 trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is

18 having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s

19 nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you

20 trust me?”

21 Q. All right. How long do you think this

22 conversation lasted between you and Mr. Jackson over

23 where Jordan was going to sleep that night?

24 A. I would say 20 to 30, 40 minutes.

25 Q. So it was a back-and-forth conversation; is

26 that right?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Do you recall how many times during that

1 conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized the fact

2 that you didn’t trust him?

3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

4 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t recall how many

5 times --

6 THE COURT: Just a moment.

7 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 Go ahead. You may answer.

10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Go ahead.

11 A. I don’t recall how many times.

12 Q. Was it on more than one occasion?

13 A. Absolutely, yes.

14 Q. Was it on many occasions?

15 A. Quite a few.

16 Q. Do you remember how many times during the

17 conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized to you that

18 you were family?

19 A. Many times.

20 Q. Did you at some point in time relent and

21 allow your son to sleep with Michael Jackson in his

22 bedroom?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 Q. And was it after that discussion on that

25 night?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. Is that the first occasion?

28 A. Correct.
1 Q. When you were in Las Vegas, do you remember

2 how many of the nights in Las Vegas that your son

3 Jordan slept with the defendant, Michael Jackson, in

4 Michael Jackson’s room?

5 A. I would say two occasions.

6 Q. Now, at some point in time after you had

7 agreed to let your son Jordan sleep with Mr.

8 Jackson, were you the recipient of a gift from Mr.

9 Jackson?

10 A. Yes, I was.

11 Q. Would you describe that to the jury?

12 A. It was a gold bracelet, and it was given to

13 me by Michael.

14 Q. And you say “a gold bracelet.” Had you seen

15 that gold bracelet in a shop of some kind before?

16 A. I had seen it before, yes.

17 Q. And the brand name on that bracelet?

18 A. Cartier.

19 Q. Was it expensive, to your knowledge?

20 A. Oh, I -- yes, it was.

21 Q. When was it you received this gift in

22 relationship to having agreed to allow your son to

23 sleep in bed with Mr. Jackson?

24 A. I think it was the next evening when we were

25 attending a show, a magic show, by David

26 Copperfield.
Notice that, following June Chandler's receipt of this expensive piece of jewelry (which retails today for around $5600), there was never any fuss over the fact Jordie was sleeping with Jackson.

*****  With respect to the timeline of these gifts, La Toya Jackson being shown a check to the Safechucks by Katherine Jackson suggests that this was quite early on in Jackson's relationship with Jimmy, seeing that La Toya left the Jackson family compound in mid-1988 for New York City under Jack Gordon's guide. As a corroboration to La Toya's living at Hayvenhurst during the time Jackson had befriended the boy, in former Jermaine Jackson spouse Margaret Maldonado's tell-all, Jackson Family Values, she notes that when she'd moved into the home in winter (Jan-Feb) 1988, La Toya was still there.

******  On this Michael Jackson fan blog, it had haphazardly been claimed that Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland "circa 2000". However, there was no further information given, such as how this date was came to. This is the same blog that calls Jimmy's mother an 'unidentified woman' who Jackson could have been canoodling with and also claimed that Jimmy was an orphan, which would have made the large check Jimmy's father received impossible. Apparently the quality of info on this website leaves much to be desired.

309 comments:

1 – 200 of 309   Newer›   Newest»
Desiree said...

Not added in the post but worth mentioning:


Apparently Jimmy Safechuck's mother joined Jacko and Jimmy on a trip to Hawaii in 1988 and also on a few stops (at the very least) during the Bad Tour. You would then think that since his parent(s) would have stopped any kind of potential abuse. But according to Bob Jones, staff was ordered to keep them occupied while Jacko was with Jimmy. In Nice, he says, Jacko paid for a lavish dinner at the Hotel Negresco, a very expensive hotel (p. 51).

This would be another 'gift' given to the Safechuck parents.

The distraction of the parents corroborates Charli Michaels' claims that they had to keep the parents away. It was Michaels who'd had the run in with a frantic Joy Robson who'd been looking for her son (See Chris Andersen's book).

In the Prior Bad Acts motion, Charmayne Sternberg mentioned Liz Barnes searching for Brett and he'd been with Jacko.

J-M-H said...

Great post, Desiree.

Latoya was always telling the truth, you could just tell. Jack Gordon would never have known the specific details that she knew about her brother, and I think the fans don't want to acknowledge that the she was one of the best witnesses against her brother. Latoya was the one that was at the house the longest and had a very close relationship with Mike; she'd know. Jack Gordon I think did abuse her but he could not put all those details in her head. it's just like Evan Chandler and his alleged (and disproven ) use of sodium amytal to fill Jordie's head with "molestation lies". Jordie had way too much detail that Evan would have never known about, Jordie had even mentioned Jimmy Safechuck. Evan wouldn't know anything about any other special friends because Jordie was with his mother during those excursions.

I wonder what that money to the Safechuck father was for. Was it hush money or bribery? I think it was bribery to get more access to Jimmy, or rather, the parents would be like "Oh well I guess it's okay if Jimmy sleeps over Michael's--he did give us that Rolls Royce!"

About T-Mez, doesn't surprise me if he fibbed about the wedding. Defense attorneys lie all the time. His questioning of June Chandler was riddled with spots that make you think "Did he even research 1993 before questioning her?" It doesn't seem like Jimmy would have married at Neverland... T-Mez lied, LOL. I guess all that harping on "Jimmy was married at Neverland see he wasn't abused" should probably stop. And the reason you didn't get a response was probably because they want nothing to do with Michael Jackson or his nutjob fans. If it had happened at Neverland, I suspect that you would have gotten a reply since there would be nothing to hide. Perhaps he doesn't want anyone to know that what T-Mez said was a lie, so Jacko fans don't come after him (Jimmy).

J-M-H said...

But according to Bob Jones, staff was ordered to keep them occupied while Jacko was with Jimmy. In Nice, he says, Jacko paid for a lavish dinner at the Hotel Negresco, a very expensive hotel (p. 51).

Isn't Nice the place where Bob Jones mentions that he was told that the staff found and confiscated a sheet form Mike's hotel room that was covered with feces? So is it possible that this incident had something to do with Jimmy as well? He was the only special friend with him in Nice. Remember according to Jordie, Mike had an intimate knowledge of Brett Barnes' bowel movements (yuck).

S.U. said...

Desiree:

When a couple divorces in America,can they have a religious marriage, if they marry again? I´m asking because in my country a couple who was married before can just marry by civil, even divorced. If the law was the same in America and Jimmy had married by religious service in 2008, so he wasn´t married before...

Frenchie said...

Excellent entry, Desiree. You've proven that the details La Toya provided in the 90s are legitimate. Jack Gordon would not have been able to feed La Toya obscure information that he had no possible way of knowing. It came from La Toya. I agree that the check was part of the Safechuck "wooing" process, not a payoff as has been speculated.

I find it hilarious that fangirls are trying to rebrand Jimmy's mom as Michael's "mystery woman". They need to keep the fantasy alive! I've heard that some people develop compulsive fixations of unattainable partners because they struggle with real relationships. So, the more inaccessible the love interest is to them, the safer they feel. It allows them to stay in their little fantasy world. Really, how much more unattainable can you get than a dead boy-lover? LOL.

Desiree said...

J-M-H:

This post proves La Toya is now rewriting history. Her brother was a child molester and she knew, as well as Katherine Jackson. There's no way in hell Jack Gordon could have made any of the stuff up.

James Safechuck, Sr. was a garbage collector and he's been one forever.

I noted in this post that none of the Safchucks responded to my requests for clarification, which I find telling. Why not say 'yea' or 'nay'? Mesereau and Yu didn't respond either. I asked them if there was a possibility that Mesereau misspoke.

No response from anyone.

I think Jimmy Safechuck is so done with Michael Jackson. He wants to forget that time of his life. To me, this seems to reasonably suggest that there is some demons there.

Comparatively, Brett Barnes, for example, has no problem writing on his Facebook or on Twitter how much he loves Michael Jackson. He has no problem letting the world know and he actively chats with Jacksons (or sends them tweets--who knows if they respond).

Wade Robson, on the other hand, was apprehensive. I remember that magazine quote you'd pasted a while back where the interviewer said he'd 'bristled' at the mention of Jacko.

Perhaps Jimmy Safechuck is the same way; he wants to move on and not potentially face the tough questions about his relationship with Michael Jackson.

As for Tom Mesereau, I believe he lied. Granted, I have no confirmation either way but I am damned sure he lied; it's the way he brought it up. Mesereau is full of shit; the fans are loony for thinking he's John the Baptist to Jacko's Christ. No, he's just your typical sleazy defense lawyer how'll do anything or say anything to get their client off.

But the most important part of this entry is the La Toya Jackson bit. She's lying now.


S.U.:

In America, it doesn't matter how many times a person gets divorced, they are entitled to get married by a priest, minister, or even someone at City Hall.

Marriages in America are not legally connected to religious institutions but they can be socially or culturally connected.

So, if Jimmy Safechuck was married before and divorced, he could get re-married in a church under U.S. law. However, I don't believe he was ever married beforehand. I believe that was a lie on Mesereau's part because he knew Jimmy wouldn't be testifying.

Desiree said...

"I agree that the check was part of the Safechuck "wooing" process, not a payoff as has been speculated."


Yes, that is what I, too, believe, Frenchie. The check was given too early in the relationship between Jimmy and Jacko. What would have been the point of a check that large so soon if not to butter up the parents?

A million there, a Rolls Royce here, a house, a fancy banquet. It's the same with June Chandler. He had a pattern of gift-giving that was used as a distraction technique. Because, as we know, evil monstrous pedophiles are not 'kind' and 'generous'; they even 'hate' children and their sole goal is to get into pubescent pants. That, of course, is inaccurate. Pedophiles can have sugary sweetness coating the sinister interior.

He was an excellent manipulator.


"I find it hilarious that fangirls are trying to rebrand Jimmy's mom as Michael's "mystery woman"."


I actually think the Laciengasmiled (sp?) website is chock full of inaccurate information. Since the writer plays directly into the hands (and underwear) of middle-aged fangirls, fact-checking is not high up on her to-do list.

She claimed Jimmy Safechuck was an orphan, which is false, and said his Neverland wedding was 'circa 2000'. I would have contacted her for clarification about that date but she had no contact form. The so-called Hawaiian mystery woman looks remarkably like Mrs. Safechuck.

I am starting to believe that the fans take everything each other may say at complete face value. They cite as sources one another's blogs, etc. Then, some of these are the same people who email me all the time saying I need to do research.

LOL. None of them read any books besides Dimond and Taraborrelli. None of them have read court documents. These are the people who cite the 1994 Chandler settlement as 'proof' that Michael Jackson was innocent! LMAO.

Everything they say shall be taken with a grain of salt until proven otherwise. The Jimmy's mom thing is not a surprise in the least.

J-M-H said...

LOL, it's funny that they'd even think that Mike was "getting it in" (to use Teddy Riley's phrase) before Lisa Marie Presley. Yes, that looks just like Mrs. Safechuck, the hair and the forehead and the nose. Plus, according to Bob Jones, his parents accompanied them on the Bad tour. That blog is a riot, actually; she seems to think that every woman photographed with Mike was someone he was boinking, LOL. Not a surprise when you consider the fact that one of her recommended sites is Lipstick Alley.

The fans are ridiculous, it's beyond obvious that Mike had no interest in women. I'm still trying to figure out why he felt he had to lie about being asexual if he was so interested in Frank Cascio's love life, among other things. Perhaps this was his way of having an excuse for spending more time with young boys than with women.


Jimmy's father looks like he'd wring Mike's neck if he ever suspected anything. I bet they questioned their son, and asked if anything happened. He probably convinced them that nothing went on and they believed him, because I can't imagine the dad still allowing Jimmy to go with him on the History teaser if not for full faith in his son's word. I mean, you'd think that a child molestation allegation would be enough to cause the parents to think "hmm...he wanted to do XYZ with my kid too...". SMH.

A.G. said...

Desiree: If somebody marries under U.S. law where would the registry office be in case it was Neverland? Then it would be easy to look for a marriage certificate there.

Desiree said...

A.G.:

In the U.S., a couple can marry at any location in terms of the ceremony itself. It does not have to be in any specific location; a couple can get married in a church or someone's backyard or on an island. The most important thing is that the marriage is officiated by someone with a license to marry people.

In terms of a registry, regardless of where the location of the marriage ceremony was, the couple must report to the government their marriage, typically in the county their marriage ceremony was held (sometimes people can go overseas and have the ceremony, even though the document is filed in their U.S. residence--the marriage license/certificate is a valid contract recognize across state lines).

So, if Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland as Mesereau claims, there should be a record of the marriage license in the State of California. However, I was unable to find or locate any such records; the State of California forbids random searches for people's marriage records online and one must go down to the clerk's office in individual counties. However, there is a way to find out if Jimmy Safechuck was married beforehand by paying $50 to people search websites, since they will list the spouse or any previous spouse, but I am not about to do that.

Jimmy's current marriage was in Illinois (city of Chicago) and the state law of Illinois forbids supplying any records of marriages or divorces online or even through paid people search engines. My father was remarried in Chicago but I couldn't find a record of it. Jimmy's current marriage was registered in Chicago, too, so I was unable to find a record of it. However, in people searches, his wife is listed as a relative because they currently live in the state of California and have purchased a home, along with other family members of Jimmy's.

My mother and father were married in California and are divorced. Typically, you'll be able to see a record of 'relatives' of the person searched. I did see my father and mother listed as each other's relatives.

Now, if Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, that would be in California. For example, James Safechuck, Sr. was married and divorced in the state of California before marrying Jimmy's mother and I was able to locate that previous marriage, as I noted that people searches for California marriages will list any spouse if available.

I searched for Jimmy's marriage and because his current marriage was in the State of Illinois, his current spouse is not listed (as ordained by Illinois law). But no spouse was listed for his alleged California marriage.

State law dictates how these things are able to be found. For example, you can find tons of celebrity marriages online if they were filed in my city because our state law allows for marriages to be searched as public records and my county's clerk is very efficient with our public records.

Simply, there is no record of Jimmy having ever been married before his current wife. And, as I've noted in this entry, he started working for the same company she works for in early 2006. So, they were dating and got engaged (early 2008-late 2007) and he was unmarried.

Desiree said...

(cont.)

Mesereau talks as if it were fact that he was currently married in 2005, when he'd 'unveiled' (and then quickly abandoned) about Jimmy Safechuck being married at Neverland Ranch. But this cannot be.

Like I mentioned, I received no replies from anyone when I sought clarification. Jimmy's wife was the first person I contacted and I'd asked her a simple question, "Was your husband ever previously married and the ceremony had taken place at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch? One of Jackson's defense attorney's claimed this at trial."

No response. Then other family members. Still no response.

No response from Mesereau or Yu, either.

The Safechucks are mum because they don't want to be stalked by Jacko fans, hence why I concealed his wife's identity to the best of my abilities. Jimmy's actual Facebook is unsearchable and is without a profile picture. It is also locked down. He apparently has gone to great lengths to hide himself, and I believe it's quite obvious why.

Unlike Brett Barnes, who becomes giddy when flattered by Jackson's fans, Jimmy must no longer be a fan of Jacko's. Matter of fact, I think it is indicative of the fact that he has zero love for Jacko and something went on between them.

And that is evidenced by the gratuitous showering of gifts and the million dollar check La Toya Jackson saw. Jacko'd done the same to June Chandler, giving her gifts, and he'd sexually abused Jordie while she was distracted by her new trinkets. According to Jordie Chandler, Jacko told him that Jimmy masturbated in front of Jacko.

If one puts all of the evidence together, including the silence, it's pretty obvious what happened between Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck.

Fans should no longer use the Mesereau line of, "Jimmy was married at Neverland," as 'proof' of his not having been molested because there is no proof that that was true; Mesereau didn't even go into it--he just threw it on in. And Jimmy's father--the 'garbage collector'--was given a massive check, as La Toya Jackson claimed; this has been proven.

Desiree said...

A.G.:

I just read over what I'd written and I hope it wasn't too confusing! :-)

A.G. said...

Oh no..it was very clear..Just for interest check out this link as the fans obviuosly have gone to overdrive to counter your arguments...;-)They are unable to learn.....

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-3-of-5/

Amusing stuff!

Desiree said...

A.G.:

Why aren't you using your Blogger account? I liked seeing your little picture. ;-)

Anyway, I checked the link out and I saw that that was a part of a five-part series. (I also noted that the nutjob stalking me is commenting on there under her usual pseudo "ameera"/"Ameeramac"--I'm still trying to figure out why she is so ashamed to link her revenge blog to her own name. Consciousness of guilt? LOL!)

I don't read Vindicate MJ--or any pro-Jacko website--and I find that whole blog to be ridiculous. I only read Jacko/Jacko-related books or articles, etc. I merely scanned the link you'd given pasted, as it was typical fan talking points.

However, this stuck out to me as being particularly laughable:


http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-4-of-5/


"I came up with a list of 16 talking points that fans should memorize (to the best of their ability) so that they can explain what really happened in 1993. I will discuss these talking points in more detail in an upcoming post tentatively titled “21 Questions For Michael Jackson Haters”:

1. Evan and Jordan’s background as the screenwriters of “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”.

2. Evan’s jealously of Jordan spending more time with MJ than him., and his anger at MJ over being rejected as a 50/50 partner in MJ’s film company.

3. The taped telephone call between Evan and Dave Schwartz. (MJJ Justice Project did an EXCELLENT analysis of it! Here’s part 1, and part 2.)

4. Evan coercing Jordan to admit to being abused right after a dental procedure, when Jordan was still heavily sedated.

5. Evan’s demand for a $20 million dollar for a film deal on August 4th, 1993, and MJ’s refusal to give in.

6. June Chandler obtaining custody of Jordan, and Evan’s decision to bring Jordan to a psychiatrist rather than surrender custody of him. He did not mention his suspicions of child abuse to the courts. Evan did this so that the psychiatrist Mathis Abrams could report the alleged abuse, and Evan couldn’t be charged with filing a false claim.

7. Evan’s firing of Gloria Allred for her refusal to sue MJ before criminally prosecuting him, and his replacement of her with Larry Feldman, who filed a frivolous civil lawsuit in September 1993. MJ countersued for extortion.

8. Feldman’s motion to have the civil trail precede the criminal trial, and Fields’ and Weitzman’s counter-motion to have it delayed until after the criminal trial (which subsequently failed.)

9. The fact that MJ was not arrested immediately upon the completion of his strip search, and Larry Feldman’s request to have MJ strip searched again or bar the original photos from court, which confirms it wasn’t an accurate match. (I would also compare Jordan’s description to MJ’s actual description so viewers can see how disparate they are, as we did in this post.)

Desiree said...

(cont.)


"10. The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ, nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal case. The Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and Garcetti was so desperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify. (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Jackson” article in that link.)

11. After the settlement, two different grand juries in two counties refused to indict MJ, and the investigation stopped in September 1994.

12. In May 1996, Evan filed a $60 million lawsuit against MJ, LMP, ABC, and Sony, and he wanted to record and publish a rebuttal album called “EVANstory”. The lawsuit was thrown out in 2000, and Evan’s finances were depleted by the legal fees.

13. In September 2004, Ray Chandler successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena for him to testify in court about the validity of his book “All That Glitters” (read this series for more info), which was ghostwritten by Evan Chandler, and was originally intended to be released in Spring 1994. Book publisher Judith Regan confirmed this in July 2009.

14. In August 2005, two months after the trial, Evan tried to murder Jordan by hitting him from behind with a 12.5 pound weight, macing him, and choking him. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order as a result.

15. In November 2009, Evan committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Nobody attended his wake, and he was subsequently cremated.

16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”."



So, there will be a post on this. LOL. All of the above points are ridiculous. For fun, when I am not as busy today, I will perhaps give those 'points' a go; after all, they are directed to us 'haters'.

By the way, fans are entitled to believe whatever they'd like to believe about Jacko and have a blog about it. Just as we 'haters'--or rather, former fans--shall be allowed to have DSSL or mjfacts.info to discuss Jacko's issues.

The intriguing thing to me is that they don't believe in the same reciprocity. I recently had to delete a few f'loon comments; another fan kept emailing me telling me I need to do my research, the translation being, "I need to believe as she believes," and worship the Bleached One.

None of the readers can see my perspective but I have tons of fans stalking this site. They hate it but they cannot stay away.

I must be doing something right, eh? If they don't believe what I write about Michael Joseph Jackson why do they insist on visiting everyday or multiple times a day?

LMAO...

Frenchie said...

Unless Jimmy's "Neverland bride" lived with him in his parents' home, and he kept her locked away so there would be no record of her existence, I think T-Mez lied. It wouldn't be the first time.

That wedding photo of him grinning from ear to ear is so friggin charming. I'm glad everything seems to have worked out for him.

S.U. said...

Desiree:

The blog´s name is LaCienenga Just Smiles and I know the board Lipstick Alley, they have a section dedicated to Michael´s ladies LOL. The people there are nuts.

"None of the readers can see my perspective but I have tons of fans stalking this site. They hate it but they cannot stay away.

I must be doing something right, eh? If they don't believe what I write about Michael Joseph Jackson why do they insist on visiting everyday or multiple times a day?"

It´s a little off-topic but yeah it´s dumb. The same with Jason´s blog. The poor guy was a liar, a fat,a monster for the f´loons but they opened a thread about his blog and commented all he wrote...so much for believing him a liar...they could be more disgusting than those they call "haters". And remember the women who wrote in his blog, claiming to be some insider refuting Jason´s claims? Of course it was some fan! I know all their tricks, writing softly and very understandable (for nobody suspect she was a f´loon), claiming to have "proof" but she couldn´t show it because of "privacy" (always the same...). I almost lost it when another f´loon complained because "we didn´t want to give a chance to those women for being truthful..." Please!!! What I see is fans always giving the benefit of the doubt for women and rejecting any gay rumor! Of course someone with a brain would suspect of anyone claiming to be some girlfriend in the blog of the very man who claimed to be Michael´s lover! But yet the f´loons in Lipstick Alley believe in the "tea!" LOL
They think they can dispel the rumors like that...but they´re doing wrong. Because, like a sane fan answered there, claiming to have "proof" to dispel but doing nothing and just writing around the web is WORST than any unproven rumor! If she was some real girlfriend, she would do anything to defend her man...right?

It´s the same with the people who actually had known Michael but do almost nothing to defend him. I read a fan complaining that Karen didn´t defend Michael and Lisa´s marriage and it didn´t cost her a simple tweet...LOL. Karen just said that she didn´t want to discuss Frank´s book and anyone could believe what they want or something like that.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

"Unless Jimmy's "Neverland bride" lived with him in his parents' home, and he kept her locked away so there would be no record of her existence, I think T-Mez lied. It wouldn't be the first time."


There was no records of a California marriage for Jimmy Safechuck that I could find, although there were those of his father and his first wife and that of his father and his mother. So, if Jimmy's marriage occurred, that spouse would've been findable in some way.

What gets me is the way Mesereau brought it up, so sneakily as to influence the jury. But since Dimond and Orth hadn't heard about it, maybe the jurors didn't either. Not that it would have mattered anyway...

Mesereau lied, at least all signs point that-a-way. Besides the whole 'insurance company settling the 1993 case' lie, what else did Mez lie about? I wonder if he or Yu will ever reply back to me. I doubt it.



S.U.:

LOL. Of course the people stalking Jason Pfeiffer's blog were fangirls. As such, they used the 'I know one of Jacko's girlfriends' tactic as a way to intimidate Jason in the hopes he would 'admit' he was lying about Michael Jackson. No, Jason was not lying about the Jacko tryst thing; trust me.


"Karen just said that she didn´t want to discuss Frank´s book and anyone could believe what they want or something like that."


I was reading a little of Frank's book today and I found an out-and-out lie. His version of events about the Chandler settlement conflicts greatly with newspaper reports and the overall timeline.

It's more proof that he's just a Jackson apologist. In fact, Kiki Fournier--who I quote in the above entry--said that Frank Cascio would sometimes be gone for months. He wouldn't know every detail of Jacko's life.

It's pretty obvious he's just inserting himself into the story. That book was for fans who already buy the Jackson mythology.

Desiree said...

By the way, according to the Blogger stats, some fans are frantically searching for Jimmy's Neverland wedding!! LOL!

J-M-H said...

S.U.,

LOL, I know. They are so stupid. They were just mad that the only believable person that has stepped forward in, really, all of Mike's career, was a man. The fans don't want to acknowledge publicly that the alleged "secret girlfriends" are either a) not believable because of the timeline, their lack of surfacing at times other than when he was being accused of pedophilia, or b) never pan out because the people talking about them are shady, liars, etc and their stories always change(like the bodyguards). For God's sake, he had 3 different flavors of semen in his bed and on sheets. That doesn't come from a hetero sleepover, LOL. Look at all the false marriages (thanks Frank), fake media relationships (Brooke, Tatum, Tatiana, Sheryl Crow), and the way he became a father (via science rather than nature); it's textbook "gay male celebrity trying to hide his true sexuality" behavior.

Also it's true, none of the people that are maybe able to defend his like of women even do much to defend him. Seriously, from Karen Faye to Rabbi Shmuley to the bodyguards, the main thing I hear that is supposed to be some explosive proof that Mike wasn't gay was because he liked to comment on women's appearances. How does that prove Mike's interests in any way? Even Frank Cascio's "proof" was lukewarm at best and flat out lies at worst. I'm still trying to figure out why Mike was playing the asexual card if he supposedly loved women.

The fan(s) on Jason's blog were just trying to scare him to "confess" his lies. Even Jason said he assumed Mike was bisexual, so he would probably say "So what?" to any woman claiming she was Mike's secret girlfriend, how would that invalidate he and Mike's relationship? LOL at f'loon mentality.

J-M-H said...

What gets me is the way Mesereau brought it up, so sneakily as to influence the jury.

That's what I thought too. He just brought it up and then abandoned it in the same speed. But even if no one remembered it while sitting in court, the f'loons sure repeat it as the kryptonite to any "MJ realist" argument about Mike's behavior with this boy. And to any claims from Jolie Levine.

Mesereau lied, at least all signs point that-a-way. Besides the whole 'insurance company settling the 1993 case' lie, what else did Mez lie about?

It does seem that this wasn't a truthful statement, given the available evidence and behavior of Jimmy and his family's responses. Of course the fans would be alarmed at this because if T-Mez lied, they'd have no argument for Jimmy. All the people that seen Mike act weird with this kid will still stand. And their demigod T-Mez will be fallible, not pure and good like before. But why should they be surprised? He's a defense attorney whose gotten off rapists and murderers under the guise of "human rights". Plus, Johnnie Cochran wouldn't have recommended him if he wasn't worth the money, LOL.

J-M-H said...

Oh about the "16 Theses" the fans wrote, #15 is absolutely heartless, ugh. What does no one attending Evan Chandler's wake have to do with Michael Jackson's inappropriate actions with Jordie and other boys? Let me guess, it's the whole karma-voodoo thing right--Evan was evil and evil-doers are alone at their funerals? Are they forgetting he had a debilitating degenerative disease? Unlike them, not everyone's life is synchronized with Jacko-related events.

Desiree said...

J-M-H:

"I'm still trying to figure out why Mike was playing the asexual card if he supposedly loved women."


Good point, really good point! And why would he not bring out his busload of 'hoochies' if he'd been such a lady killer instead of a pedophile? What straight man would prefer to be seen with young boys over women when most of his fans are female?

It doesn't make sense!

And, as S.U. had mentioned about the fans lying to Jason, Jason Pfeiffer said he'd just assumed Michael Jackson was bisexual (he was thinking of his marriages to women, one of whom he didn't boink). Fangirls claiming inside info about a secret girlfriend would rightly be met with, "Well, I'd said he was bi; what's your point?"


"Of course the fans would be alarmed at this because if T-Mez lied, they'd have no argument for Jimmy."


I giggled at the frantic searching for Jimmy's wedding an hour ago. It's amazing to me that the fans have completely bypassed the fact that La Toya Jackson was proven to have told the truth about seeing the $1M check to James Safechuck, Sr.; I guess they are more concerned about their Messiah's John the Baptist being shown as the fraud that he is (or, alternately, the typical sleazy defense lawyer).

And that was the point of this entry.

If La Toya Jackson was shown to be telling the truth about something (and it has been PROVEN that she was telling the truth about the check because Jimmy's dad has been a 'garbage collector' since at least 1983), we must look at other things she's said that are tangential in a new light.

And if Tom Mesereau is shown to be a liar, we must look at him differently, too.

The fans cannot have Tom Mesereau be a liar; if Mez lies, he's no better than Sneddon, right? LOL.

Just as you'd said, if Jimmy was never married at Neverland, then the 'Neverland wedding' line cannot be used to disprove a molestation (although, even if he'd been married at Neverland, it doesn't mean that he hadn't been molested--Brett Barnes hung around Jacko for years and it's been proven he was abused).


"Oh about the "16 Theses" the fans wrote, #15 is absolutely heartless, ugh."


That whole list is bunkum; I could fisk it in my sleep. Evan Chandler's suicide has nothing to do with Jacko and it's actually ridiculous to even bring it up; he'd left no note saying, "Michael, I'm sorry" (gurgles), so assuming the suicide was related to Jacko is dubious. What they are doing is confusing correlation with causation.

As for Evan dying alone, they did say he'd alienated people and probably the whole issue with Jacko and the molestation of his son consumed him. He died a broken man but he did not die guilty of anything.

Displaying typical f'lunacy, the fans always try to keep the scrutiny away from Jacko himself. I won't play that game; Michael Jackson was the common denominator in his molestation woes.

Alby said...

Well, we have three points that Mez has lied about so far:

1) Jimmy Safechuck's wedding
2) The insurance company paid the settlement (contradicted by MJ's own words to Martin Bashir)
3) His contention that he had witnesses lined up to say Jordy was lying if Jordy ever took the stand.

There will be more, count on it.

A.G. said...

Desiree: thanks...I just was too lazy to log into my blogger dashboard (I have it bookmarked though - nifty:-)

Concerning Meserau....how about listing his court half-truth in defense and sending it to him and Yu? LOL (Every breath you take...) Now this is a lyric by a real cool songwriter and artist.....;-) MJ can't hold a candle to Sting IMO lyrically and musically.

Frenchie said...

Alby,

Mesereau also lied when he claimed Jordan didn't speak to his parents after the 1994 settlement. Hudson county court papers proved Jordan lived with his father until the August 2005 fiasco. Prior to that, Ray Chandler mentioned in interviews, as well as in his book, that Jordan was close to his father.

Sbibak said...

Great post, Désirée. You are smashing the f'loons universe into pieces, entry by entry, lol.

I always wonder why the parents never sued the press for labelling their children as potential victims or directly like victims. It must be hard for them to carry this reputation that could "taint" their relationships with other people all of their lives. That's one of the reasons why I think the parents know what was happening.
Why Michael never sued either? Rethoric question.

Mr. Safechuck was questioned by the press during the 2003/05 scandal, and he refused to comment. So odd. Michael gave him a Rolls Royce and a big payment. If he was convinced of his innocence, why not make an effort to defend his "benefactor"? Why he did not threatened the press with lawsuits, if they persisted associating his son's name to the molestation accusations?

I read in some newspaper he bought an enterprise... I think it was a Real State agency. I'll try to find the article.

Regarding the mysterious girlfriends, the f'loons use the excuse of "protecting their privacy" to justify the secrecy, but Michael, who apparently loved children that much, never hesitated to sell them down the river. He flaunted his little boyfriends, as rock star show peroxide blondes with plastic tits, with no respect for their privacy and for the damage, his association with them, caused the children.

In the Diane Sawyer interview, he justified the settlement to put the scandal behind him and go on with his life. If you do such a suspicious decision, being innocent, only because you can't take the pressure of an investigation and a trial, the last thing you would do is persist in the behaviour that put you through this mess.

Opinionation said...

Desiree those 16 fan talking points give me an idea. You should create a debunking Jackson fan myths page on your blog in which you list each of the lies fans like to spread, followed by the true facts. For example:

MYTH: After Michael Jackson died, jordy Chandler confesssed that he was never molested by MJ.


FACT: There are no credible reports of jordy ever retracting his accusations against Jackson. This Internet rumor originated on a fan page.

MYTH: Jordy chandler's description of Jackson's penis did not match the photos taken in the police strip search.

FACT: Tom sneddon declared under penalty of perjury that the jordy's drawing identified the existence and location of a specific dark blemish on jackson's penis and that this was confirmed by the photos taken in the police strip search. While it's true that jordy incorrectly described jackson's penis as circumcised, an erect penis can look circumcised especially to a 13 year old boy. Jackson settled the Chandler accusations one month after the strip search, and in the 2005 case, his lawyers convinced the judge to ban Tom sneddon from showing this evidence to the jury.


