Monday, November 7, 2011

Just another tale of 'Celebrity Justice' in the great ol' U.S.A.

ETA 9-3-2012: "Jacko" killed Michael Jackson

It has been the position of this website that Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's erstwhile doctor, was unjustly incarcerated for Jackson's "death". Why this stance? As pointed out in two previous posts, Jackson's doctor should've been considered blameless because (a) he was following the orders of a patient who'd had previous experience with Propofol, and (b) his doctor's position was interchangeable given that patient's previous experience (Jackson had used numerous doctors for Propofol dispensation in the past).

But common sense sometimes does not move juries and, to be sure, the charge Murray faced absolutely was in line with his actions, if only, of course, one ignores the fact that Propofol was not illegal to use outside of a hospital setting. What was illegal, however, was a patient dying from an action that was merely an ethical misstep. 

Considering everything--the interchangeability of Dr. Murray, Jackson's familiarity with and prior use of Propofol, his drug abuse and alcoholism--it would be an extension of sentimentality, not rationality, to convict a doctor for giving a patient what the patient wants. 

I call it sentimentality because we are beholden to a belief that doctors are always stiff-backed and level-headed people who are not actually human but borne of a world in-between mortal and divine; when this idea is violated, we react, maybe correctly, with anger and teeth-gnashing--we are offended. This is only compounded when we remember who the "victim" was: a shining star, a celebrity: Our Michael

But we should not rule on sentimentality. The fact of the matter is that Michael Jackson was a drug addict who needed money, and was willing to do whatever he needed to do to secure the millions he would've been guaranteed had he did those This Is It shows.

Was he ready? No, and his Propofol dependency would never yield the fruit of preparedness. Was he able? No--he hadn't been able for years: too much drugs, booze, boys, crazy. But was he willing? Yes, a point that should not be understated.

The Los Angeles Times' Ryan Harriet wrote an intriguing piece about the extent to which Jackson was incapable of being the performer the world had come to admire, that he was drunk, sick, drug-addled, depressed but desperately needing money. 

And not only that, AEG Live's Randy Philips knew all about it and secured a multimillion-dollar insurance policy guaranteeing a safety net in the likely event that Jackson would be "too sick" to do the concerts. In a word, AEG was set--this policy was predicated on the lie that Jackson was healthy. For those who certainly remember, Philips and This Is It dancers and musicians made frequent media appearances claiming that Jackson was in great shape and excited; Philips also went into "cover your ass" mode on the stand during Murray's trial, claiming no knowledge of Jackson's inabilities and all but reneging on previous assertions that Murray was a good and competent doctor. The LA Times article disproves these former statements.

It is worth remembering who is really responsible for Jackson's death. For those who are interested in maintaining Michael Jackson's image as an innocent victim of greedy people who, not unlike Joe Jackson in Michael's younger years, wanted him to sing and dance so they could line their pockets, they are not wholly incorrect.

The reality is that capitalism had a hand in destroying Michael Jackson.

But it is faulty to forget that Jackson was also a capitalist and, thus, culpable in his own demise. He was the showman who wanted to be the best and, for profit, allowed his fans to make him into things he never was and could never be. But capitalism isn't only to blame. At the end of the day, Jacko--the Jackson that ruined his fame with alcohol, drugs, and boys, and refused to get help--did Michael in. He was all that was left, as the article shows, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop whatever Jacko wanted to do.

Article in its entirety:
The scene in Michael Jackson's London hotel suite left Randy Phillips in a panic. Phillips was one of the world's most powerful music promoters and used to rock 'n' roll chaos, but the star's condition still floored him.

"MJ is locked in his room drunk and despondent," Phillips said in an email to his boss at Anschutz Entertainment Group, the Los Angeles company staking a fortune on the singer. "I [am] trying to sober him up."

Across the Atlantic, where it was still early morning, AEG President Tim Leiweke read the message and fired back on his BlackBerry: "Are you kidding me?"

"I screamed at him so loud the walls are shaking," Phillips told him. "He is an emotionally paralyzed mess riddled with self loathing and doubt now that it is show time."

The story of Jackson's ill-fated comeback attempt has been told in news reports, a manslaughter trial and a feature-length documentary. But a cache of confidential AEG emails obtained by The Times offers a darker picture of the relationship between the down-on-his-luck idol and the buttoned-up corporation taking a bet on his erratic talents.

The 250 pages of messages illuminate the extent to which top executives were aware of doubts about Jackson's stability as they prepared for his 50-show concert run at their London arena.

The emails will probably play a central role in two lawsuits set for trial next year. The shows' insurers are asking a judge to nullify a $17.5-million policy that they say AEG got with false claims about Jackson's health and readiness to perform. Jackson's heirs are pressing a wrongful-death suit that accuses AEG of pressuring the pop star to carry on with a comeback despite indications he was too weak.

Lawyers for AEG, which has denied any wrongdoing, said most of the correspondence was produced as discovery in ongoing litigation. They said the messages reviewed by The Times were incomplete and leaked to portray the company in a negative light. The lawyers declined to provide additional emails that they said would give a fuller picture, citing a protective order imposed by a judge in the civil litigation.

"If you are in the creative arts business, you are going to be involved with individuals who have a great many problems," said AEG attorney Marvin Putnam. "Michael Jackson was an adult and … it is supercilious to say he was unable to take care of his own affairs."

Michael Jackson was a megastar but also had a trail of burned investors and canceled performances that loomed large when AEG began contemplating a deal with him in the fall of 2008.

Even before meeting with Jackson, executives at the highest levels of AEG, including billionaire founder Phil Anschutz, were seeking insurance to protect the company's bottom line if the shows didn't come off, according to the emails.

Anschutz invited Jackson to a meeting at a Las Vegas villa in September 2008. Paul Gongaware, an AEG Live executive who knew Jackson, emailed colleagues a strategy memo. Wear casual clothes, he told them, "as MJ is distrustful of people in suits" and expect to talk "fluff" with "Mikey."

The company was proposing a world tour that would net the cash-strapped star $132 million, according to the memo. "This is not a number that MJ will want to hear. He thinks he is so much bigger than that," Gongaware warned. Talk in terms of gross receipts, he suggested.

The singer and AEG signed a deal in January 2009. According to the contract, AEG agreed to bankroll a series of London concerts at its 02 Arena and Jackson promised "a first-class performance." If he reneged, AEG would take control of the debt-ridden singer's company and use the income from his music catalogs to recoup its money.

There were doubters inside and outside the company. Dan Beckerman, AEG's chief operating officer, sent Phillips, the chief executive of concert division AEG Live, a YouTube link to Jackson's shaky 2001 MTV appearance and asked, "Can he pull this off?"

"With time and rehearsal," Phillips wrote back.

Pressed by another promoter about Jackson's ability to deliver, Phillips shot back in an email, "He has to or financial disaster awaits."

The contract required a medical examination as part of AEG's effort to get cancellation insurance, and nine days after Jackson signed, a New York doctor went to the star's Holmby Hills mansion. Dr. David Slavit concluded that Jackson was in "excellent condition," an assessment that AEG would tout in the coming months as proof that their star was healthy.

It's unclear how thorough the exam was. Slavit, an ear, nose and throat doctor who listed his specialty as "care of the professional voice," wrote extensively about Jackson's vocal cords in his report, which AEG said was given to its insurance broker. But he was silent on Jackson's well-documented substance abuse problems.

The singer had dropped out of at least one tour for drug treatment, but Slavit wrote that past cancellations were "related to dehydration and exhaustion."

Asked on a questionnaire in the report whether he had "ever been treated for or had any indication of excessive use of alcohol or drugs," Jackson circled "no."

AEG planned to announce Jackson's comeback in March with a London news conference. But as the date drew near, Jackson dropped out of sight. Inside AEG, there was growing fear.

"We are holding all the risk," Gongaware wrote to Phillips. "We let Mikey know just what this will cost him in terms of him making money.... We cannot be forced into stopping this, which MJ will try to do because he is lazy and constantly changes his mind to fit his immediate wants."

"He is locked. He has no choice … he signed a contract," Gongaware wrote.

Publicly, AEG projected confidence. "The man is very sane, the man is very focused, the man is very healthy," Leiweke assured a music industry symposium the day before the news conference.

Jackson made it to London, but according to emails Phillips sent to Leiweke, the star was intoxicated and refused to leave his suite. In the end, the emails show, Phillips and Jackson's manager had to dress him.

"He is scared to death," Phillips wrote to Leiweke.

In an interview, AEG's attorney Putnam suggested Phillips had exaggerated in his emails and said Jackson's behavior appeared to be a case of "nerves."

Jackson arrived 90 minutes late for the news conference and his brief comments struck some of the 350 reporters gathered as disjointed and strange. Still, fan enthusiasm was undeniable: Demand for an initial 10 shows crashed Ticketmaster's servers.

Two months later, Jackson and AEG got insurance from Lloyd's of London, according to the policy that is contained in court records. For rehearsals in L.A., it only covered accidents. The policy would expand to include illness and death coverage when Jackson got to London and was evaluated by Lloyd's doctors there.

AEG officials first met Dr. Conrad Murray during May rehearsals. In the trial last year that ended with Murray's manslaughter conviction, witnesses testified that Jackson insisted that AEG hire the doctor as his personal physician for the London shows at $150,000 a month.

Murray, who was deep in debt and in danger of losing his home, was giving Jackson nightly doses of propofol, a powerful surgical anesthetic, for his chronic insomnia, according to the doctor's statement to police.

In an interview, AEG's lawyers noted that none of the emails referred to propofol and said no one at the company knew about Murray's use of it. Jackson died before signing Murray's contract, and the doctor was never paid by AEG.

Those rehearsing with Jackson began sounding alarms in mid-June, according to the emails, a month before his scheduled debut in London. They complained he missed rehearsals, was slow picking up routines and would have to lip-sync some of his signature numbers.

"MJ is not in shape enough yet to sing this stuff live and dance at the same time," the show's musical director informed supervisors in an email. Jackson missed another week of rehearsals, and when he finally showed up June 19, he was too weak to perform.

Emails reviewed by The Times show far greater alarm about Jackson's mental state than has emerged previously.

"He was a basket case," a production manager wrote. "Doubt is pervasive."

"We have a real problem here," Phillips wrote to Leiweke.

The show's director, Kenny Ortega, told Phillips their star was not ready for the comeback and called for a psychiatric intervention: "There are strong signs of paranoia, anxiety and obsessive-like behavior. I think the very best thing we can do is get a top Psychiatrist in to evaluate him ASAP.

"It is like there are two people there. One (deep inside) trying to hold on to what he was and still can be and not wanting us to quit him, the other in this weakened and troubled state," wrote Ortega, who had known Jackson for 20 years. "I believe we need professional guidance in this matter."

Phillips resisted the request for immediate psychiatric intervention. "It is critical that neither you, me or anyone around this show become amateur psychiatrists or physicians," Phillips wrote.

He added that Murray, "who I am gaining immense respect for as I get to deal with him more," was confident the singer was ready.

"This doctor is extremely successful (we check everyone out) and does not need this gig so he [is] totally unbiased and ethical," Phillips wrote.

At a meeting that day, Jackson vowed to improve, and Murray said he would help. By all accounts, the next two days of rehearsals — the last of Jackson's life — were superb.

In the recent interview, AEG's lawyer said the company responded responsibly to concerns raised by Ortega and others by monitoring rehearsals and consulting Jackson and his physician.

"Michael and the doctor stressed that he was OK. They had it under control," Putnam said.

Numerous emails show that at the same time, Lloyd's of London was pressing AEG to schedule a complete medical examination for Jackson. The insurance company had to be convinced the singer was healthy before they would expand the policy to include illness and death, crucial coverage given reports from rehearsals.

That four-hour exam by Lloyd's in London would include three doctors, heart monitoring and blood work. AEG's insurance broker tried to persuade Lloyd's to drop the physical, according to the email discussions by AEG officials. AEG suggested Murray could provide an oral recitation of Jackson's recent medical history instead. Lloyd's refused.

Since agreeing to the policy in May, Lloyd's had sought additional information from AEG — medical records, details about Jackson's daily fitness program and responses to media reports about his health.

"Always with no response," a Lloyd's underwriter wrote.

Lloyd's also insisted on five years of medical records. The insurance company wrote that it wanted a thorough account for all doctor's appointments, hospital visits and cosmetic procedures since 2003.

Within AEG, it was determined that Murray was the best hope to get the records, and in the final week of Jackson's life, officials sent at least 10 emails reminding him to gather them.

Murray responded to the last of the requests June 25 in Jackson's darkened bedroom suite, according to emails presented at the doctor's criminal trial. He wrote that he had talked to Jackson and "Authorization was denied,"

Less than an hour later, Jackson stopped breathing, according to a timeline Murray gave police.

A week later, AEG filed a claim for the entire $17.5-million insurance policy and said publicly that it was out more than $35 million.

But within a very short period, it became clear that Jackson's demise, however terrible for those who loved him, was a commercial boon for his heirs and for AEG.

The celebratory documentary "This Is It," which AEG co-produced alone grossed more than $260 million worldwide.

"Michael's death is a terrible tragedy, but life must go on. AEG will make a fortune from merch sales, ticket retention, the touring exhibition and the film/dvd," Phillips wrote to a concert business colleague in August, adding, "I still wish he was here!"

ETA 11-13-2011:

It should be noted to American readers that the Conrad Murray documentary that played out here in the United States on MSNBC--Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship--was quite different than the original Zodiak Films version, viewable below, which was released in the UK. One obvious difference is that our US version did not have the 12-minute interview with Conrad Murray that opened the film. 

There were several bits of tape that had been left on the cutting room floor for each piece. 

For example, the UK version did not include a conversation between Dr. Murray's defense lawyers Ed Chernoff and Michael Flanagan and Flanagan's wife about the secret chamber Jackson kept for himself that was extremely dirty and had dozens of pictures of children and babies on the dresser. It had been Flanagan's position that had the public knew of the bathroom, the tide would turn in his client's favor. This was in the UK version, however, deleted was Flanagan's quip that "everything about him [Jackson] is sick." 

Deleted from the American version but in the UK version of the documentary was the fact that Judge Pastor disallowed any footage from the TII rehearsals that showed Michael Jackson in less than stellar health; the Prosecutors played in trial only footage that was recorded in the last two days of Jackson's death, when he seemed healthier. 

But one particular bit of interview with Dr. Murray that was deleted from the American version stood out: his recollection of a conversation he had had with AEG Live's Randy Philips. The chat the two man had was, for some reason, deemed unimportant to NBC and was cut. We can only speculate as to why.

My opinion is that both versions were 'good' for Dr. Murray.

The conversation between Philips and Dr. Murray was denied, although tepidly, by Philips when he was being questioned by Prosecutors; Dr. Murray's statements in the film, however, we so detailed as to be believable. A transcript:
MURRAY: That's when I got the shock. Randy Philips asked if I'd just step outside the living room when the meeting had ended... This is him--he was just grinding his teeth [makes face]. "He does not have a fucking cent. A fucking cent! What's this bullshit all about? Listen... this guy is next to skid row; he's going to be homeless! The fucking popsicles--his children, look, those kids... What's this all about? Nine security guards? Why does he need that? [raises voice] I'm paying for that shit! I'm paying for the fucking toilet paper he wipes his ass with! He doesn't have a fucking cent! And if he doesn't get this show done, he's over! This is it! This is the last chance he has to earn any kind of money; he's ruined. Financially... he has nothing... ZERO."
What should be gleaned from this conversation is twofold: 
Michael Jackson was very desperate to have to perform, not only because he was broke but also because without any performances to cap off his life--his drug abuse most certainly had the ability to shorten his existence--he could have died with the last 'highlight' being his revealing child molestation trial in 2005. 

Given that, the pressure to get Jackson to sleep was incredible. Dr. Murray was dealing with that pressure applied upon him by a manipulative addict. 

As stated before, the dynamics of the situation are complex, not at all as cut-and-dry as Conrad Murray needing to be 'Conrad Murderer' (or 'Murderray', as some fanatic scribbled on their courthouse placard).

Both versions of this documentary seem to support the idea that the 'Guilty' verdict was not at all the best choice.

ETA 11-12-2011:

Here is the original British version of the Conrad Murray documentary, The Man Who Killed Michael Jackson, released by Zodiak Films. 

ETA 11-11-2011:

The controversial documentary, Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship, as well as a sit-down between NBC's Savannah Guthrie and Dr. Conrad Murray, have stirred Jackson fans into a frenzy, despite the fact they have already 'won', so to speak, since Dr. Murray was convicted. The fear is that Jackson's doctor will reveal the truth about their idol's obvious addictions.

It should be noted that Jackson fans have let there imaginations gone wild, and are now really saying Dr. Conrad Murray 'murdered a father of three'.

Just today I received an email from a fan declaring such history revisionism!

Here's videos of his interview with Savannah Guthrie from NBC's Today Show:

Perhaps had Dr. Murray taken the stand and told, in his own words, of how Jackson was a desperate addict, pleading for his 'milk', the trial may have ended a bit differently. One juror admitted that there had been at least some doubt about Dr. Murray being 'solely responsible'.

Without a hint of unexpectedness, Dr. Conrad Murray was found GUILTY of 'killing' the King of Pop, a man who spent the last decade of his life struggling to re-emerge from the rightful shame brought upon him by the alleged abuses of young boys, boys he'd referred to as his 'special friends'.

I watched the verdict live; Dr. Murray, upon receipt of it, showed not a bit of surprise as well. Surely, the dispassion etched across his face came from the two years between the death of Michael Jackson and the verdict, where the media spent the entire time batting around the overly simplified slogan, "Propofol should not be administered outside of a hospital setting," the subliminal and intellectually reduced catch-all that ignores the fine brush strokes of this odd circumstance.

More so than not, Dr. Conrad Murray was well aware of the 'celebrity factor' that holds so much weight in the United States. The rule is applied de facto to their woes and anything tangential to them, whispered into the ears of media pundits, judges, lawyers, and jurors as a reminder of such divine privilege.

We should not forget the history of celebrities, of their privilege and favor bestowed. We had OJ Simpson, who now languishes in a Northern Nevada prison, dismissed--and dismissed is the right word--of any punishment for killing two human beings in such a brutal, bloody way, one of whom he'd abused for years, in large part because he was one of the Beautiful People. 

As we speak, Lindsay Lohan is as free as a proverbial bird, having served only a few hours of a thirty day jail sentence, despite her own sordid history of DUIs and drug abuse. And, like Lindsay, it was not too long ago that Paris Hilton got to walk in and out of a Las Vegas jail after being busted with cocaine, a felony that would have brought a four year sentence in Nevada.

There are innumerable examples.

Let us not forget the alleged crimes of this blog's subject du jour. Michael Jackson, who had had a long history of allegedly sexually abusing young boys and then paying them money or giving them expensive gifts to soothe the seriousness of those crimes, was found 'Not Guilty' of molesting one boy brave enough to speak out in court.

Why? Celebrity, of course! 

Jackson's celebrity enabled him to hire the most skilled obfuscators who mowed down the mother of this allegedly molested boy, making her mental handicaps and illnesses the reason why a sane and rational person should disregard the defendant's prior suspicious behavior with minors and find him not guilty of abusing a boy who simply adds to the clog of his seeming pedophiliac tendencies.

Several jurors believed there was a reasonable suspicion that Jackson was a child molester; one can only speculate why  they believed it to be likely that, well, perhaps Jackson had not done what he seemed to always do in the Gavin Arvizo case. 

Yes, maybe--just maybe--Jackson simply bucked those desires and the Arvizos fingered the perfect guy for the job.

Celebrity is a very special thing; people are willing to sell their souls for it, even request to be pumped with propofol just to have enough strength to be able to fight to get some of it back once it has been lost for good.

And that was what happened here. Jackson was washed up, a has-been who rightly enjoyed the limelight in the 1980s but spent his final years roaming dejected and lost and reviled, searching for a place among people who were fresh and more desirable. The shell formed around him by years of drug abuse had to be cracked into and broken through; the only way for him to do that was to dance and sing.

The caveat, of course, was that he couldn't do that anymore...not without the help of his 'milk'.

Desperate and knowing much would be lost, Jackson badgered his gay lover and friend Jason Pfeiffer, asking him if he knew of an anesthesiologist. Seeing that the verdict today was what it was and the doctor who fell for the sins of this addict was a cardiologist, Pfeiffer had been of little help. He then set his eyes on a nurse, begging her for this elusive and magical white fluid; she declined as nurses expectedly would, knowing they lack even a doctor's expertise.

And then there was Dr. Conrad Murray, a soft-spoken man who was very fond of the forlorn and addicted singer; he bit, kowtowing to the demands of the wealthy, bizarre, and manipulative Jackson, joining him in a portentous Dance of Death. 

Celebrity. It erases judgment, a fact of this case that seemed to fall upon deaf ears. It turns a statistically obvious casualty of such self-decided fire-play into a victim someone else 'heartlessly' and 'callously' created. 

Judge Michael Pastor used the death of this dubious 'victim' to validate his (no doubt, pre-formed) decision to keep Dr. Murray in jail, citing that he was a rabid danger to society--a crock of bull and overkill; Dr. Murray will be awaiting a sentence as predictable as the verdict if this judge has his way.

It should be no surprise that I disagree with the verdict in this case and feel it to be reflective of what is so damned wrong with the country I live in. We can argue that Dr. Murray should have been more careful; that he should have said, "No"; that he should have tried to do more to protect himself from the inevitable: a dead celebrity junkie. We can even argue that, in some way, maybe Dr. Murray should be held somewhat liable, if only by virtue of his profession and if only in civil court.

The last bit of that is even hard for me to stomach. If the celebrity-obsessed media and the undoubtedly celebrity-dazzled prosecutors want to shrink the case into, "No one should dispense propofol outside of a hospital setting," opposingly, I'll shrink the case down into something just as simple but more holistic: 

"He wanted it; he asked for it; he got what was inevitable."

There are no tears shed for Michael Jackson here and there really should be no tears shed for him at all by anyone. What happened was entirely of his own doing, and he did have a history of using propofol. And, let us not soon forget something that is so fundamental to why sorrow should take a holiday in his case: for all of the heeing and hawing about Dr. Murray being ill-equipped to dispense this anesthetic in the way he did, the evidence shows that Jackson did not care who gave it to him, as long as he got it.

Just like any drug addict before him and the drug addicts after him. 

But, in this case, his desperation matters little because he is a celebrity. More figuratively than literally, he is a Beautiful Person.

My sympathy does lie with Dr. Conrad Murray, though. He is the one true victim in this case and he should not be in jail. He should not be the casualty in the cleaning up and whitewashing of Jackson's self-tarnished and self-destroyed legacy; but that is how it is, isn't it? It makes mastication of Jackson--warts (and they are big warts) and all--more easy.  

After all, who would really want to dance to the tunes of an obvious drug addict and probable child molester who tried to market himself--fantastically!--as a Peter Pan innocent? Ah, yes, nothing like a bit of tragedy to get those booties groovin' to bland and overrated 1980s bubblegum!

The paradox of 'Celebrity Justice' is that it isn't. This, of course, is a given. The only time that sort of justice has teeth or takes on the iron fist that we mere mortals encounter is if the celebrity is the victim.

Because, you know, just like we humans are said to have been punished for the self-elected brutality endured by Jesus Christ, we peasants cannot do anything to as much as disturb a hair on the heads of God's other Chosen. Ironically, we won't be damned by God, but by the brainwashed human worshippers of our song-writing, movie-making, moonwalking demigods.

Yes, I am sure those worshippers, with their misspelled signs, cheesy puns, and voices hoarse from yelping with psychotic reverie at this verdict--this travesty of real justice, are pretty pleased right now. They have at least some tangible validation, thanks to Judge Pastor and the Jackson fan-packed jury, that their shrines are not totally creepy.

Thank you again, America.


Anonymous said...

America had nothing to do with this, because the only people excited are the wacko fans and they are a very small percentage. People outside the charades do not care, even after the media tried to cramp it down our throats. I just fell sorry for the doctor.

Desiree said...


Choose a name next time because I know you have one; I don't make the rules for my health!

As for the verdict, it's sort of the old 'Chicken or the Egg' dance. Who created Jacko fans? Did they materialize out of thin air because fans, in general, may be a little more predisposed to that level of adoration, or were they fostered by American capitalists who saw the profitability in uplifting celebrity culture as a selling point?

I tend to believe they are our own homegrown eccentrics. America pretty much created this idea, placing a premium on these people over others, and we transported it across the world. Our enterprising does have its downsides.

America and fans aside, the verdict is a tragedy and it hurt my heart to see Murray get a lashing by that obviously activistic judge. Like most people in this country, I am a little sick and tired of celebrities getting special treatment. Sure, no celebrity was literally on trial in this case but that may be the point: they never are on trial when the opportunity presents itself. Michael Jackson's deeds and history should have been the focal point of the case.

The harshest treatment celebrities get is when they have verbal diarrhea and say something like, "Oh, being photographed by paparazzi is like being raped!"

Then, they get it, but it's usually so stupid. This country needs to learn to accurately and fairly apply the law. It's tragic to me that if you are of a certain class you get special treatment. Lady Justice was blindfolded the last time I checked. Or maybe that was the artist's rendering of a very, very sheer scarf.

Frenchie said...

I knew this was coming, but it still stung when I heard the verdict. I hope Murray's character witnesses start giving interviews to anyone with a camera--humanize him to the public. Reasonable people don't want to see a man's life destroyed just because a drug addicted child molester overdosed. If Murray's team strategizes a way to get non-f'loons emotionally invested in his fate, it might create enough of a backlash to help win an appeal. I'm tired of everyone around Michael being blamed for his own misdeeds. The media's canonization of him is infuriating.

Desiree said...


"Reasonable people don't want to see a man's life destroyed just because a drug addicted child molester overdosed. If Murray's team strategizes a way to get non-f'loons emotionally invested in his fate, it might create enough of a backlash to help win an appeal."

LOL @ that first sentence. As for the second, Americans just don't get angry, they just don't care. I honestly believe a large segment of the population is ambivalent to Jacko and would probably agree that he was a child molester; but it's the ambivalence that would prevent them from actively protesting this sickening pro-celebrity/pro-rich justice system we have in this country.

I know we are just talking about a small potato here (Murray) but something has got to give with the way celebrities get off so easy.

I forgot to mention in this post: R. Kelly!

And, also, non-f'loons, even if they did support Murray, they wouldn't have wasted their time protesting in front of the courthouse all day and night like the Jacko fans did. They have lives; for fans, Jacko is their life, or a huge part of it.

It would explain their frightening rabidity!

Yes, reasonable people would think Murray got a totally raw deal--and he did--but they would also say that they don't care. If you look at the comments under the Yahoo! story for the verdict, you have people who are not fans saying, "Oh my god, and Casey Anthony got off?" or saying, "Good riddance; he was pedophile"; obviously there are people who see that this really was such a waste of time and an injustice.

But the media goes where the money is. The only people who give a rat's ass about Jacko to the point the media can see a good profit are the fans.

Until other people also care about Jacko, it'll be the same canonization of him and the same BS will continue to proliferate.

And, by the way, I totally agree with you: Murray deserves an appeal for the simple fact they stacked the jury with Jacko fans. Let's not forget they were not sequestered.

I could have slapped that judge. I'm glad I didn't follow the trial; I hate an injustice. Poor Murray!! :-(

fern said...

It wasn't just giving propofol, it was also not having the right equipment and failing to call 911 when he found Jackson not breathing.

Desiree said...


There is no question that, within the context of this drug given, the setup may not have been the best. Yes, propofol is not given in the home. But, as I said in this piece, that is a stupid catch-all because these circumstances are unique: someone who was very rich and very manipulative asked for the drug to be given to him.

By asking a nurse and eventually settling on a cardiologist, shows that he did not care whatsoever who gave him propofol.

He wanted it and still wanted it even when Cherilynn Lee told him it was dangerous. Everything that led to Jacko's death was approved by Jacko himself.

Also, with regards to the fact he didn't call 911, he may have panicked; he may have thought that he could alleviate the situation.

The point here is that Michael Jackson asked for it, bad equipment or not. Anesthesiologist or not. He didn't care.

And since Jacko didn't care about putting his life in danger, about potentially risking making his kids orphans, why should anyone else care? Furthermore, why should anyone fall for his decisions? Jacko marketed himself as this tortured Christ--it was farcical. There is a living breathing man who lost his life today without the luxury of physical death. That is a greater tragedy than Jacko's (all things considered) predictable death.

The verdict was wrong and we had yet another case of Stupid Juror Syndrome.

Alby said...

I found it sad that only the last in a long, long list of enablers got judged. My opinion is that Mike was so good at manipulation, he manipulated himself to death.

I think an appeal is on the cards, I didn't follow the trial closely (being all the way in Australia) but the perception is that the judge was heavily biased against Dr Murray and his team.

That the Jackson's hugged and kissed with Walgren after the verdict made me question the professionalism of the prosecutor too. Were they in cahoots?

J-M-H said...

Man, I was/am so sad about this verdict. I mean you always had a feeling that it didn't look good for him and that he most likely was going to get convicted by when it hits you, you're still shocked. Seriously my heart was racing, LOL, and I'll admit it, I shed a couple of tears for Murray. It wasn't so much at the verdict but it was when the judge was making his decision as to whether he should be remanded. One, he is absolutely not a flight risk and two, he is not a danger to society. It's ridiculous and I truly believe that both the judge and the prosecutor were out for blood, either because of judicial activism or "name-in-lights" syndrome or maybe they have a touch of f'loonery in them. But to see Murray handcuffed like a criminal... ugh, hurt my soul.

It is celebrity justice. The cops find a small crack rock in a civilian's pocket, it's jail time (esp. if your nonwhite). However, you have Farrah Fawcett's son repeatedly getting busted for possession, and the last time he had heroin and firearms--a violation of his probation--and he gets sent to rehab. I swear, if Lindsey Lohan overdoses, these judges should be held responsible for letting her slide so many times. Oh, wait, I bet they'd cry that she made her own choice to use illegal drugs and it's no one else's fault but her own. But it's Murray's fault because Wacko Jacko's drug of choice was one that needs someone to administer it.

That the Jackson's hugged and kissed with Walgren after the verdict made me question the professionalism of the prosecutor too. Were they in cahoots?

Ugh, that is a sickening thought. I don't think so of course, it's more about Walgren wanting to have his name in the papers, being Michael Jackson's "vindicator".

I wonder if Mike's obvious pedophilia and drug addict will be even more obscured in his legacy?

Oh and Arnold Klein did an interview with TruTV and of course he was acting as if he'd been Mike's "angel doctor". What a pathetic piece of crap, I bet had Mike overdosed on one of the 51 shots of Demerol he gave him, Klein would probably spill the beans about Mike's drug demons to protect his reputation.

A.G. said...

"Poor Conrad Murray" Indeed, what an irony that Walgren coined the phrase that many use now in their comments because it was the phrase he very cleverly used in his closing speech! So media influence goes indeed a long way.

I just add 2 things:

It is a docu about Murray that is broadcast by NBC next Friday and Joe Vogel's book "Man in the Mirror" that tries to establish Jackson's stake as a songwriter;-)....It will be intersting to read the piece about "Stranger in Moscow" perhaps worth mention all evidence and fact about those song lyrics to Vogel himself! Worth a try. Other wise, whitewashing of celebrity images is faster than you actually think and want to have it.....

Lady C said...


"He wanted it and still wanted it even when Cherilynn Lee told him it was dangerous. Everything that led to Jacko's death was approved by Jacko himself."

Michael Jackson couldn't get that "monkey" off his back....Bubbles, no pun intended, LMAO! The truth of the matter is that Jacko had been digging his own grave for many years...He signed his own death warrant.

I too am very saddened about the whole thing, and I agree with J-M-H that the verdict was expected no matter how unfair it was, but to have Murray retained in custody like an animal was down right mean and unnecessary. I personally think that Judge Pastor actually 'got off' on it. IMO, he's a disgrace and I don't think that someone of his character is worthy of being in a position of justice or being called a judge--his whole attitude, demeanor and being very biased; which was quite obvious, throughout the trial was very disturbing. Yes Desiree, the last time I checked also Lady Justice was blind, but judges like Michael Pastor just spit in her face. He was over zealous of his power and he got pleasure from it. But perhaps in saying that, I'm not being quite fair in singling him out as he is only one of many judges that sit on the bench and are overtaken by Untouchable Celebrity Syndrome. In that case, they all have spat in the face of Lady Justice. One would have to say that they don't rule with their brains but with another part of their anatomy or should I say lack thereof...maybe that's the problem; they all lack the balls or ovaries needed to acquire a backbone, LOL... It's a damn shame. Only in America can you fall prey to the unaccountable yet untouchable glory of celebrity....That goes for the judges, lawyers, and in many cases the defendant; like Conrad Murray who was desperately fighting for his life/freedom at the hands of another celebrity gone stupid. Will this country ever learn?! If so, it doesn't appear to be anytime soon sad to say. I suppose Jermaine was very pleased knowing that Murray wouldn't be given the possible opportunity to 'flee' the country after he was found guilty like the plan that he and his family had orchestrated for Jacko if he had been found guilty in his 2005 trial....It's sickening. If Judge Pastor and David Walgren really thought that Murray was a real danger to society, than I really hate to think what their interpretation of criminals like Scott Peterson or Charles Manson is like?...that's scary!

As for the over crowding of California prisons...Well, let's just say that will all depend on who it is that will be doing the populating... Lindsey Lohan, naw....Conrad Murray, you betcha. Judge Pastor will see to that.

S.U. said...

I´m not surprised as well. I´m upset, the fans deserved as a punishment Murray´s freedom.
I´ve posted the bodyguards interview, even them didn´t believe that Murray was guilty!! It was a surprise, I never expected it from them.
Desiree, maybe the truth will surface just many, many years after.

Alby said...

Boy oh boy, the fans are nuts. Now they are trying to get the Murray doco pulled like they did with the autopsy show. Blaine is absolutely disgusted with NBC! LOL

I just love standing on the sidelines and watching the fans destroy Mike's legacy all by themselves :-)

Amanda S said...

I think that the verdict was fair. Doctors supplying dangerous drugs on demand to rich clients need to be called to account.

Even so I don't believe that Dr Murray should be jailed and I do have a bit of sympathy for him. There's clearly an element to this where he was unlucky whereas other doctors who had done similar things in the past were not. But then they also might have shown more professional competence in ensuring that things didn't go so badly wrong.

I think that there can be an argument for doctors' prescribing drugs to which a person is physically addicted as a harm minimisation strategy. Doctors in the UK used to be able to prescribe heroin. This was then banned and now they are only able to offer methadone. However, in this case, Michael Jackson was not physically addicted to propofol at the point when Dr Murray started to administer it to him. He simply believed that he would be unable to prepare for and complete the concert series without it. He should have been told "No" just as any of the rest of us would if we made such an unreasonable request.

S.U. said...

wow ladies someone had the courage to speak out as well!

Kurt Loder -- the longtime face of "MTV News" -- says he believes Michael Jackson was a child molester.

Loder appeared on the "Jeff and Jeremy in the Morning" radio show this morning ... when he was asked if he thought MJ's death was a tragedy.

Loder replied, "Its a shame how he grew up ... his childhood was a shame ... there is many sad aspects to his life, ... on the other hand, I think he was a child molester, and that sort of tempers any feelings you might have about him."

When asked why he believed MJ molested kids, Loder claimed he knew about secret payouts to the parents of little boys ... and pointed to MJ's bizarre behavior.

"Having sleepovers with little boys, and you're a 40 year old man??? Uh, NO. You're like a child molester."

Loder continues, "Maybe being a child molester is the product of a pretty terrible childhood he had ... you can see why that might have happened. On the other hand, molesting children is bad."

Louis said...

@ A.G.
Michael Jackson was a pretty good song writer (I mean, not at the level of Prince or Bob Dylan but still respectable). I mean, Billie Jean and Black or White were, to me, really great songs. Billie Jean, in my honest opinion, is one of the greatest pop songs of all time. It has a type of danger/lonliness within it that makes it really enjoyable to listen to. Plus the intriguing story within the song makes it hard not to get lost in it. I mean, is he or is he not the father of the children? The music video greatly complements the song as well serving to raise/amplify the mystery already within the song. Black or White is a great song with a great message. I really love the message that race/culture shouldn't be the defining aspect of a person, and that it is the character of the person that truly matters in the grand scheme of things. I think this was a great song to release at such a pivotal time in history, with the LA race riots and all that stuff going on.

Desiree said...


I'll be sure to tune in to that documentary! Thank you for the heads up. As for Jacko's songwriting, I think he's okay--definitely not spectacular. I have his book "Dancing the Dream" and there are some pretty crappy poems in that work. But it would be an interesting exploratory if they put "Stranger in Moscow" and "Speechless" into context. Michael Jackson was surprisingly candid about his pedophilia in both.

"Stranger in Moscow" should be required reading for anyone who'd dare suggest he wasn't a boy-lover.


"Boy oh boy, the fans are nuts. Now they are trying to get the Murray doco pulled like they did with the autopsy show. Blaine is absolutely disgusted with NBC! LOL

I just love standing on the sidelines and watching the fans destroy Mike's legacy all by themselves :-)"

LMAO -- I had to think about who was 'Blaine' for a second; his conniptions are always fun to watch. He sure knows how to throw around an exclamation point! Something that has always perturbed me is the fact that fans tend to get 'up in arms' about any negative thing about Jacko; it proves they live in a constant state of fear about what could be revealed about their idol. And the truth is coming; we're just waiting on it to show up.

Aaron Carter all but said straight out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile; what 45-year-old man invites a 15-year-old boy into his bedroom and ends up on the kid's cot while the kid is asleep? What 45-year-old man shrieks, "Oh, I didn't know! I didn't know," before scuttling back into his own bed if what he'd been doing was so innocent?

Fans didn't like that too much; however, they were successful in shutting Aaron down. I doubt they will be as successful shutting down MSNBC.

Hopefully they don't cave. It's true: the only people who care about Jacko are his fans. I guess if they boycott a Jacko documentary, maybe a substantial portion of the viewing audience will be lost.

What am I saying?! They would never be able to stay away... ;-)

Alby said...

I really like what somebody else said:

If Mike did nothing wrong, why do the fans spend so much time defending him?


Desiree said...


Hilarious about Kurt Loder saying Jacko was a child molester; he's just saying the obvious. I often wonder how much information these news guys don't publish. I'm sure there were times they'd heard of a story about Michael Jackson but didn't broadcast it because it wasn't palatable or some other PC garbage.

I'm just glad to see that someone visibly intelligent is calling a spade a spade. The fans trashed Gene Simmons, calling him a rapist because he was successful with women, but what can they say about Loder?

He's a classy guy!

Now, all we need is someone with a non-shady background to spill what they know. The fans are delusional already--they won't believe anything--but if someone not like Anthony Pellicano or Aaron Carter told what they knew, it could swing the pendulum in the direction of truth, not the excrutiating whitewash of Jacko's 'legacy'

Loder said it in the audio; he said seeing how Jacko's abusive childhood led to his child molesting is looking at the whole story, and the fans don't want to hear it because it destroys a fantasy.

Lady C:

I'm just worried that someone would hurt Murray behind bars. I can't imagine how little clout being a child molester brings in jail, but it's possible that some violent brute in the pin could be a Jacko fan and try to exact justice.

Who knows.

Judge Pastor is a schmuck. I'm glad his erection didn't poke anyone's eye out (maybe I'm being too generous, LOL) when he was 'explaining' why Murray was a danger to society. He is not. Michael Jackson asked for it, period. This is hardly the case on which to be an activist.

When are they going to knock on Klein's door? He's such a fat moron and was the real enabler of Jacko's addictions.

Desiree said...


"If Mike did nothing wrong, why do the fans spend so much time defending him?"

Because they know that when they stop defending him, the distraction ends and the truth will emerge.

If he was so innocent, why try to harass or intimidate or threaten anyone? Why spam websites with talking points?

One word: insecurity.

J-M-H said...

I know this is off topic but you know that Frank Cascio book "My Friend Michael" that's slated for release on November 15th? Well here's a part of the description (from Amazon):

"In My Friend Michael, Cascio refutes the rumors, lies, and accusations that have accumulated over the years, providing a candid look at the Michael Jackson he knew for more than two decades. Offering an uplifting and definitive account of the legend, Cascio details how he grew up alongside Jackson, traveling the world with him on concert tours and eventually working for him. Through this lens, Cascio captures Jackson’s most private and tumultuous moments, while also setting the record straight on the entertainer’s notorious and misunderstood lifestyle—from his Peter Pan reality and his sexuality to the false allegations against him."

LMAO, I'm completely shocked. Not. I bet the fans can't wait. What juicy tidbits is Frank going to "reveal" to the thirsty Jacko's Wackos? And did I not say that he'd mention his "sexuality"? I wonder if he will have a chapter on Jason Pfeiffer? If Frank (and I have no doubt about it) will say Mike was a normal guy sexually, why is he waiting until after his death, why not when he was alive?

Such a great marketing ploy. And the fans will no doubt pad Frank's pockets well.

J-M-H said...

What the hell, here's the entire description:

"Everyone knows Michael Jackson—the myth. This is the revealing true story of Michael Jackson—the man.

To Frank Cascio, Michael Jackson was many things—second father, big brother, boss, mentor, and teacher, but most of all he was a friend. Though Cascio was just a few years old when he first met Jackson in 1984, at the peak of the pop star’s career, Jackson was at the center of his life for the next twenty-five years, allowing Cascio to observe firsthand the greatest entertainer the world had ever seen. In that time, he became the ultimate Michael Jackson insider, yet remained publicly silent about his experiences. Until now.

In My Friend Michael, Cascio refutes the rumors, lies, and accusations that have accumulated over the years, providing a candid look at the Michael Jackson he knew for more than two decades. Offering an uplifting and definitive account of the legend, Cascio details how he grew up alongside Jackson, traveling the world with him on concert tours and eventually working for him. Through this lens, Cascio captures Jackson’s most private and tumultuous moments, while also setting the record straight on the entertainer’s notorious and misunderstood lifestyle—from his Peter Pan reality and his sexuality to the false allegations against him.

As Cascio shows, there was a great deal more to Michael Jackson than the headlines about him have suggested. Cascio reveals his friend in all his complexity, bringing to light his passions and joys as well as his flaws and eccentricities. Including stories about Jackson that have never before been made public, Cascio creates a balanced, human look at the pop star, one that shows Jackson as the very real person he was—a lively friend with an endearingly juvenile sense of humor.

What emerges is a clear-eyed yet deeply respectful portrait of Jackson—a man who was at times unremarkably average but also terribly scarred by his life in the spotlight. Packed with never-before-seen photos, anecdotes, and insights, My Friend Michael is a trove of Michael Jackson lore that both celebrates his life and redefines our understanding of the man behind the myth."


Truth my ass, LOL.

J-M-H said...

" Including stories about Jackson that have never before been made public, Cascio creates a balanced, human look at the pop star..."

Interesting wording, maybe we should do some "statement analysis" on it. Look how it says "stories" and then the use of the word "create". Seems like Frank has wrote a book by "creating" "stories" about Mike to make him look better.

LOL, your words will betray you, as Mark McClish says. Seems to me that Frank Cascio is implicitly admitting that the book will be filled with concoctions from his on head. LMAO.

Lady C said...


"And did I not say that he'd mention his "sexuality"? I wonder if he will have a chapter on Jason Pfeiffer? If Frank (and I have no doubt about it) will say Mike was a normal guy sexually, why is he waiting until after his death, why not when he was alive?"

Exactly! I was asking myself the same thing, LOL. Isn't it funny how the 'fanatics' will play both sides of the fence when it benefits them...Remember how during the trial, they were talking out the side of their necks about MJ not being a drug addict and how the defense needed to stop speaking ill of him because he wasn't around to defend himself? Well, why is now that Cascio finds it so important to defend and speak for his 'special friend' who is no longer around to do it himself? That's like the pot calling the kettle black, lol. The fanatics are definitely a different breed, that's for sure. But let them say it, they'll justify Cascio's explanations as an exception. Exception my ass! lol His waiting to tell all of this after MJ's death rather than before is nothing's just his turn in the "Circus of MJ" to play 'monkey see monkey do'. As for the chapter regarding MJ's sexuality, I know that every hardcore MJ fan that reads that bull crap piece will be clinging on to EVERY word that Cascio can give them to fulfill their will be just like listening to telephone sex, LMAO.

"including stories about Jackson that have never before been made public, Cascio creates a balanced, human look at the pop star..."

Interesting wording, maybe we should do some "statement analysis" on it. Look how it says "stories" and then the use of the word "create". Seems like Frank has wrote a book by "creating" "stories" about Mike to make him look better.

It's also interesting wording how "stories" and the phrase "that have never before been made public"... That's absolutely right! They've never been made public because they are just that, 'stories' that have no


Yeah, I wonder about that too--if someone on the inside will try to kill him while in prison. I'm sure the Jacksons would think that it wouldn't sound like a bad idea...For them it would be true intervention divine. The fans are not only destroying the legacy of Jacko, but also destroying themselves in the process...They are their own poison.

Alby said...

When I was reading that ridiculous blurb about Frank's book, this paragraph from "Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis" by Ken Lanning came immediately to mind:

"Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified for him were also victims."

S.u. said...

Of course he would talk about michael's sexuality lol. The f'loons were angry when frank claimed days ago that michael was an "ocasional addict" but i bet they will forgive him when they read the tea lol

S.U. said...

Majestik sent a message for fans:


por Majestik Magnificent a Quarta-feira, 9 de Novembro de 2011 às 2:56

Hello fans. This is Majestik. Unfortunately we are at the cross roads again. The documentary that is being released this Friday must be stopped. I have spoken to Jackson family members regarding this. They are endorsing you 500% in your efforts to stop this. It is very unfortunate that you, the voices for Michael Jackson, must continue to fight. Create awareness so that the world knows that Michael Jackson fans will let NOTHING slide. It is good for the world to know that if you mess with Michael Jackson, even in death, you are going to hear from his fans. Once again Michael needs you to come to his aide for his legacy and respectability for his children. What Murray is doing this Friday is disrespectful, unacceptable, and more than anything, very very hurtful to his family and children. Please tie up the phone lines of MSNBC like you have done so many times in the past! If you can, try to create awareness in the press to know that you are not accepting this type of behavior. The family is behind you 500% on this one. La Toya Jackson as we speak is trying to get attorneys in association with her father to stop this on MSNBC . The Michael Jackson fans show nothing but love, admiration, respect and above all loyalty to him. If you want to ask me any questions please feel free to private message me. Your support at the courthouse was SIMPLY AMAZING! I thank you, and this letter will be given to Katherine, Joseph, La Toya and other Jackson family members. I thank you for your time.