And you could divide the myth debunking page into sections. Debunking myths about the molestation case, debunking myths about MJ's skin, etc.

J-M-H said...

I forgot all about T-Mez at Harvard law. He totally lied there about Jordie. The only witness I can remember seeing on his list was Josie Zohny; far from the fleet of witnesses he claimed to have. And we know how reliable f'loon witnesses can be, LOL. I can't remember even any one document on the Santa Barbara website that specifically names a witness against Jordie Chandler. Frenchie's right, the only parent he didn't talk to for 11 years was his mother, not "evil-doer" Evan Chandler.

I think T-Mez lied about Jimmy Safechuck and then Jordie Chandler was because he knew he didn't have to worry about any of them coming out to check him on his lies. He knew it was smooth sailing and people would just believe him because he's a lawyer. Look at the way he went about questioning in the trial: he'd ask a question like "You were accused of stealing from Mr. jackson, weren't you?" and if the witness says no, he/she is one the defensive and the jury could think "Hmm what is he referring to?" and have their mind thinking that the witness is denying something rather than just answering the question. He did this with June Chandler even though he didn't know the facts of 1993. Aphrodite Jones described it as a "staccato of questions".

But seriously we shouldn't be that surprised because he is being paid to defend. And in most criminal cases in the US, there is never a trial because the defendant is most likely guilty. If a person is accused of a crime, they probably did it. The f'loons are banking on the tiny minority of cases were police plant evidence. But they are stupid in that they think a beloved global superstar would be in that tiny minority of cases, esp. when the fans cannot even come up with a damn reason why he'd be targeted. Celebrities only can cop to petty offenses, misdemeanors, and felony drug related offenses. Child molestation, even though over 95% of the time the victim is telling the truth? Has to go to trial if its a celeb; they always will plead not guilty. Any crime that can potentially ruin a career and the celebrity's perception in the public eye has to be tried in front of a jury, more often than not filled with star-gazers.

Opinionation is right. You should create a page debunking the fans. The losers at VMJ obviously have put you on ignore instead of proving your posts wrong. We saw how well they did with their refutation of your "explosive proof" post...semen=saliva nonsense, "male DNA" doesn't mean semen even when actual court documents say semen in black and white, and the coke in his underwear was a "set up". LMAO.

S.U. said...

Yeah that "privacy" thing is getting on my nerves because of what Sbibak said. Michael never hesitated to hang out in public with his special friends and kids are what he should protect more! And hypocrite because they use the stupid argument that Michael cannot be gay because he was a very followed man and we would know it by now if it was true...BS,if Michael had boyfriends he really had to hid them or his family and friends would roast him...hiding women, for me, just if he dated a married one! LOL As a courageous fan said in a board, if the f´loons assume Michael could have hidden women so easily so they had to admit he could do the same with men!

Desiree, the f´loons really are seeing your blog,they´re talking also about that fake blog about you.

Alby said...

Frenchie:
Mesereau also lied when he claimed Jordan didn't speak to his parents after the 1994 settlement. Hudson county court papers proved Jordan lived with his father until the August 2005 fiasco. Prior to that, Ray Chandler mentioned in interviews, as well as in his book, that Jordan was close to his father.

You are correct, Mez alleged that Jordie was emancipated from his parents.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he may have been confused. Jordie was under the temporary guardianship of a retired judge sometime during the civil case (a requirement by law - the Guardian ad Litem mentioned in the settlement).

Nonetheless, we'll say we are up to four lies unless Mez appears and clears this one up :-)

Desiree said...

"Mr. Safechuck was questioned by the press during the 2003/05 scandal, and he refused to comment. So odd."


Sbibak, where did you read about this?

It was in Carl Toms' "Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons" (and he takes his information from media reports) that the Safechucks, in 1993, continually refused to comment on the Jordie Chandler situation or rumors that their son was abused and would say, "Talk to Michael's attorneys," or have things sent that-a-way. It's peculiar.


Opinionation:

"Desiree those 16 fan talking points give me an idea. You should create a debunking Jackson fan myths page on your blog in which you list each of the lies fans like to spread, followed by the true facts."


By the way, good to see you again.

I think this is a swell idea and should be undertaken; however, I'll have to try to come up with some of those 'myths', and pertinent ones. The funny thing to me is that I can imagine the fans reversing the orders of the myths/facts you've listed, especially the 'matching' thing.

I've stopped tangling with fans and I cannot think of their lies offhand. I'll need some help with the 'myths'; I tend to see everything from a black or white, rational perspective and have no time for their obfuscation, sophistry, and distraction techniques.

Why don't they ever focus on Jacko?


J-M-H:

"The losers at VMJ obviously have put you on ignore instead of proving your posts wrong."


LOL. That is what they've done; I think the last time I'd went on there Blaine had referred to me as 'that idiot'--LMAO! I guess I'm like Kryptonite to Blaine... We remember how Lynette split into her alter-ego 'Ace', the 19-year-old tattooist, just to argue about Ralph Chacon (and she was quickly rebutted and had a conniption).

For me, it is no 'war'--no battle--with the Vindicate MJ crowd. I think it was Frenchie who'd quoted a fan from a forum admitting that the most important thing is making sure the 'haters' don't 'win'.

You have to wonder why they are so consumed with defending a so-called innocent man. I mean, they're essentially trying to pack an arsenal of talking points to battle in forums on the Internet. Let that one sink in.

And we have to remember, Michael Jackson is a dead public/now historical figure; people are free to say whatever they'd like about him. Even if he was accused of child molestation and labeled a pedophile, while it did greatly reduce his earning potential, he still enjoyed relative 'success' afterward. He destroyed himself with the boozing, the shooting-up, the pill-popping.

I still am not 'getting' why it is so important that we 'haters' (or, more accurately, former fans and Michael Jackson spectators--I liked your term, "MJ Realists") are completely annihilated and shut down and 'refuted', as Blaine likes to say.

Why is it so important?

One thing I do know: no one's refuting this site's Jackson content. Even the 'big dogs' at Vindicate MJ won't bite. And when they do, it's akin to a chihuahua chomping down on the big toe of a giant: one doesn't feel a thing.

Desiree said...

Let me add, by the way: while it is no battle, any MJ Realist reading this site can feel free to link to these yet-to-be-refuted entries of mine during any entanglements with fans.


S.U.:

"Desiree, the f´loons really are seeing your blog,they´re talking also about that fake blog about you."


Well, Suzy, as I've said, there are several f'loons who are watching and there are ones who've been banned who spend their time using proxies to continue their obsession with my blog. I don't really understand it; why try to see the blog if they don't agree with what's written here?

I don't spend my time reading Vindicate MJ!

And I assume by 'fake blog' you are referring to the one maintained by 40-year-old black woman Sabine Faustin, a Brooklyn, New York resident and mother of two? The one who'd had a major bitch-fit when she was exposed and left a dozen comments to demonstrate her rage? That blog, right, Suzy?

I suppose the fans are entitled to procrastinate while they try to dream of ways to refute this site. After all, if you cannot go after the message, attack the messenger.

I'd said this before: she's now on Vindicate MJ commenting as Ameera/Ameeramac. I was not the least bit surprised when I'd noticed she'd gotten into an argument with some other commenters. LOL. They'd ought to be careful or they might get a blog about themselves...

Long story short: unless my content's getting fisked and refuted, the site's a bore. I did see her using her proxies to get on today, the sad, obsessed thing. SMH.

Running around as she does, which is not dissimilar to that of a beheaded chicken, accusing me of racism because I've had dumb Internet arguments with racists or claiming I support pedophilia because I've suggested people should get Carl Toms' book on Jacko is a credibility killer. Her obsession with me, as evidenced by her blog that does not refute my Jacko entries, is proof positive of her batshit insanity.

And, despite the fact she is all over the Internet, she distances herself from that DSSL facsimile blog because she knows what she's doing is nutty and is embarrassed in the core of her being.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Poor Sabine. :-(

Frenchie said...

I glanced through Sabine Faustin's blog. It's very poorly written. I hope English isn't her first language. :-(

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

"I glanced through Sabine Faustin's blog. It's very poorly written. I hope English isn't her first language. :-("


*flatlines*

I'm done talking about this trick but I gag in mouth every time she calls herself a writer. Writing a poorly received children's book about your kids, a really crappy poem, and some unbelievably bad erotic Jacko fanfiction does not make you a writer. A lot of people write but don't do it well.

Check out her fanfic, "Cowboy Mike", and make sure you click the preview button. It amazes me she was able to not bore herself to tears writing 596 pgs of that drivel. I wrote the way she does when I was seriously 11-12 years old:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/cowboy-mike-soft-cover/18619291

Here's a snip of a sex scene. All I have to say is Jacko doing a chick is not believable. Fangirls can dream...

http://goo.gl/R7AUj

Sbibak said...

Here is one of the articles I mentioned yesterday. Anton's father also refused to defend him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131364,00.html

I reported in this column some months ago that Jackson dedicated the song "Speechless" on his last album to the German man and his family. When I spoke to the young man's father, who's in the music business in Germany, he refused to comment about Jackson's guilt or innocence in the current case, and also declined to defend him as a friend.


One of Jackson's earliest young friends was Jimmy Safechuck, a child actor who appeared with him in a commercial in the late '80s. Safechuck now plays in a California rock band. Contemporary pictures of him on the Internet show that at least physically, Safechuck resembles Jackson's 1993 accuser. His father, Wayne, refused to take calls yesterday, only saying "I have no comment."

Wayne Safechuck is described by a Jackson insider as a sanitation worker at the time Jimmy played at Neverland. Nevertheless, he and his extended family have been busy in Simi Valley, Calif., buying and selling real estate over the last 12 years.

J-M-H said...

Desiree,

One myth the fans bring out is that Mike stopped sleeping in bed with kids after Jordie chandler, and that he only "slept on the floor", as if that's any better...he's still trying to get boys in his room. With Frank Cascio's attempts to explain away his behavior, they probably believe it even more, LOL, but we know that Frank was gone for months at a time and would have been thoroughly unaware of anything that went on in Michael Jackson's bedroom. the fact that Mike was still trying to get boys in his bedroom is alarming, just look what he did to Aaron Carter when he was on a damn cot!

Anyways, Mike did in fact still have boys sleep in his bed after 1993. Omer Bhatti was one of them. There was a better article on the News of the World's website but its now defunct. That particular article seemed to coincide with his admission to sleeping with Mike with the raid in 2003, where detectives interviewed him about porn and booze ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/accuser-i-know-more-about-sex-jacko )

http://www.zimbio.com/Umar+Bhatti/articles/OIDjSQeM9jm/Rumored+Secret+Son+OMER+BHATTI+Michael+Jackson

"Another of Omer’s friends, Ricky Harlow, revealed that Omer’s bond with Jackson grew so strong that he shared the star’s bed while his family stayed in a cottage in a different part of Neverland. The sleepovers took place at a time when Jackson was still reeling from allegations that he had molested 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. Ricky, now 25 and living in Hollywood, told the Sunday Mirror in an exclusive interview: “I never got the vibe anything inappropriate was going on. Omer would sleep over at Michael’s. They would hang out and watch movies and all that kind of stuff. His parents and his sister stayed in a cottage in a different part of the ranch.” Ricky added: “Omer sleeping in Michael’s bed would not have been a big deal. It would have been innocent.”

And then of course we have Brett Barnes on the stand admitting that at the least, the last time he slept in the bed with Mike was at 19. I think it's reasonable to assume that the interim between 10 and 19, Brett was still bunking with Mike, I highly doubt Mike was like "Let's wait until you're legal" LOL.



By the way, that was a crappy ass poem and fanfic from your stalker. Seriously give her no shine on this blog. she's dumb.


Sbibak,

Jimmy's father is named James, not Wayne, but they appear to be related to a Wayne Safechuck. Maybe that's his uncle or grandfather or something.

Frenchie said...

"Sabah felt like she was his own personal buffet platter."

LMAO. Of course she'd find a way to bring up food.

A frumpy middle-aged woman trying to hawk stories of her imaginary love life. Nothing sad about that...

Frenchie said...

"Jimmy's father is named James, not Wayne, but they appear to be related to a Wayne Safechuck. Maybe that's his uncle or grandfather or something."

Here's a photo of Jimmy's father with Wayne. I'm pretty sure they're brothers.

http://goo.gl/ITe9Z

J-M-H said...

LMAO at your identity disguising technique! Yea they look related. So maybe he's the family spokesperson? Because in victor Guiterrez's book, he mentions Wayne Safechuck as his father. Since obviously that is not Jimmy's father, the responses seemed accurate; Wayne didn't know anything:

From pg 145 of "Michael Jackson Was My Lover"

"Jackson met Jimmy Safechuck during the recording of the Pepsi Commercial in 1988. Jimmy was 10 years old, a blond, blue-eyes Californian boy. He dressed in the same clothes as Jackson. He enjoyed the singer's complete attention, and went on tour with him. Like the other young boys, the two slept together. Also like the other young boys, the parents received money and presents. In his case, his parents received a Rolls Royce worth $180,000, and afterwards, a Mercedes Benz each....When I called Jimmy's father, Wayne Safechuck and told him this story, he did not deny any part of the description of the relationship between his son and the singer. When asked whether his son had been sexually abused by Jackson, and about the presents he had received, and if he would cooperate with the police, Wayne Safchuck simply said: 'All I can say is...no comment. i can't say anything. I have not been involved in anything' [Gutierrez]:'Is it because you received money and cars as long as you promised Jackson that you would never reveal details about their relationship? All this after you were such good friends? Why don't you tell me the truth?' I insisted. [Safechuck]: 'I cannot make any comment...' replied the father. [Gutierrez]: 'It's because you signed a contract to keep silent, isn't it?' [Safechuck]: 'I can't comment...you understand me?' the father said finally, making the message very clear."


Also, Gutierrez seems to be of a similar thought as the fans regarding the emancipation in 1994. He too thinks it was purely because he hated that his parents broke up his "relationship" with Mike. The emancipation is viewed also as a way to keep Evan Chandler from getting his hands on the settlement. Fans believe this is the reason he filed that $60 million lawsuit against ABC and Michael jackson; he want "more money".

Sbibak said...

Frenchie said...
Here's a photo of Jimmy's father with Wayne. I'm pretty sure they're brothers.

http://goo.gl/ITe9Z


Jimmy looks more like Wayne LOL.

Jessica, I bet Pellicano made a "courtesy visit" to all those "special in-laws". This man should write a book. He is prison, he has plenty time to remember and put it down in black and white.

If Víctor Gutiérrez was speaking with Wayne (the uncle), I don't think his responses as a sign of honesty. Perhaps the "I had not been involved in anything" is correct, but I doubt he ignored the "close" relationship his nephew had with Michael and the nature of his brother sudden "good luck", lol.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

"LMAO. Of course she'd find a way to bring up food.

A frumpy middle-aged woman trying to hawk stories of her imaginary love life. Nothing sad about that..."



Hey, I said my final words about her last night and I agree with J-M-H that she deserves no shine. However, yeah...that's pretty effing sad--"Sabah" is Sabine and the former's just as neurotic as the latter. Sabine's a middle-aged single black mother of two (a statistic) who believes--in her deluded mind--that she can write... it's a fucking tragedy!

But I've said all I'm going to say. I will tell you this, though: using her paid proxy service she'd purchased to continue her obsession with me and my site, she clicked over to your comment critiquing her knack for bad prose. I'm sure she didn't like it. After all, when you self-publish extended, unbelievable Michael Jackson fanfiction, I'm sure there is a dearth of substantive feedback on the piece...

I wonder if I bought a copy of that book of hers (not to read, mind you, but maybe as kindling) would she send it to me? Hmmm... nah...I don't think I want to chance the opportunity of having to read another scene of Jacko tonguing Sabine's navel. I nearly upchucked the first go around. Let's leave whatever Sabine does with words to the fangirls.

Desiree said...

By the way, here's an 'epic fisk' of those 16 F'loon Talking Points. Well a fisking of some of them for now.


1. Evan and Jordan’s background as the screenwriters of “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”.

And? Their history of screenwriting means nothing. If the suggestion is that being screenwriters means they could have easily fabricated a believable story of Jacko (a man who'd been referred to as a pedophile and accused of pedophiliac behviors since at least 1991) molesting a boy, well, that's nothing more than propaganda and a silly illogicality. There is no evidence that being a writer means one could fabricate a believable story away from paper. If this line of logic could be deemed feasible, they would also have to be actors as well. Jordie Chandler, after all, convinced several therapists (including highly intelligent false child abuse expert, Dr. Richard Gardner), social workers, detectives, and prosecutors that his abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson had occurred, right down to describing Jacko's genitalia. Bravo to screenwriters, then!

In a nutshell, this is a non-point.


2. Evan’s jealously of Jordan spending more time with MJ than him., and his anger at MJ over being rejected as a 50/50 partner in MJ’s film company.

Evan Chandler being jealous of a man spending time with his son is a moot point. Jordie is Evan's son and Evan being jealous would actually be the proper response to the situation. If the implication is that Evan's jealousy caused Evan to fabricate a story of Jacko sexually abusing Jordie, that is woefully simplistic. It doesn't factor in the reality that whatever Jordie Chandler described to police, psychologists, social workers, and prosecutors resulted in an 8-figure, multi-million dollar settlement. Jealousy can be considered a reasonable impetus for action but it does not adequately explain how and why the action was successful, the success being tied to Jordie's statements to the aforementioned group of individuals.

The same response is warranted for this film company business, assuming, for argument's sake, that it is true: it makes for a decent argument explaining causation of an action but does not explain how and why the action was successful, in that whatever Jordie Chandler described to police, psychologists, social workers, and prosecutors led to a massive settlement of claims.


3. The taped telephone call between Evan and Dave Schwartz.

Another non-point. The implication here is that that taped phone conversation revealed nefarious intentions on Evan Chandler's part. It did not. The phone call was recorded under direction of Anthony Pellicano and badly, badly redacted by Pellicano. There was no admission from Evan that he had a 'plan' to make Jacko pay for 'being mean', which is why fans mention the taped conversation.

To note, what appeared in Mary Fischer's article was taken out of context.

Most interesting is that the conversation is good for Evan (and highly revealing about Jacko) to MJ Realists and bad for Evan for Jacko fans. This dual interpretation ultimately means that the conversations are neutral.


4. Evan coercing Jordan to admit to being abused right after a dental procedure, when Jordan was still heavily sedated.

There's no evidence Jordie Chandler was ever given sodium amytal. That said, the implication here is that Jordie was suggestible while under sedation, to the point that he could have been manipulated into saying he was abused by Michael Jackson. However, this does nothing to explain how Jordie Chandler was able to convince psychologists (including false child abuse expert Dr. Richard Gardner), social workers, police, and prosecutors that he had been molested and that these claims--including a detailed description of Jacko's spotty penis--resulted in a multimillion dollar settlement.

Desiree said...

5. Evan’s demand for a $20 million dollar for a film deal on August 4th, 1993, and MJ’s refusal to give in.

This is no proof of extortion or proof of Jacko's innocence. Evan Chandler's asking for $20 million does not explain why Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano did not report this so-called extortion to the police when Evan asked for it; they called it extortion to the media without reporting it to the police. Then, it was an 'oops' moment, they reported it to police, the claim was investigated, and police found no evidence of extortion.

As for Jacko's refusal to give in at the time, this is in no way proof of his innocence. Alternately, seeing that counter offers were offered to make the abuse allegations go away before the scandal hit the media and the consummation of the scandal resulted in a sum exceeding the initial $20M asked for, one can reasonably assume that what resulted from those 'negotiations' was an example of a problem Jacko had been trying to contain that got out of hand.


6. June Chandler obtaining custody of Jordan, and Evan’s decision to bring Jordan to a psychiatrist rather than surrender custody of him. He did not mention his suspicions of child abuse to the courts. Evan did this so that the psychiatrist Mathis Abrams could report the alleged abuse, and Evan couldn’t be charged with filing a false claim.

There's no proof that the claim Evan Chandler initiated was false and intelligent people do not assume something is false; they arrive at a judgment following a thorough investigation of the evidence. In fact, seeing that it resulted in a multimillion dollar settlement, one can argue that it was absolutely true! The counter question to this is why was Michael Jackson personally intervening in a child custody dispute? Jacko would benefit in June Chandler obtaining custody of her son because it would have enabled Jordie to join him on tour and he'd have 24/7 pedophiliac sexual access to the boy! Jordie being with Evan would not benefit Jacko, as Evan had noted in his conversations with Dave Schwartz: Jordie and Jacko wanted to be with the Chandler parent who'd allow them to do whatever they wanted.


7. Evan’s firing of Gloria Allred for her refusal to sue MJ before criminally prosecuting him, and his replacement of her with Larry Feldman, who filed a frivolous civil lawsuit in September 1993. MJ countersued for extortion.

So, the implication here is that since a civil trial was 'more desirable' than a criminal case, it doesn't jive with the idea of how a 'good parent' would react to the sexual abuse of their child, and a parent choosing a civil trial over a criminal one means that it can be seen that the claims are not factual (given that the burden of proof needs to be only 51% in a civil court). This is simply a distraction technique. Evan Chandler may not have wanted to put Jacko in jail; my personal belief is that Evan Chandler used Jacko's attraction to and sexual abuse of Jordie to get things; if Allred was fired because she'd wanted to go the criminal route first, since it makes civil prosecution a breeze, then it could be because he had no desire to hurt Jacko criminally, but civilly. It could also be that Allred plays the media.

In other words, the firing of Gloria Allred is not an indication of the Chandler claims being false. What's that, the 1+1=3 logic that the Vindicate MJ crowd accuses people of? Takes one to know one, apparently...

As for the 'frivilous lawsuit', seeing that what had been alleged convinced numerous people and resulted in a huge multimillion dollar settlement, one can reasonably suspect that the lawsuit was NOT frivilous.

J-M-H said...

Desiree, good rundown of the facts. But the obstinacy of Jacko fans is historic and it's not surprising that some of them have trouble grasping the issues.

I did a little searching online for records of his marriages and I bought some vital records for a nominal fee. I know it sounds crazy but I was curious as hell. Well these records included California marriage records for James Safechuck, people with that name. The only marriage listed in California was the 1974 marriage of Jimmy's father and mother. Both of his parents were 21 years old. Mind you, this would have included Jimmy if he had in fact been married. I noticed that the Ancestry.com California Indexes are ones created by them, and are date restricted. I believe that the records were not based on Ancestry.com's archives because I couldn't find the first marriage of his father to that Susan L Simpson woman.

At any rate, there are no California listings of a Neverland marriage. It obviously never happened.

Oh by the way, I saw on VMJ that Lynette mentioned a record for Jimmy in California. I looked and found what she was probably referring to.

http://goo.gl/IChsh

LMAO, poor dear. I bet Lynette thought the "M" under "type: M" was in reference to Jimmy's middle initial. That "M" means marriage. And based on the ages, 21, that's his parents' 1974 marriage, that my records mentioned.

J-M-H said...

New article on MJ Facts about Jerry Sandusky and Michael jackson comparison. Good read, especially the analysis by Ken Lanning:

http://www.mjfacts.info/Jerry-Sandusky-and-Michael-Jackson.php


Also, statement analysis by Mark Mcclish--same guy that analyzed Mike and determined that he was most likely a child molester--analyzes Jerry Sandusky's statements:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/jerry-sandusky/

Desiree said...

J-M-H:

I saw Lynette's comment and I had to laugh. At first I thought she was lying outright, as fans tend to do, but then I figured she must have gotten confused, given her advanced age. There were no records online of Jimmy's Neverland wedding; as you said, if you search James M. Safechuck, his father will come up as well.

No Jimmy, though. Tom Mesereau lied; it's been proven. Just look at the way he brought it up. If Jimmy had been married, a record would available. No records=no Neverland wedding. It was a fucking sleazy lie. Had Jimmy Safechuck ever made it on stand, Mez would have never uttered such a fabrication.


As for Jerry Sandusky, that was a good article on http://mjfacts.info and a definitely excellent article written by McClish. Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky are identical--identical. It's interesting that pedophiles have their different MOs--Sandusky with his 'innocent' showers and Jacko with his 'innocent' sleepovers--but are all the same, essentially. Each mechanism is a way to get a child to lower his guard and inveigle them into sexual activity.

The writer of MJ Facts made such a good point: are fans going to call Sandusky a disgusting pedophile and expose their hypocrisy, or are they going to own up to the similarities in behavior between the two, maybe even try to argue that Sandusky deserves the benefit of the doubt?

To me, they are too deluded to admit the similarities between Sandusky's showers and Jacko's sleepovers, as well as the fact both of them claimed to be overgrown kids. They will just go on pointing out other pedophiles in complete blindness, never realizing how stupid they look defending a child molester.

I stumbled across a Lipstick Alley forum about Sandusky and Jacko and the following comment almost made me fall out of my chair from laughing:


"As someone said, worry about the real child molesters.leave MJ out of this madness."

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/michael-jackson-vs-jerry-sandusky-346448/index3.html


LOL. How delusional can you get?

Desiree said...

I've got to paste the ABC article featuring Ken Lanning, an expert conspicuously ignored by Jacko fans. They have little understanding of preferential child molesters vs. situational child molesters, the former group being the one to which Jacko belonged.

Or, in other words, the true blue pedophiles.

I like that Lanning has defined a subtype within the preferential molester group: the 'child lover child molesters', the ones who would, perhaps, be wonderful around children if they weren't deviantly sexually attracted to them. In this category would go your Sanduskies, your Jacksons, your friendly coaches and scout leaders, Catholic priests, etc. All people who profess a love for children or do for them.

Fans believe that pedophiles are monsters but it's much more complex; sometimes these pedophiles fulfill roles in these kids lives that are wonderful, besides the sexual abuse aspect. And some people don't even believe their abuse was abuse, which is a testament to the grey areas of pedophilia: some of them are nice!

When will these fans get it? It's possible that molesters can be 'nice guys', charming, attractive, smart, but they happen to have a deviant sexual attraction to children. Just like Jacko.


‘Nice Guy Molesters’ Believe They’re ‘Child Lovers’

“I enjoy young people,” Jerry Sandusky told NBC’s Bob Costas Monday. “I love being around them.”
That was Sandusky’s explanation after being accused of 40 counts of child molestation charges. He enjoys kids. He started the popular and successful Second Mile charity; he says he even felt like a kid himself sometimes.
But that ‘nice guy’ defense is a classic tactic of a child sexual predator, said Ken Lanning, a former FBI special agent for 30 years and now a consultant in the area of crimes against children. This type of predator hones in on children who are particularly vulnerable, then gives them whatever it is they feel they’re missing. Poor? The predator will shower the child with gifts and money, Lanning said. No dad? The child molester looks to fill that void by acting as a fatherly figure.
“They call themselves child lovers,” said Lanning. ”They nurture these kids, so when someone asks, ‘Did you molest this child?’ they say, ‘I would never molest or hurt a child.’”
“In their mind, it’s not molesting, it’s love,” he said.

The defense and justification is one that has been seen before in high-profile cases of alleged child molestation. When Michael Jackson was accused of such an act, he told ABC’s Diane Sawyer in a 1995 interview that he could “never harm a child or anyone. It’s not in my heart.”
Jackson and the accuser’s family and Jackson’s team came to a $20 million civil settlement.
A decade later, Jackson faced four more charges of child molesting, along with one charge of attempted child molesting and eight possible counts of providing alcohol to minors. He was found not guilty in 2005.
During the Jackson trial, Lanning recalled many of Jackson’s friends and family coming to his defense by saying, “He’s dedicated his life to children. He loves children. He’s like a child himself.”
While Lanning does not want to discourage or call into question all the good people who do work with children, especially underserved youths, he said many of Jackson’s defenses didn’t actually clear him.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

“When people said he liked children more than adults and is always taking in troubled kids to his ranch, none of that means he’s not a child molester. I’m not saying he is, but that certainly doesn’t say he’s not. It fits with a consistent mold with many individuals who have this problem.”
For both Sandusky and Jackson, Lanning said, “nothing is unique about either situation when looking at child molestation charges.”
Child-lover molesters almost never use violence for sex, said Lanning. Instead, they groom and seduce and manipulate and use cooperation to get what they want out of the child.
“I can’t tell you how many cases where there are letters from the victim written to the accused, saying, ‘You’re the nicest person I ever met,’ or ‘You’ve been so good to me,’” said Lanning.
Many victims don’t tell anyone of the inappropriate behavior because they are considered “compliant child victims.”
“A child can’t legally consent to having sex, but some of them aren’t necessarily fighting him off,” said Lanning.
“They’re developmentally immature, and later they feel ashamed and embarrassed that they cooperated in their victimization.”
At any one time, these types of child molesters have four different areas of focus going on at once.
“They operate in a pipeline,” said Lanning. “They always have their eye out for new victims and new kids to go in the pipeline; then they go into full seduction mode. They’re grooming the kids, and usually the parents, too, by showering the kids with gifts and attention. Then at some point, they’re having full sexual activity with the child; then later, maybe a year or two after this goes on, the kid gets too old and the predator is not interested anymore. He’s trying to move him out– pushing him out the other end of the pipeline.”
The kids then often realize that the predator did not actually care about him. The predator used him and no longer has an interest in him sexually.
“That’s when victims often come forward,” said Lanning.
If parents feel suspicious, Anna Salter, a Wisconsin-based psychologist who has worked with sex offenders and victims for 30 years, said they should not feel like they need hard proof to remove a child from the situation.
“If you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” said Salter. “If you’re right, you’ve really saved the kid from severe trauma. You must act conservatively when it comes to the health and safety of children.”
“I often tell parents, if any adult wants to be around your kids more than you do, beware,” said Lanning. “And beware of anything that seems to be too good to be true.”
“Everyone is angry at Penn State, but it could happen again and we all need to understand that organizations are living organisms—the first priority is survival,” said Salter. “People underestimate the pull to save an organization, and we have to send a powerful message that, yes, there is the desire to protect the organization, but you have an allegiance to the larger society and to children not to yield to that pull.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/11/17/nice-guy-molesters-believe-theyre-child-lovers/

Desiree said...

A little more of the 'epic fisk' of the "16 F'loon Talking Points" made by Blaine at Vindicate MJ (now called 'saneMJfan'), who moonlights as the 'smart idiot'. LOL.


8. Feldman’s motion to have the civil trail precede the criminal trial, and Fields’ and Weitzman’s counter-motion to have it delayed until after the criminal trial (which subsequently failed.)

Non-point. Feldman is a trial lawyer; civil cases are his realm. The big concern with Jackson attorneys was that Feldman and the LA and SBC prosecutors would siphon information from each other (example, the body search photos) which would help each of their respective cases. The real question here is why did Jacko want to stay the civil trial until the statute of limitations on child molestation ran out. Why did he constantly buck depositions? Why did he ask for the Chandlers' attorneys to be disallowed to question witnesses potentially pertinent to their case?

Having an order for trials (i.e. criminal before civil) is not a rule, just an accepted expectation; it need not occur in that order. One of the arguments fans use is that a civil trial proceeding a criminal trial would have exposed Jacko's attorneys' legal strategy to the prosecutors, allowing them to know his tactics and then gear up to combat them.

But let's recall the legal process of 'discovery'. If any DAs would have learned from the civil case on how to prosecute Jacko in a criminal case, Jacko's defense attorneys would have been able to gather from those DAs the evidence the DAs had going into that prosecution in order to set up a defense for Jacko, which is standard procedure.

The counter-question would be why does it matter if an innocent man's defense of his 'obvious' innocence is exposed to prosecutors? Let's assume that Michael Jackson was innocent of molesting Jordie Chandler and it all had been a 'big lie'. Knowing that the burden of proof in a civil court is substantially lower than that in a criminal court, had Michael Jackson won his case--being 'innocent'--then most DAs would decide to cease and desist on a criminal prosecution. Why? Again, because if Jacko could win a case in a civil court, where everything but the kitchen sink is allowed in, then he'd invaribly win in a criminal court, where the burden of proof for a DA is substantially higher, assuming that he was innocent.

It also wouldn't hurt that he'd have that civil vindication to wave in front of a criminal jury. That Michael Jackson wanted to stay the civil case--and recall that civil and criminal cases are NOT connected--provides very good reasonable suspicion that Jacko believed he would be found guilty of abusing Jordie Chandler in a no-holds barred civil courtroom. In a nutshell, Jacko knew he was guilty.

Desiree said...

9. The fact that MJ was not arrested immediately upon the completion of his strip search, and Larry Feldman’s request to have MJ strip searched again or bar the original photos from court, which confirms it wasn’t an accurate match.