Much Respect ,

Majestik Magnificent

J-M-H said...

WOW, S.U.! Can you believe it? The Jacksons must be petrified at what could be reveal about their beloved cash cow. It's almost comical until you think about this as yet another example at how those with power and privilege can crush any and all dissent. Murray deserves to have his side of the story told, he's already been convicted, what harm will this do?

I also think it's amusing how Majestik is playing to the ego of Jacko fans, telling them how awesome they are to be so loyal, and what a special privilege it is to be the "voice of Michael Jackson". I bet the fans are lapping it up.

I hope they don't pull it but they did get the second part of Jason's Extra interview to be pulled. It's a cult and their God must be protected at all costs. How pathetic it must be to be so obsessed with a child molester, that you have to constantly defend.

By the way, what the hell is an occasional addict? You're either addicted to drugs or you aren't. Sounds to me that Frank probably wished he could have said he wasn't an addict but he couldn't deny the evidence presented at the Murray trial. There goes that "creating stories" thing again.

S.U. said...


I´m not surprised anymore,the Jacksons and close friends will do anything to protect him. Honestly I don´t lift an eyebrow anymore LOL.

Did anyone see David Gest´s documentary? Who saw it said that David claimed that Michael had a relationship with some female star during some years and DiLeo knew it too but he would bring the secret with him to the grave.

And the comments on TMZ, on Kurt Loder claims? LMAO I love seeing the answers for the f´loons! There are one f´loon who is very delusional and irritable, her name is Missy and for disgrace she´s a mother. She´s in every post about Michael´s kids, claiming they´re his biologically and calling who don´t agree blind. She´s in Kurt´s post too LMAO
Oh and she believes Omer is Michael´s son too! xD

Lady C said...

S.U. & J-M-H:

The MJ fans are really tripping right now. Just like when the Discovery Channel wanted so much to air the autopsy documentary, they pitched a bitch. lol I personally would love to see what Murray has to say about MJ...That would be very interesting...and possibly damaging. Let's just face it, whatever the fans are so damn scared of, it would probably just confirm their fears more, and it would be just be too much for them to stand. The truth hurts, Ouch! LOL From what I understand, the documentary was purchased by MSNBC from a British production company...I wonder if Britain has a copy of it and plan on running it at some point or another--just like the Martin Bashir documentary; it ran their first before it was ran in the U.S. If that is the case, what are the chances of the Jacksons/Jackson Estate of stopping them from airing it, It wonder? As much as I would be very interested in seeing it, I think that there's a good chance that they may be successful in getting MSNBC to pull it, unfortunately.

I just had a thought...although MJ is physically dead, spiritually he's still alive, and I don't mean that in a good way either. All the lies, sick secrets, and games that he entertained the public with all these years is still running ramped in the world just so happens to be done through the f'loons than him physically. They're picking up where MJ left off so to speak... It's a curse that won't die, LOL.

I'm in awe as to how just one individual can literally contaminate the minds of so many people; while on earth and in creeps me

Desiree said...

"As much as I would be very interested in seeing it, I think that there's a good chance that they may be successful in getting MSNBC to pull it, unfortunately."

You know, that is my fear as well.

You have to wonder why these people are in such a frenzy. Haven't these people got enough in Murray being shuffled off to jail as the Patsy in Jacko's propofol scheme? What could they possibly be worried about; wasn't a jury convinced that Michael Jackson was 'murdered'?

What's wrong with Murray having his say? He's still going to be in jail! Are they petrified that the documentary would show Michael Jackson for what he was: a desperate addict who clamored for someone to help him use a drug that he couldn't use by himself?

When Jacko was accused of crimes, he got to have his say. And, even after his repeated questionable behaviors with boys, he was still allowed to be in the media.

There's still Thursday left for the f'loons to wreak havoc. It's freedom of speech but there is still the power of the purse.

Check out the letter Jacko's estate wrote to MSNBC:

The newstory:

Hopefully MSNBC will have balls and not cave in. I, for one, want to see this piece. If the Jacksons and Jacko fans hate it, it has to be good!

It's pretty amazing, I think, to watch someone's history being rewritten in real time. If they are successful, plenty of people will have carpel tunnel syndrome, all of Jacko's sins that have to be 'redone'.

I should add, the delusional behavior of the fans still blows my mind. When are they going to realize that screaming that Jacko was an innocent angel does not make him an innocent angel, especially when so much information is available suggesting otherwise. This cover-up cannot be done into perpetuity; someone is going to say something, suggest something.

Just like Anthony Pellicano, just like Aaron Carter.

All we have to do is wait. Hopefully it comes sooner over later.

Desiree said...

Here's a sample from the documentary:

In it, Murray mentions something about Jacko's hygiene... looks good. LOL.

You have to admire British filmmakers. Some of the best documentaries about Michael Jackson have been produced by our friends across the Atlantic.

Desiree said...

Seems like Murray defends the usage in the documentary, too; also, a f'loon juror says that they had decided on Murray's guilt quickly, even though they thought Jacko was also responsible (duh). Here's a news story about it:

Jackson Doctor defends self in NBC broadcasts

By Linda Deutsch
Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011 7:50 p.m. MST
LOS ANGELES — The doctor convicted of killing Michael Jackson never testified at his trial, but he is now defending himself in multiple NBC interviews taped just days before a jury returned his guilty verdict.
NBC's "Today" show planned to broadcast interviews with Dr. Conrad Murray in which he defends his use of the surgical anesthetic propofol to put Jackson to sleep. Although multiple experts testified at his trial that propofol should not have been administered in Jackson's home, the doctor disagreed.
"I think propofol is not recommended to be given in the home setting," Murray said, "but it is not contraindicated."
He also said Jackson had been using the substance long before the pop star met Murray.
The interview with the Houston cardiologist, who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Monday, is set to air Thursday and Friday. NBC released excerpts of the interview Wednesday.
Under questioning by the "Today" show's Savannah Guthrie, Murray said it was not necessary for him to monitor Jackson because he had given him only a small dose of propofol, and he said that was the reason he didn't mention it to paramedics when they arrived at Jackson's mansion.
"That's a very sad reason," he said, "because it was inconsequential — 25 milligrams and the effect's gone. Means nothing."
Guthrie asked, "Well, you told them about the other drugs, but you didn't tell them about propofol?"
"Because it had no effect," Murray said. "It was not an issue."
The coroner would subsequently find that Jackson, 50, died of "acute propofol intoxication" after a huge dose of the drug complicated by other sedatives.
Murray's defense tried to show that Jackson gave himself an extra dose of propofol while Murray was out of the room, but prosecution experts said there was no evidence of that and it was a crazy theory.
Asked by Guthrie if he became distracted by phone calls, emailing and text messages, Murray said, "No I was not."
"When I looked at a man who was all night deprived of sleep, who was desperate for sleep and finally is getting some sleep, am I gonna sit over him, sit around him, tug on his feet, do anything unusual to wake him up? No," Murray said.
"You walked out of the room to talk on the phone?" Guthrie asked.
"Absolutely, I wanted him to rest."
He insisted Jackson was not on an infusion that would stop his breathing and, "I was not supposed to be monitoring him at that time because there was no need for monitoring."

Desiree said...

Other doctors testified at Murray's trial that leaving a patient alone after giving him an anesthetic was an egregious deviation from the standard of care expected of a physician.
In one exchange, Murray suggested that had he known that Jackson had a problem with addiction to medications he might have acted differently. Experts testified that he should have researched Jackson's medical history before he undertook his treatment for insomnia.
On the day Jackson died, June 25, 2009, Murray said he believed he had weaned the singer off of propofol, the drug Jackson called his "milk."
But when Jackson could not sleep, Murray told "Today," he gave the entertainer a very small dose of propofol.
In retrospect, he said he probably should have walked away when Jackson asked for propofol. But he said he would have been abandoning a friend.
Meanwhile, the disclosure that MSNBC will air a documentary about Murray brought outrage Wednesday from the executors of Jackson's estate, who said Murray is getting a prime-time platform to smear Jackson's reputation without fear of cross-examination.
The executors, John Branca and John McClain, demanded the program entitled "Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship" be cancelled. The network said it had no comment.
Murray, 58, was hired by Jackson at a promised salary of $150,000 a month to accompany the singer on his "This Is It" concert tour to London.
A jury that heard six weeks of testimony convicted Murray of involuntary manslaughter. He is now being held in Los Angeles County Jail awaiting sentencing Nov. 29 and could face up to four years in prison.
In a separate interview broadcast Wednesday, one of the jurors said there were contentious moments, including yelling and cajoling, during the two days of deliberations.
Debbie Franklin, 48, told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" in the first juror interview so far that most of the jurors had decided on guilt Friday, the first day of deliberations.
But, she said "not everyone was convinced that Dr. Murray was solely responsible for Michael Jackson's death."
"Toward the end of the day, we finally took a vote," Franklin said. "It was not unanimous and we talked a little more about it."
The panel decided to think it over during a weekend break.
"It was stressful," said the mother of two, who is a paralegal. She said there was "yelling and we had to keep saying, 'Nobody talk while this person is talking. Raise your hand if you have something to say."
The majority managed on Monday to convince all jurors that Murray was negligent and his mistakes led to Jackson death, Franklin said.
"He had addictions. He asked other doctors to do it (give him the operating room anesthetic propofol). They said no. He was looking for somebody to say yes. And Conrad Murray said yes," she said.
An Associated Press reporter approached Franklin for an interview Wednesday but she refused. She said all jurors had agreed not to speak to the media, but she did not explain why they made that agreement or why she spoke to ABC.

Desiree said...

After reading this article, it's such a shame that Conrad Murray never took the stand himself; it would have been excellent for him to explain to the f'loon-heavy jury (who, apparently, could have acquitted him) that he stepped out of the room so Jackson could sleep undisturbed. What is so wrong with that?

Perhaps he didn't want to be cross-examined but, if that suggests 'guilt' to Jacko fans, they should know that it swings both ways, doesn't it? Michael Jackson violated his confidentiality agreement with the Chandlers as soon as the ink was dry on the settlement when he gave that accidently telling interview to Diane Sawyer.

It should be noted that Johnnie Cochran foreshadowed that gabfest in a press conference right after the settlement was reached.

So, all in all, the fans, the Jacksons, and the Estate are total hypocrites. It's fine and dandy for Jacko to have his say, but Dr. Murray? Never, never!

(Let's not forget Jacko was never questioned over the alleged molestation of Gavin Arvizo or Jordie Chandler; he also hid when the Chandler attorneys wanted to depose him! Let's also mention that silly police brutality claim that was complete BS, or, rather, proof of a consciousness of guilt.)

Lady C said...


I wasn't able to watch the little snippet of the documentary from the link that you provided; my computer has been acting up lately...However, I did read some of the comments that ppl left regarding their thoughts on the issue...I found them to be some what humorous but very
There was one comment where someone said something that I totally agree with....And that was, Conrad Murray stood there before the judge and took his verdict/remand like a man. I agre, and I think this very well pisses the hell out of a lot of the fans. LMAO They couldn't stand that; I mean really if you think about it, they were soo agitated at Murray's composure during the entire trial...He wouldn't give the satisfaction of showing any kind of emotion, except for the few tears he shed on the first of trial. Besides that, they couldn't get anything else out of him, and I think that really did/does bother them. When the verdict was read, from what I saw, Murray seemed to have taken it very well. The fans would've given anything just to see him squirm or show any kind of emotion when the verdict was read, but he didn't. And to tell you the truth, I think it will be the same on the sentencing day...Murray probably knows by now what kind of asshole judge he has who is zealous to hand down whatever maximum sentence he can. I personally don't think that Murray will flinch; which in return will probably infuriate the fans even more--more so that they'll get bulging blood veins protruding out from the side of their heads; sporting the Michael Bolton look, okay. LOL

As for the documentary, I think the fans are really afraid of the documentary because it will be like dejavu all over again like the outcome of the Martin Bashir documentary. They know deep down inside 'something' is there, and they don't want/can't know about it...Exposure is just too devastating for some to handle. They may be successful in stopping the docu here in the U.S., but they can't stop other countries from running it. Either way, it will eventually get out; it's just a matter of time where if the price is right, it will eventually land in the hands of someone here at home...That's a given. Heck, why shouldn't Murray be able to profit financially off of MJ? News flash....MJ's own family has been doing it for YEARS and still are as we speak; even before his death they profited. Such hypocrites! lol The fans really need to quit crying and put their big boy/girl britches on.

The fans have also seem to have forgotten that while Murray 'appeared' guilty because he refused to take the stand, it was many years back during the Chandler scandal that MJ refused to answer questions from the lawyers, but instead decided to plead the Fifth Amendment...And not to mention that MJ himself didn't take the stand in his own defense during the 2005 trial. Oh how quick we forget. lol The fans are full of s***!

Lady C said...

Desiree (cont.)

Not only do the fans and the Jacksons/Jackson Estate want the documentary pulled, but they are also very concerned if the British production company, Zodiak Rights, paid for the expensive defense of Murray. So what if they did?...The man has a right to a good defense even if it means going up against a presumed child molester. People always talk about public defense, but what they don't understand is that you get exactly what you pay for...You got money you got a good defense, without it you're screwed...Johnny Cochran was absolutely right when he said in this country justice is green not black and white. Those who criticize Murray's defense team saying that they were incompetent, have to remember that the deck was stacked so high against him from the very beginning--thanks to Judge Pastor, that Murray's defense team was at a major handicap; they really didn't stand a chance. But in the U.S. we brag about how a person can get a fair trial...Really? The truth in that falls on the judge and how impartial he/she really is--they don't call them judges for nothing, it all starts with them first before the jury even gets involved. In this particular case, Judge Pastor knew exactly what he was doing to 'indirectly' influence the jury to get the outcome that he and the fans wanted. Yeah, it was that obvious. The fans talk about how greedy Murray was/is and how much debt he's in, about $800,000 I read some where, but that's peanuts compared to MJ...He was Broke! Someone put it quite right..."If he hadn't been so broke and shadowy about his love for his "milk" why not set up an entire ICU room at Carolwood?"

I couldn't agree

S.U. said...

wow look that excerpt from that article with Carrie Fisher!

On being a patient of the dentist who sued Michael Jackson:

"Remember that dentist who sued Michael for molesting his kid? Yes, that was my dentist. Evan Chandler, D.D.S. Dentist to the Stars. And this same Dr. Chandler -- long before the lawsuit was brought (though not necessarily before it was contemplated) -- needed someone to brag to about his son's burgeoning friendship with Michael Jackson. (This was years before Michael had children of his own.) And so my 'dentist' would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how much Michael Jackson liked his son. And the most disturbing thing I remember him saying was, 'You know, my son is very good looking.'

"So here was Dr. Chandler telling me how Michael was buying his kid computers and taking him to incredible places and sleeping in the same bed and getting him ... WAIT! 'Hang on,' I said. 'I have to interrupt here. Let's just go back a tic, okay?' 'Sure,' Chandler said. ' They're sleeping in the same bed?!' He blinked. 'Well, yeah, but my ex-wife is always there, so it's okay and his stepfather and ... and ... and ...'

"Then one night some months later, Dr. Chandler came up to my house again and told me that he and his wife were going to sue Michael. 'Why?' I asked. 'Because,' he explained rationally, 'Michael is sleeping in the same bed with my boy.'"

Anonymous said...

I don;t believe you guys! Poor Murray? Michael's fans are nuts? I bet you won't publish my comment due to spam!
You oughta be ashamed of yourselves!

Lady C said...

Well it looks as if the Brits have beaten MSNBC to the punch in the Conrad Murray docu...And from the sound of it, it has really pissed some people off. But it also looks as if Britain won't be the only one airing it...Australia and at least 10 other countries. Well MSNBC, are you going to play ball or what?

J-M-H said...

Here's an article about the Murray interview. it has a video too.

"I would hate to put blame on Michael as an individual," Dr. Conrad Murray told the "Today" show in the interview done days before the doctor's conviction.
"I only wish maybe in our dealings with each other he would have been more forthcoming and tell me these things about himself," he said.
Interviewer Savannah Guthrie asked: "Do you think he lied to you?"
"Definitely," Murray said.
"About what?" she asked.
"Certainly he was deceptive by not showing me his whole medical history, doctors he was seeing, treatments that he might have been receiving." Murray answered.
"Did you really not know he had an addiction problem?" Guthrie asked.
"Absolutely not," said Murray. "Did not have a clue."
During the interview, Murray was shown video of bottles of medications from other physicians arrayed on Jackson's bedside table, suggesting Murray's suspicions should have been raised.
"I cannot prevent Michael from seeing other doctors for whatever reason," the doctor said.
"You must have realized the reason he hired you was to give him this drug, propofol," Guthrie said.
"No, not at all," Murray replied. "I met Michael with propofol. This was not something I introduced to Michael."
Experts testified at Murray's trial that propofol should not have been administered in Jackson's home, but the doctor disagreed.
Murray revealed Jackson was under the influence of propofol during a recording found on the doctor's cell phone. Murray said the recording, in which the heavily drugged Jackson talked in a slurred voice about his goal of building a major children's hospital, was made by accident.
Murray, 58, described Jackson as "a desperate man, desperate" during his final hours.
Asked by Guthrie how it felt to be blamed for Jackson's death, he said, "I loved Michael too. I'm as much of a fan as any of the others. To be blamed for his death has not been an easy thing."
"Are you the cause of Michael Jackson's death?" Guthrie asked.
"No, I am not," Murray said.
The interview with the Houston cardiologist was being aired Thursday and Friday. Other excerpts were released Wednesday.
Under questioning by Guthrie, Murray said it was not necessary for him to monitor Jackson in the hours before he died because he had given the pop star only a small dose of propofol. The doctor said that was the reason he didn't mention to arriving paramedics that Jackson had been given the drug.
Guthrie asked, "Well, you told them about the other drugs, but you didn't tell them about propofol?"
"Because it had no effect," Murray said. "It was not an issue."

"I went there to take care of a healthy man, who said he was fine, to just keep surveillance in case my kids get sick or I get the flu, help us to choose right, better foods, and wash our hands so we don't get infected," Murray said. "But once I got in there I was entrapped."

Frenchie said...

Suzy, when did Carrie Fischer say that? In Ray Chandler's book, he says Evan and Carrie discussed his son's relationship with Michael, Carrie asked around about it, and a high up member of MJ's security team told her that the relationship was dangerous for Jordan.

J-M-H said...


Interesting anecdote from Carrie Fisher, even though it is nothing new or explosive. Seems to me that Evan Chandler was, like all the parents, taken with Mike and was proud to have him interested in their kid. This was obviously something that Mike liked, being able to have the parents eat out of his hand.

I find it interesting that he mentioned that Jordie was good-looking, almost as if that was a reason for Mike liking him or that it helped Jordie's friendship with Mike. It's like he's implying that Mike had an obvious attraction to his son. If you've read Victor Gutierrez's book, there was the part in the chronology that Evan wrote for his lawyers that he thought it was some sort of "gay" relationship or something. He did even ask Mike directly if he was gay, although Mike laughed and said no. In the phone conversations with Dave Schwartz, he alluded to Mike and Jordie having a strange sort of relationship.

20 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. At that point he[Michael]

21 liked us better than -- Jordy too. Jordy's the

22 same as Michael. It was a simple divide and

23 conquer. They felt us both out.

24 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

25 MR. CHANDLER: They saw who was going

1 to let them do what they wanted to do, and then

2 they made their choice.


4 MR. CHANDLER: And until I had a talk

5 with Jordy one day at [tape irregularity] --


7 MR. CHANDLER: -- they were gonna come

8 live with me. They were gonna pack up, leave

9 June's house, and come here.

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

11 MR. CHANDLER: That's what they were

12 going to do, because they were getting more

13 resistance from her than they were getting from me.

14 You cannot tell this stuff -- you cannot -- I'm

15 confiding in you, okay, Dave?

16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

17 MR. CHANDLER: Right? That's --

18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Absolutely.

19 MR. CHANDLER: Nobody's to know this

20 conversation --

21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

22 MR. CHANDLER: -- (simultaneous,

23 inaudible) except you and me; is that right?

24 MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

25 MR. CHANDLER: You promise me?

1 MR. SCHWARTZ: I promise you.

2 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What I'm telling

3 you is that Jordy and Michael are users.


5 MR. CHANDLER: They had -- they were

6 gonna -- they had their own relationship.


8 MR. CHANDLER: They want to carry it

9 out the way they want to carry it out. They don't

10 want anybody getting in the way [tape

11 irregularity] -- least resistance, and that's the

12 way they're going
. They simply divided and

13 conquered, and June went along with it. And she

14 was wrong because she did it to the detriment of

15 Jordy.

16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

17 MR. CHANDLER: Jordy is not old enough

18 to make these kind of [tape irregularity] that he's

19 making.

It's possible that Evan knew that Mike was a boy lover and used it to his advantage, or he was just a trusting "liberal" (as he even said) parent that would have let Jordie be with Mike had Mike not offended Evan in some way. Who knows. The main point is that it's not whether Evan Chandler wanted money over "justice" for Jordie begin molested. Many would choose to take $20 mil. It's whether Mike molested boys. Motivation of the parents--pimps or not--has really no bearing on Mike's own pedo actions and behaviors.

Desiree said...


"I don;t believe you guys! Poor Murray? Michael's fans are nuts? I bet you won't publish my comment due to spam!
You oughta be ashamed of yourselves!"

No, I would have deleted this comment because it doesn't conform to Rule #2. However, if the person says something of note, interesting, or worth responding to, I tend to let this 'I Don't Wanna Use a Name!' BS slide.

As for the substance of your comment, my reasoning for showcasing sympathy for Murray is illuminated in this post as well as the last one.

Do I think fans are 'nuts'? Yes, the fanatical ones are and, unfortunately, they seem to make up the bulk of you people. Anyone who can utter from their mouths or type from their fingers, "Murray killed a father of three," is completely delusional.


Because Michael Jackson asked for it, or begged for his 'milk' according to Murray. Simple as that. Jacko knew what he was doing and that it was potentially dangerous. And he didn't care; let that percolate: HE WANTED PROPOFOL, HE ORDAINED ITS USAGE, AND HE DIDN'T CARE WHO GAVE IT TO HIM!

If you don't want to accept these really simple facts, that is fine. You are entitled to believe what you believe; however, it doesn't change the facts of the case.

Michael Jackson orphaned his own kids when he decided to abuse drugs, especially something as potentially dangerous as propofol.

J-M-H said...

I was just looking at the TV listings for my area and it does list that at 7:00pm and 8:00pm PST they will be playing the Murray documentary, on MSNBC. So the fact that it's still listed gives me hope, LOL! Fingers crossed! Hopefully the fans and the Estate don't get to NBC before tomorrow. I sort of get the pulling of the autopsy show; it's insensitive, although I have no doubt it would have been highly interesting.

J-M-H said...

Suzy, when did Carrie Fischer say that?

Frenchie, that's from Carrie Fisher's new book. I was wondering if see is giving it a certain "spin" because she's BFF with Arnold Klein. As you pointed out, it seems a tad different from the All That Glitters book and Evan's own words in his chronology. she's making it seem that she was the one that had a WTF moment when he told her about Jordie's relationship with Mike.

Lady C said...


The last time I checked, the docu is still scheduled. It'd due to air at 9:00 in my area...already have the DVR set to record. From the sound of it according to TMZ, it's an interesting piece. We shall see, I hope! LOL

Desiree said...

LOL... Joe Jackson and his sidekick, Brian Oxman, are still planning on suing someone for Jacko's death:

It also said that they are working with one of Murray's lawyers to go after other doctors like Klein.

The funny thing to me is that these Jacksons continue to try to minimize Jacko's addictions and self-culpability. And who the hell does Joe Jackson think he is trying to get money for Jacko's death when he was the one who opened Jacko up to sexual abuse by seedy businessman when he was a kid?

He's part of the reason Jacko was so screwed up in the first place. All the Jacksons care about is money.

I don't know whether to shake my head or laugh out loud.

S.U said...

Lady C,

I saw a comment from a f´loon, she claimed that she had seen the documentary last night and Murray was a of course she thinks it.

J-M-H said...


I heard the same thing, from fans. I think anyone that thinks Mike was not at all responsible for his own death doesn't want to accept any explanation for why he did what he did. I think we should hear what he has to say.

Interesting article about the documentary. Murray's driver said that the producers of the film "owned" him:

He also says this: "I feel very bad for him," Perry said. "I think he was a good man that was preyed upon by people that felt his guard was down. I feel he was led to make some decisions that caused him to be where he is today."

Seems to me that this statement can include the pop star who demanded his "milk".

Lady C said...


"It also said that they are working with one of Murray's lawyers to go after other doctors like Klein."

WTH? LOL!...Why the hell does "Crazy Joe" want to use one of Murray's lawyers to go after the other doctors like Klein? Can't David Walgren fit that bill himself? That whole suing someone over MJ's death is ridiculous, but using one of Murray's lawyers is absurd! I can't believe he would even want to consider that option...The Jackson family are definitely a different breed of folks alright. What will be next?lol


The f'loons's comments are soooo predictable just like the rest of their actions. It's like a complete

S.U. said...

I don´t know if the documentary will air in my country, if you see it please post here what you saw ;)

btw, another anecdote about Michael and his paedophilia! The third one in that week!

Dear Matt, do you care about the Michael Jackson verdict? – P. Hilden

I would’ve cared a lot more if it had been a “guilty” verdict, convicting Michael Jackson of touching trusting children below the belt. I understand Michael Jackson grew up around all sorts of horrors: an abusive father, a pet rat named “Ben,” La Toya. But none of those things are an excuse for a grown man to have slumber parties, then to use children as his personal sock puppets. So I wasn’t exactly overcome with grief when his doctor put him down. Just because you’re the King of Pop doesn’t entitle you to such behavior. If you want to get away with those kinds of shenanigans, you should at least go through the proper channels by getting a job at the Vatican or becoming a coach at Penn State.

STROKER said...

lady crawl back in you cave, the trial is over ,nothing left to go over on michael jackson push on. soon this site will die out when ppl become less enamored with michael as they are now, especially the haters, the y are only here because the trial is still fresh, that will end and so will you avid readers. really why do you think michael was alone in that mansion, drugs, crazy, perhaps , nooooo, it was because nobody really cared that is why he befriended a bufoon who killed him. and here you are like the other leches making pennies off his name . for shame you pitiful gasbag , push on.

STROKER said...

it dont have to be visible after aproval ho it is just for you only and i know you reading it.

Desiree said...


I would never miss the opportunity to publish one of your rants, especially since you continue to amuse with your 'you' for 'your' grammatical gaffes! Don't forget to hit that "r" at the end next time, okay? ;-)

Anyway, I've had readers before the Murray trial and readers will stop reading this blog only once I am done writing about Michael Jackson; hell, even then there will always be someone looking for information and will end up here when this site is just floating in cyberspace. Apparently, there are tons of people who are interested in this guy's life; I am simply supplying to them the other side of his sordid tale, one that seems to remain conspicuously unexamined by Michael Jackson fans.

Most people should be well-aware that there are no sites, outside of, that discuss Jacko's other legacy. None.

I don't understand your deal, STROKER; you say Jacko was washed up and intimate that he was a has-been and, yet, you get so angry about my examination of his story. Certainly, you can't have a problem with my quoting from/linking to books, news articles, videos, court documents, or court transcripts, right?

What's wrong with this site being an aggregate of information related to Jacko's child molestation woes? Do you have a problem with fans ripping to shreds his boy accusers (and he's had many) and calling them liars?

I think you need to take a chill pill, dude; Michael Jackson was not two-dimensional but multi-faceted. The fact I can go months and months writing about the dark side of his life--and convincingly show that there is at least reasonable suspicion that he was, in fact, a pedophile child molester--tends to suggest that there are truths to be uncovered.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But blame Michael Jackson, not me. What you ought to do is not worship a celebrity because they will disappoint you and the truth is fucking ugly...

And, for the record, it's laughable to even suggest that I make any money from this site. I wish; it's definitely hard work.

Desiree said...

Okay, I watched both airings of the documentary and wrote down some key points to share (for you, Suzy!). I also embedded the interviews Murray made with the Today Show's Savannah Guthrie before the jump (I think everyone should watch those--Guthrie was a typical biased reporter but Murray appeared honest and straightforward).

All in all, I find Murray highly credible in his telling of what happened. And the picture of Michael Jackson that he'd painted was that of a very manipulative and desperate drug addict. I'm even more convinced that Murray's conviction was a travesty of justice; Jacko manipulated the situation to get what he wanted from whoever had been the target of his manipulations.

I should note that this may be a different version that aired in the UK; this one was only slated to fill a one-hour timeslot. Anyone who has seen the British/UK broadcast is encouraged to add to what may have been left on the cutting room floor for our American broadcast.

As for the documentary, Murray came off as a devout man, someone who cared about Jacko. In my opinion he did not seem sleazy or shady or like any of the other bullshit the media tried to describe him as. He was human; he didn't seem like a bad guy at all and his words, as I've said before, had they came before the jury—given the fact that one juror said it was not a unanimous decision at first—could have prevented him from being convicted. He was very compelling, although I've long accepted the FACT of Jacko's addictions and addictive behaviors.

A rundown of the doc based on some notes I'd written while I watched it both times (NOTE: there is a bit of commentary, so take it for what it is worth; however, my goal is to always put things together in this giant puzzle of Jacko's life so things make more sense):

*You see signs from rabid Jacko fans outside of the courtroom, placards showing Jacko's face with the headline, “I was murdered,” as well as fans chanting, “Conrad Murderer”. Later on in the film, you see aggressive confrontations between these fans and some Murray supporters; one black woman was very, very hostile and violently shoved a Murray supporters placard from in front of her face—this all shows the types of people rational people are dealing with.
*A tender moment of Murray in the van with his mother and he tells her, “Mummy... Please be strong.”
*The doc makes it clear that the This Is It concerts were devised to help Jacko get out of debt--this should emphasize and put into perspective that tremendous amount of pressure Jacko was under to perform.
*In an interview segment, Murray says that he would never betray Jacko's trust in him; this should make people realize the dangerous and manipulative relationship he was in with Jacko.
Murray says that he feels his situation with being accused of killing Jacko and the trial, etc. was akin to the story of David and Goliath: 'Goliath' is the whole world against him and he is 'David', someone who was not supposed to be victorious but has God with him.
*A substantial part of the documentary shows the behind-the-scenes with Murray's defense lawyers; it was attorney Ed Chernoff who came up with the theory that Jacko gave himself the fatal dose of propofol, etc. He says something interesting, too; he says that the media was “hostile”, and that they made Murray out to be someone who “came from hell and was sent to earth to kill Michael Jackson.”
*2006: Murray came into Jacko's life to tend to his kids, suggested to Jacko by one of his bodyguards. Murray had then been a part of Jacko's life on and off ever since.

Desiree said...


*Murray reveals that Jacko used to try to hide from the rabid fans who'd track wherever he was living at the moment. The fans and paparazzi constantly stalked him.
*A tender moment: Murray says he and Jacko shared a commonality in that they both had difficult relationships with their fathers: Murray says his father didn't acknowledge him publicly until he was in his 20s and that, while his father was affectionate, Murray couldn't showcase that affection in public.
*Murray reveals the tragic reality that he'd seen Jacko cry “so many times” and that he told Jacko that he could cry and that it was “okay” for him to cry. This should highlight that Michael Jackson was an extremely tortured and damaged individual, as well as show why it is not surprising that someone so messed up would have many addictions.
*Another example of Michael Jackson's manipulative behaviors (“deceptive” as Murray said in the interview above): Murray says that Jacko was always searching for 'true' friends, and that he was told by Jacko that he was Jacko's best friend. I should reveal that I was told by Jason Pfeiffer himself that he believed he was the closest friend Jacko had had at the time of his death. We also cannot forget people like Elizabeth Taylor, who deeply loved Jacko. For the record, while Michael Jackson was telling Jason and Murray that they were his 'best friends', he was also trying to get something from them: drugs, or access to them. Recall that Jacko told Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that the only individuals that could keep him from killing himself were boys, as what was also mentioned in the song lyrics to “Stranger in Moscow”; it seems that everyone who was not a kid/young boy were simply objects to Jacko in some capacity, means to some kind of end—his true love was only for minors.
*There is a moment in the documentary that show the Murray defense lawyers as seemingly incompetent: attorney Mike Flanagan is shown calling Murray “Dr. Murphy”, and asks, “What is his name?”
*Murray says that Jacko said to him that he'd “watched” Murray, he “looked at him”; Murray says, “Why are you looking at me?” or something to that effect, and Jacko tells him that he'd been watching him and looking at him as a “test”, and that he knew that Murray was “the one”. All of this showed Michael Jackson as calculating and manipulative, a typical addict.
The documentary said that Jacko had been pressuring Murray to close his practices for several months so that he could become Murray's only patient.
*The mansion Jacko lived in was rented by AEG.
Inside the mansion there was a “chamber”, a room, that was only for Jacko and was off-limits to everyone, even his children. Pictures of the room were booked as evidence and they revealed them in the film: the room was extremely dirty, cluttered; dolls were on the bed, tons of pictures of babies and a young boy littered the dresser; there was trash on the floor, a bag stuffed in the toilet, food wrappers. Murray said that the room smelled and that it had mildew; he said he had to get it cleaned. Again, no one was allowed in the room.
About this room, Flanagan believed if the public saw the pictures of that room it could have been a game-changer, in that maybe people wouldn't idolize Jacko as much: his wife is heard saying that here's a “50-year-old male” who “sleeps with babydolls” and has infants and children “looking at him” every night; Flanagan says that he thinks everything about Jacko is “sick” and that Jacko was “completely weird”.

Desiree said...


*The documentary proves that Jacko was not healthy enough to do those concerts, even though he was desperate to do the shows. He arrived late to many rehearsals and often didn't do much at them. 5 days before Jacko's death, Kenny Ortega says that Jacko was not healthy; he says, though, that Jacko wanted to go on and that Jacko was scared he would fail. This should highlight the tremendous pressure of the Murray-Michael sleep situation—it was very important that Jacko would be ready.
*AEG was funding everything—Jacko was in debt, recall.
*Michael Jackson had a severe sleep disorder and it said that Murray was told by Jacko that he used propofol to help him sleep; Murray says Jacko said that he needed sleep to for composure and to properly function, etc.
*Murray says that Jacko told him that his other doctors who'd used propofol with him used to put him under for 15-18 hours at a time with the drug!
*Murray recounts that Jacko had asked to be put under for sometimes just 10-20 minutes' Murray would ask, “How will that help you?” but Jacko would continue to beg for it. This is all highly revealing of a desperate human being.
*There's a moment in the van where Murray is reacting to something that'd happened in the courtroom where Flanagan had cross-examined the prosecution's cardiologist witness and fumbled on the evidence of the case. Murray says that the doctor was stupid and simple, and that he could have cross-examined him and sliced him with a “sword”. He said that his lawyers need to talk to him and come to him about information in the case because he's available to answer questions about the facts. He said he was very pissed off at that situation in court. The scene showed Murray as competent, in my opinion.
*Murray says that 2 days before Jacko's death, Jacko had been weaned off the sleeps with propofol; Kenny Ortega was shown saying those last days Jacko seemed better.
*Murray says those successful performances “excited” Jacko and Jacko was concerned about sleep.
*Murray says that Jacko begged for “milk” and that he when he couldn't sleep that last night he became hysterical. Murray said Jacko told him that basically no sleep meant no shows and AEG would be upset and that everything that he'd worked for with the concerts would go down the drain.
*Murray said that he didn't want to give him the medication (“milk”) that Jacko had been begging for; he said there was lots of pressure on him to give Jacko propofol that night; he said he rubbed Jacko's feet and was worried about him.
Murray says that he decided to give him 25mg slowly infused into his system to allow the other medications (pills) to work for Jacko. Murray said that the medications Jacko had been using were not normal and that he said he told Jacko that he could have put an elephant to sleep with them.
*Murray says that it was like a break to get away from Michael Jackson when he was asleep after he was begging for drugs; he also said that it was not unusual for him to make calls or return them while Jacko was asleep.
*During a call, when Murray realized Jacko was not breathing, he says he wondered if it was the pills had “overwhelmed him”; for the record, Murray has continued to maintain that he does not believe the amount of propofol that he'd given Jacko could have killed him.

Desiree said...


*There's an interview within the documentary dated to November 2009: in it, Murray becomes animated as he recounts the day of Jacko's death. He says he tried to revive him and when one of the security detail arrived—Alberto Alvarez—Alvarez remained “static” in the doorway. He emphasizes that this person was incompetent and unhelpful during the situation. Murray says he wanted to keep the kids away and told Alvarez to call 911 as he continued to do CPR. Murray shows frustration as he recalls that Alvarez had to be coached on how to talk to the 911 operator and tell him the details of the situation. Muray's own words contrast with the idea that he was complacent—Murray suggests that he was doing lots of things at once and on his own.
*Murray's lawyers are shown discussing with the other propofol expert witness, Dr. White, that Murray was being made to look like a non-doctor and less than a layperson by prosecutors; a disagreement about how to approach the Prosecution witness, Dr. Schafer, leads to Flanagan not being able to cross that witness. Chernoff's position was that experts shouldn't be challenged in their fields of expertise. Chernoff says that he's fighting the prosecution and the judge.
*By the end of the film, Murray says that he was re-evaluating his relationship with Michael Jackson and says that he did not think Jacko had the conscious mind to cause him harm but that there was a level of “betrayal” that was “intertwined” in their relationship. This would suggest that Murray is realizing that he was somewhat duped by Jacko, the addict.
*In the same November 2009 interview, Murray is shown breaking down into tears, telling how he “punched the wall” in the emergency room; he says that he loved Jacko. He then tells the interviewer that he didn't want to talk anymore.

The documentary was simply illuminating and a lot of information about this case came full circle. What seems to be self-evident was that a lot of the Prosecution's case was flashy and based in half-truths. What Murray was doing with Jacko was not some 'secret experiment'; it was fully arranged by Michael Jackson who had used the drug before. Hearing Murray's side of the story, seeing that he is half of it, just makes everything more complete.

Again, it is a tragedy he didn't tell his side to the jury; he should have taken the stand and, as an intelligent man, he would have done fine. The problem is that attorneys are often so worried about their client looking bad and jurors being incapable of nuance that they buck the opportunity, even when it could do some good. I have no doubt in my mind that if the jurors were fair and intelligent, they would have to acquit. The charge was murder—involuntary manslaughter. The insane thing is—and the judge was too biased to even stop the BS—is that even though the charge leveled at Murray explicitly suggests no intent was involved, you have the Prosecution backhandedly suggesting that intent was there in this 'secret experiment' crap.

Really, a travesty of justice.

Good documentary. One thing is for sure: Michael Jackson is definitely not worth adoration and zealotry. I feel sorry for those crazy f'loons. They should realize that even if Murray has to serve all four years (and he won't; he'll probably do a year, tops), it doesn't change the fact Jacko was addicted to drugs and boys.

Anonymous said...

I am so devastated by this verdict. This family is looking for justice to clear their own guilt. How can you be a christian and say you have no sympathy?? I have deep sympathy because regardless of this man's profession as a doctor, mamy doctors that I have worked for do and would have done the same thing. Other doctors know this. They would administer and treat, with meds friends and colleagues without even ever seeing them as a patient. This man felt sorry for Michael and under pressure assisted in trying to help him. I strongly believe that he had other meds and other treatments in his system as well that Dr. Murray had no knowledge of. I don't believe for one minute that this man should do one day in jail or prison for Michael's death. Michael killed himself and if not then would have eventually done so. God help people's minds and lack of empathy for the real victim, Dr. Murray.

Frenchie said...

It's too bad Flanagan didn't cross-examine Dr. Schafer as they originally intended. All Flanagan really had to do was go over the questions and possible responses with Dr. White ahead of time. It essentially would have been Dr White (a man with years more experience than Schafer and his former teacher) questioning Schafer by proxy. Chernoff's cross of Schafer was weak; it was almost as if he threw in the towel at that point.

Flanagan supposedly wanted Murray to take the stand, but I'm not sure it would have helped. The prosecutor's cross-examination strategy with Dr. White was basically distort and mock every response given until White looked like a senile old schmuck. It was nauseating to watch an attorney resort to bullying an accomplished doctor and shatter his professional reputation. I think he would have done the same to Murray. Obviously it wouldn't have made the outcome any worse though.

Frenchie said...

Here is the British version of the documentary. It's preceded by a 12-minute interview with Dr. Murray.

Elena said...

Thanks for the link, Frenchie. I saw part of it on YouTube but the image and sound quality were really poor and I don't think it was complete. (I don't know which version was either). I think it's pretty good. Like Desiree said, the British documentaries on Michael are usually the best ones. And when the Jackson family and the f'loons are so upset about it you know it's gotta be interesting LOL.

Murray was clearly very caught up with the whole situation but he didn't have bad intentions or anything, why would he? He was being paid $150.000 a month after all. And even without the money, he seemed to care about Michael. He could have said much more damaging things about him and he still didn't (even after all that's happened). For example, in the trial, they mentioned something about some creams that Michael wouldn't want the world to know about. The bleaching creams, obviously. And I'm sure that's one of the many things he knows but isn't saying because he's just not that kind of guy. And that only makes him more credible, which the fans can't stand.

By the way, did Michael say "I've always been looking for a friend but there's not really anyone I can trust until I met you, you're my only real friend" to pretty much anyone? I've heard that so many times from so many different people who knew Michael I've lost count of all the "only friends" he had LOL. I bet he also played that card with the young boys to make them feel special. He seemed to always use the "we're BFFs" thing everytime he wanted to get something out of someone, either drugs or sex.

//By the way, this is Quincy's opinion on the veredict:

I agree with him. And the fans have gone nuts, obviously...

Desiree said...

Frenchie, thanks a million for the video link! I posted the video before the jump so everyone can see how credible Murray was! (No having to rely on my notes.)

The documentary just proves that the Prosecution's case was simply filled with a lot of distortions of the evidence. I believe it was A.G. who'd mentioned it before that you could tell that Prosecutors were taking talking points the media, relying on many of their 'gotcha' headlines and reduced catch-alls (as I've said in the above entry).

Hewlett badgered him, I believe, but, regardless of that, it seemed that it was a good thing that Murray was thrown a lot of pointed questions. It's the same with Savannah Guthrie's interviews. And Murray rose to the occasion.

It was amazing to see how disparate the Prosecution's case was from reality (or from a big, consequential part of reality). Murray became agitated with Hewlett because I imagine it has to be quite frustrating that these reporters continue to ask him distorted facts ('half-truths') based on the State's case against him. But, again, it was like a cross-examination, and he survived it. I was impressed and I'm sure jurors would be as well.

So why the hell didn't he get up on that stand?

One thing that I'd appreciated was the fact that Murray clarified his timeline and, assuming for this instance that his version of events are credible, it does not show someone who was so 'egregious' and reckless. It seemed like his phone calls were harmless. It also seemed like he left because he thought the propofol was gone and that Jacko'd be sleeping on the 'safe' pills.

Also, Murray made it known that he did not come to a situation where the 'patient' was healthy and he could be there to supply with the 'bright idea' of using propofol to get Jacko to sleep, like the State seemed to suggest with this 'secret experiment' bullshit! And that jives with Jason Pfeiffer and Cherilynn Lee who said he was looking for someone to give him his 'milk'!

The Prosecutors and the media have so distorted what happened that evening and the dynamics of he and Jacko's relationship it is infuriating. I enjoyed seeing Murray get upset about these people saying he was 'culpable' and that he was 'responsible' for Jacko's death just because he didn't write notes or that he didn't do XYZ. Yeah, it's a diversion tactic to get away from the fact Jacko wanted his 'milk'!

That was exactly what the State (and, of course, the media) relied on to get a conviction! If you think about it, what was missing from the trial was a real discussion of Michael Jackson's drug abuse, his desperation for his 'milk', and that he'd wanted it at all costs.

I wonder if Judge Pastor hadn't been so cretinous and allowed for witnesses to Jacko's real behaviors to come on stand and for the Defense to discuss other doctors, would this whole thing be different.

Team Murray made tons of mistakes--they should have put Murray on the stand--that resulted in a wrongful conviction.

If fans (forget the f'loons) were rational and intelligent, they'd be able to look at the documentary and, at the very least, see the situation between Michael Jackson and Conrad Murray as complex, not boil it down and chalk it up to, "MJ was MURDERED!!!!11"


S.U. said...


Thanks for the doc description. So Michael´s room stank? eww lol


I would post Quincy view on Murray´s verdict too. Interesting, it´s like some people in Michael´s life can´t be quiet and began to talk. btw he had said already that Michael bleached his skin.
Someone in a fan board post his twitter if someone wanted to "say" him

Desiree said...


"Thanks for the doc description. So Michael´s room stank? eww lol"

You can watch the full documentary at the top of this post now. :-)

Yeah, Michael Jackson's room stunk. How many people have said that he smells now? Taraborrelli? He pickled himself with cologne probably to cover up bad body odor; you had La Toya saying that when he was really into making an album, he wouldn't bathe for days and would smell up the studio; now you have this stinky room, which, I should clarify, the stinky room was his bedroom--the secret chamber is another room and it was littered with trash.

He must have had really bad hygiene; according to that clip I'd linked to from TMZ, it looked as though Murray was going to detail something about 'dirty Jacko'. LOL.

Oh! In one of the descriptions Jordie Chandler made about Jacko's genitals to authorities, he said Jackson's "body oil stink". Whatever that means; gross!

"Someone in a fan board post his twitter if someone wanted to "say" him"

LOL. What can a fan say to Quincy Jones? They are so delusional in thinking that they can defend Jacko's legacy against someone who knows him.

Desiree said...


Thanks for the link about Quincy Jones. I have this feeling that there is some bad blood between he and Jacko that he's not detailing. Or, perhaps, he's just now 'telling it like it is' since he now has the opportunity to look at their relationship and Jacko himself in retrospect.

I'm going to post that part of the news article with Quincy Jones. He is so real!

Guilty finding on Jackson's doctor a joke, says Quincy
Alexander Ritman

Nov 11, 2011

DUBAI // Two days after Dr Conrad Murray, the personal physician of Michael Jackson, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the star's record producer and mentor has spoken out against the result.

"It's a joke," said Quincy Jones, 78, Jackson's producer on the hit albums Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad, which together have sold more than 160 million copies.

Speaking in Dubai, Jones said if Murray had not been treating Jackson there would have been another medical practitioner doing exactly the same.

"People of Michael's stature get whatever they want, it just goes with the territory," said the producer, who has earned a record 79 Grammy nominations over five decades. "There were 40 other doctors lined up to do the same thing, whatever it is.

"I don't know why a guy would kill someone who's giving him US$150,000 [Dh551,000] a month."