It's competely irrelevant that Jacko was not arrested and it in no way confirms that Jordie's description of Jacko's erect penis was inaccurate. If Jordie alleged that it had been circumsized, and, in fact, Jacko's penis was not circumsized, that could have been one of many other factors that disabled arrest. It would be prudent--maybe even overly cautious--for any police officials to not arrest if one detail was 'wrong', even if all other details, such as patchy testicles, patchy ass, short public hair, and a certain spot that was visible while Jacko had an erection in front of Jordie, were correct. One factor that had been clearly demonstrated throughout the investigation of Jacko was his celebrity status; given his celebrity and the potential damage such an allegation could do to his reputation, police would conduct their investigation as gingerly as possible. And they did: Jacko was treated with kid gloves throughout! That he was not arrested could mean it was not sufficiently accurate (in terms of the circumcision, even though Jordie's description was of it erect) enough for police tastes or that they were being overly cautious as to not threaten Jacko's reputation.

As for Larry Feldman's request about the body search photos, it's in no way a confirmation of a lack of the description matching. It had three potential options: (1) obtain the photos of the search from Jacko (which he didn't have); (2) Jacko would undergo another search; and (3) have the photos barred from being evidence.

How does any of that indicate that the photos didn't match or that the Chandler side was afraid of them? What it incidates is a good friendship between Feldman and Cochran, as indicated by Carl Douglas, who said that even though the photos were a "300lb gorilla" in the room--a concern--they could rely on that friendship.

It could be argued that Feldman was sabre-rattling. Nevertheless, his motion does NOT confirm a mismatch!

What seems to confirm a match is the fact that two people, photographer Gary Speigel and DA Tom Sneddon, declared under penalty of perjury that what appeared on Jackson's genitals matched what was in Jordie's description and that Sneddon wanted these photos put before the jury, the judge, and the media. If they didn't match, he wouldn't want to show the world that Jacko was innocent (as the fans claim that a mismatch would indicate innocence). Seems like Sneddon's attempts to get them in is the smoking gun to a positive ID.

Desiree said...

10. The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ, nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal case. The Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and Garcetti was so desperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify.

First things first:

The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ

This is a complete and utter fabrication. The following link disproves this: Michael Jackson asked his insurance company, Transamerica, to help pay for the cost of the settlement. According to Chris Andersen's book on Jackson, Jacko believed the company should pay the entirety of the settlement and his legal fees; in fact, when the insurance company offered to pay some of the costs incurred by the Chandler lawsuit (most likely just the legal fees), Jacko refused to accept. Jackson's attorney Johnie Cochran threatened to sue the company if they did not pay the cost of the settlement and Jacko's legal fees (p 386-388 of 1995 paperback edition).

In fact, one of the claims analyst for the company stated sex abuse is not covered under personal liability. According to California code 553, Transamerica insurance company was prohibited to ever settle criminal claims, thus they would have never initiated an offer:

"533. An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others.

533.5. (a) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine,
penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding or in
any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding this type of coverage or indemnityis expressly stated in the policy.

(b) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any duty to defend, as defined in subdivision (c), any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the recovery of a fine, penalty, or restitution is sought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding the duty to defend this type of claim is expressly stated in the policy.

(c) For the purpose of this section, "duty to defend" means the insurer's right or obligation to investigate, contest, defend, control the defense of, compromise, settle, negotiate the compromise or settlement of, or indemnify for the cost of any aspect of defending any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and professions Code in which the insured expects or contends that (1) the insurer is liable or is potentially liable to make any payment on behalf of the insured or (2) the insurer will provide a defense for a claim even though the insurer is precluded by law from indemnifying that claim.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

(d) Any provision in a policy of insurance which is in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is contrary to public policy and void."


NOTE THE BOLD text. Michael Jackson's insurance carriers were forbidden by state law to settle any claims of molestation! What Jacko had been accused of in the Chandler civil suit were explicitly criminal in nature. His insurance company could not settle any lawsuit regarding sexual abuse of a child!

Additionally there was no language in the settlement that mentioned that any insurance company paid any bill for the Chandler claims; THE PAYER OF THE SETTLEMENT WAS MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON, a fact that Michael Jackson himself has acknowledged!


Next up:

nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal case.

Michael Jackson is barred by law from explicitly forbidding victims from testifying in court. However, that does not mean the Chandlers were not 'squeezed' into not testifying in court. Note the following language in the settlement document:

"g. In the event the Minor, the Minor's Legal Guardians, the Minor's Guardian ad Litem, the Minor's attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually or on behalf at their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, receive any subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releasees or the Action or the Claims, they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson's attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request in any manner other than objections or a refusal to respond and shall be given no later than five days following the receipt of the request.

The language in section g above represents a legal loophole. While not explicitly barring Jordie or his family from testifying about the abuse he'd experienced at the hands (and mouth) of Jacko for which he was receiving the settlement, it was implicit. The language above, in a nutshell, states that the Chandlers must immediately report to Jacko that they intend to testify about the abuse ("information") BEFORE they agree to testify and they must alert Jacko of this agreement to testify within 5 days.

In other words, the Chandlers were forbidden to testify against Jacko. Call it 'de facto' or 'hush money'.


Finally:

The Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and Garcetti was so desperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify.

According to section g of the settlement illuminated above, Jacko secured Chandler uncooperation when he paid them a massive settlement.


11. After the settlement, two different grand juries in two counties refused to indict MJ, and the investigation stopped in September 1994.

Both the Los Angeles county and Santa Barbara county grand juries convened were INVESTIGATING grand juries; as such, they had no power to indict, but only to recommend charges that an indicting grand jury could consider. Seeing that the Chandlers were paid off which eliminated the child abuse victim from testifying at one of these grand juries held in 1994 and, thus, there was no complaining witness, these two investigating grand juries would have had no charges to suggest.

Desiree said...

Looking at Blaine's F'loon memoranda, I am amazed he can even consider himself something of a Jacko expert, a well-versed Jacko defender. He knows nothing of the facts and runs his mouth about the insurance company paying for the settlement.

Complete and utter bullshit.

The fans hang on the Mez document and MJ Realists call him a liar for saying that the insurance company paid. But guess who write that motion? Brian "Joe Jackson's BFF" Oxman, the same guy who lied to the media about the semen stains found in Jacko's bed and home.

So, he made up the argument. Sure, Mez probably signed off on it but then again, Mez has generally stated that Jacko got bad legal advice.

Look what he'd said in the June 2, 2005 closing statements:

17 And he has been a target for years,
18 particularly after he settled with Chandler and
19 Francia, because he doesn’t like courtrooms, he
20 doesn’t like lawyers particularly, he doesn’t like
21 litigation.
He’s known to be childlike, and
22 different, and creative, and offbeat. He’s known
23 not to trust adults.


So basically, Oxman was the one who was full of shit. The fans hate Oxman yet they parrot his bullshit like truth, never, ever looking at the actual settlement documents.

LMAO. The fans are so dumb. Blaine needs to work on his reading comprehension but I guess failings should be expected when you are desperately trying to cover up and explain away the behavior of a pedophile...

Desiree said...

I'll add to F'loon TP #10 about barring the Chandlers from testifying:


The language in section g was essentially a 'threat' to not rat on Jacko and put him in jail; no doubt they would have got one after receiving a total of $25M!

Section g was like Michael Jackson saying to them, "Oh, well, if you try to testify against me, you're going to fucking tell me first. And watch when you get on that stand: I'm going to annihilate you. How? Because I know what you're going to say and I will have built my defense against your claims even before you walk into a courtroom. So good luck trying to beat me. You'll lose."

Anyone who thinks the settlement allowed for the Chandlers to take money and then be able to put Jacko in jail are INSANE. INSANE!

Frenchie said...

All that interaction with batty old women is morphing our dear Blaine into one. When he does write something rational, he's reprimanded for it. I remember once he dared to suggest that MJ used poor judgment when he allowed children in his bed after Jordan Chandler. Blaine's comments made Lynette so incensed that she gave him a public spanking for them, and then vowed to all of VMJ that she would no longer discuss Michael Jackson. She was done wasting her time with those ingrates! Of course Lynette never actually made good on her threat to leave. LOL. If she didn't have VMJ, what else would she do all day?

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

"All that interaction with batty old women is morphing our dear Blaine into one."


LOL, Blaine (aka David) Edwards' voice in my head does sort of resemble that of a woman; after all, how many straight men use exclamation marks after every sentence? Not many!!!!!!!!!


"Blaine's comments made Lynette so incensed that she gave him a public spanking for them, and then vowed to all of VMJ that she would no longer discuss Michael Jackson."


First of all, if you can find the comment where she says this, I'd be as happy as a clam! The idea of Lynette stepping away from her laptop after disconnecting with Vindicate MJ is very hard to imagine. I remember when I first found their site, I was arguing with them about the facts of Jacko's cases and Lynette apparently didn't like me there. She said that if I don't go she was going or something to the effect of she wasn't going to return until I left. Lynette said I was causing Trojan horse viruses to attack her computer. Is that wacky or what?

Did I mention she'd hated my Michael Jackson slash fanfiction, "Michael Does Vegas"? She hated it so much that she constantly visited the page, spending time reading it over and over, according to my web counter. There's actually a male fan on IMDB's Jacko forum who'd frequently bring up that story I'd written. Fans feign indignation but this guy had apparently read it multiple times to the point he recalled specific details of Jacko with his gay lovers. I'd offered to write a tailored fantasy fiction starring he and Jacko but he put me on ignore. LOL.

That Blaine even suggested Jacko had practiced, at the very least, 'poor judgment' seems to be a trot in the right direction. However, the 'poor judgment' argument never sits well with me, by the way; it comes off as saying that this boy was some seductive little satyr who would lead innocent child-like adults like Jacko to their dooms. Jacko shouldn't have slept in the bed with Jacko because it's wrong.

Well, even so, Blaine was doing more than most fans. Most of Jacko's fans won't even acknowledge Jacko's sleeping in the bed with boys isn't kosher; they would say that it's our culture or our dirty minds that would think something like that was wrong because, as they say, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles can sleep in the bed with kids and nothing's wrong with that. As if that is the same as having a grown ass man sleep in the bed with unrelated young boys.

It was Alby who'd said in another comment thread that Michael Jackson fans have been unwittingly supporting pedophilia for years by defending Jacko's behavior.

Alby writes MJ Facts, by the way. Alby is a great synthesizer of information and I wish he/she would update the site more often. The latest piece comparing Sandusky and Jacko was short and sweet--brevity is the soul of wit.


"If she didn't have VMJ, what else would she do all day?"


She could always watch home shopping networks and gobble chocolate frosting by the tub while reading Sabine Faustin's terribly written, 596-page fantasy.

Desiree said...

"Jacko shouldn't have slept in the bed with Jacko because it's wrong."


I meant to say, Jacko shouldn't have slept in the bed with *Jordie*. Funny mental glitch.

Frenchie said...

The full text (http://goo.gl/cZsdf) is too long to repost, but here's the basic idea...


lcpledwards
September 25, 2011 8:50 pm
Was it immoral? NO! Was it illegal? NO! But was it irresponsible? With everything that transpired from 2003-2005, I would have to say yes, ESPECIALLY when you consider that Katherine herself said she BEGGED MJ not to let it happen again, and MJ replied that from now on he would help people from a distance.


lcpledwards
September 25, 2011 11:57 pm
Personally, I just believe that MJ made the right decision after the trial, and it would have been the right decision after 1993. NOBODY IS SAYING HE HAD TO STOP LOVING AND HELPING CHILDREN! We’re just saying that he should have been more responsible, and the people around him should have been more responsible in warning him, too.


lcpledwards
September 26, 2011 1:05 am
Lynette, I’m going to say this with all due respect to you: if I was a skeptic who just happened to stumble upon this blog, and I read these comments about the whole bed sharing issue, I would think that you (and some of the others) are just crazy, rabid fans who want to absolve MJ of all responsibility. If MJ was able to stop letting other families that he didn’t know sleep in his bed or bedroom after the trial, then why couldn’t he do it in 1993?


lynande51
September 26, 2011 1:20 am
David could you please point out the difference between 1993 and 2003? Do you want a discussion or do you want us to tell you what David? That he was wrong that he should not have slept with children because now he looks like a P*? Where did his own children come into that because with all due respect they were children too or have you not read your own comment? Should he have not had children of his own? What answer satifies your question? And finally do not tell me with all due respect because in this case I don’t believe you do have respect.
Michael was what he was. If that has suddenly become a caricature to you I cannot help you with it. I am frankly done with any and all discussions regarding Michael Jackson with you or anyone else.Good bye I can be scolded on a haters blog but frankly I just plain give up with you.


lynande51
September 26, 2011 4:18 am
This will be my last and final answer on the blog. Michael Jackson did not allow “children into his bed”. After the 1993 case the only way that any child could personally meet Michael Jackson was if it came through the charity ” Make A Wish”.The child had to be terminally ill.That is the way the situation was portrayed to him and in case anyone has forgotten many, many other celebrities that this family took advantage of. How come so many people gave them money? They were smart, they were savvy how come they were taken in? Yes, that is right, Michael Jackson was kind hearted, gentle and giving, I’m sorry if that is not a good enough explaination. And in the end the factual truth is he did not have them in the room with him.

Frenchie said...

"Alby writes MJ Facts, by the way. Alby is a great synthesizer of information and I wish he/she would update the site more often. The latest piece comparing Sandusky and Jacko was short and sweet--brevity is the soul of wit."


Alby runs MJ Facts? It's an excellent site! DSSL and mjfacts.info are what led to my conversion.

Murray is a hero said...

Love all this stuff. I've always found Mez to be a liar. Hello! the guy had the nerve to say he never saw Wacko on drugs. What? Who was the freak he defended at trial in his pjs high as a kite daily? How convenient he forgets the fake spider bite episode? The world watched wacko being shuffled into court by demand! He was so high it wasn't even funny.

F'loons or flunatics as I refer to them have no clue about anything. They are dysfunctional haters trolling the net 24/7 and have no clue about wacko's life dead or alive. They have to make it up...new lie..wacko was a good father...not! Drug addicts don't make good parent period. Notice those kids are so much happier not being neglected most of their life. Seriously? Where were they when wacko was locked in a filthy room for days a time getting knocked out on every drug known to man and propofol? Common sense goes out the window with these wack jobs.

Dave from vindicate "never going to happen"wacko site goes on topix pretending to be from Romania. Guy is a sick as one can be. He's a NAMBLA worshiper. He is a true danger to society. Am I the only one that notices that these dangers to our society never venture out in public ever? They do nothing to contribute. No jobs, no lives, delusional and seem to have no problem breaking the law by stalking Wacko's victims, making death threats and harassing anyone else that knows the truth about Wacko. I'd like to see them exposed publicly and arrested.

Alby said...

Further to Mez's memorandum regarding the insurance, it uses very clever language I feel.

Rather than referring to an insurance company, it refers to an insurance carrier, which covers self-insurance. That way, if he was ever called on it, he would have had an out.

Perhaps Tom can come here and straighten it out for us? LOL

Alby said...

Desiree:

The kids then often realize that the predator did not actually care about him. The predator used him and no longer has an interest in him sexually.
“That’s when victims often come forward,” said Lanning.


While I am a great admirer of Ken Lanning, I have to disagree here. That doesn't happen in all cases. I have read many (probably too many) stories about boylovers' friendships with boys, and a common theme is that a lot of boylovers remain close to their boys even after the sex is finished. They help their boys with their careers, their relationships and even monetarily. They continue to be involved in their boys lives, even attending their weddings and becoming godfathers to their children. It's hard to comprehend but one can only surmise that they are either covering their asses (see opening comment in this post), or they have invested so much time and effort in the relationship it is easy to continue, or more worryingly they are assuring the continuance of their pipeline. As you say, it's a shame that they use these boys for sex, otherwise they would be a great help.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

Thanks for posting that back and forth. Lynette's 'goodbye' seemed overly dramatic, as if she were about to jump over some precipice, clutching a flower to her chest and shrieking, "Goodbye cruel world!" LOL. I can't believe Blaine's insistence that Jacko shouldn't have been sleeping in the bed with young boys got her so hot under the collar; he shouldn't have, period. I'm sure if Jerry Sandusky was sleeping in the bed with kids, she'd freak out.

I'd like to know if Blaine and Lynette would seriously let their kids sleep in the bed with Michael Jackson. Would they really be okay with that? I sometimes think these fans say they would because they believe saying, "No," means they doubt Jacko's innocence.

If any fan would allow their child to sleep in the bed with Michael Jackson, they should get their kid taken away. Any man accused three times of pedophilia--two of the accusations resulting in multimillion dollar payouts to the boys--should never be allowed to be alone with a child.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said he'd had Jacko promise to not sleep in the bed with children. And his conversations with Jacko were 2000-2001? Let's recall Aaron Carter, circa 2003-4: sure, he'd slept in a cot near Jacko's bed in his bedroom but Jacko crawled into that cot!

Like Sandusky's showers, the sleepover bed was Jacko's weakness and he needed it.

By the way, pretty funny that Blaine differentiates himself from the Lynette-type fans; I guess that's what he means when it comes to his new Vindicate MJ moniker "saneMJfan"... Hardly.

Desiree said...

Murray is a hero:

"Dave from vindicate "never going to happen"wacko site goes on topix pretending to be from Romania."


Blaine (or David) is from Houston, Texas. Topix doesn't allow you to hide your location unless you sign up. Are you sure the crazy f'loon ("f'lunatic" is pretty funny, by the way) in question isn't someone else? I actually had a crazed fan from Romania a few months back who would post bullshit links incessantly until I blocked her IP address; it was pretty much all she did. The f'loon from Romania probably isn't Blaine at all.


"Guy is a sick as one can be. He's a NAMBLA worshiper. He is a true danger to society."


Michael Jackson fans definitely unwittingly support pedophilia; look at the conversation Frenchie posted between Blaine and Lynette. Lynette was blatantly defending pedophilic MOs in saying that Jacko should never be chastised about sleeping in the bed with children.

That said, I definitely don't think they support the abuses of children--they definitely aren't NAMBLA advocates. In fact, they are so revolted by pedophilia and child sex abuse that they have become incredibly delusional, saying Jacko could have never done the things of which he'd been accused despite the fact he fits every aspect of the profile of a pedophile.

Pedophilia is so disgusting to them that they turn each of those factors that make him fit the pedophile mold (given the fact he was a pedophile) into something 'sweet' and 'innocent'.

-Flatters parents with money and gifts? "Oh, he's just a nice guy."
-Owns books of child erotica, including one that prominently featured the genitals of young boys? "No way, he's just an art lover!"
-Sleeps in the bed with kids? "Hey, he's just loving them."
-Accused three times of pedophilia? "All of them just wanted money from MJ!"

And the list goes on. They completely reject the fact of Jacko corrupting minors by his giving them alcohol and smoking weed with them (as Aaron Carter and Frank Cascio stated).

They ignore everything and when someone brings up something weird that could suggest that he had some prurient interest in boys--for example, what Aaron Carter brought up about Jacko getting into his cot--they call the person a liar, etc.

To them, Jacko just can't be a pedophile. It would mean that they wasted tons of time and energy in defending him and the behaviors he'd exhibited that were obviously pedophilic. So, they rationalize it all away. Their version of Michael Jackson is that of an angel, completely the stuff of which dreams are made, incredibly 2-dimensional. They cannot even accept as a matter of fact that Jacko's experiencing traumatic child sexual abuse--as reported by La Toya, Jermaine, and Johnny Jackson--could have shaped him into the boylover he became!

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

If the f'loons realized that Jacko was, in fact, a pedophile it would probably destroy their entire world; it would be a blow to their sanity. Some of them might even commit suicide or involve themselves in other deviants acts.

It sounds funny and Lord knows they deserve it, given the ugliness many of them have engaged in in stalking/harassing/bullying Jacko's alleged victims and Jacko's critics (the people who have the balls to call a spade a spade). But, truth be told, the revelation that Michael Jackson was a child abuser would be too much for them--it'd be nice to pity them when that time may come.

We should know that Jacko fans live lives of anxiety, dreading every Jacko news story that could come out and prove them wrong and shatter their entire world to smithereens.

Right now, though, there are enough of them to come together and commiserate and assure one another that detractors are liars and victims wanted money and that Jacko was without a flaw.

Jacko fans are actually part of most of us who loathe the abuses of children, although I am disgusted by the fact they laugh at Jason Francia. It just so happens that the fans are also a part of a low IQ segment of society, idol worshippers bowing down to and defending unwittingly a prolific pedophile child molester, Michael Joseph Jackson, because he made Thriller and can moonwalk.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

I forgot to add: how did you find my site in the first place? (If you told me before or via email, I apologize because I've forgotten!)

My conversion started on June 4, 2010 late evening when I found the articles detailing a secret payout to the Martinezes for $300,000. I had no idea he'd paid another family but this was attested to under oath by accountant Alan Whitman, attorney/friend Al Malnik, and there'd been an email from Mark Geragos detailing the expenses for the trip for F. Marc Schaffel to undergo.

Jurors in the case (it was the case vs. Schaffel) believed the payment occurred because Malnik and Whitman testified about it.

For me, I started questioning whether he was innocent after that. Or rather, if he was a pedophile, perhaps not a child molester but someone with a desire for boys.

Funnily enough, I got into a spat with Lynette via email over the Martinez bit. She was incredibly dense to the truth. Not a surprise... Her argument was that Malnik would have never confirmed of this payment to these alleged victims since he paid for Jacko's bail.

LOL.



Alby:

"Rather than referring to an insurance company, it refers to an insurance carrier, which covers self-insurance. That way, if he was ever called on it, he would have had an out."


Oxman wrote the brief so maybe he came up with the lie, even if Mesereau signed off on it. After all, even though he's honky-dory with the Jacksons, he's not so close with Jacko. Oxman's a sleazebag and has never read the settlement documents. I know the DAs had stated they'd found a copy of the settlement online so how come Oxman couldn't read it to know that Jackson was the payer of the settlement, not Transamerica or anyone else?

Sounds like someone was desperate to keep the settlement out of trial to the point they'd lie about their reasoning. And Jacko has never said anyone paid for it other than himself.

And Blaine told me I shouldn't listen to what Michael Jackson says. LOL.


"As you say, it's a shame that they use these boys for sex, otherwise they would be a great help."

Well, what you've outlined showed why this is true, Alby. With Sandusky, he showered one of the victims with lots of 'love' and 'caring' and 'support'. He even referred to the kid as his son (does that sound familiar? Omer Bhatti rings a bell!). As Lanning said, the 'nice guy' molesters are truly 'nice guys'.

Their fatal flaw is that they need sex from the boys. If it weren't for that, many of these 'nice guy' pedophiles would be great around children.

Frenchie said...

"Did I mention she'd hated my Michael Jackson slash fanfiction, "Michael Does Vegas"? She hated it so much that she constantly visited the page, spending time reading it over and over, according to my web counter."

That's hilarious! I bet if you called her out on it, she would have blamed all the page views on that pesky tattoo artist niece who exists only in her head.

"Lynette said I was causing Trojan horse viruses to attack her computer. Is that wacky or what?"

So she believed you were slipping viruses into her computer by commenting on their blog? LMAO. Old people are so funny when it comes to technology.


Hero,
I agree with Desiree. The Transylvanian f'loon that bothered this blog over the summer could very well be the same person you're referring to. She's a mother of three young children, but somehow she manages to spend every waking moment tethered to her computer spamming the internet with Michael Jackson articles.

Frenchie said...

"I forgot to add: how did you find my site in the first place? (If you told me before or via email, I apologize because I've forgotten!)"

I'm not sure exactly. I know I was thirsty for more information after reading mjfacts.info and somehow came across your blog. I actually found out about mjfacts through VMJ. They were talking about it being "Ray Chandler's website".

Opinionation said...

Desiree I think deep down a lot of the floons know MJ was a pedophile. They can't all be as stupid and delusional as they seem. They just have to publicly insist he was innocent because they are terrified other people will realize MJ was a pedophile and his legacy will be ruined and the "haters will win". You can kind of tell some of them know MJ was a pedophile because they will sometimes switch from arguing he was innocent to arguing that other famous entertainers were pedophiles. So instead of complaining that MJ is being falsely accused, they will sometimes switch to arguing that haters are hypocritical to condemn MJ's pedophilia while giving other pedophiles a pass.

I think a lot of them must secretly know MJ was a pedophile but come up with some demented rationalization such as those kids should feel honored that a God like MJ molested them. It's not as though they were molested by a mere mortal, in the fan's eyes they were molested by the second coming of christ and should feel grateful. It's psychotic and reprehensible and it's exactly how these fans probably think.

But not even the fans are psychotic enough to admit such attitudes publicly, so they continue to insist MJ was innocent and smear his accusers; even the fans who know MJ was guilty want to punish the accusers and the MJ realists for daring to blow their God's cover. Their worst nightmare is that the truth will come out.

Desiree your blog is so powerful and effective that I actually worry that it might cause some fans to kill themselves. As tragic as suicide may be, at least you're improving the quality of the species by weeding out the low IQ psychotic genes.

Elena said...

I found this interesting article yesterday, even though I was actually searching for something totally unrelated but oh well...It does mention MJ too:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation&offset=4

I don't understand why someone may be more attracted to children than to adults, but this is even more confusing. What makes a man (because most of them are males) sexually fixated on boys/girls of a certain age? I mean, if you have that problem (mental disorder, sexual deviance or whatever you consider it) that causes a sexual attraction to children, how is it that even into that exclusion you also exclude children who are too young or too old? Ok, I know that sounded really confusing but I just didn't know how to explain the question and my English isn't very fluent today LOL.

He also mentions the evolutionary characteristics that may cause pedophilia (and company). I had already thought about men being attracted to young girls because they lose their fertility as they grow older, it makes sense (kind of). But I couldn't think of many reasons that could cause homophobic pedophilia. The author is saying pretty much the same that you guys were commenting about MJ and Jerry Sandusky, if they didn't want sex out of the boys they befriend, their relationships could actually be very advantageous.

Regarding the age classifications, I don't think the age range are really so exclusive, any of them could also be attracted to younger/older children (or even adults). The age thing must be something physiological. I've heard some people talking about how child molesters were also victims themselves and they tend to molest children the same age as they were when it happened. I don't really agree with those kind of statements, for one thing, not all victims turn into molesters and we can't say for sure that all molesters were victims. However, there might be some truth to it. Like I once said, I believe that pedophiles (I include there all the rest mentioned in the article) are the result of some genetic predisposition and obviosuly some external circunstamces. So it's possible that those predisposed men who are sexually molested at a certain age grow up to become sexually fixated on children that same age.

I'm just speculating here, I don't have my own scientific background to back it up but I read a lot about these matters. I wish I could study those things too but I already have enough with engineering, the little free time I have from college it's for my social life LOL

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

Mikky looks like a total space cadet, like she hasn't slept for weeks and weeks. It's amazing how you can see crazy in the eyes; it still gets me. The old black lady stalking me looks the definition of batshit insanity about the eyes.

It's funny that you found MJ Facts through Vindicate MJ because I'd found MJ Facts and then I'd found Vindicate MJ, who'd been trashing MJ Facts and I left a comment telling them they were bullshit and the rest is history... LOL.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

"Desiree I think deep down a lot of the floons know MJ was a pedophile. They can't all be as stupid and delusional as they seem. They just have to publicly insist he was innocent because they are terrified other people will realize MJ was a pedophile and his legacy will be ruined and the "haters will win"."


You know what? I think you're totally right about that, however, if you're talking about some of the fans we've talked to on IMDB, they may be representative of some of the more 'sane' ones, the ones who don't want MJ Realists to win but cannot deny that some of Jacko's behavior looks downright out of order.

I don't think it is a question of stupidity of fans, en masse, because Michael Jackson is a religion to them. Some of them are stupid, no doubt, just plain idiots with low IQs. Lynette is an example of this group--she's a complete moron. Then you have some of them who obviously possess a modicum of intelligence (I won't overdo it with generosity here!) but are so tied to Jacko and he fulfills some sort of role or completes a fantasy that they live in a state of denial about everything.

The seeming stupidity of Jacko fans is on a spectrum.

For example, Opinionation, consider Blaine of Vindicate MJ who wrote the 16 F'loon Talking Points that I pasted earlier in these comments and have solidly refuted. He considers himself to not be like the rabid Lynette types and I would agree with that mostly, although he definitely is a harasser of Jacko's victims. He seems to possess a reasonable IQ but then you read the stuff he writes on Vindicate MJ: his logic is shaky, at best, and complete bullshit at worse--he clearly does not know how to read a document or news story to glean information, which suggests an IQ deficiency.

The average IQ is said to be between 90-110, although I would place the 'average' when discussing humans away from paper to be between 85 and 100. The former figure is a little too generous.

Clearly, there is an IQ issue with Blaine. I'm sure he's completely functional and successful but he should be able to glean information properly even if he is a rabid Jacko fan with a significant bias. Perhaps denial really can subvert the power of natural intelligence but I don't accept that argument.

And then you have the space cadets, who are a little different from the stupid fans like Lynette or the ones 'approaching intelligence' like Blaine. They may or may not have low IQs but are completely dedicated to Jacko and throwing facts at them is like that old saying of their being rubber and we're glue: the facts bounce right off of them and remain with us. These are the people who would have the hardest time with coming to grips with the revelation of Jacko's being a child molester; their lives are even more tied to Jacko than the others (although the difference seems nil, in reality, it is statistically relevant). They will be the ones to act in deviant ways, even break the law.

For example, the elderly black woman who is breaking the law to stalk and harass me by libeling me on another blog. She has children and, allegedly, a life, but the facts on my blog caused a psychotic break; the only response she felt was appropriate was to do what she's doing, thinking it is a defense of Jacko (she's yet to refute any of my postings on Jacko). To note, her dedication to Jacko is tied exclusively in poorly written erotic fantasies she masturbates to and shares with other fangirls, in hopes they also masturbate to her fantasies as well. Her dedication to Jacko is completely sexual, which is a powerful drive in humans. When this elderly black woman found out from my blog that resonable suspicion existed to suggest Jacko was a homosexual, she went nuts.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

Opinionation:

Someone should do a study on fan psychology but studies about religious adherents would probably answer most of our questions.


"You can kind of tell some of them know MJ was a pedophile because they will sometimes switch from arguing he was innocent to arguing that other famous entertainers were pedophiles. So instead of complaining that MJ is being falsely accused, they will sometimes switch to arguing that haters are hypocritical to condemn MJ's pedophilia while giving other pedophiles a pass."


This has always perturbed me but I've never thought about it in the way you just have. 'Projection' (and I guess it is by proxy in the case of f'loons) is considered an immature way to cope with a problem, the problem in this case being Jacko's obvious pedophilia (and/or homosexuality, depending on the fan).

You are right in that their projection of pedophilia onto other celebrities (eg. Elvis Presley) or mentioning other people with young kid issues (eg. Roman Polanski or R. Kelly) is actually an admission of acknowledgment of Jacko's boy-loving.

I don't think that MJ Realists give a other celebrities a pass; it's just that the conversation is about Michael Jackson, thus, other people need not apply. I will say, though, I think the public is more turned off by Jacko's pedophilia than R. Kelly's like of teen girls or Polanski's dalliances because Jacko's was homosexual in nature, whereas someone could easily argue that R. Kelly's like of teen girls is more biologically determined: men are hard-wired to notice the physical maturation of females because of human mating patterns.

On the other hand, the fact that Jacko was an adorable, talented little black kid--looking completely normal--and he's accused of the sexual abuses of young white boys, it allows him to not be completely condemned. There's a bit of suspension of belief.

Fans focusing on other celebrities' behavior--and usually they are quite rabid and vociferous in pointing these people out (note Sandusky, who's Jacko's veritable twin)--is a red herring.


"Desiree your blog is so powerful and effective that I actually worry that it might cause some fans to kill themselves."


Well it has caused at least one fan to break the law.


"As tragic as suicide may be, at least you're improving the quality of the species by weeding out the low IQ psychotic genes."

LOL!

I'm not incredibly sentimental about human life because worth has been demonstrated for millennia to not be equally distributed amongst the human population. I don't think someone committing suicide is, in any way, an indication of low IQ or lack of worth--suicide is a tragedy. However, anyone who would even contemplate killing themselves over a dead child molester probably shouldn't reproduce.

J-M-H said...

About the causal factors of pedophilia, I think its a complex issue. It's possible that some were victims of sex abuse and it was left untreated; it's possible that they may have been exposed to deviancy at a young age and they may have incorporated it into their mode of thinking and relating to others. It's also possible that it's a general defect that is biological but somehow shaped by environment to be expressed as a deviant attraction to children. You know, the whole "biology loads the gun, but environment pulls the trigger" thing. I've read that there seems to be a positive correlation between some individuals with antisocial personality disorder and having mothers with paranoid schizophrenia. Of course there is the possibility of the mother providing a home environment that is conducive to developing antisocial behaviors.

Children are like sponges, for better or worse, so there is likely a multitude of causal factors that are mixing to form deviancy.

J-M-H said...

Thanks for the article link Elena.

It's absolutely disturbing to hear people try to categorize normal sexuality with the suffix -phile, as if being attracted to adults 17 and older is anything akin to being a pedo. There is not mental illness in being attracted to viable human beings, evolutionarily speaking. And that's the ugly truth. Now there can be a moral issue and that's something people can debate separately but what we need for ultimate understanding is to keep morals out of it. It's only confuses the issues. There is no scientific basis for being attracted to children, it's wrong in both a biological and moral sense. Once viability comes into play, it becomes more muddled. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the evolutionary importance of youth in terms of species replication. No doubt about it, once biological viability happens, from virus to bacteria to plants to animals, that's the peak time to replicate the species.

It honestly makes me quite disturbed to see a moral shadow on science, and the thought of trying to deny civil rights because of some moral belief system. Bill Maher once said that in order for our species to live, religion must die. I agree, although until that day happens, I have no problem with people worshipping their cats if they want to...just don't let that trickle into public policy. I agree with this sentiment about using subjective, moral-based labels, although, I should say that the younger age range seen in hebephilic attractions absolutely amounts to a crime; I highly doubt any 11, 12, 13 year old wants to be a victim of a deviant attraction: "The push to pathologize hebephilia, argues forensic psychologist Karen Franklin, appears to be motivated more by “a booming cottage industry” in forensic psychology, not coincidentally linked with a “punitive era of moral panic." Because “civil incapacitation” (basically, the government’s ability to strip a person of his or her civil rights in the interests of public safety) requires that the person be suffering from a diagnosable mental disorder or abnormality, Franklin calls Blanchard’s proposal “a textbook example of subjective values masquerading as science.” And I agree with the guy, Gregory De Clue, who says that making these "medical classifications are based on arbitrary distinctions dictated by cultural standards".

The article does, unfortunately, raises the point about society seeing distinctions in who does the crime of molesting children. I think that's why Polanski, R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson were given the benefit of the doubt and/or a pass when they did what they did. If it was some Joe Schmo on the Maple Street, he'd been drawn and quartered. But Jacko was allowed to continue to call his victims liars because he could afford to $60 million media blitz on ABC, and the media had no problem taking his word for it, even when all available evidence points to absolute guilt. People don't want to put their celebrities in jail, that's a fact. If they were in jail, they'd be ordinary, and no one wants to be ordinary or worship ordinary people.

opinionation said...

Someone should do a study on fan psychology but studies about religious adherents would probably answer most of our questions.

Well there have been studies showing religiosity is NEGATIVELY correlated with IQ (meaning more religious people tend to score lower on IQ tests. Though with most generalizations, there are major exceptions; some religious fanatics score in the genius range). It's possible for high IQ people to believe irrational things because intelligence is just the mental ability to problem solve, but it's our emotions not our intellect that dictates what problems we are motivated to solve (because by definition a problem is something that is bothering you, and thus an emotional phenomenon as is motivation).

The few highly intelligent Jacko fans do not use their high intelligence to find out the truth, they use their high intelligence to figure out a way to explain away Jacko's suspicious behavior to themselves and others so they don't have to feel bad about having invested their lives worshiping him. Indeed considering how much time and energy they've invested in Jacko, it would almost be stupid to seek the truth, because should they discover it, it would devastate them. So at least on a unconscious level, they are smart enough to know that denial is their only viable coping strategy.

It would be interesting to study Jacko fans. They are distinct from religious fanatics in that religious fanatics are often born and raised into their religion while Jacko fans typically chose this obsession for themselves and frequently have disapproving family members. I suspect many of these fans are on the autistic spectrum because they are both obsessive and naive, two traits strongly associated with autism. It would also be interesting to know basic demographics: Are they usually male or female? Adults or teenagers? Homosexual or heterosexual? White or non-white? Educated or uneducated? Rich or poor? American or non-American? Religious or secular? Liberal or conservative? I suppose you could find out a lot by examining video of the people who showed up at court to support Jacko in 2005. I also wonder if there are higher rates of pedophilia among Jacko fans compared to the general population, particularly among the male fans.

opinionation said...

.I will say, though, I think the public is more turned off by Jacko's pedophilia than R. Kelly's like of teen girls or Polanski's dalliances because Jacko's was homosexual in nature, whereas someone could easily argue that R. Kelly's like of teen girls is more biologically determined: men are hard-wired to notice the physical maturation of females because of human mating patterns.

Well Jacko's case is more provocative because it violated three of the biggest taboos: Pedophilia, interracial sex, AND male homosexuality!

I'm not saying homosexuality or interracial sex are in any way comparable to pedophilia on a moral level; only that all three are controversial.

In a sick evil way, Jacko's crimes were arguably his biggest accomplishment. There was a time when a black man would be lynched just for looking at an adult white woman, so for a black man to get away with not only looking at whites sexually, but looking at white CHILDREN, not just sexually but HOMOSEXUALLY, and then acting on those fantasies, over and over and over again, while practically taunting the whole world ("why can't you share your bed?") and then being celebrated like a God after he died, shows Jacko was either a criminal genius or was such a huge celebrity that there was nothing he couldn't get away with. I wonder if it was a huge ego trip for him, knowing he could homosexually molest white children and practically admit it on international television and there was nothing anyone could do to stop him because he's Michael Jackson. In a sick twisted way, it was almost like a status symbol and show of power.

Alby said...

I just thought it would be illuminating to post some points from the FAQ of a boylover support newsgroup.

*Note to fans: This in no way endorses or shows agreement with pedophiles or their actions, this is merely to show the similarities between Mike's and other boylovers attitudes and thoughts.

Full FAQ is available here http://tinyurl.com/cx74bgu


6. What does a boy lover do?

Apart from the obvious answer - "he loves boys" - a boy lover has many outlets for his feelings.

A favourite pastime of boy lovers is collecting pictures of boys, and those boy lovers who have no desire to break the law usually make excellent photographers. An example is the German photographer Hermann List, who is internationally renowned as one of the finest photographers of the first half of this century. (For more famous names, please see "Are there any boy lovers I would know?")

Boy lovers who have opportunities to do so may befriend boys, and enjoy a long and fruitful relationship until well past the boy's childhood. This is an aspect of boy love not clearly understood by many people. Just because the boy grows up does not mean the friendship is over. The original reason for the attraction may be gone, but the seeds of the friendship remain, and it is often the case that the boy lover, like the Classical Greek pedagogos, has managed to instill a high sense of moral dignity, self-esteem, and love in the boy due to his special relationship with him.

Far from being the predatory monsters that popular media portray boy lovers to be, they are in fact loving, caring individuals who live up to their self-designation. A boy lover considers harm to a boy and to children to be heinous acts of inhumanity, never justifiable under ANY circumstances, to be punished to the full extent of the law. These include acts of sexual abuse, physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or violence of any kind.

**********************************
Doesn't this put Mike's comments about how he would "never harm a child" and "would never hurt a child" into context? Check also the par on "favourite pastime" - that explains his "art books" LOL

Alby said...

7. You mentioned sexual abuse - isn't sex with a minor sexual abuse?

As discussed, boy love is not simply an issue of sexual attraction. It is a factor in many boy lovers' lives, but it is by no means the defining factor. And there are many boy lovers who do not consider themselves sexually oriented toward boys. This question, therefore, does not even apply to some boy lovers.

However, there are some boy lovers who have a desire to practice their orientation in a sexual way. What can be said about this is that human sexuality is as variant as human personalities, and that there are boys in the world who are capable of sex with boy lovers, and who indeed desire it and seek it out. It is absurd to believe that the legal age of consent in North American society defines the natural age of consent for every boy in the entire world. It is unacceptable, therefore, to define every act of sex between a man and a boy which is punishable by law in the United States and Canada as an act of abuse. Abuse is an act of aggression and coercion, and such behaviour goes against the very nature of boy lovers.
It is a common misconception that boy lovers are driven by their sexual desire, and have no control over other aspects of their lives due to this fact. This was the precise error made concerning adult-oriented homosexuality in the 1950s and '60s, and it was proved wholly wrong. It is just as wrong when applied to boy lovers.

It is undeniable that abuse and coercion exist in society, and that rape and exploitation is perpetrated against children. But by their very
definition, boy lovers are incapable of such acts. Boy lovers feel personally repulsed at the idea of the true sexual, physical, or emotional abuse of children. In a more tolerant society, boy lovers would undeniably be first in the ranks to combat real childhood sexual abuse, exploitation, neglect, and any other condition that would lead to the undue suffering of children.

*************************************

Apart from the ridiculous notion about pedophilia being a mere "orientation", we see here a couple of themes as they relate to Mike. Firstly, that men having sex with boys is quite harmless (once again, the "I would never harm a child" defence); and the amplification of and opposition to other forms of child abuse - refer to Mike's Oxford speech as a concrete example of the application of that mindset!

Anybody who thinks Mike isn't a boylover is nuts, IMHO.

Alby said...

Sorry, just getting back to this paragraph:

Boy lovers who have opportunities to do so may befriend boys, and enjoy a long and fruitful relationship until well past the boy's childhood. This is an aspect of boy love not clearly understood by many people. Just because the boy grows up does not mean the friendship is over. The original reason for the attraction may be gone, but the seeds of the
friendship remain, and it is often the case that the boy lover, like the Classical Greek pedagogos, has managed to instill a high sense of moral dignity, self-esteem, and love in the boy due to his special relationship with him.


This obviously makes a mockery of fan claims that Mike's boys weren't abused because they continued to be friends well into adulthood. So even if Jimmy Safechuck DID get married at Neverland, (which we know he didn't), it wouldn't exonerate Mike at all. As far as I know, all Mike's special friends kept in contact and continued to be friends with Mike, although some might had problems understanding why Mike didn't want to be so close once they had passed his Age of Attraction (hi Brett!).

opinionation said...

Boy lovers who have opportunities to do so may befriend boys, and enjoy a long and fruitful relationship until well past the boy's childhood. This is an aspect of boy love not clearly understood by many people. Just because the boy grows up does not mean the friendship is over. The original reason for the attraction may be gone, but the seeds of the friendship remain, and it is often the case that the boy lover, like the Classical Greek pedagogos, has managed to instill a high sense of moral dignity, self-esteem, and love in the boy due to his special relationship with him.

This too fits Jacko's profile. Some of the boys he befriended remained part of his circle well into adulthood and are still loyal today.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

Those are quite interesting (and provocative) opinions about Jacko fans!

"The few highly intelligent Jacko fans do not use their high intelligence to find out the truth, they use their high intelligence to figure out a way to explain away Jacko's suspicious behavior to themselves and others so they don't have to feel bad about having invested their lives worshiping him."


You're right about IQ being just a small factor of the human animal and, usually, because we can feel emotion over intellect, most humans will go with the heart over the head since it gives an immediate response. I'd agree with you on fans, although I think it is quite a stretch of the imagination to say a 'few' in the same sentence as 'highly intelligent Jacko fans'! I'd lower a 'few' to a 'handful'--I cannot think of any highly intelligent f'loons. I said Blaine approaches intelligence and, of course, compared to people like Lynette (the idiots) he definiely seems like an Einstein.

Where we diverge is that I think people with high IQs normally cannot buck the truth for so long. I know we have the Christian apologists but I think Christianity and religion are a little bit different than being an adherent to the Church of Jacko. You said in another forum, Opinionation, that there are more proofs showing Jacko to be a pedophile than proofs to the theory of evolution. It's the same with Christianity: C.S. Lewis obviously has a high IQ and, even though agnosticism seems more prudent than adherence, there is enough ambiguity in terms of spiritual matters (even Dawkins says he's only 99 percent sure there is no God!) for him to not look like he's just bucking reality.

But that just isn't the same with Jacko. You can't just be a Jacko apologist and have a high IQ; they are mutually exclusive. There is too much evidence that lends more than enough reasonable suspicion that Jacko was a pedophile and a child molester.

They have to be dumb; it can't simply be due to the fact that they are just in denial or any of that. No way!


"It would be interesting to study Jacko fans. They are distinct from religious fanatics in that religious fanatics are often born and raised into their religion while Jacko fans typically chose this obsession for themselves and frequently have disapproving family members. "


Although I could be wrong, the ones who seem most dedicated to him are the female fans (although Blaine and MIJACology are exceptions).

I'll talk from a female point-of-view...

I believe the dedication many of the rabid female fans have to Jacko is based primarily in sexual attraction. I am in no way ridiculing attraction to someone else but it becomes significant in the whole discussion of them being obstinate to reason.

About six months ago, a fan emailed me thanking me for my site, etc. But she said that Jacko was the 'king of her mattress' and that it was a shame he was gay.

While she could accept the evidence of his lack of heterosexuality (she said people would attack her message boards for bringing it up), it's an interesting insight into the mind of the female fan. I think that sexual attraction drives the denial of the evidences showing--proving--that Jacko was not into females, or his primary fan base. If he cannot be interested in them, it destroys the fantasy that they may need and take utmost enjoyment in.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)


I think attraction is definitely a huge part of why they became fans, too.

This may be somewhat simplistic but it's being a little too generous and cautious to deny that this is a big chuck in their pathology.

What I am interested in is the male fans, like Blaine. What makes them more interested in Jacko than just an interest in his music (which is good pop but mediocre, all things considered)? Is Blaine sexually attracted to Jacko, maybe even a little bit? How about someone like MIJACology?

Humans have several drives that are stronger than all others, and one of them is sex and pleasure. However, I doubt the latter can be achieved just by listening to his music, to the point one is completely dense to all the evidence of his crimes and proclivities!

To me, it must be sexual. (And I'm sure some fan will try to suggest 'love', such as platonic or familial, but that is something that you have to develop when you know the person intimately; I suppose it's possible that they could be completely delusional but I think that is even more simplistic than saying it's about sex!)


"I also wonder if there are higher rates of pedophilia among Jacko fans compared to the general population, particularly among the male fans."


Hmm... I don't know if it could be amongst your average f'loons; like most people, they seem to be revolted by pederasty which is why they hate the idea of Jacko having been a child molester. But male fan dedication is odd and I am sure that some of the people sympathetic to Jacko could be pedophiles (or, perhaps, people who may have found a molestation experience 'enjoyable', like Brett Barnes did, and as you'd mentioned, they may think the boys were lucky to have had Jacko molest them). However, I think most of the pedophile fans would want to acknowledge his pedophilia as a sort of camaraderie, instead of deny it.

For example, you have the book "Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons" by Carl Toms. He's a pedophile and/or pedophile sympathizer who finds camaraderie in Jacko's story, although you probably wouldn't call him a fan. He uses extensive research of Jacko's issues to prove Jacko was a boylover (fans hate the book because it's a pedophile's view of another peodphile but it takes one to know one, right?) and he then says that Jacko shouldn't be demeaned.

I COMPLETELY passed over the chapters of pedophile apologia. It's so hard to stomach when you hear it from the horse's mouth... it's still a good book, though, and highly recommended because of the information, just avoid the few chapters promoting abuse.

I just don't think many fans are pedophiles, though. Just dumb and sexually attracted to Jacko.

Frenchie said...

"I definitely don't think they support the abuses of children--they definitely aren't NAMBLA advocates. In fact, they are so revolted by pedophilia and child sex abuse that they have become incredibly delusional"

I don't think they support child abuse, but there are f'loons who almost seem hostile towards abuse victims in general...not just MJ's victims. Haven't some of them even accused you of being molested as a way to taunt you? That's pretty foul.



"Children are like sponges, for better or worse, so there is likely a multitude of causal factors that are mixing to form deviancy."

Even minor childhood experiences seem capable of having a significant impact. I've mentioned this before, but Ted Bundy claimed his early exposure to pornography shaped his sexually violent attitude towards women. Since most boys exposed to pornography don't later become murderers, there clearly must have been other factors at play with Bundy. However, nothing traumatic is said to have occurred in his childhood.

Perhaps some men's road to pedophilia is equally undramatic. If, for example, a pubescent boy sees a younger child in a bathing suit and becomes excited by it, he probably won't give it much thought after the fact. He shouldn't. There's nothing strange about a child being fascinated with the human body. But maybe a small minority of boys won't brush that sort of experience aside so easily. These particular boys might struggle socializing with their peers so a younger child has a unique appeal to them, or maybe they just enjoy the forbidden element of the attraction. Whatever the reason, they take a trivial instance relating a younger child to sexual arousal and use it as a jumping off point. If they continue to fantasize about younger children, I imagine it could become permanently imprinted into their developing sexuality.

Desiree said...

Frenchie:

"Haven't some of them even accused you of being molested as a way to taunt you? That's pretty foul."


Ha--yes, yes they have said that to me. They assume that anyone who would question Jacko's behaviors with boys or thinks he is a pedophile has an ax to grind because they were abused. I'm sure there are some people rightly pointing out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile that have axes to grind based on their past abuse but that really is ancillary to the whole topic of conversation.

I remember I'd stated to Lynette (the idiot fan prototype) that I'd rather fingerpaint with choleraic feces than read any of her writings on Vindicate MJ. She shot back with some line about interest in feces is a sure sign of childhood sexual abuse. I was disgusted, to say the least. My quip had emerged from my background as a microbiology student... :-\

I agree with you about their hostility towards sex abuse victims but I think a lot of that comes from the fact 'Their Michael' was accused by victims. Normally, their reactions to abuse victims would probably range anywhere between empathy/sympathy to warm indifference.

J-M-H said...

Alby, that list is...wow. I hate to say it but it's sort of comical in a way, how delusional they are, esp. this quote: "In a more tolerant society, boy lovers would undeniably be first in the ranks to combat real childhood sexual abuse, exploitation, neglect, and any other condition that would lead to the undue suffering of children."

Reminds me of an article I read in a back issue of Spy magazine. Interview with a spokesperson from NAMBLA; same delusions.

http://goo.gl/ML0vC


These particular boys might struggle socializing with their peers so a younger child has a unique appeal to them, or maybe they just enjoy the forbidden element of the attraction. Whatever the reason, they take a trivial instance relating a younger child to sexual arousal and use it as a jumping off point. If they continue to fantasize about younger children, I imagine it could become permanently imprinted into their developing sexuality.

Yea, I think this is what do happen in many cases. It's a fixation, but the ability to be prone to fixation is something underlying in the person. Fixating on whatever they experienced, whether it was abuse, seeing something deviant, etc, that's what causes the problem. I watched this doc called "Deliver Us From Evil" about a pedophile priest called Father O'Grady and he seemed to fixate on a sexual incident that happened between he and his older brother. That was his jumping off point. Another doc I watched, "Capturing the Friedmans", the father was a pedo and he seemed to intensely remember the times where his mother brought men home and slept with them in front of he and his younger brother (they lived in a one room apartment) and how that lead to him having relations with his young brother when he was a young teenager.

J-M-H said...

Desiree, don't forget her myopia about the doo doo as it pertains to Michael Jackson. Mike was the one that had a discernible interest in fecal matter, and we know that he was a victim of sexual abuse, according to reports. But I highly doubt that she would suggest that he was a victim of anything more than physical abuse.

Desiree said...

Frenchie, I should add that fans have the most bizarre projection. If they don't accuse an MJ Realist of being a sex abuse victim, they accuse them of being a pedophilia supporter for being interested in learning how that abnormal psychology applies to Michael Jackson's case, or being a pedophile (I don't know how they would even come to that).

For them, an MJ Realist cannot be just that: an MJ Realist, someone who viewed him for what he was. The fans are twisted...



Alby:

This part of that FAQ you'd listed is interesting and it fits along with what Ken Lanning had talked about regarding 'nice guy' molesters. I truly believe many boylovers do hate violence and the raping of boys but they obviously have a very 1-dimensional view of what harm is.

Far from being the predatory monsters that popular media portray boy lovers to be, they are in fact loving, caring individuals who live up to their self-designation. A boy lover considers harm to a boy and to children to be heinous acts of inhumanity, never justifiable under ANY circumstances, to be punished to the full extent of the law. These include acts of sexual abuse, physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or violence of any kind.

It makes me think of when Jacko says he would "never harm a child" and that "is not in his heart". Well, that's quite easy to say because they don't believe they are harming children when they 'love' them, even sexually.

Fans typically are not well-versed in the complexities of Jacko's attractions to boys; they simply see it as black or white, in that, "No, he was never, ever, ever a pedophile and would never, ever, ever harm a child."

They have no clue that our notion of 'harm' is completely different from his and other boylovers' notion of 'harm'. Jacko couldn't stop his sleepovers--the place where the acts of sexual abuse mainly occurred--because he didn't think anything was wrong with sexually loving a boy, and he probably felt doubly emboldened to continue when he bunked with boys like Brett Barnes, who enjoyed the 'affection'.

Speaking of Brett, fans don't find it a little weird that, in 1993, when Pellicano arranged for Brett and Wade Robson to speak on behalf of Jacko that Brett said, "He kisses you like your grandmother kisses you."

LOL.

I remember I brought this up a long time ago on Vindicate MJ about Brett having admitted that Michael Jackson kissed him while they were in bed.

They denied it meant anything sinister, of course...after freaking out. ;-)

But why the hell is a grown ass man sleeping in the bed with unrelated young boys and kissing them while they're under the covers? Please explain to me how that, when coupled with the fact that he was accused of molesting Jordie Chandler, is not indicative of a pedophile?

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

I LMAO'd at your entire 1:47PM comment. :-)

"In a sick evil way, Jacko's crimes were arguably his biggest accomplishment. There was a time when a black man would be lynched just for looking at an adult white woman, so for a black man to get away with not only looking at whites sexually, but looking at white CHILDREN, not just sexually but HOMOSEXUALLY, and then acting on those fantasies, over and over and over again, while practically taunting the whole world ("why can't you share your bed?") and then being celebrated like a God after he died, shows Jacko was either a criminal genius or was such a huge celebrity that there was nothing he couldn't get away with."


I know most people would think the above is intellectual voodoo but it does say something (who knows what) that Jacko--a black man--was able to bleach his skin and get at tons of little white boys and still have people giving him the benefit of the doubt about his pedophilia.

(Fans will say of course he's given the benefit of the doubt because "he's innocent!!!11" but, no, he wasn't.)

I don't know if it means he was some criminal genius but, coupling it with the fact that Dr. Conrad Murray was put in jail and labeled a murderer for simply giving Jacko what he wanted, I think it's mostly a testament to the power of celebrity.

Roman Polanski raped Sam Geimer and he still gets Oscars. Michael Vick is a piece of shit dog murderer and he can go back to making millions as a football player after saying, "Sorry." Hollywood is Hollyweird. Jacko got away with his crimes and his transformation (honestly, he should have been shunned following the skin bleaching and the nose abuse) because he's a celebrity--no one can touch you if you're one of the Beautiful People.

It's so sick. I hate to think about it...

Desiree said...

The final installment of the 'epic fisk' of the "16 F'loon Talking Points", as mentioned by Blaine Edwards of Vindicate MJ.


12. In May 1996, Evan filed a $60 million lawsuit against MJ, LMP, ABC, and Sony, and he wanted to record and publish a rebuttal album called “EVANstory”. The lawsuit was thrown out in 2000, and Evan’s finances were depleted by the legal fees.

The suggestion here is that Evan Chandler's filing of a lawsuit and it's subsequent dismissal demonstrates that he was a greedy extortionist and cared more about money than his son's abuse. Evan Chandler filed a lawsuit against Jacko because he'd violated the confidentiality agreement in the settlement, while all Chandlers were barred from making any money off of media appearances or telling/selling their story. Evan sued Lisa Marie Presley because she was going along with the shenanigans. He'd sued ABC and Sony because they essentially had a deal with one another that if they could promote the HIStory album on the channel--which potentially generated millions--Jacko would sit down with ABC's new star, Diane Sawyer, for an interview. The catch, of course, was that the interview would be a softball; when Jacko is invariably asked to discuss the molestation accusations, he'd easily be allowed to spin the situation in his favor.

ABC went along with it, framing the interview thusly.

Evan's lawsuit was completely justified because, had Jacko wanted to assert his innocence, he could have done it under oath--recall that Larry Feldman was chasing him to give depositions that Jacko continually refused to give--instead of on TV, violating the confidentiality agreement. His wanting to produce "EVANstory" was simply a man of a very high IQ suggesting cleverly a way to tell his rebuttal of Jacko's questionable defense of himself--it's no reflection upon the truth of the matter. But, being out of Jacko's league in terms of finances and clout, Evan of course lost.

Again, none of this has anything to do with anything besides Jacko violating the agreement; inferring deeper than that is baseless.

Desiree said...

13. In September 2004, Ray Chandler successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena for him to testify in court about the validity of his book “All That Glitters”, which was ghostwritten by Evan Chandler, and was originally intended to be released in Spring 1994. Book publisher Judith Regan confirmed this in July 2009.

This link succinctly explains why fans harping on Ray Chandler's 'not wanting to appear in court' is of no substance whatsoever and is laughable. Fans believe that Ray wanted to buck this subpoena because, had he'd been on the stand, he would have perjured himself because, as we all know, he's a 'liar'. They believe that Ray's wanting to buck the subpoena means that he would be exposed as lying about the entire 1993 issue, which had been the subject of his book.

Essentially, fans mistake the quashing of the Subpoena Duces Tecum (SDT) as meaning that Ray Chandler could not verify anything under oath that had appeared in "All That Glitters". The SDT does not mean any of that. Jacko's defense lawyers wanted access to whatever documents that Ray Chandler had due to fear that the prosecution would make use of them to help their case and it would lead to Jacko's conviction as a pedophile.

Chandler stated that they were already publicly available; he also offerer to present them privately to the judge in the case (see page 2). That Ray Chandler would submit whatever he had to a judge is a good indication that he had nothing to hide.

In a nutshell, this is a non point.

With regard to Judith Reagan, according Newsweek's piece on Anthony Pellicano, Reagan is a good friend of that former Jackson PI and bully-for-hire; perhaps her context on the Chandlers was provided by a man paid by Michael Jackson to harass them and any other people who could have potentially spilled the real secrets of Neverland Ranch. And so what about a book being released Spring 1994? Evan Chandler did not write the book, so it certainly wouldn't have been a violation of the confidentiality agreement.

The argument from fans is that any Chandler writing a book on the 1993 case so soon after they were paid to 'shut up' means that they are liars. After all, that is not the way a father of an abuse victim should behave, right? But releasing any book does not mean Jacko is absolved from his paying of a large settlement to a boy accusing him of multiple incidents of sexual abuse instead of vindicating himself in court. The only thing that can reasonably be inferred about the book is that they wanted to get their side of the story out.

Simply, it does not mean that Jordie Chandler was not abused!

Desiree said...

14. In August 2005, two months after the trial, Evan tried to murder Jordan by hitting him from behind with a 12.5 pound weight, macing him, and choking him. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order as a result.

And? The assumption that there is any relation between Jacko's acquittal and this incident is just dumb, since we know fans want people to believe that Jordie Chandler was attacked because he'd wanted to 'speak out' and 'tell the truth'. Before the incident, Jordie and Evan had been living together amiably for years. Suggesting a nexus between a 'vindication' of Jacko and Jordie almost being 'murdered'--as the fans histrionically say--is faulty. There's no proof of it.


15. In November 2009, Evan committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Nobody attended his wake, and he was subsequently cremated.

What a despicable thing to say. Because Michael Jackson is the center of the fans' universe, invaribly, he is also the center of everyone else's. It seems to have been repeated a thousand times that Evan Chandler suffered from a degenerative disease called Gaucher's. Evan had also been viciously stalked and harassed by Jacko f'loons until the day of his suicide. There seems to be no doubt that Evan was tormented by the whole molestation fiasco. However, it's not hard to suggest that pain caused him to kill himself, or neurologic degeneration caused his mind to go, or that the harassment he received by crazed Jacko nuts following Jacko's death caused him to take his own life.

This is a non-point. There is no proof that Evan Chandler killed himself due to guilt; the suggestion is laughably stupid. And evil.


16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”.

This is the file in question, which details how DAs Zonen and Auchincloss, along with two FBI special agents, visited an unknown former minor victim, believed to be Jordie Chandler, in New York. The victim says he'd done his part and would threaten legal action if made to testify against Jacko.

Not much else is known about what was said after "he had done his part". For all we know, the victim could have admitted his abuse at the hands (and mouth) of Jacko and that he'd been handsomely paid to keep his mouth shut. He could have said that he didn't want to face Jacko in court because it would make him sick to his stomach in remembrance of the abuse.

Fans assume that the victim's not wanting to testify means that he was lying, to the point he would get a lawyer to block any attempts to get him on the stand. But how can that be gleaned from the document alone when it was heavily redacted? For all we know, "had done his part" means that the victim was done with the whole issue and wanted to move on with his life, an expected response from an abuse victim.

So, basically, nothing can be gleaned from the document other than the fact Jordie Chandler--the former minor victim--didn't want to be involved; nothing else can reasonably be inferred from it, as the document was highly redacted.

opinionation said...

I know most people would think the above is intellectual voodoo but it does say something (who knows what) that Jacko--a black man--was able to bleach his skin and get at tons of little white boys and still have people giving him the benefit of the doubt about his pedophilia.

And what's really interesting is how open and brazenly conspicuous he was about it, reportedly putting Jordy on his lap in front of the prince of Monaco, holding hands with Gavin on international TV. Fans claim this proves that Jacko was innocent because he had nothing to hide, but Diane Dimond had a more sinister interpretation. She said it was Jacko's way of saying to his critics "You can't stop me! I'm Michael Jackson!".

Btw, in your original post, you talked a lot about Latoya. I watched a recent documentary about Jacko and in it David Guest mentioned that he spoke with Jacko the day after Latoya accused him of being a pedophile. Guest said he had never heard Jacko speak about anyone with as much hate as he spoke about Latoya. LOL!

Yes I can see why Jacko would be oozing with hate for Latoya. She basically has no talent, yet gets to live a life of fame and wealth because she's Jacko's sister, and rather than being grateful to Jacko because of this, she instead single-handedly destroys his almost saintly reputation by outing him as a pedophile while elevating herself as the heroic savior of abused children everywhere. Yes I can see how that might have got under Jacko's skin. LOL!

I don't know if it means he was some criminal genius but, coupling it with the fact that Dr. Conrad Murray was put in jail and labeled a murderer for simply giving Jacko what he wanted, I think it's mostly a testament to the power of celebrity.

Or the power of money. It's unlikely Jacko would have got away with such behavior his whole adult life if he wasn't able to throw so much money and so many parents. On the other hand you have much richer celebs like Martha Stewart going to jail for allegedly lying about a minor stock sale so celebrity can work against you too.

I don't know if MJ was a criminal genius (the Chandlers claimed he was) but I do know that if he was as innocent as the fans claim, then he was a freaking moron. Imagine how incredibly stupid Jacko would have to have been to so thoroughly damage his career, wealth, life and reputation (it only recovered after he died) by repeatedly putting himself in positions where he could be extorted for alleged pedophilia, if in fact he was innocent. By painting Jacko as a naive saint too trusting for his own good, his fans are really making him look like a fool.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

"she instead single-handedly destroys his almost saintly reputation by outing him as a pedophile while elevating herself as the heroic savior of abused children everywhere. Yes I can see how that might have got under Jacko's skin. LOL!"


LOL. You know he was pissed off; he's a total control freak. What documentary was that?

It makes a lot of sense; however, I don't think Jacko was upset with her for being a talentless famewhore--honestly, how many people even liked La Toya Jackson back then? It seemed like everyone questioned her sanity and thought she was a traitor.

I think, back then, people still viewed the Jackson family with a bit of prestige and reverence (although that may be a bit of a strong word).

Jacko was pissed with his sister because she'd exposed him, she'd told what she knew, what was supposed to be a secret. Luckily for Jacko, most people did view La Toya in a negative light and when he paid his family to come out against her (I wasn't old enough to experience the 1993 scandal but about a year ago someone on the blog who'd been old enough to watch the scandal unfold said that when it broke out, the Jacksons were silent at first), it was easy for people to believe she was just making up stories.

What's even more humorous is that La Toya Jackson was telling the press that her family had to to defend Jacko or else he'd cut them off. And you know, seeing that they had been silent at first, the family was made to to the media blitz, proving what she'd said.

There were reports of Jermaine Jackson questioning, "Well, you have to wonder if there's some truth in it." LOL.

Michael Jackson was upset with La Toya Jackson because she ratted on him; the woman without any seeming brain cells and no personality got up there and detailed what had been going on right in front of her.

Classic. And we know she was telling the truth, too.

Funnier still is that you have her saying now that Jacko was understanding and he knew she was made to say those things, etc. Well, if he was angry as hell and full of hatred, according to David Guest, she's just making shit up. She knows all of that came directly from her head and flowed from her lips uncoached.

That's another thing: the fans cannot have La Toya Jackson circa 1993 be a teller of truths. Even if you point to the fact that the details she'd provided were true and verifiable, they will not accept it.


"By painting Jacko as a naive saint too trusting for his own good, his fans are really making him look like a fool."