J-M-H said...

I thought the doc was very illuminating and I really wish Murray had got on the stand. He would have set the record straight, or at least, gave the jurors something more to thing about instead of just what Walgren and the media wants everyone to believe. I think that was the funny thing, that it seemed that the prosecutors had to almost winnow out everything that rational people would have viewed as suspect on Mike's part. they had to streamline their case so the only way they could secure a conviction was if they focused in on "deviations" from the standards of care. I just don't think that should be enough to have someone be labeled a felon, realistically speaking. At most this is a civil case.

As for Murray himself, I thought he seemed like a good guy that genuinely cared about Mike and wanted to do what he was asked to do, which was help him prepare for the concerts. As I pasted from the driver, I think Murray was taken advantage of. I mean seriously it's Michael Jackson, and he is loving on you and making you feel special and that you are his only "true friend"... it's a lot to deal with. In all, find Murray very believable. It was a tragic accident. Mike was a desperate man that had everything riding on his ability to perform, why wouldn't he do anything in his power so that he'd be successful? Duh! LOL. And because of his almost pathological need for success, he was willing to start using propofol and benzos to sleep. It's sad.

I wonder if Demerol had anything to do with his inability to get sleep? I'd think a drug that puts you in a depressive, knocked out state would mess with your sleep patterns. Maybe all those trips to dear ol' Arnie contributed to his problem. I also love how we got the real story of his "awesome" rehearsals that were in TII. Seems like it was just from those days that he got real true sleep, when Murray had, as he claimed, got him to sleep without the propofol. That was what was annoying about the prosecution, they acted as if he was always 100% and Murray callously put him down for the final count. Even that "stupid" (as Murray said) cardiologist the State had said Mike was healthier than most people his age because his heart didn't have plaque in it. That is bullshit, he was a drug addict; by de facto he's automatically uninsurable. It's distortion. I wonder what the jurors would think if they say the doc. Would they have voted differently?

His attorneys seemed slightly incompetent but I think they were trying with what the judge allowed. I mean, realistically, the crux of the matter is that Mike was a drug addict and his history is relevant. As Ed Chernoff said, he was up against the judge and the prosecution. Murray basically said that Mike's tolerance was so high that he couldn't even get to sleep with what you could put an elephant down with. thus his drug history was relevant.

Fans need to get a life, you can't upbraid everyone that speaks out against Mike, especially Quincy Jones. It's silly. And don't forget he said he loved Marc Schaffel, too, because he wanted the "supersize fries" that Schaffel could provide... plus other things according to reports.

Desiree said...

Here's an article about the new Frank Cascio book. He says something that I though was quite interesting: that he and Jacko had gotten stoned a couple of times up in the mountains.

Does that NOT directly correlate with what Aaron Carter said, that he and Jacko smoked weed together? Hmm... seems like Aaron Carter wasn't lying after all! I bet Frank Cascio won't give a date on when he and Jacko got 'stoned'; I bet he was a teen.

Also, he confirms some stuff that Jermaine Jackson had told to Stacy Brown about only marrying women (Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe) because he was partnering up with Muslims who believed in family. Bob Jones said the same thing.

Sounds like these people weren't so shady after all. Funny that Cascio says this trpe and yet still tries to claim that Jacko was heterosexual. LOL.

Desiree said...


New book offers glimpse of Jackson's personal life
By MESFIN FEKADU - Associated Press | AP – 11 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — A personal assistant-turned-personal manager to Michael Jackson said the King of Pop had been taking propofol as early as 1999, and that the singer was drugged up ahead of his 2001 30th anniversary concerts.
Frank Cascio, who became a family friend to Jackson at age 5 and eventually one of the singer's closest friends and employees, writes in a new book that he first noticed Jackson taking the drug Demerol while accompanying the singer on his "Dangerous" tour in 1993.
He writes in his new book, "My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man," that Jackson started the first of two anniversary shows in 2001 an hour late as a result of being drugged up in his dressing room.
"My naive belief that Michael wouldn't let his medicine interfere with the show blew up in my face," Cascio writes. "I can't begin to describe my disappointment and panic at this moment."
The Associated Press bought an advance copy of the book, which is set for release Nov. 15 by William Morrow, an imprint of News Corp.'s HarperCollins.
Cascio became a friend of Jackson's after his father introduced him to the singer; Cascio's father worked at the Hemsley Palace in Manhattan, managing the hotel's towers and suites, where Jackson stayed. Following that, a 5-year-old Cascio and his younger brother Eddie, spent time with Jackson at his Neverland Ranch.
He says Jackson was first introduced to Demerol in 1984 when he burned his head during a Pepsi commercial shoot, and Cascio writes that he first noticed Jackson using the medicine on his "Dangerous" tour.
"Now, on tour, and again in deep physical pain, Michael turned back to those drugs," he wrote.
Cascio says Jackson also took propofol in 1999 in Munich when the singer was 50 feet in the air and instead of coming down slowly, the platform Jackson was on fell down. Cascio also writes that Jackson had taken Demerol to treat the skin disease vitiligo, and grew worried about his drug use.
"It had become clear to me that Michael's drug use was escalating," he wrote. Cascio said sometimes he paid doctors in cash "because all of Michael's medical issues had to be kept from the public and their cost off the books." He also said he had some of the prescriptions written out in his name.
"Over the years, I had grown accustomed to seeing doctors coming and going, particularly in late tours, when Michael was under great stress and needed help falling asleep."
Cascio said he wanted to seek out help, but didn't know who to turn to. Ahead of Jackson's 2001 anniversary shows, he said he spoke to Janet, Randy and Tito about their brother's drug use. He writes that Jackson's siblings approached him, but the singer "simply pushed them away."
The pop star's doctor, Conrad Murray, was convicted Monday of involuntary manslaughter for supplying the insomnia-plagued Jackson with the powerful operating-room anesthetic propofol to help him sleep as he rehearsed for his big comeback.

Desiree said...


"But in the end, physical and mental anguish prevailed, and Michael died in his endless quest to attain some inner peace," Cascio writes.
"My Friend Michael" also takes a look at some of Jackson's personal and professional moments, providing a somewhat behind-the-scenes look at the King of Pop's life.
Cascio writes that he and Jackson "had gotten stoned on a few occasions up in the mountains," and that Jackson would drink wine out of juice bottles and soda cans.
Cascio and the singer grew close, and in 1993 when Jackson had been accused of child molestation charges, he asked the Cascio family to visit him in Israel while he was on tour. He later asked if the young boys could stay on tour with him.
"He went to my father and broke down crying," Cascio writes. "People might question my parents' judgment in sending two young boys off to spend time alone with a man who had been accused of molesting another boy. But to us, the suggestion that we were in any danger was completely absurd."
Jackson invited Cascio to work as his personal assistant a year after he graduated high school. He later became his personal manager.
Throughout the book, Cascio writes that Jackson never had sex with children, but had a love for them and wanted to father 10 kids in total.
Cascio says Princess Diana was at the top of Jackson's list of women he wanted to date, and that Jackson made out with one of his fan club members.
"He tended to like tall, slender women whom I'd describe as nerdy in a sexy way," he writes.
Cascio also said that Jackson used to claim that dancer and rapper Omer Bhatti, long rumored to be his love child by a Norwegian woman, was his son, though Cascio did not believe him. Jackson later admitted that it wasn't true.
"By way of an explanation, Michael gave me the same reason he'd given for his marriages to Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe. He needed to show the Saudi prince and the rest of the Arab business world that he had a family," Cascio writes.
When he worked as his personal manager, Cascio said he had to interfere when John McClain, now the co-executor of Jackson's estate, and the director of Jackson's "You Rock My World" music video, wanted the singer "to use makeup to darken Michael's skin for the video" and "to fill in his nose with putty." Cascio said Jackson locked himself in a bathroom and cried.
"They think I'm ugly?" Jackson asked. "They think I'm a freak, they think I'm a freak, they think I'm a freak."

The book sounds sort of interesting. I might throw him some money just to read the more colorful lies and see if he tells something more believable.

Desiree said...

I forgot to bold the part where Frank Cascio says that Jacko was taking Demerol to help him with his vitiligo during the Dangerous Tour.


I know people may want to call bullshit on that one, but, I have the strangest feeling that Jacko probably told him that when he was with him on the tour. Cascio was Jordie Chandler's age.

Either way: what a crock of shit.

Let's not forget that his defense lawyer Susan Yu pretty much said the same thing: Jacko was getting 'injections' to help treat his 'vetiligo'(sic), as she wrote in the 14 Items court doc. The Prosecutors said there was no known injectable treatments for vitiligo.

Guess it was just Frank said.


Frenchie said...

Thanks for posting, Desiree. I'm pleasantly surprised that Frank's book is so candid. Fans are totally going to put a hit out on him. LOL.

"By way of an explanation, Michael gave me the same reason he'd given for his marriages to Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe. He needed to show the Saudi prince and the rest of the Arab business world that he had a family,"

That still doesn't explain why he lied to Frank. Frank wasn't a wealthy Arab businessman that Michael needed to impress; he was just some fist pumping guido.

I don't entirely dismiss the possibility that Frank was more of a Corey Feldman to Michael than a Jordan Chandler--someone that he was inappropriate with but not necessarily molesting. If that's the case, perhaps Michael lied to Frank to justify his relationship with Omer. I'm sure Michael was openly affectionate with Omer as he was with all of his special friends. Frank may have found their relationship odd, and Michael tried to ease his discomfort by claiming that Omer was his son.

Desiree said...


Very interesting comment.

"Fans are totally going to put a hit out on him. LOL."

Yes! The fans in the comments said that Frank wasn't a 'true friend' of Jacko's for writing about his secrets. These fans are at a constant state of agitation; they are simply petrified that someone is going to say something about their Beloved Jacko that they won't be able to defend and will confirm all of their worst fears.

You know... about the 'haters' winning... LOL.

And especially since he pretty much, by way of corroboration, confirmed Aaron Carter's claim that he and Jacko had smoked weed when Aaron was 15. And, if one of Aaron's claims are true, you'd have to believe the other stuff he'd said, or at least lend to them tremendous credibility.

Like trying to get into Aaron's bed... and shrieking, "Oh, I didn't know! I didn't know!" before jumping back into his own bed.

Okay -- I am fully aware that I continue to repeat this Aaron Carter business because I fear those bombshells will get lost in time if no one keeps saying it; it was the closest we've ever came to a confirmation of Jacko's proclivities for boys. I know one thing: we definitely can glean a lot from that about what went on at Michael Jackson's sleepovers: the boys falling asleep in close proximity to an awake Jacko was a crucial part of the exercise.

But I digress...

"That still doesn't explain why he lied to Frank. Frank wasn't a wealthy Arab businessman that Michael needed to impress; he was just some fist pumping guido."

My God... you are amazingly perceptive! I didn't even catch that, and apparently Frank Cascio doesn't either. That is a fantastic point: why would he need to lie to Frank about Omer Bhatti?

The question can perhaps somewhat be answered in some testimony from trial. We learned in court that Jacko often had boys who were jealous of each other (I believe there was an occasion when Wade Robson was jealous that Jordie Chandler was spending the night--'sleepover time'--with Jacko). Jacko's way of curbing this was by calling boys 'cousins', perhaps so another boy would think at the time, "Oh, well, Bobby is just Michael's cousin; that's why he is so close to him." The interesting thing about that is that Jordie seemed to always believe that Brett Barnes was Jacko's cousin; he'd referred to Brett being Jacko's cousin to Dr. Richard Gardner.

I have the chronology images littered around on this blog... when Jordie, his mother, and Lily were first coming to Neverland to stay, he'd seen Brett Barnes and Jacko all 'lovey-dovey' in the limo, which caused him great jealousy.

[Aside: God, his manipulations of these poor boys! :-(]

Desiree said...


So, seeing that Jacko referred to boys as 'cousins' to stop jealousy (especially when he was particularly physically close to these boys), as well as to stop other people from suspecting 'something', it's possible he didn't want Frank to be jealous or to suspect anything.

When Omer came on the scene, Frank was about 16--that's definitely smart enough to potentially suspect something.

"I don't entirely dismiss the possibility that Frank was more of a Corey Feldman to Michael than a Jordan Chandler--someone that he was inappropriate with but not necessarily molesting."

Hmm... this is actually a pretty good suspicion, although, if there was no physical intimacy between them, why would he implore Frank to 'stop fishing' in the Invincible album jacket, or not like for him to bring girls to the house?

Recall the Jordie Chandler evaluation with Dr. Richard Gardner again: Jordie says that Jacko didn't like for him to talk to girls.

Of course, maybe Jacko was just jealous because he, perhaps, had a flame for Frank, even if he wasn't molesting him. We can all talk from experience that if someone we like from afar talks to someone else who represents a competition, we can get jealous. Maybe that was how it was with Jacko and Frank.

It seemed to me Michael couldn't stop Frank's heterosexuality but he didn't want him to fish too much?

Also, what about the fact that Gavin alleges Jacko and Frank had showed them porn on their first visits to Neverland?

I don't know if he was a Corey Feldman type but I, too, would definitely kowtow to that explanation, especially since his family was around Jacko for so long; I mean, the Cascio parents would have to be SICK if they were remaining in close proximity to Jacko and benefitting from that relationship with him while their son was being sexually abused.

It could totally be as you suggest and then that would be why he'd lied about Omer Bhatti because it was 'weird'. But then again, if what Gavin Arvizo claimed was true, that Frank and Jacko showed them porn, Frank would have to know that Jacko had a thing for boys?

Shit, I don't know... something was fucked up about he and Jacko's relationship. Perhaps they just masturbated together or something, if not outright Brett Barnes- and Jordie Chandler-level sex games.

One other thing, though: I proved in the 'Brett Barnes redux' that Brett Barnes was a molestation victim. Now, Brett was also with the Cascio boys on that Dangerous Tour stint during the Jordie scandal. Did Frank not notice the closeness between Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes? Or had he also been told that Brett was a 'cousin', which assuaged suspicion? We know at that time Brett and Jacko were at least at the Jordie level (oral sex) and whatever stage a need for Vaseline entailed...

Desiree said...

Oh, LOL @ 'fist pumping guido'. I forgot to mention that...

Frank Cascio seemed softer than the Jersey Shore types but, then again, maybe there are different levels of fist-pumping guidos in the great state of New Jersey. I've never seen a guido out here but, strangely, there are tons of Latino high school and junior high kids that seem to like to wear their hair like Snooki and Pauly D (the guy with the plasticized troll hair--I may have got the name wrong; I don't watch the show).


Anonymous said...

Sorry for Anonymous. I don't have an account from the list. I'm a big fan of this site and I'm sick of floons sucking off our welfare system, harassing those who know the truth about the dead drug addict/child molester. So glad MSNBC didn't cave to these illiterate lunatics.

Floons are freaks, but this one takes the cake. Uber-psychopath for sure.
[link removed]

Same psychopath who just switched her handle from vindicatemj to sanemjfan. She's the sicko with the thousands nics on tmz. So is Dave from this same site. They've no crossed over to criminal activity. My main goal is to get them arrested. Dangers to society big time.

J-M-H said...

LOL at the Frank Cascio book. I'm surprised he mentioned getting stoned with him, and about the previous propofol usage in 1999. so we have him using it in 1999 and sometime before 2005, according to the Maureen Orth article. So Murray really is telling the truth that Mike suggested it to use. I think his way was to ask Cherrilyn Lee about it "Oh Cherrilyn have you heard of propofol?" just as a litmus test. This dude knew what he was doing all along, like we all suspected. "Secret experiment" my ass, Walgren!

About the women, it's always such a tepid defense of his being straight. A list of women he wanted to date? "Made out" with a fan club member (yea right)? Liked nerdy girls? LMAO, where's the relationships? Had it been Jermaine Jackson instead of Michael Jackson, the book would be bursting at the seams with stories about bedding fans, etc! I guess you can only lie to a certain extent, Frank didn't want people to call him out on it, LOL. Like we always say if he was into women like a normal rock star was, we'd know about it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So it seems to me that Mike admitted that his marriages were indeed farcical. Always knew that. I bet he manipulated Lisa Marie in the same way he manipulated Conrad Murray: got her to believe he needed her and loved her (like a man loves a woman), she fell for it, and he did what needed to be done in order to keep her being his "wife" for a couple of months. That may included marital sexual relations to keep her believing it was real. Notice how that fizzled out a few months in; she claims that it was over by the Diane Sawyer interview.

Frenchie, I agree with you on the point about him being a "Corey Feldman" type, but I wonder if he ever was almost an "Aaron Carter" type too? Maybe he tried but fail? Desiree has a good point that why is he still jealous of Frank's behavior with the ladies? Maybe Frank was too strong of a person to molest? Brett seems weaker and more supplicating; Jordie as well, and so did Jimmy and Jonathan Spence. Frank was from a strong NJ Italian family. They say that Mike had a thing for Italians, that they were mafia types and dangerous. Maybe that sort of scared him off.

Good thing he puts that idiotic Omer=love child w/ Norwegian fan rumor to rest. Mike would never actual bone a woman to knock her up, LOL. Yes, why lie to Frank about Omer? Because he was a kept boy he bought from two parental pimps!

LOL about the nose and skin thing. He was hideous but they probably didn't want to hurt his feelings. When I watched the "You Rock My World" video when I was a fan, I still grimaced at his waxy appearance. LOL.

Desiree said...


Your original post is still in my comment folder but I reposted it with the offending link removed.

Next time you post, simply use the 'name/url' function from the dropdown--you don't need a URL. I know you are 'Murray is a hero' on the Topix forum.

"Floons are freaks, but this one takes the cake. Uber-psychopath for sure."

The f'loon in question (and I removed the link to her blog) is a 40-year-old black woman named Sabine Faustin, a single mother of two teenaged children, who lives in Brooklyn, New York, sometimes hailing from the Bellmore, NY location but always the same first set of numbers in her IP addresses.

She dons multiple pseudonyms and is obviously deranged.

She scans the entire Internet everyday and every night for any evidence she can find on me to suggest that XYZ are good reasons my site should not be taken seriously. If she finds one nugget of something, she will take it and run with it, regardless of context or time period of thought or anything. Apparently, she's trying to convince the world that I am a racist against whites, that I vigorously support pedophilia because I recommended the book, "Michael Jackson's Dengerous Liaisons" by pedophile Carl Toms, and whatever else is in her silly head.

What she's doing is harassment, but this is merely typical of many Michael Jackson lunatics. If they don't get their way, they will harass. It's in their natures.

She is also a stalker and an obsessive, not only about Michael Jackson, but also about a 22-year-old girl who, besides her writings on his proclivities, is inconsequential to his story.

And while fans continue to harass and stalk, and continue with their diversion tactics, we will continue to discuss the issue at hand: Michael Jackson, his addictions to drugs, and his addictions to young boys.

S.U. said...

omg so Michael peed the bed as well?
Why am I not surprised?

Murray is a hero! said...

So glad you shared her info. She's trying to stalk me now on topix whilest trying desperately to act like she's a male. She's not very good at that either. She's a death threat making lunatic who needs to be put away.

Poor Murray. Good dr. got sucked in by Wacko. I'm glad he made this documentary though. It exposed Wacko even more. The floons are freaking. That makes me laugh. Don't those pictures in his filthy room prove yet again he was a pedophile who peed in bed? Ewwwy!

Ok, on a serious note. Wacko neglected his own purchased kids for drugs. Some loving father..NOT!! He should have never been let near any child let alone ones he paid for.

Emma W. said...

Whoooops - I guess my comment was too long. Let me try to break it up. :)

Hi Desiree,

First, I really like your blog. I appreciate the hard work and the research you put into it. I found it in a really roundabout way this weekend - someone posted a particularly intelligent comment on a TMZ post; the comment included a link to MJFacts, which includes a link to this blog.

I've been reading your posts this weekend, and this whole blog, along with MJFacts, has really been an eye-opener for me. Like many people, I got into the MJ craze in the '80s - when I was in sixth grade, I think. I pretty much had Michael Jackson posters for wallpaper, and my dad even drove me and some friends to Knoxville to see his Victory tour. I grew out of it - as well as any other Tiger Beat-style crushes (Ralph Macchio for the win LOL) - as soon as I started dating "real" people, but I still loyally bought any new MJ music through the early '90s.

This is starting to sound like an AA meeting speech. Sorry. To get to the point: like many rational adults, I grew a little wary of Michael Jackson and his strange behavior and pretty much stopped paying attention to him around that time. I will say, though, that I've always NOT wanted to believe those child molestation allegations. It was hard - and still is, frankly - for my mind to reconcile those sick stories with the image of the sweet, captivating entertainer I loved so much as a kid.

So my standpoint is pretty much that of someone who truly wishes that none of these horrible things were true, but there's just no way, after seeing court documents, reading so many similar accounts from various boys, seeing the flat-out obvious signs of child-molester characteristics and behavior, etc. that I can stay in "fan denial." The whole thing saddens and sickens me. I'll just leave it at that, I guess. Reading your blog posts this weekend pretty much confirmed any lingering doubts I may have had. :(

- Anyway, THANK YOU for posting the UK version of the Conrad Murray documentary. I'm so confused though. I watched both versions and, unless I missed something, I didn't see the segment about Jackson's bed-wetting that TMZ referenced. I heard the part about the room being smelly and the bed mildewed, but even in the UK version I didn't see the part about "even at age 50, he was still wetting the bed" or whatever. So maybe the family and fans were successful in at least getting that part edited out??


Emma W. said...

Part 2. :)

- Regarding Dr. Murray, I have to respectfully disagree with you on the injustice of his sentencing. I acknowledge that Jackson was a frenzied addict who was always going to get what he wanted - there was always going to be some enamored person out there who would supply him with it. But I do think Murray had a responsibility as a physician to say "absolutely not" when Jackson asked for it, particularly because he desired to use it off label, in a manner that wasn't approved by the FDA. If it had been heroin - "Please Dr. Murray, I need heroin to perform!" - none of us would even be having this discussion. We would have accepted the role of Dr. Murray as dealer. In my opinion - and it's just my humble, respectful opinion here, not an angry confrontation or anything - Murray's irresponsible and unethical use of this powerful drug had as much gravity as if he would have supplied Jackson with lethal illegal narcotics. I do disagree with the outraged cries of "MURDERER, MURDERER! MICHAEL JACKSON KILLER!" (c'mon, people, seriously? the guy was on one of the most self-destructive paths I've seen) but I can't disagree with the guilty verdict. I think Dr. Murray was a good man who got into a bad situation and consequently made bad decisions, and I do think he should be held accountable for those bad decisions. (Perhaps malpractice would have been more suitable than manslaughter - I'm not well-versed in legal terminology.) I wish the rabid fans would get it in perspective though. This was a mess all the way around.

- Regarding Jackson's sexuality, anyone who would think Michael Jackson was a straight, lonely man who "just couldn't find the right woman" is soooo disillusioned, it kills me. The man had people throwing themselves at him left and right, from fans to celebrities and politicians. He could have had any number of good-hearted, gorgeous (or nerdy, whatever), adoring women - hell, he probably could have had a different one EVERY DAY if he wanted. My mind is blown by the people who seriously think he held himself to such noble romantic standards of fairy tale proportions that he spent his whole life searching for that perfect (heterosexual) love, refused to settle for anything less and sadly never found her. God, how I wish a man like that even EXISTED, period. (No offense, men out there.)

- And lastly, reading these comments, WOW, I've seen that fan Sabine's comments over on . . . maybe TMZ . . . and um, yeah. She left such an impression that I instantly recognized her name here. Wooo!