Do the fans ever paint his as intelligent, though? He's always 'angel Jacko' and nothing more, I've seen.

It doesn't make any sense in terms of probability that Jacko was simply someone constantly accused but totally innocent. When you're accused once, it's about a 50/50 chance of innocence; when he settled, that 50 percent suggesting innocence dwindled. And then you have the second accusation, which also resulted in a multimillion dollar settlement--that's a likelihood of innocence in the teens. And then the third accusation following a documentary where he admitted that there was nothing wrong with sleeping in the bed with unrelated boys and held a young boy's hand.

Sure, he was found not guilty of that charge, but the case revealed tons of behaviors that would make one question his proclamations--talk is cheap.

The likelihood of an innocent man being accused three times of pedophilia is statistically remote, and that doesn't even take into account everything else Jacko did.

The fans aren't making Jacko out to be the fool; they are fooling themselves. They've been unwittingly supporting a pedophile and defending the symptoms of his pedophilia for years...

Frenchie said...

"The likelihood of an innocent man being accused three times of pedophilia is statistically remote, and that doesn't even take into account everything else Jacko did."


Very true, but sadly it's irrelevant to f'loons that he slept with boys, or that he was overtly affectionate with them, lavished them with expensive gifts, shared his hot tub with them, had special pet names for them, and owned books of naked boys spread eagle. It's also irrelevant to f'loons that multiple witnesses came forward claiming they saw MJ behave inappropriately with boys, or that he silenced at least two young accusers with multimillion dollar payoffs, or that his behavior fit the profile of a preferential child molestor to a T. His adherents simply don't believe that MJ should be judged by mortal standards; he was a special snowflake, dammit!

By the way, check out this photo of Cowboy Mike with his little friends. You can tell he favored Brett over the Cascio boys. I think I have a fairly good idea why.

Elena said...

It's not so much about being a criminal genius but about having enough money, at least in the USA...

I think MJ was intelligent but he wouldn't have got away with it so many times if he wasn't rich. It's also the celebrity fact of course, that seems to make them superior beings, even above law and morals. Michael was a good manipulator, we know that for sure, but money played a huge part in that manipulation. He needed it to keep the parents satisfied and occupied, to buy gifts to both them and the kids, and specially to buy their silence in the end.

Imagine that he was some random middle class guy, do you think a mother would have let her kid sleep with him just because he cried and begged her to? The emotional blackmail wouldn't have got him very far...However it's possible that, had he lived in a different economic situation, he would've come up with other ways for getting boys, he would've probably got a job related to children (like lots of pedophiles do).

But the thing is that he was who he was, like all the other celebrities previously mentioned, and it's just not cool to send them to jail like they were mere mortals. Fans don't like to hear what's the truth because it's ugly. They have a perfect picture in their head about saint MJ to idolize and they don't want to see it broken. They're indeed like religious people, their beliefs (even if they don't make logical sense and can only be based on blind faith) gives them something beatiful and ideal to admire and aspire to. Because the real world it's not perfect and people (even celebrities, hard to believe) aren't perfect either. They'd rather create their own idyllic world. And IMO it defintely says something about the intelligence of most of those people, like you were discussing earlier. There's a reason for that "Ignorance is bliss" thing. People are happier not knowing everything (including the truth) because it's usually not good. The more you think about something, the more flaws you discover. So why change that? You just have to listen to what you want to hear and look for the information that you want to find. I think that fanatics are the ones who least admire their idol. Because what they really like is the perfect image they have created in their minds about that person, they would never accept him/her for what he/she really is.

Alby said...

J-M-H, I've read that article before, very disturbing. http://goo.gl/ML0vC

If you want to see more MJ style attitudes, check out the Chickenhawk documentary on Youtube

Desiree said...

Thanks for linking that picture, Frenchie.

Jacko looks like an ugly old white lady in that photo--poor Brett! LOL. Matter of fact, he looks a lot like an aging Liz Taylor. It reminds me of the June 2011 Vanity Fair article J-M-H had mentioned (called "Elizabeth Taylor's Closing Act") where Liz's friends said Jacko was trying to look like her in his later years (or, precisely, he wanted to look like Diana Ross when he was black and Liz Taylor when he was white).

Dead ringer, at least in the bleached transvestite category... I've never seen so much eyeliner and pancake makeup on a 'man'.


"he was a special snowflake, dammit!"


And that's exactly why he got away with it. Jacko's celebrity status made it easy already but you also had a substantial segment of the US population still believing that little black Michael from the Jackson Five was somewhere inside that crazy old Eurasian lady, so they forgave him, they washed away all of his sins or, at least, overlooked them.

One of the things I don't understand--for the life of me!--is why fans cannot connect the dots. Most people on here were former fans of Jackson's; anyone can read older posts on this blog and see that I was definitely a fan of his.

But fans don't connect the dots; they look at every thing individually, which tends to make his behavior look less sinister. Sleeping in the bed with unrelated young boys, for example, on its own, is not something incredibly devious. But it's when you put it with other things that he did--including the 'thrice-accused' factor--that it doesn't look good.

And the lack of connecting the dots gets under my skin. Whyever do they want to continue being unwitting pedophile apologists?

Just connect the dots... It was why I did the ETA on this post--you sometimes have to explain it as if it's some 'Dick and Jane' primer to these people...

Alby said...

16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”.

How do we know the interviewee in question was Jordan Chandler? No mention of him in the FBI file.

Desiree said...

Alby:

The "Chickenhawk" documentary is on this blog, too.

http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html

It was definitely an eye-opener. One thing that is quite interesting is how humans react and respond to labels. Assuming the viewers possess, at the very least, a modicum of intelligence, if they watch the documentary showing men exhibiting many of the behaviors Jacko did and believing in the same things he believed in, but under the label of pedophile, they should be able to apply the same label to Jacko without a 'guide', so to speak.

You just have to get rid of the moonwalking and the Thriller album... ;-)

Desiree said...

"How do we know the interviewee in question was Jordan Chandler? No mention of him in the FBI file."

Alby, that's actually a good point--we don't know if it really was Jordie Chandler they'd spoken to from the document itself; it doesn't reveal a lot of information (duh!--it's redacted but I guess fans think they have 'x-ray vision'). However, I still err on the side that it had been Jordie because of the 'had done his part' thing (what part had he'd played previously? 1993, I'd assume) and the fact that it was in New York, where he'd relocated.

There had been a document in the FBI files that said someone out of New York put a restraining order against Michael Jackson. Could that have been Jordie, too? How about the unknown minor victim interviewed by Zonen and Auchincloss?

We don't know, although, for argument's sake, I'll stick to it being Jordie.


Elena:

Good points--so why oh why is there such a dearth of your perspective here? :-)

"People are happier not knowing everything (including the truth) because it's usually not good. The more you think about something, the more flaws you discover. So why change that? You just have to listen to what you want to hear and look for the information that you want to find."


This point, especially. Instead of embrace truth and accept it, they want get angry; they attack; they stalk; they harass. I remember when I wrote the post on the semen stains, one fan said, "Shut this shit down right now asshole!" They couldn't accept the fact that he'd deviated--and there was evidence of it that his defense wanted to hide--from their ideal of him.

It's why you sort of consider it a religion, the worshiping of Jacko. When Salman Rushdie wrote "The Satanic Verses", Muslims (and I am not picking on them whatsoever--Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. do it, too) burned him in effigy. They wanted to kill him for talking about Mohammed and the religion.

It's identical with your more active and rabid fans, the ones who have devoted a significant amount of energy to the devotion to and promotion of Jacko. For example, Lynette has proclaimed herself a 'Michael Jackson defense librarian' and actively collects whatever articles or documents she finds that she believes shows him to be absolutely innocent of pedophilia.

These are the types of fans--the zealots--that make people turn against the 'clan' and start doing their own researching (I speak from experience). And, of course, researching away from the 'clan' results in discovering a secret payout to a mysterious mother-son duo living in Argentina... and the rest is history.

Alby said...

Desiree, we can assume it was Jordan but we can't be 100% sure, can we? It doesn't really matter anyway. The wording on the FBI site is interesting

"In the last of the three files, an FBI agent from Los Angeles traveled to New York to interview a potential witness. The agent found this individual unwilling to cooperate and closed the matter. The case went to court in 2005, and Jackson was acquitted of all charges."

Why the need for the last sentence? It does match the tone of the whole page though - we tried.... but!

"...none of these allegations were ever proven in court."
"The U.S. Attorney declined to pursue a federal investigation"
"The case went to court in 2005, and Jackson was acquitted of all charges."

I never noticed that before LOL

J-M-H said...

Alby,

While we don't know for sure if the person interviewed is for a fact Jordie chandler, I think from context clues we can take an educated guess that it was him. After all, wouldn't he have been in New York for university at that time? But the specifics of the case lend to the belief it is him. And I agree, the language is strange, as if there may have been some interesting evidence under the whiteouts.

The file was opened to pursue a case under the federal IINI or "Innocent Images National Initiative", specifically dealing with "travelers/enticement". So I suspect that the prosecutors met with the the FBI, talked about the fact that the 1993 allegations included molestation happening in various European locations (Monaco, Eurodisney), and figured that there was enough evidence that could be used to open a case against him for violating IINI. Jordie did in fact allege sex abuse overseas, and thus, there is enough to say that he transported this minor across state lines for immoral purposes. Based on language on the 1st page of the file, the authorities felt they had enough to open a case for "minor victim" and the fact that they used the words "a Federal case could still be pursued"--past tense, suggesting it was most likely Jordie.

This seems to be a completely different case not at all connected to the 2005 trial, which the fans think it is. They obviously can't read, or they'll see it said "it was agreed that the Santa Maria RA open a case for captioned victim". At any rate, the refusal to testify is most likely then based on this new case that was opened especially for violations of IINI, not in connection to Gavin Arvizo. Jordie did not want to testify, and instead it being because he "lied", it was probably because he moved on with his life. Nothing else can be gleaned from the document and it's stupid for fans to make any inference. The DAs and the FBI obviously thought that there was enough evidence to pursue a successful federal case--they just didn't have a victim willing to make a statement in court. So, case closed.

This is just speculation, but I think the timing of this case being opened is interesting. Remember how Larry King testified that Larry Feldman thought 1993 was "a definite good case"? I think it's possible, although I don't know for sure, that the DAs thought putting Mike behind bars would have been much easier if Jordie was the victim. Their pursuit of this case could have been a sort of "back up plan" if Gavin's allegations didn't hold up. This could be seen as the DAs feeling not 100% about the Arvizo case. But that's just speculation. In cases of molestation, if the victim isn't the media image of a perfect angel, it's sometimes hard to get a DA to persue a case let alone secure a conviction. Gavin might not have been the "right victim" the DAs would have preferred, unlike Jordie, who gave an accurate description of Mike's genitals as confirmed by the settlement only a month later, the police photographer under penalty of perjury, and the prosecutors (also swearing under penalty) who wanted to bring the photos and description into court as evidence.

Sometimes victims' statements can be "deceptive but truthful" in statement analysis: http://www.truthsleuth.com/article-3.html

Alby said...

Hey Desiree, seen this?

http://www.meisjemeisje.nl/Michael_Jackson_unveiled.html

I can't find the actual words referenced anywhere else on the web but a lot of the information can be corroborated. Can't be sure if it was actually one of Mike's PR people but it sure reads quite funny!

Frenchie said...

Alby, you find such interesting links! If that isn't really a former insider, then it's someone very clever. To seamlessly weave that much corroborated information into their own made up tales, and to present it in a way that seems completely off-the-cuff, would be challenging for most people.

Regarding the FBI files, I think the potential witness interviewed in New York was Jordan. Although, in September 2004, didn't he live in Jersey City with Evan? The argument can be made that, since he wasn't living in New York, it may not have been him.

Frenchie said...

"Jacko looks like an ugly old white lady in that photo--poor Brett! LOL".

The photo is pretty startling, isn't it? If MJ wasn't famous, I don't think too many parents would have allowed their children anywhere near the guy in the last 20 years let alone cozy up in a bed with him.


"Matter of fact, he looks a lot like an aging Liz Taylor. It reminds me of the June 2011 Vanity Fair article J-M-H had mentioned (called "Elizabeth Taylor's Closing Act") where Liz's friends said Jacko was trying to look like her in his later years (or, precisely, he wanted to look like Diana Ross when he was black and Liz Taylor when he was white)."

Ah, so maybe that's why MJ enjoyed hearing all about Frank's conquests--he was picturing himself in the role of the woman! LOL. Things just keep getting worse and worse for Cowboy Mike's fangirls. :-(

Opinionation said...

Desiree,

I believe the name of the documentary where David Guest briefly mentioned the hated jacko had for Latoya was "Michael Jackson: the life of an icon". Overall the documentary was PR spin but did contain the occasional interesting tidbit.


I'm sitting inside a nice cozy coffee shop enjoying all the thoughtful comments from everyone and I laughed so hard I almost spit my minted hot chocolate latte all over my iPad when you described jacko as a crazy old Eurasian lady. LOL!

Élana,

Jacko's critics such as the chandlers and bob jones give jacko great credit for being a master manipulator. They might be right, but it's easy to manipulate people who are already in awe of your superlative music and dancing talents, international fame, and all the money you can throw at them. The real master manipulators are the non-famous middle class pedophiles who can win over the trust of families without having any fame with which to impress them and any money with which to bribe them.

Another reason to be skeptical of jacko's manipulative skills, is he did a poor job stage managing his image. While he achieved great success based on his musical and dancing genius, his attempts to stay relevant through manipulating the media with planted rumors about buying the elephant man bones and being interviewed by bashire, changing his appearance and marrying Lisa marie, backfired with the general public and really marginalized him (though hardcore fans ate it up). Contrast this with Madonna; she seems far less talented than jacko both musically and kinesthetically, but she was able to achieve much more lasting career success partly because she was better at manipulating the media to her advantage. Of course she had the advantage of just being a more normal person.

Desiree said...

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-sentenced-four-years-175717251.html

So, Murray got the maximum of four years. What bullshit. I'm sure he'll get out in a year.

That judge never made it an even playing field. Hopefully they will try to appeal the sentence and be successful--that documentary showed that Murray was not some monster. The junkie wanted it...

And look at this disgusting bullshit:

"Some may feel that this was a medical malpractice case. It wasn't. And this jury found that Conrad Murray, with criminal negligence, caused the death of Michael Jackson," Judge Michael Pastor said before revealing the sentence. "The fact is, Michael Jackson died because of the actions of, and the failures to perform legal duties on the part of, Conrad Murray."

The judge also admonished Murray for his "horrific violation of trust" in treating Jackson. The defense was seeking a sentence that included probation but no jail time, but given the severity of the crime and the world-famous victim, the judge sided with the prosecution in delivering Murray his punishment. In addition to the sentence, Murray was also ordered to pay Jackson's children a restitution estimated to be in the amount of $100 million, a sum that combines the cost of Michael's funeral arrangements, plus the lost wages and earnings the singer didn't collect because he died before his This Is It concerts began. The exact restitution, however, will be decided on a later court date.



Is this judge a fucking idiot or what? Murray will never be able to pay that off! Since when--in the United States of America--was a fucking pedophile worth $100M?!

I am so pissed off. This is a travesty of justice. Everyone wants to get their name in lights.

It's so sick--words cannot express how livid I am... Poor Murray.

It's the Curse of Jacko. Everyone who comes around that turd will be afflicted with misfortune.

Desiree said...

"Since when--in the United States of America--was a fucking pedophile worth $100M?!"


Oops... I just had a brain fart when I'd wrote that. My mistake because I forgot we live in Kookyland...

The only time when a fucking child molester is worth $100M of someone else's money is when the fucking child molester made Thriller and could moonwalk.




(Sorry for the swearing--I am infuriated!)

Desiree said...

Does anyone's children get such restitution in a capital murder case? Oh, a judge only cares when the victim was a moonwalking, junkie pedophile, right? How sick! Murray--poor Murray--will be working at McDonald's... he'll be homeless... what, are they going to dig into his prisoner's savings account, snatching the pennies he'll make by folding sheets and scrubbing pans to pay the Jacko 3?

What about Murray's children? Jacko's test tube kids are already filthy rich and they are much happier now than being shut inside and having to watch their father slurring on Demerol and OxyContin until they turned 18.

Murray did them a favor; that's the hard and ugly truth--they are so much better off now. So much happier.

This is insanity... :-(

Desiree said...

Alby:

That was a very interesting read! I just finished it a moment ago and grabbed an open terminal here at school to approve comments and leave my own (I'd printed it out this morning to take with me).

Overall, I believe "MJ Former publicist" is a real person with some nexus to Michael Jackson. It's hard to for me to believe that an MJ Realist would don some fake identity and make up stuff in such detail about Jacko--that's what f'loons do, and they'd definitely never say anything negative about Jacko. It's definitely legitimate.

One small thing I do wonder about is the English usage; this person seems to use a British pronunciation, which indicates that they may not be American. I suppose it is possible that Jacko had people working for him in 1983-1990s that were not American but that was the thing that made me go, "Hmmm..." But I'm sure that is a small thing in comparison to the breadth of information he provided.

Also, two other issues:

(1) He mentioned, "Thriller Tour"; there was no Thriller tour but perhaps since these messages were written during the trial, he confused "Thriller" with the "Victory" tour.

(2) The he said that Jimmy Safechuck looked like Brett Barnes, which is incorrect. That bugged me but maybe there were so many boys he'd just got confused... ;-)

But even with those little problems, there is just too much info that corroborated other info in that chat that could have been made up.

It was interesting to me that "MJ Former Publicist" mentioned Jacko's child sexual abuse. Although I ranted just a while ago at the sickening injustice of Murray being ordered to pay a restitution for the death of someone who'd wanted propofol, I still find the abuse of little black Michael from the Jackson Five a tragedy:


R137: Your post is really interesting and a lot of what you say fits. Lee (Solters) and I had several long discussions about Michael that would delve into Jackson's childhood. On two ocassions he spoke to me of hearing from a member of the family that Michael was "touched inappropriately" by a certain well-known "friend of the family" in the 70s when Michael was a young boy.


I LOL'd about him saying Jacko had the 'severe narcissistic disorder of CA': 'Convenient Amnesia'. So true... ;-)



Frenchie:

"Although, in September 2004, didn't he live in Jersey City with Evan? The argument can be made that, since he wasn't living in New York, it may not have been him."


But it is possible that the two prosecutors and the special agents met him in New York instead of New Jersey. Isn't Jersey--depending on the city--a pretty short commute to New York? It always seems like that on Law and Order... :-)

S.U. said...

Alby,

What an interesting read! I read somewhere there that the publicist was Raymone Bain. It´s strange she gave her true name.
As for the pic, I confess I used to like Michael there. But the more I discover about him the more it seems he looks ugly...and yet I don´t hate him.
Yeah like Desiree said only f´loons fake identities and they really can be very smart. Like a f´loon claiming that Michael was alive because she belonged to his staff and "heard conversations" or the f´loon in Jason´s blog claiming to be a female insider who had a relationship with Michael. I know the f´loons tricks, they choose carefully their words and always use the exhausting excuse: the privacy issue. It´s funny to see their reaction if they aren´t believed LOL. They know very well that it´s not like that that the ugly rumors about Michael will disappear.

Alby said...

Frenchie

Forgive my fuzziness over geography (I always read a book under the desk during that class) but isn't New Jersey quite close to New York?

Desiree

I heard Judge Pastor on the radio earlier and he was emotional. That, to me, is totally unforgivable for a judge. What made it worse was that it was over a drug soaked pop star who begged for his junk. Anybody else and it wouldn't have even been investigated by law enforcement.

Sadly, even though like the 2005 trial verdict it will make MJ fans happy, ultimately both trials show the judicial system to be seriously flawed.

Frenchie said...

"But it is possible that the two prosecutors and the special agents met him in New York instead of New Jersey."

It's definitely possible. I'm just saying it leaves some room for doubt. Here they were willing to travel over 2000 miles to interview him, but they didn't bother to meet him in his own state? It's a little unexpected. Of course, it could have simply been more convenient for Jordan if he worked in New York or was still attending classes at NYU.


"One small thing I do wonder about is the English usage; this person seems to use a British pronunciation, which indicates that they may not be American."

Canadians use a lot of British spelling. Maybe the writer's a Canuck transplant?

Alby said...

J-M-H

You are right, looking at that FBI file it is a different case! I think most of Mike's past friends and associates are quite reluctant to speak about his bad behaviour, not exactly out of fear of his rabid fan base but rather that they find that rabid fan base entirely tiresome. Say one bad thing about Mike and you are harassed by fans every time you go on your Facebook, Twitter or blog.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/02/jackson-guitarist-no-truth-to-simmons.html

What amazed me is someone like the guitarist Jennifer Batten who came out in defense of Wacko must have seen Mike canoodling with Jimmy night after night, and Mike sleeping with Jimmy in his hotel room, over an extended period of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHlT3d2vjU

Lady C said...

Desiree:

Ditto on the sentencing of Murray...But hey, what did you expect? Judge Pastor's fetch for the prison maximum and his sorry-ass spill for justice is down right sickening. It didn't surprise me in the least...Pastor has been very overzealous since the beginning and obviously had it out for Murray; he sure wasn't about to let it end without a bang, if he had any thing to say about it. But like you said, he'll probably be out within a year or less. Restitution in the amount of 100 million...Ummm that hideous...I personally now think that Judge Pastor is the one on drugs. What an asshole, LOL. Jacko's children are so much better off without him in their lives...IMO so much damage--consciously and subconsciously has occurred in their lives starting from such an early age; not very healthy for children trying to grow up in an already messed-up world trying to establish some kind of normalcy--Daddy Wacko was just a hindrance to that, LOL. I truly hope that one day, those kids will be able to have the courage to see their famous father for who and what he really was--no matter how difficult and painful that may be. I hope that they're able to not let their abnormal childhood up bringing dictate their circumstance or who they become later on in life, if that's even possible. I say that because being who they are, where they've been, what they've been through, and who they are still associated with--the Jackson Family, is something that they will have to struggle with for the rest of their lives. Especially now being in the Jackson Family trenches, there will most likely, if not always, be the pressure to be famous or just as famous like their father Jacko and be "bread winners" for that family for many years to come. Whether they like it or not, they will be used as meal tickets in some kind of form...The way I see it, now that Jacko's gone, they will be the ones to take over where he left off. I really hope I'm wrong on this, but I have a feeling that's where things are/will be heading.

IMO Jackson was a dangerous threat to children. I don't care how much he confessed to loving the children of the world and how "innocent" his actions were...He was not parent material and should have never been allowed to do so. Some people are not meant to be parents and he definitely was one of them. It's been over two years now since he's been gone, and today's sentencing is just another "echo" in the curse of Wacko Jacko...Once again he's able to escape accountability. But regardless of how the fans think the "justice" has been served, it will never bring back their beloved god Michael.

Alby said...

S.U.

The page mentions Raymone Bain, who was Mike's publicist/manager around the time those posts were made. The posts weren't by Raymone Bain.

Lady C said...

Alby:

I too heard Judge Pastor, and he was very emotional. Not only was it unforgivable for a judge but very unprofessional and inappropriate. Like the golden rule of lawyering, never fall in love with your case, a judge is not to become emotionally involved with clients of their case...Obviously that's a rule that Pastor failed to learn in school.

J-M-H said...

One of the small but interesting parts of that link that Alby posted was the part about the make up of his fans.

"Note about the fans: During the 90s in the years that I worked doing PR for MJJ Records, we got a great deal of fan mail for Michael. It was interesting to see that 2 out of every 100 pieces of fan mail to him came from the US. Everything else was from overseas. Kind of signifies his fan base and where his audience lies."

I think most people in America couldn't give two squirrel shits about Michael Jackson, esp. after all the weirdness with the bleaching, plastic surgery, the pedo allegations, etc. Most of his fans, the little he has left, are from Europe, which is why Jacko did all of his tours there, and partly why he wanted to be a dignified European lady, LOL. It's like in America, once we've had our fill of you, you're yesterday's garbage. However, with the way Judge Pastor ruled today against Conrad Murray--they way he presided over the entire trial, actually--you'd think that America never stopped loving Michael Jackson, that he was still, to use Frenchie's term, our "special snowflake". By the way, that ruling is disgusting; it's akin to when they sentence someone to 999 years behind bars, as if they would ever live that long. He will never be able to pay it back. According to the article the amount is based on the funeral expenses and his loss of earning for TII tour. How the hell told the Jackson family to have a concert for a funeral? Pastor is showing his ass here; what if the deceased was a lowly worker at Wal-Mart, would Murray still be paying $100 million, seeing that a Wal-Mart worker's loss of earnings would be in like $20,000? I think not. This type of restitution is reserved for civil judgements against multimillion dollar pharmaceutical companies, or OJ Simpson, basically people that have the funds to pay off a judgement of this magnitude. This was because it was a celebrity, pure and simple. The US loves to hate our celebrities when they fuck up but death to anyone that harms even a has-been.



S.U.,

That wasn't Raymone Bain. The publicist described Bain as a "poor excuse for a publicist". From her demeanor on TV, I highly doubt Raymone Bain is self-deprecating LOL.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

I agree you about him being overzealous. Judge Pastor really has some nerve to act as if Murray violated Mike's trust, when this judge knows all the evidence that was left on the cutting room floor that showed that Mike was out doctor shopping and willing to pay whatever and whoever to get his fix. That's what gets me; he doesn't even care that these were extraordinary circumstances beyond his imagination. This wasn't some special angel that was cruelly pumped with narcotics against his will by a money grubbing doctor; it's a damn junkie. I bet you a $100 mil that he didn't watch the Murray doc, and if he did he didn't give two squirrel shits about how Murray felt about Jacko, how he cried about him.

I'm curious as to how this restitution would be paid (if it isn't thrown out on appeal). Would they garnish any monies that are not for living expenses? Will it supercede his child support payments? Desiree's right, the children do not need this money. This will just play into the Jackson family's hands; I can hear the money squeeze now.


Alby,

Yes, that is an entirely different thing from the 2005 case, had nothing to do with it. They weren't asking him to testify for Gavin's sake, like the other 1108 witnesses. The DAs and the FBI thought there was a good case at hand with him, he just wanted to move on with his life.

I've read that Jennifer Batten story, Desiree posted a long time ago, LOL. But she is full of it, and I think she feels a loyalty to him because he "rescued" her from a life of playing at dingy bars. she wouldn't know Mike's behavior because the way she described him, he wasn't chummy with any of the hired musicians or any people on tour for that matter.

Lady C said...

J-M-H:

"Note about the fans: During the 90s in the years that I worked doing PR for MJJ Records, we got a great deal of fan mail for Michael. It was interesting to see that 2 out of every 100 pieces of fan mail to him came from the US. Everything else was from overseas. Kind of signifies his fan base and where his audience lies."

Boy does this sound familiar, LOL. Recall when Liz Taylor went on LKL after the 2005 trial saying that MJ no longer had the desire to reside in the U.S. because over majority of the public truly believed he was guilty of the molestation charges and was a pedophile? Jackson may have very well been acquitted of the charges, but according to the poll of public opinion, the public spoke loud and clear, and it wasn't in his favor. It seems to me for some strange reason, that MJ was very fond of Great Britain, and I tend to wonder why; especially since they, the British media, coined him the famous title "Wacko Jacko". This according to MJ in his 1997 interview with Barbara Walters was something that he found to be appalling and "hurtful". Jackson may have had an expansive fan base abroad, but as far as the U.S. was concerned, he was chewed up and spit out....the citizens were not as forgiving. He was literally ostracized, but all that seem to change overnight the day he died. While there are still quite a few of fans for MJ here in the U.S., I don't believe it's anything close the number he had during the 80's or prior to the Chandler scandal.

When they speak of what would've been his up coming London concerts, they emphasize the number of tickets sold and the millions of dollars that sales brought in...I can only imagine what the stats would've been like had the tickets sold here in the U.S.--an extreme disappointment.



"Who the hell told the Jackson family to have a concert for a funeral?"

I wondered the same thing...a concert in lieu of a funeral? Because that's exactly what it was. At least this is one point that I can say that I agree with Rabbi Schumely on, and that it was not a funeral but a concert. lol There's no way in hell that Murray should be held accountable for the payment of such circus...It was the Jackson Family's idea in the first place to make a mockery out of MJ's death by staging a "glorified" concert for the whole world to see.



"Pastor is showing his ass here"

Can you say the word A-S-S-H-O-L-E?!
I have to wonder, how many judges out there who are on the bench sat back and watched in awe as Judge Pastor made a complete disgrace of himself and the whole justice system? It's disturbing. Did it resonate in their minds that here in the public eye sits someone who represents one of them?...For some of those judges, I bet they thought that he didn't do them any justice; especially when you think of how the public is "supposed" to look to a judge for justice, leadership and integrity...He was way out of line as far as I'm concerned. Pastor's demeanor and unprofessionalism during the whole trial ordeal and now today's sentencing was truly pathetic--such to the point that he should be removed from the bench all together as he set a bad example and was completely uncalled for.

Lady C said...

S.U.

"As for the pic, I confess I used to like Michael there. But the more I discover about him the more it seems he looks ugly...and yet I don´t hate him."


I know what you mean. Ever since I started following Desiree's blog, seeing MJ has never been the same--it's in an entirely different new light...Heck, even listening to his music is not the same anymore. I can't get into it like I used to. Most of the time when I hear one of his songs, I end up turning the station to somewhere else because I can't stomach what he "really" means by the interpretation of his lyrics and it's quite disturbing...it kind of gives me the creeps if you know what I mean. My choosing to listen to it, from my perspective, would be like glorify their true meaning. Now this is not to say that every song he produced was 'twisted' because that's not true, but a good majority of them contain some strange undertones in my opinion that I no longer particularly care for due to the reality behind them.

Lady C said...

S.U.

Do you ever wonder what things would've been like for MJ had he truly gotten help for his demons? I do, and It comes to mind every time I see his picture. I think of how scarred he was growing up as a child, forced to take on grown up responsibilities against his will, and even made to do hideous things at the hands of his father/mother...All this seemed to permeate every aspect of his life going forward. But, how many celebs do you know of that have come from similar circumstances and have managed to rise above their painful past? Not all have, but some have been able to get past it and not allow it to enslave them for the rest of their life, and that's not to say that for them they came out of it completely unscathed. But what I see and have come to the conclusion is that for MJ, wanting and learning to break free of his past would've been seen in his eyes as too much hard work and responsibility to contend with; therefore he really didn't want help with his problems. He probably felt that continuing to play the "victim" was a lot easier for him than facing reality, and he used it to his advantage--as a crutch in luring sympathy from the public...Or should I better say, manipulation. LOL The truth be told, Jackson was no fool and he knew exactly what he was doing, and to use his lack of "childhood" story continuously was nothing more than a lame excuse to cover up what he was about and really after. From his perspective, MJ probably told himself, what do I have to loose? I have fame and more money than anyone could ever want, people love me...I have nothing to loose, but all to gain. And that gain meant sleeping around with young boys right under people's noses; having his way with them, manipulating the families of those boys, and coming out smelling like a rose with no accountability whatsoever. For MJ lying and manipulation was a lot easier than being truthful and taking responsibility.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

"I too heard Judge Pastor, and he was very emotional. Not only was it unforgivable for a judge but very unprofessional and inappropriate."


If that judge knew he couldn't be impartial, then he should have recused himself. He was an activist.

Stranger still to me is that he considered Jacko to be one of "Mad Murray"'s 'experiments' even though he knew of all of the defense witnesses that could have been brought in to testify that Jacko was a hardcore drug addict and had been addicted for years.

He knew of that evidence before the trial even started!

He knew of the evidence of Jacko looking for another doctor or whoever to give him propofol. The fact that he knew all of that and still could utter from his mouth that Jacko had been one of Murray's 'experiments' proves that he never intended to here the defense's case and sort of steered the idiot fan jurors in the direction of a guilty verdict.

If the judge wants the defendant convicted, all he would have to do, really, is to rule a pro-Prosecution fashion.

All of that should be grounds for an appeal.


http://news.yahoo.com/audio-helped-sway-judge-jackson-doc-jail-081554866.html

Jurors unanimously convicted Murray on Nov. 7, but it was up to Pastor on Tuesday to sentence the doctor and explain his punishment.
"Of everything I heard and saw during the course of the trial, one aspect of the evidence stands out the most, and that is the surreptitious recording of Michael Jackson by his trusted doctor," Pastor said.



Murray said the recording was incidental and there is no proof that he did it intentionally. But that the judge was thrown by Jacko's drug voice--which was played so early on in the case--proves his bias.

That recording proved Jacko's addictions and that he was totally fucked up. And yet he blames Murray for it, in a way.

I think Judge Pastor was a Jacko f'loon.

S.U. said...

Lady C,

Yes and I believe maybe,just maybe he could have win against his demons. He suffered a lot through his childhood maybe because of that I cannot hate him, even acknowledging what he did.

btw I read that Frank did or will do an interview with Nancy Grace and they talked about the paternity of the children.

If you missed it, Tom Joyner talked to Michael Jackson’s former assistant on his current book on the King of Pop “My Friend Michael”. Find out what Frank has to say about MJ as well as if Michael Jackson is the biological parents to Paris and Blanket Jackson."

Notice they didn´t mention Prince?

opinionation said...

Do you ever wonder what things would've been like for MJ had he truly gotten help for his demons?

Can pedophiles ever really be cured?


From his perspective, MJ probably told himself, what do I have to loose? I have fame and more money than anyone could ever want, people love me...I have nothing to loose, but all to gain.

I think Jacko's reasoning was "what's the point of having all this money and fame unless I can use it to get what I really want?" And sadly what he appeared to have most wanted was to be a full-time pedophile. He was probably very happy in his own sick perverted way, because he got to spend decades of his life fulfilling his wildest most twisted fantasies in his own private paradise (Neverland)with whatever child he fantasized about and with the bleached white caucasoid androgynous physical appearance he had always dreamed of.

But eventually, the media taunting and damage to his legacy began to bother him, and the constant surgeries began doing irreversible damage to his face. Soon he was probably having trouble seducing his victims who were increasingly turned off by the strange looking man the media derided as a freak and therefore Jacko was allegedly forced to do desperate things to get his victims to cooperate such as providing drugs, alcohol and porn.


And that gain meant sleeping around with young boys right under people's noses; having his way with them, manipulating the families of those boys, and coming out smelling like a rose with no accountability whatsoever.

Well you could argue there was some accountability. He was arguably a pariah in North America for the last four to 16 years of his life. To go from arguably the coolest man on the planet to being seen as a disfigured freaky self-hating pedophile was probably devastating to someone as image conscious and narcissistic as Jacko, and was probably the reason for his alleged drug problems.

On the other hand he did come out smelling like a rose when he died, as his death suddenly increased his popularity by orders of magnitude, at least briefly. Fortunately however he was not alive to see this and probably died a severely depressed man, jealous that all the young people now loved another black man, Obama (who was wildly popular when Jacko died) while Jacko had been virtually run out of the U.S. like yesterday's trash. And the fact that the stress of all the accusations caused him to die so young is also pretty severe accountability. As terrible as it sounds, I wonder if Tom Sneddon ever secretly thought "well, we couldn't put him in jail, but at least we helped drive him to a very early grave, and that's justice."

J-M-H said...

Murray said the recording was incidental and there is no proof that he did it intentionally. But that the judge was thrown by Jacko's drug voice--which was played so early on in the case--proves his bias.

I agree. The judge is speculating intent on Murray's part without knowing the reason the recording even exists. I'd see Pastor's point more if it was based on the fact that Murray "didn't intervene" when he heard Mike slurring. That's more legit, although doctors hear patients on meds all the time, so Murray probably thought nothing of it. I know he said that Mike was on propofol when he was on the phone, but I doubt it. Wouldn't Murray have to be there to give it to him? Mike was probably high from something he got from Klein or some med he took himself. The recording proves addiction, not sinister motivations on the doctor's part, if it was an accidental recording.

S.U.

I see what you mean about feeling sorry for him. I do too because I think of little Mike and him being abused and it's sad. but there comes a time when he should have to started taking responsibility for his actions, and I can't feel too sorry for him. I get he was a pedo and that must really be horrible but his manipulations...it's just too much. But honestly, the thing that gets me is how he hated himself, his color. But all the Jacksons seem to think there better than most blacks, so it's not all that surprising Mike would be the same way. But to bleach his skin, carve his nose to a point, and buy white children? It's sick.

I hope Frank doesn't say that those kids are his, it's BS. And maybe they left Prince out because of his alleged vitiligo. Unless Mike was in the laboratory pulling out all the Caucasian genes, that boy isn't his son. All the Jackson brothers kids look like them and the kids are multiracial; Paris, Prince, and Blanket? No resemblance to Jacko.

J-M-H said...

Opinionation,

LMAO. I think that once Mike had the clout and the complexion to get away with messing with little white boys, he descended into madness. It was the straw that broke the camel's back,; he had other issues but that was the breaking point. It's when they say having too much of a good thing is bad; that's what happened to Mike. He was always a pedo before but he had to settle for the throwaways (in his head), black boys like Manny Lewis and that kid he liked before he hit it big with "Off the Wall". After his skin procedures was when we see a multitude of young boy special friends. His decline is directly related to his physical transformation. As he got lighter, he got bolder and more careless, because even though many people were perplexed by his appearance, no one really condemned him, although he was taking on the "freak" label more and more. I personally think he felt he could get away with all his special friend shenanigans because he believed he was no longer held back by his former black appearance. After all, how many on those parents would have let their sons sleep in the bed with a 35-40 year old visibly black man? Perhaps if it it was Will Smith when he was the Fresh Prince, they might have, with the right amount of course, but I doubt it.

S.U. said...

When asked Frank gave an interesting answer.

Joyner asked him if PPB were Michael's kids biologically and Frank said, "those are Michael's children." Then Joyner said "biologically?" And Frank just repeated "those are Michael's children."

Of course Frank cannot give a straight answer...and of course the f´loons are angry again.

Alby said...

Personally I don't feel any hate towards Mike. He had obvious problems - selfishness, narcissism, his passive-aggressive personality and of course his pedophilia - but basically I feel disgust towards him. Instead of stepping up like a man he hid behind his money, celebrity and victimhood. To me, he was never a real man and he never grew up.

No, I don't mean he was a Peter Pan type figure, I would rather equate him with the 30 year old unemployed Joe who still lives with and is looked after by Mom because he is selfish, lazy and comfortable; or the ineffectual husband with no ambition who prefers to stay in his drudge job, and plays computer games rather than connect with his wife and children.

Mike (and this has been confirmed by those close to him) only did things he wanted to do, only took responsibility when it suited him, made promises he never intended to keep, manipulated those around him to do his bidding, and lied without compunction.

Desiree said...

"Personally I don't feel any hate towards Mike. He had obvious problems - selfishness, narcissism, his passive-aggressive personality and of course his pedophilia - but basically I feel disgust towards him."


I agree with Alby.

When I started this blog, there definitely was a cynicism already building towards Jacko but I did NOT think he was 'guilty' of some of the horrible things he really did--like many fans, I just ignored it, arguing fallacious talking points. In fact, when I started this blog and even before I'd started it, I would probably have spent a lot of time on Vindicate MJ. ;-)

Hate would be a strong word but antipathy is there in some form; I am more disgusted with his behavior and what he became than anything else. Hate would mean you have to know him; it's not like saying, "I hate cough syrup," which is simple--hating a person is complex. There's enough information about his life to definitely form an opinion but I am not deeply invested in him because he's dead.

Sure, I have this blog and I do believe that he should be exposed (this whitewash is revolting) but I could walk away from it tonight and never blog about him again. It was when I realized people were like me, looking for the truth, that kept me from just being disgusted and not blogging about him anymore.

I don't hate Jacko--he repulses me; I loathe his behaviors and, most of all, the way he got away with it all.

I honestly don't know how he was ever allowed to sell another single copy of his albums following that "Black or White" video where he came out essentially saying, "Yes, I bleached my skin and now I am a white (wo)man--fuck everyone who thinks it's immoral; I'm gonna sing a song about how it's cool and you know what? You're going to fucking love it!"

At that point, we should have told him bleaching his skin was wrong. I'm sure fans will say, "Oh, he had vitiligo--how can you judge him about his skin?"

First of all, it's only a suspicion that he had natural vitiligo. But even if he did, what's the excuse for him doing the crap with his nose (making it the width of a pencil) and wearing the silky wigs? That plus the skin makes him look white, and he wasn't white.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

And then he had the white children? How can anyone throw money at him, essentially funding his grotesque transformation?

To me, I don't understand how his black fans (and really all non-white fans) can even like someone who represented something so ugly... I remember after his death, some black fan said something to the effect of how could she love Michael Jackson when he hated himself? Wouldn't that have meant he couldn't love her because she was black, too?

It's easy for white fans to like Jacko because he liked them. I sort of believe that's why he was so unpopular in the US: even whites here wouldn't stand for his ass-kissing self-hatred. I think Americans of all colors--given the history of our country--just cannot accept something like what he represented. Maybe other countries don't really understand this as well because those countries are less diverse ethnically.

And, after all of the self-hatred issues, you have the pedophilia, which is so obvious and, yet, when you're a fan, you just act like it doesn't exist. Like nothing was ever suspicious with all of those little boys he befriended.

Crazed, kooky fans like the old Russian lady running Vindicate MJ think his little friendships were so innocent and think it's incredibly adorable. Uh, no. No grown ass man would hang out with little boys, parade them around like a man would his trophy wife or beautiful fiancee.

I agree with Lady C: I cannot listen to his music anymore. There are songs of his that I like--such as "This Place Hotel"--but listening to his music just makes me sad about what he became.

Listening to little Michael from the Jackson Five just makes me so sad and I feel really uncomfortable. I really, really can't believe that little boy turned into a child molester. Songs like "Stranger in Moscow" and "Speechless"--which are obviously odes to his pedophilia--are funny to listen to for the simple fact that fans think they are kosher. But that he's singing about boys... ew!

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

"And sadly what he appeared to have most wanted was to be a full-time pedophile."


I remember I quoted a CNN interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in another thread:

(snip)
JACKSON: And every time I felt like I'm at the end of my rope, some kind of way, a kid would show up somewhere. That's the truth. Just when I can't take it anymore. And I really want to die. I really do. When I wanted to die, boom, it hits me. And I get on my knees, and I thank God whenever it happens. I do, Shmuley. And so, I believe in it. I really do.

BOTEACH: They've always been the source of your hope.

JACKSON: Completely.

(end snip)

http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/05/ddhln.01.html


That was Jacko admitting his pedophilia; he was admitting that the only thing that keeps him going and alive was kids, and, seeing that he only hung out with young boys and owned a book of naked boys exposing their full genitalia--calling it the boyhood he'd always dreamed of for himself (he wanted a boyhood that involved boys looking coyly in the camera exposing their genitals to old men?)--by 'kids' he meant male children.

I think if Jordie Chandler had never exposed him as a pedophile, Jacko would have kept on molesting boys and living in his fantasy world. Even though it seems like he did drugs for a long time, it seemed even worse after the scandal. It was as if he needed to get through the 'pain' of being exposed and having the party end.


"Can pedophiles ever really be cured?"


It depends on how you view addiction, which, arguably, is similar to something like pedophilia, in which the taboo makes it even more attractive for the pedophile. If you view sobriety--even years long stretches of it--as being 'cured', then taking Depo-provera or something that can lead to a pedophile being sober from molesting boys and, thus, 'cured'.

I don't think pedophiles can be cured. I think pedophiles may train themselves not to act on their longings for kids but they will be long-suffering; they'll be dreaming of it the whole time.


As Jacko always said:

"...What keeps me going is the children, or else I would, I would seriously...I've told you this before, I swear to God I mean every word. I would, I would just throw in the towel if it wasn't for children or babies. And that's my real, my honest [answer]...and I've said it before, if it weren't for children, I would choose death. I mean it with all of my heart." -- "The Michael Jackson Tapes", page 64

Desiree said...

"There is nothing more pure and spiritual to me than children and I cannot live without them. If you told me right now, 'Michael, you can never see another child,' I would kill myself. I swear to you I would because I have nothing else to live for. That's it. Honestly." -- page 65


There's nothing cute or innocent or sweet about anything quoted above. That is from someone severely disturbed and in need of psychiatric help. I remember in a Bashir doc outtake, he saw a magazine page with some little kids on it and Bashir was talking to him and he was hypnotized by that photo and ripped it out so he could keep it.

I guess, since I don't really like kids and I don't want children myself, and even though I didn't think he was a pedophile at the time, I was always so disturbed by his kid obsession. I thought it was so annoying; I was reading the Shmuley book back as a fan and I was flipping through the pages going, "Is he done with this kid shit yet?" It was like he used them as a drug. It's so revolting now knowing that he was a pedophile.

But I never liked it. There's nothing cute about that. A grown man shouldn't be babbling on about kids unless their his own--that's just how I see it. Fans will say, "Oh women could do it." But the reality is, men are not 'maternal'--a woman can love children and since she lacks the type of non-stop sex drive that men were given, she's not going to abuse kids.

But a man could and I'm not attacking guys in that (has anyone ever heard of female pedophiles or predatory molesters?). That's what happens with the situational molesters Ken Lanning mentions, who aren't 'into' kids sexually but will abuse one in the moment. I don't know how many horror stories of some guy watching porn all day and then raping an infant. Any man who is preoccupied with children to the point that they'd prefer to be around kids over adults, that's a problem.


"Soon he was probably having trouble seducing his victims who were increasingly turned off by the strange looking man the media derided as a freak and therefore Jacko was allegedly forced to do desperate things to get his victims to cooperate such as providing drugs, alcohol and porn."


What an excellent point. I always wondered why Jordie Chandler never mentioned alcohol or porn like it was continually mentioned during the 2005 trial (it was pretty obvious he gave the Arvizo boys alcohol--he should have been convicted on those charges). He just didn't need it (as much) then, although, in the picture Frenchie linked he looked like an old white woman (pretty unattractive). It's probably why he had so much variety in his porn collection: he would want to prevent the possibility of boys growing 'bored' at seeing the same 'pair' over and over...

Desiree said...

Okay -- I felt bad for holding onto the stereotype that only men abuse and implicating them because of their biology. As a feminist, I should know that this is simply holding on to the patriarchal idea that women are 'weaker'.

Here's a very interesting website about female sex offenders--worth a look through for people interested in the subject beyond Jacko's pedophilia:

http://female-offenders.com/Safehouse/

opinionation said...

First of all, it's only a suspicion that he had natural vitiligo.

I don't believe for a second he had natural vitiligo. The fact that fans fall for that PR spin is yet another example of their inability to connect the dots. We're expected to believe that a man who just happened to make his wigs, facial features, wives, and kids as Caucasoid as possible, just happened to have a rare disease that turned his skin white conveniently matching the rest of his metamorphosis.

Instead of just accepting the simple obvious elegant explanation that he hated being black, fans cling to a seperate explanation for each of these occurences: He was obsessed with a smaller nose because he was teased as a child, he married white women because he just happened to fall in love with them, his skin turned white because he just happened to have vitiligo, his kids have no visible black ancestry because all three of them just happen to be those incredibly rare half-black kids who look completely non-black.

Fans are too stupid or too biased to acknowledge the correlation and instead treat all of these examples as independent events. But the probability of all of these independent explanations being true is equal to the product of all their probabilities so the 1/100 probability of having natural vitiligo multiplied by the 1/100 probability of desiring a super small nose multiplied by the 1/100 probability of a black man fathering a white looking biological son multiplied by the 1/100 probability of a black man fathering a white looking biological daughter multiplied by the 1/100 probability of a black man fathering a Hispanic looking biological son. The odds of all of these occurrences having an independent explanation as the fans assert are like one in TEN BILLION. So wise people instead follow Occam's razor and look for one simple hypothesis to explain all of these facts: He didn't want to be black.

Similarly fans invoke a separate explanation to explain all the evidence he was a homosexual child molester: He slept with boys? He was just trying to relive his childhood. The found graphic books full of naked boys in his bedroom? He was an art lover. He settled a molestation case for $25 million? His insurance company forced him. His staff claims they saw him abuse kids? They just wanted money. A boy knew what his private parts looked like? LIES! His bed was soaked with other people's semen? Horny staff snuck in when he was on vacation.

It's like arguing with a wall.

opinionation said...

Actually I think MJ's racial self-hatred might also be rooted in homosexual pedophilia. As a homosexual he might have desired the fair white skinned Western standard of feminine beauty of his era and as a pedophile, he might have associated whiteness more with innocence, the ideal childhood and cultural images of children from his era (rosy cheeks, white kids like Shirley temple, Annie, Cupid, the koolaid kids, wholesome family sitcoms from the 1950s, Peter Pan). White kids also hit puberty later so remain childlike longer...all of this may have caused his demented mind to associate whiteness with the ideal childhood and the ideal children.

Also, since pedophiles tend to be emotionally stunted, he probably never outgrew the childhood stage that many blacks of his era experienced where they wanted to be white.

Although in the end I think he finally did outgrow it. I think after the 2005 trial he finally came home to the black race, probably because he saw that white America had completely rejected and persecuted him but blacks were still loyal. I think had he lived long enough he probably would have arranged for a black child to be raised as his own but I think he was very picky about what blacks would be worthy of providing genes (there was a black doctor who claimed MJ was interested in her mothering a child because she came from a family of doctors). The fact that MJ displayed antisemitism in his final years is perhaps evidence that he had switched from being anti-black to being anti-Jewish. You could argue he was both at the same time like a neo-nazi, but my sense is that usually anti-Semitic African Americans are more likely to be militantly pro-black (think Louis Farakhan)than self-hating.

opinionation said...

What an excellent point. I always wondered why Jordie Chandler never mentioned alcohol or porn like it was continually mentioned during the 2005 trial (it was pretty obvious he gave the Arvizo boys alcohol--he should have been convicted on those charges). He just didn't need it (as much) then, although, in the picture Frenchie linked he looked like an old white woman (pretty unattractive). It's probably why he had so much variety in his porn collection: he would want to prevent the possibility of boys growing 'bored' at seeing the same 'pair' over and over...

I think he didn't need to give Jordy porn or alcohol or drugs because my guess is that Jordy is gay and thus predisposed to have a same sex relationship especially since MJ was much younger, cooler, and less frightening looking in those days. Gavin on the other hand is probably straight and thus had no interest in a same sex relationship especially with a 44 year old druggie who looked like an anorexic Eskimo burn victim. And so Gavin probably had to be constantly plied with alcohol to get him to loosen up, and with previous allegations of MJ molesting boys, Gavin was probably suspicious from the outset that MJ was gay; thus MJ's constant need to act straight by showing straight porn.

I think MJ used straight porn not only to seduce and entertain boys, but also to convince people he was straight. After the 1993 raid of Neverland where naked boy books and photos were found in his bedroom, I think MJ realized he better have some straight porn around. It would be interesting to know whether any of the straight porn was found in the 1993 raid or if it was all from the 2003 raid. If it's the latter, it suggests MJ had learned after 1993 raid to replace naked images of male children with naked images of female adults.

S.U. said...

ladies this is off-topic but look what I read in a fan board. Yes it was a fan who wrote it, according to him/her, he/she used to be around Michael for some time, working for him.

"And this is what I have to say with the risk of getting more hate. And I try not to be cryptic this time.

What Michael publically stated wasn´t always accurate. Sometimes he said more than one thing about the same subject. I´ve two versions when it comes to Blanket, one that Michael said on TV and one that he gave me in private.
I have avoided this thread for a long time. Many things in that book is fabricated, they are bits of what happened. Munich 99 for one thing. I know for sure Michael didn´t get propofol there, unless he is talking about the night he spent in hospital, because that I´ve no idea about. During History tour he did have a doctor with him and everyone knows by this point how he got some sleep there, so I´m not in denial about propofol. But in Munich? No

And then at one occassion in 2006 Michael said this (I don´t remember all his exact words, but horrible were something he said multible times.

One of my friends, and I know this happened, told journalists or if it was a column writer that I seduced my fans. And that is not true and it´s horrible such thing were told. And they put women by my side. And some of them went on TV to say they had a relationship with me, that is horrible too, and it´s not true and people around me kept saying it´s good for me, it´s good for me. I found it to be horrible. They didn´t care about what it put the one I love through, as long as they could make me look straight they didn´t care what it could have done with what I already had since a few years back. There is not such thing as women, there is a woman, one woman, except for my mother. And the thought about her being forced to take the stand for me gave me nightmares and is the last thing I would put her through, to be questioned and being mocked by one of the most evil men on this planet. It was horrible.

And the more he talked the faster he talked and in the end it came tears. And he was really upset. I wasn´t alone with him at this time, there were other people around, one of them was one of his photographers. And one girl (as I know now is a follower) were there with another fan (who I don´t know if it´s a follower). And a few more who I think worked with him and not for him, like I did.
I´ve been thinking about this friend being Frank, but of course I can be wrong. Michael talked many times about his brother Eddie and that he is very talented and how he hoped for him to get a few of his songs out there. But he never talked about Frank like that. Who I´ve seen around only a few times and the last time in 2003.

And before anyone say "well, why didn´t he deny it then?" about those going on TV, he got that question from a person being there and he said "I would never humiliate anyone in public by denying, what good would that do to that person? I´m not like that"

As I said, that´s from a FAN. I´m speechless.(pun indeed)

Lady C said...

J-M-H:

"I personally think he felt he could get away with all his special friend shenanigans because he believed he was no longer held back by his former black appearance. After all, how many on those parents would have let their sons sleep in the bed with a 35-40 year old visibly black man?"

I think I understand what you mean...That once MJ no longer saw himself as a black man but instead as a white man, through his extensive transformation, that he became more and more confident to venture off into what he considered "forbidden" territory to get what he desired--the boldness. Him being a black man and being told/forbidden to not cross certain boundary lines set forth by society probably made him feel inferior and thought that being white would put him on the other side where he saw the grass to be "greener". As his skin bleaching became more and more prominent it gradually became understood that his transformation to a white man was 'okay'....something that was an 'implied' approval by white society because they could identify with him now that he was no longer black. This effected both his conscious/subconscious mind thus paving the way to his cockiness to do whatever he wanted because he no longer identified himself as being a black man held back by restriction--an arrogance that once took over enabled him to run buck wild. lol


S.U.

I failed to mention in my earlier posting when I said that listening to MJ's music now is no longer fulfilling like it once was before I came to this blog...I have a friend of mine that can't understand why I don't listen to him like I used to, and she's a fan who has her reservations about all the rumors that are out there about Jackson and all the negativity surrounding him. She doesn't believe there's a lot of truth to the things that's been said about him...Not surprising. Anyway when I told her that listening to most of his songs didn't appeal to me much anymore she became irritated and couldn't understand my reasoning and dismissed it as 'player hatin'. Well to be quite honest I expected that kind of reaction out of her, it seems any time that you say something negative about the KOP, more times than not, there is a defensive wall waiting on the other side to attack. But how I see it, there's nothing wrong with how I fee about it. I see it as a reasonable response because I don't get caught up in the whole "MJ is a god and he can do no wrong" mentality like a lot of the f'loons have. I see him as human being capable of having flaws--some quite disturbing. Yes, at one point I was likeable of MJ, but not so much anymore. As a matter of fact, I see her perspective totally the opposite--unrealistic and in denial. But when you're dealing with a MJ f'loon what can you expect? Anyway I just mentioned this just to show how loyal, passionate and defensive the f'loons are of him--it sickens me if you ask me.

Lady C said...

Opinionation:

When I asked if thing would've been different had MJ gotten help for his demons, maybe I wasn't quite specific...Maybe I should've said help for some of his demons.lol No, I totally agree with you, a pedophile cannot truly be cured...The pedophilia is something that stays with them forever, and I think I've said this before earlier in the blog a while back when we were discussing pedophiles and the life that they contend with. However, what I do believe is that if perhaps MJ's illness was somehow exposed openly and not coveted like it was he would've been more apt to be in a position of where he had to get help--whether it be continuous and intense psychiatric therapy, medication therapy if there's such, and prohibition of children nteraction....Something that would've let others know that he had an illness that couldn't be 'cured' and because of the type of his illness, some strong precautions/boundaries needed to be put in place. At least that way he wouldn't have been able to have had easy access to children and abuse them easily like he did; it would've put him more 'in check'. But I also know that would have depended on the willingness/aggression of others around MJ to have stepped in and intervened by forcing him to realize his proclivities with children were a real problem and would no longer be tolerated because it was something that he wouldn't have been able to do on his own...The unfortunate thing is, Jackson had people who saw this, or should I say had a very strong "inkling" that he was doing something very inappropriate with children that he had no business doing. Some of these people included his very own family members; which of course brings it to a new level all together as to why they chose to close their eyes to it...Obvious reasons that pretty much everyone here on this blog can figure out.lol But there were also others like MJ's staff who saw this and said nothing which was just as bad, and last but not least, you have some of the families of the boys who MJ financially 'seduced'--it didn't matters either. Make no mistake about it, MJ was a many faceted person with many,many disturbing problems who was very famous and very wealthy which makes for a very dangerous mix....Because now you're introducing more compounding factors into the problem--leverage, manipulation, arrogance, invincibility, just to name a few. IDK, maybe treating someone like MJ wouldn't have been an impossible feat, but probably a very extremely difficult one where you would have to ask the question, "Where do we start?". When you're discussing someone like MJ, IMO there isn't any one way to describe him--it's not cookie cutter that's for sure....He was an very complex person like a picture puzzle made up of a thousand pieces; not your average individual.

I sure that did cross attorney Tom Sneddon's mind. When I think of accountability for Jackson, I think of it in the 'typical' way--where the criminal is tried for their crime, and if found guilty is punished. But as we know this was not the case for MJ, but I guess from what you're saying is that his inner demons along with the unbearable backlash from the media and public was just the right punishment to eventually push him over the edge. If this did cross Sneddon's mind, then mission was accomplished.

Frenchie said...

"I guess, since I don't really like kids and I don't want children myself, and even though I didn't think he was a pedophile at the time, I was always so disturbed by his kid obsession."

I like kids, but I was just as disturbed as you by his strange obsession with them once I learned the scope of it. Even if you ignore his pedophilia, it's still obvious that children were objects to him. If Michael really cared about Jordan's well-being, he would have distanced himself from Jordan the moment his presence caused conflict among the Chandler family. If Michael cared about Gavin's well-being, he never would have given him alcohol. Gavin only had one kidney left, and it's functioning was limited; alcohol could have landed him on dialysis. If Michael cared about Frank, Eddie, Jimmy, and Brett's well-being, he wouldn't have had them pulled out of school for months at a time, so he'd have fun little playmates while on tour. If Michael cared about the well-being of his own children, he wouldn't have cloistered them away and forced them to wear masks and veils whenever they ventured outside. He also wouldn't have chose to fuel his own addictions over responsibly parenting them. Michael's love for children was a selfish love. It only mattered how they made him feel. The problems he caused the children were of little consequence to him.

Frenchie said...

"my guess is that Jordy is gay and thus predisposed to have a same sex relationship"

You think so? Jordan sounded pretty interested in girls during the Gardner interview.

Since Gavin was already so set in his sexuality when Michael took an interest in him, I sometimes wonder if Michael didn't intend to molest him, but his urges got the best of him. I think MJ's willpower may have devolved in later years. Hell, he was prepared to molest Aaron Carter while he slept.

Lady C said...

Opinionation:

"I think after the 2005 trial he finally came home to the black race, probably because he saw that white America had completely rejected and persecuted him but blacks were still loyal. I think had he lived long enough he probably would have arranged for a black child to be raised as his own but I think he was very picky about what blacks would be worthy of providing genes (there was a black doctor who claimed MJ was interested in her mothering a child because she came from a family of doctors)."

I know who you're talking about, and she claims that MJ asked her to mother a child for him, lol. I agree with your notion that he would be very gene selective of a black child. Knowing him he probably would want his black child "not too" black--meaning not having any characteristic negroid features; especially like the ones he had before his transformation. The skin color may have been black but not too dark, and the facial features--eyes, nose, lips, and hair had to be similar to Caucasian or mid-eastern races...No broad noses, no thick lips, and absolutely no kinky nappy hair, especially since MJ told an insider that he hated his nappy black hair. lol Maybe the eyes he would have been lenient on although he may have preferred blue, but nothing like his father Joe which I think are green. It's funny to speculate how the whole gene selection would've played out in his choosing a black child to raise as his own knowing that according to him in the Bashir interview, he stated that the genes of Blankets' surrogate mother who was supposed to have been black; didn't matter any to him as long as she had good eye sight and was healthy. However I truly think that it would have been a different song if the mother was 100% black. IMO, I don't think Blanket's mother was black...I don't care how much MJ insisted that she was. She may have been bi-racial with some black in her, but not all black.

I really don't think that MJ was truly interested in having a black child at all, let alone asking a black woman such as this lady to mother him a child. Other than her being a doctor and coming from a family line of doctors, If you look at her, she doesn't fit his "repertoire"--she's the wrong color and wrong race, is how I see it. He could've gotten someone with the likes of her here in America if he really wanted. I just think that the 'mothering' thing was a false seed that he planted to make black America feel as if he hadn't lost touch with his blackness and he wasn't this white person that so many claimed he was--nothing but a cover. He may have very well crossed back to black America after the 2005 trial because he was ostracized by white America, but he wasn't really sincere--his motives were all wrong. It's like when he was giving that 'black is beautiful' speech with Rev. Sharpton by his side in N.Y...Some of the things he said made sense, but the person behind what he was saying and the motive was not sincere. He only reached out to blacks because there was no where in white America for him to go; that's all. Had it not been that way, reaching out to blacks would not have been a concern of his. Like always, he was full of shit. lol


"It would be interesting to know whether any of the straight porn was found in the 1993 raid or if it was all from the 2003 raid. If it's the latter, it suggests MJ had learned after 1993 raid to replace naked images of male children with naked images of female adults."

It would be interesting. IDK, what all the pornography from 1993 contained, but the stuff that was confiscated in 2003 not only contained heterosexual porno but also some extras such as a magazine article that MJ saved talking about the female G-spot and some prostitute/pimp tapes. He obviously wanted to try real hard to make himself look hetero and not a pedo.LOL

J-M-H said...

S.U.

I don't share your enthusiasm, LOL. It seems to me that this is another fan concoction, just this time it's by a fan that doesn't want Mike to be a womanizer and who seems to be jilted by whatever was in Frank Cascio's book. She/he doesn't seem all that truthful IMO. Sounds like just another fan that is pretending to be an insider in order to rationalize his pedophilia or his being into males, like the lack of women to come to his defense in 2005. I don't buy the whole "afraid she will be mocked by evil Sneddon" thing. It's fan delusions. I honestly can't imagine Michael Jackson sitting down with a fan and/or follower and telling the truth about "a woman he loved"; hell, he couldn't even be honest with the people he knew for years, let alone a fanatic! And I highly doubt a fan would be "cryptic" about knowing if Mike was hetero; they'd scream it from the rooftops if they'd know it would quiet all the "disgusting, hateful" rumors about their idol's sexuality.

Lady C,

That's exactly what I mean, ;-). He could now do what he wanted and what he wanted to do was to be the fixated Peter Pan style pedophile that attracted little non-black boys. LOL.

Opinionation,

Bravo at your analysis with the probability! I used to think that Mike must have been the luckiest black man in the world to grow up watching and emulating white talent and white culture and then, all of a sudden, he's stricken with the disease of vitiligo, which would be so severe and so universal throughout his body that his only option was to transform into a white complected individual. It was like manna from heaven for him, LOL. And therein, he reconfigured his nose and chin, befriended little white boys, sham-married two white women, and had three biracial children that weren't that "icky black color". The odds of that happening is slim to none. Katt Williams humorously observed that had Mike had "vitiligo", black people in America would be lining up to get that shit, LMAO.

The fact that he didn't say anything for years about his "vitiligo", as if the world was supposed to not ever even raise an eyebrow over his 180 in appearance, makes me strongly believe that he never had it. I mean come on, right, he was 7 skintones lighter in less than 6 years! It's all BS, and he for the most part got away with it.

About the pornography, in the 2003 raid, some of the magazines were from 1992 or thereabout, so unless he was into buying back issues, he must have had that stuff since before 1993. And Corey Feldman said Mike told him he wanted to bring porn to his house or else he wouldn't sleep over, and they were friends in the late 80s. I think Mike's house was purged of most of that stuff before the police got there, Det. Dworin said it looked as if some videos from his video library had been removed in 1993 since there was a very noticeable gap on the shelf. I don't know if he really needed porn with the boys he had in the 80s early 90s. I'm not saying any of them are gay, but they do seems more softer than the Franks, the Aarons, and the Gavins of later years.

Alby said...

To me, if Mike really did have natural vitiligo, he really damaged his supposed humanitarian credentials by not becoming more involved in organizations formed to support vitiligo sufferers. There was zero from him on that front, there wasn't anything like, for example, Lance Armstrong who is a spokesman for testicular cancer and started his own cancer research foundation or Michael J. Fox as spokesman and advocate for Parkinson's and it's cures.

Instead, MJ started quite a few "charities" - supposedly directed at children - which went nowhere, spent a LOT of money on "administration" (read appearance fees) and eventually went broke.

Personally, I think the vitiligo was chemically induced and wouldn't bear any real scrutiny.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

First of all, let me just say that, as the person who maintains this blog, I am not afforded your political incorrectness! Jealous!