Wow, I just wrote you a book. Sorry. I've been reading your posts all weekend, so just consider it a compilation of all the comments I should have posted under each one, I guess. I don't want to be a lurker.

Thank you again. I'm adding your blog to my Google reader. Bravo - it's one of the very few intelligent blogs on the subject that are out there.

- Em

Emma W. said...

Shoot - sorry - correction:

"Reading your blog posts this weekend pretty much confirmed any lingering doubts I may have had."

should have been -

"Reading your blog posts this weekend pretty much ELIMINATED any lingering doubts I may have had."

Lady C said...


I thought the Murray doco was very interesting, and I too agree that perhaps he should have taken the stand although I'm not sure if it would have made any difference in the outcome because majority of the jurors were fans of MJ....Something that seems very difficult or impossible to change since it seems to be one of those things that's 'ingrained' in their minds. I liked how it showed that Murray was a simple caring human being; not the monster he's portrayed. To me he comes across as a very strong and confident person who believes that he's done nothing wrong and doesn't stray from that in any way--this was also shown in his composure all through out the trial.

Murray's view of MJ's increasing pressure to be his doctor and medicate him shows us how manipulative MJ really was not to mention how addicted he really was and had a serious problem. Not that we didn't already know this, but the docu made it more concrete. According to Murray, Jackson's manipulation was entwined with guilt trips and sympathy playing; a 'hallmark' characteristic that MJ possessed....The same games and approach that he ran on Murray were the exact same ones that he ran to entrap his "special friends" like what of Jordan Chandler spoke of. It's funny how Murray was MJ's only friend in his entire life....What about the others that he claimed the same thing? I think that you could be a 'friend' to MJ as long as it was something that you had or had access to that he wanted. In MJ's mind these friends were the 'right' persons at the 'right'

MJ's bedroom, bedroom chamber and bathroom was disgusting....such as pig stye! It reminds me of the same kind of mess that was found at Neverland. That bathroom was atrocious and down right nasty....Apparently it hadn't been cleaned in months. I'm sure that's one thing the Jackson family didn't want exposed as well. LOL But if my memory recalls correctly, "junk heeps" and pig styes were a Michael Jackson tradition--not only at his death mansion and Neverland, but also in many hotel rooms here and abroad. Let's just face it, MJ was not a very clean or well kept person behind closed doors. lol Smelly room, mildew, and the pee soaked mattress--from what I heard, is gross. It's no wonder that no one was ever allowed upstairs except for Murray and the MJ's children. I heard that his death bed was up for auction...I hope the mattress wasn't included. lol

Lady C said...

Desiree (cont.)

Interesting seeing the different perceptions of MJ from Michael Flannigan and Ed Chernoff. Flannigan and his wife like so many, felt that MJ was very weird and sick. Chernoff on the other hand, seemed to see it differently; "I think the media made him that way"....Well I suppose that Chernoff was not at all familiar with MJ's game playing with the media--something that went so badly for him, backfired and haunted him for the rest of his life. lol

The filming of TII is not a true account of MJ's health and well being as the way the prosecution portrayed. MJ was in no condition to perform, and the TII documentary was 'fixed' to make MJ look like he was healthy and capable to perform. Many people would atest to the fact that MJ was in very bad shape--even both of his costume designers and makeup artist, Karen Faye. They said in a ABC Primetime interview a year after Jackson's death, that the TII docu was "pieced" together to make a complete movie because MJ a lot of the time wasn't able to make it through one whole shooting...He couldn't sing without getting tired or breathless, and he even forgot some of the lyrics to his own songs. The TII docu and it's "fixed" product was nothing more than just a front to pacify the fanns and public.

So now that Murray has said his peace in this documentary, I have to wonder now will the Jackson family put out a rebutal docu to off set Murray's....Hey, MJ did it with Martin Bashir, so why not with this one? I don't put anything past the Jacksons. lol

J-M-H said...

But I do think Murray had a responsibility as a physician to say "absolutely not" when Jackson asked for it, particularly because he desired to use it off label, in a manner that wasn't approved by the FDA. If it had been heroin - "Please Dr. Murray, I need heroin to perform!" - none of us would even be having this discussion. We would have accepted the role of Dr. Murray as dealer.

I see where you are coming from. But it's not heroin; technically, propofol isn't illegal to use outside of a hospital. I agree with you about Murray making bad decisions and having to deal with the consequences. But remember, Murray did claim that he had tried to ween Mike of the propofol, because evidently it wasn't safe or working. I assume that the days of rehearsal that were a part of TII is from the two days that Murray claims he got Mike to sleep without propofol--as experts seem to say you don't get a real sleep. So if we are to believe Murray, he has essentially stopped, or was in the process of stopping, propofol usage. Mike then starts to beg for it again and he then gives him a 25mg dose of it.

What I'm trying to say I guess is that Murray might have initially acquiesced to Mike's demands for propofol, but then he tried to stop using it... with success for those 2 days. Perhaps Mike's begging and pleading and guilt trips, combined with the long hours, Murray decided to forgo his efforts and give in a little. But Murray did say that he was asleep and watched him for however long that it took to have the drug dissipate from Mike's system. There's this mysterious 30-40 min window that even he doesn't know what happened.

I agree with Murray that we can say a, b, and c should have been done but we "don't have the full deck". I think we are seeing it on as it is "on paper" rather than in reality. In reality, if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't even have this discussion. And my personal opinion is that Murray's "crime" should have only been seen as an ethical issue, or in a civil court. It's not a criminal issue, IMO. There was no intent, there was no malice--these are the things that we associate with homicide. I think it was overkill to label it murder; it was for dramatic effect. Reality is is that Mike wanted it and financed its usage to the tune of $150K per month. I honestly just cannot get around that fact to label Murray solely responsible for his death, deny him his liberty, and have "murderer" attached to his name forever. That's the injustice, IMO.

J-M-H said...

Lady C,

LOL, if the Jacksons make a rebuttal doc, I will mark it on my calendar! I love to see their lies in real time. They still are in denial about Mike's addiction. It's like they one one hand do "acknowledge" that he was an addict because of the failed interventions, but on the other hand, they seem to blame said addictions not on the traumatic upbringing and resulting mental disorders it caused, but on shadowy figures in Mike's inner circle that got him hooked on pills to control his money. You have to shake your head at their logic.

About TII, it was really eye opening to know that the film was really just the 2 days of "good" rehearsal (I bought TII when it came back and it was terrible so I sent it back; I was freaked out by his emaciated appearance). And it's even more shocking to know how much was riding on him to perform. It makes you wonder why they'd even sign him up to do it. I guess Mike must have begged or something. He was $500 mil in the hole. Makes me think that they faked his physical just to get him insured. i read on a fan site that if he reneged on the tour, he would lose his ATV catalog. I guess he put it as collateral.

Emma W. said...

@ J-M-H -

While I believe that Dr. Murray should be held accountable for the role he played in Jackson's death, I agree with you that this was more of an ethical issue than a criminal one and would have been more justly served before a medical board, not in a criminal court. And I do take issue with the label of "murderer" that Jackson fans are now slinging around. I wish they would at least look up the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

I have a problem with some parts of Murray's story that don't jive, the fact that he didn't tell the paramedics about the propofol, and his delay in calling 911.

I have a bigger problem with the fact that he's being treated like some kind of a dangerous serial killer and being held without bail.

This whole situation was/is a hot mess, as far as I'm concerned.

Amanda S said...

Really Michael Jackson's life should be taken as a case study in medical schools for the harm that doctors can do to their patients. There were the doctors that ruined Jackson's face and skin. There were the doctors that provided him with children. There were the doctors that provided him with drugs. In one case the same doctor seems to be involved in all three projects.

All the things that the doctors did were "wanted" by Jackson but did him damage and even worse to those poor kids who never asked to be in a situation where they were part of the household of a single, drug addicted, non related man, cut off from their biological kin and lied to about their origins.

J-M-H said...


You're right, it's definitely a hot mess, LOL. Sad that it had to end so tragically, for both Murray and Mike. As for the propofol, he did say that he thought it was inconsequential, at the time, since it was only, as he claims, 25 mg and that it was so long ago that he'd given it to him. I understand that explanation, given the circumstances. The 911 thing... well I may chalk that up to panicking but who really knows. It had to be a hectic situation.

Amanda S,

Hmm... I don't know about that. I think you're getting into that dangerous area of putting the blame for one's problems on other people. And I feel that there seems to be a willingness to excuse celebrities direct involvement in their own demises that isn't extend to we mortals. Mike was ultimately responsible for his own actions, he was an adult, and as everyone knows you can't force an adult to do something if they don't want to do it.

the skin thing? that was Mike's problem and it depends on what you view as the true origins of his depigmentation. If he either gave it to himself by bleaching his skin with dangerous over-the-counter products, the doctors would help him even it out. if he had it naturally, again, the docs were helping, since he chose to dot he therapy that involved bleaching the dark patches.

The children? Not the doctors fault. If Mike wanted to be a single dad and have white children, he's allowed to. It's not a crime. Doctors help people have in-vitro/surrogate kids all the time. Debbie Rowe offered her womb to him, that's no one's issue but theirs, really.

I can agree with you on the plastic surgery because normally plastic surgeons don't like to perform on people with mental disorders, which Mike clearly had. But again, if he felt he needed to improve, that's his decision alone. Many people might appear to go "overboard" on plastic surgery in our view, but they themselves may love what they have done to their faces. It's personal and if he wanted to change himself, no one can stop him.

As for the drugs, well, of course that is wrong, esp. if the doctor knows the patient is an addict. Arnold Klein is known to make liberal use of his Rx pad to many celebrities.

In my opinion, Mike's story is better served to be a case study for psychiatrists and social workers, rather than a warning for the would-be "rogue" doctors out there. celebrities are hard to treat in general given their wealth and status, but even if they are given special treatment their downfalls are on them.

J-M-H said...

Really Michael Jackson's life should be taken as a case study in medical schools for the harm that doctors can do to their patients.

Might I add that this really does sound as if Mike was a passive participant, or a "guinea pig" in some quack doctor's experiments. Not really the right angle to view it from, rationally speaking. In many respects, the "harm" done that you've listed is subjective, in my opinion... excluding the drug thing.

Amanda S said...

J-M-H, I don't view Michael Jackson as a passive participant. He definitely had agency. It's you that seems to think that the doctors were just passive and had no agency. Doctors make lots of choices about the type of practices that they want to run. Thankfully most doctors take their primary role to be assisting the sick and helping people to stay healthy.

I'm surprised that you don't think that it's unethical to assist a man with a history of unhealthy relationships with children and who has been accused of molestation to acquire non-related children to raise as his own. I agree that it wasn't a crime and that the doctors weren't the only people involved but they were an important part of the process.

Frenchie said...

"Frank Cascio seemed softer than the Jersey Shore types"

I never saw a guido quite as outrageous as the ones that infest our TVs. I think, like most reality stars, they just exaggerate who they are to garner more attention.

"Also, what about the fact that Gavin alleges Jacko and Frank had showed them porn on their first visits to Neverland?"

For Frank to find supplying children with porn appropriate, I'm willing to wager that Michael did the same to him when he was young. If that's the case, Frank may have shrugged it off as a form of male bonding...unaware that Michael was more into the aroused boy in front of him than the women on the pages.

Frenchie said...

"The 911 thing... well I may chalk that up to panicking but who really knows."

If Murray had asked for 911 straight away rather than first attempting to revive his patient, there would probably be an uproar about how "egregious" it was for a trained cardiologist not to immediately aid a patient in cardiac arrest. It's a no-win situation.

J-M-H said...

Amanda S,

It's you that seems to think that the doctors were just passive and had no agency.

No. I do think doctors that give patients with known histories of abusing drugs are culpable for their actions because what they are doing is unethical. But what if they don't know that the patient has drug dependency issues? I don't know if you are American but in the US, a person can easily go into an emergency room and get painkillers, whether the pain is real or not. Pain isn't something that can be charted on a piece of paper or a result on a blood test; it's a mind-body interaction. so someone can claim real pain and the doctor, in a real attempt to help the patient, will prescribe. and this person can hop from hospital to hospital doing the exact same thing. So if this individual dies from an overdose, I'm not going to call for the doctor's head. Now what Klein and whoever else did, it's unethical. As for Michael, in my opinion, he will always have more culpability for his own actions. Had it been illegal drugs, I'm not going to find the dealer and charge him with accessory to suicide (the "suicide" being the overdose). I think because it was pills and not heroin, we have someone we think we can blame. But if we are going after doctors as "dealers" and implicit in the drug abuse and/or death of their patients, street dealers should get the same treatment--but they don't. Even if the doctors were writing prescriptions off the record, I could still not in good faith hold them more responsible than the patient that is abusing the prescriptions. We make choices... Mike made a choice to use, and no one could stop him even when they tried. without the doctors he could have easily, easily acquired them elsewhere because they are sold on the streets and passed around at Hollywood parties and in Hollywood circles. Thus, Mike is the only real variable in his own drug problem.

I'm surprised that you don't think that it's unethical to assist a man with a history of unhealthy relationships with children and who has been accused of molestation to acquire non-related children to raise as his own.

I would think it would be unethical if an adoption agency allowed him to adopt because he's Michael Jackson, because sex crime allegations void any chance at successful adoption in the US. However, if you have your own children, there is no ethics issue, as far as the doctor is concerned. And we don't truly know if those kids aren't his, do we? I don't personally think they're his but I couldn't say 100%. If he and Debbie Rowe were able to decide to get pregnant and have two children with the help of a fertility specialist, that's them. I mean really a suspicion isn't enough to deny treatment; that's a civil rights violation in the US, esp. when he's never been convicted.

the doctors weren't the only people involved but they were an important part of the process.

Scientifically speaking, but if Mike decided to knock up Debbie in a natural way, would we still be having this discussion? Maybe the OBGYN monitoring Debbie's "natural" pregnancy has an ethical duty to convince her to either divorce Mike and run like hell or end the pregnancy, for fear of Mike predating on them? I mean really that's the issue--not letting him be a father to children?

Frenchie said...

"Flannigan and his wife like so many, felt that MJ was very weird and sick. Chernoff on the other hand, seemed to see it differently; "I think the media made him that way"....Well I suppose that Chernoff was not at all familiar with MJ's game playing with the media"

I interpreted it more as Chernoff being cautious not to criticize Michael on camera, while Flanagan and his wife just didn't give an eff. LOL.

It was interesting to see Chernoff and Flanagan's different approaches to tackling the case. Chernoff seemed less willing to take chances--he didn't want to question Schafer's science, and I read that he opposed Murray taking the stand while Flanagan favored it. Perhaps Chernoff was too worried that any risks could backfire and send his friend to prison? I'm sure, in light of the outcome, Chernoff wishes he put up more of a fight.

And Emma W, you've definitely come to the right place. I think just about everyone who comments on Desiree's blog was an MJ fan at some point. :-)

J-M-H said...

I saw on twitter that Diane Dimond liked the US version of the Murray doc better. I can't imagine why, seeing that they cut out more of Murray speaking to fill the one hour time slot. You never want just part of the story.

And I agree about Chernoff. He probably thought that he was on camera so better watch his mouth. Flanagan's older and I've never seen an older person bit their tongue for anyone, LOL. And I wonder if Flanagan's approach was different because he thought Murray was more innocent than Chernoff did? He was really timid taking on the witnesses. Maybe Murray would have benefited from having T-Mez as his defense attorney, LOL. The f'loons would have hated that!

Frenchie said...

I didn't think the MSNBC version was any better than the one across the pond. Maybe she only watched the beginning of the British version and assumed the entire program was just an hour-long interview? It threw me off initially.

I read today that Frank's book "details the story of the greedy, scheming Arvizos." Excuse me, but those greedy, scheming Arvizos have never accepted money to discuss their experiences with Michael even though it would undoubtedly net them a huge payday. Our dear Saint Frank can't say the same...

Desiree said...

Emma W.:

Thank you for dropping in. Feel free to comment on any post on the blog. :-) Many people who read this blog (based on the emails I've received from those who've found my site) were former fans or were doing a bit of research and were convinced by the obviousness of all this business.


"I read today that Frank's book "details the story of the greedy, scheming Arvizos.""

Well isn't that damned evil.

And you know fans will eat it up, won't they? Frank Cascio never had to be cross-examined although there'd been evidence that he was a co-conspirator in the kidnapping portion of that case.

But I guess there's not much we can say; he has the 'side' he believes in. But you'd think that if he did know that Jacko was a pedophile and that the Arvizo boys were shown pornography, he would have some class not to paint that entire relationship as 'innocent Jacko' vs. grifters.

But I doubt he has that much tact.

I, too, am quite amazed that the Arvizos have never given interviews. But, then again, there could be that factor of since Jacko was acquitted, no one finds them believable.

Alby said...

Shame on you Desiree for putting the words 'Jackson' and 'class' in the same sentence.


I have yet to see any of the Jacksons exhibit any kind of class, and we know that Mike loved gaudy kitsch as well as surrounding himself with very dodgy people with very little class themselves.

Lady C said...


MURRAY: That's when I got the shock. Randy Philips asked if I'd just step outside the living room when the meeting had ended... This is him--he was just grinding his teeth [makes face]. "He does not have a fucking cent. A fucking cent! What's this bullshit all about? Listen... this guy is next to skid row; he's going to be homeless! The fucking popsicles--his children, look, those kids... What's this all about? Nine security guards? Why does he need that? [raises voice] I'm paying for that shit! I'm paying for the fucking toilet paper he wipes his ass with! He doesn't have a fucking cent! And if he doesn't get this show done, he's over! This is it! This is the last chance he has to earn any kind of money; he's ruined. Financially... he has nothing... ZERO."

I have to admit that I kind of chuckled when Philips was telling Murray about Jackson wiping his ass with his 'bought' toilet paper...I wonder, was that the very same toilet paper where the plastic packaging was all crumpled up lying beside the bidet in MJ's nasty bathroom? LOL I couldn't make it out just right, but if I had to guess, it looked like Ultra Charmin packaging...perhaps the 6 or 12 packer. Sorry, but I had to go there, LMAO!! It's a shame how broke MJ really was at the end. Speaking of broke, please explain to me if you can... Let's just pretend that MJ was physically able to do the TII concerts...How the hell was he going to be making any money from the concerts if he was already spending money that he hadn't earned yet. To my understanding, AEG Live was MJ's total life support for himself and his children, and it wasn't being done for free; Jackson was going to have to pay them back. It seems to me that if Jackson was already in 'the hole' with AEG from the get go and from the way Philips was talking, he was going to end up owing them just about everything dollar he would've made in doing the concerts. By the time AEG took their cut right off the top, there wouldn't be shit leftover for MJ, his kids, and all of his debts he had prior to AEG...all the bad loans he had out, any pending lawsuits, or even worse maybe some 'hush money' side deals that he may have been trying to keep hidden on the dl for obvious reasons. lol

His massive debt literally had his ass in a sling, no joke.

Lady C said...

J-M-H (cont.)

"Maybe Murray would have benefited from having T-Mez as his defense attorney, LOL. The f'loons would have hated that!"

That hilarious, LOL.. I bet the f'loons would have too...But not only that, the Jackson family probably would have 'conspired' to have a hit put out on T-Mez. Surely they couldn't have the same man that got their MJ off for molestation doing the same for his so-called killer...they wouldn't have

One thing I found interesting during the Murray trial was all the hoopla and talk about MJ having so many celebrity friends and how they would support him. Well, if they 'supported' him and were any kind of real friend, then where the hell were they during the trial? Oh of course, Cathy Hilton and her hubby made their appearance in the later part...but we all know that was staged at the hands of the Jackson family. lol If Hilton was the so-called close family friend of MJ that she proclaims, where was she during his 2005 trial? Why were his 'friends' not present to be at the side of his family while facing their loved one's killer?...Liza Minnelli, Diana Ross, Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, David Guest to name a few. Could it be for the same reason why they weren't there for him in 2005, except for Liz Taylor? Also, what about all the so-called female love interests of MJ...where were they?...They weren't standing by their man in 2005 and they didn't come out recently to support his grieving family in a time of need...Oops I forgot, they don't

Desiree said...


"Shame on you Desiree for putting the words 'Jackson' and 'class' in the same sentence."

Where did I do that? Doesn't sound like something I'd do... ;-)

Elena said...

The fans have posted some pics from the Cascio book:

The ones where he's sleeping with kids are sooo creepy. The f'loons think they're cute...yuck. And it seems like he's wearing little make up in some of them, his face is scarier than usual...Oh, and MJ dressed as a surgeon totally fits him LOL

Lady C said...


Those photos are creepy alright. Especially the one where he's sleeping among the Cascios. I can think of the perfect title for that one..."The Stranger Beside Me". LOL If Frank really knew any better, he wouldn't have shown those "creep shots" to the public; it doesn't do his 'special friend' any justice, but instead it just reiterates how pedophilic his behavior really

Sbibak said...

Im reading Frank Cascio book right now. I know I should be reading Lawrence Durrell instead, but hey, maybe it will be an additional excuse for my deplorable English grammar, hahaha.

It starts with the same excuses everybody tells of Michael's behaviour... his missed childhood, he was like a child himself, he was pure and divine, my parents trusted him and blah, blah blah. The only motives my parents had were genuine, because he was so sincere and innocent blah, blah, blah. Between the Thriller era, when they met, and 1993, the father went from an employee in a hotel, to a restaurant owner and they moved from a tiny to a biggest house with a garden with statues replica of the ones in Neverland and other tacky things... curious.

All this thing about rekindle his childhood, makes me laugh. If Jacko was a kid horrified by the “adult world”, as Frank suggests, with all the money he had back then, why he didn't retired. He could have went back to kindergarten and spend time building castles with Lego and making collages with coloured paper pieces and be happy LOL. We could have been spared of the shitty music he made after Thriller.

Interesting points:

-they met during the Thriller era, Michael visited them, unannounced, at night, while the kids were sleeping. They woke up the kids for Jacko!!!! This shows the love and respect he had for children. The mother cooked for him... like a maid.

-the first time Michael reciprocated was in 1993 (!!!), when he invited them to Neverland. How impolite for Jacko after being treated like a maharaja for years. He was like a farmer, feeding two little animals in New Jersey until they became the right age, and only then he invited them to Neverland.

-He mentions an anecdote of Michael looking at his closet, full of red shirts and black pants, and telling them “I don't know what I'm going to wear today”, or one day he picked the clothes for him. So it's highly probable that in those instances they saw him nude or at least in his underwear. Jacko was an exhibitionist LOL.

-They told them all kind of anecdotes related to sex: Madonna's advances, details about the activities of his brothers and groupies, the sordid shows of the early times of the J5... What a conversation to have with 10 or 11 y/o boys. It wasn't precisely a conversation about biology or romantic relationships he had in the past. Sorry, but what kind of sicko would discuss this with boys or girls. We know what Jacko was trying having those conversations.

-Michael told them to trash an hotel room in Israel. Mj himself threw a fork into a painting. So funny when he tries to make him look like Pygmalion... like a good influence for his upbringing. We see the results. In the Virgin signing video is patent Frank has no manners and can't behave in public.

-During the 1993 scandal, Michael demanded the parents to send Eddie and Frank to Tel Aviv. The parents consented, even if they had to miss school. At first his father accompanied them, but when he had to fly back to the States, Michael cried and begged to him to let the boys stay... this is a déjà vu, right? They missed months of school. Apparently Dominic and Connie agreed because ohhh, he was their old good friend in trouble. So the company of their two young sons was the logic solution for a thirty something y/o man accused of child molestation. Wonderful parents. The best you can do for your children is make them appear publicly with the most famous paedophile of all times, and let them have sleepovers in hotels... out of school. All those parents are pimps, plain and simple.

-The fixation of MJ with Madonna is remarkable. He was jealous as hell. Apparently, he enjoyed telling his specials friends how low Madonna went trying to bed him. So misogynistic and hateful. He was jealous because the boys I'm sure admired Madonna too, and this was a way to make her look bad.

Frenchie said...

"But you'd think that if he did know that Jacko was a pedophile"

I wonder if Frank honestly doesn't believe that Michael was a pedo. In one of your earlier entries, you published an old letter to Michael from Frank's sister. In it, she refers to herself as a "faggot" (along with "ugly" and "stupid"). She obviously didn't grasp the meaning of the word yet, just that it had a negative connotation. So, chances are, it was an insult she heard thrown around by her brothers.

Bearing in mind how carefully pedos choose their prey, I just don't think Michael would have targeted the Cascios--four boys who were possibly hostile towards homosexuality. IMO, the children Michael liked but felt were too risky to molest, were still gorged with his porn o'plenty. It gave Michael the opportunity to watch them as they became sexually excited or to discuss sex with them, but to the boys, it didn't feel "gay" since women were involved. It was another means of exploitation. Corey Feldman eventually realized that it was inappropriate for Michael to show him nude photos as an adolescent. If Michael did the same to Frank, maybe he'll figure it out eventually too.

Desiree said...


I guess I didn't find the pictures of Jacko with the Cascio kids all that creepy, although I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that they were 'cute' like the fans would say. He oozed a sort of possessiveness over them, I think.

What I thought of immediately was Marie Nicole's age. I wonder if she was around the same age in those pictures as when she'd wrote that letter to Jacko about her not being able to sleep in his bed because she was a girl.

For argument's sake, let's say that she was around that approximate age... it would mean that when Jacko was refusing to allow her to sleep in the bed with him, he had her brothers--who were young boys--sleeping in the bed with him. All of which is incredibly inappropriate.

It reminds me of what Jacko told Amy Agajanian (sp?) about how she had to stay in the guest rooms at Neverland while her brothers could be in the main house spending the night with him in his room. His reasoning? She didn't have a chaperone and girls must have a chaperone!

That's humorous, of course, because HE WAS AN ADULT HIMSELF.

I guess it was always 'No Girls Allowed' at Neverland Ranch.

Desiree said...


Thanks for sharing; I definitely want to pick up the book. It seems to me that it could be useful for future posts (or adding new details to existing ones).

You have to love how these guys who are so on Jacko's team manage to 'spill' bits and pieces of inculpatory info that corroborates his pedophilia.

"Michael told them to trash an hotel room in Israel. Mj himself threw a fork into a painting."

Ugh. What terrible behavior. And you know what's funny? You had Jacko whining to Ed Bradley about how the police destroyed his bedroom and cut up his mattress and 'ruined' paintings yet he destroys other people's property.

Disgusting and hypocritical. Of course, his fans were outraged for Jacko's tacky furniture. LOL.

Also, this is an interesting corroboration--in that it shows a predisposition for a behavior--of the 'rumor' (probably not a rumor) of Jacko trashing the Mirage Hotel out here in Vegas. The allegation was that he'd had numerous German street boys in the hotel with him, the place was trashed, and there was something about feces. LOL.

If Jacko tore up rooms with the Cascio kids and Jordie Chandler (that we know of at this point), the Mirage hotel and feces scandal is probably true.

"During the 1993 scandal, Michael demanded the parents to send Eddie and Frank to Tel Aviv. The parents consented, even if they had to miss school. At first his father accompanied them, but when he had to fly back to the States, Michael cried and begged to him to let the boys stay... this is a déjà vu, right? They missed months of school. Apparently Dominic and Connie agreed because ohhh, he was their old good friend in trouble."

Now, this is interesting!

When I was researching for a post a few months back, I was reminded about how he'd had these boys with him during the Jordie scandal. It's like, "Are you stupid?" Who would do such a thing?

But I remember it was something that I believe Opinionation had said a long time ago: he was talking about how it was not necessarily unlikely that Jacko could have molested Gavin Arvizo during the time when the 'world was watching' because he was 'addicted' to boys; he'd then said that people tend to cling to addictive behaviors in times of tremendous stress. So, molesting Gavin Arvizo relieved his stress (also the fact that he couldn't help himself).

So, if we look at the odd and risky and stupid idea of Jacko begging (note the begging!) the Cascio boys to come out to see him in 1993, it was probably because--during that time of extreme stress--boys were comforting.

We don't know if molestation took place (I liked Frenchie's point earlier about how Frank's being lied to about Omer being Jacko's son could suggest that there was a difference in their relationships with Jacko--Frank may not have been the one he'd sexually abused) but there was a reason he needed them.

Brett went along, though, according to photographic evidence (did he mention Brett Barnes, Susana?). Maybe the Cascio boys were their for emotional comfort and Brett for sexual?

LOL... couldn't resist! ;-)

I also wonder if bringing the boys had anything to do with making Jordie Chandler jealous, like saying, "Oh, Jordie, I'm here with my boys--my friends--and you're not here because you TOLD on me! Phbbbt!"

I always think that... Brett had a haircut and he looked even more like Jordie then. Ugh.

Please share more as you read the book. :-)

Desiree said...


"IMO, the children Michael liked but felt were too risky to molest, were still gorged with his porn o'plenty. It gave Michael the opportunity to watch them as they became sexually excited or to discuss sex with them, but to the boys, it didn't feel "gay" since women were involved. It was another means of exploitation."

I agree with you. It's the old circle jerk scenario.

Also, many pedophiles don't have to necessarily molest the kids. So, Jacko could have got them all hot and bothered with the pornography and then ran into the bathroom to masturbate.

(sorry to be so graphic)

Frenchie said...

"Also, many pedophiles don't have to necessarily molest the kids. So, Jacko could have got them all hot and bothered with the pornography and then ran into the bathroom to masturbate."

That's somewhat akin to what Terry George claimed occurred. Michael led their conversation towards sexual territory and became aroused by it. Only he didn't hold off masturbating then; he just went to town on himself while an uncomfortable 13-year-old listened on the other end of the phone. It seems Michael used boys sexually in whatever way he could manage.

Sbibak said...


Michael molested those kids, IMO. He invested too much years, money and sleepovers on them to be only "his friends".
He exhibited the same pattern with other special friends. He first made contact, start courting the family and the kids patiently, and in a variable amount of time, maybe years, maybe months, they were sleeping together. That is why I remark the years between the first contact (Frank was 4) and the first invitation to Neverland and the beginning of the sleepovers. He obsessed over some kids, and if they were too young for his liking, he maintained the contact till he considered opportune to give a step further.

The emotional blackmail he used with the Cascios reminds me what he did to June Chandler.

Also the financial situation of the family changed drastically. In several books is mentioned that Jacko gave the Cascios the money for the restaurant. By several accounts, Michael was a little cheap, so I doubt he gave away money for nothing, if it was not for publicity purposes, like it is the case. Similar situation to Jimmy Safechuck and his family.

I'm convinced all his special friends where victims, they were special friends for a reason. He was a predator, he spent too many nights with those kids alone to think it was all innocent... and no other kids were in Tel Aviv or Istambul with him. I do not believe in fairy tales, let alone when Jacko is involved, lol.

Apparently Jacko had no patience when a kid wasn't “what he expected”. I remember reading the bodyguards at Hayvenhurst said some kids where sent home after the first night, while others stayed for weeks or a whole month.

As a young adult, Frank was having sex with Jacko, in my opinion. Same for Omer and our friend Brett (hi, Brett!). The Arvizos said Frank and Michael slept together at Neverland. Add the drugs, and all of the hints we know of Michael jealousy because of Frank interest in women. Aaron Carter story is a clue of what to expect of Jacko when he had a male friend sleeping in the same room... no matter if one was on the floor and other in the bed, lol.

In my book, Frank and Omer, as adults, were like those male prostitutes who “entertain” old men like Jacko Wacko. Doesn't matter if they are heterosexual.

I think Jacko's camp made up the story of Omer for the same old reasons, and perhaps the kids believed it to a certain extent when the press published it, even if Jacko himself never told them about it. Do we know if Mj told them Omer was his son, or simply Frank is clarifying for the public what he knew from the start. Also, we have to remember Mjs manipulative ways. If he lied to the kids about his paternity, I bet it was for some twisted reason, not because Frank and Omer where a friend and a victim respectively.

Perhaps Frank is pissed now because Omer is ambiguous about the paternity thing, like taking too much credit lol.

I believe he was banned from the hotel in Las Vegas. There were several sources who told it was true.

Lady C, I'm cracking up reading your posts.

Regarding Michael celebrity friends, at the trial in 2005, in his memorial, funeral, etc. during the Murray trial, his tribute concerts, how many of them did you see? Even with all the revival of love after his passing, they don't show up much or are very vocal. They know what Jacko was about and I'm sure they fear any time soon there could emerge some truth in the press, so better not be too “enthusiastic”.

Frenchie said...

So I glanced through a preview of Frank's book online. In it, he mentions that Michael referred to Jordan as his cousin (no surprise), and claims that he met Jordan during a stay in "The Hideaway" while Michael was off receiving the "International Artist Award" at the '93 American Music Awards.

I looked up the date of the event. It appears the '93 American Music Awards were held on January 25, 1993. June and her children didn't visit any of Michael's residences until February of 1993. If Frank's going to spin tales, he should at least make sure the dates add up.

Desiree said...


Are you sure he's not mistaking Brett Barnes for Jordie Chandler? It's possible.

J-M-H said...

Lady C, LOL at the 12 pack of Charmin... only the best for the King of "Poop", LOL. That bathroom was a hot ass mess and I wonder what type of stuff was in there? I know in 2003 the cops found all porn and booze and empty pill bottles. I wonder if he still have some "tea" worthy items in that room. Speaking of that I wonder if he ever got his beloved boy books back from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's dept? He did ask for all his stuff back including the infamous genital photos from 1993.

About celebrity friends, I think Kathy Hilton was his friend, but I don't think she got to see the "pound of weed" high Mike. He only let's people see what he wants them to see. But she claims they were friends since she was 13, so why didn't she know about the drug addiction? But in all, I honestly think that Mike cut himself off from a lot of people, for reasons unknown. His "true" friends were the special friends, according to him, LOL.

Wow, that is some interesting stuff from that book. Mike is once again looking like the fixated pedo that he is. His obsession with Madonna is hilarious; why was he so jealous? He must have recognized how magnetizing she is and probably thought that his star was falling because he wasn't selling records like he did during Thriller and that his "Wacko Jacko" routine backfired. It's just Clay Aiken--always having beef with women, typical gay guy, LOL.

I think it was back in 2005 or so, around the trial, that Frank had said that he and Mike would have "sexually explicit" conversations and that Frank would arranged rendezvous for Mike and his "secret girlfriend". LOL, yea right at that last part. But obviously Mike had no qualms talking about sex with young boys, all the while he was pretending that he was so innocent and naive about it to the media. Remember I mentioned about Liz Taylor's friend saying he asked her how do kiss a woman before his infamous 1994 MTV VMA kiss with his sham bride. Then juxtapose that with his perverted call to Terry George in 1979. Isn't that like a pedo to feign purity, innocence and respectability when he's trying to convince the parents to let their 7-13 year old son have a sleepover unchaperoned? Not to mention that he isn't talking about past relationships... cuz there isn't any, any believable that is. LOL. But one really has to wonder why he felt he should act asexual to the media. If he was normal, he wouldn't have done it, I guarantee you. he had something to hide. Just imagine the secret convos he wanted to have with 6 year old Alex Manchester when he beg unsuccessfully to get Alex's parents to allow the boy to have a phone that Mike could call directly!

About Terry George, he later said that while he was taken aback by Mike jacking off on the phone and the masturbation talk, he said he was excited because he was a gay youth. All this according to a post on his website mentioned in Carl Toms' book.

J-M-H said...

I think it's possible that Frank got mixed up, but I can't imagine Brett being into "science and puzzles". LOL. As Roger Friedman once said, Brett doesn't seem like the "hottest shrimp on the barbie". But Jordie was only talking to Mike on the phone before he hanged out with him in February 1993. They say he was on the set of the Oprah interview, but I don't know if that's true or not.

But if that's the case, that he confused the two, it gives validity to Ralph Chacon who could also not tell them apart. As we know, the fans think he just made up the claim of seeing Mike doing oral on Jordie in court in 2005, but he did describe the boy as Brett Barnes, regardless if he got the name wrong. And he said it in 1994 when he still working at Neverland.

J-M-H said...

and is it me or is there some ulterior motive for Frank saying that Jordie broke someone's windshield? Personally in the Jordie that was described by most accounts, he seemed to be a kid that would not make trouble with a sling shot. Especially before Mike's influence. According to June Chandler, it was only after Mike and Jordie were BFFs that she noticed a behavior change. And given the account by Frank, Mike doesn't seem to have any home training.

Frenchie said...

I don't think he confused the two. Frank mentions being around the same age as him and refers to Jordan as a "teenage boy". Brett would have only been 11 at the time, while Jordan and Frank were both 13. I don't think it's confusion, just lying.

Here Frank talks about going to Toys "R" Us with Jordan, Lily, June, Eddie, and Michael. Odd considering Jordan and June both mentioned going to Toys "R" Us with Michael, but there were no Cascios in sight. It seems as if Frank is inserting himself into the Chandler story.

Oh, and here's another excerpt where MJ tells Frank that Jordan never stays in his room. Of course, in January of 1993 that would technically be true since he hadn't actually been to Neverland yet. LOL.

J-M-H said...


Well you may be right about Frank he could be lying. And LOL about Jordie not sleeping in bed yet. It wasn't until that fateful night after watching "The Exorcist" that Jordie sleep with Mike.

This if from Maureen Orth's article "Nightmare in Neverland". She mentions Jordie meeting both Brett and Frank and Eddie Cascio in the very early stages of the relationship, but none are in January:

"Jackson’s first call inviting Jamie to Neverland, which is in Santa Barbara County, a scenic two-and-a-half-hour drive north of Los Angeles, came two days after the star’s famous interview with Oprah Winfrey aired last February 10. The Oprah interview was the culmination of a three-week global media blitz that had Jackson performing in rapid succession at the Clinton inauguration, at the Super Bowl, and on the widely televised American Music Awards. That first weekend, Jamie, his sister, and his mother slept in the guesthouse, which is so far from the main house, where Jackson sleeps, that paparazzi cannot get the two in the same telephoto lens.

Apart from the private zoo, the giant sundial made of flowers, the merry-go-round that plays “Like a Virgin,” the miniature choochoo train, the hall filled with every video game imaginable, the theater stocked with nearly every film and videocassette ever made for children, the pool, the staff of 56 who cater to their employer’s every whim 24 hours a day, Michael also offered Jamie and his sister a special trip to Toys ‘R’ Us after closing time to select a shopping-cartful of presents. Those were the first of dozens of video games, action figures, watches, jackets, and other delights Michael would lavish on the children. Jamie’s mother eventually got diamonds and rubies as well. Needless to say, when Michael invited the family to his playground again the next weekend, Jamie was eager to return. Like most guests at the ranch, Jamie had to sign a confidentiality agreement that he would not speak to the press or write about anything that went on there. This time, before they returned home, Michael took them in his limo to Disneyland, where they got special treatment.

From that point on, Jamie and his mother and sister spent virtually every weekend with Michael. The mother and her current husband were mostly estranged, and Jamie began to withdraw from everyone else, no longer playing with other kids. Eventually, he wouldn’t speak to his father and six-year-old half-brother, even on the phone. He and Michael were quickly labeled “inseparable.” They played with slingshots and squirt guns. They threw water balloons off the balcony of Michael’s condo in Century City onto passing cars.

In March 1993, Jamie spent four days at Neverland. Eleven-year-old Brett Barnes was also there. He subsequently told KNBC-TV—as did 10-year-old Wade Robson—that he too had slept with Michael, but that nothing had happened: “It’s a huge bed.” Also there that weekend were the Cascio brothers, Eddie and Frank, 9 and 13, who traveled alone with Jackson this fall on his “Dangerous” tour. Michael, Jamie, and the other boys would stay up till all hours, their senses assaulted by music, video games, and films."

I guess she does mention slingshots, LOL.

Desiree said...

This part of one of the pages you linked, Frenchie, caught my eye as the "Oops" info that Frank Cascio didn't mean to quote:

Michael loved to collect toys. He didn't necessarily play with them, or even take them out of their packages. But he sure loved to buy them. At Neverland he had a toy room full of unopened toys that he was saving as collector's items. He also paid close attention to whatever new toys were coming onto the market. He was interested in what was popular--what kids were playing with, and why they were drawn to those particular toys.

Note the bold portion. Frank probably didn't realize that this is a pedophile's MO to a tee. I remember reading a part of a pedophile story (written by a 'boylover') where the pedo main character was made to know the ends and outs of hot toys that boys liked. One story the character knew everything (!) about mountain bikes and the Six Flags amusement park.

Knowing what kids like is pedophile rule number one.

They track these things so they won't screw up during the grooming process and hand a kid a lame nerf ball instead of a cool video game. LOL.

Frank! You're not helping!!

Alby said...

Straight from Ken Lanning's Behavioural Analysis of Child Molesters:

"The true pedophile often possesses an important talent in the seduction process: his ability to identify with children. He knows the "in" video games, toys, television shows, movies, music, computers, and Internet sites." - page 72

For those here who haven't read this resource and see how it applies to Mike, do it and you will (or probably won't LOL) be surprised.

Rebekah said...

This is unintentionally telling, too, from Frank's book:
"When he came back out, we played more video games, the ultimate tonic for a freaked-out teenage boy."

S.U. said...

wow so Michael told Frank that the kids weren´t conceived naturally? (of course lmao!)
And he admitted the marriage to Lisa was arranged? Who´s reading the book please confirm that?

Sbibak said...

Alby, the Kenneth V. Lanning report came to my mind the moment I read the paragraph regarding the toys.

Maybe Frank Cascio tried to clean Mjs image as a paedophile, but his strategy is backfiring big time. The more I read the more convinced I become he abused him and Eddie.

He depicts Jacko as a cross between Mother Theresa and Mary Poppins. He says Mike was their tutor during the Dangerous tour, LOL. He couldn't spell “pen”.
Frank says he was a bad student, but thank you to Jacko magic pedagogic powers he became interested in everything. An eye-opening experience... I refrain from making a bad joke.

They made their school chores in the middle of the night... Wacko Jacko during the day, Supernanny at night. No wonder he needed shoots of Demerol... that was too much multitasking.
I remember Bob Jones said Jimmy Safechuck had been assigned a tutor during the Bad Tour, and he was never required to do his job.

Regarding Jordy, I don't know if they met at Neverland, but anyway, he's trying to make Evan the evil in this story. Making Jordie a victim of his father, is a way of exonerating Jacko of the charges and making him a victim of the extortion schemes of Evan. He uses only part of the information we all have, at his convenience. Frenchy is right, at the trial they make clear that in those visits to Neverland, Jordie stayed at the guest houses, the molestation started in Monaco.

He was so jealous of Grace Rwaramba, Frank says he used to tell the kids “she works for you”, trying to broaden the emotional distance between her and the kids. I understand, from a human point of view, that parents have moments of jealousy when their children go first to the nanny than to them, for exemple, but this case is so unique and extreme. Grace was with them 24/7, while Michael was playing doctors with the special friends or drugged up (among other reasons), I understand how they bonded so tight with her. He could have addressed the issue like a rational person... well, I think this was impossible. The sentece is just cruel.

He depicts a period of time, when Jacko was recording Invincible, where the two of them where in charge of the kids because Michael had fired Grace out of jealousy. The whole episode sounds like the script of a sitcom where two gays raise two adopted children, LOL.

The part where he mentions two mysterious (nonexistent) girlfriends is laughable.

Frenchie said...

"Knowing what kids like is pedophile rule number one."

"The true pedophile often possesses an important talent in the seduction process: his ability to identify with children. He knows the "in" video games, toys, television shows, movies, music, computers, and Internet sites."

LOL. You guys are right; Frank is too dumb to realize he just described a typical baiting tactic of pedophiles. I take it he's not much of the "science and puzzle" type either.

It's bizarre the way he depicts himself as Jordan's paisan--comforting him when he's scared, urging Michael to arrange play dates between them in New York, claiming they went on an after hours spending spree together, etc. But to the Chandlers, the Cascios seemed to be non-entities. What's the deal? Is it an attempt to appear more credible when he discusses Jordan's "false" molestation allegations?

Sbibak said...

 Just imagine the secret convos he wanted to have with 6 year old Alex Manchester when he beg unsuccessfully to get Alex's parents to allow the boy to have a phone that Mike could call directly! 

Yes. He was another candidate for his “little boys farm”.

Do you remember this article about a family in Virginia who rented their house to MJ?
The empty wine bottles hidden around the house hinted at a man we now know was deeply tormented. There were other signs, but my wife and I have agreed they will remain secret. We knew from his representatives that Jackson tended to live nocturnally, sleeping during the day and roaming the house at night.

I always suspected the other signs could be needles or evidence of cocaine use, or some scatological stuff... like no control of his sphincters at night.
Drugs aren't beautiful.

Since Michael started to bleach, wear heavy makeup, all these hair products and wigs, heavy clothing, always covered from head to toe regardless of what season of the year it was, I had the impression he wasn't very hygienic, but I never imagined having help at home, he could live in such poor conditions. No wonder that his nose was rotting and falling off, LOL.

J-M-H said...

It's bizarre the way he depicts himself as Jordan's paisan--comforting him when he's scared, urging Michael to arrange play dates between them in New York, claiming they went on an after hours spending spree together, etc. But to the Chandlers, the Cascios seemed to be non-entities.

LMAO. That's what I was thinking. Frank was seriously like 12-13 years old during the 1993 scandal, how the hell would he know anything about Evan, etc? In the Richard Gardener interview, Jordie mentions Mac Culkin, Manny Lewis, Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck, and (of course) Brett Barnes, as having done "special friend stuff" with Mike. He never mentions any Cascio brother. My guess is that although he did meet them, they were a non-factor in his recollections, i.e. they weren't important enough to remember. And also, if Mike was trying to get Jordie to participate in his "games", it would have been important to name the boys that did the same stuff to normalize the behavior. Perhaps this shows that Frank wasn't a "special friend" in that way, since Mike didn't felt he should mention him. I tend to agree with you, Frenchie, that Mike might not have been able to molest a kid like Frank. Brett, Jordie, Wade, Jonathan... their fathers and/or parents were out of the way, giving him more or less direct access. Frank comes form a strong Italian-American family and the dad was as constant as the mom in the picture. Much harder, I'd think.

Sbibak, so how does Frank describe Mike's "girlfriends"?

Sbibak said...

All this "strong Sicilian family" Frank is talking about sounds like a lot of bollocks to me. They were after money, like all the other “special in-laws”.

Jacko was drugged up during the Dangerous Tour. The kids were with him, sleeping in the same room, and, like with other special friends, using the hot tub together.
While in London, during his supposed rehab period, the parents sent them alone to stay with Michael for some days because he asked to... so vicious. He molested those kids, in my opinion. I can't believe how irresponsible the parents are. This is something I will never comprehend. A pop star perpetually accompanied by young boys on tours, sleeping together with the placet of the parents makes no sense, no matter how you look at it, except if money is involved. And with Jacko!, whose sole presence gave you a good measure of how disturbed he was... let alone his general conduct in life. It was about sex and money.
If they were poor Brazilians living in a favela letting their children go to hotels with Western tourists for innocent sleepovers, we will see clearly what is all about.