"Actually I think MJ's racial self-hatred might also be rooted in homosexual pedophilia. .... all of this may have caused his demented mind to associate whiteness with the ideal childhood and the ideal children."


I will say that, from some of the pedophile stories I've read, it seems that the perfect boy is always blond-haired. From living in a Western society, we already know that blond hair is equated with youth for whites (I have no idea what the same standard is for blacks or Latinos but Asians seem to like big eyes and the like--I actually think youth is far less valuable to blacks by comparison to America's dominant culture).

So, by that token, I can see what you mean by the fact he could've favored white children because fairness=youthfulness, as a pedophile.

Radically, let's think of it in a different way. Since Michael Jackson obviously (given the way you broke it down) wanted to be white, maybe, since he was a pedophile, he also wanted his 'partner' to be white as well, and that happened to be young white boys. After all, most people date and marry within their race.

All of that's probably zany, though. While I believe it's obvious that Jacko preferred white and non-black boys, I still think he wasn't necessarily a 'racist' when it came to his proclivity; it's just that black boys would probably be harder to impress given who Jacko was: a singer of pop music and, as time passed, a skinny, somewhat disfigured, freakishly white-skinned facsimile of a half-Asian/half-Caucasian drag queen.

Producer Chris Stokes, on the other hand, who allegedly was involved in the gay child molestations of singers Raz B and Marques Houston, was much cooler looking (see pic) and more edgy than Jacko's bubblegum image, and, thus, more able to get black boys.

In the end, for Jacko, I think it was about opportunity and whoever was receptive. Jordie Chandler is not white and I have no clue was Brett Barnes is; then, Emmanuel Lewis and 'Baby Bad' (can't think of the kid's name), who Jacko really liked. He also liked Alfonso Ribeiro. The first receiving of his affections was some little black boy before "Off The Wall", whose mother thought it was weird that Jacko did not hang out with people his own age.

Desiree said...

Simply, black boys were substantially more tough to 'get at'. But I think--his own self-hatred aside--he would have been attracted to one of them if the situation presented itself.

I hope none of that sounds as if one is saying, "Hey, we black people feel robbed because he never tried to molest any of us!" No!


"his kids have no visible black ancestry because all three of them just happen to be those incredibly rare half-black kids who look completely non-black."


One thing I am trying to understand is why there are a certain subset of his radical fans that believe it is their duty to prove that Jacko is--in fact--the father of those children who look nothing like he or his family. We've probably gone through this before but why are his fans so consumed with proving any of the obvious lies about Jacko, such as the skin/nose thing and the children thing?

It's something I am trying to fully comprehend. It doesn't seem sensible to even suggest that those children are his--I think everyone in the country thinks he bought those children. I remember when I was 14 watching the airing of the Bashir documentary and taking a tone of humorous incredulity, "OMG! He has white kids!"

Some fans even get angry when you say he didn't want to be black. I say, "Why be angry?" It was obvious, sadly.

That self-hatred is one of the things I find most unsavory about Jacko... well, after the predatory pedophilia.


"a 44 year old druggie who looked like an anorexic Eskimo burn victim."


*flatlines*

I would ask if everyone could submit their funniest, one-line 'break down' of Jacko's looks but that might be mean. After a while, you had to feel sorry for him. :-\

Desiree said...

Regarding his white children (according to Mez, Jacko's children are two whites and a Hispanic), seeing that he is actually a joke to the majority of whites in North America, I still wonder how he was able to have to have those white kids. The sordid history of America is such that blacks and whites couldn't even attend school together freely in all 50 states up until 60 years ago.

How did white America allow him have those children? Sure, he had a large fair-skinned f'loon to shat them out for him so legally they were his... Seeing all of the disparate coverage provided for missing children of color in comparison to white children, I'm actually astounded someone from white America didn't call for his head!

Well, I guess white women like Carole Liebermann and Gloria Allred trying repeatedly to take his children away could be seen as an 'attempt'.

It still causes me much private humor seeing old photos of Paris and Prince huddled next to each other like prisoners in the dungeon of some deranged bleached black man.

I wonder when they found out, "Daddy's black"... LOL.

Desiree said...

Lady C:

"IMO, I don't think Blanket's mother was black...I don't care how much MJ insisted that she was. She may have been bi-racial with some black in her, but not all black."


Blanket's mother is not black--she probably doesn't have one drop of black blood in her veins. Jacko was so self-hating that he probably wouldn't even let a black woman's womb hold the egg of the white/Latino woman who's the 'biological' mother of Blanket Jackson.

Some will bring up that he had all of these blacks around him but that's a very different thing. One can be a black self-hater and still be around blacks. And, apparently, Jacko preferred to be around whites more. Did he ever have a black family he was close to?

According to Frank Cascio's book, he said Blanket's mother was Latino and Italian and, according to media reports, the woman who held the egg was a Mexican nurse called Helena.


"I really don't think that MJ was truly interested in having a black child at all, let alone asking a black woman such as this lady to mother him a child."


Lady C, that black woman is named Dr. Susan Etok and, seeing that Jacko carved his face up to look like Diana Ross--a beautiful black woman--it is hard for me to imagine that he would have wanted any children from Etok, who's unattractive, hate to say. If I am to believe he ever propositioned her for children, I'm sure he was very much 'high' and did not realize he was talking to a person of African descent.

And if he meant it, he was going to use white sperm cells just like he did with his other three children.

Jacko would have never had a full-black child. He obviously was too petrified to have black blood flowing in the veins of his progeny, even if it were mixed with fair-skinned white blood. Even a drop may have been too much. He had to use white sperm then.

Bob Jones said Jacko was one of the most inexplicable of racists, and I sort of agree with that. I'm sure he felt a total psychological disconnect when he was calling black people 'splaboos' around Macaulay Culkin: his physical self was was whitening to match his already white mental self.

Really despicable behavior.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)


"Anyway when I told her that listening to most of his songs didn't appeal to me much anymore she became irritated and couldn't understand my reasoning and dismissed it as 'player hatin'."


Lady C, you should give your friend a link to this blog! LOL. It's easy for someone to say that they do not believe the so-called gossip and innuendo about Jacko when they know very little about the details of his woes.

Fans become angry with a site like mine for the simple reason it challenges their beliefs. They find it convincing (which is the reason so many of them stalk this blog obsessively despite the fact they hate me and everything I find and write--anxious, precarious lives they live) and the dissonance felt when faced with the truth is very, very uncomfortable.

I say that two things make people violently angry: (1) uncertainty and (2) truth. Neither are mutually exclusive and the former usually leads to the latter, which can cause violent anger and rage.

And, depending on the person, truth can be so convincing and the dissonance leads to a volcanic eruption of fury; I call this the 'psychotic break'.

For example, the elderly black lady Sabine Faustin's stalking me and breaking the law because her masturbatory fantasies about Jacko were challenged by my posts herein.

It's actually all quite sad. When I'm done with this blog--and I'm trying to wrap up before the New Year starts--these fans, many of whom are between the ages of 35-55, will still be completely obsessed with Jacko. We should pity them, not laugh.

Your friend doesn't seem like a fanatic, though, just sentimental, which is understandable because little Michael from the Jackson Five is so innocent and tragic. She may be savable! ;-)

Lady C said...

Alby:

Exactly! For someone who was so hell bent on raising awareness for humanity of the world's children and making sure they were loved, he didn't stop to think that many of those children are stricken with vitiligo themselves--something that he claimed to know so much about. LOL I too believe the vitiligo was chemically induced, and it backfired on him when he bleached too much and irreversibly damaged his skin...No way to fix it except bleach himself solid. All the stories about the 'mysterious' creams that many people claim to have seen him use or have in his possession--by the case load according to LaToya,is pretty much telling. Oh and let's not forget, this is probably the same mysterious cream was mentioned during the Murray Trial. LOL


J-M-H:

If some of the porno found in the 2003 raid was leftover from the 1992/93 raid on NL, maybe Jackson bargained with the authorities to get his stash back just like he petitioned the court to get back his strip search photos after the 2005 trial, LOL!

"And I highly doubt a fan would be "cryptic" about knowing if Mike was hetero; they'd scream it from the rooftops if they'd know it would quiet all the "disgusting, hateful" rumors about their idol's sexuality."

So true...Ask Theresa Gonsalves about that one...Hell she went all out and wrote a book about it. LOL!

Frenchie:

"You think so? Jordan sounded pretty interested in girls during the Gardner interview."

I'm not convinced that Jordan was gay, unlike MJ's other 'special friend' counterpart, Brett who I think is. According to Raymond Chandler's book, he seemed like a good gentle-hearted kid who loved his sister and family; not something I would discount right off the bat as being gay. However, If I recall correctly, his father Evan, did think that there was a possibility of his son being gay and even said that if that was the case he was okay with it...But I don't recall reading any specifics that said why Evan may have felt that way other than the fact that Jordy was sleeping with MJ and once found him in a compromising position with his son while they were in bed. But for me, it's not enough to convince he was gay. I think Jordan was taken advantage of and greatly manipulated by someone who knew how to 'work it' and felt the pressure to cave into their sick demands just so that he would be liked and favored by the world's most famous celebrity...Only later to have it used against him by Jackson pulling guilt trips by mentioning his other 'special friends' and their willingness to co-operate... Sickening.

Desiree said...

S.U.:

Yeah... I totally agree with J-M-H. Something about that fan account is not right. In fact, I'd read the post and gave it not a second thought. F'loons lie about everything. Seriously.


Alby:

"Personally, I think the vitiligo was chemically induced and wouldn't bear any real scrutiny."


Vitiligo is so mysterious in terms of causes; in fact, 'vitiligo' is really a catch-all term for hypo-pigmentation. That it was listed on his autopsy report as a disease suffered does not mean it was natural.

I believe he'd damaged his skin with bleaching creams to the point he'd done irreparable damage to his melanocytes.

For instance, notice how Jacko's face is so raw (read: irritated, potentially from the toxic compounds in bleaching creams) in the following photos yet he has not a white spot of 'vitiligo' anywhere on his body:

Click Me

Click Me

His face looks very pale and reddish here (not to mention he looks like Diana Ross!):

Click Me


The fact that Jacko started getting lighter and lighter in the 1980s and then busted out completely pale and pasty in "Black or White", but didn't mention vitiligo until 1993, is an indication of deception.

I want fans to find a picture of Jacko where he is brown-skinned with white spots, not vice versa--that is no indication of vitiligo, just a suggestion that his skin was trying to revert back to it's normal brown color after years of barbaric skin bleaching. Until then, I will always think he bleached himself until his skin cells were shot... La Toya Jackson gave an interview saying Miko Brando would deliver creams to Hayvenhurst that Jacko would use on his skin.

And, for the record, I have no idea what is on Prince's underarm. It could be a birthmark. I think the fact Prince looks so white is trumps to some mysterious depigmentation in his armpit.

opinionation said...

One thing I am trying to understand is why there are a certain subset of his radical fans that believe it is their duty to prove that Jacko is--in fact--the father of those children who look nothing like he or his family. We've probably gone through this before but why are his fans so consumed with proving any of the obvious lies about Jacko, such as the skin/nose thing and the children thing?

I think it's because the idea that Jacko did not get his children through the "normal" way, reinforces the idea that he was homosexual, and fans are reluctant to admit that because it makes it more likely he was guilty of the homosexual crimes he was accused of.

I also think that fans don't want to admit he used a white man's sperm because to make his chldren because it reinforces the narrative that he wanted to be white. Even white fans know there is a great stigma against being an Uncle Tom in America and they hate to see their God tarnished with that. One achievement fans like to credit Jacko with is breaking the racial barrier on MTV, and fans feel all blacks should be forever grateful to him for this, so they are terrified that he instead will be remembered as a traitor to his race.

I think fans also want to feel that his genetic legacy lives on through children. MJ is no longer around to benefit from all the money fans spend on his music so they want to believe that at least his children are around to benefit for him. The notion that they are making someone else's biological children rich is not as appealing to them.

Lastly, I think fans don't want to admit that MJ was that big a liar because it disrupts their image of him as saintly, angelic and always honest with his fans and makes them wonder what else he lied about.

Rebekah said...

This is not to say that MJ loved his natural skin color, but chemical or laser peels can cause some of the side effects that could be his "early vitiligo" -- like in the pictures you linked, Desiree. Considering his pretty bad acne, it's not impossible that he got chemical peels and then used bleaching cream as a guard against hyperpigmentation.
According to wikipedia -- I know, the most reliable reference out there -- many phenol peel formulas can cause permanent skin lightening.

Who knows. Was MJ straightforward about anything?

I've got a [caucasian] friend whose daughter has vitiligo, and when I asked she said she didn't know of any way to chemically induce it. (She doesn't understand why MJ did not use his high profile to increase awareness of the disorder. She also said he must have had the best bleaching cream on the planet.)

Re the fan comment S.U. posted -- "They didn´t care about what it put the one I love through, as long as they could make me look straight" sounded to me like he was talking about the man he loved, LOL!

Lady C said...

Desiree:

"Lady C, you should give your friend a link to this blog! LOL. It's easy for someone to say that they do not believe the so-called gossip and innuendo about Jacko when they know very little about the details of his woes."

My friend is the exact same person that I sent you an email about a while back. I've told her about this "wonderful" blog and she refuses to check it out...Or at least that's what she tells me, but you never know what actually goes on behind close doors--we're creatures of habit and curiosity can get the best of us at times. However, I do challenge her. LOL


"Jacko was so self-hating that he probably wouldn't even let a black woman's womb hold the egg of the white/Latino woman who's the 'biological' mother of Blanket Jackson."

That was a good one girl, LMAO! You're right, his self-hate wouldn't allow such out of fear that the egg of the white/Latino woman held in a black woman's womb would have become "contaminated" by the black woman and sabotage his chances of having a pure white child.lol


"Fans become angry with a site like mine for the simple reason it challenges their beliefs."


A site like yours shakes up a person...complicates their "comfort zone". When a person is so hell bent on believing something for so long--that's all they know, and they refuse to open their minds to the possibilities of something different, they panic and become fearful and angry. It's like the scene where the wife has a husband that she's been married to for many years...Somewhere along the way, she notices that he's "different" from other men, and while she has her suspicions about him she chooses to ignore all the red flags. Finally when the cat is let out of the bag, she snaps and flies into a violent rage. Why is that? All the 'signs' were there and quite obvious, but the idea of BETRAYAL is so great and painful that it's easier to live the lie than reality...That's how I see a lot of the MJ f'loons. For many of them knowing the "real" 'Man in the Mirror' would be the ultimate betrayal, and it would be safer to stay put rather than venture out into dangerous waters...Investigate if you dare.

S.U. said...

Opinionation,

I agree with you. I don´t know why is so important for them that the children had been from Michael´s blood unless what you´ve said. I´ve thought about that before.
The fact that kids aren´t Michael´s is like saying he hadn´t sex with Debbie. I mean, if he really had had vitiligo and didn´t want to pass the disease he could have had sex with a woman but without impregnating her.
That would mean too if he was able to impregnate Debbie with sperm that wasn´t his own so it would be bad news for the f´loons who believe he loved Lisa more than his life, because he would do the same to her.
As for the crimes, many people still connects homosexuality with child molestation. Maybe most fans are like that and for them, Michael being gay was almost the same as being a molester...
They´re angry just because Frank didn´t say straight that yes,they were Michael´s biological children. They know very well what means when someone can´t give a direct answer. I read a post of a fan complaining that people around Michael can´t "talk right" LMAO. Or Frank is on something because he never looked right...xD

As for the post from a fan, well I´m not that smart seeing if anyone is reliable or not...but I was ready to believe the fan because he/she would gain not in saying that Michael denied dates with women.

J-M-H said...

I've got a [caucasian] friend whose daughter has vitiligo, and when I asked she said she didn't know of any way to chemically induce it.

Well you could induce vitiligo, since it's just the malfunction of the melanocytes in which they are no longer able to produce pigment, or they are no longer there at all. All one would need to do is have a mutagenic substance that would trigger enough mutations in the DNA of those cells so that they can't carry out their pigment producing function. It's called "genetic load" when a cell has accrued so many mutations it becomes defective and dies.

Many ingredients in bleaching creams sold world-wide over the counter are not regulated and many do in fact contain harmful chemicals, like mercury, etc. But the ingredient in OTC bleaching products, hydroquinone, is a phenol compound and phenol is dangerous to many living cells. Hydroquinone is a carcinogen banned in the European Union, although it's still used in America. it's possible that the creams Latoya said Mike was using in the 80s were some of the dangerous unregulated type. Even JR Taraborrelli thinks he induced it.

Desiree said...

About Jacko's vitiligo, Rebekah emailed me two photos of Jacko when he was still his normal color and had very bad acne. Recall that I'd asked to see some form of photographic evidence that he'd had white spots--presumably consistent with vitiligo or hypo-pigmentation--when he was still dark.

photo

photo

Look on the side of his head (your left). I have no idea what that whiteness is but we do know that lupus can cause hypo-pigmentation that is not 'vitiligo'.

I just wanted to see what everyone else thinks about these...

Desiree said...

Lady C:

"My friend is the exact same person that I sent you an email about a while back. I've told her about this "wonderful" blog and she refuses to check it out..."


Oh, so she was the one suggesting that we may all get into deep 'doo doo' (to use Jacko's favorite word) if we keep talking about him? Well, as I've told you, that cannot happen because he's dead, he's a public--not private--citizen (like you or me or any of us), and, therefore, something of a historical figure like Lincoln, Hitler, etc. Also, seeing that he'd never taken Maureen Orth to court for talking about his molestation woes in her wonderful articles, no one would have a leg to stand on coming after this blog.

In fact, Jacko never even sued Victor Guiterrez for his explicit book saying he had sex with Brett Barnes. It would actually open up a can of worms had Jacko ever taken any of the aforementioned journalists to court because it would mean that he would have to prove that what they say was said with the full acknowledgement of it being a fabrication.

For example, recall how Jacko was successful suing Guiterrez for claiming he'd seen a video of Jacko performing a sex act on a young boy. Jacko was unsuccessful suing Diane Dimond, Hard Copy, and the parent company of the show because they'd reported in good faith what was claimed by their source Guiterrez.

Guiterrez couldn't say that he'd simply been acting in good faith because he was the one who'd said he'd seen a tape. He couldn't produce the tape that implicated Jacko in the abuse of another young boy, which is obviously slander.

He was rightly sued, in my opinion.

As another example, if Brett Barnes would try to sue me for the "Brett Barnes redux" entry, his case would be dismissed because I relied on court documents, transcripts, FBI files, and published books and interviews to come to the conclusion that he was a victim of a pedophile. That is, I was operating with a good faith belief that my conclusions were fact-based and, therefore, reasonable.

If we were all in the UK, all anyone would have to say is, "Prove what you say is true." However, I still don't think that the site would ever be shut down.

Sorry for the tangent. :-)

I think your friend is like many Jacko admirers, causal or f'loony. For example, when my mother states, "Oh, he's done all these good things, blah blah blah," and I tell her to read my blog, she doesn't want to. I actually think it's a bit of fear that the tiny little seed of doubt in the pit of their stomachs will blossom.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)


"but the idea of BETRAYAL is so great and painful that it's easier to live the lie than reality...That's how I see a lot of the MJ f'loons. For many of them knowing the "real" 'Man in the Mirror' would be the ultimate betrayal, and it would be safer to stay put rather than venture out into dangerous waters...Investigate if you dare."


I think I've said this before but I remember I tried reading Dimond's book a few months after Jacko died when I was just reading the fan sites (one-sided and distorted information), and I remember feeling so sick to my stomach reading what she'd written. I thought it was cruel--I couldn't finish it. I remember complaining of feeling 'spiritually sick' at the evil. LOL.

However, I can look retrospectively and realize that was simply dissonance, which is very painful. I was convinced by Dimond, even if I didn't want to admit it. Everything she wrote made sense. I read the book now and can stomach it. She's actually very fair, which is why I think her book is a great resource. Hers and Chris Andersen's, which many fans have not read.

I don't think I felt betrayal learning that Jacko was a pedophile. I am disgusted by him, no doubt, but I was very sad, and sadder still that it all made a lot more sense then all of the intellectual acrobatics that fans do and that I wanted to believe.

But high IQ and rationality are pretty hard to overcome; you can be delusional but when someone with a high IQ is delusional, believing in false things, it is usually do to the fact that they didn't really have enough information going in to that delusional belief in the first place...

It really is 'investigate if you dare', as you say. But, truth=freedom. My belief is that if the fans actually acknowledge Michael Jackson's personal failings and criminal behavior, they will free themselves from the shackles of obsession. Because, you know, it really isn't healthy to obsess--to the point of breaking the law or just bizarre fanatical behavior (camping out in front of a courthouse comes to mind and sending death threats)--about someone you don't know.

Desiree said...

(cont'd)


In reality, celebrities are not worth any of our time or energy. They've put themselves out there for derision because they believe that they are worth admiration. My favorite celebrities are serious actors and authors (eg. Stephen King and Sigourney Weaver come to mind); they tend to be highly intelligent and human. Musicians are the out-there narcissists, most likely because their craft needs to be heard (read: given attention, recognition).

I don't think anyone should admire Michael Jackson for the simple reason admiration means, in some way, supporting his flaws or overlooking them, at the very least, because they are who they are. Jacko was a tortured soul, which, in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that.

However, our allowing him to sell any more albums after the "Black or White" video--which I feel was a PR campaign put together by Sony and himself to dodge the bullets over his 180 complexion--was morally criminal. As a society, he should have been shunned and exiled.

The only positive attention any celebrity deserves is for their craft; in my view, anything beyond that is just silly and if they fuck up, we should banish them until they learn their lessons.

Michael Jackson was a freak and a criminal. I was just like any other f'loon beforehand--investigating on my own and away from fan sites allowed me to feel peace of mind and freed me from the painful dissonance caused by convincing truth. I wish that for all his fans.

By the way, look at this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/jackson-legacy-expected-thrive-trial-212141573.html

They say Jacko's legacy is supposed to 'thrive'. It's a shame. People ought to know Jacko was no demigod and the Conrad Murray incident should not be held up as something akin to Judas Escariot and Jesus Christ. I just think about all of the boys he's harmed. It just makes me really sad at the stupidity of our country...

S.U. said...

Now is Joe who will make a documentary!

"Confessions of a father"...

Alby said...

Hi Desiree, those two photos of Mike you posted, I can see the white patches are merely photographic artifacts.

Desiree said...

Alby:

Are you sure? They appear in both of the photos, moving slightly when his head has moved slightly... Personally, I would think vitiligo patches would be more defined instead of wisps of whiteness. I don't really know what that is.

Amanda S said...

Lady C, that black woman is named Dr. Susan Etok and, seeing that Jacko carved his face up to look like Diana Ross--a beautiful black woman--it is hard for me to imagine that he would have wanted any children from Etok, who's unattractive, hate to say.

You might not think that Susan Essien Etok is attractive, Desiree, but I do and I'm sure many other people would agree with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJ56R7TCaM

Susan Essien Etok's name suggests that her family's origins are in Ghana and Nigeria. Her appearance suggests that she might have some European ancestry but possibly less than most African Americans. As you pointed out, towards the end of his life, Jackson appears to have been re-evaluating his relationship with his Africaness. I don't imagine that getting hold of further children would be that easy for him so he might have been open to see what opportunities might present themselves. Having already three children of European descent, he might have been open to having one of different or most likely partly different racial origins.

I think that within the big story of Jackson's rejection of his race, there is also a story of his rejection of his family. He didn't want to look like his parents or his brothers and sisters. He didn't want to have children that looked like Jacksons.

Part of the story of the development of his paedophilia too, is his parents' rejection of Jackson as a homosexual. This must have started at a very young age as manifestations of what they would have seen as effeminacy were apparent. Retreating away from sexual relations with adults (or similarly aged people) into a secret world of hidden relations with children was the path that Jackson took. I believe that this is related to the massive taboo which his family had about homosexuality.

I notice that you haven't used Gotham Chopra's memories of Michael Jackson to bolster the case of his lack of interest in women.

http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5853/language/en-US/Gotham-Chopra-On-Michael-Jackson.aspx

The interesting bit reads:

Back to those college days. One night he did call me in a panic. He had just gotten married to Lisa Marie Presley and needed advice -- sex advice. He was incredibly nervous and said that he wanted to make sure that Lisa was impressed with his “moves.” He asked me if I had any advice. I answered with one word: “foreplay.”

“Really?” He answered. “Girls really like that?”


It's quite funny that a 36 year old would be asking a 19 year old for advice on sexual matters.

Frenchie said...

I think the white patch along MJ's hairline is just poorly applied powder that was used to absorb some of the oil on his face. Skin that light would have a pinkish tint to it from the blood vessels beneath the surface. It wouldn't literally be the color white as it is in the photo.

Alby said...

Hi Desiree, if you look at the photos there is some powerful direct lighting which is coming from above (his) right and towards his front, you can see that in the necklace, the noticeably brighter shirt collar on his right and the red background. There are multiple sources of light, if you look closely at his chest in the second photo you can see the different shadows. There is no reflection control in the studio - usually a photographer would reflect a bright light such as that off an opaque white screen or screen the lights - and the subject's face is quite oily, so the light is reflecting well off any raised surfaces (such as the large pimple on his chin) and parts of the face. The white effect on the side of his face is like when you use a small mirror to reflect the sun, if you know what I mean.

One could argue that the spots are in the same place when he changes pose, but that can be discounted because none of the other reflections alter in the other pose either.

Opinionation said...

Amanda S.,

I never understand the argument that Jacko became a pedo because his family rejected gays. If his family had a problem with him having sex with men, they'd have an even bigger problem with him having sex with boys, so he'd be violating his family's wishes either way.

If jacko was sincere about having etok be the mother of his kids, I don't think it was her looks he was impressed with, but her genetic intelligence (coming from a family of doctors).

Jacko told bashire that the mother's intelligence level was important to him when selecting an egg. There was also an anonymous letter from a self proclaimed friend of Quincy jones claiming Jacko thought blacks were intellectually inferior, so he might have viewed etok as the rare black with high IQ genes and jumped at the opportunity to use her egg. He might not have been thrilled with her looks, but probably thought if he found a really white father, the baby might be similar in complexion to jordy/Gavin/Brett/Omar/blanket/wayde and having a by having a part black child might have finally convinced folks he was a biological father.

Amanda S said...

I never understand the argument that Jacko became a pedo because his family rejected gays. If his family had a problem with him having sex with men, they'd have an even bigger problem with him having sex with boys, so he'd be violating his family's wishes either way.

Opinionation, the link between repression of homosexuality and possible development of paedophilia is obviously controversial. I found this forum discussion on the issue you might find interesting.

http://emptyclosets.com/forum/anonymous-discussions/42122-pedophillia-its-role-gay-culture.html

The mechanism wouldn't be, "I'll renounce men because my parents won't approve and choose boys instead." It would be, "I'll renounce my sexuality altogether because my parents think it's disgusting." Then having developed a mask of asexuality (useful for fending off demands to have a girlfriend as well), the young Michael Jackson would later find ways to express his sexuality that he had formerly denied himself.

Rebekah said...

I'm inclined to think the white patches in those photos are acne medication or something similar. I don't think it's the lighting, as the blotches aren't the most reflective parts of the photo (see the tip of his nose, for example).

Desiree and others have discussed MJ's possible feelings about his race well and at length. He ended up white whether it was self-induced or occurred spontaneously. The origin becomes a moot point, in some ways -- a less fruitful discussion, maybe, than why he never chose to use self-tanners.

If his 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer is believed, he regarded his face as an aesthetic work-in-progress. If that's so, he liked himself better white.

Too bad he couldn't just be honest about his changing appearance. I read somewhere that MJ depended on his medical records remaining confidential, so nothing he said was true could be proven otherwise. And even though Arnold Klein went on TV and broke doctor-patient confidentiality re vitiligo, lupus, and peeing in jars, I'm not considering him the most reliable source. We can only speculate.

Elena said...

Opinionation/Amanda S,

I once saw a documentary about pedophiles and there was a guy who had molested several boys (same age as MJ's victims) who came from a very conservative and religious family that, as you can imagine, harshly condemned homosexuality. He said he repressed himself as much as he could, as he felt really guilty if he even just thought about men (sexually). He also said (and this is pretty sick) that molesting young boys didn't feel "gay" for him because they weren't men yet, and therefore, he could do whatever he wanted with them without feeling guilty about it. He was attracted to them because they were so "safe and pure" and also, becasue he could be in total control of the situation.

Of course that's just one particular case but it was interesting.

Opinionation said...

Regretfully I must take back my comments about etok having a very high IQ. I just read she claims jacko used his own sperm to make his 3 kids. How can a doctor from a family of doctors be so ignorant of biology and probability? Unless she also believes the kids were genetically engineered to look non-black (which is still far fetched) she sounds like a floon.

Élana/Amanda S.





I'm starting to see your point about closeted gays turning to pedophilia. Jacko might be like those gay priests who use religion as an excuse to avoid women but eventually end of molesting kids. But in jacko's case, instead of religion, he used his Peter pan persona as an excuse to avoid women. By pretending to be the emotional equivalent of 12 year old, no one could expect him to have the desires of a typical grown man.

Also by imitating 12 year olds, jacko could live at a stage of social development where males can have sleepovers with other males and talk dirty with other males, because such behavior is normal for 12 year olds. If he were instead to invite a grown man to sleepover and talk dirty in his bedroom all week at neverland he would have to admit to that man he was gay. But by surrounding himself with kids and pretending to be childlike, he can disguise his homosexuality as one big slumber party with the boys where he's just an oversized 12 year old just starting to become curious about sex.

J-M-H said...

Unless she also believes the kids were genetically engineered to look non-black (which is still far fetched) she sounds like a floon.

I've personally been suspicious of Susan Etok's credibility. She has/had a blog that was solely devoted to Michael Jackson, which in my opinion is f'loon behavior. And she had also said she could not show a picture of herself with Mike because she didn't own the copyright to it...whatever that means. So therefore I've never seen her with Mike, but perhaps she's produced one since? People on her blog were apparently suspicious of her connection to him, that's why they asked for a photo of them together. Also she got into a little row with Karen Faye because she reposted on her blog private messages from Faye's facebook. She has since called some people in the comments "Karen Faye apologists" or something. And all of her information she put on there was was from tabloids or news publications. I began to think that maybe she was a crazy fan that was pretending to know Mike because she had no real info of her own. But then again she was interviewed by police, so who really knows anything in the kooky world of Jacko.

About her being the potential mother to his kids, I don't really believe it, I think she was making it up. I honestly can't imagine why he'd all of a sudden want a black child when he had forsaken his race a long time ago, and everyone knows the adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". Mike's self hatred was set, IMO. Etok is a visibly pure African, by her bone structure and her name. I think that Mike would have intended to use a sperm donor if he desired a kid from her. Also, by her interview with Joy Behar, it seems that Mike was predominately interested in her because she could give him drugs, which she did do.


If his 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer is believed, he regarded his face as an aesthetic work-in-progress. If that's so, he liked himself better white.

I agree. It was the way he answered the question about did he wish he could go back to being black. He looked confused to say the least. He said you'd have to ask nature that question, and that he "loved black". As a black person myself, I can't fathom any black person saying they love black as in the color. They'd say "I love being black" as in the state of being ethnically black. Then he says he envies Lisa because she can tan. LOL. Mike didn't want to be black again and he no longer saw himself as black. Mark McClish commented on this in his book, and he said Mike no longer saw himself as black because he said "I loved" rather than "I love", "loved" emphasizing the past tense, even though Mike tried to change it to "love" in mid-sentence.

J-M-H said...

But in jacko's case, instead of religion, he used his Peter pan persona as an excuse to avoid women. By pretending to be the emotional equivalent of 12 year old, no one could expect him to have the desires of a typical grown man.

Interesting observation. He definitely came off as immature to some of the women, such as Ola Ray, and I think this was the excuse he used a lot later on, but his religion was the first way he distracted people from his sexuality. I think he used the Peter Pan persona more as a lure for young boys than to make women flee. In the rabbi's book, he seemed to view women as a source of sexual evil and to be with them would be defiling himself, which suggests that it's religious based. But also he says that women don't want play, that he "has to play", and other nonsense. This seems to be linked to maturity. However, I don't think he was regressed; I think he was just attracted to child like things and things that were associated with children. He was more aroused by "innocence" and "purity" and "play". In fact, he equated a the joy on a boy's face when he screamed just to be screaming (in happiness) with romance. Shows a skewed point of view regarding children and romantic love.

by surrounding himself with kids and pretending to be childlike, he can disguise his homosexuality as one big slumber party with the boys where he's just an oversized 12 year old just starting to become curious about sex.

How would you explain his alleged dirty conversations with (openly gay) Marc Schaffel? Then it seems more that he is luring young boys into sexual discussions as a pedophile would rather than as a regressed 12 year old, gay or straight.

S.U. said...