Maybe Frank raises some sympathies because he is mildly honest in some questions regarding Michaels life, or because he coped with the abuse in other way than Brett. It gives less the impression of him being a victim. He appears to be stronger than Brett or Jordie, who seemed very sensitive, but also Wade Robson seems well adjusted, and Jordie said he participated in the “activities” with Jacko. Not every young boy victimized by a man becomes homosexual, like not all the victims become perpetrators themselves, etc. I think, besides Michael, some of the Jacksons brothers were sexually abused, and they don't act exactly like him.

He said Michael admitted the London rehab was a way to avoid going to Puerto Rico and being arrested.

The settlement was Cochran idea, in Franks words. No Insurance Company, no nothing. Obviously we already knew it... that's for the f'loons.

He contradicts himself a lot. He justifies his relationship with MJ when he was a kid, because Michael was and acted like a kid too, but in the passages he is trying to make excuses for their negligence, he presents Jacko like a father figure, and the most balanced adult he met in his life. In one line he says Michael never slept alone with kids if an adult wasn't present after the allegations, and in the next paragraph he says the parents flew them alone to warm Michael's bed during the Dangerous Tour after the scandal. No sense at all, except he is hiding the truth.

And now, I'm going to introduce you to a fan... and the mysterious Emily....

J-M-H said...

Sbibak, thanks for that information! What a riot, Frank is seriously lying out of his teeth, he contradicts himself left and right:

The fan "dalliances" are ridiculous. The anatomy of a female fanatic would absolutely necessitate the spreading of this information to the public, esp. in Mike's case, since the fans are consumed with showing that he isn't a pedo or gay. They would have spoken if it was true, I guarantee. Also his little anecdote about the car seems identical to the bodyguards, and we all know what happened to them, all the backtracking saying they were misquoted and that these weren't girlfriends just friends, etc. Frank's lying. He said they were "infrequent and discreet" so know one could call him out on his bullshit. The London incident is equally unbelievable.

The most funny is "Emily". Is it not super convenient that he said no one knew about her except him? LMAO, we ain't that dumb, Frank! At first he says it was a romantic relationship, then later he says that he doesn't know if they were intimate. LOL, caught in a lie.

Frank is obviously not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree because he doesn't realize that in his attempt to make Mike look normal sexually, he admits that the truth that he isn't normal. One minute Mike is doing a "Jermaine Jackson" indiscriminately and the next Frank says that Mike " that there were no simple answers" regarding Mike's relationships with women because "he was his own man". LMAO, please, what a glaringly obvious fabrication.

Bottom line is if these women loved him as frank claims, why didn't they defend him against the allegations, why weren't they called to vouch for his sexuality? If he was normal we wouldn't even be having this conversation about whether he was a pedo or not!

I don't understand why they feel they need to lie. I wonder what Frank would say about Jason's story. Jason's is the only believable lover that has come out.

Desiree said...


J-M-H beat me to most of what I was going to say about Frank Cascio's recollections of Jordie Chandler but, if one thinks about it, his distortions are pretty disgusting. Jordie mainly mentions Brett Barnes, no one else. He didn't mention no stinkin' Cascio! LOL. He's trying to paint Jacko as innocent by reinserting himself into history but he's walking along a tightrope so he won't bash a victim, seeing that he knows Jacko is, at the very least, prone to inappropriateness with boys Jordie's age.

It's pretty perverse, his lying about the Chandler scandal, given that he was, as J-M-H said, only 12-13 years old. What would he know, especially seeing that he was a non-factor to Jordie Chandler?

It was just Brett Barnes! Only Brett! And, interestingly, when you had he and Wade do the Pellicano-orchestrated press conferences, where was Frank in that?

There was a difference between the "Franks" and the "Jordies", pure and simple. I'm coming around to the idea that maybe Frank wasn't abused in the same way. He was probably the type of boy Jacko lusted after or 'wanted' but couldn't get at.

Frank Cascio seems remarkably stupid. I put in an order for the book today...

Desiree said...


Thank you so much for your information from the Cascio book. I put an order to get it because Frank was unconsciously spilling the beans... I can already tell that the book will be useful for blog posts.

The info about Grace Rwaramba is jarring actually. It shows how cruel Jacko can be; we know he used to fire her all the time. I didn't realize it was because he was jealous of the kids loving someone stable and sane.

Children crave security and constancy; that they clung to her simply exemplifies this fact. And given that he was a pedophile, Jacko was incredibly possessive and obsessive over those kids.

[ASIDE: I remember seeing a video on Youtube where he was with baby Prince and he squeezed the baby's foot in his hand in such a weird way and when Prince's heavy baby's head was falling forward, he pushed it up with his middle finger... it was so sickening to me; he didn't have the air of 'father' but an air of owner and pet.]

I remember Grace flipping out over the leaking of her Daphne Barak 'chats'. Frank's reveal (oopsies, Frank) about Jacko's jealousy of her reminds me of the stories of her interview with Barak where she'd said that the children froze when he came in the room because they were playing with her and laughing with her, etc.

It seems more believable now. The media probably spun it that the kids were afraid of Jacko but I think it was more that they were put on edge because they were interacting with her knowing he was so jealous.

Maybe Jacko wouldn't have to be green with envy of kids' biological propensity to cling to the nurturer if he would have ditched the drugs and got some help.

It makes me laugh when Paris says he was the greatest father. Compared to what, little girl? He was all she knew and, seeing he didn't beat them but allowed them to eat candy until their teeth rotted because he was so zonked out on drugs, it's no surprise that they'd think he was 'fun'.

About girlfriends, I was not going to say anything because I usually pay BS no mind but what is especially amusing is the fact that Frank is incredibly contradictory. It demonstrates a low IQ (he is a fist-pumping guido, after all, LOL), as well as being a liar.

What heterosexual man would try to hide their heterosexuality in the face of being accused of homosexual pedophilia? What heterosexual man would be accused of homosexual pedophilia? It doesn't make much sense.

Maybe Sbibak hasn't gotten that far in the book but where's the mention of Shana Mangatal or any of those other bimbos who claimed relationships with Jacko? Oops, I suppose they were lying as well.

Not exactly a surprise.

Desiree said...

I forgot to mention:

As it pertains to Frank Cascio, there seems to be a great deal of compartmentalization of Jacko's friends. It's very typical of someone who likes to be in control of other people.

Think of it like when there is a top secret government project and they send components of the project to different companies to put together; the companies don't know of each other or what the end product will be, only that they have to send their finished pieces back to the government.

They do this with KFC's secret "11 herbs and spices".

Anyway, by keeping people from not knowing what others know, and by only showing a certain side of himself to certain people, it enabled Jacko to reduce the likelihood of group mutiny or boys knowing that other boys were abused, for example.

Every piece of information that Jordie knew about the other boys came from Jacko. So, if Jacko lied to Jordie about certain 'special friends' to get Jordie to engage in sexual behaviors ("hey, they did it, you can do it, too!"), it would be very easy for other boys to deny abuse because they could have feasibly encountered a different 'version' of Michael Jackson.

Of course, knowing that Jacko was a pedophile, and, even though there is a Bell Curve of talents for seduction and overall intelligence, pedophiles tend to be fairly predictable in filling their need, it's likely that boys in similar situations experienced similar things.

I don't believe any Neverland employee has mentioned a Cascio but they have mentioned the known 'special friends': Brett, Mac, Wade, Jonathan, Jimmy... This tends to, at the very least, reasonably indicate that Frank was not interacting with Jacko in a similar way as the aforementioned boys and Jordie Chandler. So, what I am saying is that it is possible Frank could be telling the truth about Jacko not having molested him. Maybe he really did see a different side of him, just like the Agajanians who seem to think Jacko is this angel from Heaven.

Jacko was excellent at manipulation; he'd been doing it since he was a boy. Some people would like to think that he was a multiple personality--and I admit I sometimes thought that, too--but it was more that he knew how to make sure Friend A only saw him as XYZ and Friend B only knew him as a great dad (LOL). Everyone knows different information so they can't talk to each other. Period.

I remember Mike Laperruque, I believe, saying that Jacko told people that no one who stays 'at home' was to know what went on 'on the road'; it had been an exhortation for them to keep info from Evvy Tavasci. Jacko probably learned this technique from Joe Jackson, who used to tell the boys not to let their sisters or Katherine know about their 'road life'. And I recall that Lisa Marie Presley said that Jacko would try to be a certain way if he wanted something from someone, but if he didn't care about them, he'd be any sort of way.

I meandered a bit here but it would tend to explain why some people think Jacko was a "chickenhawk" (like his employees who he didn't give a shit about) and why some people think he's so wonderful and innocent and childlike.

Ultimately, Jacko was completely bullshitting most of the time. A true-blue manipulator.

Desiree said...

"I wonder what Frank would say about Jason's story. Jason's is the only believable lover that has come out."

LOL. He knows nothing of that relationship and, if he did, he would call Jason a liar. Jacko has to be this pussy lover... no ifs, ands, or guy butts. LOL.

A mutual friend of Jason and mine's sent me a link to a radio interview he'd done the other day. He mainly discusses Klein (who he hates immeasurably) but he mentioned this compartmentalization of Jacko's friendships that I was talking about. Jason Pfeiffer is very well-spoken, something that doesn't come across when he types online (he says he's an avid texter), and highly believable.

I know some doubt his 'I was Jacko's lover' claim because he's fat but this guy is the real deal.

Murray Is a Hero said...

Good stuff on that book. Wacko was a total fraud. Whatever happened to Grace? Is she still involved with those purchased kids?

Desiree said...

Murray is a hero:

LOL. Grace probably has zero contact with those kids and we really have no clue as to why she was excised from their lives. There had been stories that since she'd tried to protect them (recall the 'stun gun' story), that the Jacksons kicked her out. Seeing that the children are worth tons of money, it would have been bad for them to leave the compound. No Jacko 3 means no revenue coming in from Jacko's estate for the other kids living there.

Grace must've been considered a very real threat to them and she had to go.

There'd also been a few rumors that she 'knew too much' about Jacko and was threatening a tell-all book if she wasn't allowed to stay. But all of that garbage was completely manufactured by the Jacksons.

Basically, plan A was to get rid of her. Poison the kids against her (as Jacko apparently was doing) and it'll make her go away. I, too, wonder if she has any contact with them at all. I bet not.

Whatever happened, those bought kids (half-black my ass!) are better off without Jacko as a father. A Grace Rwaramba tell-all would fly off the shelves...

As for Cascio's book, it's total bullshit and he turns my stomach the way he apologizes for every dirty proclivity Jacko was into (ie. the way he sleeps in the bed with kids). Someone should slap him for trying to make abuse victims look like liars. However, he pretty much confirmed (as if we needed more confirmation) that Jacko and Lisa Marie Presley's marriage was FAKE.

There's some nuggets of truth throughout this book. So, it was worth buying, I think.

Murray is a hero! said...

Thought Grace got fired because she confronted Wacko about his drug use? When Wacko died, Katherine hired back. That's all I know. Wish she would write a book. Wacko was no father material. He bough those kids to make him seem like a family guy to the Saudi's.

It really bugs me the Jackson's knew Wacko was on drugs and left those kids there to deal with that. Where the heck were they when Wacko was hiding in that filthy room for 15 hrs at a time on propofol? Gone during the day to get more lastic surgery, drugs, rehearsals. Good grief!

Frenchie said...

I'm in the process of reading Frank's book. In it, he claims that Jordan opened up to him about his terrible father--how he had an awful temper and was extremely jealous of Michael.

LOL. Come on, now. Jordan spoke about several boys but never bothered bringing up a Cascio. I doubt the two of them were close to the point that he was burdening Frank with his family troubles. Although, to be fair, it is a bit more believable than Frank's other tale about consoling an emotional Jordan after he time traveled to vandalize a car.

Frenchie said...

Here are some of Frank's interesting tidbits for those of you who don't plan on reading the book. I copied most of the excerpts:

~Blanket's mother is Italian and Spanish. excerpt

~MJ and Lisa Marie used to have a "flirtatious relationship" as children when Elvis would drop her off during a show. I guess Frank forgot that MJ was nearly a decade older than Lisa Marie so it would have been pretty creepy. LOL. excerpt

~When Frank and Eddie were 9 and 13, they were in a hot tub with MJ, and MJ wanted to see how long he could hold his breath. He went underwater and didn't come back up. The boys became worried and rescued him. He said he fell asleep. MJ eventually went to rehab.

~Michael was their tutor during the Dangerous tour.

~After MJ trashed a Turkish hotel with the Cascios, and Bill Bray scolded the children, Frank says it instilled in him an instinct to protect Michael and his reputation "even against his own actions" excerpt

~Frank acknowledges that MJ had different personas for different parts of his life but downplays it excerpt

~Michael was always getting Frank to discuss women (he liked hearing Frank talk about sex, imo). Frank describes a time that MJ grabbed Frank's hand and began to pull it towards a woman's butt.

~Michael trashed another hotel during his Arvizo troubles. excerpt

~MJ had a pretty filthy mouth according to the dialogue in the book.

~Frank confirms that Michael called wine "Jesus Juice" excerpt

~Frank writes about partying at Neverland and drinking alcohol with his friends. This would have been in 99/00, so he was under the legal drinking age. excerpt

~MJ tries to convince Frank that Omer's the product of an affair with a Norwegian groupie who went insane. Omer was then adopted by Pia and Raz, and reunited with MJ in Tunisia. Throughout the book it seems MJ is constantly trying to assure Frank that he likes p*ssy. excerpt 1 - the story excerpt 2 - MJ comes clean

~MJ admitted to Frank that he was not intimate with Debbie, despite letting people believe otherwise. excerpt

~Frank sensed MJ was jealous of Frank with a girl excerpt

~MJ seemed jealous of Grace, as Susana mentioned excerpt

~MJ once told Frank that with pain killers, the doctors don't really know how much pain you're in. Frank saw this as MJ giving him an "insider" secret.

~Admits that MJ did prank call people. Frank writes about a time MJ pranked his brothers' soccer coach.

~Barry Gibb started MJ with pot, and Frank believes he stopped not long after the Arvizo molestation accusations. MJ and Gibb recorded together in 2002. MJ's 45th birthday that Aaron Carter attended was in 2003, so AC's claim about smoking pot at 15 with MJ occurred within the period that Frank confirms MJ was smoking up. excerpt

Desiree said...


Excellent comment with the links to the book. I bet that HTML took a lot of work!


Desiree said...

ABOUT WEED: The comment that Frank made that Jacko was not smoking marijuana after that time that he said that he was no longer smoking it is false. The police found moldy marijuana in the home of Jacko's death, the Holmby Hills mansion.,,20287787_20300946,00.html

The family thought it was black tar heroin. So, basically, Aaron Carter and Chris Carter were telling the truth. I suppose we should all look upon both men's anecdotes about Jacko as reasonably true.

ABOUT DEBBIE ROWE: Of course he never had sex with Debbie Rowe. I guess when Debbie's attorney Iris Finsilver claimed to Larry King that she knew he and Debbie had sex was completely FALSE and that she'd been lied to.

So, if Debbie Rowe and Jacko never had sex, why did her forbid her to talk about sex? Why did he forbid her to discuss paternity?

Hmmmm.... I guess the only woman he'd had sex with was Lisa Marie. He obviously had zero interest in having a real relationship with a woman; he couldn't, however, live without his boys, as he'd said to Shmuley Boteach and wrote in 'Stranger in Moscow' and 'Speechless'.

ABOUT BLANKET'S MOTHER: So Frank doesn't confirm that Jacko is, indeed, the biological father? LOL. I thought Blanket's mother was black? Why would he lie about Blanket's racial identity to Bashir if the motehr's racial background was confirmed?

That proves to me two things:
(1) Michael Jackson hated being black and had an obsession with white people (he wanted to be white);
(2) He lied because he knew that people prudently viewed his 'collection'/buying of white children as suspect and proof of his own racial self-hatred.

For the record, there is no way that Blanket has black in him. His hair is far too straight and he seriously looks lighter than Paris and Prince, and Paris is tanning. Michael Jackson deeply HATES black people and could never love a black child.

ABOUT LISA MARIE: Frenchie, you didn't quote about the parts where Frank pretty much acknowledges that that marriage was FAKE and was one of convenience. I don't know if I buy the tale of Jacko and Lisa Marie having a 'flirtatious relationship' as kids. Perhaps that was a fantasy of Jacko's. Real or not, it definitely reminds you of the creepy hottubbing with Soleil Moon Frye.

It seems that Stuart Backerman's charge that Jacko's relationships with Lisa and Debbie were 'not real' is becoming more and more validated.

ABOUT JACKO-FRANK-WOMEN: I find it incredibly disturbing that he seems to have this thing about watching Frank with girls, really, really weird. His behavior could go to explain his use of straight pornography (beyond the fact pedophiles have this to entice boys), whereby he gets off at seeing the men doing the women.

Frank is totally not helping his case.

ABOUT OMER BHATTI: I don't get why he would lie, especially since Omer Bhatti looks so much like Riz and Pia Bhatti; it must be because it looked weird, having another boy so soon after Jordie Chandler.

All in all, I would definitely have to say that Frank Cascio was an unintentional victim of a pederast. Jacko obviously was completely in love with him but he could not consummate it like he did with the other boys. All of the other boys (including Aaron Carter) seemed softer than Frank; Frank seems like he would have spurned Jacko's advances (although that may not discount a potential circle jerk, which even straight guys do with each other).

I think this book, if linked with other evidence, shows Michael Jackson for what he was: a very freakish pedophile and a sneaky predator.

It also shows that the 2005 jury was a conglomeration of star-struck idiots. He should have been put behind bars.

J-M-H said...

Thanks for the info, Frenchie!

Mike was one screwed up individual. Frank clearly doesn't realize that he is revealing a lot of info that shows Mike was a pedo. He thinks that just because he says that Mike "never had sex with children" the audience is going to believe it. Uh no, what you unintentionally reveal sometimes better than saying something straight out.

Interesting about Mike's apparent interest in Frank's sex life. Typical pedo, actually. Many pedos like to see the boys get turned on by sexually explicit materials or conversations. Also Miek seems to be showing an interest in watching men do it with women. Maybe the straight porn is more palatable for a former Jehovah's Witness than just watching two men. I also believe Mike might have got into the habit of watching men with women because of his early experiences in the Jackson Five with his brothers constantly sleeping with groupies in front of him. Given his apparent misogyny and his interest in Frank's sex life, I suspect all his interest in men doing women is focused on the man. He did have gay books, after all, not just porn.

S.U. said...


I was reading some comments about the book and according to a fan, Michael admitted that Omer wasn´t really his son but now you wrote that excerpt?

As for Lisa, according to Frank Michael confessed that he just married her to please the Arabs (maybe something to do with Nation of Islam?). But also he says that they loved each other? If so why the excuse about the Arabs?

About Jason, anyone know if Jermaine mentioned him in his book? As I know Frank didn´t mention him, at least I didn´t read anything. If nobody calls him out in the books, so it speaks volumes IMO.

J-M-H said...

I'm curious as to why Mike seemed so hellbent on having no mother for Paris and Prince. He didn't want them to be attached to anyone but him apparently. Saw them as his possessions. A child needs a mother, even he said that.

Frenchie said...

"I was reading some comments about the book and according to a fan, Michael admitted that Omer wasn´t really his son but now you wrote that excerpt?"

Michael does later admit to Frank that he lied about Omer. Click on the second link to read that part.

Sbibak said...

I've been travelling since Friday, so I haven't read the whole book yet.

I keep in mind Frank Cascio is selling a book about a controversial figure as Michael, from his position as a possible victim. Obviously, he's trying to distance himself from all this mess.

He's trying too hard to appear like the sane friend who warned Michael about his behaviour or saw his flaws right away, but he was part of the problem and protagonist in some of those dark episodes.
As an example (there are many more), the Arvizos case and what Mike Laperruque said about the incident in Germany when MJ dangled Blanket. Laperruque. says Frank bought a doll to throw it from the balcony, when they knew the press was making a big deal of the incident, and he had to stop it.

No matter what he says now, no matter how much he make-up the controversial stories of Mjs life, the subjective FACTS are overwhelming: he fits the profile and the same circumstances as any other “special friends”. If he is a stud, it doesn't matter. Maybe Gavin or any other Sp F lust after women like horny dogs, but that doesn't prove that they weren't molested. The porn found in Neverland was heterosexual, with young women in it.

The stories Frank is telling, are simply “stories”. The pictures, the close relationship, the sleepovers, the negligence of the parents, are facts documented through the years.

I'm sure there are more special friends that weren't under the press radar or labelled as special friends. As R. Friedman said one time, there is another list the press never mentions. Omer never has been placed in the same category as others. No employee saw him being molested by Jacko (or the Arvizos, for that matter), he never made the list everybody recites, etc., but he fits the profile.

Anyway, Frank and Eddie were mentioned by Bob Jones as special friends. I leave some screen caps of his book. So different from Frank sugar coated version...
He sent Bob back to America wow!
As Maureen Orth said, he had parents around the world offering their children to Jacko, I don't think he could have spend so many time with the Cascios, with no parents in sight, for so much time, only to enjoy pajama parties and innocent fun, no sex in exchange, when he had other possible “boyfriends”.
I remember this security chief at Neverland (an ex-police agent) who said he noticed MJ always made contact with the kids, even in the more innocent activities like in the rides, etc. If he did that in front of his employees, what did he do isolated in a room with these two boys? He was so compulsive he tried to lure Jolie Levine and her son. Orietta Murdoch was warned by Norma Staikos to not bring her son to the office, because of Mike. He was a paedophile and he did not waste the smallest occasion to take advantage of a kid... even on the phone, like with Terry George.

Sbibak said...

We don't know if his account of the paternity and Omer is accurate. But, by this time, Frank had surpassed the “preferential age” many people around Jacko speaks about. Maybe he sensed Frank jealousy because of his close relationship with Omer, and used the paternity as an excuse and to appease this feeling. Jacko used the jealousy as a way to manipulate the boys to do what he wanted, but at the same time, smart as he was, he knew it is a dangerous sentiment.

When Frank tells the story about Lisa Marie marriage, he says Wayne Nagin made them out of the picture quickly and, thought he did not use the word “jealousy”, he says he felt “sad” because they had to put a distance between them. Well, no long after that, they went on a six weeks vacation with Jacko, lol.

I have observed that in some of the cases it looks like if Jacko distanced himself from the boys when they hit the adolescence, and retook the “friendship” time after..... Jimmy Safechuck reappeared by the time of the History Era, Anton and the travel to Monaco...

Frank contradicts himself many times, as far as I've read.

When he depicts his work for Jacko, it looks like he was the more important employee Jacko ever had. This passage is a riot. In the trial, T Mez when questioning someone, said Frank used to brag about his capacities working for Jacko, but wasn't even in the pay roll. Follamigos aren't under contract; they only get substantial payments, right?

He tries to look honest, and this is why the publicity for the book included those unflattering episodes like the drug addiction question, etc. There are many books in the market and many testimonies of other special friends of how perfect and innocent MJ was. He tried another approach, and he is succeeding at it. The book looks more juicy than others, and this "fake honesty" is distracting the public from looking at him like another victim.

I'm anxious to read the new entry, Désirée.