Opinionation,

Maybe she was just defending Michael but knows they´re not his? Actually I even talk privately with friends who admit that they don´t believe they´re his bio children but in fan boards they claim the opposite (of course lol )

Elena,

Interesting, maybe that was Michael´s case, since some people says that he seemed more gay in the 80´s but than in the next years, where he seemed more interested in kids ...but I don´t understand it, just because his family didn´t like gays he would become a criminal?!

Amanda S,

I´ve read that story somewhere,is it´s true then maybe the marriage was consumed. If not why would Michael call Chopra to ask that?

Opinionation said...

JMH,

I just took a look at etok's blog and my first impression is that she's not a floon. For one thing her blog seems like it's been inactive for over a year so jacko's perhaps not the centre of her universe. I think perhaps she was mostly using jacko to bring attention to herself and her causes. And unlike the floons, she's not hateful towards those who do jacko wrong. When arnie claimed jacko was gay, she said she felt sorry for Klein and sensibly advised fans to ignore him. If she were a floon she'ld be out for blood. And while etok is at least publicly in denial about jacko being gay, she also denies several of the girlfriends the floons believe he dated.

Etok loses credibility when she publicly believes jacko's outrageous lies, but perhaps being an honest person of integrity herself, she can't fathom that someone could be as dishonest and self-hating as jacko, so just assumes he's telling the truth about his kids and his sexuality.


Now I could be wrong about etok's character and perhaps she fabricated the story of jacko wanting her eggs because he was fascinated by her coming from a family of doctors, but her claim is consistent with jacko telling bashire he was concerned about the intelligence level of the egg donor for his kids, so that adds to her credibility. Also, etok is not only a doctor from a family of doctors, but also a lawyer and a model. If he was going to use black eggs, she sounds like a believable choice. And while opinions vary on how sexy she is, a gay man like jacko might not be a good judge of how sexy a woman is; only how fashionable she is.

And while jacko clearly seems anti-black from about the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s it's possible he was more tolerant outside these limits. In the early 1980s he befriended black boys and wanted to look like Diana Ross. And he might have been so shellshocked, traumatized and humiliated by the 2005 trial and the media "lynching" that came with it, that he finally stopped wanting to be white and may have even starting hating whites and specifically Jews who he probably associated with the media who had crucified him and obliterated his legacy (he didn't know his legacy would recover after death).

It might be farfetched to think jacko could change that much because of the trial but for someone who was once the most popular entertainer in the world, to be portrayed constantly in the media as the most freakish pedophile of all time would have been traumatizing enough to make him snap. A lot changed after that trial. He abandoned neverland, he moved to the middle east, his health rapidly declined, he may have stopped sleeping with boys and started sleeping with men (Jason) and maybe he even learned to accept being black.

Amanda S said...

Opinionation, I'm pleased that you've had a look at Etok's blog because I think that you were wrong in some of your previous comments about Etok supplying Jackson with drugs when she says that she refused to assist him. She is neither a medical doctor nor a lawyer. She has a doctorate. Her brother Richard Etok is a dentist in London who gave Jackson some treatments at some stage.

I think that unravelling Jackson's attitudes to race is not simple. He seems to have had friends from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. His children's nanny was an African woman. He was a man who was both consumed by self-hatred and narcissistic self-regard. I think that he was both capable of expressing nasty, demeaning attitudes to both Jews and Blacks as well as affirming positive ideas about both groups. I don't think that he achieved any degree of self-acceptance before he died unfortunately otherwise he wouldn't have been so driven in his self destructive behaviour.

J-M-H said...

Amanda S,

Opinionation never said she gave him drugs. I said that, from what she said. She says he asked her for drugs while he was in Bahrain and claimed it was for his driver, so she sent it to him. I don't know what kind of doctor would send some Demerol through the mail for a non-patient at the request of another. I once went to the doctor with a relative and asked her for a personal medical opinion and she said she couldn't give me one without me being a patient. But I guess contrary to her claims, even Etok isn't immune to the celebrity factor of Michael Jackson. But she is one of many he used, with or without their knowledge.

BEHAR: But did you ever give drugs to him -- to Michael? Did you --

ETOK: Sorry? Did I --

BEHAR: Did you ever give him drugs at all? Ever?

ETOK: Not knowingly. There was a time when I was in Egypt, actually, in about 2006. He asked me to send him some -- I think it was Demerol, that was something that you can just get over the counter in Egypt. I sent that to him.

He said it was for one of his drivers that wasn`t very well. I did that. No, I didn`t provide him with any drugs that he shouldn`t have had.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/10/joy.01.html

Desiree said...

Amanda S:

Regarding Susan Etok's appearance, I am sure people will disagree with me and I'm sure people will disagree with you. I did not deride her looks to be cruel but to state, as a matter of reasonable opinion, that I don't believe she is that pretty, especially in terms of Jacko ever choosing her as a black mother of his children. Compare, for example, her to the Diana Rosses, the Imans, the Naomi Campbells, etc. I also think her hair always looks ratty, but that, again, is just my opinion.

But, I suppose, since Debbie Rowe is also a rough-looking woman and Jacko's sole goal was to obtain kids, perhaps he did not care about physical appearance as much as we think, although I read somewhere that he'd wanted Blanket's mother to look like Selma Hayak.

And, for the record, Etok is a black African and there is nothing wrong with being a black African with not a drop of Caucasoid blood in one's veins. It seems, unlike blacks in the US, that the remnants of the slave trade in other countries, like the UK, for instance, have significantly less white admixture.


Opinionation:

"I just took a look at etok's blog and my first impression is that she's not a floon."


Even if Etok is not a f'loon like the ones that we all have encountered, I think she is definitely a close relative. For one, she has a picture of Jacko as an angel as her blog banner, which is always a red flag.

Second, she is a fierce apologist. Anyone who thinks tons of people were involved in Jacko's death is suspect, in my opinion; sure, she states the obvious of his drug addictions but she claims that he cared about his family. That seems indicative of someone not too close to Jacko! He hated those leeches...

Overall, while she is not of any singular importance, I feel she is untrustworthy. Anyone denying Jacko's obvious homosexuality is, once again, has a questionable nexus to him.

I think she is f'loony--she's catered to fangirls by claiming inside knowledge of Jacko's romances with mystery females. Ultimately, her goal is to amplify Jacko's legacy in a profitable way--that, to me, is suspicious behavior.


J-M-H:

Although Etok is a non-factor, I find her contradictions to Joy Behar pretty amusing. If Demerol can be gotten over-the-counter in Egypt, why did Jacko need to ask her for it?

Sounds like someone was lying... or at least fibbing a bit due to shame. It could have been her one moment of weakness but, since she had jumped on the bandwagon to blame other doctors, she's now trying to make herself look clean.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

"If she were a floon she'ld be out for blood."


She'd had it out for Firpo Carr at one point...


"And while etok is at least publicly in denial about jacko being gay, she also denies several of the girlfriends the floons believe he dated."


This is an interesting perspective because I sort of think Etok's behavior regarding Jacko's phantom ladies was not unlike some of the other fangirls who try to deny specific girlfriends. Her only difference (to most of them at least) is she claims inside information to a woman Jacko'd loved specifically.

To me, she seemed like just another woman 'claiming her man'. LOL. I remember asking her on her blog could she give hints as to this mystery woman because I'd hoped, as some tangible proof Jacko was not a self-hater, that he'd been with a black woman, but she'd replied, "Oh, I can't tell! But, to be sure, he loved women of ALL colours!"

Total BS...


"And he might have been so shellshocked, traumatized and humiliated by the 2005 trial and the media "lynching" that came with it, that he finally stopped wanting to be white and may have even starting hating whites"


LOL. It's pretty funny to imagine this bleached, wannabe-white black man was so angry that his self-adopted community turned on him that he'd come running back to blacks. I remember there was a black professor who'd said that had Jacko 'stayed black', he'd still be alive today.

I am not so sure but seeing that his self-hatred and many of his destructive behaviors seem so ancient, there could be some validity in the statement as a general idea. On the other hand, the cause of his downfall was not his self-incurred whiteness, it was his pedophilic attractions. His being a freaky, sheet-white drag queen with a diminutive nose just hurt his credibility when he tried to say he was not only innocent but not weird, as well.

Opinionation said...

Amanda, thanks for the clarifications about etok. I assumed she was a lawyer because she describes herself as a patent attorney on her blog, but attorney can mean different things in different countries and contexts. And the fact that she uses the title Dr. and talks about how she refused to give jacko drugs made me think she was a medical doctor, but I should have known she couldn't be both a medical doctor and a lawyer unless she's superwoman (though if jacko were to use black eggs, I'd expect them to be from someone pretty spectacular)

One reason it's so hard to unravel jacko's racial attitudes is that he was so manipulative, it's hard to tell whether he ever felt genuine black pride or whether he was just faking it to con blacks into defending him against the likes of Sony and Sneddon. His interview with Jesse Jackson (can be found in multiple-parts on YouTube) is especially fascinating because he is bending over backwards to sound pro-black (praising the beauty of Africa, complaining about those who separate the glory of ancient Egypt from (black) Africa, comparing himself to Jack Johnson and other black luminaries who were persecuted for being too successful)

When Jesse Jackson asks him about the day he came to court in pajamas, he appears to make up some elaborate lie on the spot about why he couldn't be in court the day Gavin testified, claiming some weird medical affliction that sounded like fiction. It reminded me of when he was first asked about his white skin, and he claimed to have a skin disease.

J-M-H said...

One reason it's so hard to unravel jacko's racial attitudes is that he was so manipulative, it's hard to tell whether he ever felt genuine black pride or whether he was just faking it to con blacks into defending him against the likes of Sony and Sneddon.

I'm sorry, but the thought of a black man manipulating his own people for sympathy when he had abandoned us is beyond sick. However, I think that was Mike's position unfortunately (what was wrong with him dammit!). Long time ago I read a Roger Friedman article that said that Mike made up the police brutality thing to start a race war, because of the history of antagonism between blacks and police. Also it was a factor in his selection of Nation of Islam bodyguards, to appeal to our sensibilities apparently. The authorities said his claim of police brutality was representative of "consciousness of guilt", and it was (of course).

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/081204motshrffauthrelag.pdf

His interview with Jesse Jackson (can be found in multiple-parts on YouTube) is especially fascinating because he is bending over backwards to sound pro-black (praising the beauty of Africa, complaining about those who separate the glory of ancient Egypt from (black) Africa, comparing himself to Jack Johnson and other black luminaries who were persecuted for being too successful)

And this interview was done during his molestation trial? Actions speak louder than words, and his actions aren't in sync with his pro black speech. Remember, all of his "us vs. them" stuff was when he was embroiled in something, like the Tommy Mottola thing. I'm not saying Mike lied, but I wonder if he would have cared if his Invincible album sold better? Russell Simmons said as much...



I think that he was both capable of expressing nasty, demeaning attitudes to both Jews and Blacks as well as affirming positive ideas about both groups.

Amanda, I agree. I wonder if this is a sort of split personality thing, the love-hate relationship with blacks and Jews, or was this manipulation depending on whoever was needing to be supplicated/antagonized at the moment?

Opinionation said...

Desiree,

I wish that black professor had elaborated on what he meant. If jacko had "stayed black" he might have been accused of molesting black boys, but he might never have dared to get involved with the well to do chandlers who had the resources to really make him pay, both financially and in the court of public opinion. As JMH implied, skin bleaching gave jacko a false sense of security and made him think he was invincible, protected not only by his celebrity but also by white privilege. And while he was invincible enough to evade jail time, he, despite the bleached skin and shrunken nose, was still seen by the public as a black man molesting a near-white boy, and that was the beginning the end. His career and reputation spiraled downward until he was driven to drugs and ultimately death. And because he had erased his black skin and features, black America never bothered to defend him from the media onslaught that caused his demise.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

I was having a hard time locating the article featuring the black professor who'd said that but here is an article by ABC News mentioning Jacko and blacks:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=7960106&page=1&singlePage=true#.TtsfAMmtPyo

This is a pretty humorous snippet featuring Stacy Brown:

But even as the Rev. Al Sharpton stood loyally by father Joe Jackson's this week in Encino, Calif., many black Americans say they still feel ambivalent about Jackson's legacy of plastic surgery excesses, drug addiction and superstardom.

And some say the child molestation charges -- which arose in 1993 and again in 2003 -- struck the hardest blow to their religious and cultural core.

"If they'd had a black majority jury, they would have convicted," said Stacy Brown, who co-wrote, with producer Bob Jones, "Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask."

"This is not to say that any other race tolerates that kind of behavior, but within the black community, it's not something that stardom could have swayed," said Brown, a media critic for the Scranton Times-Tribune and longtime Jackson family friend.

"Even if he was not molesting them, he was doing things that were inappropriate," he told ABCNews.com. "There's a mind-set in the black community: Why are all these white boys always hanging around? Michael would have stood no chance with an African-American jury."

But when Jackson was exonerated of those charges, many in the African-American community demonstrated another trait -- forgiveness.

"He's one of ours, whether we like it or not. Once it was over, we greeted him with open arms," said Brown. "He gave us an excuse to reaccept him, even though in the past, Michael Jackson turned to black people only when he was in trouble."

Michael Jackson Forgiven in Death

Brown was referring to the first allegations of child molestation that erupted in 1993. Jackson made an appeal to the African-American community, making his first-ever appearance at Bethel AME Church in Los Angeles and appearing on BET and NAACP awards shows.

"He'd never done that," said Brown. "He'd shunned that."

Initially, Jackson was viewed as "little more than a Casper-the-ghost-looking bleached skin, nose job, eye shade, straight hair and gyrating hips ambiguous black man who had made a ton of money and had been lauded, fawned over and adored by whites," according to Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.

At the time, he said Jackson's inner circle reported back to the group, "Look, don't believe what you hear. I still identify with the black community. I'm black and that hasn't changed, and I want your support.

Jackson: Either Loved or White World Creation

"Either you loved him, you identified with him, you saw him as one of your own, as a black performer important to the black community, or you saw him as someone who basically, I don't want to use the term sellout, but ... as a creature and a creation of the white world."

. . .

African-American David Canton, professor of history at Connecticut College, agreed that most viewed the star empathetically as a "grown man with an adolescent mind and eccentric behavior."

Noting that Farrah Fawcett died the same day as Jackson, Canton said, "no one asked about her impact on the white community."

Jackson was not the first African-American to shift toward the white community -- so had singer Lionel Ritchie and O.J. Simpson.

"Jackson had a skin disease, but he did not purchase makeup to that made him darker," Canton told ABCNews.com. "Jackson was a tragic hero, and some in the black community may say that if Jackson remained black he would be alive."

Opinionation said...

JMH,

Did Roger Friedman really say that? Sounds like something I wrote on this blog a while back, but I suppose it was an obvious thought. I think jacko saw how blacks rioted in LA after rodney king was police brutalized and thought "if they rioted over a nobody like king, what will they do for a god like me?"

It would take a real sociopathic narcissist to try to start a race war just to save and glorify himself, especially when i believe he knew he was guilty. Can you
imagine how much damage it would do to blacks if they had rioted for him? The rest of America would have hated blacks with a passion not just for rioting, but rioting in support of an alleged molester.

It was blacks and motown that supported the Jackson five in the first place and in return for their loyalty jacko bleaches his skin and shrinks his nose showing the world that he would rather look like a pale disfigured freak than like handsome black man, and then when white America turns on him, he seems to expect the very blacks he rejected to be dumb enough to throw thmselve under
the bus by rioting on his behalf. Jacko was unbelievable.

Desiree said...

From the Roger Friedman article:

Now this column can show you four photos obtained exclusively from sources close to Jackson. These photos show Jackson in a bathroom at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Lake Las Vegas, Nev. They were taken at least eight days after the arrest. Jackson had returned to the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, moved to a nearby resort before finally ending up at the Ritz Carlton.
In the pictures, he’s wearing a Ritz-Carlton robe. But what the sequence of photos also shows is that he, according to sources, self-inflicted a wound on his arm and caused a rapidly rising welt to form.
The pictures literally show the welt growing on Jackson’s arm “almost as if by magic.” They also show it turning not black and blue, but a kind of amber color. My sources say this discoloration was caused by makeup. The pictures were taken within a few minutes of each other.
“If you look closely at his cheek,” says my source, “you can see the blush on it is the same color as the bruise on the arm.”
Indeed, the coloring on the bruise in one picture is so artfully composed that it resembles a lipstick stain left by a pair of large lips.

Even weirder, in one picture shown here, of Jackson looking directly at the camera, it’s quite easy to see the tape holding his nose in place. Jackson isn’t wearing his typical whiteface makeup either. It may be one of the few photos that show Michael Jackson exactly as he is, warts and all.
Jackson, according to my sources, knew he was in trouble after the arrest in November 2003 —not so much with the police but with the public. My sources insist that he called his inner circle together and said, “We have to push the ‘red’ button.”
His idea was to create sympathy for himself by inventing a race war of some kind.
“He wanted it to be like O.J., a black vs. white issue,” says my source. “He wanted the black community to burn down police stations, riot and protest if they [the police and authorities] went against him.”

One of the pictures, of Jackson in profile staring at the welt at its most inflated, was approved for release back at the time of its origination. It was to be used in a “60 Minutes” piece by Ed Bradley. The others have never been seen by the public before today.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199236,00.html


At this site is a picture of Jacko's arm and the fake bruise:

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2006/06/0_22_jackson_michael_bruises1%5b1%5d.jpg

Amanda S said...

J-M-H, thanks for clarifying the issue regarding Etok unwittingly supplying Jackson with drugs. Sorry for the misattribution, Opinionation.

Desiree, I certainly wouldn't compare Etok to Naomi Campbell or Iman who are both exceptionally beautiful women but that doesn't mean she's unattractive.

And, for the record, Etok is a black African and there is nothing wrong with being a black African with not a drop of Caucasoid blood in one's veins. It seems, unlike blacks in the US, that the remnants of the slave trade in other countries, like the UK, for instance, have significantly less white admixture.

I wouldn't be so sure that just because she comes from a West African family that she doesn't have any European forebears. I recently watched the genealogy series "Who Do You Think You Are?" about the Ghanaian born British actor Hugh Quarshie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tr5y1

He found that he had both a British and a Dutch man in his ancestry. There has been European involvement on the West African coast since the sixteenth century firstly because of the slave trade and later due to colonialism. European men who worked in West Africa as soldiers and administrators often took African "wives". European women and children seldom went there due to their susceptibility to tropical diseases. Quarshie found that although his Dutch ancestor Kammerling ultimately left his West African family and went back to Holland (due to suffering from a serious illness), he nevertheless provided for his African children and the wealth he was able to give them was the basis for their subsequent high status and position in Ghanaian society.

Anyway it is certainly true that only some West Africans have European ancestry but it could explain the relatively light skin tone that Etok has compared say to her famous namesake Ghanaian footballer Michael Essien.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Essien

Otherwise I tend to agree with your opinion of Etok's blog. She's a Jehovah's Witness so that might affect her perception of things as well.

Desiree said...

What's interesting about the bruise on Jacko's arm is that in his interview with Ed Bradley, the alleged contusion looked a lot bigger and 'puffier' than the one in the photo I'd linked to. It was probably manipulated to show on "60 Minutes".

According to Friedman's sources, it was a fake. Seeing that the attorney general cleared the police officers of any wrongdoing and that they also released audio of Jacko's pleasant ride to the station--not to mention a jailhouse eyewitness swore to Jacko's proper treatment by police--Friedman seems to be on the money with the story.

All one has to do is watch his interview with Ed Bradley--he was obviously lying.


"It would take a real sociopathic narcissist to try to start a race war just to save and glorify himself, especially when i believe he knew he was guilty."


I believe Jacko knew full well what he was up to. He, of course, could get his deluded, brain-dead fans to believe the lies (why not get them to riot?) but to attempt to use blacks as puppets, as trained animals to do his bidding? It's perverse and shows his sick mind, especially when he'd abandoned us.


"Can you imagine how much damage it would do to blacks if they had rioted for him? The rest of America would have hated blacks with a passion not just for rioting, but rioting in support of an alleged molester."


I think most of the PR damage done to blacks would be around the aspect of destroying, potentially, millions of dollars worth of property for someone who held significant race animus for his own people (whites, too, have frequently pointed out that he did not want to be black). It would not necessarily be for Jacko's being a pedophile because he'd be presumed innocent. I think non-blacks would look at blacks as being easily ignited and dangerous.

The Rodney King rioting was justified albeit stupid (they'd destroyed their own communities)--those officers did beat him, and savagely.

Rioting for Michael Jackson, especially over a fake police brutality claim, would be one of the most idiotic endeavors in the world.

I can't believe he'd even want that, knowing he'd knowingly lied about the claim. Shows how little he cared about black people.

Desiree said...

Amanda S:

"Desiree, I certainly wouldn't compare Etok to Naomi Campbell or Iman who are both exceptionally beautiful women but that doesn't mean she's unattractive."


I'd only said she was 'unattractive'; I didn't say she was a hideous ogre-like beast! :-)

I guess I should say 'plain'...

As for admixture, you have to understand that I am an American, Amanda, and am a black person who has significant white admixture within my blood (my paternal grandfather is a white man and there's a great-great-great grandfather that is Italian on my mother's side) and both of my parents are light-skinned.

When I see someone like Etok--even if she has a drop of European ancestry--I see black African; it'd be silly to even mention it. And she needn't be ashamed of it either, nor does she need any white blood in her at all.

Actually, Amanda, the way you'd mentioned her having white blood in her almost seemed as if you'd implied--implicitly, of course--that that particulate amount made her more attractive or, I should say, more attractive than I found her as a full black. You don't mean anything by it--no, no--but that is how it could be construed. :-)

It reminds me of a program I'd watched out here where they'd discussed Naomi Campbell's attractiveness and mentioned the fact she's 1/8ths Chinese, as if that minimal amount of Asian cancelled the 'ugly' associated with black.

I was shocked, to say the least... I'm sure the producers had no idea that the dominant ethnic group of China--the Hans--are directly genetically related to Africans. If anyone's noticed, many Asians and blacks resemble each other.

J-M-H said...

Desiree, I'm glad you found the Friedman article, I was having trouble locating it. Even though I think Mike would do something purely for his own self-interest, I have a hard time believing in some of Roger Friedman's sources, to tell you the truth. But maybe the sentiment was there. He obviously was up to something making his rounds to black radio stations, media outlets, etc, places he had conveniently ignored when he wasn't in the doghouse with mainstream America.

I'm not so sure I agree with Stacy Brown about having black jurors. I think blacks are, like most people, tough on child molesters but they would ultimately feel sympathy for "little Mike" of the J5 era and never lock him away, as well as not wanting to add to the "another black man in jail" statistic. I think they'd only convict if Oprah was on the jury. like she was in Chicago and they put a black man away. Then again, some blacks might feel Oprah got too "uppity" and ignore her seasoned wisdom about Mike (I know Oprah thinks Mike was a pedo, LOL).

Amanda S said...

Actually, Amanda, the way you'd mentioned her having white blood in her almost seemed as if you'd implied--implicitly, of course--that that particulate amount made her more attractive or, I should say, more attractive than I found her as a full black. You don't mean anything by it--no, no--but that is how it could be construed. :-)

Well just to clarify, the fact that I think that Etok might have some European ancestry has got no bearing on my perception of her attractiveness.

Everyone's ancestors ultimately come from Africa despite our different looks.

Frenchie said...

"he moved to the middle east, his health rapidly declined, he may have stopped sleeping with boys and started sleeping with men"

MJ hightailing it to Bahrain after the trial indicates to me that he had no intention of ending his boy collecting ways. My father is from Beirut, and at least according to him, there are a disturbing number of wealthy boy-lovers in the Middle East. Rules don't apply to the rich the way they do for everyone else there.

Opinionation said...

Desiree

Thanks for finding that friedman article. I can't believe there's an article confirming everything I was thinking about jacko's demented motives, only even I couldn't conceive of just how evil he really was despite a lifetime of watching horror films. Wanting blacks to burn down police stations and all just to save his perverted a$$, according to friedman's sources. Aren't there people in police stations 24/7. It sounds like friedman's sources are accusing jacko of trying to incite mass murder. The only other person I've heard of trying to incite a race war was Charles mansion. Like jacko, manson, had a cult like following of fanatical groupies who were in love with him and willing to kill for him. Of course as far as we know, jacko's wackos have never killed for him though they have stalked and made death threats on his behalf and Desiree cites one floon who broke some kind of law (I didn't follow that discussion very closely).


But the floons are one thing; but the claim that jacko tried to exploit the very black race he so viciously betrayed and use them as martyrs in a race war in his perverted honor, shows not only how little he cared about blacks, but also how stupid, violent and easily to manipulate he thought they were. Blacks would have become the most despised of pariahs had jacko's alleged plan been successful. Non-blacks would have viewed them as dangerous idiots for rioting, destroying property and perhaps even mass murdering for a man who so visibly rejected his blackness and who something like 75% of white America believed was a child molester. So jacko was allegedly willing to sacrifice the entire black race just to he could be free to continue his disgusting sleepovers. And yet he had al sharp ton honoring him like he was some kind of civil rights icon. It's enough to make a cat laugh.

I've almost always believed jacko was a pedophile, but it now fully dawns on me how much of a sociopath he probably was too. JMH has been saying that for a
while but I kind of believed the stereotype that great artists are emotionally sensitive which seems incompatible with cold blooded psychopathy. But all of jacko's crying in interviews, humanitarianism, environmentalism (as he flied his private jet) was probably just as fake as his childlike voice and persona. Behind the scenes I think he was pure unadulterated evil. And what a bunch of idiotic dupes his fans are for devoting their lives to canonizing a man who was probably not only a prolific pedophile but an evil hardcore sociopath to boot. And what a fool Tom messereau is if he actually believes the nonsense he spews: "I knew Michael Jackson could not have done any of those things because that would make him a monster, and not the loving innocent gentle childlike soul I know him to be". Jacko played messereau like a violin, and rather than be ashamed of that fact, jacko's resurgence in popularity has made messereau more arrogant than ever, thinking he realized what an angel jacko was long before the world caught on, LOL! After jacko's post-death popularity fully fades, I hope the truth resurfaces, if only to see the egg dripping from messereau's face. LOL!

Opinionation said...

Frenchie, good point about it being easier for jacko to "befriend" boys in the middle east. Another reason to think he had perverted motives for moving there is that most of the boys he hung out with in America sort of had middle Eastern coloring (not too dark, not too light). That seems to have been his preference. If there's one thing we've learned about jacko, it's is to always assume the worst.

Desiree said...

Frenchie and Opinionation:

Have you ever seen the PBS documentary "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan"? (You can watch it online at the link.) It is about the Bacha Bazi boys, who are 'performers' for older men in the Middle East but that performance art--which is slightly feminine, or reminiscent of femininity--usually leads to prostitution. It's supposed to be illegal but, you know, a vice usually flourishes in some capacity and the taboo makes it even more attractive.

It's amazing how homosexuality and boy-loving is so dominant in very patriarchal and woman-hating societies, like the Middle East, just as it had been in Ancient Greece (the Ancient Romans, even though they'd had their Hellenistic Age, viewed the very open Greek homosexuality and pedophilia--I should note the Greek pedophilia was a lot different than pedophilia of today, which seems like a mental illness--as something of a weakness in the fabric of their society). I remember my Western civ professor said that Greek men considered relations and relationships with other men to be better than with women.

I don't know if Jacko's specific goals in going to the Middle East were because he could be around those tan-skinned boys he loved so much; I think it was because he'd had a sponsor willing to pay his bills. However, I do think he was, at the very least, in sympathetic company.

Desiree said...

Opinionation:

"Like jacko, manson, had a cult like following of fanatical groupies who were in love with him and willing to kill for him. Of course as far as we know, jacko's wackos have never killed for him though they have stalked and made death threats on his behalf"


Here's two links to zany fan behavior. The first is a story about Jesse Jackson urging fans not to do anything crazy to themselves following Jacko's death. There'd been reports of a Tunisian fan who'd sat in her room all day watching Jacko videos and listening to his music before downing a bottle of pills. Then a Russian Jacko impersonator had slit his wrists.

They may not kill other people--while crazy as hell and ready to break the law, if need be--but I think Jacko's female fans and soft male fans are ready to kill themselves if blood shall be shed.

As you said earlier, it shouldn't be too sad as it would rid society of low IQ psychotic genes, LOL.

The second is a story is about fans threatening death to an artist for making a hilarious statue of Jacko dangling Blanket. The statue--get this--is called "Madonna and Child", a supremely clever title contrasting the loving mother of Jesus Christ with the dangerous and psychotic parenting of the Bleached Be-wigged One with his purchased white baby.

As for Jacko's intentions of inciting mass murder, thinking about that is a mindfuck, it really is. Even if I give Jacko the benefit of the doubt and look at Friedman's source with suspicion, it was still obvious that Jacko was lying about the bruising, seeing that the Attorney General cleared to the police of wrongdoing (a tabloid had a funny title, something to the effect of "Police: We did not Smacko Jacko", LOL).

We know Jacko had no intentions of actually bringing a lawsuit against the police (he would've been shown to be a liar) so there had to be some reason he first made the photographs of his bruises and then went on "60 Minutes".

The most logical conclusion, given that he'd spent a good amount of time talking about how Sony wanted to keep a 'brotha down' beforehand, is that he intended to evoke a response from black people (beyond his fans, who wouldn't do anything anyway--they aren't that nuts; it would have been fun to watch them get pepper sprayed, though, LOL).

Desiree said...

(cont'd)

"that jacko tried to exploit the very black race he so viciously betrayed and use them as martyrs in a race war in his perverted honor, shows not only how little he cared about blacks, but also how stupid, violent and easily to manipulate he thought they were."


Do you really think that was his conscious thought? That he believed us to be stupid and violent? Easily manipulatable, sure, but if it ever crossed his mind that we were 'stupid'--when he couldn't even spell--than he deserved any type of beating the police could give a faded loser pop star.

It does make you wonder what are the depths of his narcissistic sociopathy, his evil. I generally go back and forth on my interpretations of his persona: no doubt he's manipulative and calculating but I was not ready to say evil.

It actually leaves me speechless. But then you think about all that he's done. To emerge in "Black or White" completely skin-bleached, telling people, essentially, screw you if you have a problem with my new skintone, to the rants with Al Sharpton calling Tommy Mottola a 'devilish racist', to the fake police abuse claims...

It's mind-blowing. Something was very wrong with him! O_o


"jacko's resurgence in popularity has made messereau more arrogant than ever, thinking he realized what an angel jacko was long before the world caught on, LOL!"

Tom Mesereau is completely obsessed with black people, which is one of the main reasons, besides Jacko's fake innocent image, that he has defended Jacko in spite of his own obvious intelligence. That level of bias that Mez has--and he'd been raised around a white grandmother who'd told him blacks were more spiritual (read: more Godlike) than whites--has completely blinded him.

But Mez is a proven liar, as proven in this post. He knowingly and without compunction lied in open court about Jimmy Safechuck, letting his fib slip out of his mouth like it was nothing. A calculated lie, too, but I digress...

Michael Jackson can do no wrong since he was a black man in Mez's opinion; the bias is deep-rooted. However, he knew he could not play the race card because Sneddon could easily list, blow-by-blow, how Jacko'd betrayed his race. That wouldn't work! LOL.

It's a real crying shame, too. Blacks have re-accepted him, I think. It still amazes me how he has any black fans. Some fully accept the factuality of his children being non-black, they even laugh about it. But they must have severely low IQs to not put that together with the skin, the surgeries, the white wives, the white 'special friends' and come out believing he was extremely self-hating, so much so he couldn't even bear to have a black or half-black child, and was most likely the most inexplicable of racists, as Bob Jones put it.

By the way, I agree with J-M-H when she says that blacks probably would have acquitted him. While molestations undoubtedly occur in the black community as well as in all races, it is hard to fathom black-raced 'pedophile'. But I understand what Stacy Brown meant; after all, if black men have to be on the Down Low if they are just gay (but not effeminate), we'd definitely draw and quarter a sick pedophile child molester, unless he made Thriller and can moonwalk, that is...

Desiree said...

"Desiree cites one floon who broke some kind of law (I didn't follow that discussion very closely)."


What? You're supposed to follow every word I say! ;-)

Opinionation, the f'loon in question is an elderly black woman who has created an entire blog devoted to trashing me--not my posts--with the same blog title as this one because she doesn't like that I think and have convincingly shown Jacko to be a child molester.

However, I pay her no mind because I will soon be done with this site, hopefully before the New Year. She, in fact, makes Jacko fans look even more nutso than they already do by breaking the law (libel and harassment). I have also received mysterious magazine subscriptions in the mail, which I know has been done by her or the other f'loon I'd written about before because they paid to find my address.

See: law-breaking by the f'loons. :-\

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 309   Newer› Newest»